Hong Kong's legislators would soon vote on whether to allow the government to convert its loans to the territory's Micky Land into equity according to this story.
What amazes me is the kind of argument that has been used to support the construction of Mickey Land in the first place and now its extension. The argument for building Micky Land, as least as it appears to me, is the following:
1. Build it (means Micky Land) first, and visitors would come!
Couple of years down the road, not that many visitors show up, the argument for extension relies on this:
2. Not that many people turn up because the park is too small. Build a larger park and visitors would come.
Amazing indeed. My sense is that if the whole enterprise is fully funded by the parent company of the local Micky Land, it would have been shut down a while ago. Amen.
Showing posts with label Government handout. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Government handout. Show all posts
Thursday, July 09, 2009
Thursday, April 12, 2007
It's Your Money Too!
The government finally has offered some details on its plan of giving out freebies to film makers. The plan was first mentioned in this year's budget.
A story in today's SCMP reported:
"Films costing less than HK$12 million could qualify for grants of up to 30 per cent, according to a government discussion paper submitted to the Legislative Council yesterday..."
Why limit it to HK$ 12 million? Is that any analysis to support that? (May be, I have not read the government report submitted to the legislature yet).
It gets better.
"At least half of the main cast and film crew would have to be local permanent residents."
Does the government think that the reason for the decline of HK's movie industry is caused by the industry's past hiring patterns, ie too many non-residents are employed. If so, why the industry itself couldn't figure it out and shifting its employment pattern?
It gets even better.
"To be eligible, films must be commercially viable, with third-party financing of at least half of the production budget."
If so, ie. the movie is known to somebody to be commercially viable, you wouldn't need the government dole in the first place, wouldn't it?
Finally, giving government handouts to some "qualified" movie makers but not others based on some necessarily arbitrary criteria mean that all movie makers are not competing on an equal footing. How would this square with the government's calling for the urgency of a competition law when it serves as one source of the problem itself?
A story in today's SCMP reported:
"Films costing less than HK$12 million could qualify for grants of up to 30 per cent, according to a government discussion paper submitted to the Legislative Council yesterday..."
Why limit it to HK$ 12 million? Is that any analysis to support that? (May be, I have not read the government report submitted to the legislature yet).
It gets better.
"At least half of the main cast and film crew would have to be local permanent residents."
Does the government think that the reason for the decline of HK's movie industry is caused by the industry's past hiring patterns, ie too many non-residents are employed. If so, why the industry itself couldn't figure it out and shifting its employment pattern?
It gets even better.
"To be eligible, films must be commercially viable, with third-party financing of at least half of the production budget."
If so, ie. the movie is known to somebody to be commercially viable, you wouldn't need the government dole in the first place, wouldn't it?
Finally, giving government handouts to some "qualified" movie makers but not others based on some necessarily arbitrary criteria mean that all movie makers are not competing on an equal footing. How would this square with the government's calling for the urgency of a competition law when it serves as one source of the problem itself?
Wednesday, March 07, 2007
Bidding Farewell to Laissze Faire in HK
In the HK Standard today:
" In an unprecedented move, the government announced Wednesday it will invest directly in movie productions to back Hong Kong's ailing film industry. Officials hope direct investment from the HK$300 million film development fund announced by Financial Secretary Henry Tang Ying-yen in his budget speech last week will bring about a revival to the industry that a senior official has described as "very important."..."
Rationale for the policy, according to Secretary for Commerce, Industry and Technology Joseph Wong:
"First of all, the film industry, is a very important creative industry in Hong Kong and [its] revival will have a lot of spill-over effects." Secondly, he argued, there are also many examples of governments playing a "more active part" in supporting film industries in France, the United Kingdom, Singapore and South Korea."
Read more here.
Yo Joe, please name one industry which does not generate spillover effects, externalities, third-party effects...or whatever fancy name you can come up with?
Oh yeah, Joe, on your second point, would you please explain to me why whatever policies other countries have implemented must be a good thing? Could they all be wrong at the same time? They might not, but we, as taxpayers who pay for the final bill, deserve an explanation not an assertion. Wouldn't you agree?
And would you please also info us Joe, what criteria you would use when deciding which movie deserves government dole ? And who has the final say when picking a particular set of criteria for such purpose in the first place?
" In an unprecedented move, the government announced Wednesday it will invest directly in movie productions to back Hong Kong's ailing film industry. Officials hope direct investment from the HK$300 million film development fund announced by Financial Secretary Henry Tang Ying-yen in his budget speech last week will bring about a revival to the industry that a senior official has described as "very important."..."
Rationale for the policy, according to Secretary for Commerce, Industry and Technology Joseph Wong:
"First of all, the film industry, is a very important creative industry in Hong Kong and [its] revival will have a lot of spill-over effects." Secondly, he argued, there are also many examples of governments playing a "more active part" in supporting film industries in France, the United Kingdom, Singapore and South Korea."
Read more here.
Yo Joe, please name one industry which does not generate spillover effects, externalities, third-party effects...or whatever fancy name you can come up with?
Oh yeah, Joe, on your second point, would you please explain to me why whatever policies other countries have implemented must be a good thing? Could they all be wrong at the same time? They might not, but we, as taxpayers who pay for the final bill, deserve an explanation not an assertion. Wouldn't you agree?
And would you please also info us Joe, what criteria you would use when deciding which movie deserves government dole ? And who has the final say when picking a particular set of criteria for such purpose in the first place?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)