1992-05-07 02:58
G.I.S
P.03/06
06-MAY-1992 22:38
SECRETARIAT PRESS OFFICE
+ 852 868 5212
P.03
whether the ground level of feeding in the progress of capital works quickly enough and accurately enough. And clearly that hasn't been happening. It's not that the original cost calculations were wrong, it's that the cash flow, the assumptions about
the assumptions about speed of cash flow, certainly were optimistic. And although you can find some reasons why that might be, I do accept that the difference is too great.
Q: Mr. Macleod, do you consider this change is under the pressure of the LegCo Members, great pressure?
FS: I don't, I don't. It's perhaps fortunate that this happened of course after the Budget and is therefore something I can take into account and change the package. I think that's probably rather an unusual occurence. And normally certainly if not such a major change had happened, then I would have to stick my view out, I would have to stick to my original package.
Q: Mr. Macleod, you've been saying the Budget's been tabled as 7 package and you can't go and change one bit or another and indeed you regretted the fact that change was made to last year's budget. how do you now explain you are making any change?
So
FS: I am explaining very easily, I believe very easily. The package was right with the facts known at the time it was put together and announced, Since then, a significant change took place that is to say $6 billion more reserved. I think it would have been inflexible and unwise to simply ignore that, pretend it made no difference to the package. So certainly to adjust the package in the light of an unexpected change in reality in terms of figures is quite different to accepting that we have to negotiate every bit every year which is what I was resisting.
Q: (indistinct) you give way to all the LegCo Members who have voiced out their opposition?
FS: No. I don't at all interpret it that way. I can understand some others might wish to. I am not giving away to anything. What I am doing is recognising reality which is that the figures are far better than we had assumed. It would not make sense to go ahead and try and raise the revenue that I myself said was adequate, that is to say. aiming at reserves at about $70 billion or
if in the event I could achieve that without the rates increase that seems to me to be common sense.
Q: Why did you choose rates when you've said again that you like rates as a stable source of revenue? If you have this extra windfall, why don't you use it for another part of the Budget, like personal allowances?
First of all, the fortunate for me
FS: Certainly in choosing rates, it makes sense. figures happened to be roughly the same. That's perhaps. Secondly of course, if I have to choose which part of the revenue measures to drop, it will make some sense to have regard to where the main opposition was.
2
PERIKARANIWANI