CO129-596-5 Hong Kong University- Apprenticeship scheme 28-10-1948 - 23-12-1948 — Page 12

Morsible imperassment

do art Much we need wou unduly over. Students from some Countries (India; Sudour, eq.) get allers which are much higher than Pans & could be an externamment them.

to: My point was that a shident who received high wages. hand high tax, smee we abate allee in gross salary, the man who had hand a large tax got less, in total, then The man who paid Small Fax. The man who

-708

!ML

fot no salary, & therefore fand wo most of all, The Taxx- paying student in

my fact never got £30

mouth.

THY

A

*

12

Reference is made in the application at No.12 to the pre-war scheme operated b the FBI and the Chinese Government, and it is stated that the students brought here under that scheme received an allowance to bring their net earnings up to £30 a month. Miss Ruston in her minute of 16/5/47 quotes the FBI as saying that the present-day Chinese students financed by the Chinese Government receive an allowance calculated so that the actual income tax liability which the student himself bears is the amount of tax taken from the wa es of the lowest paid of the students.

To pay our CD students the difference between their net earnings and £30 a month would therefore place them at a slight advantage as compared with the Chinese Government students, which would perhaps present the Chinese Embassy with a problem should the two groups of students ever be in a position to compare notes.

Nevertheless I feel that to supplement the net earnings is the best way, in spite of the fact that it involves the virtual refund of tax from UK funds. It ensures that every student receives the same sum to live on as all the others (which the present Chinese scheme also admittedly does), but it would avoid the constant necessity for watching what the lowest paid student pays in tax and bring the others into line - a complicated affair, particularly if, as is probable, the students will go to different firms for their apprenticeships.

Mr.Titchener has referred to the possibility of a particular student being given higher wages by his firm as a reward for good work, the student however being unable to reap the benefit of the increase because his wages would still be evened out to the £30 a month maximum. I do not think, however, that we should take this point too seriously. Other CDW students in this country plough through four and five year courses without benefit of increased allowances, unless they pass the 25-year age point, or some general increase in allowances is approved. Some of these make better progress than others, some get University scholarships, which bring them no monetary benefit, at present.

As regards the method of payment of the allowances the position is a little difficult. The students will be in receipt of a weekly wage, which we have to augment by means of an allowance expressed in monthly terms. Other maintenance allowances are paid in advance, and the first point to be deceided is whether the allowances under this scheme should be paid in advance or in arrear.

Since the wages will be paid in arrear, and the allowance is to be directly linked to the wages, it would be best, I think, to pay the allowance also in arrear. This would be in agreement with the practice regarding the payment of certain post-graduate allowance paid to e.g., Colonial Products Research Council workers, and would avoid confusion in the minds of the students themselves.

The second point is whether we should make a single monthly payment direct to the student, or possibly get the firms concerned to pay the allowance weekly, so that the student receives a regular weekly income, the firm claiming on us for refund at regular intervals I think the first of these alternatives is best, on