Page 144
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
147
employer at the change of sovereignty. Our employer has always been the same one. Our employer is the people who vote for us. We are responsible to these people and we truly uphold the One Country, Two Systems concept. We feel that artistic freedom in Hong Kong should be actively protected.
During the consultation period on our Five Year Plan of the Culture Select Committee, we had discussions with many artists from the mainland. They felt deeply that there was creative space for them in Hong Kong, but not in China, not in the years before now, not even today when artistic freedom and development would still be restricted.
Under the circumstances, we feel that the original motion has not adequately exposed the greatest challenge before this Council. That is why we are moving this amendment. We feel that the Council should further enhance the preservation of artistic freedom and extend promotion to the district level. This way, people of the future SAR will know clearly that their freedom is protected. Regarding the recent incident of the Pillar of National Shame, we can see there was a clearly mistaken point of view. I shall leave discussions on this to my colleague who will speak later on.
In view of the inadequacy of the original motion, we ask for an amendment and seek to include 'preservation of artistic freedom' in the content. I hope fellow Members will support our amendment. Thank you.
MR. WU CHI-WAI (in Cantonese): Mr. Chairman, I second the amendment.
MR. KAM NAI-WAI (in Cantonese): Mr. Chairman, I intend to start and conclude with the words of two government officials.
Recently, the Chief Secretary said that she was not worried that the Central Government would intervene with Hong Kong's high degree of autonomy and that she was on the contrary, worried that some people of Hong Kong would make petty reports to Beijing and thereby affected our development. I am sure none of you present today will object to the Council's principle of protection of artistic freedom. Only last month, we turned down an application to display the Pillar of Shame at one of our venues. This is worrying. I am not surprised that certain Members stood firm on their principle and objected to the provision of venue for display of the Pillar of Shame. I am not surprised at all. I am just disappointed that certain Members abstained from voting.
I recall that on 11th February this year, Ms. Ada WONG Ying-kay moved a motion ‘RESOLVED that the Council reaffirm that it would not devise any pre-censorship system regarding activities and programmes organized by hirers of any Council venue.' That was the wording of the motion moved on that day although several amendments were raised afterwards. I saw an article of Ms. Ada Wong in today's newspaper. She is not present today, but I would like to discuss two points she mentioned in her letter on the trap thrown out by
Page 144 of 654
Page 144 of 651
Page 144 01 054′′
Page 144 of 654
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
147
employer at the change of sovereignty. Our employer has always been the same one. Our employer is the people who vote for us. We are responsible to these people and we truly uphold the One Country, Two Systems concept. We feel that artistic freedom in Hong Kong should be actively protected.
During the consultation period on our Five Year Plan of the Culture Select Committee, we had discussions with many artists from the mainland. They felt deeply that there was creative space for them in Hong Kong, but not in China, not in the years before now, not even today when artistic freedom and development would still be restricted.
Under the circumstances, we feel that the original motion has not adequately exposed the greatest challenge before this Council. That is why we are moving this amendment. We feel that the Council should further enhance the preservation of artistic freedom and extend promotion to the district level. This way, people of the future SAR will know clearly that their freedom is protected. Regarding the recent incident of the Pillar of National Shame, we can see there was a clearly mistaken point of view. I shall leave discussions on this to my colleague who will speak later on.
In view of the inadequacy of the original motion, we ask for an amendment and seek to include 'preservation of artistic freedom' in the content. I hope fellow Members will support our amendment. Thank you.
MR. WU CHI-WAI (in Cantonese):-Mr. Chairman, I second the amendment.
MR. KAM NAI-WAI (in Cantonese):-Mr. Chairman, I intend to start and conclude with the words of two government officials.
Recently, the Chief Secretary said that she was not worried that the Central Government would intervene with Hong Kong's high degree of autonomy and that she was on the contrary, worried that some people of Hong Kong would make petty reports to Beijing and thereby affected our development. I am sure none of you present today will object to the Council's principle of protection of artistic freedom. Only last month, we turned down an application to display the Pillar of Shame at one of our venues. This is worrying. I am not surprised that certain Members stood firm on their principle and objected to the provision of venue for display of the Pillar of Shame. I am not surprised at all. I am just disappointed that certain Members abstained from voting.
I recall that on 11th February this year, Ms. Ada WONG Ying-kay moved a motion ‘RESOLVED that the Council reaffirm that it would not devise any pre-censorship system regarding activities and programmes organized by hirers of any Council venue.' That was the wording of the motion moved on that day although several amendments were raised afterwards. I saw an article of Ms. Ada Wong in today's newspaper. She is not present today, but I would like to discuss two points she mentioned in her letter on the trap thrown out by
Page 144 of 651
Page 144 of 654
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.