Lawmaker Chan Chak Mo conceded yesterday that certain concepts and parameters of the new illegal gambling law under scrutiny remain ambiguous and lack a clear definition during a media briefing following a meeting of the Second Standing Committee of the Legislative Assembly (AL).
The points of concern are the first two articles, where lawmakers object to the absence of a clear definition of activities constituting illegality. They claim it may pose future challenges.
“The concepts are not very well defined, which can be problematic. There are uncertainties over, for instance, some games of mahjong and card games played at home, or in a garden or park. Are these activities also considered illegal and subject to criminal liability? We do not know for sure and we need to address this matter very judiciously because this can create a lot of issues for people,” Chan said. Chan noted that while the first article pertains to activities that take place “in an authorized casino” and relate to the “acceptance of bets,” the second article states that individuals who are “not covered in the previous number, [and who] collaborate or participate, in any way, in the exploration of the activities mentioned earlier [will be] punished with a prison sentence of up to 3 years or a fine of up to 360 days.”
In Chan’s view, the legislative intent should not be to tackle small recreational activities that are prevalent in everyday culture, but rather to effectively prevent and tackle the illegal exploitation of unauthorized games as well as side betting.
Despite an extensive meeting spanning over two hours, only the first four articles of the bill were discussed. A significant portion of the meeting was dedicated to addressing the list of questions prepared by the AL’s legal advisors since the bill’s first reading. These questions will also join a list of new questions and doubts from Committee members, to be sent to the government for clarification.
Although the bill passed the first reading with 29 votes in favor and a mere 3 abstentions (José Pereira Coutinho, Che Sai Wang, and Ron Lam), it appears to still be at an early stage of development, with subsequent versions likely to be presented to the AL Committee before the final vote in plenary.
Amendments to Penal Code justified with ‘safeguard of evidence’
When questioned by the media about the government’s decision to amend the Penal Code in areas unrelated to gaming activities, such as national security and drug offences, the president of the Committee failed to provide a clear explanation, focusing primarily on the crimes related to the gaming industry.
On these, he said that amendments, such as the extension of preventive custody, were “all related to the protection and safeguarding of evidence.” He noted that those changes aim to “ensure the healthy development of the gaming industry and tackle loopholes.”
No Comments