1996 — Page 452

Urban Council Proceedings 市政局議事錄 All AI Reviewed

Page 452 of 498

HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL

Mr. Chairman, there is a difficulty about Ms. Ada WONG's motion. As she said herself, if we discuss the system of pre-censorship, there will be more mis-understanding for people to wonder if the Council will practice censorship. It is precisely because of this that I am proposing an amendment. Ms. Wong's original motion easily misleads people to misunderstand that we have a censorship system in place and that the system may cover all varieties from politics to obscenity. In my amendment, I am proposing to upkeep our existing practice which has proved to be effective (I mean the terms and conditions of hire stipulated by the Urban Council and the laws of Hong Kong). If hirers comply with such stipulations, we allow them to stage performances. This is the existing practice of the Council and it makes up for the insufficiency of Ms. Wong's original motion. The first insufficiency is that it misleads people and the second insufficiency is that she has not considered other points fully. That is why I am proposing this amended motion.

There is one more point. The original motion by Ms. Wong reads '...... the Council reaffirm that it would not devise any pre-censorship system regarding the activities and programmes organized by hirers of any Council venue'. 'Would not' is a negative way of presentation. My amended motion is presented in a positive way, hence ‘............ must comply with ......'. My sentence is clearer although we talk about the same thing. My amendment is more relevant and more positive whereas the original motion is imperfect to the extent of being misleading and negative.

There is still another thing. I see that Ms. WONG has tabled for us today a list of 31 people of the local art and cultural circle in support of her motion. Allow me to read out the content of this list with signatures which states what she is seeking support for. It will make it easier for us to understand.

'Some Members of the Council have proposed to pre-censor activities and programmes organized by hirers of Council venues.....' Are we going to discuss this?'. to classify activities in a way similar to the 3-tier system for movies. I think this is against the principle of freedom of artistic expression and I am very much against it.' Very righteous, indeed.

I have therefore decided to move the following at the Council's monthly meeting to be held on 11 February: Resolved that the Council reaffirm that it would not devise any pre-censorship system regarding the activities and programmes organized by hirers of any Council venue. I think there is need to make this known openly and I would like to have the support of those concerned. If you share my stand, please sign below to indicate your support and send it back to ............. by fax.'

Mr. Chairman, Ms. WONG must have sent this fax message out to many people to solicit signatures in support of her motion. She just said that she had the support of 31 people in the circle. Mr. Chairman, if I appeal to others for support on the freedom to breathe in fresh air, I am absolutely confident that everyone will vow their support. However, if one is aware that behind the

