Following is the transcript of the Chief Executive, Mr Tung Chee Hwa's Question Time on RTHK Hong Kong Today's phone-in programme held this morning:

Presenter: As usual, for all these phone-ins we get an avalanche of telephone calls which I know will keep you very busy. But perhaps to get the ball rolling, Mr Tung, perhaps the chief criticism on your speech yesterday was that perhaps you've created too many committees - another tier of bureaucracy - and that the talking and deliberating perhaps should stop, and what we need now in Hong Kong is action, not words.

CE: Good morning, Nick. I think the purposes of some of these committees are really quite critical because I want to observe as wide a range of views as possible on many of these critical issues, so that we can become wiser in the decision making process. Actually, the government does have, at this moment, over 400 committees of one form or another. But the ones that I have established, in my view, are really critical for us to move forward.

Presenter: Thank you very much indeed.

Christine Loh: Mr Tung, this is Christine Loh from the Citizens Party.

CE: How are you?

Christine Loh: I am very well. Apart from your section, yesterday, on building a business environment and going into the information age, and on education, I think the general feeling is that the rest of the speech lacks specific ideas. So perhaps, I thought, maybe today I can give you a specific idea. As you know, I am very concerned about the environment. In paragraph 76 of your speech you talk about government shortly introducing a trial scheme for LPG powered taxis. One thing that you can do is, in fact, if you spend about $6 billion, perhaps over three years, you can help Hong Kong to buy an entire new fleet of taxis and public light-buses. And the result of this is that within about that period you will reduce suspended particulants by 50 per cent. So I think that is a very dramatic improvement that you can do with relatively little money. And I wondered whether this is the sort of thing you would be prepared to consider?

CE: Thank you very much for your suggestion. We certainly will look at these suggestions. What we are doing is that, as we have always done, to do it as we move forward in a way that looks after all the interests of Hong Kong. Air pollution is a big issue. We have started this way by experimenting with a fleet of LPG taxis but if we can do it faster we will look at it carefully.

Christine Loh: I think what I am saying is, once you find that LPG taxis are viable - there is no reason in terms of technology that it is not going to be viable - what you need are strong financial incentives, as you well know, to get people to change. So I just want to put it in your mind that for $6 billion, spent over three years, you can give us a 50 per cent reduction in particulants.

CE: Thank you for your suggestion. I would like to say that taxi transport continues to need to be a private sector effort, and to the extent government can facilitate, we will certainly look at it.

Presenter: RTHK's Hong Kong Today's special phone-in with the Chief Executive, Mr Tung Chee Hwa, taking time out from a very busy schedule today to talk to you. Your phone-calls in English, Cantonese or Putonghua will be accepted. We have a caller in English now. Good morning, caller, you are through to the Chief Executive.

Question: Good morning. I am very encouraged by your innovative sensitivity to hi-technology. My question is about education and the use of computers in the classroom. Is the policy now simply to help students use computers, as followed by the previous Administration, or is it to provide computer-assisted education, especially at primary level, allowing students much more freedom to work at their own pace and relieving teachers from much routine classroom work, giving them far more time for individual attention? The latter, of course, requires a much greater investment but a much greater return.

CE: I think I said yesterday in my policy address that I hope within five years 25 per cent of the curriculum will be taught through the use of the computer. And the purpose, really, is to make our youngsters, both in primary and in secondary schools, become very, very accustomed to the use of computers and that, in fact, through this use of computers get to access a much broader base of materials and knowledge. As to how this will be implemented, this will be left to the schools to do so. But I would imagine that the more creative students should be left alone to do what they can do best. Some of the youngsters are very, very clever with computers and with applications.

Presenter: Thank you very much indeed, caller. One point that I would like to bring up, which came a few months ago, was the concern that teachers themselves did not know how to use computers and at colleges they were not being taught how to use computers. Is that of concern to you?

CE: I think it is a major concern. In fact, yesterday, in my policy address I talked about the 30,000-odd teachers who need to get themselves involved in computer knowledge. But, you know, our demands on teachers are really very, very heavy now: demands on computer knowledge, better English, better Chinese, better leadership and guidance to the children. So we do expect a lot from our teachers and this is why I also suggested, yesterday, that September 10 be made Teachers Day, to signify the community's respect for the teachers.

Question: Good morning, Mr Tung. You have been doing everything good and you are trying to help and you say all good things. But one thing I don't understand is why you want to reduce the elected members in LegCo from, fully elected now there will be 20, and I think, because of this, you can pass any law which you like with good authority?

