-5-
In my memorandum, I stated that "there have been
Ano new mui-tsai since 1923." The Committee finds that
Its explanation of my
herein I have fallen into error.
error is that I had wrongly assumed that Section 4 of Part
II of the Ordinance (which provides that "no person shall
"hereafter take into his possession any mui-tsai") had had
practical effect when the law came into legal operation,
namely, on the 23rd February, 1923. The Committee's finding
is that this Section, though legally operative, was,in
practice,inoperative until another part of the law (Part III.)
was brought into operation on the Ist December, 1929.
Moreover, the Committee has serious doubts whether the
Section is yet in operation.
My assumption that the law
was operative may perhaps be excused.
-
The Committee propounds, but does not answer, the
question "What is the position of a mui-tsai not
"registered as such ?". When the answer to this question
is found, it may provide another factor to show that the
problem relates to "female domestic service" as a whole.
Incidentally, I would mention that the law relating to the
mui-tsai is entitled "The Female Domestic Service Ordinance,
"1923,".
Fourth Question. I merely invited attention to
the matter of the statutory minimum wages.
In its
observations on the subject, the Committee appears to be
under the impression that I have "su gested the recognition
of the Mui-Tsai System" This is not so: the system is
•
recognized by the Ordinance, which carefully defines the
word "Mui-Tsai", and uses it throughout:it is recognized in
the Rules under the Ordinance, and in the half-yearly
reports of the Governor. The Committee,itself,in its
13th conclusion, on page 25,refers to the "True Mui-Tsai
Asystem", and refers to the "Mui-Tsai System" in its 14th
conclusion.
50
Page 50Page 51