1996 — Page 365

Urban Council Proceedings 市政局議事錄 All AI Reviewed

HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL

409

article? Actually, 'Clause 1 of this Article' is a quotation of the provisions in the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights. There is mention in Article 4 of the International Covenant, of limitations on the freedoms to which we are entitled. The provision concerned is as follows: "The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize that, in the enjoyment of those rights provided by the State in conformity with the present Covenant, the State may subject such rights only to such limitations as are determined by the law only in so far as this may be compatible with the nature of these rights... This is very important. It is not about acting in accordance with the law. If the law is 'evil law' or conflicts with such rights, then it is against that International Covenant. Therefore, in our discussions on limitations to freedom, we should not merely consider the issue within the context of law. Rather, we should clearly define that the nature of those limitations is not to conflict with those rights, and that the imposing of limitations is solely aimed at promoting the general welfare in a democratic society. Having described those provisions on which consensus has been reached, I believe that the different political parties in the Council would not have doubts. This will become the foundation on which we enforce artistic freedom. I think we should always bear this in mind.

There are two principles in our five-year cultural plan to promote culture and artistic development. The first principle is to enhance the appreciation ability of the general public. The other principle, directly related to artistic freedom, is that the Urban Council supports freedom of creation and artistic expression and feels that art should be multi-faceted, and that all art forms should be given the space to flourish. At some public consultation forums, the public had a very serious doubt, that is, they wondered what our views were on artistic freedom, what consensus we had reached on that issue, and whether or not we had standards to determine how we, in our daily work, realised and manifested artistic freedom at present and in the future. At various public consultation forums, some people asked the same question. They felt that we ought to clearly define the connotations of 'freedom'.

Why do I bring up this subject again? It is because in my past year of work, I could clearly see that the Councillors had differences in their definitions of freedom. Take for example the International Film Festival that was held recently. On the question of whether or not seminars should be organised to discuss the films formerly banned in Hong Kong on account of the Film Censorship Ordinance, there were apparently some Councillors who felt that the Urban Council should not involve itself in politics, and that it was best if we did not participate in cultural activities that were tinged with politics. That was actually a stealthy replacement of concepts, for we had, on culture and arts and the International Film Festival as a whole, reached the consensus that we would not use politics as an aim in deciding to censor. This is very clear. But it does not mean that we should choose to evade cultural activities that involve political issues, or that we should forbid the holding of cultural

Page 365 of 498

Page 366

Edit History

2026-05-16 02:13:18 · NVIDIA / meta/llama-4-maverick-17b-128e-instruct

Live

View comparison

AI Proofread

HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL 409 article? Actually, 'Clause 1 of this Article' is a quotation of the provisions in the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights. There is mention in Article 4 of the International Covenant, of limitations on the freedoms to which we are entitled. The provision concerned is as follows: "The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize that, in the enjoyment of those rights provided by the State in conformity with the present Covenant, the State may subject such rights only to such limitations as are determined by the law only in so far as this may be compatible with the nature of these rights... This is very important. It is not about acting in accordance with the law. If the law is 'evil law' or conflicts with such rights, then it is against that International Covenant. Therefore, in our discussions on limitations to freedom, we should not merely consider the issue within the context of law. Rather, we should clearly define that the nature of those limitations is not to conflict with those rights, and that the imposing of limitations is solely aimed at promoting the general welfare in a democratic society. Having described those provisions on which consensus has been reached, I believe that the different political parties in the Council would not have doubts. This will become the foundation on which we enforce artistic freedom. I think we should always bear this in mind. There are two principles in our five-year cultural plan to promote culture and artistic development. The first principle is to enhance the appreciation ability of the general public. The other principle, directly related to artistic freedom, is that the Urban Council supports freedom of creation and artistic expression and feels that art should be multi-faceted, and that all art forms should be given the space to flourish. At some public consultation forums, the public had a very serious doubt, that is, they wondered what our views were on artistic freedom, what consensus we had reached on that issue, and whether or not we had standards to determine how we, in our daily work, realised and manifested artistic freedom at present and in the future. At various public consultation forums, some people asked the same question. They felt that we ought to clearly define the connotations of 'freedom'. Why do I bring up this subject again? It is because in my past year of work, I could clearly see that the Councillors had differences in their definitions of freedom. Take for example the International Film Festival that was held recently. On the question of whether or not seminars should be organised to discuss the films formerly banned in Hong Kong on account of the Film Censorship Ordinance, there were apparently some Councillors who felt that the Urban Council should not involve itself in politics, and that it was best if we did not participate in cultural activities that were tinged with politics. That was actually a stealthy replacement of concepts, for we had, on culture and arts and the International Film Festival as a whole, reached the consensus that we would not use politics as an aim in deciding to censor. This is very clear. But it does not mean that we should choose to evade cultural activities that involve political issues, or that we should forbid the holding of cultural Page 365 of 498 Page 365 of 498 Page 365 of 498 Page 366