CE: I think we are not doing that at all, that the legislature for the 1998 election, which is going to be held in May, will have 20 directly-elected seats and there will be 2.5 million registered voters and they will be voting for these 20 elected seats. The other 40 seats: 30 will be through functional constituencies and 10 through the Election Committee. And right now, as far as this arrangement is concerned, there is some disagreement with regard to nine of the 30 functional constituencies, as to how widely they are representing the interests of the community. I think, by and large, the proposal we have made is a very sensible one and it will go forward well, and the election in May next year will be fair and open. And we move forward over the next 10 years in the democratic process in accordance with the rules laid down by the Basic Law. So we are moving forward. There is a large degree of democracy here already.

Don't forget, I was elected by 400 Selection Committee members. And you probably will remember, it is not just getting the votes of the 400, I had to campaign very hard all over the territory getting the support from the community at large, in order that the 400 would vote for me. So it is for the first time that the Chief Executive, who really has a great deal of authority, is really in one form or another elected by the people of Hong Kong.

Question: Mr Tung, would you not like to get elected by all the people? Because if you like to have real authority then let the people elect you.

CE: I think we are moving forward in that direction and that in 10 years time we will be able to look at it, to take a decision as to how we move forward. The ultimate objective is universal suffrage, so we are moving forward in that direction.

Question: Good morning. I would like to know what Mr Tung is going to do about the ridiculous stage of the rental property market. Everyone needs somewhere to live but we all seem to be held to ransom by already rich and greedy landlords. Surely, the rise in the rental market should be linked to the rate of inflation. What do you think?

CE: Thank you very much for reminding me; this is a problem we all share in common and a concern we all share in common. The basic problem is that we do not have enough supply, in the past, of land to build enough housing. And as a result of that demand has been very strong, so the rents have been going up steadily and to a level which is hurting Hong Kong's competitiveness, as well as the affordability of ordinary people. But as I've said any times, the way to solve this problem is really to supply as much land as possible to build as many units as possible, so over a period of time the prices will come down and the rental levels will stabilise. And that is the way we are dealing with it and we hope that the results will come soon in the near future.

Question: Don't you think that legislation to keep the prices down now would help in the rental market?

CE: Well, our success in Hong Kong has been based on a free market economy and to legislate on rents and so on, if you look at many other countries in the world, what has resulted is also not very desirable. I think the best way to move forward is still on the supply side - to create more land, to make more units available and to achieve a soft-landing in the property prices and the rental market.

Question: May it come soon. Thank you very much, Mr Tung.

Question (another caller): Good morning Mr Tung. I would just like to ask you why doesn't your government consider to curb the population growth in Hong Kong rather than developing and building more housing estates into the country parks? I mean how many people are coming into Hong Kong from China every day exactly?

CE: Well, it is a very good question. In fact, over the last four years or so we have a population growth in excess of two per cent per annum, which is one of the highest of any metropolis around the world. And of that, two per cent is about 120,000 people, although this year I think the figure is going to be higher than that. Of that, about 54,000 a year actually are from China. Most of them are really for reuniting with their families, so really on humanitarian grounds. And many, many are returning migrants who left Hong Kong to go to Australia, Canada and what have you, and now are returning because they see opportunities here to do things. So these are our own people really. And it is a challenge for us but it is a fact we must face. And the way to do it is how to harness this group of people so that they can contribute more to our economy, because there is no other alternative because they are our people of Hong Kong.

Question: Yes, you're right. So would the government consider not developing into the country parks so much, because Hong Kong is already very crowded and we need that space for the people to enjoy. Without that, Hong Kong becomes quite unliveable, I think.

CE: Well, I'd like to tell you that 18 per cent of Hong Kong's land is actually urban area - we have 82 per cent which is really greens and parks and so on and so forth - and our urban area is really very crowded. But we still have a lot of space and the key is how to do better planning so that on the one hand we can receive all these people who are coming back who are really one of us, one of our community, and on the other hand keep on preserving a very pleasant environment. And we will try to do both as much as we can.

Presenter: Thank you very much indeed, caller. That is a very chief concern, of course, isn't it Mr Tung, the eating into the country parks. I live in Sha Tin. That's a concrete jungle now; it wasn't 12 years ago when I went to live there. And Ma On Shan, another area. So people look forward to being able to go to like Sai Kung Country Park. Can you put your hand on your heart and guarantee to the Hong Kong people that you will not infringe on their country parks? Or are you now committed to taking away that very special land?

