****************************************

The following is the transcript (English only)of the question and answer session given by the Chief Secretary, Mr Donald Tsang, at the Foreign Correspondents' Club luncheon today (June 21):

Question: I hadn't really intended to ask this but as we have to get things going here, some of your predecessors as Chief Secretary, and I am thinking particularly well before the Handover, were not shy when they were unhappy with a story or a reporter or a question; they would pick up a telephone and call the newspaper editor or a TV station or whatever and let their feelings be known. I am just curious whether that is a practice that you would follow and whether we should prepare ourselves to hear your voice on the end of the phone when you are unhappy.

Mr Tsang: The sort of things I wish to say in a hurry over the phone are normally not printable and I would worry more, if I were you, of getting a telephone call from me when I am in a fit. But certainly I have been, even in my term of Chief Secretary now for a month and a half, I think I have made several telephone calls. Maybe I should ring you personally, Francis, one of these days - but not to complain about things but maybe to find out how we were able to present our case better to Hong Kong through the media here.

I always look at the media and the Hong Kong SAR Administration as one of partnership in that you have a job to do - to find out the full facts and put very difficult questions to us - and it is our job to explain the best we can, within the limits of our brief, what the policy is all about, what our initiative is all about, and the telephone line is good. I can't, in fact, think of many other places on earth where there is such a lively intercourse between our media and the administration and how readily we offer ourselves to appear on the morning programmes. In fact I turn on the morning programmes now on RTHK and all I can hear from them are civil servants talking. Matthew Cheung talking about educational policy; Fanny Law the next day; and then Matthew clinched back the radio on the following day. So I think we are all there, whether it is about chicken flu or whatever. But let's make sure that we talk to each other even more in the future to ensure our public is best served - in a way it is going through an independent and lively filter of the Hong Kong media.

Question: The key negative event, if you like, since the Handover, has been the appeal to Beijing by the Government over the CFA ruling in January 1999. Do you think the Government has overcome that terrible publicity? Number one. And number two, do you expect to go again if this court case goes against you?

Mr Tsang: Well, the 'one country, two systems' is a very elegant and a beautiful concept but it does bring up occasional little troubles like this where the way in which the law was written and being interpreted by lawyers steeped in common law jurisprudence, we may have occasional skirmishes of this kind which need to be resolved, but I hope these are very few and far between. And the one we approached the Central Government for help on was in relation to an issue which touched the very feeling of Hong Kong people and that was an unusual event. We explained the reasons for it and why it was in the best interests of Hong Kong, and I believe as far as Hong Kong people are concerned, they believe it was absolutely necessary, but for some purists they thought we could have lumped it, but I do not think that would be feasible and that it would be acceptable by the people at large here.

But as far as the international community goes, if you look at it objectively though and how, for instance in Federal Government and State Government, might occasionally come into conflict in the United States, how that for instance could be an issue in Europe among the member states, then you become to realise perhaps the little things that we have are forgiveable and in fact might be essential in certain circumstances. But I would not venture to say this was an easy thing to do. This is a sort of very, very unusual step the Hong Kong Administration wish to take and I would not think they would be likely to come up very easily.

Question: You spoke about dealing with the issues in a Hong Kong way and you also mentioned the Falun Gong. I wonder whether you would care to elaborate on how you would deal with the Falun Gong in a Hong Kong way, and perhaps we could see the laissez faire policy moving to a laissez souffle, I think it is in French. How do you think the Government is going to deal with the Falun Gong?

Mr Tsang: We are dealing with the Falun Gong by not dealing with the Falun Gong. That is the Hong Kong way. The Falun Gong people are now practising every day their own things in Hong Kong, their breathing exercises. Nobody bothers them if they are going to continue with their breathing exercises. The Hong Kong way means it is different from the Mainland way. We do it our own way, within our own rule of law, and that is what we have been doing.

Question: Sir, your successor, Antony Leung, has said several times now that he is in full support of building up Hong Kong's capability as a logistic centre and as a hub, and particularly for aviation. But at the moment, of course, Hong Kong remains one of the most restrictive aviation regimes in Asia. Will the Government be changing this? Can we see open skies predictably in the next few years?

Mr Tsang: I'm sorry you say it is the most restrictive air services regime but I would not wish to describe Hong Kong regime as such. This is only the first time we hear about that description here. I think Hong Kong is entirely for open skies. But open skies does not mean open your skies and not open my skies. Open skies means you can fly everywhere you like. I am quite happy to exchange open skies with anyone for that matter, although I mustn't step out of line as this is really very much on Antony Leung's side, but you get me very passionate about this subject, in that if any country, say Australia or America and ourselves, wish to have open skies, we can have it tomorrow. It means anyone saying - take for instance, in America's case, anyone coming from Chicago, San Francisco, Los Angeles, New York, Washington, can come and fly here and fly to anywhere else, and I from Hong Kong airlines, whether it is Dragon Air or Hong Kong Air or Cathay Pacific, can fly over there, any city we want, and hopping from city to city. That is what open skies means. But don't tell me that we have to open our skies and their skies are closed to us.

