48
give no opening for special enquiries or action: on being pressed to carry his own enquiries far enough to give us some opening, he has produced a case or two of little or no importance. Recently he has produced a case of gross cruelty to a child but not a mui-tsai or a bought child." In view of this report and the absence of any case at all under the Female Domestic Servants Ordinance, No. I of 1923, during the years 1923 to 1927, both included, no further action was taken by this Government.
5. The next event in this connection was the annual meeting of the Anti-mui-tsai Society on the 20th October, 1928, to which I have already referred. I attach a translation of an extract from the Wa T'sz Yat Po of the 23rd October, 1928,* giving the names of the members of the Committee then appointed by this Society, also an extract from the South China Morning Post of the 22nd October, 1928, giving an account of the proceedings at the annual meeting. As I have already said no representations were made to the Hong Kong Government by the Society after this meeting; but it is upon the proceedings of this meeting that the letter of Mr. J. H. Harris to the Manchester Guardian was based. I can only suppose that the newly elected Committee of the Anti-mui-tsai Society, which is not representative of local Chinese opinion, preferred to make an effort at propaganda in the United Kingdom rather than to submit recom- mendations for the consideration of the Hong Kong Government and its responsible advisers I mean the Secretary for Chinese Affairs and the Chinese members of the Legislative Council. How- ever, the extract from, the South China Morning Post above referred to was sent by the Colonial Secretary to the Secretary for Chinese Affairs for his observations, and he replied on the 7th November, 1928, that the Domestic Servants Ordinance seemed to him to be an excellent example of legislation in advance of public opinion and that the time had not yet come to enforce Part III of the Ordinance.
6. Upon receipt of your telegram of the 17th January,† I convened a special meeting of the District Watch Committee, the body most representative of Chinese opinion in this Colony and including all three Chinese members of the Legislative Council. This meeting took place at Government House on the 4th February, with myself in the Chair and with the Colonial Secretary, the Attorney-General, and the Secretary for Chinese Affairs also present. The members of the District Watch Committee stated that, in spite of the great increase in the population of the Colony (it was estimated at 681,800 in 1923 and cannot now be less than one million) and notwithstanding the chaos and anarchy prevalent in China during recent years, there was no reason to believe that the number of mui-tsai in the Colony had increased: that cases of cruelty to children were rare that
* Not printed
+ No. 16.
49
Chinese opinion in Hong Kong would be solidly opposed to the en- forcement 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 mui-tsai, which at present has no sanction in law, and that in law a mui-tsai 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-mui-tsai Society itself, be prepared to advocate house to house visits by inspectors? any case the proposal to take mui-tsai 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 for Prevention of Cruelty to Children in England or by Government Inspectors, possibly women. This suggestion seemed to appeal strongly to the three Chinese members of the Legislative Council.
In
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 Govern- ment I had personal experience of the mui-tsai system and formed the conclusion that on the whole it was humane and benevolent, having regard to conditions of life in China. Its origin is not any absence of love in Chinese parents for their female children, for I am persuaded that Chinese parents are as a rule very fond of their daughters, but rather excessive philoprogenitiveness among a people living habitually one jump ahead of starvation." The Secretary for Chinese Affairs writes :- Those who have had experience of famine relief work will realize that it is seldom the desire for money which induces parents in China to part with their children and that the alternative may quite well be starvation." I can corroborate
44
this from my personal experience. From April to June, 1903, I was seconded by the Hong Kong Government for famine relief work in the province of Kwangsi. While engaged on this duty I repeatedly travelled by launch up and down the West River and I well re- member how at each township and village by the riverside, where my launch put in, Chinese women with babies in their arms and children at their sides were lined up begging the launch passengers, myself included, not to buy but to take from them as a gift the little ones who otherwise would starve and for whom the mothers were totally unable to provide. Mui-tsai, so acquired, are as a rule well treated and it is considered by Chinese public opinion to be obli- gatory on their employers to see that they are married or suitably provided for when they are about 18 years of age.