1995 — Page 254

Urban Council Proceedings 市政局議事錄 All AI Reviewed

Page 254 of 485

HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL

229

very important. Here we are focusing on the issue of new licences in the future. We shall adopt the policy contained in the current motion. As for existing licences, I hope there will be discretionary power to allow operators time to conform to our new standards.

MR. AMBROSE Cheung Wing-sum (in Cantonese):—I let L.L.B. expert Mr. WONG Kwok-lung speak first, so that I can reduce the length of my speech. Three points: first, we must be cautious in formulating policy. The original motion sets out the policy that no liquor licence shall be issued if the terms of the land lease, occupation permit and land use clause have not been complied with. The amended motion reminds us to carefully consider all factors before formulating a policy. That's the difference between the two.

Secondly, if the original motion is adopted, does it explain how the new policy deals with existing licence holders who fail to comply with the new criteria when they apply for renewal? Should their licences be renewed or not? If yes, would it mean double standards? Mr. LEE Kwok-keung suggested granting them a grace period to adjust. But sometimes adjustments are impossible. One may not be able to do anything about the land use clause or occupation permit. The original motion fails to deal with existing licence-holders who do not comply with the new criteria. It does not provide a clear solution to the problem and may lead to double standards. Therefore I support the amended motion as it proposes a cautious approach. The amended motion only mentions that the L.L.B. should continue to discuss the policy in detail and to clarify the guidelines. These guidelines will be made available to the public when finalized. Applicants and members of the L.L.B. and Municipal Services Appeal Board will then be able to refer to the guidelines in considering each case.

Mr. San Stephen Wong Hon-ching (in Cantonese):--As Chairman of the L.L.B., I feel that members who have spoken seem to think that the L.L.B. has had a lot of wrong doings in the past. That is absolutely not the case. The original motion and amended motion are both moved by members of the L.L.B.. They revealed one thing: that the L.L.B. has exercised discretion on many occasions. We have time and again discussed with P.L.O. the importance of the L.L.B. having discretionary power, because cases tend to be different from one another. It is not just that we can make a policy today and specify that premises sharing the same passageway with the building will not be issued a license but premises with separate passageway will be issued a licence. Mr. WONG Kwok-tung has spoken extensively on this and I will not repeat. Without discretion, maladministration is more likely. Why not enter the data into the computer and let the programme decide whether a licence should be granted or not. If such practice is feasible, what is the purpose of having the L.L.B.? The L.L.B. is there to discuss the applications case by case and to exercise discretion where necessary. The decision is made jointly by all members of the L.L.B. and not by an individual.

Page 254 of 485

Edit History

2026-05-16 00:02:05 · NVIDIA / meta/llama-4-maverick-17b-128e-instruct

Live

View comparison

AI Proofread

Page 254 of 485 HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL 229 very important. Here we are focusing on the issue of new licences in the future. We shall adopt the policy contained in the current motion. As for existing licences, I hope there will be discretionary power to allow operators time to conform to our new standards. MR. AMBROSE Cheung Wing-sum (in Cantonese):—I let L.L.B. expert Mr. WONG Kwok-lung speak first, so that I can reduce the length of my speech. Three points: first, we must be cautious in formulating policy. The original motion sets out the policy that no liquor licence shall be issued if the terms of the land lease, occupation permit and land use clause have not been complied with. The amended motion reminds us to carefully consider all factors before formulating a policy. That's the difference between the two. Secondly, if the original motion is adopted, does it explain how the new policy deals with existing licence holders who fail to comply with the new criteria when they apply for renewal? Should their licences be renewed or not? If yes, would it mean double standards? Mr. LEE Kwok-keung suggested granting them a grace period to adjust. But sometimes adjustments are impossible. One may not be able to do anything about the land use clause or occupation permit. The original motion fails to deal with existing licence-holders who do not comply with the new criteria. It does not provide a clear solution to the problem and may lead to double standards. Therefore I support the amended motion as it proposes a cautious approach. The amended motion only mentions that the L.L.B. should continue to discuss the policy in detail and to clarify the guidelines. These guidelines will be made available to the public when finalized. Applicants and members of the L.L.B. and Municipal Services Appeal Board will then be able to refer to the guidelines in considering each case. Mr. San Stephen Wong Hon-ching (in Cantonese):--As Chairman of the L.L.B., I feel that members who have spoken seem to think that the L.L.B. has had a lot of wrong doings in the past. That is absolutely not the case. The original motion and amended motion are both moved by members of the L.L.B.. They revealed one thing: that the L.L.B. has exercised discretion on many occasions. We have time and again discussed with P.L.O. the importance of the L.L.B. having discretionary power, because cases tend to be different from one another. It is not just that we can make a policy today and specify that premises sharing the same passageway with the building will not be issued a license but premises with separate passageway will be issued a licence. Mr. WONG Kwok-tung has spoken extensively on this and I will not repeat. Without discretion, maladministration is more likely. Why not enter the data into the computer and let the programme decide whether a licence should be granted or not. If such practice is feasible, what is the purpose of having the L.L.B.? The L.L.B. is there to discuss the applications case by case and to exercise discretion where necessary. The decision is made jointly by all members of the L.L.B. and not by an individual. Page 254 of 485