We haven't got a restrictive regime. I can prove to you that you have not been quite correct. But anyway I don't want to go into a debate with you. But the fact of the matter is, I have learned that aviation negotiators are perhaps the toughest negotiators in the world, second only to those textile or garment negotiators. They normally use very colourful language to describe their opponents. What is important for us to realise is our airport is doing well, planes are coming here freely and going out, and we are negotiating air services agreements with all our partners. And we are quite happy to do open skies deals with any country if it is defined in the way which I described.

Question: If I could go back to the Falun Gong. Your boss has described Falun Gong as an evil cult. Would you like to define 'evil cult' and explain why Falun Gong fits into this category?

Mr Tsang: I think in a free and open society like Hong Kong, it is natural for people to have different views on what a cult is and what an evil cult is, and how to define the evil cult and whether certain organisations fit that definition. You have your own definition, Mr Tung has his own definition, the Buddhists have one, the Catholics have another, the Christian have other things. But this is the beautiful thing about Hong Kong. But what is important here is not what you think about 'evil cult' and what I think about 'evil cult', and whether it is a cult and whether it is evil or not, the most important thing is what in effect in Hong Kong, this place as regards religion is totally free.

And then on the question of freedom, it is certainly non-negotiable in Hong Kong. And furthermore this place is run by the rule of law and nothing less, and that is important. But how you describe it, how I describe it, I think is immaterial. I have certain beliefs, I have Christian beliefs, and what a cult means, I can look up the Catholic Catechism and there it is. And what an evil cult is, I know what this is all about. And I know you too are coming from a Catholic school. But this is not in the interests of people at large. But what is interesting is, you can use your definition, I can use mine, Mr Tung can use his. But what is important is, it is not all that relevant. The most important thing is how we deal with religion as an issue. You've got my answer.

Question: I would like to ask, the local Falun Gong has recently called for a dialogue with the Government after Tung Chee Hwa branded them as an evil cult. Can you tell us whether the Government is prepared to have an open dialogue with the local Falun Gong and to talk face to face with them, because they have alleged that the recent remarks by Tung Chee Hwa have been defamatory? And did the Government take any legal advice as to whether what Mr Tung has said over the past few months about the Falun Gong is really defamatory? And if so, what is the legal advice?

Mr Tsang: The question, when you talk about defamation, I've been curious about that term - it's how my cook has been describing the incidents of my home. But that's life in Hong Kong. It's a free society. But as far as talking to the Falun Gong is concerned, it is taking place. I mean our colleagues have been talking to them. But the most conducive part is not to have an open dialogue. In your terms, it is like coming here in the Foreign Correspondents' Club, Mr Tung on one side, Falun Gong on the other, with the media glaring in. That is what you call an open forum. That would not be conducive to dialogue. What is conducive to dialogue is quiet chats about what we are here for, what we do and what we don't do. And I believe that is taking place between my colleagues and some of the Falun Gong practitioners. What is important here is what we are certainly concerned about, what they are concerned about, we can talk about it. This is a free society. But what is cared about is we have to behave as a responsible government and there are things, I think, which may make things better - by dealing with it in a discreet and quiet manner.

Question: As long as we are talking about evil cults can we address a question I have on LegCo please.

Mr Tsang: Oh dear! Those are my Honorable Members.

Question: I beg your pardon, that was really unfair. I have been a little concerned lately at the reaction in LegCo, particularly with regard to the economic situation and the proposals that government is putting forward, that the reactions have been extremely negative. I have seen very little positive movement in some of the political parties to try and work co-operatively in dialogue and try and resolve some of the funding issues, the financial issues that we have in front of us today. Is there another way or a better way, perhaps, that an executive led government can deal with a legislature that does not appear to think of itself as having to responsibly be proactive in solving some of these issues?

Mr Tsang: It is a very good question but a very difficult question to grapple with because we are slated under the Basic Law to be two opposing camps. The legislature is supposed to do the checks and balances. Exactly what the US Congress is doing to the US Administration. So you shouldn't be surprised. And you would be very surprised if LegCo suddenly behaves in a very collaborative way with the Administration. That is not their job. Their job is to pick holes in what we do, however good a proposal we put forward. But the important thing is most of our things, not all, most of the things put forward get through at the end of the day, through just sheer hard work and through thoroughly explaining, not only to the legislature but to the people at large, how sensible, how important those proposals are. But I think that is, unfortunately, the price we pay for an open society. With our legislature, we are going to make sure that this Government would not become draconian in character or in its actions. But the price you pay for that is you have a rather negative legislature. This is what it is all about.

But I agree with you, there are things that we could work together on a lot more. There could be things we could explain more effectively - think in terms of how legislators will react to our proposals. And as Chief Secretary now, I will certainly make sure that I will do something about that. I have said that I will be doing my very best to establish a much better dialogue with the legislators, knowing that we do come from different camps, from a different position, looking at things from different perspectives. But there are still things we can work on together. And similarly, I want to work harder with members of the media so that we are able to explain our case more effectively in the days ahead.

