LEGISLATION on how the new airport will be managed contains proposals that pro-China figures warn may further agitate Beijing. The package, introduced at this stage only for discussion, includes a number of unexpected clauses that might be seen as breaching the Memorandum of Understanding on the airport at Chek Lap Kok. It renames the management body the Airport Corporation, instead of the Airport Authority, and prevents independent monitoring to the extent that Chinese officials had suggested are necessary. There is also a gap in the part that specifies how much the Hong Kong Government's cash injection into the project will be. China and Britain have still not resolved an impasse over the financing of the multi-billion-dollar airport and rail link projects and the level of government capital is part of the dispute. Beijing insists that the future Special Administrative Region (SAR) be left with as little airport debt as possible but that SAR reserves not be used to ensure this. A dispute over how the permanent body to build and run the Chek Lap Kok facility should be set up could adversely affect the negotiations, which had already fallen victim to the ongoing Sino-British row over constitutional issues. But in an apparent move to address possible concern in China that the airport body might become an independent empire enjoying excessive powers, the Government also proposed a host of measures which it said would hold it accountable. The proposed legislation, however, does not give either the Director of Audit or legislators, who have been pressing for the future airport body to be more accountable to the legislature, any direct role in monitoring the proposed corporation. Secretary for Economic Services, Gordon Siu Kwing-chue, declined to say whether changing the name of the authority in the Airport Corporation Bill would amount to a violation to the airport memorandum, achieved after drawn out negotiations at the highestdiplomatic level . ''Such a change is only to make sure that the name of the body can fully reflect its functions,'' he said. ''I believe we have a good reason in doing that. I'll try my best to explain it to the Chinese side [to persuade them to accept it],'' said Mr Siu. He said the reason was that organisations which were called ''authorities'' usually carried out regulatory functions. This, however, would be the case for the body running the airport, because the Government itself would retain all necessary aviation and airport-related regulatory roles. Local delegate to China's parliament, the National People's Congress, Cheng Yiu-tong, criticised the change of name, which he said would raise Chinese concern that the intention was to form an independent empire. NPC delegate Kan Fook-yee said it was better to give the Government greater control over the new airport, rather than put it under a corporate system that could allow it to run out of control. Chairman of the Airport Consultative Committee, Wong Po-yan, said he would prefer the new body to retain the title of ''authority''. Mr Wong, also a member of the Preliminary Working Committee for the Special Administrative Region Preparatory Committee, said: ''The functions of the new airport body should go beyond the scope of a commercial corporation.'' Mr Siu declined to be drawn on whether the Government would write in its own figure in the part that specifies how much cash the Hong Kong Government injects into the airport and rail link projects in the absence of Beijing's agreement on the amount. ''It is not necessary in law to state the opening equity of the corporation,'' he said. ''Therefore legally, you could enact the bill without it. I am not saying you would, but you could do it. It's not critical in the bill.'' Mr Siu said he hoped the two sides could reach an agreement on financing as soon as possible and at the same time strike a consensus on the airport bill. ''I don't want to speculate what will happen under different circumstances. We will take it a step at a time,'' he said. Mr Siu said that not allowing the Director of Audit Brian Jenney to scrutinise the Airport Corporation was in line with the current practice in the Mass Transit Railway Corporation. Under the bill, the Legislative Council is neither promised a seat in the board of the Airport Corporation nor allowed access to its proposed financial plans which would go to the Financial Secretary Hamish Macleod. Instead, the controls on the Airport Corporation would be exercised through mechanisms such as airport land grant, financial support agreement and international obligation. The Governor could also obtain any information as he might require while the Financial Secretary would direct its investment. Mr Siu said the Government was trying to strike a balance to achieve the important benefits of the public corporation approach while maintaining all the powers necessary to protect and promote public interest. Stressing that he did not want to spell out a specific timetable for the enactment of the bill, Mr Siu said they hoped that a revised version that takes public opinion into account could be tabled to the Legislative Council before its summer recess by July.