Page 157 of 654
or 654
Page 157 of 654
160
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
has included several more words and therefore may be better. I support the amendment motion. Mr. Chairman.
Chairman (in Cantonese):—Will the mover of the original motion exercise his right of reply?
Mr. Kwok Bit-CHUN (in Cantonese):—Mr. Chairman, if I am to respond to all the points, I am afraid I cannot finish before tomorrow. However, I must say to Mr. CHAN that I have not missed the words. In fact, if I try to write down everything clearly in the motion, it will be some 5,000 words long before I reach perfection.
Mr. Chairman, I feel that my motion has been twisted as political vetting and much has been inferred. When I first heard about the amendment, I was glad. I thought it would perfect my motion. However, after reading it, I felt perplexed. I cannot grasp the relevance. Now that I have heard fellow colleagues' speeches, I am even more perplexed.
Let me say to you, friends of the Democratic Party, there is no need to move an amendment to my motion. You may as well move an amendment to the first motion moved by the Chairman as urge the government to construct modernised waste incineration facilities and protect artistic freedom as soon as possible as a supplementary method to ...... Amending that motion is in no way different from amending mine. There is no relevance whatsoever. We are discussing the policy of subsidy here. I just want to ask if you have given the topic intensive thoughts. I just think you have been lazy.
There are two points of proof. First, there was an amendment after the motion was seen. Did you ever try to understand the case? Did you bother to find out about the expectation of the visual art circle? When people of that circle learnt of this motion today, they were glad. They wanted to see the motion carried. I wonder if you have any respect for the expectation of these people. Bluntly, how many of your words are a serious study of the motion?
On the second point, why can't we move a motion solely on artistic freedom? Can we do that? When I listened to you just now, I did not feel that you were addressing the popularisation of visual art at a district or school level. No, you did not discuss this. I do not know why you always refer to democracy and respect. Have you ever treated our art workers with respect?
Mr. Fred Li made it plain that the motion was used to make political interpretations. The 50 agonised faces on the Pillar of Shame were given meaning. I cannot respond to that because I think it has nothing to do with my motion. However, I must add that we should not look at things from one single side. If a dust bin presented as a work of art by an artist and considered of high artistic value is put on display, I think we should consider how to display it. If you say that by displaying it, we are encouraging members of the public to spit wherever they like, it will be ridiculous. We do not encourage the
Page 157 of 654
or 654
Page 157 of 654
160
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
has included several more words and therefore may be better. I support the amendment motion. Mr. Chairman.
Chairman (in Cantonese):—Will the mover of the original motion exercise his right of reply?
Mr. Kwok Bit-CHUN (in Cantonese):—Mr. Chairman, if I am to respond to all the points, I am afraid I cannot finish before tomorrow. However, I must say to Mr. CHAN that I have not missed the words. In fact, if I try to write down everything clearly in the motion, it will be some 5 000 words long before I reach perfection.
Mr. Chairman, I feel that my motion has been twisted as political vetting and much has been inferred. When I first heard about the amendment, I was glad. I thought it would perfect my motion. However, after reading it, I felt perplexed. I cannot grasp the relevance. Now that I have heard fellow colleagues' speeches, I am even more perplexed.
Let me say to you, friends of the Democratic Party, there is no need to move an amendment to my motion. You may as well move an amendment to the first motion moved by the Chairman as urge the government to construci modernised waste incineration facilities and protect artistic freedom as soon as possible as a supplementary method to ...... Amending that motion is in no way different from amending mine. There is no relevance whatsoever. We are discussing the policy of subsidy here. I just want to ask if you have given the topic intensive thoughts. I just think you have been lazy.
•
There are two points of proof. First, there was an amendment after the motion was seen. Did you ever try to understand the case? Did you bother to find out about the expectation of the visual art circle? When people of that circle learnt of this motion today, they were glad. They wanted to see the motion carried. I wonder if you have any respect for the expectation of these people. Bluntly, how many of your words are a serious study of the motion?
On the second point, why can't we move a motion solely on artistic freedom? Can we do that? When I listened to you just now, I did not feel that you were addressing the popularisation of visual art at a district or school level. No, you did not discuss this. I do not know why you always refer to democracy and respect. Have you ever treated our art workers with respect?
Mr. Fred Li made it plain that the motion was used to make political interpretations. The 50 agonised faces on the Pillar of Shame were given meaning. I cannot respond to that because I think it has nothing to do with my motion. However, I must add that we should not look at things from one single side. If a dust bin presented as a work of art by an artist and considered of high artistic value is put on display, I think we should consider how to display it. If you say that by displaying it, we are encouraging members of the public to spit wherever they like, it will be ridiculous. We do not encourage the
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.