Jumping to the wrong conclusion over bar's liquor licence refusal
YOUR correspondent, Mr Dennis Way (South China Morning Post, February 22), made two points which I would like to clarify.
Firstly, China Jump did not have to wait up to two years for a liquor licence as suggested by Mr Way. China Jump's application was received on July 15, 1992. The Liquor Licensing Board rejected its application on January 28 of this year. The application took six months to process. Normally an application takes about three months to process.
This is because all the applications are referred to the police, the respective district office of the City and New Territories Administration (CNTA) and the District Hygiene Superintendent of the Urban Services Department (USD) for comments.
China Jump's application required a dancing endorsement and therefore the Fire Services Department and Buildings and Lands Department were consulted on whether overcrowding control was required.
The applicant was advised of additional fire services requirements for overcrowding control and fire safety in early September 1992, but failed to comply with these requirements.
The case was opposed by the police as the applicant had displayed total disregard of the law by continuing to sell liquor without a licence despite warnings and summonses issued by the police and by openly advertising in a local newspaper about liquor sale to customers. Had China Jump not been opposed by the police, had a restaurant licence been issued and all the additional fire service requirements for discotheques been complied with in early September 1992, China Jump could have been issued with a liquor licence in mid-September last year.
Secondly, Mr Way's accusation of ''the dictatorial attitude'' displayed by the Secretary of the Liquor Licensing Board in his reply (Post, February 18), is totally baffling.
I was merely presenting the facts surrounding China Jump's application and the existing licensing system.
WONG KING-TONG Secretary, Liquor Licensing Board Urban Council