Page 420 of 498
Page 420 of 498
IN
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
answer to the general issue. I think it is better to discuss the specific case at another Select Committee.
MR. WU CHI-WAI (in Cantonese):-There may be some difference in the interpretation of point no. 2 of the reply, but it is not important. Where does the Council strike a balance between protecting an object of art and encouraging the creation of art? For the visual artist's case of January 97, we decided to terminate his participation in the Artist in Residence Scheme because of policy considerations. There are reasons stated in point no. 2. The reasons are three-fold including protecting, exhibiting and encouraging of artistic creation. Our decision was based, it seems, on protection because protection was felt to be more important. So, was that the attitude taken when making the decision? If so, what relative weight is given to the other aspects of exhibition and encouragement of artistic creation?
The next thing is that the Council's protection policy for the Council's works of art is simple. We do not want to see works damaged. The contracts signed with artists stipulate that works and venues should not be damaged and any damage would be subject to legal sanction. That has always been the Council's policy on protecting venues and works of art. It is a practice too. However, having made this decision to disqualify the visual artist from the Artist in Residence Scheme, the Council may be challenged for prematurely disqualifying him before he has contravened any legal provision within the programme he is engaged in. My question is whether we did the appropriate thing.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese):-As to whether it was the appropriate thing to do, we discussed it fully at the Standing Committee of the Whole Council and most Members felt so. The Standing Committee endorsed it. As to your mentioning of how to protect, exhibit and create, I don't think this is the right forum to discuss them in details. I don't think you have a question. Do you want to add, Mr. Pao?
MR. PAO PING-WING (in Cantonese):—Mr. Chairman, I want to point out that Mr. Wu's questions have nothing to do with the original question. His first question is about the policy for the protection of art. If Mr. Wu is interested, he can discuss it at the relevant Select Committee. The second question asks whether we handled the case in question appropriately. In actual fact, the discussion of the issue came to a conclusion. If he wants to go further, he can follow up at the relevant Select Committee. May I say that Mr. Wu's questions have nothing to do with today's original question to which I try to reply.
(5) Mr. Kam NAI-WAI asked the following question:—I have the following enquiries about issues concerning the Urban Services Department prosecuting dog owners for offences relating to dog fouling:
(a) Please provide statistics by district on:
Page
Page 420
Page 421
Page 420 of 498
Page 420 of 498
IN
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
answer to the general issue. I think it is better to discuss the specific case at another Select Committee.
MR. WỤ CHI-WAI (in Cantonese):-There may be some difference in the interpretation of point no. 2 of the reply, but it is not important. Where does the Council strike a balance between protecting an object of art and encouraging the creation of art? For the visual artist's case of January 97, we decided to terminate his participation in the Artist in Residence Scheme because of policy considerations. There are reasons stated in point no. 2. The reasons are three-fold including protecting, exhibiting and encouraging of artistic creation. Our decision was based, it seems, on protection because protection was felt to be more important. So, was that the attitude taken when making the decision? If so, what relative weight is given to the other aspects of exhibition and encouragement of artistic creation?
The next thing is that the Council's protection policy for the Council's works of art is simple. We do not want to see works damaged. The contracts signed with artists stipulate that works and venues should not be damaged and any damage would be subject to legal sanction. That has always been the Council's policy on protecting venues and works of art. It is a practice too. However, having made this decision to disqualify the visual artist from the Artist in Residence Scheme. the Council may be challenged for prematurely disqualifying him before he has contravened any legal provision within the programme he is engaged in. My question is whether we did the appropriate thing.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese):-As to whether it was the appropriate thing to do, we discussed it fully at the Standing Committee of the Whole Council and most Members felt so. The Standing Committee endorsed it. As to your mentioning of how to protect, exhibit and create, I don't think this is the right forum to discuss them in details. I don't think you have a question. Do you want to add. Mr. Pao?
MR. PAO PING-WING (in Cantonese):—Mr. Chairman, I want to point out that Mr. Wu's questions have nothing to do with the original question. His first question is about the policy for the protection of art. If Mr. Wu is interested, he can discuss it at the relevant Select Committee. The second question asks whether we handled the case in question appropriately. In actual fact, the discussion of the issue came to a conclusion. If he wants to go further, he can follow up at the relevant Select Committee. May I say that Mr. Wu's questions have nothing to do with today's original question to which I try to reply.
(5) Mr. Kam NAI-WAI asked the following question:—I have the following enquiries about issues concerning the Urban Services Department prosecuting dog owners for offences relating to dog fouling:
(a) Please provide statistics by district on:
Page
Page 420Page 421
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.