5.
173
one million) and notwithstanding the chaos and anarchy prevalent in China during recent years, there was no reason to believe that the number of muitsai in the Colony had increased: that cases of cruelty to children were rare: that Chinese opinion in Hong Kong would be solidly opposed to the enforcement of part III of Ordinance No.1 of 1923: and they advised that the proper course would be to deal very severely with any cases of cruelty to children which might come to light. It was pointed out by the Secretary for Chinese Affairs that registration in the form suggested would be equivalent to recognition of the status of muitsai, which at present has no sanction in law, and that in law a muitsai is now in the same position as any other domestic servant, except in so far as being a minor she is subject to the same restrictions on her liberty as any other child. Moreover, how would registration be enforced? Would anyone, even the Anti-muitsai Society itself, be prepared to advocate house to house visits by inspectors? In any case the proposal to take muitsai away from their employers and lodge them in the Po Leung Kuk would be impracticable, for that institution is barely able to provide for 70 inmates in all. Perhaps, however, useful practical work could be done by an organization similar to the Society of Prevention of Cruelty Children in England or by Government Inspectors, possibly women. This suggestion seemed to appeal strongly to the three Chinese members of Legislative Council.
See 62815/900
Enclosure No.4.
7.
Subsequently the Secretary for Chinese Affairs submitted the attached report on the working of the Female Domestic Servants Ordinance, 1923, with which I find myself in general agreement. I may say that in my earlier service under the Hong Kong Government I had personal experience of the muitsai system and formed the conclusion
that