5
FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 11, 1994
AND
THIS ARTICLE WAS UNFORTUNATELY MISLEADING
MISREPRESENTS INFORMATION WHICH IT HAS OBTAINED FROM VARIOUS SOURCES. THE ARTICLE IS IN FACT DAMAGING TO THE WORK OF THE EXPERTS, BOTH ON THE CHINA SIDE AND ON THE PART OF THE HONG KONG GOVERNMENT, EXPERTS WHO HAVE BEEN WORKING VERY WELL AND WORKING VERY HARD TOGETHER TO COMPLETE THE DETAILED DESIGN AND TO AGREE THESE DESIGNS BEFORE THE WORKS CAN BE PUT OUT TO TENDER. AND AS YOU KNOW, WE HAVE A VERY CHALLENGING PROGRAMME TO MEET, WE HAVE TO COMPLETE THESE WORKS BY 30TH JUNE 1997 AND IF WE ARE TO DO THAT, BOTH SIDES, THE EXPERTS, MUST WORK AS A TEAM, AND I AM AFRAID THAT MISREPRESENTING FACTS IS NOT HELPFUL.
THE FACTS ARE VERY SIMPLE. THE CHINESE PLA EXPERTS INSISTED ON A SPECIAL DESIGN TO REDUCE THE SIZE OF WAVES INSIDE THE NAVAL BASE. ON THE HONG KONG GOVERNMENT SIDE AND THE BRITISH SIDE, DURING THE TALKS WE POINTED OUT THAT THIS WOULD BE MORE EXPENSIVE, BUT AS PART OF THE FINAL AGREEMENT, THE FINAL OVERALL AGREEMENT WHICH WAS SIGNED BY THE CHINESE AND UK SIDE REPRESENTATIVES, WE ACCEPTED THE SPECIFICATION AND WE ACCEPTED THE EXTRA EXPENSE. NOW THIS SPECIAL DESIGN WAS SUBSEQUENTLY INCORPORATED INTO THE AGREEMENT AND INTO THE TENDER DOCUMENTS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE NAVAL BASE.
NOW THERE WAS AN ALTERNATIVE BID, A CHEAPER DESIGN, BUT THIS DID NOT CONFORM TO THE CHINESE SIDE'S SPECIFICATION FOR THE WAVE-REDUCING STRUCTURES INSIDE THE BASIN, AND THEREFORE IT WAS NOT ACCEPTED. THE BID FROM GAMMON WHICH CONFORMS TO THE SPECIAL DESIGN AND WITH ALL
OF THE SPECIFICATIONS WAS THE CONFORMING BID, IT WAS THE LOWEST CONFORMING BID, AND THEREFORE IT WAS ACCEPTED.
THANK YOU.
QUESTION:
IS IT TRUE THAT THIS DESIGN, I MEAN ON THE SECURITY ASPECT, IS LESS SECURE THAN THE DESIGN AGREED WITH CHINA AND BRITAIN?
S FOR W:
LET ME SAY AGAIN THAT THE DESIGN WHICH WAS PART OF THE CONFORMING BID WAS THE DESIGN, THE DETAILED DESIGN, THAT WAS AGREED AS PART OF THE LANDS AGREEMENT THAT WAS SIGNED BY BOTH SIDES. IT WAS A SPECIAL DESIGN, IT WAS A MORE EXPENSIVE DESIGN, BUT IN OPERATIONAL TERMS, BECAUSE IT IS INTENDED TO REDUCE THE SIZE OF WAVES INSIDE THE BASIN, THEN THE CHINESE PLA EXPERTS INSISTED THAT THIS TYPE OF DESIGN WAS INCORPORATED INTO PART OF THE WALLS WHICH ENCLOSE THE BASIN.
-
THE
-ཀ
NOT
QUESTION:
DID THE CHINESE, AFTER THIS WAS ALL AGREED AND AFTER THE SPECIFICATIONS WERE DONE AND AFTER THE TENDERING AND ACCEPTANCE OF GAMMON AND SO FORTH, DID ANY CHINESE OFFICE INCLUDING THE EXPERTS OR WAS THERE ANY HINT IN THE JLG MEETINGS OR WAS THERE ANY FURTHER CRITICISM FROM THE CHINESE BEFORE THIS THING
IN TA KUNG PAO THIS MORNING? I MEAN WAS THIS A COMPLETE SURPRISE OR HAD THERE BEEN ANY INTIMATION OF ANY SORT (INAUDIBLE)?'
S FOR W:
THERE WAS NO INTIMATION, CERTAINLY NONE THAT I AM AWARE OF, AND INDEED THE FACT THAT THIS ARTICLE TODAY HAS APPEARED AS IT HAS AND WE ARE VERY CONCERNED ABOUT THIS ARTICLE IS THE REASON WHY I AM STANDING HERE TODAY.
+
/QUESTION: