- 2
An
To put it
This is because the definition excludes expenditure by those organisations. As stated in Appendix A to the Budget Speech "the Government has only an equity position, such as the MTRC and the KCR". This is clearly misleading. investor who has "only an equity position" in a corporation has no further liabilities. The Government is committed to the MTRC not only for the whole of the equity, but also to the extent of over seven billion dollars in guarantees. another way, if the Government was incorporated under the Companies Ordinance, it would have to consolidate the MTR's accounts with its own in order to present, as the accountants say, "a true and fair view of the state of affairs". The same arguement can be applied to the Export Credit Insurance Corporation where the Government's or, if you prefer, taxpayers' maximum liability is 3.6 billion dollars. to me fair comment to say this: that all the figures should be reworked and published so that we can see where we really are as a going concern.
It seems
The same sort of criticism can be applied to the
The material available to us on our assets and liabilities. so-called Statement of Assets and Liabilities published in Volume 2 of the Estimates is a strangely selective document. It includes the balances in the Capital Works Reserve Fund, but
It none of the other funds such as the Development Loan Fund. has a note that it does not include the equity holdings in the MTRC and the now dormant Owensbord Enterprises Ltd., but makes no mention of the KCR.
The Statement also makes no reference to the liability represented by Letters B, which were "monetised" with effect from 1st April 1984. The Financial Secretary told us in last year's Budget Speech that Letters B to the value of roughly $400m might be redeemed in 1984-85 and that the estimate of revenue receivable had been reduced accordingly. This year he has said that a continuing factor depressing the 1985-86 draft Estimates by about $700m is the extent to which the "so-called