PRUDE. 121
el
5363-21
This brings us to consider clause 4 of this Bill. The Attorney General in seeking to justify the passing of that clause, says" the system lends itself to abuse, and grave abuse, in the hands of evil and unscrupulous person," On this point, I have ascertained that the Attorney General meant to refer, in addition to cruelty, to a possible seduction of mui-tsai by the employer or his family or to her being sold for immoral purposes. But, Sir, surely the proper way to meet this latter evil is to put prominently into the forefront of the Bill (as the Unofficial Members propose to do by amendment in Committee) the fact that mui-tsai are entitled to the same pro- tection as are other young girls under the provisions of the Women's and Girl's Protection Ordinance, 1897. That Ordinance (the provisions of which, together with the fact that it applies to mui-tsai, should be widely published by the Govern- ment) deals in the minutest possible manner, and under very heavy penalties--includ- ing in many cases the punishment of flogging-with traffic in women and girls (sec. 3), procuration of women and girls (sec. 4), defilement and procuring defilement of women and girls (secs. 5, 6 and 9), receiving or harbouring girls for immoral purposes (secs. 18 and 19), rape (sec. 21), and abduction (secs. 22 to 27). And, whilst we are on the question of publication, we should exprees the hope that means will be taken by the Government to advertise, in the interests of mui-tsai, not only the above provisions of the Women and Girls' Protection Ordinance, but also the provisions of the present Bill, as they cannot be too widely known.
Let us now consider whether clause 4 of the Bill is desirable. As regards this point, the Attorney General has pointed out that there is the danger that in attacking the practice of employing mui-tsai, we may increase the risks of neglect, kiddnapping and prostitution. We, therefore, consider that clause 4 is undesirable. Clause 4 of the Bill is also wholly unnecessary, in view of the language of clause 2 of the Bill which completely abolishes the whole system of employment of mui-tsai, as defined by Chinese custom, and entirely eliminates any vestige of proprietorship or quasi- proprietorship in the employer. This aspect of the matter has engaged the most earnest and anxious attention of the Unofficial Members of Council, with the result that they have arrived at the conclusion that it is desirable to alter the language of clauses 12, 13 and 14 of the Bill in Committee so as to make it abundantly clear that any mui-tsai of any age has the rights referred to in those three sections. For the protection of the mui-tsai from evil-disposed persons, it is necessary to insert in clause 12 some words similar in effect to those at the end of clause 13 of the Bill, and it is therefore proposed to move in Committee the insertion between the word “ may and the word "leave" of the following words, namely:-" with the sanction of the Secretary for Chinese Affairs," and to insert the following new paragraph at the end of clause 12 :---
6.
23
In granting or withholding such sanction, as the case may be, the Secretary for Chinese Affairs shall pay regard solely to the interests and welfare of the mui-tsai.'
Clauses 4 and 5 of the Bill are also, in our opinion, objectionable because, for their effective working, they appear to involve some system of registration. In regard to the question of objections to registration, we desire to associate ourselves entirely with the remarks which will be made presently by the Senior Chinese Member. We feel that it is very easy and simple for Britons both here and in England, and also for the numerous Chinese in this Colony who do not employ mui-tsai, to adopt a philo- sophic attitude on such matters, seeing that such registration cannot possibly give them personally the slightest inconvenience. In this connection we are forcibly reminded of the old story of the absentee Irish landlord, who wrote to the Land League as follows "If you think that you are going to frighten me by shooting at my Agent, you are very much mistaken." Moreover, Sir, in regard to these same matters, we cannot help recollecting that, only about six months ago, when the question came up in this Council of the Europeans of this Colony being compelled to register their names as being able to carry out certain essential duties in the event of a general strike there was so much general opposition raised by the Europeans in this Colony to compulsory registration that the Unofficial Members felt it incumbent upon them to move in this Council that that Bill be withdrawn: and that Bill was withdrawn accordingly. In the face of such a precedent, we think that the Govern- ment cannot consistently insist in this Bill on compulsory registration.
Accordingly, the course which the Unofficial Members would now ask the Govern- ment to adopt is as follows:-
(1) To go into Committee of this Council forthwith.
(2) To put clauses 4 and 5 of the Bill into Part III.
(3) To transpose the sections of clause 6 of the Bill and to re-number it as 4, and to insert two new clauses, to be numbered 5 and 6, for the better protection of mui-tsai.
(4) To put the whole of clause 7 of the Bill with the exception of (1) (a) into Part II.
(5) To leave Clause 7 (1) (a) and clauses 8, 9 and 10 in Part III of the Bill.
(6) To put clauses 11 to 15 in Part II of the Bill, subject to certain amend- ments to clauses 12, 13 and 14, in the interests of the mui-tsai.
(7) To leave clause 16 in Part III of the Bill.
(8) To pass Part IV as it is, subject to a slight necessary consequential amend- ment at the beginning of clause 17.
(9) To omit clause 19.