Baseline (Original)

Page 254 or 403 Page 254 of 485 HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL 229 very important. Herc we are focusing on the issue of new licences in the future. We shall adopt the policy contained in the current motion. As for existing licences, I hope there will be discretionary power to allow operators time to conform to our new standards. MR. AMBROSE Cheung Wing-sum (in Cantonese):—I let L.L.B. expert Mr. WONG Kwok-lung speak first, so that I can reduce the length of my speech,. Three points: first, we must be cautious in formulating policy. The original motion sets out the policy that no liquor licence shall be issued if the terms of the land lease, occupation permit and land use clause have not been complied with. The amended motion reminds us to carefully consider all factors before formulating a policy. That's the difference between the two. Scondly, if the original motion is adopted, does it explain how the new policy deals with existing licence holders who fail to comply with the new criteria when they apply for renewal? Should their licences be renewed or not? If yes, would it mean double standards? Mr. LEE Kwok-keung suggested granting them a grace period to adjust. But sometimes adjustments are impossible. One may not be able to do anything about the land use clause or occupation permit. The original motion fails to deal with existing licence-holders who do not comply with the new criteria. It does not provide a clear solution to the problem and may lead to double standards. Therefore I support the amended motion as it proposes a cautious approach. The amended motion only mentions that the L.L.B. should continue to discuss the policy in detail and to clarify the guidelines. These guidelines will be made available to the public when finalized. Applicants and members of the L.L.B. and Municipal Services Appeal Board will then be able to refer to the guidelines in considering each case. Mr. San Stephen Wong Hon-CHING (in Cantonese);--As Chairman of the L.L.B.. I feel that members who have spoken seem to think that the L.L.B. has had a lot of wrong doings in the past. That is absolutely not the case. The original motion and amended motion are both moved by members of the L.L.B.. They revealed one thing: that the L.L.B. has exercised discretion on many occasions. We have time and again discussed with P.L.O. the importance of the L.L.B. having discretionary power, because cases tend to be different from one another. It is not just that we can make a policy today and specify that premises sharing the same passageway with the building will not be issued a license but premises with separate passageway will be issued a licence. Mr. WoNG Kwok-tung has spoken extensively on this and I will not repeat. Without discretion, maladministration is more likely. Why not enter the data into the computer and let the programme decide whether a licence should be granted or not. If such practice is feasible, what is the purpose of having the L.L.B.? The L.L.B. is there to discuss the applications case by case and to exercise discretion where necessary. The decision is made jointly by all members of the L.L.B. and not by an individual. Page 254 of 485

2026-05-16 00:02:05 · Baseline

View content

Page 254 or 403

Page 254 of 485

HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL

229

very important. Herc we are focusing on the issue of new licences in the future. We shall adopt the policy contained in the current motion. As for existing licences, I hope there will be discretionary power to allow operators time to conform to our new standards.

MR. AMBROSE Cheung Wing-sum (in Cantonese):—I let L.L.B. expert Mr. WONG Kwok-lung speak first, so that I can reduce the length of my speech,. Three points: first, we must be cautious in formulating policy. The original motion sets out the policy that no liquor licence shall be issued if the terms of the land lease, occupation permit and land use clause have not been complied with. The amended motion reminds us to carefully consider all factors before formulating a policy. That's the difference between the two.

Scondly, if the original motion is adopted, does it explain how the new policy deals with existing licence holders who fail to comply with the new criteria when they apply for renewal? Should their licences be renewed or not? If yes, would it mean double standards? Mr. LEE Kwok-keung suggested granting them a grace period to adjust. But sometimes adjustments are impossible. One may not be able to do anything about the land use clause or occupation permit. The original motion fails to deal with existing licence-holders who do not comply with the new criteria. It does not provide a clear solution to the problem and may lead to double standards. Therefore I support the amended motion as it proposes a cautious approach. The amended motion only mentions that the L.L.B. should continue to discuss the policy in detail and to clarify the guidelines. These guidelines will be made available to the public when finalized. Applicants and members of the L.L.B. and Municipal Services Appeal Board will then be able to refer to the guidelines in considering each case.

Mr. San Stephen Wong Hon-CHING (in Cantonese);--As Chairman of the L.L.B.. I feel that members who have spoken seem to think that the L.L.B. has had a lot of wrong doings in the past. That is absolutely not the case. The original motion and amended motion are both moved by members of the L.L.B.. They revealed one thing: that the L.L.B. has exercised discretion on many occasions. We have time and again discussed with P.L.O. the importance of the L.L.B. having discretionary power, because cases tend to be different from one another. It is not just that we can make a policy today and specify that premises sharing the same passageway with the building will not be issued a license but premises with separate passageway will be issued a licence. Mr. WoNG Kwok-tung has spoken extensively on this and I will not repeat. Without discretion, maladministration is more likely. Why not enter the data into the computer and let the programme decide whether a licence should be granted or not. If such practice is feasible, what is the purpose of having the L.L.B.? The L.L.B. is there to discuss the applications case by case and to exercise discretion where necessary. The decision is made jointly by all members of the L.L.B. and not by an individual.

1995 — Page 254

Edit History

Comments

Private Research Note