PROVISIONAL URBAN COUNCIL
culture in Hong Kong through allocation of resources in the area of arts and culture. The arts and cultural community should have a serious thought of the matter, and should not just look at whether their respective sector receives adequate funding.
After the reunification, the Tung Chee-hwa Administration, like the Hong Kong Colonial Government under British rule, have a clear intention and plan to rule with a certain ideological disposition. Obviously, taking over policies of arts and culture from this elected Council is an instrumental move towards and an important justification for dissolving the Councils. No matter which option is ultimately adopted, one thing for sure is that the administrative set-up for the new framework will be firmly in the hands of the Tung Chee-hwa Administration through direct departmental control or by way of a system with the majority of its members being appointed members.
Why do I say that? Because it can be clearly seen from the Policy Address of the Chief Executive last year that the Tung Chee-hwa Administration apparently is predisposed to a certain ideology: it wants to promote, among others, two major themes. First, education on patriotism. This has been widely discussed by a lot of people; I am not going into detail of it here. Second, and which few people have spoken on, is about personal interest versus the interest of the community at large.
There are clear indications in many parts of the Policy Address that while the Government respect personal rights, social obligations of the individual is considered equally important. Particular reference is made in the last part of the Policy Address to the people in China who fought flooding, and to them Mr. Tung Chee-hwa showed enormous admiration. His reference is not without purpose, but is a clear indication of the ideal he cherishes. To him, there are occasions when one is faced with the dilemma of whether the interest of the individual or the community should prevail; and in such circumstance, he thinks the latter should have precedence over the former. A lot of people have discussed whether there is a dichotomy between civil rights and social obligations and many have come to the view that such notion is a misconception. It can be deduced from the above that the Tung Chee-hwa Administration consider the Hong Kong community has too much emphasis on personal freedom and rights while neglecting the social obligations of the individual. Following that argument, personal freedom and rights sometimes have to be restrained for the interest of the community at large. But what is the interest of the community at large? Obviously, such deduction has a particular political disposition.
Liberals in general believe that it is in the interest of the whole community that personal rights and freedom should be protected, so that everyone can fulfil his role for the benefit of the development of the whole community. Basically, there is no conflict between civil rights and social responsibilities. But we can see that apparently the Government have a different view.
Page 414
402
14 of 606