*******************************************************
The following is the English portion of the transcript of a press conference by the Director-General of Investment Promotion, Mr Mike Rowse, to wrap up the 2001 FORTUNE Global Forum today (May 10):
Mr Rowse (Opening Remarks): We've just finished a terrifically successful Global Forum here in Hong Kong. It was easily the best Fortune Global Forum in the history of the event, and I know the Fortune people, the AOL Warner Time people are absolutely delighted with the way things have gone. We've had two days, three keynote speakers --- all heavyweight in their own way and equivalent of two full days of heavyweight discussion. Starting with President Jiang's opening night keynote address, followed last night by Prime Minister Thaksin of Thailand and at lunch time today a very forceful reminder from the immediate past President of the United States of what a great world leader he was and is, even though now he's out of office. I attended many of the sessions, as many as I could, and they were really powerful. These were among the top business leaders in the world here in Hong Kong discussing very weighty issues. Now, I know one columnist yesterday seemed to doubt whether there'd been any real top CEOs here. Now, he's one of my favourite columnists and so I'm not going to say his name. But I will just say the names of some of the CEOs that I heard speaking before I actually read his column that day. In the very first session, our Chief Secretary and Mr Mickey Kantor were discussing on the platform with Mr Henry Paulson who is the Chairman and CEO of the Goldman Sachs Group. In the very next session, Charlie Rose who has his own show and is also a correspondent for 60 Minutes, chaired a session which included Michael Dell, the Chairman and CEO of the Dell Computer Corporation; Gerald Levin the Chief Executive Officer of AOL Time Warner; Charles Wang the Chairman of Computer Associates International and Jerry Yang, the co-founder and he's changed the name of his title, he now calls himself the Chief Yahoo of Yahoo Incorporated. And later that morning in a session on Next Generation Japan, there was an intervention from the floor by the Chairman of the Toshiba Corporation, Mr Taizo Nishimuro.
So those are just some of the names that I personally heard during this forum of really the world's top CEOs. And heard from all of those people before I read the column saying none of them were coming. I hope that puts it in perspective and I hope I don't have to say any more on that particular issue. They were here, they were the heavyweights, they discussed really meaty issues.
And I think this was very important for three reasons. Sometimes as a community, when we face short-term problems we let our morale sag a little, and I think this was a great reminder that Hong Kong is indeed a world class international city and we are an important city in China and certainly the international business community has no doubt about it. The second reason is, for many CEOs who came to the forum saw for themselves just how successfully one country, two systems is working. They saw for themselves our fabulous infrastructure. So all of the things we would be telling them through various PR tactics and techniques, which would automatically be discounted because they would know that they are PR tactics and techniques, they saw for themselves the truth and the vitality of the city. And in addition to the people who were here, through the international media as you know something like 1,300 journalists registered to cover the forum, many of them from overseas, although many of course also local through the international media, the message about Hong Kong as a successful business centre was carried around the world. So it reached the business community who were not able to be present. So we're absolutely delighted with the outcome and I should finish by saying we're not going to rest there. We have three more international business conferences scheduled between now and the end of the year, and all of which Invest-Hongkong is playing a major role.
The next one is the World Services Congress to be held on the 20th and 21st of September also in the Convention and Exhibition Centre. The local organiser is the Hong Kong General Chamber of Commerce and Hong Kong Coalition of Service Industries. We will be a sponsor for that and giving it our full support.
The second one is the Asian equivalent of the World Economic Forum which will take place in Hong Kong on the 29th to the 31st of October. This is sometimes referred to as Davos in the east. It's the equivalent of the one held in Switzerland.
And finally, in December there is the Asian Securities Analysts Federation Conference 2001 which will be held from the 3rd to the 5th of December. So that's our programme for world class business conferences in Hong Kong for the remainder of this year, and we're already talking to various organisations about next year's programme. So we're absolutely delighted with the Fortune Global Forum outcome. It's been fabulously successful and we're going to build on that success and sustain the momentum right through the rest of this year and into next year. Okay, Steven.
