HONG KONG PROVISIONAL URBAN COUNCIL
193
As such, I think Mr. Chan Kwok-leung's motion merely reaffirms our present policy. We do not want to vet applications from a political angle. I just want to clarify this to members of the public. The incident of the Pillar of Shame a few months ago and that of the Democratic Party's application for use of venue are just misunderstandings. I heard various colleagues mentioning political grounds. Political grounds can be a triviality, like election and voting. It can also be a big deal because politics is the affair of the public. Mr. Lai said "we should not vet applications on grounds of race or religion. The problem of religious discrimination does not exist. If we are open-minded and accommodating, there would not be a problem.
Ms. Jennifer CHOW said we should not encourage the staging of political activities or the display of political objects in our venues. If we do that, the Council would be clearly enforcing political vetting. Some members of the public may like to know about politics or understand the problems that come with it. Others may not like to. We as the manager of venues cannot possibly represent others to make this decision.
Article 27 of the Basic Law stipulates that residents of Hong Kong can enjoy freedom of speech, information, publication, forming societies, assembly, organizing parades and demonstrations. At the same time, we understand that we have to abide by the law when exercising these rights. Can we actually make a judgement of the content of activities beforehand? Can we know things before they happen? Can we judge whether an activity is lawful and turn down unlawful applications? No, we cannot know things beforehand and as the provider of venues, it is not right nor appropriate for us to vet the contents of activities. That is the spirit of Mr. CHAN Kwok-leung's motion. Having established that Mr. CHAN's motion is consistent with the hiring policy of the Council, I must say Mr. LAI's amendment is trying to cover things up.
At the February meeting, Ms. Ada WONG reiterated that this Council should uphold protection of artistic freedom without any pre-censorship. It was amended by Mr. PAO. Conservative, pro-China Members among us may choose not to take their stand on protection of art.
Today, Mr. CHAN's motion is met with an amendment by Mr. LAI, which avoids taking stand on protection of freedom of speech and expression.
Fellow Honourable Members, may I ask you to read clearly into the Five Year Plans of the Culture Select Committee, Museums Select Committee and Libraries Select Committee. In it, there is a clear statement that this Council supports art and freedom of speech. Why are we refraining from reiterating that stand? Those of you who object to that stand either have a split personality or make the public suspect your motives.
There is no room for and no value in discussing this motion. When this Council approves hiring out a venue, it naturally considers its set of criteria. If no consideration is made, how can the Council decide to approve or refuse an application?
Page 192 of 654
Page 192 of 654
Page 192 of 654
Page 192 of 654
HONG KONG PROVISIONAL URBAN COUNCIL
193
As such, I think Mr. Chan Kwok-leung's motion merely reaffirms our [present policy. We do not want to vet applications from a political angle. I just
want to clarify this to members of the public. The incident of the Pillar of !Shame a few months ago and that of the Democratic Party's application for use of venue are just misunderstandings. I heard various colleagues mentioning Ipolitical grounds. Political grounds can be a triviality, like election and voting. !It can also be a big deal because politics is the affair of the public. Mr. Lat said "we should not vet applications on grounds of race or religion. The problem of religious discrimination does not exist. If we are open-mined and ¡accommodating, there would not be a problem.
Ms. Jennifer CHOW said we should not encourage the staging of political ¡activities or the display of political objects in our venues. If we do that, the Council would be clearly enforcing political vetting. Some members of the ¡public may like to know about politics or understand the problems that come 'with it. Other may not like to. We as the manager of venues cannot possibly :represent others to make this decision.
Article 27 of the Basic Law stipulates that residents of Hong Kong can enjoy freedom of speech, information, publication, forming societies, assembly, ⚫organizing parades and demonstrations. At the same time, we understand that we have to abide by the law when exercising these rights. Can we actually make a judgement of the content of activities beforehand? Can we know things before they happen? Can we judge whether an activity is lawful and turn down unlawful applications? No, we cannot know things beforehand and as the provider of venues, it is not right nor appropriate for us to vet the contents of activities. That is the spirit of Mr. CHAN Kwok-leung's motion. Having established that Mr. CHAN's motion is consistent with the hiring policy of the
·Council, I must say Mr. LAI's amendment is trying to cover things up.
At the February meeting, Ms. Ada WỌNG reiterated that this Council should uphold protection of artistic freedom without any pre-censorship. It was amended by Mr. PAO. Conservative, pro-China Members among us may choose not to take their stand on protection of art.
Today, Mr. CHAN's motion is met with an amendment by Mr. LAI, which avoids taking stand on protection of freedom of speech and expression.
Fellow Honourable Members, may I ask you to read clearly into the Five Year Plans of the Culture Select Committee, Museums Select Committee and Libraries Select Committee. In it, there is a clear statement that this Council supports art and freedom of speech. Why are we refraining from reiterating that stand? Those of you who object to that stand either have a split personality or make the public suspect your motives.
There is no room for and no value in discussing this motion. When this Council approves hiring out a venue, it naturally considers its set of criteria. If no consideration is made, how can the Council decide to approve or refuse an application?
Page 192 of 654
Page 192 of 654
Page 192 of 654
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.