CE: I think, Nick, obviously we like to preserve as much country park as possible. But the other reality is that we need to hold the prices of housing down. The other reality is that the population is increasing. And we have to find the right balance as we move forward. So I can honestly tell you I cannot put my hand on my heart to tell you what you wanted me to say.

Question: Good morning Mr Tung. Mr Tung, I am glad to see that the Waste Reduction Plan will be implemented by your administration next year. I would like to see that the principle you bring in, too, that the polluter pays, will not just be a slap on the wrist for businesses and just going on as just another operating expense. Can you say that your administration will ensure that legislation will have effective minimum fines for all areas of the community, particularly the general public, to see that littering and polluting fines will be at such a level that they will act as an effective deterrent?

CE: I think keeping Hong Kong clean is really everyone's responsibility and imposing fines, of course, is one way of doing it. And the other way is really to really improve our own culture, to make ourselves feel bad if we litter. And I would think that the second alternative is probably a better way of going about it. I remember in the 70's there was a major effort - in the 60's or 70's there was a major effort on clean Hong Kong and we really need to look at this again because if we are not careful we are going to really make our environment pretty poor. So we will try to do our best.

Presenter: Thank you very much indeed, caller. Yes, the worst thing to do is to go around on a Monday morning, around a country park, and see the litter all over the place. But Mr Tung there committing the Hong Kong Administration to implementing a cleaner Hong Kong.

Question: Mr Tung, greetings. The fact that you are here, answering open questions from the public, is certainly to be applauded. Of course the Basic Law provides for freedom of speech. Could you therefore clarify the position of free expression on human rights issues in, for example, Tibet, on talk shows such as this?

CE: Thank you very much. I think that freedom of information, freedom of speech, is a very important part of our culture. And as you can see, since July 1, really nothing much has changed. Insofar as Tibet and Taiwan are concerned, these are very sensitive issues not with just our country but with Chinese people everywhere, and I hope that when these things are talked about we bear in mind the sensitivity. Because I, for one, feel very much that Taiwan and Tibet are part of China. Now, freedom of expression is perfectly all right. The question is that one has to express it, as you and I do in this talk show, and the other is to advocate it very actively, and the key is how to draw the line. And these are the things that the legislature which will come into being after the May election next year, will have the task of establishing new laws. And of course we are a community of rule of law and when the law is there we would implement it in accordance to the law.

Question: I understand. Are you saying that the individual should determine the thin line that should be drawn between responsibility and freedom of expression?

CE: I think, no. What I am saying is that laws in accordance with section 23 of the Basic Law will come into being, will be enacted, after the first legislature is elected, and we will have to go in accordance to the law. I am not going to interpret the law because we have a due process of the law, and let the law settle these issues.

Presenter: Thank you very much indeed, caller. Mr Tung, what about self-censorship, because that has been a very real concern before and after the handover. What is your view on self-censorship? Do you think that because of that very thin line, there is a danger that journalists and commentators may self-censor their own thoughts, their own writings and even on a talk-show like this?

CE: Well Nick, I think there are two parties who can answer this question. One is from your point of view as a journalist, as a programmer, as a responsible person for this programme. The other is a person like me who reads your newspaper, who listens to your talk-shows. From my point of view I don't see any self-censorship. As to whether you feel it or not, you ask yourself. I don't think so. I just don't think so.

Question: Mr Tung, I have very great concern about the poor air quality in Hong Kong and wanted to ask another question about using unleaded fuel for the taxi fleet and the light-bus fleet in Hong Kong. It is my understanding that the taxi fleet, that the cost of the three-way catalytic converter and conversion is not the problem, it is the cost of unleaded petrol in Hong Kong that they are concerned about. And the cost of petrol in Hong Kong is so high, due to the high government tax on the fuel. Why is it not possible to eliminate the tax for the taxi fleet in order for them to immediately go to unleaded petrol?

CE: Good morning. I think if we talk about taxis there is a whole new issue there. But what I would like to say is that air quality is important and what we are doing as a government is in fact taking it a step further, experimenting with LPG taxis. And if we succeed in that experiment - which we should know within 1998 - if we succeed in that experiment and we have gone through the consequences of that particular experiment, including the costs involved to consumers and everything else, I think the best way to go is really in that direction, to go to the LPG fleet which will be much better than even unleaded. And we shall soon know.

Presenter: Thank you very much indeed, caller. Obviously, that is the way the government is looking at the LPG formula for taxis in trying to clean up the air here in Hong Kong. Thank you very much indeed, Mr Tung, for that answer.