SOUTH CHINA MORNING
POST. WEL
CHILD LABOUR IN HONGKONG.
MAGISTRATE EXPRESSES DESIRE TO HEAR EXPERT OPINION ON LOCAL CONDITIONS.
GIRL WHO WORKED ALL NIGHT.
The desire to hear expert evidence on the conditions of child labour in Hongkong and also the opinion of the Medical Officer of Health as to whether certain employment was injurious to the health of a young girl, was expressed by Mr. T. S. Whyte Smith at the Kowloon Magistracy yesterday afternoon, when Mr. H. R. Butters brought before his Worship for investigation a case under the Female Domestic Ordinance of 1923.
It was given in evidence that the complainant in the case, a girl of 16 according to Chinese reckoning, had been sent to work in a factory from 8.30 p.m. until 7 a.m. the following day for a period of over two months. A witness, called for the defence, later made the surprising disclosure that the defendant's own daughter had been subjected to similar treatment and worked during the same hours.
The defendant, described as a there were no marks of ill-treat- widow residing in Hunghom, was ment-on the girl and the prosecu- charged on two counts. She was al- tion did tot argue that the leged under Section 6 (1) of the 'treatment alleged amounted to Female Domestic Ordinance of gross cruelty, but what they sub- 1923 to have over-worked or ill-mitted was that, by sending a girl treated a mui tsai aged 16, or sub- to a factory to work for 101⁄2 hours, jected her to punishment to which such treatment to a child was liable she (defendant) would not reason to injure her health.
ably have subjected her own daugh- The prosecution did not need to ter. The second charge, under sub-wait until the girl's bealth had been section 2 of the Section accused the definitely injured before a charge defendant of having failed to was brought. provide the girl with sufficient food and clothing of a reasonable kind.
Mr. Butters, of the Secretariat for Chinese Affairs, conducted the case for the prosecution, the defen- dant being unrepresented.
In answer to the charges the de- fendant said that she had bought the complainant as a daughter and not as a mui tsai. She had not ill- treated her or over-worked her, while she had given her sufficient food and clothes.
Crown's Case. Opening his case, Mr. Butters said that on July 4 the girl, Wong Tung-ho, alias Wong Ah-lin, went to the Hunghom Police Station and complained of bad treatment by her mistress, the defendant. The bad treatment complained of was that she had broken an earthenware vessel and had been beaten by her mistress. She also said that her mistress had denied her her meals from the previous day.
His Worship remarked that it seemed to him that the definition of a mui taai in the Female Domestic Ordinance covered th case.
Mr. Butters replied that ha thought so but said that it was onl a partial definition.
Evidence Called. Evidence was then 'called, th head district watchman referrin to the raid at 27 and 29 Portla Street in 1926. The document i lating to the girl's sale was pit duced.
The girl herself then went into the witness box. She said that 1h defendant was her mistress. Sh became her mui-tsai when she wa ten years of age. She was now
sh The complainant said that started work at the factory at 8. p.m. She usually went to lep sometime between 10 and 11 lock in the morning and got up again be- tween 4 and 5 o'clock in the after- noon.
Inspector Stimson, who investi- gated the complaint, sent the On one occasion she said that parties to the Secretariat for she overslept herself and did not Chinese Affairs, where the girl was get up until 8 p.m. Sometimes she interrogated. From what she told got enough food, but on occasions Mr. Butters it appeared that from the defendant would scold her and the end of the first moon until the refuse to allow her to eat her meals. middle of the third moon she had been employed at the Sun Kar Ting Knitting Factory of Shamshuipo from 8.30 p.m. until 7 a.m.
She was supposed to be paid a wage of 35 cents a day, but never received the money. The daughter of the defendant was always sent to the factory to collect the com- plainant's earnings. Besides work- ing at the factory the girl was re- quired to perform household work
as well.
His Worship: When did she sleep?
Mr. Butters replied that she slept during any intervals she had during the day.
Continuing, Mr. Butters inform- ed his Worship that the girl was examined by Dr. Thomas, who would say what effects such work would have on a girl of her age.
Asked why she stopped work in the middle of the third moon, the girl said it was because night work at the factory had ceased.
that the girl referred to as her daughter was her own child.
The defendant in reply to his Worship was emphatic in her claim that the girl was her own daughter.
Mr. Butters said that it was a question whether it was reasonable to subject one's own daughter to such treatment.
Western Ideas.
His Worship agreed, and said that it did not follow because the defendant had subjected her own daughter to such treatment that it was reasonable,
Speaking of her complaint to the
His Worship remarked that "wê Police witness said that she was re-must not let ourselves be carried quired to do all the house work.
away too much with Western She broke an earthenware pot and ideas." One heard a lot of cruelty was scolded by her mistress who hit and he must say that he was sur- her on the head with a dish. She prised that the present case, which was then refused food, supper that the prosecution had brought, wag night and breakfast the next morn
vi a stronger one.
ing.
.1
There were occasions, continued the witness, when she was refused food by her mistress but recently she was seldom beaten.
