Page 278 of 654
HONG KONG PROVISIONAL URBAN COUNCIL
277
Firstly, the amendment changes the original motion by directly asking the Council to strengthen control, including stamping out gambling games. This is extremely wrong, because since these venues are under the purview of the Council, regular inspections are made by the Department, which range from once every week for venues not yet issued with a licence (that is, with the application still in progress) to once every month for licensed ones. TELA is not responsible for inspecting these venues. Neither does it have the resources. It is not surprising at all for the general public to mix up the respective duties concerning mechanical games venues, but I am astounded that the Democratic Party should confuse the responsibilities of the regulating departments. For a long time, licensing and inspection in respect of these mechanical games centres are the responsibilities of the Council and the Department. Since they are not TELA's responsibilities, how is TELA going to prohibit?
The second mistake is that the amendment has weakened the spirit of the original motion which is to vigorously stamp out and strengthen control. The amendment is therefore not desirable. It is generally known that TELA is by no means the department responsible for executing the Council's policies and therefore, the Council has no control over TELA's action. The amendment has toned down the motion because it simply 'urges'. And the result of urging is that there might or might not be any response, or it might not even be accepted. All in all, the effect of urging is not binding. On the other hand, as in the first mistake mentioned above, the Democratic Party has shifted the responsibility of imposing prohibition on mechanical games venues to TELA. I am deeply disappointed. This is entirely the responsibility of the Council and the Department.
The third mistake is that the amendment has deviated from the existing mode of control over these venues. The aim of `prohibiting' (to quote Mr. Lau Hok-lim) cannot be fulfilled at all. In reality, TELA only advises on applications concerning mechanical games in these venues, that is, on the papers provided by the Department (which means it either approves or rejects). If it rejects, the licence for place of public entertainment will not be issued by the Council. Moreover, TELA is not responsible for carrying out inspection either. Just as the mechanical safety in the venues is taken care of by the Electrical and Mechanical Department, the means of escape is advised on by the Fire Services Department and the building structure is advised on by the Lands Department, such is the nature. Accordingly, we could but ask the Department to step up inspection, strengthen prosecution and vigorously stamp out gambling games before any deterrent effect is yielded.
The motion I have moved is in line with the actual situation and is pragmatic. It ensures that the Council's aims of strengthening control over mechanical games venues, vigorously stamping out gambling games and unlicensed operations and protecting public safety and healthy development of children can really be met.
Lo£651.
Page 278 of 654
Page 278 of 654