PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE
Reference :-
C.O.882/11
PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON | ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE
BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC- COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO
Procedure.
Feca.
w
10
(4) All licences issued under this Ordinance shall be deemed to be the property of the Controller.
24. (1) All convictions and fines under this Ordinance or any rule made there- under may be had and recovered before a District Court or Police Court.
(2) Any such Court may, notwithstanding anything in the Criminal Procedure Code, impose the full punishment prescribed by this Ordinance.
(3) No Court shall take cognizance of any offence under this Ordinance except with the sanction of the Controller.
25. No fees shall be chargeable for any registration made or any licence issued under this Ordinance.
Enclosure 3 in No. 10.
COPY OF A MEMORANDUM BY THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL, STRAITS SETTLEMENTS. Venereal Diseases Ordinance.
:
Common "1 "PROSTITUTE The Contagious Diseases Ordinance, 1870, has:
Women and Prostitute" means any person who prostitutes her body for reward." Girls Protection Ordinance No. 143 has: "Inmate of a Brothel" means any woman or girl residing or being in a brothel at any time for the purpose of prostitution.
Neither definition covers satisfactorily the great evil the Ordinance is meant to abolish-the sly prostitutes. Such a woman may take a customer to a native Inmate of hotel or lodging house which is not a brothel, so she is not thereby an a brothel." If such native hotel is raided and she is found therein with a customer and is charged with being a prostitute: Suppose she raises the defence that this Such a defence is to some extent supported was the only time she had ever acted so. by the facts that she is not an inmate of a brothel, that she had no fixed place for acts of prostitution and that she did not resort to her own residence. The prosecu- A Magistrate might well hold that one ct is not tion can only prove the one act.
I was well aware when I drafted sufficient to constitute a woman a prostitute. this definition of its apparent harshness, and I took special pains to point it out to everyone I consulted and explain its object. Every one without exception agreed to it.
18th February, 1924.
28662
SIR,
No. 11.
W. H. DINSMORE.
THE GOVERNOR to THE SECRETARY OF STATE. (Received 16th June, 1924.)
(Confidential.)
Government House, Singapore, 22nd May, 1924. WITH reference to paragraph 4 of my Confidential despatch dated 16th March, 1924,* on the subject of the Report of the Venereal Diseases Committee, I have the honour to enclose a letter addressed to you by the Bishop of Singapore.
2. The Bishop in his letter takes exception to the procedure of the Committee and I considered that the members of the Committee should be given an opportunity to reply. A letter was therefore addressed to each of them containing the substance of the objections raised by the Bishop. I enclose a copy of this letter together with a copy of the Committee's reply.
3. The suggestion that the Committee's procedure was unfair and that wit- nesses were selected for their opinions rather than for their knowledge of the question under consideration is I think fully disposed of by the Committee's reply. The attention of the Government had been called to the alarming prevalence of venereal disease in the town of Singapore. The disease was reported to be rapidly increasing and it was considered imperative to appoint a small expert Committee (with rather narrow terms of reference) to report on the question with the least possible delay. The facts disclosed by the evidence taken by the Committee amply justify the procedure adopted.
* No. 10.
11
273
4. The question of venereal disease can only be profitably considered in close connexion with local conditions, and in Singapore a variety of circumstances make the problem peculiarly difficult. The Committee has clearly shown in its report, and I have emphasized in my despatch of 16th March, the fact that conditions in Singapore are probably unique in Asia, and certainly not comparable with the conditions in any town in Europe. There is no ground for inferring that, because a scheme is a success or a failure in Stockholm, it will therefore be a success or a failure in Singapore. I do not know what scheme was attempted in Uganda, but I am certain that any comparison between Uganda and Singapore is valueless.
5. The Committee, whose composition is criticized by the Bishop, consisted The Straits of two Government representatives, the Municipal Health Officer, and two representatives nominated by the Straits Settlements Association. Settlements Association in nominating Sir David Galloway and Dr. Rattray nominated two local practitioners of the highest standing who were known to I do not think that a stronger have made a special study of the question. Committee could have been formed in Singapore, and no reflection on its fairness and integrity would in my opinion deserve consideration unless based on far stronger grounds than those advanced by the Bishop.
6.
I have the highest respect for the zeal and sincerity of the Bishop, but he regards the question from a particular angle, and his case when compared with the facts set forth in the Committee's Report wears to my mind an air of unreality. He is possibly thinking largely of the European section of the community, but in Singapore the Europeans form an inconsiderable portion of the population, and it is the obvious duty of the Government to consider the welfare of the people as a whole. It may be a comparatively simple matter to devise opportunities of healthy recreation and diversion for the inhabitants of a London suburb, but it is quite a different matter to do so for thousands of illiterate Chinese coolies who have no knowledge of or sympathy with Western ideas and manners.
7. On the question of yellow slavery, to which the Bishop refers on page 13 of his letter, I enclose a memorandum dated 7th April, 1924, by the Secretary for I would invite particular attention to the Chinese Affairs, Straits Settlements.
I am
remarkable figures given in paragraphs 5 and 6 of this memorandum. convinced that the activities of the Chinese Protectorate form the strongest possible obstacle to the increase of yellow slavery in Malaya and I believe that the proposed regulations would help the prostitute no less than the general population of Singapore.
8. I agree with the Bishop that there are other methods of combating venereal disease. The questions of school training, free treatment and the provision of a larger number of clinics are receiving careful consideration., I hope that these will have their effect, but the result produced by these means in an Asiatic town must be very gradual and the problem in Singapore is a very pressing one.
9. A copy of the reportt of the Committee published as Council paper No. 86 of 1923 is enclosed for reference. It will be noticed that certain revisions have been made in the Report and that the numbering of the pages from page 23 onwards is different to that of the pages of the Report forwarded with my Confidential despatch dated 7th August, 1923. All references in the enclosures to this despatch relate to the Report as revised.
I have, &c.,
The Right Honourable
L. N. GUILLEMARD.
Enclosure 1 in No. 11.
&c.
James Henry Thomas, M.P.,
&c.,
&c., Secretary of State for the Colonies.
SIR,
Bishop's Office, 2, Dublin Road, Singapore, 3rd March, 1924. IT has been announced here that proposals are being forwarded for your sanction dealing with the question of prostitution. These proposals are the result of a Commission appointed here during the last year to consider the extent of venereal disease in this Colony, and to report on the matter. Although I signified my wish to give evidence before that Commission I was not allowed to do so. Although, therefore, I have studied the question for a good many years and have
* No. 10. 1 Not printed here.
No. 1.
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.