Question: (in Cantonese from TVB)
Mr Rowse: Let me start. I think you had three questions didn't you. It was actually more like a speech. Anyway, disruption: I think if there are people who were disturbed by this, either traffic obstruction or you mentioned the temporary disruption to the school in Hung Hom, then obviously we regret this; every effort was made to keep it to a minimum. But I really think that anyone taking a wider view could see that they are going to benefit from the whole conduct of such conferences in Hong Kong. They are going to benefit because international businesses coming to Hong Kong will provide jobs for them and will provide jobs for their children. So it would be very short-sighted and very parochial to say: "Oh, because I didn't attend the conference or because I wasn't interested in any of the subjects discussed, that means the conference was no use, it just delayed my bus on the way home." I think that would be a very, very narrow and short-sighted view.
The fact that the international business community has seen Hong Kong - seen Hong Kong be so successful, seen Hong Kong conduct such an important conference so well and have it so well attended by business leaders from all over the world, is very good for the long term economic prosperity of Hong Kong, and will therefore directly benefit those people. So I apologise for any disruption that they may have suffered. I can assure them that the government departments concerned did try to keep it to a minimum; but they will benefit, if not immediately then certainly in the longer term as investments continue to come into Hong Kong.
The second aspect was on the demonstrations. I think the conduct of so many demonstrations in Hong Kong during the Global Forum was actually confirmation that "one country, two systems" continues to work and to work well. The fact that so many demonstrators came into the street - I think altogether more than 20 different demonstrations, several thousand demonstrators in one way or another - surely this shows that our way of life that we enjoyed before 1997 and which the Basic Law promised would continue, is continuing. As long as people abide by the law, they are free to enjoy the benefits provided by the law. But of course, subject also to the responsibilities imposed by the law. So I think the demonstrations should be seen as a very positive confirmation that Hong Kong's openness and freedoms continue.
And lastly, you asked about the three international conferences and whether we would do (them). I think this was an exceptional one because we had three leaders of world status and therefore the security measures taken for this conference had to be commensurate with that. Having the Head of State of the world's most populous nation in our city, followed by the new Prime Minister of a nearby country who, of course, there has been reports of various threats against him in the recent past, and then the outgoing President of the USA who always is treated as an internationally protected person, having those three in town overlapping - in fact some days there were all three of them in town at the same time - naturally the security arrangements had to be commensurate. This will not be the case, as it happens, with the other three conferences that we mentioned. There will still be some very important people attending them but it should not require security to the same degree.
Question follow up: Mr Rowse, you just said that the demonstrations should be seen, that we should be proud of the "one country system", but most of the participants of the Forum could not see any of these demonstrations, they could not listen their voices, see what they are doing. So the second follow-up is, you mean the next three international forums or conferences will be using much less security level or what?
Mr Rowse: Let me take the first point first. You are assuming one thing which is that the delegates to the Forum stayed in the hotel or the Convention Centre. They did not stay there locked up like prisoners. They went around the city, there was a very, very active and vigorous spouse programme so they will have had lots of opportunity to see the various demonstrations in different locations. For example - as I mentioned this example at the press conference, I think, the other day, but certainly on Tuesday, I, myself, was in Hong Kong Park about to film with an Australian crew and 50 members of the Falun Gong walked past. So you shouldn't assume that every person attending the Forum - which I was also an attendee at the Forum - spent their whole lives locked up in the Convention Centre or in the hotel. They didn't, they were around the city.
And the second point, I know there has been a lot of talk about the distance, the 300 metres between the demonstration area and the Convention Centre. In Davos it was 500 metres. Okay? I haven't seen anyone accuse Switzerland of this kind of criticism, so can we just keep these things in perspective. Everyone who wished to demonstrate and who complied with the law, subject to police considerations on security grounds, was allowed to do so.
Question (in Chinese first and then the questioner speaks in English): Earlier, Mr Rowse, you were talking about how successful this Forum is and it is not due to PR tactics, it is due to, we invite lots of, like successful CEOs. But I have heard - actually I have read some news from the paper that it costs around US$100,000 to invite Mr Clinton to make a speech. Is that true?
