1998 — Page 448

Urban Council Proceedings 市政局議事錄 All AI Reviewed

Page 448 of 606

PROVISIONAL URBAN COUNCIL

MR. SUEN KAI-CHEONG (in Cantonese):—I believe that the executive arm of this Council (the USD) will give appropriate replies, including verbal and written ones, to all applications. As regards the actual response time, I can only give Mr. LAI a reply when I have received adequate information from the Department after this meeting.

As for the second follow-up question raised by Mr. LAI, the CE Branch had rejected an application for location filming because it was in contravention of one of the guidelines which states that the nature of the film shall not be a cause of embarrassment to the PUC, the HKSAR, or the property itself or any of its occupants, nor should it offend the laws of Hong Kong'. I do not have the name of the film on hand. I hope the Department will provide this information to Mr. LAI for reference after the meeting.

As regards the term 'embarrassment', the guidelines do not provide a definition. We may say that this allows the Department to exercise some flexibility. Should an accurate reply be required, I would consult the legal adviser of the Council before giving it to Mr. LAI.

The third question asks why commercial location filming is not allowed in PUC museums even if an insurance policy has been taken out. In fact, we all know that money is not everything. If a several-thousand-year-old historic relic is damaged, money cannot compensate for the loss. A historic relic is a historic relic. The Council has to be responsible to history and the public, and will not take money as a prime consideration. So, even though there is insurance coverage, the Council will still reject applications for commercial location filming and applications that may cause our exhibits to be at risk. This shows that we are responsible to the public.

Ms. Ada Wong Ying-kai (in Cantonese):—Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask Mr. SUEN Kai-cheong several questions. First, one of the grounds for rejecting applications is that the filming content has a negative impact on the image of the Council. I would like to know how many of the applications were rejected on this ground.

Second, there are many conditions in the CE Branch's guidelines for location filming. I would like to ask: when compared with the conditions for commercial location filming in public places laid down by other government departments, are the CE Branch's conditions more stringent or just about the same?

Third, for commercial location filming in museums, my understanding is that the MUSEUM has never had any detailed discussion on this issue. I would like to ask: what justifications do we have? If the filming poses no risk, why is location filming allowed at all venues except museums? If we look around, we will find that location filming is allowed at museums in many other metropolises around the world. As our film industry is in the doldrums at present, the Council also has the responsibility of assisting the revival of the industry by relaxing the conditions and guidelines as much as possible.

Page 448 of 606

Page 119 of 606

Edit History

2026-05-16 07:45:00 · NVIDIA / meta/llama-4-maverick-17b-128e-instruct

Live

View comparison

AI Proofread

Page 448 of 606 PROVISIONAL URBAN COUNCIL MR. SUEN KAI-CHEONG (in Cantonese):—I believe that the executive arm of this Council (the USD) will give appropriate replies, including verbal and written ones, to all applications. As regards the actual response time, I can only give Mr. LAI a reply when I have received adequate information from the Department after this meeting. As for the second follow-up question raised by Mr. LAI, the CE Branch had rejected an application for location filming because it was in contravention of one of the guidelines which states that the nature of the film shall not be a cause of embarrassment to the PUC, the HKSAR, or the property itself or any of its occupants, nor should it offend the laws of Hong Kong'. I do not have the name of the film on hand. I hope the Department will provide this information to Mr. LAI for reference after the meeting. As regards the term 'embarrassment', the guidelines do not provide a definition. We may say that this allows the Department to exercise some flexibility. Should an accurate reply be required, I would consult the legal adviser of the Council before giving it to Mr. LAI. The third question asks why commercial location filming is not allowed in PUC museums even if an insurance policy has been taken out. In fact, we all know that money is not everything. If a several-thousand-year-old historic relic is damaged, money cannot compensate for the loss. A historic relic is a historic relic. The Council has to be responsible to history and the public, and will not take money as a prime consideration. So, even though there is insurance coverage, the Council will still reject applications for commercial location filming and applications that may cause our exhibits to be at risk. This shows that we are responsible to the public. Ms. Ada Wong Ying-kai (in Cantonese):—Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask Mr. SUEN Kai-cheong several questions. First, one of the grounds for rejecting applications is that the filming content has a negative impact on the image of the Council. I would like to know how many of the applications were rejected on this ground. Second, there are many conditions in the CE Branch's guidelines for location filming. I would like to ask: when compared with the conditions for commercial location filming in public places laid down by other government departments, are the CE Branch's conditions more stringent or just about the same? Third, for commercial location filming in museums, my understanding is that the MUSEUM has never had any detailed discussion on this issue. I would like to ask: what justifications do we have? If the filming poses no risk, why is location filming allowed at all venues except museums? If we look around, we will find that location filming is allowed at museums in many other metropolises around the world. As our film industry is in the doldrums at present, the Council also has the responsibility of assisting the revival of the industry by relaxing the conditions and guidelines as much as possible. Page 448 of 606 Page 119 of 606

