279
PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE
Reference :-
TPELLICO. 882/11
PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON
ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC- COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO
12
formed definite opinions on the subject, I have not been allowed to appear officially in the matter, although His Excellency the Governor did allow me to forward him a memorandum before the question of a Commission on the subject was mooted. I feel therefore that my only course is to forward this letter to you through His Excellency the Governor of the Straits Settlements, and to ask you to consider the points which I have put forward.
As I am naturally a total stranger to you I would mention that for ten years before coming to this Colony I was working in India, at first as a Bishop's Chaplain for three years, and then as a Missionary; that I at one time acted as Secretary of the Army Purity Association, and that my last two years were spent in Rawal Pindi, the largest Military Cantonment in India. Since I have been here, that is for 14 years, I have had Indian Clergy and Catechists, and also Chinese Clergy and Catechists under me. In Singapore we have a boys' school which now has over 600 scholars, and three other schools of which one has 60 girls in the boarding department. All points connected with the moral tone of the place have therefore come in my way not only as regards the European portion of the community, but also the Asiatic portion."
I would mention that my wife holds the degree of M.D., of London, and that out of 26 years she has been in Asia she has been practising her profession for nearly 21 years, including the last ten in Singapore, all through doing Medical Mission work among women and children, and except for the first five years without salary. On that basis, therefore, I have had an opportunity of learning a good deal about Asiatics. As regards the work of which she is head, I would say that we have recently built and opened a Medical Mission Hospital for women and children which has cost about £13,000, of which considerably more than half was given by Asiatics, from which fact I would conclude that the Asiatics of Singapore imagine that we know something about their feelings and their needs.
The view which I hold on the subject is that what is known as "State Regu lation of Vice" is harmful where it is imposed, primarily to the moral condition of life, and, as its result goes to increase indulgence of vice, to the physical health of the people. It is this system which has been proposed by our local Venereal Diseases Commission, and which is to form the basis of suggested legislation. It so happens that the publication of the Report of our local Venereal Diseases Commis- sion, which is technically called No. 86 of 1923, Straits Settlements, led to a contro- versy in which I took a prominent part, having studied the subject for 25 years. The end of the controversy as far as I am concerned was the giving of a Public Lecture in the Victoria Memorial Theatre (the largest public building we have here), which was reserved for men only. The building holds over 500 and it was full. I made three pauses during my lecture in order that any facts put forward by me might be challenged. It is significant that no single fact was challenged. Three days later the Straits Times published an article suggesting that my lecture was well fitted to bamboozle the ignorant. As I had already, after four long letters, said that I did not wish to continue the controversy in that paper, I naturally did not reply, but in my published lecture, of which I send you a copy herewith* I have given on pages 16 to 19 the answer to the Editor's main arguments. I would suggest that the facts and arguments brought forward in my lecture and in my reply to the Straits Times at the end of the printed lecture, should receive consideration from you.
As is mentioned in the lecture the graphs which are given on the last three pages are taken from official and other authoritative publications, and the figures were certified by Messrs. Rennie & Lowick, Accountants, of Singapore, as being accurate in accordance with those publications. There is one addition which has been made with pen and ink-the last figure of all in the Army graph G-the number for 1923, which was available only after the lecture had been given.
In that lecture there were set forward those arguments which can be made public, and as I have already said, I would invite your attention to them. But there are some which cannot be made public without serious detriment to the prestige of our Empire, if published in a Colony of this kind.
These three points are:-
(a) The composition of the Committee.
(b) The unfairness of their method.
(c) The unfortunate action which was taken in another Crown Colony where
a similar method was introduced a few years ago.
• Not printed.
I will deal with these in order:
13
(a) The composition of the Committee.
The Committee was appointed,
The
I have no doubt, with the intention of getting at the full facts of the case. Government nominated two doctors; a hody called the "Straits Settlements Association" were asked to nominate two; and the Municipalists of Singapore were A member of the Civil Service, to nominate one from the Health Department.
The Government appointed Mr. Lee Warner, was appointed to preside. Dr. Finlayson, an able Bacteriologist, and Mrs. O'May, a lady doctor in their service, who unfortunately was unwell during a good many of the sittings of the Committee. The Straits Settlements Association proposed the Hon. Dr. Galloway and Dr. Rattray, private practitioners who have had considerable practice with venereal disease. The Municipality appointed Dr. Hunter, who is head of their Health Department. It so happens that of these, three may be ascribed as being pronounced Regulationists before any evidence was taken. Dr. Galloway has for at least ten years been using extremely strong language on the subject of the need for restoring the Contagious Diseases Ordinances, which were abolished here over 25 years ago. In a letter which he wrote early in 1914, he spoke of “that unparalleled misfortune He estimated that with the repeal of the Contagious Diseases Ordinances.' regard to Orientals 80 per cent. might be said to have suffered from venereal disease without overstating its prevalence. He talked about "the inhuman action of 1887." At that time he tried to get a scheme of this kind introduced in the Federated Malay States but was opposed by a Committee mostly composed of doctors, including the Principal Medical Officer of the Federated Malay States and the Senior Medical Officer of Health. In November, 1921, he spoke on the subject at the Legislative Council, indicating the desirability of the return of the Contagious Diseases Ordinances. In March, 1922, he wrote a pamphlet on the subject in which he made a most serious misquotation from a Government Report in Ceylon which at that time was confidential, and which those who were opposed to him were not allowed to quote in order to show his inaccuracy.
""
Dr. Rattray, as pages 29 to 32 show, even before the evidence was finished, and within five weeks of the first witness being called, produced an elaborate scheme One can scarcely suppose that for registration and regulation of prostitutes.
a busy doctor in addition to attending two meetings a week of a Committee of this kind could find time in five weeks to evolve such an elaborate scheme.
Dr. Hunter is a very strong believer in the system of regulation. There was nobody appointed who could definitely represent the other side of the question. I have no objection to a person holding strong views on this or any other subject. I hold strong views myself on it. But in England care is taken when there is any important Commission appointed that people representing different views should be appointed so that, just as in a Law Court opposing barristers present as Counsel are able to bring out all sides of the question, so in such a Commission the witnesses could be examined from different points of view by those who know most on the subject. In this case, as the Committee was constituted, there was nobody to deal with the subject from the other side which was opposed to regulation, and therefore that side could not be brought forward. This fact alone makes me suggest that the Report of the Committee should not be considered as in any way an authoritative document or one on which any legislation should be based.
(b) The unfairness of their method. It is usual in a Commission on public matters to get by advertisement or otherwise all knowledge on the subject which is available. In this case there was no advertisement in any newspapers, such as during 1923 there was in the case of two other Committees appointed to deal respectively with the question of Destitution and the question of Opium. There was not even a circular sent to members of the Medical profession in British Malaya or even in the Colony. My wife was asked by one member of the Committee to name those who she thought should give evidence. She mentioned herself and me. I was not allowed to give evidence on the ground that I was not a doctor-a distinction which had not been observed either in the Roval Commission on Venereal Diseases in England between 1913 and 1916: the inquiry into Venereal Disease by the National Birthrate Commission in 1922, or by Lord Trevethin's Committee of Inquiry in 1923. As regards herself, she gave a short memorandum to show the lines on which she would give evidence. She was never called to give evidence, paragraph 7 of the Report saying "statements and statistics were given by It was of course Mrs. Smith (Municipal Nurse) and Dr. Ferguson-Davie.'
M
1