17
62758/7/29
of the girl if the Secretary for Chinese Affairs were
not to exercise his legal right of guardianship.
8.
In the second place the former section appeared
to give the Secretary for Chinese Affairs the full and
unfettered right of a legal guardian. Section 10 of
Ordinance No. 1 of 1923, however, considerably limits his
right to refuse to restore a girl who is a mui tsai to
the custody of her parent or natural guardian.
There
was a distinct conflict here between the two Ordinances.
No doubt the later Ordinance would prevail, but it is
advisable to make that position quite clear.
Accordingly,
the new section 32 provides that the rights of the
Secretary for Chinese Affairs as legal guardian shall be
subject to the provisions of section 10 of Ordinance
No. 1 of 1923. That section provides that any mui tsai
who wishes to be restored to the custody of her parent or
natural guardian, and any mui tsai under eighteen whose parent or natural guardian wishes such mui tsai to be
restored to his or her custody, shall be restored to such
custody unless the Secretary for Chinese Affairs sees
some grave objection in the interest of such mui tsai
to such restoration.
9. In the third place, it might have been argued that
the declaratory clause of Ordinance No. 1 of 1923, i.e.,
section 2 negatived the right of guardianship conferred
on the Secretary for Chinese Affairs by section
32 of
Ordinance No. 4 of 1897. Reasons are given in the
report on the Female Domestic Service Amendment Ordinance,
Ordinance No. 22 of 1929, for suggesting that the conflict
here was only apparent, but it has been thought better
to make the matter quite clear, and this has been done