should be met outside the Scheme.
The Foundation have now dropped this
suggestion. But they have now sent to the SEDC a set of final minutes, signed by Sir Y.K. Pao, which nevertheless record that the Commission agrees to Mr
Lee's appointment. We are aware of these revised minutes only because we
received a copy from the SEDC, who have agreed with our thinking but have been
careful not to take sides.
6. The SEDC have now proposed to the Foundation an amendment which we had suggested to the SEDC, to the effect that the Commission decided to discuss
the proposal at their next meeting. We and the SEDC both know that the
Commission did not decide this, but see it as a face-saving way out. If the
minutes record what actually took place they could only imply that either Sir
YK Pao's handling of the meeting or our representatives were seriously at
fault. But Sir YK Pao is believed to have reacted strongly to ODA questioning
his own recollection of the meeting (and implicitly his handling of it), and
proposing to record it inaccurately in the minutes. His reaction creates the
difficulty that our position has to be put firmly enough to prevent such a
misunderstanding occurring agains, but not so firmly as to antagonise the originator and (with the SEDC) main contributor to the Scheme.
7.
The Foundation's handling of this proposal has not inspired trust:
i) although they claim to have 'tabled' this proposal for the
Commission meeting, we certainly had no knowledge of it beforehand, though the Foundation apparently discussed it informally with the SEDC;
ii) their draft minutes do not reflect what we recall as having
happened at the meeting; and
iii) the 'final' text of the minutes has been put to the SEDC for their signature, having been signed by Sir Y.K. Pao, without the revised paragraph being cleared with us. The Foundation has given us no
indication that this revised text is in existence, let alone that Sir
Y.K. Pao has signed it.
Much of this reflects differences in the practices adopted by Governments and
commercial companies respectively. Sir Y K Pao may be receptive to this as an
explanation for the misunderstanding, and agree that better procedures need to
be agreed on for the future.
8.
But in the circumstances, it is difficult to regard the proposed
position of Honorary Secretary as merely a honorific which can be conceded at