1996 — Page 463

Urban Council Proceedings 市政局議事錄 All AI Reviewed

Page 463 of 498

HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL

507

system with scores given by the Department and the decision left with the relevant Select Committee. It is not censorship of the programme itself. I think we have the clarification from Mr. WEN of the Entertainment Select Committee that neither the Council nor the Select Committee imposes censorship on the programmes staged by hirers. I am sure you all know about censorship in the way I mean, there should not be any confusion. Censorship concerns the programme and the programme content, not technicalities such as the terms and conditions of hire read out by Mr. WEN or requiring hirers to comply with the terms and conditions of hire.

Ms. CHOW did not use the term censorship. However, when she spoke just now and from what she said before the meeting at press conferences and to newspapers, she wants us to act as gatekeeper and monitor programme content. What are we expected to do? Do we have to ask potential hirers for their scripts? If we do not vet the content of scripts, how can we be the gatekeeper? I am sure you can see what I mean. A message of concern has been given. Ms. CHOW emphasized that the Urban Council could be responsible and could consider 'keeping the gate'. I would like to know how, if not through censorship, we can keep the gate.

I have reiterated that there is no need for the Council to act as gatekeeper. I do not say that we should let go, just that it is the job of other government departments and organizations as well as the police to keep the gate. I am convinced that our discussion today is necessary. I feel it a responsibility to bring out to the Council this topic of general concern. Some Members feel I make mountains out of a mole hill. I can see that an opinion given in our Annual Debate sparked a lot of response. I have personally been told of the concern of the cultural, performing and other related circles. I am convinced there is need to discuss this. It is my duty to bring this out as a Member. Do not say 'dust cannot gather'. There is in fact a lot of 'dust', only we are covering the dust up.

Mr. Chairman, the amended motion is in fact more misleading. As put by Mr. LAI, the amended motion is indisputable because it is 'all true'. I am opposing the amended motion today, but that does not mean I am asking people not to comply with the law. Moving such an amendment to my original motion is somewhat trying to shift the target. I think the amended motion is a fresh motion. I share Mr. LAI's view because I do not understand why the Chairman has allowed it as an amendment. I hope you can be more sensible and discuss this objectively. There is no need for us to blow this out of proportion and start using strong words, I think your reaction may lead to misunderstandings about 1997. I think we all know clearly about the role of the Urban Council. The Council's role should not be a censor. And really, this should not be confused with the terms and conditions of hire.

Mr. Chairman, I believe I have said about everything I want to say. Even if I want to appeal to more Members, I do not think there will be much use.

Page 463 of 498

163 of 498

Edit History

2026-05-16 02:28:22 · NVIDIA / meta/llama-4-maverick-17b-128e-instruct

Live

View comparison

AI Proofread

Page 463 of 498 HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL 507 system with scores given by the Department and the decision left with the relevant Select Committee. It is not censorship of the programme itself. I think we have the clarification from Mr. WEN of the Entertainment Select Committee that neither the Council nor the Select Committee imposes censorship on the programmes staged by hirers. I am sure you all know about censorship in the way I mean, there should not be any confusion. Censorship concerns the programme and the programme content, not technicalities such as the terms and conditions of hire read out by Mr. WEN or requiring hirers to comply with the terms and conditions of hire. Ms. CHOW did not use the term censorship. However, when she spoke just now and from what she said before the meeting at press conferences and to newspapers, she wants us to act as gatekeeper and monitor programme content. What are we expected to do? Do we have to ask potential hirers for their scripts? If we do not vet the content of scripts, how can we be the gatekeeper? I am sure you can see what I mean. A message of concern has been given. Ms. CHOW emphasized that the Urban Council could be responsible and could consider 'keeping the gate'. I would like to know how, if not through censorship, we can keep the gate. I have reiterated that there is no need for the Council to act as gatekeeper. I do not say that we should let go, just that it is the job of other government departments and organizations as well as the police to keep the gate. I am convinced that our discussion today is necessary. I feel it a responsibility to bring out to the Council this topic of general concern. Some Members feel I make mountains out of a mole hill. I can see that an opinion given in our Annual Debate sparked a lot of response. I have personally been told of the concern of the cultural, performing and other related circles. I am convinced there is need to discuss this. It is my duty to bring this out as a Member. Do not say 'dust cannot gather'. There is in fact a lot of 'dust', only we are covering the dust up. Mr. Chairman, the amended motion is in fact more misleading. As put by Mr. LAI, the amended motion is indisputable because it is 'all true'. I am opposing the amended motion today, but that does not mean I am asking people not to comply with the law. Moving such an amendment to my original motion is somewhat trying to shift the target. I think the amended motion is a fresh motion. I share Mr. LAI's view because I do not understand why the Chairman has allowed it as an amendment. I hope you can be more sensible and discuss this objectively. There is no need for us to blow this out of proportion and start using strong words, I think your reaction may lead to misunderstandings about 1997. I think we all know clearly about the role of the Urban Council. The Council's role should not be a censor. And really, this should not be confused with the terms and conditions of hire. Mr. Chairman, I believe I have said about everything I want to say. Even if I want to appeal to more Members, I do not think there will be much use. Page 463 of 498 163 of 498

