Page 419 of 498
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
463
Ms. Ada Wong Ying-kay (in Cantonese):—I am referring to the policy for “promoting art” as mentioned in paragraph 2 of the reply. I would like to know where that policy is stated. At the same time, I want to know if through pamphlets or publicity material on the Artist in Residence Scheme or letters exchanged with the visual artist, the artist should have been aware that contravention of the Council's policy would lead to disqualification.
MR. PAO PING-WING (in Cantonese):—Mr. Chairman, I still do not understand Ms. Wong's question. Which policy does she want to refer to by quoting the policy on promoting art? In the first place, we are not talking about the promotion of art in our reply. Basically, the Urban Council has always promoted art through protecting, exhibiting on display and encouraging artistic creation. That is the line all along taken by the Council.
The second question asks for very concrete details. We are questioned on whether there were any publications or publicity to warn the artist under what circumstances he would be disqualified. It asks for details and I believe the details have nothing to do with the reply to the question. Let me just repeat that Ms. Wong's question is mainly directed at the circumstances under which the Urban Council is empowered to terminate signed contracts. That question has been clearly answered.
Ms. ADA WONG YING-KAY (in Cantonese):—Let me follow-up further. Since the composer in the first case had a contract and there was none signed with the subject of the second case, I want to know if we already stated the policy of the Council clearly and indicated in correspondence or publicity material that contravention of that policy would lead to disqualification. Now, I want to point out clearly that channels (i.e., the promotion of art through protecting, exhibiting or encouraging artistic creation) remain channels, they do not form a policy officially approved. Aren't we just generalising too broadly by making the channels the policy? I have checked the relevant policy statement and I do not see the policy stated there.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese):—It is like this. The question is mainly about the general issue. As the question has touched on certain cases, we are drawn into discussions on them and we are deviating from the spirit of the question.
On the second case of the visual artist and whether we have gone against our policy, it has been clearly stated in the reply that we seek to promote art through protecting, exhibiting and encouraging artistic creations. That is our policy for art promotion, not to damage the works of other people. This matter was already discussed and resolved at the Standing Committee of the Whole Council. I think it is not suitable for us to discuss individual cases here. I wonder if members agree with me. The question is a general one. If we draw cases into it, I don't think this is the right forum. The reply has given a clear
Page 419 of 498
Page 419 of 498
Page 419 of 498
Page 419 of 498
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
463
Ms. Ada Wong Ying-kay (in Cantonese):—I am referring to the policy for „promoting art as mentioned in paragraph 2 of the reply. I would like to know where that policy is stated. At the same time. I want to know if through pamphlets or publicity material on the Artist in Residence Scheme or letters exchanged with the visual artist, the artist should have been aware that contravention of the Council's policy would lead to disqualification.
MR. PAO PING-WING (in Cantonese):—Mr. Chairman, I still do not understand Ms. Wong's question. Which policy does she want to refer to by quoting the policy on promoting art? In the first place, we are not talking about the promotion of art in our reply. Basically, the Urban Council has always promoted art through protecting, exhibiting on display and encouraging artistic creation. That is the line all along taken by the Council.
The second question asks for very concrete details. We are questioned on whether there were any publications or publicity to warn the artist under what circumstances he would be disqualified. It asks for details and I believe the details have nothing to do with the reply to the question. Let me just repeat that Ms. WONG's question is mainly directed at the circumstances under which the Urban Council is empowered to terminate signed contracts. That question has been clearly answered.
Ms. ADA WONG YING-KAY (in Cantonese):-Let me follow-up further. Since the composer in the first case had a contract and there was none signed with the subject of the second case, I want to know if we already stated the policy of the Council clearly and indicated in correspondence or publicity material that contravention of that policy would lead to disqualification. Now, I want to point out clearly that channels (ie. the promotion of art through protecting, exhibiting or encouraging artistic creation) remain channels, they do not form a policy officially approved. Aren't we just generalising too broadly by making the channels the policy? I have checked the relevant policy statement and I do not see the policy stated there.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese):-It is like this. The question is mainly about the general issue. As the question has touched on certain cases, we are drawn into discussions on them and we are deviating from the spirit of the question.
On the second case of the visual artist and whether we have gone against our policy, it has been clearly stated in the reply that we seek to promote art through protecting, exhibiting and encouraging artistic creations. That is our policy for art promotion, not to damage the works of other people. This matter was already discussed and resolved at the Standing Committee of the Whole Council. I think it is not suitable for us to discuss individual cases here. I wonder if members agree with me. The question is a general one. If we draw cases into it, I don't think this is the right forum. The reply has given a clear
Page 419 of 498
Page 419 of 498
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.