Page 145 of 654
148
HONG KONG Urban COUNCIL
the Pillar of Shame read out in Radio Hong Kong's Nineties Series 'Letters for home'.
The first point alleges that the Alliance in Support of the Chinese Patriotic Democratic Movement politicised the incident. As I understand, the sculpture was initially named the Pillar of Shame. Ms. WONG thinks putting in a base to the pillar and a copper plaque with the words 'Pillar of Shame' is superfluous and out of tune with the sculpture. I wonder if Ms. Wong has consulted the artist on the change of name from [42] to TRAZEJ. Does she think the renaming is superfluous because it is not to her liking? Or are there other motives behind this?
The second point I want to discuss is whether this Council should take the approach of accepting all requests without vetting. The question in my mind is whether we had asked about the political nature of any display making use of our venues in the past.
In the past, we only considered whether a venue could be lent out and whether the exhibits were safe. We allowed Victoria Park to be used for display of a huge rocket. It did not pose any problem. Why can't we allow the Pillar of Shame of only a few metres high to be displayed at the Chater Garden? I would like a piece of clear information. What was the policy of the Council on the use of venues? I hope Members will not try to confuse the matter. We are not asking the Council to provide space for permanent display of the Pillar of Shame. It is just an application from an organisation to the Council for use of venue to hold an exhibition. Some Members said we could not allow it even for one day because the Pillar was a political object of art. What kind of policy is this? Do I understand that the Council has always upheld the policy of not allowing the use of venues at all for art exhibits of political nature?
In the article I just mentioned, the Member called the Pillar of Shame a trap. Who was trapped? I think the value of its appreciation could be much less than it is had the Council allowed it to be displayed at one of our venues. The sculptor could be very happy over our rejecting its display. Indeed, it aroused much interest and increased the sculpture's value of appreciation. May be the people who are trapped are those Members who reject its display.
Lastly, I refer to what I heard on the radio recently from a government official. He said government would not interfere with the decisions of the two municipal councils. As the two municipal councils were elected bodies, he said that if the electorate was unhappy over their decisions on the Pillar of Shame, the electorate could vote for another set of more open-minded, democratic councillors at the next election.
Let me state here again the stand of the Democratic Party. I call on those who will not vote today in favour of protecting artistic freedom to reflect. You do not have to do so in a private room. You can do it here in the Council
Page 145
Page 146
Page 145 of 654
Page 145 of 654
148
HONG KONG Urban COUNCIL
the Pillar of Shame read out in Radio Hong Kong's Nineties Series 'Letters for home*.
The first point alleges that the Alliance in Support of the Chinese Patriotic Democratic Movement politicised the incident. As I understand, the sculpture was initially named the Pillar of Shame. Ms. WONG thinks putting in a base to the pillar and a copper plaque with the words 'Pillar of Shame' is superfluous and out of tune with the sculpture. I wonder if Ms. Wong has consulted the artist on the change of name from [42] to TRAZEJ. Does she think the renaming is superfluous because it is not to her liking? Or are there other motives behind this?
The second point I want to discuss is whether this Council should take the approach of accepting all requests without vetting. The question in my mind is whether we had asked about the political nature of any display making use of our venues in the past.
In the past, we only considered whether a venue could be lent out and whether the exhibits were safe. We allowed Victoria Park to be used for display of a huge rocket. It did not pose any problem. Why can't we allow the Pillar of Shame of only a few metres high to be displayed at the Chater Garden? I would like a piece of clear information. What was the policy of the Council on the use of venues? I hope Members will not try to confuse the matter. We are not asking the Council to provide space for permanent display of the Pillar of Shame. It is just an application from an organisation to the Council for use of venue to hold an exhibition. Some Members said we could not allow it even for one day because the Pillar was a political object of art. What kind of policy is this? Do I understand that the Council has always upheld the policy of not allowing the use of venues at all for art exhibits of political nature?
In the article I just mentioned, the Member called the Pillar of Shame a trap. Who was trapped? I think the value of its appreciation could be much less than it is had the Council allowed it to be displayed at one of our venues. The sculptor could be very happy over our rejecting its display. Indeed, it aroused much interest and increased the sculpture's value of appreciation. May be the people who are trapped are those Members who reject its display.
Lastly, I refer to what I heard on the radio recently from a government official. He said government would not interfere with the decisions of the two municipal councils. As the two municipal councils were elected bodies, he said that if the electorate was unhappy over their decisions on the Pillar of Shame, the electorate could vote for another set of more open-minded, democratic councillors at the next clection.
Let me state here again the stand of the Democratic Party. I call on those who will not vote today in favour of protecting artistic freedom to reflect. You do not have to do so in a private room. You can do it here in the Council
Page 145Page 146
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.