PAGE 1: "Modest relief on ways source; Rates waivers (and) tax rebates to be unveiled"

According to an anonymous source, "Nobody knows whether the economy will recover next year so we have to prepare for the worst. That's why the government prefers to keep as much ammunition in its war chest as possible to cope with growing volatility in the next two years".

Implications/Analysis/Comments/Remarks: Hongkongers can basically kiss democracy goodbye now, at least in the near future. Donald Tsang says that there will be a consultation at the end of this year regardless of whether the economy has recovered, but it is clear now that he cannot be trusted. If Tsang knew all along that the economy would not recover in 2009, why did he not hold a concensus early this year as he said he would? Donald Tsang's message is crystal clear: he just wants to cling to power.

PAGE 3, HEADLINE #1: "Minister knew nothing about minibonds

According to the SCMP, "When lawmaker James To asked Professor Chan (Secretary for Financial Services & the Treasury Chan Ka-keung), Professor Chan replied that "I only knew of them when Lehman Brothers collapsed".

Implications/Analysis/Comments/Remarks: This is yet another lie by a senior administration official. How could Chan have been a professor and be the Secretary for Financial Services and the Treasury without knowing what minibonds are? This is clearly a coverup.

According to Peter Chan, chairman of the Allied Victims of Lehman Products, "Such a big product (and) so many people. How can he (Chan) be head of financial services and not know?"

Implications/Analysis/Comments/Remarks: Professor Chan, many of us are thinking the same thing.

Vincent Fan accused him of "not knowing when a fire comes into your own house".

"Jeffrey Lam asked why the government had not detected problems with a product sold so widely in Hong Kong".

Implications/Analysis/Comments/Remarks: Investors were misled when they were told that high-risk minibonds were low-risk securities.

PAGE 3 HEADLINE #2: "Rules on retired officials already strict, says official"

According to the SCMP, "A directorate-grade civil servant is subject to a one-year sanitisation period before they can work in the private sector, in addition to a three-year "control" period allowing some flexibility. This compared with a two-year restriction period in Britain and one year in the United States and Canada. Only Singapore, with a five-year ban in certain categories, had a stricter ban".

According to Ronald Arculli, chairman of the Leung Chin-man investigation panel, "While a directorate-grade civil servant's right to work should be respected, it is not absolute. I think Hong Kong is already ranked in the top four. There is (a) grey (area). The question is whether it's dark grey, medium grey or light grey".

According to Lee Cheuk-yan, chairman of the Hong Kong Federation of Trade Unions and Legco's public service committee, "The result of this document should be that never again do we have the perception that SENIOR PUBLIC SERVANTS CAN USE THEIR POSITIONS TO GUARANTEE POST-RETIREMENT EMPLOYMENT".

Accordinfg to the SCMP, "Lawmaker Regina Ip, a former security chief, agreed with Mr. Lee in principle, but said (that) she felt a five-year ban on (post civil service) work was too long".

Implications/Analysis/Comments/Remarks: The government should have made it clear that Leung Chin-man had used his position to gain influence. Without that information, all we heard about was whether or not he would be allowed to find another job, so this made it sound as if when people leave government service at around the age of 55, it would be illegal for them to find another job in the private sector as well. So, in other words, before this explanation came out, there was no way of knowing what all the fuss was about. The bottom line should be that if there is no conflict of interest and people leave the government on good terms why can't they find another job in the private sector without all this 'cleansing' and all these 'quarantines'? The final point to make on this case is: Leung Chin-man has left the government for almost 4 years now and he will not give the money back, at least not without a lengthy and costly arbitration/court battle. Continuing to denounce his activities is counterproductive. This is yet another example of Donald Tsang's lousy policies where aggression is used before reason because DONALD TSANG IS UNDER THE IMPRESSION THAT BEIJING WANTS HIM TO ACT THIS WAY WHEN IN FACT THIS IS DONALD TSANG'S IDEA.