for scholarships.
On the basis that two-thirds therefore equals £472,000 we have assumed this would cover the total £408,850 addition that the Committee are proposing.
As I indicated in my earlier proposed draft reply, agreement on the foregoing basis would take us forward for the next 5 years up to 1996/7. But we shall also need more time to look at the arrangements for the operation and placing of the Sir S K Tang Bequest particularly post-1997. For that reason we should prefer to delay agreeing any arrangements for the Scheme beyond the latter date until we
we can make some further joint review in say 1993/94. However, the problem here is that if, repeat if, the Scheme should continue after 1996/97, an agreement now on the basis of paragraph 3 above would mean that the accrued interest would presumably be exhausted by 1996/7. There is little prospect of our finding alternative sources of funding over and above whatever would then be available in the way of continuing annual current interest (say £85,000) plus possibly the £40,000 still from FCOSAS. At that point (or before) there may therefore need to be a possibly drastic review of the number of candidates who could be funded.
It is very difficult to come to conclusions about the Scheme's financing at this end. Would it be imposing unduly upon you to ask if you could clarify the present
and likely future financial situation of the S K Tang Bequest, ie how much accrued and current interest is available; and then discuss with/explain to John Chan that we are prepared to provide the necessary additional contributions providing costs can be contained as above? Subject to what you then report we will prepare a formal reply to his letter of 21 October.
I am copying this letter to Peter Ricketts in Hong Kong Department.
Yours
ame
Michael.
M J Long
Overseas Students Policy Section
Cultural Relations Department
G41
CC:
210 6285
P Ricketts, Esq, HKD
CHJABI