Page 149 of 654
Page 149 of 654
152
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
local groups to promote relevant activities at the district level. It is hoped that some sort of promotion can be done at a district level. During the recent debate on the Pillar of Shame, some Members brought up political reasons, others said the display would not be in line with the use of UC venues. That was the argument put up by the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment of Hong Kong. When Ms. Ada Wong spoke, she said she was not sure of the object's artistic merits or artistic role.
When we carry out promotion work at a district level, we have little choice. We all know that there are over 40 districts and there are not so many places within a district suitable for the display of a work of art. It is only obvious that we have to utilise public place, like parks or community halls. This is the only choice we have if we are to implement Mr. Kwok Bit-chun's motion and promote visual art at a district level.
On the content of the motion, allow me to quote Mr. WEN Choy-bon speaking at the meeting of 11th February. He said as the venue provider, it would not be suitable for the Urban Council to take up the duty of vetting the programme content to be staged by the hirer of venues. I am sure Members remember his referring to the ordinance on public places and pointing out that hirers should acquire various required licenses or conditions. He was then of the opinion that even if the Council did vet programme content, there would be difficulties in actual implementation.
If we promote activities at district level, inevitably we have to make use of space in parks or community halls. Public place as opposed to private place is owned by the community. Every member of the community enjoys equal rights and freedom. Government's role is the manager of such space. By manager's role, we can explain it as the handling of applications to use such space.
If there is time conflict, a schedule can be arranged. If the conditions at the venue are not suitable, some modification or layout work can be carried out or the applicant can be asked to apply for use of another site. Anything beyond that line would be infringement of the public's rights. The recent veto of the application to display the Pillar of Shame reflects that the Council has failed to remain neutral in handling applications to use public venues. That Councillors vet the application from a political angle sets a bad precedent.
We can say here that the incident does not affect Hong Kong people's freedom of artistic expression and that we should treat it as an ordinary case, However, in the past couple of weeks, newspapers, magazines, local and foreign TV programmes all commented on self-censorship of free artistic expression in public places.
Actually, the Council lends out venues under two circumstances. First, we provide venues for activities organised by us. Second, we lend out venues for other organisations to stage activities. For programmes organised with the funding of the Council, we can ask that they reach high standards artistically to the satisfaction of Council Members and advisers of relevant disciplines.
54
Page 149 of 654
Page 149 of 654
Page 149 of 654
Page 149 of 654
152
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
local groups to promote relevant activities at the district level. It is hoped that some sort of promotion can be done at a district level. During the recent debate on the Pillar of Shame, some Members brought up political reasons, others said the display would not be in line with the use of UC venues. That was the argument put up by the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment of Hong Kong. When Ms. Ada Wong spoke, she said she was not sure of the object's artistic merits or artistic role.
When we carry out promotion work at a district level, we have little choice. We all know that there are over 40 districts and there are not so many places within a district suitable for the display of a work of art. It is only obvious that we have to utilise public place, like parks or community halls. This is the only choice we have if we are to implement Mr. Kwok Bit-chun's motion and promote visual art at a district level.
On the content of the motion, allow me to quote Mr. WEN Choy-bon speaking at the meeting of 11th February. He said as the venue provider, it would not be suitable for the Urban Council to take up the duty of vetting the programme content to be staged by the hirer of venues. I am sure Members remember his referring to the ordinance on public places and pointing out that hirers should acquire various required licenses or conditions. He was then of the opinion that even if the Council did vet programme content, there would be difficulties in actual implementation.
If we promote activities at district level, inevitably we have to make use of space in parks or community halls. Public place as opposed to private place is owned by the community. Every member of the community enjoys equal rights and freedom. Government's role is the manager of such space. By manager's role, we can explain it as the handling of applications to use such space.
If there is time conflict, a schedule can be arranged. If the conditions at the venue are not suitable, some modification or layout work can be carried out or the applicant can be asked to apply for use of another site. Anything beyond that line would be infringement of the public's rights. The recent veto of the application to display the Pillar of Shame reflects that the Council has failed to remain neutral in handling applications to use public venues. That Councillors vet the application from a political angle sets a bad precedent.
We can say here that the incident does not affect Hong Kong people's freedom of artistic expression and that we should treat it as an ordinary case, However, in the past couple of weeks, newspapers, magazines, local and foreign TV programmes all commented on self-censorship of free artistic expression in public places.
Actually, the Council lends out venues under two circumstances. First, we provide venues for activities organised by us. Second, we lend out venues for other organisations to stage activities. For programmes organised with the funding of the Council, we can ask that they reach high standards artistically to the satisfaction of Council Members and advisers of relevant disciplines.
54
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.