E.D. FORM 1
3,000/1/49
2182
REF. No. P.
AIR MAIL
EDUCATION DEPARTMENT,
HONG KONG,
22nd September, 1949.
(7)
My dear Cox,
•
I have received from the Bishop of Hong Kong a copy of the letter which he sent to you on the 12th of September, and I should like to suggest that, in the first place, the letter should have been sent through the Governor and, in the second place, it is most misleading. I have discussed this matter with H.E. and he has agreed that I send you this d.o. letter about it.
2. I object in the first place to his suggestion in Clause 2 that the Education Department had ever considered the work under the Grant Code as unnecessary. It was the Bishop who suggested that it was.
With regard to Clause 37 of the Grant Code I undertook in London at the meeting at which you were present to try to find some means within the framework of the Grant Code by which the Bishop could charge in his schools extra fees of more than 50% of the tuition fee. I am convinced that 50% over and above the tuition fees is ample for extras and so are the majority of the grant-aided schools in Hong Kong. The Bishop at our meeting wished to have freedom to charge greater extra fees than 50% and I have allowed him to do so by the introduction of Clause 37A in the Code of which I attach a copy.
You will see that in 37A his Managing Committee will receive a Block Grant to cover 'other charges' plus all extra subscriptions collected, which sum of money will be entirely at the disposal of the Managing Committee. I also accepted the suggestion made by the Bishop himself that in return for permission to collect these extra fees the annual recurrent grant should be reduced by a sum which seemed reasona- ble to Government. It seems to me and the Financial Secretary that a reduction of the grant by the amount of extras over and above 50% of the tuition fee is reasonable. I know that if my boy were at school and the extras amounted to 50% of the tuition fee I should consider that it is unduly high.
C.W.M. COX, ESQ., C.M.G.