Page 115 of 182
222
# HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
MISS VICTORIA Y. CHAN (in English):—Mr. Chairman, I support the motion tabled by Mr. SULKE and seconded by Dr. Ronald LEUNG. However, with due respect to Mr. SULKE, I think it would have made some my other fellow Councillors happier if the last word of the motion was 'industries' instead of 'companies' to make it quite clear that the motion is directed at the tobacco trade only.
It has long been proved beyond any reasonable doubt that smoking is harmful to health. Members may recall that in my maiden speech in December 1986 at the Council's Annual Convention Debate I expressed grave concern on this topic. At that time I stated that tobacco sponsorship 'enabled the tobacco companies to introduce glamour and excitement into cigarette smoking-the addiction traps for young people.'
I strongly believe that no encouragement should be given to any forms of tobacco promotion that are likely to affect and influence our young people in Hong Kong.
As the Urban Council stands for health and hygiene, I believe it is appropriate for the Council to support this motion. Thank you.
MR. FAN KAM-PING (in Cantonese): Mr. Chairman, concerning tobacco sponsorship or Urban Council activities, we have in fact discussed the matter in May and September this year in the Standing Committee of the Whole Council. The current policy is that the Council will not accept any sponsorship from any tobacco brands or from any tobacco companies. However, if that particular company involves in many commercial activities, one of which is tobacco, then perhaps we can still consider accepting the sponsorship by the company. Since promotion of cultural and sports events is very expensive and requires a lot of funds, therefore it is an appropriate measure to seek commercial sponsorship. In this respect, I support the Council's existing policy on tobacco sponsorship. However, as mentioned by Dr. LEUNG who is a medical practitioner, he has given us a lot of data to support his view that smoking is hazardous to health. If the government is to tighten up measures against tobacco smoking, I think the Urban Council should pay close attention and follow the steps taken by the Government to change the policy on tobacco sponsorship. By so doing, I think this is the right direction for the Urban Council to take. I agree with Dr. LEUNG that we need to review our policy decided in 1986 on tobacco sponsorship. In view of this, I think starting from today, in six months' time, we should review our policy on tobacco sponsorship in our Standing Committee meeting. The 'six months' period is in accordance with our Standing Orders. In the interim, I recommend that first, the Council should display warning posters in our venues urging the public not to smoke to the effect that smoking is hazardous to health. I am not talking about hunger strikes. Secondly, as regards cultural & sports activities organized for children, I totally disagree to accept tobacco sponsorship. Thirdly, for the time being, the Urban Services Department should
# HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
Page 115 of 182
223
set up a working group or to engage a publicity consultant to look into how we can seek suitable commercial sponsorship just in case we decide ultimately that tobacco related sponsorship will no longer be accepted.
Mr. Chairman, concerning this motion, I agree that there should be a review in six months' time. If the motion is to be put to a vote, I will abstain from voting. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
MR. LO KING-MAN (in English): Mr. Chairman, while I fully subscribe to the notion that the Urban Council should not support the tobacco industry, I have to oppose the motion as it is at present worded.
Firstly, on grounds of lack of clarity of terminology. This may be a semantic question but if tobacco companies' is to be defined as in Mr. SULKE'S supporting speech then we would be opening a can of worms which we should not at this stage be involving for there are really genuine sponsorship of companies who may have some activities effecting the promotion of cigarette as part of their commercial activities, but they have also been sponsoring activities in the name e.g., soft drinks and other commodities which are unrelated to cigarette. I don't think at this stage, bearing in mind as other Councillors have mentioned, the existing Central Government guidelines we do not have to deliberately impose an accusation of hypocrisy on Central Government.
Secondly, I oppose this on the, again, possibly semantic grounds. But if we do not define tobacco companies in the way that Mr. SULKE and Dr. LEUNG have attempted to do, then there is no direct relevance between sponsorship of companies who may be involved in some way of selling of cigarettes that their sponsorship necessarily means we need to be interpreted as supporting the tobacco industries.
But the strongest ground I wish to oppose is implied by several Councillors who spoke before me and that is one of the executive consistency. The Urban Council has only as late as September in the Standing Committee of the Whole Council deliberated by a clear majority to decide to abide by the existing guidelines of Central Government in relation to sponsorship of events by companies, some of which may involve in the selling of cigarettes, but as long as the sponsorship itself is not directly related to the cigarette brand, then the Council had on that occasion voted in favour of allowing the exploitation of such sponsorship to continue.
If the motion today is carried, then there will be an extremely difficult problem for the simple execution of our supporting department as to how to handle only three months ago a decision of such charity then suddenly have to revert back to another track. I therefore support those who propose to refer the matter back to the Whole Council. It may be right in about six months' time to go for a much definitive policy along the lines of, for example, the phasing into total ban of advertisement on television. And if we follow roughly the same kind
Page 115
Page 116
Page 116 of 182
Page 115 of 182
222
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
MISS VICTORIA Y. CHAN (in English):—Mr. Chairman, I support the motion tabled by Mr. SULKE and seconded by Dr. Ronald LEUNG. However, with due respect to Mr. SULKE, I think it would have made some my other fellow Councillors happier if the last word of the motion was 'industries' instead of 'companies' to make it quite clear that the motion is directed at the tobacco trade only.
