4
Enclosure No. 2.
Extract from the South China Morning of July 22, 1929.
Mr. Butters: Yes, and on a
MUI TSAIS IN HONGKONG. certain amount of household work.
I think a certain amount was per- formed by the girl during the day. His Worship said that the one
CHINESE EXPERT GIVES EVIDENCE ON witness the defendant had called LOCAL CONDITIONS OF CHILD LABOUR.
YOUNG GIRL OVER-WORKED.
Labour conditions, to which children of certain Chinese families, more especially mui tsais, are subjected, were brought to light in a prosecution brought by the Secretariat for Chinese Affairs before Mr. T. S. Whyte Smith at the Kowloon Magistracy last week. On Saturday, at the special request of the Magistrate, expert evidence of local conditions was given by a prominent member of the Chinese community and the Medical Officer of Health.
Mr. Tong Yat-tsun, J.P., who has been identified with several local institutions for some years, gave it as his opinion that mui tsais were only purchased by the wealthy, but in the event of an owner becoming poor the girl might be required to earn money for her employers but she should not be subjected to excessive toil. There was a difference in treatment, was witness' opinion, between a daughter and a mui tsai, whose essential duties, however, were confined to household work.
The case concerned the widow of To Kwa Wan, who was charged on two counts under the Female Domestics (Mui Tsai) Ordinance of 1923. She was alleged to have ill-treated the girl by sending her to work in a factory for 101⁄2 hours every night for a period of 21⁄2 months. The defendant was also alleged to have failed to provide
the girl with auffieient food
Mr.
H. R. Butters, assistant Secretary for Chinese Affairs, appeared for the prosecution.
Value of Medical Evidence, Addressing Mr. Butters, his Worship said: As you know, I requested that the Medical Officer of Health be called as a witness and I have been giving a great deal of consideration to the matter since. I am not at all sure if his evidence will be really relevant. I am more and more convinced that the matter is governed by the In- dustrial Employment of Children Ordinance, where certain regula- tions are laid down.
Now, that Ordinance defines a child as a person under the age of 15 years and I am inclined to hold that this mui tsai is over 15. She says herself that she is 16, ac- cording to Chinese reckoning, which you argue is 14 by European reckoning.
Dr. Thomas said he would estimate the girl's age at about 15 or 16, European reckoning, and 1. think I might find under the cir- cumstances that she is over 15.
Mr. Butters: 15 or over. His Worship: That is, she is 15
or over.
Continuing, his Worship said: And as you know Regulation 10 of that Ordinance says "no child i shall be employed in any industrial undertaking between 7 p.m. and 7 a.m." Now, assuming that this
child is 15 or over, then could it be held that a woman, by sending out her daughter or her mui tsai to work at night in a factory, is ill-treating or over-working that girl, when, according to that Re- gulation, night work seems to be permitted for children above the age of 15? That's the question.
Decision on Other Grounds.
I might mention that the last time Dr. Fawcett gave evidence I accepted his evidence but decided the case on other grounds al- together and it seems to me that that might happen again. I think it fair to Dr. Fawcett to mention this. I might decide on other grounds.
Mr. Butters pointed out to his not Worship that the girl was much older than 15 years. He also drew his Worship's attention to the fact that Regulation 10 pro- hibited a child under 15 working for even one hour on a single one night between 7 p.m. and 7 a.m.
His Worship agreed that it would be a breach of Regulation 10 for a child under 15 to work even for one hour during the time men. tioned.
Then the point arose, said his Worship, what should the defen- dant have done. Should she have been at the factory to see how the girl was being employed? His Worship asked if that was what Mr. Butters argued.
•
22
seemed to have given her evidence in a reasonable way. She said that the defendant was a woman with bound feet and could not carry water herself.
Mr. Butters intimated that that. was in favour of the prosecution. Does not Disapprove of System
Expert evidence was then called. Mr. Tong Yat-tsun went into the witness-box, and in reply to Mr. Butters, said that he had been a Justice of the Peace since 1916. In 1918 he was a Director of the Tung Wah Hospital and a Director of the Po Leung Kuk in 1919 and 1924. He was also a member of the permanent committee of the Po Leung Kuk, a member of the District Watchmen's Committee and a member of the Chinese General Chamber of Commerce.
Mr. Butters: Am I correct in saying that you do not disapprove of the mui tsai system?
Witness:
Yes.
Supposing a mui tsai of the age,
of presumably,
15, European reckoning, was employed in a knitting factory for 101⁄2 hours every night without interval or interruption, without facilities for sitting down and such employment: continued nightly for the space of 22 months, do you consider that、 that is normal and usual treat- ment for a mui tsai in the Colony and in accord with the accepted standard of Chinese employers of' mui tsai?-No, it would not be fair.
His Worship pointed out that it`` was for him and not the witness to decide whether the complainant in the case had been over-worked or not. His Worship suggested that the question should be put in another form.
Question Too Long.
usual. His Worship: Is it a thing for a mui tsai to work at a · factory?
Mr. Butters: I had that asked. His Worship: Your question is too long.
His Worship's question was put to the witness, who replied "No." The object of keeping a mui tsai is. to keep her to work in the house. It is not usual to send her out to
Mr. Butters replied that what he argued was that both as a parent and as a mistress of a mui tsai the defendant had over-worked both her daughter and the mui la factory. tsai. He did not think that any Mr. Butters: parent had a right to work girlsing out a mui tsai at night?— of their ages during such periods.
Ill-treatment not Pressed. His Worship said that with re-, gard to the alleged ill-treatment they had only the child's evidence of that. The defendant denied the allegations made by the mui tsai and his Worship thought that he himself had suggested that there was no reason why the defendant should go into the witness-box, but if the prosecution were going to argue that there was a certain amount of ill-treatment during the day, his Worship would advise the defendant to give evidence on oath.
Mr. Butters: I am not pressing the charge of ill-treatment.
His Worship: You are relying on the factory work?
That's correct.
not
What about send-
proper. It is not
His Worship: Are mui tsais limited to wealthy households or are they bought by poor people as well?-Now-a-days a man must have some money before he buys: a mui tsai, but later on he may be
and then
it poor
he will find difficult to keep the mui tsai.
Mr. Butters: Are there certain obligations, certain standards of treatment, on the employer of a How certain mui tsai?-How? treatment.
His Worship: That perhaps is a little too difficult a question to ask.
Mr. Butters: May I ask whe- ther Mr. Tong thinks it is proper to hire out a mui tsai as personal
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.