PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE
Reference :-
C.O. 882
6
PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON
ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC- COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH—NOT TO
6
6. In connection with the question of the traffic in women in the Colony, I have the honour to transmit to you the enclosed copies of correspondence with Mr. W. McLaren, M.P., relative to information furnished by two ladies, Mrs. Andrew and Dr. Kate Bushnell, who recently visited Singapore. I also enclose copy of a report upon the statement made by these ladies, furnished at my request by Mr. G. C. Wray.
7. Among the points referred to in this correspondence is the "ticket system," and I observe that in paragraph 34 of the Report of the Chinese Protectorate for 1892, and in paragraph 38 of the Report for 1893, this system is stated to have been the means of enabling many women to communicate with the Chinese Protector in case of trouble, and to obtain assistance from him. I desire to point out, in reply to the third paragraph of your despatch No. 311, that these cases of women obtaining assistance from the Chinese Protector-and they are the principal class of cases referred to in his Reports are not materially facilitated by the system of Registration and Inspection of Brothels, and are not likely to cease owing to the abolition of Brothel Registration, for the complaints that such women make are not made to the Inspectors on the occa- sion of their visits of inspection, but by letter, or otherwise, to the Protector. The fact that the women seek for help arises from their position having been explained to them on their arrival in the Colony, and their being then made acquainted with their right to appeal to the Protector. The "ticket " itself does not appear to be an essential part of the system, although it may be useful as a continual reminder of the existence of The Protectorate. I do not, therefore, see any necessity for abolishing the "ticket system,” provided the form of the ticket is altered, so as not to be a document purport- ing to register the woman as a prostitute, but to be merely a notice given to each woman or girl, when on her arrival in the Colony she is seen, under Ordinance 4 of 1880, and has her position as free agent explained to her, such notice signifying that she is at all times at liberty to communicate with the Protector of Chinese by letter, or through a friend or otherwise.
8. Another point referred to in the statement of Mrs. Andrew and Dr. Bushnell relates to their discovering young girls present for immoral purposes in eating houses, or in opium shops. I do not know to what extent this practice may prevail in the Colony, but I think it desirable that provisions should be enacted, similar to those contained in sections 14 and 15 of 35, 8 Vie. c. 94, forbidding any licensed premises, whether licensed for the sale of drink or of opium, to be used as a brothel, or as a resort for prostitutes; and I am inclined to think that in the case of opium shops women should be absolutely excluded from being admitted, as was proposed by your prede- cessor in his despatch, No. 60, of 27th February, 1893, to which I referred you in my despatch, No. 341, of 19th October last. Regulations on this subject might be made under section 35 (ii.) of the Liquor Ordinance 11 of 1894, and under section 28 of the Opium Ordinance 9 of 1894, but it would be better to include a distinct provision on this point in the amending Ordinance, which, in the earlier part of this despatch, I have asked you to introduce.
9. The medical examination of young girls by the Colonial Surgeon, referred to in paragraph 4 of Mrs. Andrew and Dr. Bushnell's statement, is, in my opinion, very ob- jectionable, and should at once he stopped. A physical examination of this kind can throw little, if any, light on the question whether a girl is under or over the age of 16; and that is the only question which is really at issue in these cases. In future the Protector of Chinese should, without offering the girl the alternative of submitting to a medical examination with a view to proving her age to be over sixteen, simply send to and detain in the refuge until she is properly provided for every girl who, either on first arrival in the Colony, or on being found living in or frequenting a brothel, appears to him to be under sixteen years of age.
10. With reference to Mr. Wray's observations upon paragraphs 5 and 11 of Mrs. Andrew and Dr. Bushnell's statement, I am of opinion that the law should be strengthened, so as to make the traffic in young girls under sixteen years of age a punishable offence, even in the absence of "false pretence, false representation, or fraudulent or deceitful means " [section 4 (1) (ii.) of Ordinance 14 of 1888]. Provisions strictly prohibiting such traffic in young girls should be introduced, similar to those contained in sections 5 and 10 of the Hong Kong Ordinance 11 of 1890.
11. The Protector of Chinese should do his utmost to enforce the provisions of the Ordinance for the Protection of Women and Girls by initiating prosecutions in every ease where evidence likely to lead to the conviction of offenders is forthcoming.
12. As regards the "voluntary examinations" of women, referred to in Mr. Wray's observations upon paragraph 10 of the statement, I shall be glad to receive, at your early convenience, the report promised in paragraph 9 of your despatch No. 233 of the 30th of July last, as to Dr. Mugliston's treatment of women suffering or likely to be suffering from venereal disease. I am aware that my predecessor decided that, as Dr. Mugliston was allowed private practice; he should not be prohibited from seeing at his private office and giving certificates to women who voluntarily presented them- selves to him for examination, but I desire to know to what extent such women have presented themselves for examination, and how far he has in this way carried on the system of periodical examinations of the inmates of registered brothels. In making this enquiry I do not wish to impute any blame to Dr. Mugliston personally, but it is a question whether some change in his dual position ought not to be made, as it is at least probable that the women concerned make no distinction between the Colonial Surgeon acting in his official capacity and Dr. Mugliston acting in his private capacity, and I cannot approve of the law which abolished the compulsory examination of women being thus in any degree indirectly evaded. For the reasons given in the last paragraph of my despatch to Hong Kong of 17th April last (p. 57 of H. C. 147), I do not consider that the periodical examinations of these women can in any real sense of the word be regarded as "voluntary."
7714.
STRAITS SETTLEMENTS.
No. 5.
I have, &c.,
RIPON.
GOVERNOR SIR C. B. H. MITCHELL to the MARQUESS OF RIPON.
(No. 113.) MY LORD,
(Received May 4, 1895.)
[Answered by No. 7.]
Government House, Singapore, April 8, 1895. WITH reference to paragraph 12 of Your Lordship's despatch, No. 436, of the 28th December last, I must express regret that, owing to my absence in Pahang when despatch No. 294 of the 11th September last, forwarding Ordinance XII. of 1894, was sent to Your Lordship, the special report on Dr. Mugliston's system which had been promised was omitted.
2. On receipt of Your Lordship's despatch above quoted, I called upon Dr. Mugliston for a detailed report, but Your Lordship will observe from the report fur- nished by him, of which a copy is enclosed, that he wishes to be allowed to wait till the completion of a year, in June next, from the date of making his last report, before submitting the complete return.
3. As to the probability of the women concerned failing to distinguish between Dr. Mugliston in his private practice and as Colonial Surgeon, I consider that such a thing can hardly be possible.
4. From a report which the Protector of Chinese drew up after meeting the various brothel keepers, it appears that the latter have great confidence in Dr. Mugliston, who can always be found at his office at certain hours. Besides this, they have known him for many years, and he is ready at all times to come when sent for. This report was called for by me in consequence of some vague remarks made in the "Daily Advertiser" (now extinct), and I enclose a copy of it.
I have, &c.,
Enclosure 1 in No. 5.
C. B. H. MITCHELL.
COPY of a REPORT by DR. MUGLISTON.
1. The despatch of the Secretary of State shows an entire misapprehension of the subject of my private practice amongst the brothel inmates. The Secretary of State appears to think that I am only treating venereal disease occurring in prostitutes, and
• 15175, not printed.
† No. 4.
‡ No. 1.
14818 and 20340, not printed.
§ No. 27 in Eastern No. 63.
† 20340, not printed.
No. 3.
| 15611, not printed.