1995 — Page 250

Urban Council Proceedings 市政局議事錄 All AI Reviewed

Page 250 of 485

HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL.

225

'the earlier an open policy is formulated, the better it would be for those who are involved with licence applications as the L.L.B. will understand the licensing criteria, and the applicants will be informed of their rights and responsibilities as early as possible.

Mr. Chairman, the terms of reference of the L.L.B. are laid down in the By-laws of the Urban Council. However, these By-laws have not clearly stated under what circumstances the L.L.B. should approve or reject a licence application, and what principles and factors should be considered. Since the M.S.A.B. was set up in 1990, about 20 appeal cases were heard. The verdicts for these cases were all very long. From these verdicts, we can see that the M.S.A.B. has considered all evidence and factors before making the judgement. I think that such evidence and factors can serve as reference for the L.L.B. in drawing up future guidelines. We should note that each application is unique and the residents and circumstances concerned are different. There are three important points to be considered, as I have stated down in my amended motion. The first point is whether the applicant is fit and proper; the second point is whether the terms of the land lease and occupation permit as well as the land use have been complied with, this concerns the building structure; the third point is whether the premises is a suitable place for selling liquor and whether it is an appropriate place to be issued with a liquor license.

Mr. Chairman, I hope Members will support my amendment because we have the same objective, that is, we hope that the L.L.B. can have a clear policy and will consider various factors before rejecting or approving a license application. These factors do not only include those listed out in the original motion. The original motion is too rigid and does not allow flexibility for the L.L.B. in the issue of license. Mr. Chairman, with these remarks I amend the motion.

Ms. Christina TING (in Cantonese): I second the amended motion of Miss Ada WONG.

Chairman (in Cantonese): There is a mover and seconder to the amended motion. Any Members would like to speak?

Mr. Lai Hok-lim (in Cantonese): I believe Miss WONG supports the spirit of the original motion. She just feels that the wordings of the original motion would reduce flexibility of the L.L.B.. Why should we use rigid wordings? Why should we support the original motion? The amended motion states that the L.L.B. should have a clear licensing policy. Would Members please note that there is no intention to make the L.L.B.'s licensing policy known to the public. Maybe for the sake of allowing the L.L.B. some flexibility, the word 'open' is not included in the amended motion. However, I think this is not very appropriate.

Besides, the amended motion simply mentions that in issuing licenses, due consideration should be given to the licensing principles and previous principles laid down by the M.S.A.B.. I fully respect the previous decisions made by the

Page 250 of 485

Page 250 Page 251

Edit History

2026-05-16 00:01:17 · NVIDIA / meta/llama-4-maverick-17b-128e-instruct

Live

View comparison

AI Proofread

Page 250 of 485 HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL. 225 'the earlier an open policy is formulated, the better it would be for those who are involved with licence applications as the L.L.B. will understand the licensing criteria, and the applicants will be informed of their rights and responsibilities as early as possible. Mr. Chairman, the terms of reference of the L.L.B. are laid down in the By-laws of the Urban Council. However, these By-laws have not clearly stated under what circumstances the L.L.B. should approve or reject a licence application, and what principles and factors should be considered. Since the M.S.A.B. was set up in 1990, about 20 appeal cases were heard. The verdicts for these cases were all very long. From these verdicts, we can see that the M.S.A.B. has considered all evidence and factors before making the judgement. I think that such evidence and factors can serve as reference for the L.L.B. in drawing up future guidelines. We should note that each application is unique and the residents and circumstances concerned are different. There are three important points to be considered, as I have stated down in my amended motion. The first point is whether the applicant is fit and proper; the second point is whether the terms of the land lease and occupation permit as well as the land use have been complied with, this concerns the building structure; the third point is whether the premises is a suitable place for selling liquor and whether it is an appropriate place to be issued with a liquor license. Mr. Chairman, I hope Members will support my amendment because we have the same objective, that is, we hope that the L.L.B. can have a clear policy and will consider various factors before rejecting or approving a license application. These factors do not only include those listed out in the original motion. The original motion is too rigid and does not allow flexibility for the L.L.B. in the issue of license. Mr. Chairman, with these remarks I amend the motion. Ms. Christina TING (in Cantonese): I second the amended motion of Miss Ada WONG. Chairman (in Cantonese): There is a mover and seconder to the amended motion. Any Members would like to speak? Mr. Lai Hok-lim (in Cantonese): I believe Miss WONG supports the spirit of the original motion. She just feels that the wordings of the original motion would reduce flexibility of the L.L.B.. Why should we use rigid wordings? Why should we support the original motion? The amended motion states that the L.L.B. should have a clear licensing policy. Would Members please note that there is no intention to make the L.L.B.'s licensing policy known to the public. Maybe for the sake of allowing the L.L.B. some flexibility, the word 'open' is not included in the amended motion. However, I think this is not very appropriate. Besides, the amended motion simply mentions that in issuing licenses, due consideration should be given to the licensing principles and previous principles laid down by the M.S.A.B.. I fully respect the previous decisions made by the Page 250 of 485 Page 250 Page 251

