1995 — Page 58

Urban Council Proceedings 市政局議事錄 All AI Reviewed

Page 58 of 485

1 age 58 of 485

: 36

# HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL

MR. DANIEL WONG (in Cantonese):—Personally, I think there is a trend to have unlicensed establishments, such as shops, unlicensed restaurants or unlicensed herb tea shops, etc. I cannot accept that because of the limitation of legislation, we have to wait until the RCB has amended the law. As the licensing authority, the Council has the responsibility to deal with the problem. My first question is: since these unlicensed cinemas have been operating for 16 months, when did the first prosecution take place and how many times have these cinemas been prosecuted. Secondly, at present the legislation only allows us to prosecute them, we cannot close them? If the cinemas have undergone unauthorized alterations have we asked the Buildings Ordinance Office to demolish those unauthorized structures? We should take some actions in spite of the constraints imposed by law? Have we actually requested the relevant departments to do something to protect the public against potential hazards? As the licensing authority should anything untoward happen, the Council will be held responsible.

MR. JOSEPH CHAN (in Cantonese):—The Council is responsible for issue of licences. Before a licence is issued the requirements of the Buildings Department on structural safety and the Fire Services Department on fire exit have to be satisfied. So apart from the Council, these two Departments should be held responsible. At present, the Urban Council or the USD is responsible for taking out prosecution. Actually the Buildings Department and the Fire Services Department can also take enforcement action according to their respective Ordinances. Whether they have taken legal actions to close these unlicensed cinemas, I do not have the information on hand. Perhaps we can liaise with the Buildings Department and the Fire Services Department to see if we can close these unlicensed cinemas. Of course we cannot instruct the two Departments to do the job. I think only the Chief Secretary can instruct them to do so. As regards when the first prosecution was taken, I do not have the detailed prosecution figures at hand. But in the past 12 months, 31 prosecutions were taken against these six unlicensed cinemas.

MR. LAI CHI-KEONG (in Cantonese);—I would like to seek a categorical answer from Mr. CHAN. For how many times do we have to prosecute them before their application will be suspended or what is the maximum tolerable period of unlicensed operation so that I can tell members of the public clearly on this issue?

Mr. Joseph Chan (in Cantonese):—For how many times prosecutions are taken before we can stop their applications, I think the number is unlimited time. As long as they continue to do unlicensed businesses, we can prosecute them time and again. So there is no limit on the number of prosecutions. Since members of the public have expressed worries over this problem, the RCB is also very concerned and it will expedite action to review the relevant legislation.

Mr. Lam Man-FAI (in Cantonese):—Since we have very limited power, can we prosecute them several times a day? Can we prosecute them at 12.30, at 14.30, at 17.30 and then 21.30, etc.?

Page 58 of 485

Edit History

2026-05-15 22:58:04 · NVIDIA / meta/llama-4-maverick-17b-128e-instruct

Live

View comparison

AI Proofread

Page 58 of 485 1 age 58 of 485 : 36 # HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL MR. DANIEL WONG (in Cantonese):—Personally, I think there is a trend to have unlicensed establishments, such as shops, unlicensed restaurants or unlicensed herb tea shops, etc. I cannot accept that because of the limitation of legislation, we have to wait until the RCB has amended the law. As the licensing authority, the Council has the responsibility to deal with the problem. My first question is: since these unlicensed cinemas have been operating for 16 months, when did the first prosecution take place and how many times have these cinemas been prosecuted. Secondly, at present the legislation only allows us to prosecute them, we cannot close them? If the cinemas have undergone unauthorized alterations have we asked the Buildings Ordinance Office to demolish those unauthorized structures? We should take some actions in spite of the constraints imposed by law? Have we actually requested the relevant departments to do something to protect the public against potential hazards? As the licensing authority should anything untoward happen, the Council will be held responsible. MR. JOSEPH CHAN (in Cantonese):—The Council is responsible for issue of licences. Before a licence is issued the requirements of the Buildings Department on structural safety and the Fire Services Department on fire exit have to be satisfied. So apart from the Council, these two Departments should be held responsible. At present, the Urban Council or the USD is responsible for taking out prosecution. Actually the Buildings Department and the Fire Services Department can also take enforcement action according to their respective Ordinances. Whether they have taken legal actions to close these unlicensed cinemas, I do not have the information on hand. Perhaps we can liaise with the Buildings Department and the Fire Services Department to see if we can close these unlicensed cinemas. Of course we cannot instruct the two Departments to do the job. I think only the Chief Secretary can instruct them to do so. As regards when the first prosecution was taken, I do not have the detailed prosecution figures at hand. But in the past 12 months, 31 prosecutions were taken against these six unlicensed cinemas. MR. LAI CHI-KEONG (in Cantonese);—I would like to seek a categorical answer from Mr. CHAN. For how many times do we have to prosecute them before their application will be suspended or what is the maximum tolerable period of unlicensed operation so that I can tell members of the public clearly on this issue? Mr. Joseph Chan (in Cantonese):—For how many times prosecutions are taken before we can stop their applications, I think the number is unlimited time. As long as they continue to do unlicensed businesses, we can prosecute them time and again. So there is no limit on the number of prosecutions. Since members of the public have expressed worries over this problem, the RCB is also very concerned and it will expedite action to review the relevant legislation. Mr. Lam Man-FAI (in Cantonese):—Since we have very limited power, can we prosecute them several times a day? Can we prosecute them at 12.30, at 14.30, at 17.30 and then 21.30, etc.? Page 58 of 485

