THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 14, 1985
2
ASKED ABOUT COMPENSATION FOR REMOVING THE TWO FACTORIES, THE CHIEF SECRETARY POINTED OUT THAT WHEREVER GOVERNMENT WANTED TO BUILD A NEW TOWN, IT WAS SURE TO INCUR REMOVAL EXPENSES.
•
HE CITED AS EXAMPLES SHA TIN, WHERE A LARGE NUMBER OF FACTOR IES HAD TO BE REMOVED FROM THE VALLEY, AND FANL ING AND TUEN MUN, WHERE LARGE NUMBERS OF PEOPLE HAD TO BE MOVED.
+THERE ARE ALWAYS A LOT OF COMPENSATION COSTS WHEREVER YOU GO.+
ASKED WHY THE FACTORIES WERE NOT MOVED EARLIER SINCE THE GOVERNMENT HAD REPORTEDLY AGREED TO A REMOVAL BILL OF $100 MILLION IN 1977, SIR DAVID POINTED OUT THAT THE LAND FOR THE RESITE AREA WAS NOT THERE THEN.
+THE LAND FORMATION FOR THIS SEWAGE TREATMENT WORKS AND FOR THE RESITE AREA FOR THE FACTORIES HAS ONLY JUST BEEN COMPLETED AS YOU CAN SEE DOWN ON THE FORESHORE THERE,+ HE SAID.
SIR DAVID ADDED THAT THE GOVERNMENT HAD STARTED NEGOTIATING REMOVAL COMPENSATION WITH THE FACTORIES CONCERNED SO LONG AGO +BECAUSE WE KNEW THAT IT WOULD BE A LONG TERM NEGOTIATION+.
IN REPLY TO ANOTHER QUESTION, THE CHIEF SECRETARY POINTED OUT THAT THERE HAD BEEN NO +DELAY IN REMOVING THE FACTORIES BECAUSE THE GOVERNMENT WAS NOT GOING TO DEVELOP JUNK BAY IN 1977.
+ IF WE HAD MOVED THE FACTORIES IN 1977 WE WOULD HAVE HAD THE COST OF ALL THAT MONEY SPENT ON MOVING THE FACTORIES RUNNING FOR A PERIOD OF EIGHT YEARS UNTIL 1985.
+THERE IS NO POINT IN SPENDING THAT MONEY IN 1977.
+WE HAD OTHER THINGS TO DO WITH THAT MONEY IN 1977.+
SIR DAVID POINTED OUT THAT THERE WAS NO POINT IN COMPARING THE ESTIMATED REMOVAL COST OF THE TWO FACTOR IES IN 1977 TO THAT OF TODAY.
+WE DIDN'T WANT TO BUILD JUNK BAY IN 1977, WE WANT TO BUILD JUNK BAY IN 1985.
+SO THERE IS NO POINT IN COMPARING IT WITH SOME IMAGINARY DATE IN THE PAST.
+WE WERE BUSY IN 1977 BUILDING ALL THE OTHER NEW TOWNS, NOT JUNK BAY,
+JUNK BAY IS THIS YEAR'S TOWN. WE'VE GOT TO PAY THIS YEAR' PRICES.+
THE CHIEF SECRETARY ADDED THAT THE HOUSING PROGRAMME WAS A PROGRESSIVE ONE AND THAT GOVERNMENT HAD SET ITS TARGET AT 40 000 UNITS A YEAR.
/+TC LOVE