Baseline (Original)

Page 448 of 606 Tage 440 592 PROVISIONAL URBAN COUNCIL MR. SUEN KAI-CHEONG (in Cantonese):—I believe that the executive arm of this Council (the USD) will give appropriate replies, including verbal and written ones, to all applications. As regards the actual response time, I can only give Mr. LAI a reply when I have received adequate information from the Department after this meeting. As for the second follow-up question raised by Mr. LAI, the CE Branch had rejected an application for location filming because it was in contravention of one of the guidelines which states that the nature of the film shall not be a cause of embarrassment to the PUC, the HKSAR, or the property itself or any of its occupants, nor should it offend the laws of Hong Kong'. I do not have the name of the film on hand. I hope the Department will provide this information to Mr. Lat for reference after the meeting. As regards the term 'embarrassment', the guidelines do not provide a definition. We may say that this allows the Department to exercise some flexibility. Should an accurate reply be required, I would consult the legal adviser of the Council before giving it to Mг. LAI. The third question asks why commercial location filming is not allowed in PUC museums even if an insurance policy has been taken out. In fact, we all know that money is not everything. If a several-thousand-year-old historic relic is damaged, money cannot compensate for the loss. A historic relic is a historic relic. The Council has to be responsible to history and the public, and will not take money as a prime consideration. So, even though there is insurance coverage, the Council will still reject applications for commercial location filming and applications that may cause our exhibits to be at risk. This shows that we are responsible to the public. Ms. Ada Wong Ying-kay (in Cantonese):~Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask Mr. SUEN Kai-cheong several questions. First, one of the grounds for rejecting applications is that the filming content has a negative impact on the image of the Council. I would like to know how many of the applications were rejected on this ground. Second, there are many conditions in the CE Branch's guidelines for location filming. I would like to ask: when compared with the conditions for commercial location filming in public places laid down by other government departments, are the CE Branch's conditions more stringent or just about the same? Third, for commercial location filming in muserans, my understanding is that the MUS SIC has never had any detailed discussion on this issue. I would like to ask: what justifications do we have? If the filming poses no risk, why is location filming allowed at all venues except museums? If we look around, we will find that location filming is allowed at museums in many other metropolises around the world. As our film industry is in the doldrums at present, the Council also has the responsibility of assisting the revival of the industry by relaxing the conditions and guidelines as much as possible. Page 448 of 606 Paco 119 of 606

2026-05-16 07:45:00 · Baseline

View content

Page 448 of 606

Tage 440

592

PROVISIONAL URBAN COUNCIL

Ms. Ada Wong Ying-kay (in Cantonese):~Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask Mr. SUEN Kai-cheong several questions. First, one of the grounds for rejecting applications is that the filming content has a negative impact on the image of the Council. I would like to know how many of the applications were rejected on this ground.

Third, for commercial location filming in muserans, my understanding is that the MUS SIC has never had any detailed discussion on this issue. I would like to ask: what justifications do we have? If the filming poses no risk, why is location filming allowed at all venues except museums? If we look around, we will find that location filming is allowed at museums in many other metropolises around the world. As our film industry is in the doldrums at present, the Council also has the responsibility of assisting the revival of the industry by relaxing the conditions and guidelines as much as possible.

1998 — Page 448

Edit History

Comments

Private Research Note