Page 217 of 606
214
PROVISIONAL URBAN COUNCIL
amendments to it. that is. probably anything I could think of, such as specifying that the item for display 'must be in accordance with the laws of Hong Kong, must be in line with the Council's art', ‘must have taken into consideration the principle of balanced development for Eastern and Western art and culture' etc. If such amendments were added, I am sure that the amended motion would be very confusing and unnecessarily long. As far as I can see, the motion simply extends the scope of work being carried out under the prevailing policies on art and culture to the public areas and space managed by the Council. That is all. In other words, I consider the coverage of the original motion to be comprehensive.
At the same time, as far as I understand, the rationale of the motion is to pass a principle, which will then be referred to the relevant select committees for consideration and action. It does not represent that every space in the public areas managed by the Council will be used for the display of works of art. Perhaps Ms. Ada Wong will clarify this point later, since it is up to the relevant select committee to decide whether a certain venue is suitable for the display of a work of art on a case-by-case basis.
Hence, Mr. Chairman, I consider that the coverage of the original motion is comprehensive enough, which is to extend the places for the display of works of art under the prevailing cultural policy to the public areas and space. This principle is exhaustive. Mr. Chairman, I therefore support the original motion.
Mr. Lai Hok-LIM (in Cantonese):—Mr. Chairman, it is obvious to us that the ADPL's stance is that it supports the original motion, considering that the simplest way is to refer the issue back to the relevant select committees for consideration. As far as this is concerned, I am not too sure whether it was what Ms. Ada WONG, the original mover, had in mind.
Obviously Ms. Ada WONG was talking about the absence of a set of comprehensive policies and not about referring the issue to the various select committees to draw up individual policies in the light of the so-called specific circumstances of individual venues. If such was the case, it would not be a 'comprehensive' policy, would it?
Mr. PAO Ping-wing argued just now why there was need to discuss policies which were already established ones. As a veteran Councillor, Mr. PAO should be aware that all the items moved for debate at the monthly meetings are within the Council's term of reference and must not exceed the Council's scope of duties or objectives. In other words, any items under discussion are basically work which the Council must carry out or is carrying out. Members may flip through the Council's Annual Report 1997/98 before them and will find that all the work that the motions recommended were work we should do. The point is that Members found we had not done enough and therefore proposed that reviews or improvements be made. There is nothing like why bothering to
Page 217
Page 217 of 606
214
PROVISIONAL URBAN COUNCIL
amendments to it. that is. probably anything I could think of, such as specifying that the item for display 'must be in accordance with the laws of Hong Kong, must be in line with the Council's art", ‘must have taken into consideration the principle of balanced development for Eastern and Western art and culture' etc. If such amendments were added, I am sure that the amended motion would be very confusing and unnecessarily long. As far as I can see, the motion simply extends the scope of work being carried out under the prevailing policies on art and culture to the public areas and space managed by the Council. That is all. In other words, I consider the coverage of the original motion to be comprehensive.
At the same time, as far as I understand, the rationale of the motion is to pass a principle, which will then be referred to the relevant select committees for consideration and action. It does not represent that every space in the public areas managed by the Council will be used for the display of works of art. Perhaps Ms. Ada Wong will clarify this point later, since it is up to the relevant select committee to decide whether a certain venue is suitable for the display of a works of art on a case-by-case basis.
Hence, Mr. Chairman, I consider that the coverage of the original motion is comprehensive enough, which is to extend the places for the display of works of art under the prevailing cultural policy to the public areas and space. This principle is exhaustive. Mr. Chairman, I therefore support the original
motion.
Mr. Lai Hok-LIM (in Cantonese):—Mr. Chairman, it is obvious to us that the ADPL's stance is that it supports the original motion, considering that the simplest way is to refer the issue back to the relevant select committees for consideration. As far as this is concerned, I am not too sure whether it was what Ms. Ada WONG, the original mover, had in mind.
Obviously Ms. Ada WONG was talking about the absence of a set of comprehensive polices and not about referring the issue to the various select committees to draw up individual polices in the light of the so-called specific circumstances of individual venues. If such was the case, it would not be a 'comprehensive' policy, would it?
Mr. PAO Ping-wing argued just now why there was need to discuss policies which were already established ones. As a veteran Councillor, Mr. PAO should be aware that all the items moved for debate at the monthly meetings are within the Council's term of reference and must not excced the Council's scope of duties or objectives. In other words, any items under discussion are basically work which the Council must carry out or is carrying out. Members may flip through the Council's Annual Report 1997/98 before them and will find that all the work that the motions recommended were work we should do. The point is that Members found we had not done enough and therefore proposed that reviews or improvements be made. There is nothing like why bothering to
Pa
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.