Many of its provisions are away of ? Direct omission of for these reasons have of the this Reg if he sees no objection to add to Reg8k) (IV)? Tell fr. to after the words "one to be kept in words, which was Office the following is hardly worth accur in the Straits to the effect that the photo kept then while Reg. Geur offer shall be responded to the woman on her name being record from the Register of Inmates.
(I) The subsections (2), (3), and (4) of Reg15 are not in the Straits Regu, but they seem good rules - Except that I see no reason for the first ten words of (3). More ? Direct omission of words since women in Chinese brothels should certainly be encouraged to go to Hospital when diseased, just as much as women in brothels for persons other than Chinese.
(II) Regn 20 is unnecessary. It may be asked, however, might be amended by adding words expressly giving the Medical Officer authority to inspect at any time that he may choose. We, Capt. Sup. of Police, need to be given the power of inspection since we have expressly laid down that the peculiar duties of inspecting brothels should not be imposed upon members of the Police Force but only upon officers under the Reg. General H.1.59.1887 specially selected for this purpose.
Further, I think that the par 6 of dosh b Straits at 4.19f, which was Caledale to Hiking the ? For these reasons, direct omission of this Reg is forably better left - this while approving its may hartige Suggested Kraussass I both M Usos)) Cheukt in, / 17712, 480 thr be asked for his June upne then provid 7 Meter Rey for 3.23 (2) of them Ord. gives him the power in question. It seems also regards the Rag. Sen. Since what bec unnecessary as regards the fol. Surgem, since medical inspection is provided for by Reg 19, which better stand as it is.
In protection Sensors, "word* visit": the (III) Guirnes to Reg 19597 the above Dent 13085.19 21 dea manita (III) ? Point out that the date 1 May 1889 in footnote to form B attached to these Reger, which date is taken from the similar Straits Reque, is evidently wrong and add that when these Regis issued, the reference are.
my of its provisions Res
away of
L
? Diiret omission of for these rea
thave of the
this Reg
if he sees no objection
to add to Regr8k)
(IV)? Tell fr. to
after the words
"one to be kept in
words, which
wis Office the following is hardly worth
accur
in the Straits
to the affect that the photo. kept then while. Reg. Geur offer shall be restond to
the worman on
her name
being
record
from the Register of Inmates. (T) The subsections (2) (3) α(4) of Rey-15
^15 are not in the Straits Regu, but they seem good rules - Except that I see no reasm for the first ten werde of (3)
Mere
? Direct mission of words since women in Chinese
ha brothels should certainly Encouraged to go to Hospital when diseased just as much as women in brothels for persons other than Chinese.
(II) Regn 20 is unnecessary to
ar
ht
92 K
may ask
however might be amended
by adding words expressly giving the Medical Officer author'tt. inspect at any
may
choose?
time that he
729
We Capt. Sup. of Police need given the power of inspection since we have expressly laid dan & that the peculiar duties of inspecting brothels should not be imposed upon members of the Polier Fover but only upon officers under the Reg. fineral H.1.59.1887 specially selected for
purpose.
Further I think that the
and in this deputier
not
par 6 of dosh b
Straits at
4.19f
which was
Caledale.
to Hiking
the
? For these reasons dicet
the omission of this Regi fort this is forably Bettin leave it - this while approving ins may hartige Suggested
Kraussass
I both M Usos)) Cheukt in,
/ 17712, 480 thr be asked for his June upne then provid
7 Meter Rey
for 3.23 (2) of them Ord. gives him then power in question
question. It seems als
regards the Rag. Sen. Since whad bec
unnecessary as regards the fol. Surgem, since medical inspection in provided for by Reg" 19
which
bette stand as it
K
In protection Sensors,
"word* visit":
the
(III)
Guirnes
ал
to Reg
19597
the above Dent
13085.19
21 dea
manita
(III) ? Point out that the date 1 May 1889 in footnote to form B attached to these Reger which dat is taken from the similar Straits Reque is wvidents wrong and add that when these Regis
issued, the referenc
are
る
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.