WEDNESDAY, JUNE 1, 1977
11
+ IT IS FORECAST THAT, IF THIS IS ALLOWED TO CONTINUE WITH NO FURTHER AMELIORATING ACTION BEING TAKEN, THE COMPANY IS LIKELY TO MAKE A LOSS ON ITS FERRY OPERATIONS AS A WHOLE IN 1977, + HE SAID.
+ IT WOULD THEN ONLY BE KEPT GOING BY THE PROFITS MADE ON ITS NON-FERRY OPERATIONS WHICH WOULD, IN EFFECT, THEN BE SUBSIDISING THE FERRIES.+
HE POINTED OUT THAT THE WORST LOSSES WERE THE WAN CHAI TO JORDAN ROAD AND WAH CHAI TO HUNG HOM FERRY ROUTES, AND SERIOUS CONSIDERATION WAS GIVEN TO WHETHER ONE OR BOTH OF THEM SHOULD BE WITHDRAWN.
HOWEVER, HE SAID, IT WAS FELT THAT ON TRANSPORT GROUNDS THEY SHOULD BE CONTINUED, ESPECIALLY AS THE WAN CHAI RECLAMATION WAS NOW BEING DEVELOPED, AND IT WAS AGREED WITH THE COMPANY THAT ONE VESSEL SHOULD BE REMOVED FROM THE WAN CHAI-JORDAN ROAD ROUTE.
+THIS WILL SLIGHTLY REDUCE THE FREQUENCY OF SERVICE BUT THE SAVINGS REALISED, ALONG WITH THE FARE INCREASE, SHOULD MORE OR LESS ELIMINATE THE DIRECT OPERATING LOSS ON THE TWO ROUTES WITHOUT CAUSING ANY SIGNIFICANT INCONVENIENCE TO THE TRAVELLING PUBLIC, HE SAID.
MR. JONES TOLD THE COUNCIL THAT DISCUSSIONS WERE CONTINUING BETWEEN THE GOVERNMENT AND THE COMPANY ON FURTHER MEASURES TO CUT COSTS OR IMPROVE THE EFFICIENCY OF FERRY SERVICES.
SINCE DECEMBER WHEN THE AFFAIRS OF THE COMPANY WERE LAST DEBATED, THREE SURPLUS VESSELS HAD BEEN SOLD AND SAVINGS HAD BEEN MADE IN ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS, HE SAID.
HE ADDED THAT EFFORTS WERE ALSO BEING MADE TO SELL THE WATER TAXIS WHICH HAD PROVED TO BE VERY EXPENSIVE TO RUN, AND TO DATE, ONE OF THEM HAD BEEN SOLD WHILE THE COMPANY REPORTED THAT THERE WERE GOOD PROSPECTS OF DISPOSING OF OTHERS.
SEIZURE OF DRUG TRAFFICKERS' ASSETS
******
CONSIDERATION IS BEING GIVEN TO THE POSSIBILITY OF PROVIDING THAT THE ASSETS OF CONVICTED DRUG TRAFFICKERS, INCLUDING ASSETS HELD BY OTHERS ON THEIR BEHALF, SHOULD BE LIABLE TO FORFEITURE UNLESS A COURT IS SATISFIED THAT THE ASSETS WERE ACQUIRED HONESTLY, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, THE HON. JOHN HOBLEY, TOLD THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL TODAY.
MR. HOBLEY WAS REPLYING TO A QUESTION FROM DR. THE HON. HENRY HU ON WHETHER AMENDING LEGISLATION TO PROVIDE FOR SUCH SEQUESTRATION WOULD BE INTRODUCED BY THE GOVERNMENT.
/12