TNAG-0799-FCO40-1003-Dispute-over-closure-of-Precious-Blood-Golden-Jubilee-Second-1978 — Page 91

18

stage were strengthened in their belief that the teachers

were indeed agitating for trouble. Their belief was confirmed

in particular by the following three instances:

(a) On the 9th June 1977, after the students

had assembled in the playground displaying

slogans and refusing to go back to their

classrooms, the Acting Principal, on the

advice of the Education Department, verbally

instructed the teachers individually by name

to bring their classes back to their classrooms.

Only one teacher responded but her compliance

failed to bring her class back. Apparently,

this situation was considered by the authorities

as indicating that all the teachers (even

those who took no part in the disclosure of

financial irregularities) were defying authority

and instigating the students to disrupt classes.

(b) The students' objection to the new contract

conditions for their teachers could only have

arisen by their being somehow informed by

at least a few teachers. (In fact, we have

direct information from both students and

some of the teachers that they did discuss

this matter in class and outside school hours.)

It would appear natural, therefore, for the

authorities to interpret this instance as the

teachers making use of their students to

bring pressure to bear on the authorities in

order to attain their own personal objectives.

/(c)

....