14
-
THURSDAY, MARCH 4, 1993
AND
QUESTION: NO, BUT I DO UNDERSTAND THAT THAT CONCERN THE ECONOMY BUSINESSMEN, YOU KNOW, IN THE BUSINESS COMMUNITY. I HAVE BEEN PRESSING THIS MATTER TO MR (INAUDIBLE) BUT NOBODY IS COMING FORWARD WITH SOME ANSWERS OR SOLUTIONS.
FS: WELL, I'M VERY HAPPY IF WE CAN TAKE YOUR NUMBER WE CAN GET BACK ΤΟ YOU WITH AN ANSWER AND EXPLORE WITH YOU WHAT THE PRECISE PROBLEM IS, I'D BE HAPPY TO DO THAT.
CUMMINGS:
AND IF WE COULD CONFINE OURSELVES I THINK TO WHAT IS IN THE BUDGET RATHER THAN EXTRANEOUS MATTERS TO DO WITH THE BANKS.
CHAN: WELL A REMINDER TO THE AUDIENCE. WE HAVE NOW A SIMULTANEOUS BROADCAST ON RADIO 1, RADIO 3 AND RADIO 5. THE PROGRAMME IS THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY'S BUDGET PHONE-IN. CALLERS SHOULD CALL 1872311 SO THAT YOU CAN PUT QUESTIONS DIRECTLY TO THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY ON THE BUDGET DELIVERED YESTERDAY IN LEGCO. WELL ANOTHER QUESTION FOR THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY FROM MYSELF. NOW THE BUDGET WAS ANNOUNCED YESTERDAY AND SOME LEGCO MEMBERS CRITICISED YOUR BUDGET AS VERY GENEROUS, NOW THE SURPLUS THIS YEAR ROUND IS VERY SIMILAR TO THAT LAST YEAR, WHY IS IT THAT IT IS REGARDED AS GENEROUS THIS YEAR BUT NOT LAST YEAR?
FS: YES, I MUST SAY TALKING TO LEGCO MEMBERS AFTER MY SPEECH I FOUND THEM PRETTY SUPPORTIVE OF THE THRUST OF THE SPEECH. I SUSPECT THAT THERE'S AN ATTEMPT TO FIND SOMETHING CRITICAL TO SAY BECAUSE YOU WILL REMEMBER THAT LAST YEAR I CAME UNDER PRESSURE TO SPEND MORE. THIS YEAR I HAVE SPENT MORE AND I THINK ACTUALLY THAT HAS GENERAL SUPPORT FROM LEGCO MEMBERS AND OF COURSE THE SURPLUS THIS YEAR WAS GREATER THAN
CHAN: SO YOU FORMULATE YOUR BUDGET UNDER PRESSURE, IS THAT THE CASE?
FS: NO, I DON'T FORMULATE THE BUDGET UNDER PRESSURE BUT I CERTAINLY WANT TO BE RESPONSIVE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COMMUNITY AND THOSE VIEWS AS EXPRESSED THROUGH LEGCO MEMBERS, THAT'S PART OF THEIR ROLE.
CUMMINGS:
PERHAPS I CAN ASK YOU A QUESTION MR MACLEOD. TALKING ABOUT PRESSURE, THERE'S ALWAYS A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF PRESSURE FROM CHINA. SO FAR I DON'T THINK THERE IS ANY REAL EVIDENCE THAT BEEN GREAT PRESSURE ON THE BUDGET BUT THE ARGUMENT COULD, OF BR PUT THAT ANYTHING THAT IS DONE NOW IN THE WAY OF EXPENDITURE PROPOSALS HAVE AN IMPACT BEYOND 1997, OF COURSE THEY
THERE'D COURSE, REVENUE
DO.
ARE YOU CONCERNED AT LOOKING ACROSS THE BORDER AND WONDERING ALL THE TIME WHAT CHINA WILL MAKE OF WHATEVER YOU ARE DOING?
FS: WELL, THIS IS A HONG KONG BUDGET MADE IN HONG KONG FOR HONG KONG,
SO WE DON'T OF COURSE CONSULT EITHER UK OR CHINA ON IT. BUT I WOULD HAVE THOUGHT THAT CHINA AT LEAST, IF THEY ARE LOOKING
AT THE BUDGET, WOULD LOOK AT THE FORECAST RESERVES IN 1996/97, WHICH AFTER ALL ARE GOING UP. THAT WOULD SEEM TO BE A POSITIVE DEVELOPMENT FROM THEIR POINT OF VIEW, UP TO $78 BILLION.
CUMMINGS:
SO THERE'S NO TRUTH TO THE SUPPOSITION THAT BRITAIN HAVING NO RESPONSIBILITY BEYOND 1997 IS ENCOURAGING YOU JUST TO GIVE AWAY THE FARM?
/FS