accord. In the school year of 1975-76, each dish of rice was
charged for $2.3 and in the year 1976-77, the charge was increased to $2.6. During these two years, 30 cents from each dish of rice
sold went to the school authorities. The caterers received only
$2 and $2.3 respectively. The caterer during the past ye ir was
Mr Lau Hing. He xp operated the business laboriously but ended
up in
He could not even finding himself suffering heavy losses.
recover his initial investment. He closed down his business in
reb 1977, not even able to sustain till the end of the school
year.
8/ The question of the tuck shop: The tuck shop in the
school is run by people from outside who have to pay $600 per
month for rent, $70 for water and electricity charges, and an additional
separately amount for rates. The installation of a telephone ti
extension line in the past also required extra charges.
All these
incomes are put into the account of the order. We wonder if
such practice is right.
9 The "utch Grant" incident:
น
·
a) The Dutch Grat is supplied by the Dutch Congregation to
students of our school who are financially not well off.
Each
of the grant-receivers receives $90 every four months (starting
from the school year of 1975). At the beginning, the school opened
an account in the bank for the receivers. When the students were
in need of money, they could obtain a cheque from the teachers
responsible to draw the money from the bank.
This method had
been in practice until Dec 1976, when the school said that it
was the instruction of the Dutch Congregation that holders of the grant should buy their lunch from the lunch caterer o the
school.
each lunch of a Thus, the school gets 30 cents from
rant holder. This means the school exploits the students directly and takes possession of part of the Dutch Grant indirectly.