From: newsdis%bat@CSD.HKU.HK (News Distributor)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.hongkong
Subject: China & HK News
Date: 31 Jul 92 15:55:01 GMT
X-Unparsable-Date: Fri, 31 Jul 92 22:23:52 HKT

Source : South China Morning Post
Date   : 31st July, 1992

Corr. Addr.:
 bat!kwchan1@csd.hku.hk

Subscription: 
 bat!newsreq@csd.hku.hk
--------------------------------------------------------------------
China deal in spite of talks failure
New CRC system on spokesmen
--------------------------------------------------------------------

China deal in spite of talks failure
====================================

By FANNY WONG and DOREEN CHEUNG

POLITICAL negotiations between China and Hongkong over the controversial
Chek Lap Kok airport plan failed again yesterday, almost at the same
time as the mainland's largest state-owned aviation group bought the
Hongkong Government's 10 per cent stake in the cargo handling monopoly
at Kai Tak.

The Office of the Exchange Fund, which administers the Government's
commercial holdings, sold the Hongkong Air Cargo Terminals Ltd (HACTL)
interest to China National Aviation Corporation (CNAC) for $106 million.

CNAC had acquired five per cent of Cathay Pacific Airways for $1.7
billion earlier in the month and HACTL is hoping to retain the cargo
handling monopoly at Chek Lap Kok when the Provisional Airport Authority
completes its review of rival submissions, which must be in by next
Monday.

Although the commercial deal went off harmoniously, political haggling
in the Joint Liaison Group's Airport Committee did not and talks on
the territory's infrastructure plans have been put on hold indefinitely.

The British side maintained that it was now up to China to bring about
a resumption of discussions.

Britain is prepared to be flexible in revising its proposal on callable
equity, described as a pretty large concession, to help finance the
airport projects.

However, the British side finds the Chinese side's other demands to
change the current airport financing plan unpalatable.

China is understood to have demanded that the authority be denied
the right to determine the level of service charges and that revenue
from property developments should go to public funds.

Britain also maintains that China's demand to put a cap on the cost
estimates of the airport project is not a sensible proposition as
the figures are only estimates instead of actual spending.

The subject is expected to be touched on during a meeting between
the Governor, Mr Chris Patten, and the Chinese Ambassador to Britain,
Mr Ma Yuzhen, who will visit Hongkong at the weekend.

But a solution to the deadlock is not expected until political issues
that China is concerned about are resolved and that is likely to be
after Mr Patten's October 7 policy address.

It is understood the British side maintains that, with the current
impasse on the negotiations, there is clearly some delay on the airport
projects although it is not clear how long that will be.

Speaking after yesterday's Airport Committee meeting, British team
leader Mr Tony Galsworthy conceded there was no progress and the date
for the next meeting had yet to be set.

He also noted the Chinese side, led by Mr Guo Fengmin, did not accept
the British proposal tabled at the previous session that issues concerning
the airport itself be cleared up before the more tricky problems of
the railway project.

But Mr Galsworthy said: "They thought it was better to go on discussing
all the issues."

He stressed repeatedly that the British side had already amended its
proposal in response to the Chinese demand.

"I think we have got to look at the practicalities of running these
corporations (the Mass Transit Railway Corporation and the Airport
Authority).

"It is no use amending a proposal to make it impossible to run these
corporations. That is why I have asked the Chinese side to reflect
on that position," he said.

"Issues under discussion are the whole range of the financial arrangement
of the Airport Authority and the airport railway," he said.

Although he declined to describe the talks as facing a "deadlock",
he admitted there was little progress.

"I hesitate to use the word deadlock but I have to say we didn't get
much further forward this morning," said Mr Galsworthy.

A vice-director of the local branch of the New China News Agency,
Mr Zhang Junsheng, said on Wednesday that the Government's announcement
rejecting the cost-cutting measures on the rail projects on the eve
of yesterday's talks was not conducive to negotiations.

Mr Galsworthy said he was puzzled by the Chinese reaction because
disclosing more information would be helpful for public debate which
was urged by China.

Noting that Wednesday's meeting of the Legco ad-hoc group on airport
finance had been arranged long before the Airport Committee's talks,
Mr Galsworthy said there was no relation between the two events.

Mr Guo said after the meeting that the discussion was helpful and
had enhanced mutual understanding.

"Both sides agreed to continue discussion and arrange another meeting,"
said Mr Guo.

The Co-operative Resources Centre had proposed four cost-cutting measures
for the railway project but they were all rejected by the Government.

One measure, which suggested deferring the building of the Tung Chung
station, would have cut costs by $900 million, but would have reduced
the railway's revenue-earning ability and led to an increase in the
callable equity from the present $12.5 billion to $14 billion, the
MTRC chairman Mr Hamish Mathers said on Wednesday.

The corporation's revenue loss could amount to about $5.3 billion
by the year 2010.

It would also lose $800 million in profits from associated property
development at Tung Chung.

The loss in land premium to be paid to the Government would be about
$5.75 billion at 1991 prices to be split between the Government and
the future Special Administrative Region.

The centre yesterday stood by its proposal to scale down the airport
railway, noting that it was unconvinced with the Government's reason
in rejecting its suggestion.

The Association for Democracy and People's Livelihood urged the British
and Chinese governments to issue a joint communique to state clearly
that they would deal with the airport issue and the political development
in the territory separately.


New CRC system on spokesmen
===========================

By SHIRLEY YAM and CONNIE LAW

THE Co-operative Resources Centre (CRC) is to discard its "passive"
spokesman system for one which is more responsive to people's livelihood
and other issues.

The new plans will allow its members, who are conveners of the various
Executive and Legislative council policy panels, to speak in the same
capacities for the CRC.

The CRC will also trim the size of its 16 policy groups to develop
a more cohesive response to ad-hoc issues.

Speaking after a weekly meeting yesterday, Mr Ronald Arculli said
the existing system, which was established in January, had denied
the CRC a number of chances to tell the public its views at the right
time.

He said that while the press often could not find the corresponding
spokesman to comment, centre members also had problems in getting
the time to work out a common stand on ad-hoc issues.

"We are just not active enough," said Mr Arculli.

At present, none of the members who head Omelco panels were allowed
to act as spokesman for the corresponding policy areas to avoid a
conflict of roles.

However, some spokesmen were reluctant to speak on issues that they
were not familiar with.

Textile manufacturer Mr Henry Tang Ying-yen, who was chosen to be
an education spokesman, conceded that he had spoken only once in that
capacity.

Members agreed in the meeting that the existing restriction should
be removed in order to develop policy specialists.

Mr Arculli said members might be asked to adhere to the new spokesman
system strictly in the future and to avoid commenting on issues outside
their policy areas.

The spokesman would be responsible for liaison with other members
to work out a policy line for the centre.

The 19 legislators were also asked to rethink their interest in various
policies and indicate the policy groups they were interested in.

Mr Gilbert Leung Kam-ho questioned the efficiency of a large policy
group with more than 10 members in one case.

"What matters is not the number of members in each group but their
commitment," said Mr Leung looking forward to groups of only two to
three members.

"After one year of operation, members should review their work and
choose areas that they are really interested in."

He has quit the recreation and culture group to concentrate on three
groups on housing, the airport and land and works projects.

Meanwhile, Mr Henry Tang questioned the need for the CRC to continue
its existence if most members agreed to form a political party.

He said he could not visualise what kind of relationship could come
out between the CRC and the party, and warned the public might be
confused about their identity.