Page 114 of 182
220
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
At present, our sister municipal council has decided to exclude any sponsorship from companies whose products include tobacco. It would appear appropriate for public credibility and accountability that there be a unified policy between the municipal councils.
World Health Organization has urged all member states to ‘ban sponsorship of cultural and sports events by the tobacco industry.'
Therefore, Sir, I move that the Council supports the motion by Mr. SULKE and makes a decision that is in the best interests of public health, in the best interests of the people of Hong Kong, especially its children.
MR. HILTON CHEONG-LEEN (in English):—Mr. Chairman, while I am sympathetic to the motion in principle, it is my understanding that the direct sponsorship by a tobacco company of any Urban Council event is already not allowed under Council's policy.
However, where an international company which has various interests ranging from fashion and fashion accessory products, tobacco products, etc. wishes to sponsor an Urban Council cultural or sports event for a non-tobacco product is not seen by the general public to be promoted, the present policy should be in order for such sponsorship to be accepted.
In any event, there should be continued coordination of policy on this matter as between Government and the Urban Council, and the policy should be reviewed annually especially since cigarette companies will have no more TV commercials in Hong Kong after 1990.
I understand, as already mentioned by Dr. LEUNG, that since the ban on TV advertising was announced in December 1986, the spending on TV advertising has risen 14.6% from 1980 to HK$201 million last year. I also gather that the estimated total which will be spent on advertising cigarettes in Hong Kong in 1988, including TV advertising and other forms of advertising, may well exceed $300 million. A review at this time therefore is urgently called for on the part of Government.
One of the areas which require rationalization by Government is the huge painted signs visible from across the harbour which have been mushrooming on both sides of Hong Kong waterfront, as for example the 64-metre-long display above the Kowloon entrance of the cross harbour tunnel. Questions which have been asked by members of the public are: should Government impose a tax on such large signs, and/or should the size of such signs be kept within a certain dimensions?
Another area requiring the Urban Council's attention is the prevention of persons strolling up and down our already crowded beaches handing out free cigarettes and sunshades bearing the brand logo of cigarettes. I recommend this to the attention of relevant Select Committees.
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
Page 114 of 182
221
In short, Mr. Chairman, while being sympathetic to the motion in principle, I would urge that there be closer cooperation as between this Council and the Government in reviewing and applying the current policy on sponsorship by cigarette/tobacco companies of events sponsored by the Council and by Government as well.
Mr. Chairman, I do not support the motion as it is specifically worded but would suggest that it be referred to the Standing Committee of the Whole Council for further discussion.
MR. STEPHEN M. L. LAU (in English):—Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak my reservation.
The Urban Council's stand on sponsorship by companies which are involved some way in the tobacco trade is quite clear and is as follows:
'The current policy on corporate sponsorship for Council activities is to accept sponsorship from companies, including those whose commodities or lines of business might include tobacco (but which were not exclusively tobacco-related) so long as tobacco or a cigarette brand is not named in related publicity or any associated advertising.'
The points mentioned by Mr. SULKE as well as by Dr. LEUNG have been discussed before and have made no new grounds.
I think that this is in accordance with the general Government policy guidelines on the subject and has been approved by the Council in its various Select Committees and reaffirmed by the Standing Committee in last September meeting.
I fully agree with Mr. SULKE that the Urban Council's primary objective is to protect public health. It is never the intention or there is any decision of the Council and its committee to encourage or support the promotion of tobacco industry as suggested in the letter from Tobacco Institute of Hong Kong Limited dated 15 November 1988.
This is a clear and totally unambiguous policy and if we are to keep vacillating between one policy to another it means that the staff of the Urban Services Department, who have been asked by this Council to obtain commercial sponsorship for much of our cultural and entertainment activities, will lose their stand.
Dr. LEUNG said that the administration through the District Boards will consult the public on this matter. Therefore, I think that the present policy should be retained until such times as Government takes a different line on the subject.
In the circumstances, I cannot vote for the motion as it is unless it is suitably amended.