Mr Rowse: I have no idea. Mr Clinton was under contract with Fortune Magazine and I think the terms of that are a private matter between him (them). It didn't involve any public money. But it sounds a plausible figure, but that is only speculation.
Question: Hi, Mr Rowse, I am from the Associated Press. Talking about putting things into perspective, could you tell us - you said that comparing the Forum to whatever was held in Switzerland - you are presuming that the people in Hong Kong, the demonstrators in Hong Kong, are a bunch or rioters, are you not?
Mr Rowse: Sorry? A bunch of rioters?
Question: Yes, I mean the level of violence that has been seen in Hong Kong has been nearly non-existent among any demonstration and I believe you have been in Hong Kong for a long time and you know that people, demonstrators, in Hong Kong are normally very peaceful demonstrators.
The second question is, can you tell us whether it is the Hong Kong Government who funded the firework display?
Mr Rowse: Let me answer the second one first. No, it was not the Hong Kong Government that funded the firework display. It was funded, as those who attended the press conference last week know, by Anderson, and they had a representative at the press conference. I don't think he revealed how much they paid, but anyway it wasn't our money. So that's down to you and him. Okay? We gave their fireworks display a permit. Not Steven and I; I mean the Government gave them a permit for the firework display.
Coming back to the first point, there are a number of issues, I think, here. One is the presence, as we mentioned, that something like 1,300 journalists registered with us to cover the Fortune Global Forum. Now, I'm afraid it is a fact of modern life that when huge numbers of journalists congregate together - and this is not a criticism of journalists - that those who have a point to make in public, who want publicity for their cause, will use the presence and concentration of so many journalists as an opportunity. I mean let's face it - who wouldn't? And therefore you are bound to attract lots of demonstrators. And the surest way of getting a picture, whether it is in the print media or the electronic media, is to get into a pushing and shoving match with the police, because that always draws lots of flashing lightbulbs and lots of attention and if you are a bit lucky you will get your picture on the front page of the International Herald Tribune or the Financial Times or whatever, around the world, and your cause, the subject that you care about, will gain extra publicity. That is a fact of life. As I said, I am not criticising the media, I am not criticising, necessarily, the pressure groups, as long as they stick within the law. In this particular case I think a handful were arrested, I think one policeman lost a tooth - Two teeth. I'm sorry, I stand corrected - and I regret that very much. I'm sorry. You're quite right though.
The second thing is, yes, we haven't had serious social disruption in Hong Kong for several decades. But of course a world event like this doesn't just attract Hong Kong people with a cause, it does also bring in people from overseas as we saw in some of the other cities where events have been held, people do travel from one country to another to make their point, to make their cause. So taking these factors into account, I think the police took a prudent line on the level of security required to protect the conference. Human rights is very important, a very important subject, and the demonstrators have human rights and so do the people attending business meetings. So those who come to make a point were able to make their point, and those who came to attend an important business conference were able to go about their business too, and I think that is a reasonable balance.
Question (China Radio International): Here I have a question for Mr Rowse. Since a few minutes earlier you have mentioned the important bridging role of Hong Kong in linking the Chinese Mainland to the outside world, my question here is how would Hong Kong SAR Government act in the future to intensify this role in terms of involving Hong Kong to the Great Go West Programme and at the same time bringing more international investment to the Mainland? And also, how would Hong Kong involve itself deeply in that process?
Mr Rowse: Thank you. It gives me a chance to expound on one of my favourite subjects but this was not a contrived question. First of all, in the immediate term, in approximately 10 days time the Chief Secretary will lead a very large delegation to the Western Provinces of China. I think there will be full publicity about this closer to the time, but there is a chartered Dragon Air flight and will contain a lot of business people and government officials, and that tour lasts, I think it is 9 days. I will be on the plane, for better or worse, and we will see the Western Provinces of China and so we will start the process - in fact, of course, there are already some international business people doing business in those areas - but we will start the process of boosting that. I know it is a very important of the Tenth Five-Year Programme. But of course in Hong Kong we are market-led, we are not government-led, it will be up to business people themselves to see profitable opportunities for themselves and take part in the development of the Western Provinces.