Baseline (Original)

Page 250 of 485 Page 250 of 485 HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL. 225 'the earlier an open policy is formulated, the better it would be for those who are involved with licence applications as the L.L.B. will understand the licensing criteria, and the applicants will be informed of their rights and responsibilities as early as possible. Mr. Chairman, the terms of reference of the L.L.B. are laid down in the By-laws of the Urban Council. However, these By-laws have not clearly stated under what circumstances the L.L.B. should approve or reject a licence application, and what principles and factors should be considered. Since the M.S.A.B. was set up in 1990, about 20 appeal cases were heard. The verdicis for these cases were all very long. From these verdicts, we can see that the M.S.A.B. has considered all evidence and factors before making the judgement. I think that such evidence and factors can serve as reference for the L.L.B. in drawing up future guidelines. We should note that each application is unique and the residents and circumstances concerned are different. There are three important points to be considered, as I have stated down in my amended motion. The first point is whether the applicant is fit and proper; the second point is whether the terms of the land lease and occupation permit as well as the land use have been complied with, this concerns the building structure; the third point is whether the premises is a suitable place for selling liquor and whether it is an appropriate place to be issued with a liquor license. Mr. Chairman, I hope Members will support my amendment because we have the same objective, that is, we hope that the L.L.B. can have a clear policy and will consider various factors before rejecting or approving a license application. These factors do not only include those listed out in the original motion. The original motion is too rigid and does not allow flexibility for the L.L.B. in the issue of license. Mr. Chairman, with these remarks I amend the motion. Ms. Christina TING (in Cantonese);-1 second the amended motion of Miss Ada WONG. Chairman (in Cantonese):-There is a mover and seconder to the amended motion. Any Members would like to speak? Mr. Lai Hok-lim (in Cantonese);—I believe Miss WONG supports the spirit of the original motion. She just feels that the wordings of the original motion would reduce flexibility of the L.L.B.. Why should we use rigid wordings? Why should we support the original motion? The amended motion states that the L.L.B. should have a clear licensing policy. Would Members please note that there is no intention to make the L.L.B.'s licensing policy known to the public. Maybe for the sake of allowing the L.L.B. some flexibility, the word 'open' is not included in the amended motion. However, I think this is not very appropriate. Besides, the amended motion simply mentions that in issuing licenses, due consideration should be given to the licensing principles and previous principles laid down by the M.S.A.B.. I fully respect the previous decisions made by the Page 250 of 485 Page 250Page 251

2026-05-16 00:01:17 · Baseline

View content

Page 250 of 485

HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL.

225

Mr. Chairman, the terms of reference of the L.L.B. are laid down in the By-laws of the Urban Council. However, these By-laws have not clearly stated under what circumstances the L.L.B. should approve or reject a licence application, and what principles and factors should be considered. Since the M.S.A.B. was set up in 1990, about 20 appeal cases were heard. The verdicis for these cases were all very long. From these verdicts, we can see that the M.S.A.B. has considered all evidence and factors before making the judgement. I think that such evidence and factors can serve as reference for the L.L.B. in drawing up future guidelines. We should note that each application is unique and the residents and circumstances concerned are different. There are three important points to be considered, as I have stated down in my amended motion. The first point is whether the applicant is fit and proper; the second point is whether the terms of the land lease and occupation permit as well as the land use have been complied with, this concerns the building structure; the third point is whether the premises is a suitable place for selling liquor and whether it is an appropriate place to be issued with a liquor license.

Ms. Christina TING (in Cantonese);-1 second the amended motion of Miss Ada WONG.

Chairman (in Cantonese):-There is a mover and seconder to the amended motion. Any Members would like to speak?

Mr. Lai Hok-lim (in Cantonese);—I believe Miss WONG supports the spirit of the original motion. She just feels that the wordings of the original motion would reduce flexibility of the L.L.B.. Why should we use rigid wordings? Why should we support the original motion? The amended motion states that the L.L.B. should have a clear licensing policy. Would Members please note that there is no intention to make the L.L.B.'s licensing policy known to the public. Maybe for the sake of allowing the L.L.B. some flexibility, the word 'open' is not included in the amended motion. However, I think this is not very appropriate.

1995 — Page 250

Edit History

Comments

Private Research Note