5363-29
त
2
(15th February, 1923.)
THE MUI-TSAI QUESTION.
HON. MR. H. E. POLLOCK, K.C., pursuant to private notice given, addressed the following questions to the Secretary for Chinese Affairs :—
1. Is it not the fact that, by Chinese custom, a parent of a mui-tsai who wishes to get her back from her employer, is bound to repay to such employer the sum of money which such employer has paid to such parent for the transfer of such mui-tsai to the employer?
2. Has not such custom been followed by the officials of the Chinese Secretariat in regard to the redemption of a mui-tsai by her parent from her employer?
THE SECRETARY FOR CHINESE AFFAIRS replied as follows:-----
(1) According to Chinese custom, it is the usual but not the invariable custom for some repayment to be made.
(2) The S.C.A. acts solely in the interests of the girl and does not regard himself as being in any way bound by the custom. The practice of the Secretariat for Chinese Affairs is based on section 32 of Ordinance 4 of 1897, and we never lose sight of the fact that the guardianship of any girl for whose transfer money has been paid is vested in the Secretary for Chinese Affairs, against the parents as much as against other parties. In all cases where mui-tsai are concerned, the care of the girls is entrusted by the Secretary for Chinese Affairs to nobody until full enquiry has been made in the Office and in the Po Leung Kuk; and the ruling consideration is always the best interest of the girls. No opposition is offered to a monetary arrangement being reached between the parties them- selves, but failure to reach such an arrangement would not be allowed to stand in the way of a decision in the interests of the girl.
THE MUI-TSAI BILL.
The Council went into Committee to resume discussion of the Bill intituled, An Ordinance to regulate certain forms of female domestic service.
On the motion of the Attorney-General verbal amendments were made in several clauses.
H.E. THE GOVERNOR : Does any hon. member desire to raise any further question in the Committee stage of the Bill?
No hon. member intimating any desire to do so, H.E. THE GOVERNOR proposed that the Bill be reported to the Council and the Council then resumed.
THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL moved and the COLONIAL SECRETARY seconded the third reading of the Bill.
H.E. THE GOVERNOR: Does any hon. member desire to address the Council? HON. MR. P. H. HOLYOAK: Your Excellency, I crave your permission to dilate somewhat more at length on the remarks which I made in the Committee stage of the Bill at the last meeting of the Council, namely, on the gross misrepresentations of fact which have been made almost throughout the public Press at Home, in what I can unhesitatingly describe as a malicious campaign of propaganda,-whether for political purposes or otherwise I know not; but I do know that statements have been made quite publicly at Home in connection with this subject which ought not to remain unchallenged by this honourable Council in defence of the fair name of the Colony and the good government which it represents. If the statements of whole- sale slavery and of the selling of slaves were as true as they have been depicted, then, Sir, I think there is little doubt that it would stand for a judgment not only upon each successive Governor of the Colony who has allowed it to remain but upon the British people of the Colony who have lived under it for the last 70 years. I am not con- cerned, however, in discussing in detail the subject of mui-tsai. I have voted already for the first reading of the Bill and I am prepared to vote for its final stages, principally because it adds to the annals of the Colony and the laws of the Colony an Ordinance which is in keeping with other Ordinances. For my own part I do feel sincerely that in a large degree it was perhaps unnecessary because, in practice and in spirit, officially and otherwise, the practice has never received official sanction from beginning to end in the history of the Colony and therefore it seems unnecessary to legislate on the subject. Nor would it have been necessary but for the gross misrepresentation in an agitation representing a somewhat horrible state of affairs which, in fact, does not. exist in practice and in the experience of those of us who have lived very many years I do not in this Colony and who know somewhat of the inside of Chinese affairs. think the situation of the mui-tsai in a Chinese household differs so very largely in actual practice from that of a similar practice obtaining at home of adopting an orphan from one of the many orphanages and using her as a domestic assistant and providing her with home, food and clothing. Nor do I think that the ill-treatment which has been so largely described to us is any more widely spread than that revealed in the ordinary practice of a Magistrate's Court in any large town in England. It is because I have so recently come from Home and because both from Press and platform and even from pulpit one has heard such atrocious misstatements of fact that I feel they cannot be passed without challenge by this Council, affecting as they do the reputa- tion of the Council and the reputation of the Colony. For that reason I venture to raise my voice in the very strongest protest against such being accepted as facts by the Secretary of State for the Colonies. If it were a fact that slaves were openly bought and sold as depicted in the Press at Home, would not the British Colony itself have compelled such a state of affairs to be attended to? If it were a fact that the Government permitted the purchase and sale of slaves as depicted would not the pressure of public opinion in this Colony have forced legislation long ago? But for the fact that certain persons, with a not very wide knowledge of the subject, ventured at Home, for purposes of propaganda, and partly for political propaganda, grossly to mis-state the facts for their own ends, the subject would never have been raised
135