Page 215 of 606
212
PROVISIONAL URBAN COUNCIL
As for Mr. Wu Chi-wai's amended motion, which includes the wording of 'preservation of freedom of creation and expression', we consider that it is only an ideology. This in fact should be incorporated only when the principles for individual venues are discussed and confirmed, because if this was incorporated into the major principle now, then anyone could add whatever wording they like to the motion, thereby affecting the spirit and subject matter of the motion. The ADPL therefore supports the original motion but not the amended one.
Mr. Chairman, with these remarks, I support the original motion.
Mr. Joseph Lai Chi-keong (in Cantonese):—Just now I heard Mr. Mok saying that 'preservation of freedom of creation and expression' is an ideology, but I have no idea what he meant by ‘an ideology'. I can't figure it out at all. There is no trace of ideology at all in these seven words. It is only aimed at providing more room for the free expression of the art of the people. The Council hasn't examined the subject matters of the works of art yet. In other words, I can't figure out what the ideology is. We are not examining the subject matters.
Mr. Wu Chi-wai was correct in saying that there were a lot of such individual cases, such as the Pillar of Shame, People in 1997 and the exhibition of the Aids Foundation. Ms. Ada Wong also mentioned them. Indeed there are too many such cases, which have to be submitted to the Standing Committee of the whole Council for debate. If we have a guiding principle, then we will not have to discuss them one by one. Staff of the Department may approve them in line with the principle (that is, preservation of freedom of creation and expression) without having to submit them to the meeting for consideration.
Everyone is aware that since it is a comprehensive policy, it should embrace a directional and guiding principle and the incorporation of 'preservation of freedom of creation and expression' would provide this very principle. In the absence of this principle, we would have no idea how the staff of the Department will be managing the venues, just as we wouldn't know when Mr. Donald TSANG, who has the discretionary power over the liquidity adjustment mechanism, decides to buy or not to buy and when the staff of the Department approve or do not approve the display of works of art in the venues. We don't know at all. The incorporation of the principles of 'freedom of creation and expression' and 'freedom of art display' would provide something for the staff to follow.
I believe that this point was already highlighted in the five-year plan drawn up by Ms. Ada WONG and therefore she did not raise any objection to the Democratic Party's amended motion in her speech. Mr. Mok Ying-fan was therefore only putting words into her mouth. We do not believe that this was what Ms. Ada WONG meant.
Page 215
Page 216
Page 216 of 606
Page 215 of 606
Page 215 of 606
212
PROVISIONAL URBAN COUNCIL
As for Mr. Wu Chi-wai's amended motion, which includes the wording of 'preservation of freedom of creation and expression', we consider that it is only an ideology. This in fact should be incorporated only when the principles. for individual venues are discussed and confirmed, because if this was incorporated into the major principle now, then anyone could add whatever wording they like to the motion, thereby affecting the spirit and subject matter of the motion. The ADPL therefore supports the original motion but not the amended one.
Mr. Chairman, with these remarks, I support the original motion.
Mr. Joseph Lai Chi-keong (in Cantonese):—Just now I heard Mr. Mok saying that 'preservation of freedom of creation and expression' is an ideology, but I have no idea what he meant by ‘an ideology'. I can't figure it out at all. There is no trace of ideology at all in these seven words. It is only aimed at providing more room for the free expression of the art of the people. The Council hasn't examined the subject matters of the works of art yet. In other words. I can't figure out what the ideology is. We are not examining the subject matters.
Mr. Wu Chi-wai was correct in saying that there were a lot of such individual cases, such as the Pillar of Shame, People in 1997 and the exhibition of the Aids Foundation. Ms. Ada Wong also mentioned them. Indeed there are too many such cases, which have to be submitted to the Standing Committee of the whole Council for debate. If we have a guiding principle. then we will not have to discuss them one by one. Staff of the Department may approve them in line with the principle (that is, preservation of freedom of creation and expression) without having to submit them to the meeting for consideration.
Everyone is aware that since it is a comprehensive policy, it should embrace a directional and guiding principle and the incorporation of 'preservation of freedom of creation and expression' would provide this very principle. In the absence of this principle, we would have no idea how the staff of the Department will be managing the venues, just as we wouldn't know when Mr. Donald TSANG, who has the discretionary power over the liquidity adjustment mechanism, decides to buy or not to buy and when the staff of the Department approve or do not approve the display of works of art in the venues. We don't know at all. The incorporation of the principles of 'freedom of creation and expression' and 'freedom of art display would provide something for the staff to follow.
I believe that this point was already highlighted in the five-year plan drawn up by Ms. Ada WONG and therefore she did not raise any objection to the Democratic Party's amended motion in her speech. Mr. Mok Ying-fan was therefore only putting words into her mouth. We do not believe that this was what Ms. Ada WONG meant.
Page 215Page 216
Page 216 of 606
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.