79
933
Supply: Committee-
HOUSE OF COMMONS
[Sir J. Simon.] We are responsible. Lord Passfield went on to say in his despatch-and particular attention should be paid to these words- "You should at once proceed to make Regulations under Section 12 of the Ordinance for the keeping of the Registers, for the remuneration of mui-tsai and for their inspection and control.”
It must be obvious that mere regulations without a systematic register, and with- out the homes of the people being to some extent supervised, are very likely to be a dead letter. The Colonial Secre- tary said further:
[+
It will be doubtless necessary for you to appoint additional officers in the Depart- ment of the Secretary for Chinese Affairs to carry out the work of registration and inspection."
of many
All that seems to me admirably said. The registration of the mui-tsai was accordingly ordered and, as far as I understand, it was to be completed in six months from the beginning of Decem- ber, 1929, running to 1st May, 1930. For two-thirds of that six months, notwith- standing the regulations, very little seems to have been done, and I see from the first report made by the Governor that in that period down to the begin- ning of April last less than 300 registra- tions had taken place out thousands. It would certainly appear- and I think there are many indications of it in the White Paper-that at one time some, at any rate, of the officials concerned had no enthusiasm for the remedy proposed. There is one circum- stance to which I must call the atten- tion of the Committee. Not the present Governor but the former shortly after Lord Passfield had given instructions for registration, used this language in a public speech in Hong Kong:
Governor,
"I do not myself believe that registration of mui-tsai will, to any great extent, improve their position."
It is very unfortunate, at a time when the Colonial Office was directing that this should be done, that that should be the language used by a gentleman then hold- ing the supreme position as representing the Government in that Colony. Of course, it is easy to understand that re- gistration, by itself, would be of very little use if no serious efforts were made to make the registers complete, and if, not- withstanding Lord Passfield's direction,
Colonial Office.
994
no effective provisions were made for in- spection and control. I cannot see how a system of registration in such a place as that is likely to be effective if you merely proclaim it and prosecute someone who breaks the law, but otherwise leave it alone. I have had sent to me a letter, on Colonial Office paper from Downing Street, dated the 8th April of this year, little more than a month ago, in which it is officially stated:
"With reference to your letter on the sub- ject of mui-tsai, I am directed by Lord Pass- field to inform you that no inspectors or additional police officers have been appointed by the Hong Kong Government with the special duty of seeing that local laws and Regulations on the subject of mui-tsai are carried out."
It would ask the Under-Secretary-we desire to support the policy of the Colonial Office in making the law effec- tive-whether that letter is accurate and that it is the case that, notwithstanding that Lord Passfield's own despatch de- clared that it would be necessary to appoint such officers specially for this purpose, there is no inspectorate. If so, it would appear to be in flat contradiction to the declared intention of the Colonial Office.
That leads me to the last point, and I apologise for having kept the Committee so long. What are the principles in- volved? Here, again, I am much sur- prised to read some of the statements that have been made. It has been more than once said that the number of mui- tsai was something close upon 10,000. In a recent official publication it is suggested that that was a mere guess and that the number that have been registered, which is only 4,117, substantially represent all that there are. If 1,117 little children are subject to conditions of sale, it is quite enough, but those who make that statement do not seem to know where the It is not a guess. 10,000 come from.
It is not the exaggeration of some enthu siastic private person. A question was put by the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Ken- worthy) to the Colonial Office in this House, in 1922, when the predecessor of the present Under-Secretary, Lord Irwin, held the position. The statement was then made that the number of mui-tsai was between 8,000 and 9,000. I believe that if the census of Hong Kong had
935 Supply: Committee-
been looked into it would be found that that is in accordance with the number in the census.
936
11 MAY 1931
Colonial Office. provement had been effected. I must call attention to the fact that when the hon. Member for Bromley (Mr. Camp- bell) put a supplementary question to the Under-Secretary, basing himself on some information that he had received, the Under-Secretary-I realise that it was a supplementary question said that he was content with what had been already done. I think it was one of those cases where a supplementary question was answered perhaps a little clumsily. I do not think that the Under-Secretary is content with what has been done.
I am quite satisfied that he desires, as we all desire, to use public opinion in this country in support of a very necessary reform.
More than that, in a White Paper there is a despatch from the Governor enclosing another document and that other document shows that the chairman of the anti-muit-tsai society of Hong Kong-a society which contains Chinese as well as British citizens, the chairman himself is Chinese at the annual meet- ing of the society gave the estimate of 10,000 as about right in 1928. Notwith- standing, we have on the register only 4,017. Why? I would ask the Under- Secretary, if he would be good enough, to tell the Committee. Is there any real, solid reason for supposing that that is the full number, or is the real reason that you are here dealing with people many of whom are ignorant, many of whom cannot read? You are certainly concerning yourself with little children who are quite incapable of acting for themselves. Is it not extremely prob- able that there are very large numbers of mui-tsai who have not been registered The Hong Kong papers are full of cases of brutal cruelty, where one finds that the child is not registered and therefore the mistress may be prosecuted. There are quite a number of cases of that sort.
If the facts are what I have put to the Committee, and I would ask the Com- nittee to observe that every one of them is based either on an official document or on the public newspapers of Hong Kong, it is impossible for the House of Commons to declare itself contented with what has been done. We earnestly desire to assure the Under-Secretary that if the Colonial Office, instead of taking up an attitude of complacency, will insist on more effective measures being taken, they will have the support of the whole House of Commons Here we and widespread public opinion. are dealing with a Crown Colony, and the House of Commons and the Government of the day have the real responsibility. I can well believe that devoted officers out there in the East, living year after year in the midst of these Oriental customs, which come down from a very ancient civilisation, sometimes despair of getting I do not re- these practices altered. proach them or blame them, because they are not able to act unaided, but there is an instrument which we can bring to their aid, and that is the view of the House of Commons and the force of Liberal public opinion in this country.
I would urge upon the Colonial Office the great importance of supplementing their excellent decision for registration by a more effective and full inspectorate. I think I have shown that the object I have in view is not merely to blame or to reproach people. One can well under- stand how extremely difficult it must be to get rid of this system, but it is a system which is a scandal, and a scandal which no British subject can justify, however difficult it may be to deal with it.
SANDHAM: Even a
Mr. Government!
Sir J. SIMON: Any Government. I do not draw any difference between one and another. On a subject like this, on which we feel deeply, there is no question of party. Nothing would give me greater satisfaction, unstinted satisfaction, than to be able to stand up in this House at a later date and to acknowledge, as I would gladly do, that as a result of our discussion to-night some real further im-
The matter may be regarded in a much wider aspect than that. It is bad enough to think that in a British Protectorate there should be some thousands of little children who are the subject of documents such a I have read, but please observe that we are not now living in an age in which this subject is a matter of merely national interest. The new international movement for promoting and securing anti-slavery is as much a movement in
80