Two suggestions have been Ocean Park and the government's 57 per cent share in the Disneyland theme park, due to open in a couple of years time. While Ocean Park declined to comment on the matter, its chairman is on record as saying privatisation presented a 'feasible model' for the park.

The Informer spoke to a range of interested parties about whether it makes sense to sell off assets in the battered tourism sector and what they might fetch.

Esther Wong Wing-han, Disney public affairs manager:

'I haven't really got anything to add to what I said before. We are focusing on opening Hong Kong Disneyland in 2005 or 2006. It's going to be a huge park, so all our assets and energy are devoted to constructing the theme park.

'This is something for the government to answer because the source of this is coming from the government. It's not something we want to discuss.'

Stephen Brown, head of research at Kim Eng Securities:

'In the early years of Disney the returns will be very, very small. We really need to give it a few years.

'The government had a very small equity position at the beginning, so the amount they could sell is very limited. Quite frankly, with a $3.25 billion equity stake and then subordinated debt, it's meaningless, there's no way they'd want to sell it in year one. It's Mickey Mouse money.

'There are much more fundamental issues, for example getting tourists in from the mainland to the park. What is the situation with the border and the coach permits that will be needed to allow in all these millions of tourists? How many coach operators have the necessary licences?

'Opening up China and deregulating the tourism market, these are the sorts of issues you tackle first and then maybe you do a Disney deal. Now they are having to run around to deregulate the market to enable people to come. And, if you attack these issues properly, you have to look at corruption in China on the issue of granting permits and licences.

'There are all sorts of problems with Ocean Park. For example, it receives Jockey Club money, so if the government sells it, a private company could not be a recipient of those funds. You think the shareholders would pay that difference? It just wouldn't work.

'The government should be looking at issues like the airport, the MTRC and the Housing Authority's five redevelopment sites. These are the big cash items.'

A Financial Services and the Treasury Bureau spokesman:

'We are considering carefully what items are to be included in the asset disposal programme including the timing, nature and format of disposal. Details will be announced when a more concrete plan for disposal is available.

'As regards Hong Kong Disneyland, we would wish to see it being successfully completed and launched and achieve an operating track record before considering the disposal of our shareholding.'

James Tien Pei-chun, chairman of the Liberal Party:

'The track record of Ocean Park probably doesn't make it a very attractive candidate. The facilities are dated. It's losing its fresh appeal.

'If the government did privatise Ocean Park, they would have to somehow provide additional incentives, like a guaranteed income for a certain period of time, or interest-free loans, otherwise it's going to be a very difficult asset to let go of. The problem is [the need for] reinvestment to update the facilities and enhance the appeal of the park.

'I think it's too soon to talk about Disney. First of all it doesn't have a trading track record. It's not unreasonable to expect two to three years of operating results before a fair price can be attached.

'It's seen as a risky business - otherwise Disney would have worked with the private sector themselves. Disney knew a deal with the government was important because of infrastructure and environmental issues. Without government backing, the private sector couldn't wield an operation this big.

'The ideal situation would be to try to float it after seeing operational results, otherwise it probably won't fetch a fair price.

'It's not in the interests of government to hold on to private sector developments forever. Once they get off the ground and create value they should be privatised.'