It has long been proved beyond any reasonable doubt that smoking is harmful to health. Members may recall that in my maiden speech in December 1986 at the Council's Annual Convention Debate I expressed grave concern on this topic. At that time I stated that tobacco sponsorship 'enabled the tobacco companies to introduce glamour and excitement into cigarette smoking-the addiction traps for young people.'
I strongly believe that no encouragement should be given to any forms of tobacco promotion that are likely to affect and influence our young people in Hong Kong.
As the Urban Council stands for health and hygiene, I believe it is appro- priate for the Council to support this motion. Thank you.
MR. FAN KAM-PING (in Cantonese): Mr. Chairman, concerning tobacco sponsorship or Urban Council activities, we have in fact discussed the matter in May and September this year in the Standing Committee of the Whole Council. The current policy is that the Council will not accept any sponsorship from any tobacco brands or from any tobacco companies. However, if that particular company involves in many commercial activities, one of which is tobacco, then perhaps we can still consider accepting the sponsorship by the company. Since promotion of cultural and sports events is very expensive and requires a lot of funds, therefore it is an appropriate measure to seek commercial sponsorship. In this respect, I support the Council's existing policy on tobacco sponsorship. However, as mentioned by Dr. LEUNG who is a medical practitioner, he has given us a lot of data to support his view that smoking is hazardous to health. If the government is to tighten up measures against tobacco smoking, I think the Urban Council should pay close attention and follow the steps taken by the Government to change the policy on tobacco sponsorship. By so doing, I think this is the right direction for the Urban Council to take. I agree with Dr. LEUNG that we need to review our policy decided in 1986 on tobacco sponsorship. In view of this, I think starting from today, in six months' time, we should review our policy on tobacco sponsorship in our Standing Committee meeting. The 'six months' period is in accordance with our Standing Orders. In the interim, I recommend that first, the Council should display warning posters in our venues urging the public not to smoke to the effect that smoking is hazardous to health. I am not talking about hunger strikes. Secondly, as regards cultural & sports activities organized for children, I totally disagree to accept tobacco sponsorship. Thirdly, for the time being, the Urban Services Department should
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
Page 115 of 182
223
set up a working group or to engage a publicity consultant to look into how we can seek suitable commercial sponsorship just in case we decide ultimately that tobacco related sponsorship will no longer be accepted.
Mr. Chairman, concerning this motion, I agree that there should be a review in six months' time. If the motion is to be put to a vote, I will abstain from voting. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
MR. LO KING-MAN (in English): Mr. Chairman, while I fully subscribe to the notion that the Urban Council should not support the tobacco industry, I have to oppose the motion as it is at present worded.
Firstly, on grounds of lack of clarity of terminology. This may be a semantic question but if tobacco companies' is to be defined as in Mr. SULKE'S supporting speech then we would be opening a can of worms which we should not at this stage be involving for there are really genuine sponsorship of companies who may have some activities effecting the promotion of cigarette as part
of their commercial activities, but they have also been sponsoring activities in the name e.g, soft drinks and other commodities which are unrelated to cigarette. I don't think at this stage, bearing in mind as other Councillors have mentioned, the existing Central Government guidelines we do not have to deliberately impose an accusation of hypocrisy on Central Government.
Secondly, I oppose this on the, again, possibly semantic grounds. But if we do not define tobacco companies in the way that Mr. SULKE and Dr. LEUNG have attempted to do, then there is no direct relevance between sponsorship of companies who may be involved in some way of selling of cigarettes that their sponsorship necessarily means we need to be interpreted as supporting the tobacco industries.
But the strongest ground I wish to oppose is implied by several Councillors who spoke before me and that is one of the executive consistency. The Urban Council has only as late as September in the Standing Committee of the Whole Council deliberated by a clear majority to decide to abide by the existing guidelines of Central Government in relation to sponsorship of events by companies, some of which may involve in the selling of cigarettes, but as long as the sponsorship itself is not directly related to the cigarette brand, then the Council had on that occasion voted in favour of allowing the exploitation of such sponsorship to continue.
If the motion today is carried, then there will be an extremely difficult problem for the simple execution of our supporting department as to how to handle only three months ago a decision of such charity then suddenly have to revert back to another track. I therefore support those who propose to refer the matter back to the Whole Council. It may be right in about six months' time to go for a much definitive policy along the lines of, for example, the phasing into total ban of advertisement on television. And if we follow roughly the same kind
Page 115Page 116
Page 116 of 182
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.