Complained to Police. Witness said that the day she broke the pot she went
to pick feathers at a factory, and later the defendant's daughter went to call her home. However, witness went Law on Child Labour. to the Police Station and laid her Mr. Butters then drew his Wor- complaint instead. ship's attention to the Industrial Cross-examining, the defendant Employment of Children Ordinance said that she had' repeatedly told of 1922. He pointed out that the the witness to take her meals but girl's age,
according to Chinese she had refused. Witness, how- reckoning, was 16, or 14 according ever, denied the defendant's state- to English reckoning.
ment. According to Section 2A of the 1
Asked by his Worship how she Industrial Employment Ordinance broke the pot witness said that she a child was defined as a person had been washing it and it slipped under the age of fifteen, and under from her hands. section 5 sub-section 1 the age of
In reply to another question wit- the child was left to the Magistrateness said that she went to the
to decide.
Turning to the Regulations, Mr. Butters said that No. 10 reads. No child shall be employed in any industrial undertaking between 7 p.m. and 7 a.m.
feather factory because she want- ed to earn some money to see if the defendant, when handed the wages, would give her more food.
The manager of the Sun Kar Ting Knitting Factory stated that the girl worked from 8.30 pm. ll
there
According to the ideas of the Westerner it was absurd that a girl of that age should be out at night working from 8,30 p.m. to 7 a.m. It would not be tolerated for a moment but the girl seemed to have had sleep. If one went through streets in Hongkong or Kowloon in which were a good many work shops, one would see small boys, almost babies, working at night. A westerner could not think of the same light as the thing in the Chinese.
Desire for Expert Opinion. The question then what the girl had been doing a case of over-working. Before his Worship gave any opinion he would like some expert opinion on the subject, taking into account the Chinese customs as well as the European ideas.
a certain amount of
was
was
Mr. Butters pointed out that this was a British Colony. He argued that the letter as well as the spirit of the Ordinance had been con- travened.
His Worship intimated that he did not think that the complainant would come under the Industrial Employment Ordinance.
Mr. Butters replied that the girl was 14, but his Worshi said that whenever there was any doubt he always gave the benefit to the defendant.
The prosecution was not taking action under that Ordinance but, 7 a.m. said Mr. Butters, he wished to
Inspector Stimson gave evidence draw his Worship's attention to it. of receiving the girl's original com- Dealing with the question as to plaint and of supplying her with whether the girl was a mui tsar, food. He stated that she seemed Mr. Butters said that in August,,very hungry. 1926, the head district watchmen attached to the Secretariat for Dr. G. A. Thomas, medical officer Chinese Affairs raided Nos. 27 and of the Government Civil Hospital, 29 Portland Street, and as a result said that he found no marks of ill- some member of the Chinese Cham- a man was banished for trafficking treatment on the girl's body. Wit- ber of Commerce with regard to
Medical Evidence.
His Worship said that he would like some expert opinion by perhaps
labour conditions for young people like the complainant. Dr. Thomas said that working at night might an injurious effect. His
Mr. Butters: I think there is no doubt about that. I think it is inevitable.
in women and children. The ness judged the girl to be about banishee was the husband of the 15 or 16 years old. defendant in the present case. Mr. Butters told witness of the When the house was raided certain girl's conditions of having to work have documents were found and one of 101⁄2 hours at night and asked if Worship thought it probably would. these purported to relate to the he considered that would sale of the girl in question to the jurious to her health. family of the defendant.
be in-
Dr. Thomas replied that generally speaking he thought it would be.
Definition of Mui Tsai. With reference to the definition of mui tsai, Mr. Butters said that he would invite his Worship's at tention to Section 32 of the Inter- pretation Ordnance where it was laid down what interpretation In reply to his Worship, who defendant worked her own daughter should be put on Chinese words and asked whether it was not unreason-like that it did not permit her to terms.
able to expect the girl to work at work a mui tsai to such an extent. Mr. Butters then produced the factory at night, witness re- His Worship said that before he Eitel's Chinese and English plied that the defendant's daughter, gave a decision he would like to Dictionary and drew his Worship's who was younger than the com. have some expert evidence, per- attention to the meaning given to plainant, performed the same haps the evidence of the Medical mui tsai.
duties. His Worship would notice, con- His Worship then asked the com- tinued the prosecutor, that the plainant if that statement were Female Domestic Ordinance In- true, and received a reply in the cluded a limited or qualified ex-affirmative. pression of what a mui tsai was.
Mr. Butters said that he thought, The defendant called a witness if the defendant's daughter was who stated that she had lived with
younger than the complainant, a the defendant for about a year and charge might lie against the had not known the defendant to ill-factory manager. treat, the complainant.
His Worship remarked that if the
Mr. Butters asked if the defen-
Continuing, Mr. Butters said thatdant could not be made to prove
Officer of Health. He said that the prosecution might get somebody to talk about local conditions and the Medical Officer of Health to taik about the effect on the girl.
The case was adjourned till next Saturday.