One of the things I would like to see is Hong Kong used as an information centre for investment opportunities throughout the Mainland, including of course the Western Provinces but not exclusively the Western Provinces. We could not sell Hong Kong in isolation. Hong Kong doesn't exist in isolation, it exists in its economic context as the business and financial centre of China. So we must urge the world business community to come here and see Hong Kong as the natural entry point for the development of the whole of China; certainly the whole of Southern, and I would say, Western China. And that means it is much more attractive as a proposition if they can come here and get not just the legal services and the accounting services and the marketing services and all the other things that our own economy provides, but also obtain the information that they would like to have about the Mainland. That's just one. That's too long an answer but I'll stop.
Question (Apple Daily): Although Fortune Magazine has issued a statement to deny they have criticised on the Hong Kong Government on how do deal with the demonstration today, but many reporters participated in yesterday's press conference, they have confirmed that a lady from Fortune Magazine has actually said that.
Mr Rowse: I am delighted you have asked this because I have the transcript of what she says here, and you are wrong. Those newspapers were wrong.
Question follow up: But many reporters have confirmed that.
Mr Rowse: Would you like me to read what she said? I think let's get the facts on the table first and then you ask your question. Okay? It's a very long answer after she was asked about the demonstrations. Now, I've read this once today, to a small group of reporters, and now I am going to read it again, because it is very, very important. She said [Reads] "I am happy to answer that."
This is a question about the distance between the demonstrators and the Convention Centre.
"We have this question before and as we have made it very clear, we informed the Government totally, we did not make a request to have the protesters at any certain distance. We made it clear from the very beginning of our organising of this event that as a media organisation ourselves, we are completely supportive of freedom of expressions and that was actually one of the reasons we chose Hong Kong for this Forum because we knew that we would be able to have that conversation here and we were fully supportive of others' rights to have the conversation they wanted to have here as well. So, no, far from asking them to remove the demonstrators to any given distance, we were very supportive of their freedom to do so."
That was what she said about the demonstrations and the distance from the demonstrators to the Convention Centre. She then turned to a previous question that had been asked about the banning of Time Magazine on the Mainland. The Mainland authorities stopped the distribution of Time Magazine. And this is what she said, and I've not missed any out and you can have a copy in a minute. [Reads]
"And also, to follow up quickly the question from the floor about our sister publication 'Time', as a spokesperson for Time Inc and for the Fortune Group, I can say that we are also deeply concerned."
So she did use the words "deeply concerned" but by the time she did so, she was talking about the ban on the circulation of Time Magazine, she was not talking about the distance that the police force had determined was prudent on security grounds between the demonstration area and the Convention Centre. She went on to say: [Reads]
"We share Time's concern and disappointment about the ban and they are working to get the ban reversed and we fully support that. And again, we felt that, and our colleagues felt too, that that was an important point for us to be here exercising our freedom of expression."
So, if you are a native English speaker, or if you have a very good standard of English, it is quite clear, from the sentence that she put in the middle there: "And also to follow up quickly the question from the floor", that she is actually at that point changing subject. I suspect the misunderstanding arose because of maybe the simultaneous interpreters - I hope they translate that - but for some reason or other, or maybe the person didn't quite hear that sentence or whatever, she did use the words - where are they. I've lost them now? - "deeply concerned", but she did not use those words about the distance between the demonstrators and the Convention Centre.
Okay, now that's enough of my lecture. And by the way, of course they have issued a statement, as you said yourself, clarifying it.
Question follow up: I know that some reporters has clarified such questions after the press conference and they did not record such conversations. But they have told me that the lady has made such comments.
Mr Rowse: Sorry, this is what is called in court "hearsay". I have spoken to the lady today and I have the transcript of her words.
Question follow up: But the lady hasn't turned up today to face with the reporters to make such ...
Mr Rowse: You are quite at liberty to chase her around the town and you are quite at liberty to have a copy of what is on the record that she actually said, not what someone interpreted her as having said.
Reporter: (inaudible)
Mr Rowse: No, he knows. They have all got the statement already.