Page 452 of 498

age 452 of 498

496

of 498

Edit History

2026-05-16 02:26:47 · NVIDIA / meta/llama-4-maverick-17b-128e-instruct
Live
View comparison
AI Proofread
Page 452 of 498 HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL Mr. Chairman, there is a difficulty about Ms. Ada WONG's motion. As she said herself, if we discuss the system of pre-censorship, there will be more mis-understanding for people to wonder if the Council will practice censorship. It is precisely because of this that I am proposing an amendment. Ms. Wong's original motion easily misleads people to misunderstand that we have a censorship system in place and that the system may cover all varieties from politics to obscenity. In my amendment, I am proposing to upkeep our existing practice which has proved to be effective (I mean the terms and conditions of hire stipulated by the Urban Council and the laws of Hong Kong). If hirers comply with such stipulations, we allow them to stage performances. This is the existing practice of the Council and it makes up for the insufficiency of Ms. Wong's original motion. The first insufficiency is that it misleads people and the second insufficiency is that she has not considered other points fully. That is why I am proposing this amended motion. There is one more point. The original motion by Ms. Wong reads '...... the Council reaffirm that it would not devise any pre-censorship system regarding the activities and programmes organized by hirers of any Council venue'. 'Would not' is a negative way of presentation. My amended motion is presented in a positive way, hence ‘............ must comply with ......'. My sentence is clearer although we talk about the same thing. My amendment is more relevant and more positive whereas the original motion is imperfect to the extent of being misleading and negative. There is still another thing. I see that Ms. WONG has tabled for us today a list of 31 people of the local art and cultural circle in support of her motion. Allow me to read out the content of this list with signatures which states what she is seeking support for. It will make it easier for us to understand. 'Some Members of the Council have proposed to pre-censor activities and programmes organized by hirers of Council venues.....' Are we going to discuss this?'. to classify activities in a way similar to the 3-tier system for movies. I think this is against the principle of freedom of artistic expression and I am very much against it.' Very righteous, indeed. I have therefore decided to move the following at the Council's monthly meeting to be held on 11 February: Resolved that the Council reaffirm that it would not devise any pre-censorship system regarding the activities and programmes organized by hirers of any Council venue. I think there is need to make this known openly and I would like to have the support of those concerned. If you share my stand, please sign below to indicate your support and send it back to ............. by fax.' Mr. Chairman, Ms. WONG must have sent this fax message out to many people to solicit signatures in support of her motion. She just said that she had the support of 31 people in the circle. Mr. Chairman, if I appeal to others for support on the freedom to breathe in fresh air, I am absolutely confident that everyone will vow their support. However, if one is aware that behind the Page 452 of 498 age 452 of 498 496 of 498
Baseline (Original)
Page 452 of 498 age 452 of 498 496 HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL Mr. Chairman, there is a difficulty about Ms. Ada WONG's motion. As she said herself, if we discuss the system of pre-censorship, there will be more mis- understanding for people to wonder if the Council will practice censorship. It is precisely because of this that I am proposing an amendment. Ms. Wong's original motion easily misleads people to misunderstand that we have a censorship system in place and that the system may cover all varieties from politics to obscenity. In my amendment, I am proposing to upkeep our existing practice which has proved to be effective (I mean the terms and conditions of hire stipulated by the Urban Council and the laws of Hong Kong). If hirers comply with such stipulations, we allow them to stage performances. This is the existing practice of the Council and it makes up for the insufficiency of Ms. Wong's original motion. The first insufficiency is that it misleads people and the second insufficiency is that she has not considered other points fully. That is why I am proposing this amended motion. There is one more point. The original motion by Ms. Wong reads `...... the Council reaffirm that it would not devise any pre-censorship system regarding the activities and programmes organized by hirers of any Council venue'. 'Would not' is a negative way of presentation. My amended motion is presented in a positive way, hence ‘............ must comply with ......'. My sentence is clearer although we talk about the same thing. My amendment is more relevant and more positive whereas the original motion is imperfect to the extent of being misleading and negative. There is still another thing. I see that Ms. WONG has tabled for us today a list of 31 people of the local art and cultural circle in support of her motion. Allow me to read out the content of this list with signatures which states what she is seeking support for. It will make it easier for us to understand. 'Some Members of the Council have proposed to pre-censor activities and programmes organized by hirers of Council venues.....' Are we going to discuss this?'. to classify activities in a way similar to the 3-tier system for movies. I think this is against the principle of freedom of artistic expression and I am very much against it.' Very righteous, indeed. I have therefore decided to move the following at the Council's monthly meeting to be held on 11 February: Resolved that the Council reaffirm that it would not devise any pre-censorship system regarding the activities and programmes organized by hirers of any Council venue. I think there is need to make this known openly and I would like to have the support of those concerned. If you share my stand, please sign below to indicate your support and send it back to ............. by fax.' Mr. Chairman, Ms. WONG must have sent this fax message out to many people to solicit signatures in support of her motion. She just said that she had the support of 31 people in the circle. Mr. Chairman, if I appeal to others for support on the freedom to breathe in fresh air, I am absolutely confident that everyone will vow their support. However, if one is aware that behind the of 498
2026-05-16 02:26:47 · Baseline
View content

Page 452 of 498

age 452 of 498

496

HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL

Mr. Chairman, there is a difficulty about Ms. Ada WONG's motion. As she said herself, if we discuss the system of pre-censorship, there will be more mis- understanding for people to wonder if the Council will practice censorship. It is precisely because of this that I am proposing an amendment. Ms. Wong's original motion easily misleads people to misunderstand that we have a censorship system in place and that the system may cover all varieties from politics to obscenity. In my amendment, I am proposing to upkeep our existing practice which has proved to be effective (I mean the terms and conditions of hire stipulated by the Urban Council and the laws of Hong Kong). If hirers comply with such stipulations, we allow them to stage performances. This is the existing practice of the Council and it makes up for the insufficiency of Ms. Wong's original motion. The first insufficiency is that it misleads people and the second insufficiency is that she has not considered other points fully. That is why I am proposing this amended motion.

There is one more point. The original motion by Ms. Wong reads `...... the Council reaffirm that it would not devise any pre-censorship system regarding the activities and programmes organized by hirers of any Council venue'. 'Would not' is a negative way of presentation. My amended motion is presented in a positive way, hence ‘............ must comply with ......'. My sentence is clearer although we talk about the same thing. My amendment is more relevant and more positive whereas the original motion is imperfect to the extent of being misleading and negative.

There is still another thing. I see that Ms. WONG has tabled for us today a list of 31 people of the local art and cultural circle in support of her motion. Allow me to read out the content of this list with signatures which states what she is seeking support for. It will make it easier for us to understand.

'Some Members of the Council have proposed to pre-censor activities and programmes organized by hirers of Council venues.....' Are we going to discuss this?'. to classify activities in a way similar to the 3-tier system for movies. I think this is against the principle of freedom of artistic expression and I am very much against it.' Very righteous, indeed.

I have therefore decided to move the following at the Council's monthly meeting to be held on 11 February: Resolved that the Council reaffirm that it would not devise any pre-censorship system regarding the activities and programmes organized by hirers of any Council venue. I think there is need to make this known openly and I would like to have the support of those concerned. If you share my stand, please sign below to indicate your support and send it back to ............. by fax.'

Mr. Chairman, Ms. WONG must have sent this fax message out to many people to solicit signatures in support of her motion. She just said that she had the support of 31 people in the circle. Mr. Chairman, if I appeal to others for support on the freedom to breathe in fresh air, I am absolutely confident that everyone will vow their support. However, if one is aware that behind the

of 498

Comments

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

No comments yet.

Private Research Note

Private notes are available after approval.