Baseline (Original)

Page 58 of 485 1 age 58 of 485 : 36 HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL MR. DANIEL WONG (in Cantonese):—Personally, I think there is a trend to have unlicensed establishments, such as shops, unlicensed restaurants or unlicensed herb tea shops, etc. I cannot accept that because of the limitation of legislation, we have to wait until the RCB has amended the law. As the licensing authority, the Council has the responsibility to deal with the problem. My first question is: since these unlicensed cinemas have been operating for 16 months, when did the first prosecution take place and how many times have these cinemas been prosecuted. Secondly, at present the legislation only allows us to prosecute them, we cannot close them? If the cinemas have undergone unauthorized alterations have we asked the Buildings Ordinance Office to demolish those unauthorized structures? We should take some actions inspite of the constraints imposed by law? Have we actually requested the relevant departments to do something to protect the public against potential hazards? As the licensing authority should anything untoward happen, the Council will be held responsible. MR. JOSEPH CHAN (in Cantonese):-The Council is responsible for issue of licences. Before a licence is issued the requirements of the Buildings Department on structural safety and the Fire Services Department on fire exit have to be satisfied. So apart from the Council, these two Departments should be held responsible. At present, the Urban Council or the USD is responsible for taking out prosecution. Actually the Buildings Department and the Fire Services Department can also take enforcement action according to their respective Ordinances. Whether they have taken legal actions to close these unlicensed cinemas, I do not have the information on hand. Perhaps we can liaise with the Buildings Department and the Fire Services Department to see if we can close these unlicensed cinemas. Of course we cannot instruct the two Departments to do the job. I think only the Chief Secretary can instruct them to do so. As regards when the first prosecution was taken, I do not have the detailed prosecution figures at hand. But in the past 12 months, 31 prosecutions were taken against these six unlicensed cinemas. MR. LAI CHI-KEONG (in Cantonese);—I would like to seek a categorical answer from Mr. CHAN. For how many times do we have to prosecute them before their application will be suspended or what is the maximum tolerable period of unlicensed operation so that I can tell members of the public clearly on this issue? Mr. Joseph Chan (in Cantonese):-For how many times prosecutions are taken before we can stop their applications, I think the number is unlimited time. As long as they continue to do unlicensed businesses, we can prosecute them time and again. So there is no limit on the number of prosecutions. Since members of the public have expressed worries over this problem, the RCB is also very concerned and it will expedite action to review the relevant legislation. Mr. Lam Man-FAI (in Cantonese):—Since we have very limited power, can we prosecute them several times a day? Can we prosecute them at 12.30, at 14.30, at 17.30 and then 21.30, etc.? Page 58 of 485

2026-05-15 22:58:04 · Baseline

View content

Page 58 of 485

1 age 58 of 485

HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL

MR. DANIEL WONG (in Cantonese):—Personally, I think there is a trend to have unlicensed establishments, such as shops, unlicensed restaurants or unlicensed herb tea shops, etc. I cannot accept that because of the limitation of legislation, we have to wait until the RCB has amended the law. As the licensing authority, the Council has the responsibility to deal with the problem. My first question is: since these unlicensed cinemas have been operating for 16 months, when did the first prosecution take place and how many times have these cinemas been prosecuted. Secondly, at present the legislation only allows us to prosecute them, we cannot close them? If the cinemas have undergone unauthorized alterations have we asked the Buildings Ordinance Office to demolish those unauthorized structures? We should take some actions inspite of the constraints imposed by law? Have we actually requested the relevant departments to do something to protect the public against potential hazards? As the licensing authority should anything untoward happen, the Council will be held responsible.

MR. JOSEPH CHAN (in Cantonese):-The Council is responsible for issue of licences. Before a licence is issued the requirements of the Buildings Department on structural safety and the Fire Services Department on fire exit have to be satisfied. So apart from the Council, these two Departments should be held responsible. At present, the Urban Council or the USD is responsible for taking out prosecution. Actually the Buildings Department and the Fire Services Department can also take enforcement action according to their respective Ordinances. Whether they have taken legal actions to close these unlicensed cinemas, I do not have the information on hand. Perhaps we can liaise with the Buildings Department and the Fire Services Department to see if we can close these unlicensed cinemas. Of course we cannot instruct the two Departments to do the job. I think only the Chief Secretary can instruct them to do so. As regards when the first prosecution was taken, I do not have the detailed prosecution figures at hand. But in the past 12 months, 31 prosecutions were taken against these six unlicensed cinemas.

Mr. Joseph Chan (in Cantonese):-For how many times prosecutions are taken before we can stop their applications, I think the number is unlimited time. As long as they continue to do unlicensed businesses, we can prosecute them time and again. So there is no limit on the number of prosecutions. Since members of the public have expressed worries over this problem, the RCB is also very concerned and it will expedite action to review the relevant legislation.

Mr. Lam Man-FAI (in Cantonese):—Since we have very limited power, can we prosecute them several times a day? Can we prosecute them at 12.30, at 14.30, at 17.30 and then 21.30, etc.?

1995 — Page 58

Edit History

Comments

Private Research Note