Moderator: Next question please.
Question follow up: I haven't asked my question.
Mr Rowse: It's true, he hasn't asked his question.
Question follow up: My question is, does the Government feel embarrassed about the report? And I would like to know has the Government exerted any pressure on Fortune Magazine to issue such statement?
Mr Rowse: How do we feel? I'm not sure what do we feel about it. Do we feel embarrassed about what the reporters did? Do we feel embarrassed that some newspapers apparently misunderstood what somebody said? I don't think it is up to us to feel embarrassed. I have here a copy of the words that she actually used. Do I think it has done any lasting damage to the Government or to those newspapers? No, I don't. I think this is a very trivial misunderstanding, in truth. I have to say, I've been a journalist - of course that was three decades ago - and a government official; these kinds of misunderstandings arise from time to time and the thing to do is to come out quickly and nip them in the bud before they become part of folklore. So, no, I am not embarrassed. I don't think the newspapers should be embarrassed. I think we should all shrug and get on with our lives. Okay? This was a tiny point.
How can we put pressure on them? This is a transcript. We haven't got a time machine, we can't go backwards 12 hours or whatever and get them to say something different so that we can produce a different transcript. This is what was actually said at the time. Yes, we did speak to Fortune to try and find out what they had said, and that is when they issued their denial and we also got a transcript. So I think this sequence of events - Let's not make a mountain out of a molehill here. I don't blame the people concerned, this kind of misunderstanding happens.
Question (New California Media Television): Mr Rowse, my name is Neil Galiero from New California Media Television.
Mr Rowse: I remember you.
Question follow up: I have a question for you. I am prone to be sceptical of charges of police brutality but I heard of an incident today where a Western journalist was detained for 45 minutes on the way to the Clinton speech for carrying a harmless one-inch pocket-knife, which required no less than 8 Hong Kong security, including police and information officers, and it seems that while security should be commensurate with the event, that perhaps the security - because nothing happened - maybe the police were prone to overreact to the tiniest circumstance.
Mr Rowse: I'm sorry, I don't agree. People carrying small guns or small knives to events where internationally protected people are attending, deserve to be intercepted and I am very glad that the security equipment detected him on the way in. Next question.
Question follow up: What? A harmless one-inch pocket-knife?
Mr Rowse: A one-inch knife can kill people. Wakey-wakey!
Question follow up: From 400 yards?
Mr Rowse: The media were that far away?
Question follow up: Well, a 100 yards. I don't know, I don't have zoom lens.
Mr Rowse: There was a photographer going round the table, the head table at lunch today. Don't tell me 400 yards.
Question follow up: But you will admit that perhaps maybe the police could be prone to overreact?
Mr Rowse: I tell you what, you try it in California with George Bush and I'll come and film you.
Question (in Chinese):
Mr Rowse: I think he is actually the Mayor of Shanghai, I don't think he is the Premier of Shanghai is he. (We had a bit of fun with the interpretation). Shanghai is a very important business centre. I think the same Mayor of Shanghai said, earlier this year to a group of businessmen from Britain who were visiting, that the Chinese economy for too long had flown on one wing - he meant Hong Kong - and that it was time that the plane or the bird had a second wing - by which I think he meant Shanghai - and therefore the bird would be able to fly higher and faster. And I think that is a very, very good analogy, and Shanghai people, I know, are very proud of their city and quite rightly so, and their city will develop over the coming decades. Shanghai is already a very important industrial centre, as you referred to, as of course is South China. Shanghai is also an important domestic financial centre, mobilising savings in Renminbi through its Stock Exchange and then deploying those savings throughout the Mainland economy wherever they can be most productively invested.
But Hong Kong is already a very significant international financial centre and the statistics on foreign direct investment, which I repeated last week and which I am always happy to repeat again and again and again because they are so substantial, show that Hong Kong is functioning like the international business centre of China. And if we could just step back and take a perspective on this, the population of the Mainland is well over a billion people. The USA, which has about 270 million people has five or six business centres. Europe, which is a similar size to the Mainland of China, has many business centres - London, Paris, Frankfurt and so on. China, as China develops will need many more than one business centre and I see the roles of Hong Kong and Shanghai, to some extent competitive but also to a considerable degree complementary. So I certainly would not wish the Mayor of Shanghai anything but good luck, and I am sure he would wish the same for us.
