Page 458 of 498
୨୪
502
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
sure, many experienced politicians here got around it to project in high profile the call for moral judgement. I think it is now the right time for the Council to make a statement so that the public will not continue to worry for lack of information. If discussions are allowed to go on without information, they may lead to greater misunderstanding. I therefore think it is important for us to make a statement. I hope Members will not be stringent to others but lenient to ourselves. When it is another person's work of art, we sit by. When we come to something of our own, we try to pull on cover and refuse to grant transparency. I think if we cannot convince the public with double standards
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Please state your opinion, Mr. CHAN.
MR. TIM S. Manuel Chan (in Cantonese): Thank you for your direction, Mr. Chairman.
I call upon Members present to change your attitude and support the motion by Ms. Ada WONG. I shall stop here. I hope you won't be emotional in any way. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Wu Chi-wai (in Cantonese): Both the original motion and the amended motion are in support of our existing policy. If not for the original motion, I personally feel that we invariably support Mr. Pao because any activity held at any venue of the Urban Council should comply with the policy of the Council and the laws of Hong Kong.
For the motion by Ms. Ada Wong, its focus is obviously to reiterate that the Council would not pre-censor activities to be held at our venues. In the absence of this, we can say that we should fully support Mr. PAO's motion. However, under the present circumstances, if we support Mr. PAO's motion, we would be leaving something unsaid for the public to question the intention of the Council. This is my first point.
My second point concerns the case just quoted by Ms. Chow, pointing out that on the matter of noise pollution at the Hong Kong Stadium, the Council acted as the gatekeeper. I wish to point out specifically that the Council is able to act as gatekeeper in respect of the Hong Kong Stadium because the noise pollution level of concerts exceeds standards permitted by the law. In other words, such activities do not fall within the stipulations of the laws of Hong Kong. We act as gatekeeper on this premise, without which there is no way we can do so.
I must say that the important point whether we can act as gatekeeper lies in whether a certain activity complies with the laws of Hong Kong and the policy of this Council. Clearly, as stated by Mr. WEN, this Council's policy dictates that it is not suitable for us as the venue provider to censor programmes. I think this is the spirit of the Council's policy. As to the requirement to comply
Page 458 of 409
Page 458 of 498
୨୪
502
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
sure, many experienced politicians here got around it to project in high profile the call for moral judgement. I think it is now the right time for the Council to make a statement so that the public will not continue to worry for lack of information. If discussions are allowed to go on without information, they may lead to greater misunderstanding. I therefore think it is important for us to make a statement. I hope Members will not be stringent to others but lenient to ourselves. When it is another person's work of art, we sit by. When we come to something of our own, we try to pull on cover and refuse to grant transparency. I think if we cannot convince the public with double standards
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese):-Please state your opinion, Mr. CHAN.
MR. TIM S. Manuel Chan (in Cantonese):-Thank you for your direction, Mr. Chairman.
I call upon Members present to change your attitude and support the motion by Ms. Ada WONG. I shall stop here. I hope you won't be emotional in any way. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Wu Chi-waI (in Cantonese);~—Both the original motion and the amended motion are in support of our existing policy. If not for the original motion, I personally feel that we invariably supporɩ Mr. Pão because any activity held at any venue of the Urban Council should comply with the policy of the Council and the laws of Hong Kong.
For the motion by Ms. Ada Wong, its focus is obviously to reiterate that the Council would not pre-censor activities to be held at our venues. In the absence of this, we can say that we should fully support Mr. PAO's motion. However, under the present circumstances, if we support Mr. PAO's motion, we would be leaving something unsaid for the public to question the intention of the Council. This is my first point.
My second point concerns the case just quoted by Ms. Chow, pointing out that on the matter of noise pollution at the Hong Kong Stadium, the Council acted as the gatekeeper. I wish to point out specifically that the Council is able to act as gatekeeper in respect of the Hong Kong Stadium because the noise pollution level of concerts exceeds standards permitted by the law. In other words, such activities do not fall within the stipulations of the laws of Hong Kong. We act as gatekeeper on this premise, without which there is no way we can do so.
I must say that the important point whether we can act as gatekeeper lies in whether a certain activity complies with the laws of Hong Kong and the policy of this Council. Clearly, as stated by Mr. WEN, this Council's policy dictates that it is not suitable for us as the venue provider to censor programmes. I think this is the spirit of the Council's policy. As to the requirement to comply
Page 458 of 409
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.