Baseline (Original)

Page 463 of 498 HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL 507 system with scores given by the Department and the decision left with the relevant Select Committee. It is not censorship of the programme itself. I think we have the clarification from Mr. WEN of the Entertainment Select Committee that neither the Council nor the Select Committee imposes censorship on the programmes staged by hirers. I am sure you all know about censorship in the way I mean, there should not be any confusion. Censorship concerns the programme and the programme content, not technicalities such as the terms and conditions of hire read out by Mr. WEN or requiring hirers to comply with the terms and conditions of hire. Ms. CHOW did not use the term censorship. However, when she spoke just now and from what she said before the meeting at press conferences and to newspapers, she wants us to act as gatekeeper and monitor programme .content. What are we expected to do? Do we have to ask potential hirers for their scripts? If we do not vet the content of scripts, how can we be the ¡gatekeeper? I am sure you can see what I mean. A message of concern has been Įgiven. Ms. CHOW emphasized that the Urban Council could be responsible and *could consider 'keeping the gate'. I would like to know how, if not through censorship, we can keep the gate. I have reiterated that there is no need for the Council to act as gatekeeper. I cdo not say that we should let go, just that it is the job of other government ¿departments and organizations as well as the police to keep the gate. I am cconvinced that our discussion today is necessary. I feel it a responsibility to bring out to the Council this topic of general concern. Some Members feel I make mountains out of a mole hill. I can see that an opinion given in our Annual Debate sparked a lot of response. I have personally been told of the econcern of the cultural, performing and other related circles. I am convinced there is need to discuss this. It is my duty to bring this out as a Member. Do not say 'dust cannot gather'. There is in fact a lot of 'dust", only we are crovering the dust up. Mr. Chairman, the amended motion is in fact more misleading. As put by Mir. LA1, the amended motion is indisputable because it is 'all true'. I am oppposing the amended motion today, but that does not mean I am asking people not to comply with the law. Moving such an amendment to my original motion is somewhat trying to shift the target. I think the amended motion is a frresh motion. I share Mr. Lat's view because I do not understand why the Chairman has allowed it as an amendment. I hope you can be more sensible amd discuss this objectively. There is no need for us to blow this out of proportion and start using strong words, I think your reaction may lead to miisunderstandings about 1997. I think we all know clearly about the role of thee Urban Council. The Council's role should not be a censor. And really, this should not be confused with the terms and conditions of hire. Mr. Chairman, I believe I have said about everything I want to say. Even if I want to appeal to more Members, I do not think there will be much use. P 163 of 498

2026-05-16 02:28:22 · Baseline

View content

Page 463 of 498

HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL

507

Ms. CHOW did not use the term censorship. However, when she spoke just now and from what she said before the meeting at press conferences and to newspapers, she wants us to act as gatekeeper and monitor programme .content. What are we expected to do? Do we have to ask potential hirers for their scripts? If we do not vet the content of scripts, how can we be the ¡gatekeeper? I am sure you can see what I mean. A message of concern has been Įgiven. Ms. CHOW emphasized that the Urban Council could be responsible and *could consider 'keeping the gate'. I would like to know how, if not through

censorship, we can keep the gate.

I have reiterated that there is no need for the Council to act as gatekeeper. I cdo not say that we should let go, just that it is the job of other government ¿departments and organizations as well as the police to keep the gate. I am cconvinced that our discussion today is necessary. I feel it a responsibility to bring out to the Council this topic of general concern. Some Members feel I make mountains out of a mole hill. I can see that an opinion given in our Annual Debate sparked a lot of response. I have personally been told of the econcern of the cultural, performing and other related circles. I am convinced there is need to discuss this. It is my duty to bring this out as a Member. Do not say 'dust cannot gather'. There is in fact a lot of 'dust", only we are crovering the dust up.

Mr. Chairman, the amended motion is in fact more misleading. As put by Mir. LA1, the amended motion is indisputable because it is 'all true'. I am oppposing the amended motion today, but that does not mean I am asking people not to comply with the law. Moving such an amendment to my original motion is somewhat trying to shift the target. I think the amended motion is a frresh motion. I share Mr. Lat's view because I do not understand why the Chairman has allowed it as an amendment. I hope you can be more sensible amd discuss this objectively. There is no need for us to blow this out of proportion and start using strong words, I think your reaction may lead to miisunderstandings about 1997. I think we all know clearly about the role of thee Urban Council. The Council's role should not be a censor. And really, this should not be confused with the terms and conditions of hire.

Mr. Chairman, I believe I have said about everything I want to say. Even if I want to appeal to more Members, I do not think there will be much use.

1996 — Page 463

Edit History

Comments

Private Research Note