Question: Please don't worry, my question is not about the demonstration.
Mr Rowse: I don't mind if it is.
Question follow up: I would like to know whether or not in this Forum the question of Chinese or Japanese currency issues were raised and discussed enough, because let me tell you first just two things. Recently, Mr Liu Minkang (?) the Chairman of the China Bank, he suggested the possibility of the devaluation of his currency once the Yen currency continuously goes down under 130 against the dollar. And quite recently, the Japanese new Finance Minister he also suggested that the Japanese Government can allow its currency to go down until 130. So many analysts today are worried about the volatile situation of the Asian currencies. So yesterday, Mr Curtis, the Managing Director of Goldman Sachs, he added that kind of worries that the Japanese Yen currency could repeat the same dangerous situation in 1999, at the time the 160.2 against the dollar or 147. So not only the Korean currency and the Taiwanese currency, especially when it comes to Asia, newly industrialising countries' currencies seem to be very volatile. So in this respect, so what is the prospect of the Forum against the devaluation of the Chinese currency.
Mr Rowse: First of all, I didn't hear the subject of the Yen-Dollar exchange rate discussed at length or in-depth. I think you are correct, there was a reference by Mr Curtis at some point but I don't think that was the main focus of the Forum. I did attend, myself, the separate breakout session on Next Generation: Japan, because Japan is the world's second-largest economy, I think responsible for a substantial proportion of world GDP, and if the Japanese Government and the businessmen can revive their economy that would be a huge plus for world economic growth. But remember, the title of the Forum was 'Next Generation: Asia', so the focus was very much on 20-25 years ahead. Not what will the stock market be tomorrow but what will it be in 20-25 years time. So the whole time frame at which the conference was looking was geared towards that sort of duration. So I don't think it really was the best kind of forum for that kind of relatively short-term possible development. There are other forums. Maybe some of the businessmen in the margins of the Forum itself discussed this kind of issue but not substantially in the Forum itself.
Question: Just given that this was a big opportunity to show the world that Hong Kong is doing exceptionally well post-handover, do you wish now - Can I ask a slightly hypothetical question? - do you wish you'd just let those 100 or so Falun Gong people into Hong Kong, which would have made your claims about the success of the Conference in demonstrating that "one country, two systems" works sound all that much more credible to the international media?
Mr Rowse: The road to hell is paved with the remains of government officials who answer hypothetical questions. I have no regrets. I think our police force and our security authorities did a terrific job that was commensurate with their assessed level of the security needs of the Conference, bearing in mind not just the political leaders but also the very many important business leaders who attended. Yes, people are turned away by Hong Kong Immigration every day, just as they are in New York, in London, in Paris, in Sydney, Melbourne - I'm guessing - you're nodding - too many of them - Canberra.
Question follow up: But not for their religious beliefs, surely.
Mr Rowse: No one was turned away for their religious belief. People are turned away for a variety of security and immigration reasons, not for their religious or political beliefs. And evidence of that is the very large number of people of the particular persuasion that you are talking about who did enter Hong Kong successfully during these few days and who I saw on our local TV taking part in the demonstrations. So it is would be very wrong to assume that every person who is a member of a particular group was not permitted to enter. This is not the case.
Question: Are the expenses for this event under the Budget and what are you going to spend for the next three events this year?
Mr Rowse: The expenses for this event, which we revealed before - we don't have the total budget, only Fortune have the total budget; many things were paid for by them or by other sponsors that they found. The Government budget for this event was HK$9.7 million, which we revealed last week. It had originally been six million, we had to increase it by 3.7 to 9.7 because of the overwhelming response from people who wished to attend. So we had to provide some extra money.
Question follow up: Is it under the budget?
Mr Rowse: No, it's within budget but not substantially under budget.
End/ Thursday, May 10, 2001
NNNN
