In the course of the event, there was no sign of con-
fusion. Furthermore, teachers appealed to students to resume
classes on Monday (May 15) and the appeal was again supported
by parents in the evening. The teachers and students were
all prepared to return to school on Monday. Many newspapers
had reported this.
More importantly, normal classes in fact resumed on
Saturday (May 15) when students taking the art subject showed
up for their lesson which lasted from 9.00 am to noon.
K
Mr. Haye falsely charged "the teachers may have ambitions
for the take-over of the school; they may feel they could run
it better" and "the power play could well have been an attempt
* to force the management into handing the school over to them".
Anybody who has common sense will find this accusation a fairy-
tale because the principal of a catholic school in Hong Kong must
be either appointed by the Bishop or the head of the Order. In
addition, he/she must be a person who has made contribution to
the Church.
The closure was the climax of the revenge on the teachers
and students for their exposing the embezzlement. It was a
deliberate move to get rid of the 16 teachers because if the
Education Department did not take this chance to close the school
when the teachers and students were prepared to wesume class, it
would not be easy for them to find another excuse.
F. The collusion of the Education Department with the Church
It isn't strange to find the Education Department and the
Church share the same opinion: the closureis 'appropriate' and
justifiable', The extraordinarily close relationship and
contact between them made one believe that they colluded with
each other to revenge teachers and students for their uncovering
the embezzlement. This was revealed by Mr. Haye's words,
"The Roman Catholic Bishop, the Most Rev. John Baptist Wu
had been consulted about the decision and given it (the closure
of the school) his backing."
As reported in the South China Morning Post (May 16, 1978)
53