论澳门博彩业管制中的政府“暂时介入”简

澳门《娱乐场幸运博彩经营法律制度》第44条规定了三种特殊情境下政府得暂时介入博彩企业之经营,该条款十余载间却始终遭受政府弃用.公共政策的肇因固然可解释缘何第44条难以完成从“纸面中的法”向“行动中的法”的嬗变,但分析表明,条款自身的粗陋与模糊亦是澳门政府“弃法不用”的直接原因.基于性质归属,暂时介入是行政即时强制之一种,其蕴藏弱规制与强规制手段的双重品性.依此,文章以法治政府建设的二维要素——“合法性”与“最佳性”为分析工具,对暂时介入的启动时机、启动条件、介入主体、介入程序等进行了缜密设计,希冀能为暂时介入条款的完善提供修改路径与方向.

Temporary Intervention of Gaming Regulation in Macau

According to Macao Entertainment lowed to intervene the operation of casinos or gambling houses in three special cases. This clause, however, has been put on the shelf without application for over ten years. Notwithstanding the reluc-tance of turning this clause into reality can be illustrated through public policy, analysis shows a much more direct reason why this clause is abandoned by Macao government, is that referred clause itself is clumsy and ambiguous. Temporary intervention is a kind of immediate constraint by nature, characterized by both weak regulation and strong regulation. This article intends to design a complete model containing cause, condition, entities and procedure of temporary intervention, so as to suggest a path through which the mentioned clause shall be amended.