Serious though the property slump remains following the SARS epidemic, there are still ways to resolve the problem and get Hong Kong back on track for economic recovery. In his question and answer session in Legco, the Chief Executive Mr Tung Chee-hwa spelled out the danger of allowing the market to fall further, and pledged action to halt the slide.

It has been apparent for some time that the nine-point package introduced in November by the Secretary for Housing, Planning and Lands, Michael Suen, - although effective in slowing the decline - has not proved sufficient to turn the market around. That is the task facing the government now. It can be done, although recovery will be neither immediate or dramatic. Given the vast oversupply in new property and the declining number of buyers, it will take some time before we can see any real improvement, therefore the sooner the government acts to strengthen the market, the better the outlook will be.

Property is pivotal to Hong Kong's economy, responsible for 14 per cent of GDP. It affects every aspect of life - every business, every employee, and every family in the SAR, regardless of whether or not they are homeowners.

Those who do own their flat, - 1.4 million in total - have seen around 70 per cent sheered off its value since 1997, and while oversupply continues to blight the market, that loss can only increase. If it does, and if the average price of each flat falls by HK$1 million, $1400billion dollars of Hong Kong will have simply evaporated. That is only my own rough estimate, but under current conditions it can hardly be called a worse-case scenario.

As Mr Tung acknowledged, negative equity on this scale could have a dire effect on social stability, quite apart from the financial implications of increased job loss, business closure, and a plunging fiscal deficit. It could even affect the stability of the banking system.

To prevent it, the Liberal Party want to see all land sales stopped for a further three years to extend the government's present moratorium, and the same should apply to the application list land auction. I have put a number of other suggestions to Mr Suen, which I believe would ease the situation, if they are accepted and implemented quickly. Some will involve tough decisions, but this is a time for decisive action. Everything must be done to ease the glut in unsold property. As it is, with over 100,000 new homes either completed or now being built, but only around 27,000 new buyers every year in the market, it will take until 2006 before we see any improvement, no matter what measures are implemented.

That is why the railway companies should be prevented from competing in the property development market. If they are allowed to continue, they can provide another 50,000 flats in the next few years, which is completely unacceptable. The move should not be difficult in the case of the KCRC, which is wholly government owned. The solution for the MTRC - a private listed company - is to buy the rights from minor shareholders, at an estimated cost of over $13 billion.

As far as public housing is concerned, there is one very simple win-win solution to the problem. That would be to let the Housing Authority issue rental coupons to people on its waiting list, subsidising them to rent flats in the private market instead. Firstly, that would boost the property investment market, and secondly it would give people more choice as to where they lived. In addition, it would allow the Authority to halt its building programme and save money.

Then, if the 20,000 unsold HOS flats were changed to rental property, another major obstacle would be eliminated. Wisely, the government has decided not to sell the other 8,000 HOS flats still scattered about sold HOS blocks, at least in this financial year.

Finally, the time limit on completion of construction should be cancelled. Currently, after successfully buying land from auction or tender, a developer has to complete construction and offer the flats for sale within three to five years. Giving more flexibility to developers would allow them to put on the market completed properties based on market condition.

There is not the time for dithering or half-measures. The government has no choice but to protect the property market.

Failure to do so effectively can only result in soaring fiscal deficit, increasing economic stagnation and adding to the gloom and damaged aspirations of a community which was once an international by-word for can-do confidence and entrepreneurial skills.

But the last few years have seen one blow follow another, and confidence is badly shaken. Because such a large part of local people's aspiration and their savings hinges around their homes, the gloom cannot be lifted until the property market revives. I want to see measures introduced which will produce a 50 per cent increase in the current market value. Only then will "business as usual" become, once more, the slogan of Hong Kong.