香港與世界各地一樣，監管機構成員的委任，除了盡量避免有利益衝突之外，最重要是了解該行業的運作。譬如說，若醫管局委任我們賽馬業人士去擔任成員，雖然沒有利益衝突，但也發揮不到監察的角色。
或者有人會說，若目標人物是行政人才，又或有多年管理經驗，自然可利用其專業知識擔當像獨立非執董此類角色，協助監管。這亦無可厚非。不過一個監管機構若無具有相關經驗的業界人士擔當成員，甚至主流成員中有不少是反對該行業的人士，這就不是監管，而是鉗制。
現今的博彩及獎券事務委員會，是協助民政事務局監管香港博彩事業的機構，初成立時還有馬會遴選會員及足總董事擔任成員，起碼有助委員會了解業界意見。但大家不妨看看現今情況，成員之中還有多少是對博彩業有認識的？又有多少是以反對博彩為宗旨的？而最重要的是，究竟這個是博獎會，還是反對博彩委員會？大家看看網上資訊自有分曉。
You are absolutely correct. By supporting a lot (as much as possible)
One can ascertain that one will achieve some kind of relative response depending on how co incidental the responsive data is to the attention. If the optimal supportive motivation is relative to the foundation (wether valid or not) a supportive return will follow.
Accuracy is the issue. This is an hypothetical deduction (not quite as comprehensive as educational requirements are about here in North America) but by any of the individuals motive intelligence. Linguistics and vocabulary play the most important part of communication. Gaps of data in verbal communication only provide confusion.
To express anything at all one must work untill one can say what one means in its entirety otherwise one will express a peer groups distrust and desire to avoid the issue. The bottom line is to study practical, basic, fundemental, primary, ground level technicalities of domestic level to know for sure one is known for sure and this aspect goes far and beyond the experience of the
marriage relationship which is considered by most the most complete education for the poor. From your good friend Bruce K. Paxton
