Some might be under the impression that the Disney deal is primarily about building a new amusement attraction. But that was not the message the Government was putting out yesterday. Chief Executive Tung Chee-hwa and his officials repeatedly called it an 'infrastructure project'. It was almost as if they considered the fact it involved a theme park to be a secondary consideration. Their reason for using this description was easy to see. Abandoning laissez-faire principles, which have served Hong Kong well for so long, simply in order to build an amusement park is hard to justify. But call it infrastructure and the task suddenly becomes much easier. After all, as Mr Tung was quick to point out yesterday, the Government has a long record of investing in infrastructure projects to boost economic development. No one said projects such as Chek Lap Kok or the Convention and Exhibition Centre violated the long tradition of minimising government intervention in the economy. A good case can certainly be made that the theme park falls into the same category: that it justifies an exception to the laissez-faire principles as it is one of those projects it would be hard for the private sector to undertake alone but that benefits all of Hong Kong. The problem is that this year has seen all too many other such exceptions either already being made or now under serious consideration. The fanfare at yesterday's announcement of the Disney deal was strikingly similar to that over the unveiling of the Cyber-Port project in March. In both cases, the word 'infrastructure' was milked for all it was worth, almost as if to suggest any intervention in the economy is justified, so long as it falls into this category. In both cases, the Government also succeeded in convincing the community that these exceptions to its laissez-faire tradition were justified. The Cyber-Port is widely credited with having sparked the present wave of Internet interest. And it seems certain the boost to Hong Kong's international profile will be enough to assure the Disney deal's popularity with the public. A more critical indication of whether the Government's former commitment to the principle of non-intervention still survives at all is likely to come with the impending decision on the Silicon Harbour project. Some have interpreted recent downbeat remarks by Financial Secretary Donald Tsang Yam-kuen as suggesting that this plan for a microchip manufacturing plant in the New Territories has already been rejected. But what Mr Tsang says in public is not always a reliable guide to government thinking - witness his recent remarks downplaying the prospects of a deal with Disney in favour of one with Universal Studios. American investment bank Hambrecht and Quist's demands for tax breaks in return for undertaking it certainly should have been enough to doom Silicon Harbour, given how Hong Kong has always refused to grant such incentives. But the reality is that Mr Tung is keen on the project as part of his hi-tech crusade and it remains under serious consideration. Some in government even say a new policy allowing tax breaks cannot be ruled out. As any such change would have to apply to all similar projects, this would have far-reaching implications - certainly far greater than a theme park announcement that has so far been broadly welcomed. The Disney deal may mark a breach with past laissez-faire principles. But the real test of how far the Government will go in becoming more interventionist will come when it decides over Silicon Harbour. Danny Gittings is a South China Morning Post Associate Editor
