THE CHINESE CHURCH, LABOUR AND ELITES AND THE MUI TSAI QUESTION IN THE 1920'S 107
son-in-law of Ho Tung
T. N. Chau, a barrister
Li Wing-tin
Simon Tse Yan, also known as Tse Ka Po
Fung Ping-shan, donor of the Fung Ping Shan Library building
at Hong Kong University
Chau Yu-ting, a wealthy import-export merchant
Yung Tse-ming, compradore of the Chartered Bank
Ho Wing, son of Ho Fook, adopted son of Ho Tung and compradore of the Hong Kong and Shanghai Bank
Wong Ping-shuen, and
Ip Lan-chuen
Wong Ping-shuen advocated a slow approach, "The time was not yet ripe for drastic action. Conditions in China had to be radically changed before it would serve any useful purpose to legislate on the question".
The Secretary of the Chinese Chamber of Commerce, Mr. Ip Lan-chuen, contended that Hong Kong was too close to China to attempt abolition at this time.
Li Po-kwai, the Chairman, vividly portrayed the dangers to the mui tsai if she were released from servitude at the age of eighteen. She would do "mad and silly things" which would lead to her downfall.
Chow Shou-son spoke out as "being dead against the Bill". If left alone the custom would die out in time as had the practice of foot-binding. After making his speech in Chinese, for some reason he shifted to English to conclude it, saying, “It is the opinion of the Chinese community and the Chinese people generally that the system should not be abolished”.
Mr. M. K. Lo interjected a moderating tone into the discussion when he reminded the meeting that it would have been better if the Chamber had expressed opposition to abolition sooner and more clearly, instead of keeping relatively silent until the Government had drafted and introduced a Bill.
Mr. Wong Kwong-tin objected to the Ordinance because it did not provide protection to the owners of mui tsai and was therefore grossly unfair. He gave a warning to the British Government they should be very careful in interfering with an old Chinese custom which had become an unwritten law.