Page 279 of 654
HONG KONG PROVISIONAL URBAN COUNCIL
On the other hand, the amendment has mixed up the departmental responsibilities of supervision and licensing, thereby undermining the fundamental objective and effect of the original motion. If the Democratic Party's amendment is passed by the Provisional Urban Council today, which I believe is the trend, confusion in the area of control will definitely arise and there will be deviation from the PUC's original objective of strengthening the protection of public safety and health growth of children.
Hence, I hope that members of the Democratic Party who are present will not vote along the party line but in line with the rationale. Nevertheless, I believe that if the original motion is vetoed today, it is not because we have made any mistake. Rather it is because the prevailing circumstances have prevented the objective from being fulfilled. Anyway, I will continue to work hard to fight for the strengthening of control over mechanical games venues. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
VICE-CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr. LAI Hok-lim, you may only speak on the part you wish to clarify.
Mr. Lai Hok-lim (in Cantonese): Mr. Chairman, I wish to clarify the part Mr. Wong Kwok-hing has misunderstood. I request that the provision on licences in Section 22 of the Gambling Ordinance (Cap. 148) be recorded in the Minutes of Meeting (Annex I) as the basis for our amendment to the motion. The text is quite long and I ask that this entire paragraph be recorded in the Minutes of Meeting so that anyone reading the Minutes of Meeting will clearly see that the licensing authority rests with the Commissioner for TELA and not the Council.
I am not sure why Mr. WONG has such a misunderstanding, but I do not intend to dwell on the dispute. I hope that this section of the ordinance will be recorded in the Minutes of Meeting for future reference. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Vice-Chairman (in Cantonese): The original mover has already exercised his right of reply. As for Mr. LAI's request, it will be acceded to. If the law really states so, this is certainly of no problem. Such a view is agreed to by Mr. LAI. I believe that as Mr. LAI Hok-lim has said, this is a legal view, probably because he is a lawyer. I do not consider it necessary to discuss this point anymore. What I consider to be most important is whether the original motion is vetoed (which would mean that the amendment is passed) after the voting.
All right. Voting begins. Would the Secretary assist in counting the votes?
In accordance with the Standing Orders, the amendment moved by Mr. Lai Hok-lim will be put first. Those who are in favour of Mr. Lai's amendment please put up your hands.
Page 279 of 654
278