ANN QUON: ANY PLANS TO CHANGE IT?
H.E. NO.
ANN QUON: AT WHAT POINT WOULD YOU CONSIDER DOING SO?
H.E. CERTAINLY NOT NOW.
K.K. WONG, OF RTHK: WOULD YOU PLEASE CONFIRM OUR REPORT SAYING THAT THE BRITISH GARRISON IN HONG KONG WILL BEGIN TO WITHDRAW BY 1995?
H.E. THERE ARE NO PRECISE DATES FOR WITHDRAWAL. THE SITUATION IS THAT BY JULY 1, 1997, OBVIOUSLY, THERE CAN BE NO BRITISH GARRISON LEFT HERE. IT FOLLOWS FROM THAT THAT IT WOULD MAKE SENSE TO HAVE SOME SORT OF A RUNDOWN. THERE ARE NOT LIKELY ΤΟ BE ANY WITHDRAWALS OF MAJOR UNITS UNTIL THE 1990'S. BUT THE PRECISE PROGRAMME FOR THOSE SORT OF WITHDRAWALS HAS NOT YET BEEN WORKED OUT. AND EVEN WHEN A FRAMEWORK IS PUT IN PLACE IT IS ALWAYS OF COURSE ACCEPTABLE TO REVIEW AND TO CHANGE IT IN THE 11GHT OF CIRCUMSTANCES. NOW, WITHIN THAT OVERALL FRAMEWORK, I THINK IT'S ALSO RIGHT ΤΟ SAY THAT ONE WOULD EXPECT TO SEE REDEPLOYMENTS OF MINOR FORCES TO TAKE ACCOUNT OF CHANGING CIRCUMSTANCES,
NO DEALS MAGGIE NELSON, OF RTHK: CAN PEOPLE BE CONFIDENT THAT
INTRODUCTION OF HAVE ALREADY BEEN DONE WITH CHINA OVER DELAYING THE
THAT DIRECT ELECTIONS UNTIL AFTER 1990? AND IS THE GOVERNMENT ADAMANT A CENTRAL PROVIDENT FUND WILL NOT BE INTRODUCED?
AN OBVIOUS LINK! II.E. THAT IS ANOTHER TWO QUESTIONS WITHOUT
DEAL WITH CHINA. I LAST YES, PEOPLE CAN BE CONFIDENT. THERE IS NO
AT THAT POINT WE DIDN'T KNOW WENT UP TO CHINA IN SEPTEMBER.
THE то RESULTS OF WHAT THE SURVEY OFFICE REPORT WOULD BE. I MADE IT CLEAR
HAD SEEN THE CHINESE THAT WE WOULD NOT BE TAKING DECISIONS UNTIL WE
YOUR SECOND ONE WAS THE WHAT THE SURVEY OFFICE REPORT HAD TO SAY. PROVIDENT FUND. WHAT WAS THE PRECISE QUESTION? I AM SORRY.
MAGGIE NELSON: IS IT ADAMANT?
+
H.E 1 SAID IN MY
SPEECH TO
INTRODUCED AND THE REASONS FOR
IS
LEGCO THAT IT WOULD NOT BE IT. AND THE REASONS WERE TWOFOLD. PEOPLE, ONE, WE BELIEVE THAT THE PROBLEMS FOR RETIRED PEOPLE, FOR OLD AND FOR SICK PEOPLE CAN BEST BE DEALT WITH IN ANOTHER WAY AND THAT THE WAY IN WHICH I OUTLINED IN MY SPEECH. IT IS TO PROVIDE A MEANS FOR
AFTER THEMSELVES THESE PEOPLE TO LOOK
A WHICH DOES NOT REQUIRE
OTHER WORDS, IT IS A CONTINUING FORCED CONTRIBUTION FROM THEM. IN
THOSE IN EMPLOYMENT GET PAID SCHEME BY WHICH
A CERTAIN AMOUNT DEPENDING ON THEIR FINAL WAGE AND DEPENDING ON HOW LONG THEY HAVE BEEN IN EMPLOYMENT. IF YOU HAVE A CENTRAL PROVIDENT FUND SCHEME, FIRST OF ALL IT IS A FORCED SAVINGS WHICH SOME PEOPLE MIGHT NOT LIKE. SECONDLY, ARE NOT IT DOES VERY LITTLE FOR THOSE PEOPLE WHO ARE LOW PAID OR WHO IN WORK BECAUSE THEY CAN'T TAKE PART IN IT. SO THAT IS HALF OF IT. THE KIND OF OTHER HALF IS THE EFFECT THAT A CENTRAL PROVIDENT FUND, THAT FORCED SAVING, WOULD HAVE ON THE HONG KONG ECONOMY AND THE FLEXIBILITY
HAS WHICH
ALWAYS BERN OUR VERY STRONG POINT. AND FOR THOSE TWO
THE GOVERNMENT DECIDED THAT REASONS, ONE POSITIVE, ONE NEGATIVE, CENTRAL PROVIDENT FUND WAS NOT THE RIGHT WAY FORWARD FOR HONG KONG.
A
/EMILY LAU