Page 114 of 182
Page 114 of 182
220
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
At present, our sister municipal council has decided to exclude any sponsor- ship from companies whose products include tobacco. It would appear appro- priate for public credibility and accountability that there be a unified policy
between the municipal councils.
World Health Organization has urged all member states to ‘ban sponsorship of cultural and sports events by the tobacco industry.'
Therefore, Sir, I move that the Council supports the motion by Mr. SULKE and makes a decision that is in the best interests of public health, in the best interests of the people of Hong Kong, especially its children.
MR. HILTON CHEONG-LEEN (in English):-Mr. Chairman, while I am sympa- thetic to the motion in principle, it is my understanding that the direct sponsorship by a tobacco company of any Urban Council event is already not allowed under Council's policy.
However, where an international company which has various interests ranging from fashion and fashion accessory products, tobacco products, etc. wishes to sponsor an Urban Council cultural or sports event for a non-tobacco product is not seen by the general public to be promoted, the present policy should be in order for such sponsorship to be accepted.
In any event, there should be continued coordination of policy on this matter as between Government and the Urban Council, and the policy should be reviewed annually especially since cigarette companies will have no more TV commercials in Hong Kong after 1990.
I understand, as already mentioned by Dr. LEUNG, that since the ban on TV advertising was announced in December 1986, the spending on TV advertising has risen 14.6% from 1980 to HK$201 million last year. I also gather that the estimated total which will be spent on advertising cigarettes in Hong Kong in 1988, including TV advertising and other forms of advertising, may well exceed $300 million. A review at this time therefore is urgently called for on the part of Government.
One of the areas which require rationalization by Government is the huge painted signs visible from across the harbour which have been mushrooming on both sides of Hong Kong waterfront, as for example the 64-metre-long display above the Kowloon entrance of the cross harbour tunnel. Questions which have been asked by members of the public are: should Government impose a tax on such large signs, and/or should the size of such signs be kept within a certain dimensions?
Another area requiring the Urban Council's attention is the prevention of persons strolling up and down our already crowded beaches handing out free cigarettes and sunshades bearing the brand logo of cigarettes. I recommend this to the attention of relevant Select Committees.
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
Page 114 of 182
221
In short, Mr. Chairman, while being sympathetic to the motion in principle, I would urge that there be closer cooperation as between this Council and the Government in reviewing and applying the current policy on sponsorship by cigarette/tobacco companies of events sponsored by the Council and by
Government as well.
Mr. Chairman, I do not support the motion as it specifically worded but would suggest that it be referred to the Standing Committee of the Whole Council for further discussion.
MR. STEPHEN M. L. LAU (in English):—Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak my
reservation.
The Urban Council's stand on sponsorship by companies which are involved some way in the tobacco trade is quite clear and is as follows:
'The current policy on corporate sponsorship for Council activities is to accept sponsorship from companies, including those whose commodities or lines of business might include tobacco (but which were not exclusively tobacco-related) so long as tobacco or a cigarette brand is not named in related publicity or any associated advertising.'
The points mentioned by Mr. SULKE as well as by Dr. LEUNG have been discussed before and have made no new grounds.
I think that this is in accordance with the general Government policy guidelines on the subject and has been approved by the Council in its various Select Committees and reaffirmed by the Standing Committee in last September meeting.
I fully agree with Mr. SULKE that the Urban Council's primary objective is to protect public health. It is never the intention or there is any decision of the Council and its committee to encourage or support the promotion of tobacco industry as suggested in the letter from Tobacco Institute of Hong Kong Limited dated 15 November 1988.
This is a clear and totally unambiguous policy and if we are to keep vacillating between one policy to another it means that the staff of the Urban Services Department, who have been asked by this Council to obtain commercial sponsorship for much of our cultural and entertainment activities, will lose their stand.
Dr. LEUNG said that the administration through the District Boards will consult the public on this matter. Therefore, I think that the present policy should be retained until such times as Government takes a different line on the subject.
In the circumstances, I cannot vote for the motion as it is unless it is suitably amended.
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.