32
the Chinese Labour Unions, the Chinese Y.M.C.A. and Y.W.C.A., the Chinese Christian Union, and the Chinese General Chamber of Commerce written representations which we have likewise turned over to the Government.
Having divested myself of the task imposed upon me by the two sides, of restating their opinions here, I will endeavour to express the views of my Chinese colleague and myself. We feel that where there is a divergence of opinion it is not enough for a Member of this Honourable Council merely to express the views, however impar- tially, of the people whom he represents. He should also weigh the value of con- flicting arguments, endeavour to unravel the web of confusion woven by the disputa- tion, and form his own judgment. In expressing our own conclusion our honest convictions-it would be necessary for me to go over some of the ground already traversed, but I know I can count upon a patient hearing. The crux of the matter seems to us to be whether a mui-tsai is a slave or not. If she is, we should not tolerate the system for even one day longer in this Colony; but this point is disposed of by clause 2 of the Bill. Still, in spite of such a definite pronouncement from the Government, we cannot get away from the fact that cases of cruelty have from time to time come to light. We there- fore consider that the mui-tsai need special protection by the Government. While I abhor cruelty to children and consider a fine, however heavy, totally inadequate for offenders, I agree with those who hold that the present Bill would not deter the small number of people, who are by nature cruel, from ill-treating their mui-tsai. For such people I advocate a long term of imprisonment with hard labour. I strongly deprecate, as do all my Honourable Unofficial colleagues, the introduction of registration. Endless inconvenience and trouble would be caused to the people by requiring them to register their mui-tsai, to report any change of address, and wherever they leave the Colony with a mui-tsai, even temporarily. I do not agree with the supporters of the Bill that registration in this case would not cause undue inconvenience, judging by the smooth working of the laws governing the registration of births, schools, companies, and medical practitioners. This is arguing on totally wrong premises. A little thought will convince any impartial person that it is one thing to have, for instance, a birth or a school registered, and quite another to have to report every intended removal of a mui-tsai from the Colony, even temporarily, and every change of address of the mui-tsai or of the employer. Further, according to the Bill, the employer, whatever his station in life, has to take out an identification ticket, as if (to use the words of a Chinese gentleman) he were a discharged convict who has periodically to report himself to the police. Moreover, registration in this case, if it is to be effective, would necessitate domiciliary visits, which would open a door to all sorts of abuses, such as bribery, thieves masquerading as detectives to gain admission into houses and interference with the privacy of the home; a thing repugnant to all free men. Registration of mui-tsai will not prevent their maltreat- ment any more than registration of shop-fokis will prevent thefts and embezzlements. Rather than have this registration law imposed on them, the employers of mui-tsai would sooner give them up at once, either to the Government or to such institutions as the Government would name. This would mean that the Government has to provide accommodation and find employment for the mui-tsai, of whom there are about ten thousand in the Colony. As a correspondent to the Chinese General Cham- ber of Commerce has said, there are unfortunately very few foundling houses in Hong Kong or in China, and so the present homes of the mui-tsai constitute a sort of foundling houses for them, otherwise a large number of them would have been drowned by their parents or starved to death.
Hong Kong is so bound up with Canton, geographically and economically, that to stop the employment of mui-tsai after the Bill becomes law as prescribed by clause 4 would be impracticable unless China acts likewise. I am of the humble opinion that no real improvement of any time-honoured social custom can be effected by sudden and violent change. The mui-tsai system has been in existence for thousands of years, having grown up under the economic conditions of life. The wide publicity that has recently been give to the question should help materially to bring about the attainment of this object. The best method of this end would seem to be a gradual and careful education of public opinion.