'File 82/34 II (F 94) APOC Concession' [‎137v] (235/362)

nptj
I ■
2
When article 27 was read, SHAEIAT-ZADEH made the follow"
comments :— n S
" I wished to point out that the second sentence of this article '
superfluous " [he means the sentence : " The Government undertakes f
submit this concession as soon as possible to the Majlis for sanction''!
because this undertaking has already been fulfilled by the Government and
the concession is being sanctioned now; there is therefore no necessitv f
this to be mentioned here now." ^
the chairman ; " Dr. Taheri has also submitted a proposal
anticipating this, and the proposal is to be read now :—
" ' To the President of the Majlis,
" ' I suggest that in article 27 the latter part of the article from the
sentence which begins with " The Government undertakes," &c., to the end
of the same article should be omitted.' "
THE RAPPORTEUR : " This sentence is not needed in the law and it
should be omitted. The first sentence of the article 27 is sufficient; the commission
is also agreeable to the omission of this sentence and it should not be incorporated
in the law."
THE CHAIRMAN : " The views of the Government, please."
THE MINISTER OF FINANCE : "I agree that the omission of this
sentence does not affect the concession and that there is no objection to its
omission."
THE CHAIRMAN : Division is to be taken on article 27 with the
omission of the sentence—to the omission of which Government sees no objection.
The honourable Deputies who agree with the article will please stand up."
The majority stood up.
THE CHAIRMAN: " The article is sanctioned. The totality of the
second reading of the law is to be discussed. Is there any difficulty ? I call upon
the Minister of Finance."
THE MINISTER OF FINANCE : " There is just one word here to be
said. As everything is being sanctioned now, I deem it necessary to say here
that the French text was of course the copy that was signed. Those who are
well versed with the matter know that there are certain punctuations in French
which we call 'saja va nada.' One of these marks was omitted in article 15,
paragraph 2, as also a sign of the plural at the end of one of these words. It
makes a change in the meaning. The omission was by mistake. If that punctua
tion mark or that sign of the plural is omitted the sentence will signify that
the representative of the Government has the right to attend all of the sessions
of the board of directors, and also in another passage it would mean that the
Government's representative has the right to attend all the sittings of the general
meeting which are convened for the consideration of matters connected with Persia.
It would seem as if in the first passage the representative of the Government
will have a seat in all of the sittings of the board of directors and according
to the second passage he will only have a seat in the general meetings when matters
connected with the relations of the company with Persia are under consideration.
But this was not our intention. It consisted of one single sentence which was
meant to purport that the Persian representative should have the right to attend
the sittings of the board of directors and the public meetings when such meetings
were held for this same purpose. It makes no difference in the Persian version,
which conveys both senses. I meant to invite attention to this mistake, but the
company's representative who perused the text detected the mistake and tele
graphed saying that the version might be taken to convey the meaning which
was not intended. This is why we corrected the text. The Majlis, when
sanctioning this law, must, of course, be cognisant of this point before the vote
is taken."
(The Deputies : " Agreed.")