BEARING in mind that since the end of World War II vital capital inflows to a politically high risk place like Hong Kong have been sustained only by allowing investment in the property market to reap spectacular profits for all who were ready to take the risk, Mr Tony Eason's trial package of measures seems to strike a fair balance between the expectations of owners, developers and lessees of domestic properties.
However, I hope that the Finance Committee will examine very carefully indeed the executive's justification for creating yet another costly Secretary post to co-ordinate the planning of housing, because it does not always follow that a post that looks essential in theory will, in practice, help achieve the prescribed objective.
MacLehose's 10 Year Housing Programme is a case in point.
When Lord MacLehose (then Sir Murray) launched his final solution to the housing problem in 1972 and set up the Housing Authority to implement it, the target was for the Government to build good housing for 1.8 million people to rent at a price they could afford, in 10 years, leaving the private sector to build for the better off.
Linked into this was supposed to be authority-built housing for sale with private sector participation.
It was argued that to achieve these targets the Director of Housing needed to be removed from his department and installed in the Secretariat in a new Secretary level post. This was done twice.