Baseline (Original)

Page 365 of 498 HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL 409 article? Actually, 'Clause 1 of this Article' is a quotation of the provisions in the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights. There is mention. in Article 4 of the International Covenant, of limitations on the freedoms to which we are entitled. The provision concerned is as follows: "The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize that, in the enjoyment of those rights provided by the State in conformity with the present Covenant, the State may subject such rights only to such limitations as are determined by the law only in so far as this may be compatible with the nature of these rights... This is very important. It is not about acting in accordance with the law. If the law is 'evil law' or conflicts with such rights, then it is against that International Covenant. Therefore, in our discussions on limitations to freedom, we should not merely consider the issue within the context of law. Rather, we should clearly define that the nature of those limitations is not to conflict with those rights, and that the imposing of limitations is solely aimed at promoting the general welfare in a democratic society. Having described those provisions on which concensus has been reached, I believe that the different political parties in the Council would not have doubts. This will become the foundation on which we enforce artistic freedom. I think we should always bear this in mind. There are two principles in our five-year cultural plan to promote culture and artistic development. The first principle is to enhance the appreciation ability of the general public. The other principle, directly related to artistic freedom, is that the Urban Council supports freedom of creation and artistic expression and feels that art should be multi-faceted, and that all art forms should be given the space to flourish. At some public consultation forums, the public had a very serious doubt, that is, they wondered what our views were on artistic freedom, what consensus we had reached on that issue, and whether or not we had standards to determine how we, in our daily work, realised and manifested artistic freedom at present and in the future. At various public consultation forums, some people asked the same question. They felt that we ought to clearly define the connotations of 'freedom'. Why do I bring up this subject again? It is because in my past year of work, 1 could clearly see that the Councillors had differences in their definitions of freedom. Take for example the International Film Festival that was held recently. On the question of whether or not seminars should be organised to discuss the films formerly banned in Hong Kong on account of the Film Censorship Ordinance, there were apparently some Councillors who felt that the Urban Council should not involve itself in politics, and that it was best if we did not participate in cultural activities that were tinged with politics. That was actually a stealthy replacement of concepts, for we had, on culture and arts and the International Film Festival as a whole, reached the concensus that we would not use politics as an aim in deciding to censor. This is very clear. but it does not mean that we should choose to evade cultural activities that involve political issues, or that we should forbid the holding of cultural Page 365 of 498 Page 365 of 498 Page 365 of 498 ⋅ |Page 366

2026-05-16 02:13:18 · Baseline

View content

Page 365 of 498

HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL

409

article? Actually, 'Clause 1 of this Article' is a quotation of the provisions in the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights. There is mention. in Article 4 of the International Covenant, of limitations on the freedoms to which we are entitled. The provision concerned is as follows: "The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize that, in the enjoyment of those rights provided by the State in conformity with the present Covenant, the State may subject such rights only to such limitations as are determined by the law only in so far as this may be compatible with the nature of these rights... This is very important. It is not about acting in accordance with the law. If the law is 'evil law' or conflicts with such rights, then it is against that International Covenant. Therefore, in our discussions on limitations to freedom, we should not merely consider the issue within the context of law. Rather, we should clearly define that the nature of those limitations is not to conflict with those rights, and that the imposing of limitations is solely aimed at promoting the general welfare in a democratic society. Having described those provisions on which concensus has been reached, I believe that the different political parties in the Council would not have doubts. This will become the foundation on which we enforce artistic freedom. I think we should always bear this in mind.

Why do I bring up this subject again? It is because in my past year of work, 1 could clearly see that the Councillors had differences in their definitions of freedom. Take for example the International Film Festival that was held recently. On the question of whether or not seminars should be organised to discuss the films formerly banned in Hong Kong on account of the Film Censorship Ordinance, there were apparently some Councillors who felt that the Urban Council should not involve itself in politics, and that it was best if we did not participate in cultural activities that were tinged with politics. That was actually a stealthy replacement of concepts, for we had, on culture and arts and the International Film Festival as a whole, reached the concensus that we would not use politics as an aim in deciding to censor. This is very clear. but it does not mean that we should choose to evade cultural activities that involve political issues, or that we should forbid the holding of cultural

Page 365 of 498

Page 365 of 498 ⋅

|Page 366

Comments

Approved members can add comments, bookmarks, and private notes.

No comments yet.

Private Research Note

Private notes are available after approval.