-2.
reason given is that, at Common Law, this is the age of
discretion.
There may be other excellent reasons, but,
47
if so, it may be regretted that they have not been supplied.
fossibly, the Committee may have had in mind the proceedings
in the Hong Kong Legislative Council on the 28th December,
1922. In connection with the mui tsai legislation, His
Excellency the Governor amused the Council when he propounded
the question "When does a Chinese girl arrive at years of
The laughter was renewed when the Honour-
-able Mr (now Sir) Chow Shou-Son replied "That is putting
a big question. Eighteen years is not the age of
Faiscretion?"
discretion. That is the worst possible age."
Possibly, a legal extension of supervision from
Obviously, however,
18 to 21 years may be an improvement.
it does not go to the root of the question, or indeed anywhere
near it. The English legal fiction concerning the age of
21 is meaningless to every mui-tsai, and to most employers
of mui-tsai.
If there is any need for supervision up to
the age of 21,it does not automatically disappear when the
21st birthday is reached.
The Committee has failed to observe a fact which
The last half-yearly report shows
requires attention.
that on the 31st May last there were 416 registered mui-tsai
over the age of 18 years. Under Section IO of the Ordinance
of 1923, only mui-tsai under the age of 18 can be restored
to their parents. In other words, these 416 girls have ceased
to have the legal privilege of the younger girls. This
anomaly in the law must have been nintentional.
actual practice, there can be no doubt that they have it.
Further examination of the facts is required.
In
In this connection, I would express regret thay my suggestion
e
(se my paragraph 93,page 32) that the Committee should take
evidence was not accepted by the Committee, despite the very
definite indication in paragraph 6 of the Colonial Secretary's