no cost. No role or functions for a Secretariat have ever been discussed, and
in practice the post would be whatever Mr Lee could make of it.
If we
conceded it despite the way the Foundation have put it forward it would be difficult for us to impose any constraints on Mr Lee in future. It would seem possible for him to speak on behalf of the Commission as a whole, perhaps after some discussion with the SEDC, in a way which in practice would prevent
the ODA from influencing a decision. This could reduce, significantly, our
control of our funds. The Scheme has proved straight forward to operate so
far, and nothing complicated enough to justify a Secretariat seems likely to occur. On the contrary, if Mr Lee tries to establish a locus for a
Secretariat, it would complicate the existing simple structure to no good
effect.
9.
Mr Lee (who, like Mr Pan, attended the Minister's reception on 17 September) is a senior member of Sir Y K Pao's organisation, which he used to
represent for many years in London before Mr Pan did so. It now seems to be proposed that Mr Lee should replace Mr Pan, though Mr Lee is semi-retired and maintains homes in Hong Kong and Hawaii as well as London and it is not
certain that Mr Pan is leaving London. We have understood from informal indications from Sir Y K Pao's London Office (which should not be disclosed)
that his motive in proposing that Mr Lee should take this position is that he
wishes Mr Lee to have a position and title appropriate to his seniority,
rather than because he thinks that the Scheme would be any more efficient with
a Secretariat.
10. It would be possible to neutralise Sir Y K Pao's proposal by suggesting that each party should be able to appoint a third Commissioner. It would be necessary to amend the MOU (though only by changing 'two' to 'three'). But it would perhaps meet Sir Y.K. Pao's point while keeping within the existing structure of the Scheme. If we were to appoint a third Commissioner junior to Dr Iredale, it would also be easier to deal with the operational problems of
the Scheme at a level more appropriate to their content. This proposal has
not been cleared with the SEDC, though it is unlikely that they would object
to the Minister airing it on a personal basis as a possible solution which
would save face all round.
Eastern Asia Department
12 October 1987