Committee awaits gov’t reply on gaming bill questions
The parliament’s Second Standing Committee has finished its preliminary discussion of the gaming law amendments and awaits government’s answers to its questions on Tuesday.
The committee held meetings for four days in a row to discuss the bill.
At the post-meeting press conference yesterday, the committee president, indirectly-elected lawmaker Chan Chak Mo, refrained from giving a definite date for the meeting with government officials in attendance. He was asked about the matter twice during the press conference.
He elaborated that the committee will compile the list of questions, which will ultimately include those raised by the parliament’s legal advisors, and deliver it to the government.
“The government will then need time to study our questions before giving us answers. Technical meetings may even be needed,” Chan said. “So I can’t give you a definite date on which we will return [to discuss] the bill.”
However, on further questioning, the lawmaker again stressed that the committee is aiming to pass the bill at the plenary by June 26, the deadline for current legislation.
He also admitted for the first time that the government did request the parliament to work on the bill quickly.
Adding to this, Chan explained that the swift review of the bill is possibly because the provisions are uncontroversial. The main topic at yesterday’s session was the compatibility between the existing law and the new bill.
Concerning the actual provisions, Chan said that there was confusion regarding Article 19, which stipulates the designation of a managing director in each concessionaire, who should legally hold 15% of the company’s shares.
However, committee members wanted to understand the meaning of the appointment, given that the law also permits the concession to be managed by a legal entity or a management company. The question of who has greater authority requires clarification.
Moreover, as the bill proposes requiring the managing director to hold Macau SAR residency, the committee also seeks clarification as to whether having Chinese nationality is essential and whether persons of multiple nationalities are eligible.
The clarification is critical because the bill also provides for the revocation of concessions on national security grounds. On this point, the committee also wants the government to further define “national security”, despite the city having its own National Security Law.
The committee is also seeking an explanation from the government on the “associated responsibilities” in the bill connected with the management of the concessionaries. The lawmaker did not elaborate on this because the provision exists in many articles, but he gave an example nevertheless. He queried who would be answerable when associated responsibilities were under investigation: the entire senior management or the managing director alone?
Article 47, on the other hand, proposes six scenarios in which a concession may be terminated. In only two of these scenario will a concessionaire be compensated: if the concession is bought out by the government, or if it is terminated due to public interests.
