10 -
Now only then would there be no financial commitment being carried forward beyond 1997 but that wouldn't be the way to do things because Hong Kong is a vibrant society, that's a dynamic society. Because if we take such a short-term view then there would be a period in 1997 when Hong Kong would have come to standstill because no infrastructural projects could be carried out. But we all know that for any infrastructural projects, of course, there would be lead time, especially for major ones. So we need to start planning on those projects and of course when there are some projects which have huge cost implications they must be taken up in discussion with the Chinese side. So Mr Kwong will certainly take up these matters with his counterparts in the Expert Group. Now I don't see there would be major difficulties here. We have overcome other, even bigger difficulties so I see no problem with this.
-
Question (HK Economic Journal in Cantonese); So what will be the difficulties Mr Kwong, would there be any?
S for Tsy (in Cantonese); Now as the Financial Secretary has made it clear we have a common objective that is a smooth transition ...
S for Tsy (in Cantonese): As the Financial Secretary has made it clear we have a common objective, that is a smooth transition. In the past eleven or twelve months we have explained in great detail the formulation process of the Budget and in the last few days we've published our expenditure figures and from these figures you can see that we do follow strict budgetary guidelines. So under the circumstances we are confident we will get China's acceptance of all the proposals.
Question (? speaker - in Cantonese): I have two questions.
(One question at a time please)
Now in the medium-range forecast it is mentioned that by the year 2000 we will have a reserve of $365 billion and then in the Budget speech you stressed that no-one should even think of touching that reserve now. So what would you consider to be an optimum reserve for a Government? Is there any such ceiling set by the Government? For example, is it one year recurrent expenditure? Would you consider that to be the optimum reserve or do you have any other indicators?
FS (in Cantonese): I don't think we should have an indicator as such. When we talk about using the reserve, there must be an important condition to be satisfied. That is there must be a need for dipping into the reserve. Because a reserve is a reserve, we shouldn't just spend it on recurrent items. As I said in my Budget speech, the International Monetary Fund has looked at our situation and it is of the view that we must not touch our reserve given our present economic climate. Especially in view of the 1997 issue.