XN000022-1993-03-04 — Page 7

6

THURSDAY, MARCH 4, 1993

FS:

WE

WELL YOU'RE

RIGHT,

EXACTLY

RIGHT

THE IN ΤΟ BE THE FINANCING BUT WHICH

SAY IT

ABOVE THE

FIRST PART THAT THE FIGURES WE'VE USED OF NECESSITY HAD FIGURES

STARTED WITH. THAT'S TO

THE SAY

ORIGINAL PROPOSAL. THE REVISED FINANCING PROPOSAL WHICH WE PUT UP

ΤΟ THAT'S WAS NOT AGREED WAS IN A SENSE SELF-CONTAINED. ENVISAGED THAT THE REVENUE FROM THE PROPERTY DEVELOPMENTS

BE AIRPORT RAILWAY WOULD BE REGARDED AS, TREATED AS AND WOULD IN FACT

MORE ADDITIONAL LAND

INJECT REVENUE AND THAT THAT WOULD BE USED TO

IT USED EXTRA MONEY INTO THE TWO PROJECTS, SO IT WAS SELF-CONTAINED. REVENUE TO PRODUCE EXTRA INJECTION, SO ON THAT BASIS YOU'D SIMPLY

IN AN ADDITIONAL FIGURE IN REVENUE AND AN ADDITIONAL FIGURE INJECTIONS OR SIMILAR AND THE NET RESULT WOULD BE THE SAME. OUR PROPOSAL. WHAT THE EVENTUAL OUTCOME WILL BE, OF COURSE WE KNOW.

GET EQUITY

THAT WAS DON'T

QUESTION:

IS

(INAUDIBLE) BECAUSE THE CHINESE GOVERNMENT

THAN ASKING FOR MORE CAPITAL INJECTIONS INTO THE TWO PROJECTS, OTHER

THAT YOU HAVE UNDERTAKEN. SO THERE THE 20 BILLION

IS STILL A HIGHER AND THAT POSSIBILITY THAT THE LEVEL OF DEFICITS WILL BE EVEN BY 1997/98 YOU CAN'T COME BACK WITH SURPLUS OR BALANCED BUDGET.

FS:

TOGETHER. EVEN THE TWO DON'T GO

IF YOU THINK OF

WHERE YOU MIGHT SCENARIOS

SPEND A BIT MORE OVER A PERIOD OF THREE OR FOUR YEARS, THAT WOULD OF COURSE REDUCE THE RESERVES AT THE END OF THE PERIOD BUT IT WOULDN'T MAKE IT ANYMORE DIFFICULT TO PRODUCE A BALANCED BUDGET IN 97/98 BECAUSE THOSE INJECTIONS WOULD BE BY 1997.

FINISHED

QUESTION:

ACCEPT DO YOU

THE CHINESE

THAT YOUR BUDGET FOR DEFICIT IS ALREADY IN BREACH

GOVERNMENT'S

CRITICISM

OF THE BASIC LAW?

FS: AS

AS

CLEARLY DIRECTLY

HAPPEN CAN'T

STRIVE

WITH

I DON'T KNOW THAT THEY'VE SAID IT QUITE ᎢᎻᎪᎢ .

I'D BUT

JUST MAKE A

NOT FEW POINTS

DOESN'T FIRST OF ALL THE BASIC LAW RESPONDING TO THAT POINT. ΤΟ BE IN OPERATION YET. SECONDLY, IT DOESN'T ACTUALLY SAY YOU HAVE DEFICITS. IT SAYS A NUMBER OF THINGS, IT SAYS YOU SHOULD

IN FOR

LINE BUDGETS, BALANCED

KEEPING GROWTH OF EXPENDITURE GROWTH OF THE ECONOMY AND SO ON AND SO FORTH. THIRDLY, AN OVER-LITERAL INTERPRETATION OF THAT RULE WOULD LEAD TO THE ABSURD RESULT THAT COULD NEVER DRAW ON YOUR RESERVES. YOU WOULD SIMPLY ACCUMULATE LARGER ONLY AND LARGER RESERVES AND YOU COULD NEVER DRAW ON THEM BECAUSE THE

A WAY YOU CAN DRAW ON THEM IS TO RUN A DEFICIT, THAT'S WHY I SAY IT'S FUNNY SORT OF DEFICIT. SO I THINK IF ANYONE DID SAY THAT, IT WOULD BR RATHER STRANGE.

YOU

/THE EXCHANGE