Question: If I might ask a question, Mr Secretary. You have succeeded a very popular Chief Secretary and you come to this job, obviously, desiring to define it in your own way. How would you characterize what you hope to do in difference from the previous Chief Secretary?

Mr Tsang: I haven't got a chance, Jim. She's such a charming lady with a dimpled smile. She stands there and you applaud - and I stand here and you grill. But we come from the same block - different chips, different vintage - but a similar heritage of a professional public service member, knowing our mission in life is to serve and our greatest, greatest reward is that we feel that we are able to serve. And we do have different styles and I concentrate on the work to do; she in fact would present her case much more elegantly than I do. I usually take things by the horns - Anson usually smoothes things over in her very elegant way. She has her smile and I have my bow ties. I'm happy.

Question: It has been rumoured that the Government is considering introducing an anti-cult law similar to France. That would mean the Government having to accept a certain fixed definition about what a cult is. First of all, is the Government considering this law? Secondly, should it? And how far should a government start to intervene or dabble in the affairs of a religion and define what a religion is?

Mr Tsang: Hong Kong, as I said earlier on, survives on certain very important convictions which make up, to me, the strongest underpinnings of our prosperity, and one of these underpinnings is the freedom of religion - freedom. And that is certainly not a thing we want to negotiate away. You said there was a rumour about legislating and that is exactly what it was. We are not legislating. Mr Tung has said so, Mrs Ip has said so, and I will say it to you again. So I think that answers all the questions. I think there is no need for us to speculate on what we are going to do but we are not legislating.

Question: Next year there will be an election for Chief Executive. Is that not an appropriate time to begin a community wide discussion on what shape the government will take after 2008?

Mr Tsang: Well, I believe that we are always discussing it every day. We are discussing it each and every day, this is what this whole community is all about. We know that the present system, as defined by the Basic Law, will have to hold its present shape and will not be subject to change until 2007, but we are taking it step by step and this is a matter of much lively debate here. We used to have much less numbers of directly elected people from the geographical constituencies in the Legislature. In the year 2000 we began to have 24; in 2004 we are going to have 30 of them. And as you said, the Chief Executive election will take place next year. That will bring in maybe - maybe - Hong Kong's perception of what it wants to have beyond 2007 to a different level of sensitivity.

I think Hong Kong people work on this very steadily and very consciously. We are acutely conscious as well that this is an economic entity. We must make sure that while we are debating this that the economic strengths will not be undermined in any way. But this is a lively issue. We know exactly what the destination is but we are faced with a situation that we have to build something of our own - our own style of government, our own style of democracy. And it is not starting from a clean sheet of paper, we have got a foundation here. Something which the gentleman just talked about, a total division between our legislature and the executive - like a sort of American style of congressional arrangement. But then we have got a different sort of make up in terms of our legislature and these are the sort of serious questions that we should debate each and every day, right up to the point of 2007. It is not only the job of the Government, it is the job of each one of us in the community.

Question: I have a question about the competitiveness of Hong Kong. I have read the newspaper knowing that you and FS, Antony Leung, have brought some brainstorming ideas to Mainland China about how to increase the stock market size of Hong Kong. That is, the idea is about the CDR and the H-shares. I would like to know what is the process now?

Mr Tsang: This is very much a matter for the Financial Secretary to answer. I know he is working hard on certain initiatives that Hong Kong could take. In fact I mentioned also something on this in the last Budget Speech I wrote in March this year. But as Hong Kong markets continue to grow and change and evolve, we need to produce more sophisticated products. But I think Mr Leung has very much this in mind.

Question: Thanks for giving me the chance to join the game.

Mr Tsang: Game, you see. I am the game; these are the gamekeepers.

Question: Mr Tsang, what do you expect - after three months consultation to be launched tomorrow on the soccer gambling or illegal gambling consultation paper - what do you expect the public will respond, or still just after three months consultation the whole society will still on the same stand, that is it's a controversy between social morality and what we will put forward by it is the kind of the rule of law protection to safeguard against legal gambling?

Mr Tsang: They will tell us what they want. It is not for me to speculate.

Question: No, you would be the one to launch the whole consultation, isn't it?

Mr Tsang: Yes. Launching is one thing. Just to try to preconceive, try to guess, a double guess now what the public wants in an open consultation of this kind is a bit disingenuous. We really want an unbiased and open-minded consultation. It is, as you described rightly, it is a conflict between holding to one of our religions in Hong Kong, which is the rule of law, and against the stance of some people who believe that gambling is intrinsically immoral. So this is very much a moral issue - the 'Fighting of the Titans'.

I believe we have quite an open society and we have a very vocal community and people will express their views. And I am not going to underestimate the wisdom in this in coming up with a very sensible answer at the end of the day. But for our part, as a government we should outline the problem clearly to our own people and set out the arguments fairly on both sides. And I think this is the way on how to deal with the moral issues of this kind. And I am waiting with bated breath for what the community is going to say and judge on this matter.

End/Thursday, June 21, 2001

NNNN