سيا
PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE
19.
6
Reference :--
C.O. 882
5 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON
ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC- | COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH—NOT TO
86
by Mr. Seah Liang Seah are probably ex-inmates of brothels. It is of course next to impossible to obtain any trustworthy information of the habits of Chinese women of the better class, and it may be assumed that opium smoking is rare among them. One witness (Dr. Brown, Penang), thinks that 2 or 3 per cent. of respectable Chinese women smoke opium, and that 70 per cent, of the prostitute class do so. I have known, in the Native States, instances where Malay ladies of the highest rank have been habitual opium smokers. Opium smoking among children is unknown, though a parent may put a pipe to a child's mouth (see Mr. Lamont's evidence), just as the child of an injudicious parent in Europe may be allowed to sip from a glass of beer or spirits.
The per-centage of Malays who smoke opium is admitted on all hands to be small; it is probably larger in the Native States than in the Colony. The estimates given are as follows:-
Per ceni.
1
(Ellis) (Skinner)
(O'Sullivan.)
2
(Kynnersley) in the Colony.
2 or 3
(Kerr)
5 to 8
(Dr. Brown)
10
(Miller)
5
per 1,000
(Lister, Negri Sembilan
3
(Clifford, Pahang)
5 to 10
(Swettenham, Perak)
90 (Dr. Brown-Rajas and Native Chiefs.)
ว
Native States.
Some of the principal Rajas and Chiefs in the Native States in the Malay Peninsula are confirmed opium smokers, and their example is followed by their immediate relatives, followers, and confidential servants. Malay elephant-mahouts are a class who are, almost without exception, opium smokers. They lead a life of considerable hardship and some danger. Opíum smoking among the Malays, therefore, may be viewed as either a fashionable and aristocratic dissipation, or as a solace and relief to those leading an exceptionally rough life.
EFFECT OF OPIUM SMOKING,
3. What have you observed to be the effects of opium, moral, physical, and social, on its consumers? Is the effect the same on consumers of each race, or can you draw distinctions between the effects on consumers of different races ?
1. Physical Effects (Chinese).-The evidence tends to show that, indulged in in modera- tion, opium smoking is not injurious; it is, in fact, held by several witnesses to be distinctly beneficial, and one medical witness (Dr. Brown) declares that it increases the capacity for muscular exertion.
The following seems to be a fair analysis of the opinions of the witnesses as to the physical effects of opium smoking :—
No effect
No ill-effects if used in moderation, injurious in
excess
Lamont.
Kennedy. Clifford, Mugliston.
Penney, Evans.
Haviland.
Chew Siu Yong. Meyer.
Gentle.
Riocard. Dr. Kerr. O'Sullivan. Birch.
Dr. Ellis, Hare. Kynnersley. LO'Brien.
Beneficial
87.
Lister.
Gan Ngoh Bee. Miller Swettenham.
Beneficial in moderation, in- Dr. Brown.
jurious in excess.
Treacher.
Generally injurious
Wray,
Anderson.
Vermont.
Koh Seang Tat.
Shellabear.
Dr. O'Sullivan. Dato Mantri.
Personally, I agree with those who think that opium smoking does no harın if practised in moderation, and moderation is, of necessity, the rule among Chinese in the Colony, for the bulk of the population of that nationality cannot afford to indulge to excess. One witness (Mr. Shellabear) has found that, among jinrikisha men, those "who have the sp- pearance of being opium smokers" are not good pullers. Against this there is the evidence of Dr. Brown that "coolies who use opium in moderate quantities are distinctly longer- "winded and more capable of prolonged fatigue than others who do not." Possibly the explanation is that the men who seemed to Mr. Shellabear to have the appearance of being opium smokers were really physically weak from other causes, for, as Mr. Hare (31st witness), says, "You can no more pick out the opium smokers from a crowd of ordinary Chinese than it would be possible to pick out those who take alcohol from "those who do not among an equal number of Europeans.”
Loss of flesh is described as a result, but not by any means a universal result, of opium-smoking, and this corresponds with what I have myself observed. Leanness is not always a disadvantage. The table furnished by Mr. Birch (page 45) is not very instructive, for the difference between the respective weights of prisoners (opium- smokers) on entry and discharge from prison is in several cases very slight, and `may in some cases be referable to improved diet and a healthy life, rather than to the mere discontinuance of opium smoking.
II. Moral Effect (Chinese).—I do not believe that the moral effects of opium smoking, indulged in in moderation, are injurious, and this seems to be the opinion of the majority of the witnesses. A healthy man who only spends on opium what he can afford is not necessarily tempted to steal. Excessive indulgence in opium, like other excesses, may, it is generally admitted, weaken or destroy the moral fibre andruin a man's character.
On this subject, the evidence may be summarised as follows-
Effects degrading morally
No moral injury when used in moderation-
"Lamont.
Seah Liang Seah. Dr. O'Sullivan.
Koh Seang Tat. Shellabear. Evans. Swettenham. Dr. Brown.
Dr. Kerr. Wray.
Dr. Ellis.
And many others who, without alluding specially to moral effects, have reported generally that moderate smoking is not injurious.
III. Social Effects (Chinese).-There is little evidence on this point. One witness (Mr. Swettenham) probably states the utmost that can be allaged when he says that there is a "prejudice" against smokers. It would be curious indeed if, in a community where opium smoking is so generally practised and tolerated, the practice of it involved social condemnation or ostracism, or even loss of influence.
It is not very clear whether, in enquiring what are the “social effects ** of opium on ita consumers, the Royal Commissioners wish to ascertain the effect upon the smoker from the judgment of society, or the action of opium upon him in a social aspect. There has been evidently a misunderstanding among the witnesses as to the exact purport of this part of the question. Mr. Swettenham's evidence just quoted may, for
L 4