937
Supply: Committee- HOUSE OF COMMONS [Sir J. Simon.]
was
which Britain has taken the lead as was the movement in which Britain took the lead 120 or 130 years ago in the time of Wilberforce. It British statesmen of all parties, the right hon. Member for West Birmingham (Sir A. Chamberlain), the present Foreign Secretary, Lord Cecil and others who took the lead at Geneva. What has happened? An Anti-Slavery Convention has been drawn up and signed by 30 or 40 States, and this autumn, in September, at Geneva it is hoped to be able to estab- lish a permanent bureau in order to review and get control of what remains of slavery in the world.
We Britons have a perfect right to claim that in many respects we have shown a bold lead. Within the last few years a former Colonial Secretary was instrumental in getitng rid of the remains of slavery in Sierra Leone, and a very distinguished Governor of the province of Burma swept
away slavery in the recesses of that great country. We all have in mind the inquiry about Liberia, but if we want to take the first place, and our proper place, as the leaders of opinion we must be prepared to do what we can to stamp out anything which is in conflict with our convictions in places where we are responsible. I am not one who takes
any pleasure in making adverse comments about the British administrator. His difficulties are far greater than we sitting here in com- fort can realise. I am not seeking to reproach or blame the Colonial Office because it has not been able to secure a great reform at incredible speed, but this is an opportunity, which I greatly value, of asking the House of Commons, and as far as I can public opinion throughout the country, to bring the whole of its power and influence to support the Colonial Office in making a clean sweep of this abominable system.
The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Dr. Drummond Shiels): In the first place I should like to say that I am much obliged to the right hon. and learned Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon) for his courtesy in suiting my convenience as to the time of raising this matter and for having given me notice of his main points. In view of the many inaccurate statements and mis- representations which have been made
939
938
Colonial Office. about mui-tsai in Hong Kong, I am glad of an opportunity or dealing with the matter to-night. I agree that it is very important, and I hope to show that we have realised its importance and that my answer to the supplementary question was justified. Some of the statements that have been made have been very embarrassing to some hon. Members whose constituents have been alarmed at what they have been told. A serious injustice has been done to the Hong Kong Government and to the Home Government by the allegations, in speeches and in letters, to the Press, that at the present time there is a system of child slavery in Hong Kong and that the Hong Kong Government and the Home Government are tolerant of the system and are taking ΠΟ effective steps to deal with it. I was glad to hear the right hon. and learned Member say that he believed the Government were doing their best, but, obviously, the right hon. and learned Member is unaware of the actual position in Hong Kong, and of what the Government have done.
It is common ground, as the right hon. and learned Member has told us, that the employment of mui-tsai is an old- established and widespread custom în China and deeply rooted in Chinese family and economic life. Chinese public opinion expects their employers to see that they are married or suitably pro- vided for when they are about 18 years of age, but as, however, the custom meant that young female children were placed as domestic servants in the houses of em- ployers who had paid money for them to their parents
or guardians, it Was obviously one which was repugnant to British ideas and steps were taken to abolish it in Hong Kong. In February, 1923, an Ordinance called the Female Domestic Service Ordinance was passed. The first part of that Ordinance declared that no rights of property in a female child could be conferred on a third person by payment to the parents or guardians of the child. This point must have been overlooked by those who justify their allegation of slavery in the belief that a right of property in such children is preserved in the statutes of Hong Kong.
The second part of this Ordinance, among other things, provided that no person should hereafter take into his em- ployment any mui-tsai or prepare the transference of any existing mui-tsai
Supply: Committee-
11 MAY 1931
from one employer to another. It is clear and this is a point bearing on the question of the numbers-that the effect of these provisions would be a steady decrease in the numbers of mui-tsai.
These two parts of the Ordinance were put into operation in 1923, but, as the right hon. and learned Member truly says, they were not fully effective in deal- ing with the problem. That is quite true. Part 3 of the Ordinance, which is really the important part from the point of view of the abolition of the practice as it provides for the registration, inspection and control of mui-tsai, was not put into operation in view of the representations of the then Governor of Hong Kong as to the possible and probable opposition from the Chinese population to it. But when the Labour Government came in my Noble Friend, in August, 1929, directed the Governor of Hong Kong to bring this third part of the Ordinance into opera- tion forthwith. The Governor was further directed to take special care to inform the population generally that this third part of the Ordinance was in force, and that it would not be allowed to be a dead-letter. My Noble Friend further instructed the Governor that Part 2 of the Ordinance should be amended so as to make certain that no mui-tsai should be brought into the Colony-and this again affects the question of present-day numbers. My Noble Friend also inti- mated that he was not prepared to acquiesce in a mere nominal enforcement of the law, and that any offence was to be made the subject of prosecution with- out regard to the position of the offender. In November, 1929, and it will be noticed that this was just after the date of the bill of sale which the right hon. and learned Member mentioned, the Governor-in-Council made regulations under the Ordinance providing for the registration, remuneration and super- vision of mui-tsai.
Sir J. SIMON: Was there any regula- tion about inspection?
Dr. SHIELS: I am not sure whether there was any specific paragraph in the regulations issued dealing with that matter, but I am coming to the question of inspection in a moment or two. Before going on to say how the law is working out and what has been done under it, I want to point out what it is very important to remember, and that
940
Colonial Office.
is, the difficulties which the Hong Kong Government have to face in putting into force legislation of this kind. The right hon. Gentleman made some reference to that, but I do not think he quite stated We must remember the whole position. that Hong Kong is a small island off the South-east coast of China, 11 miles long and two to five miles broad. In addi- tion, the British Colony of Hong Kong includes the city of Kowloon and leased territory on the mainland of China of about 345 square miles. The total civil population is about 1,150,000, all except about 30,000 of Chinese race. Of that population about 600,000 are concentrated in the island of Hong Kong, about 300,000 in the city of Kowloon, and over 100,000 live on junks and sampans in the har- bour. The ferries running between the island and the mainland transport over 33,000,000 passengers every year, and the daily ebb and flow of population between Hong Kong and China is estimated at about 6,000 each way.
82
The mui-tsai custom is widespread in the Chinese provinces adjacent to Hong Kong, and the difficulties of bringing home to the large population, mainly illiterate and of a largely changing character, that the Hong Kong Govern- ment was determined to stamp out the mui-tsai system were formidable. Never- theless, by putting all the machinery at the disposal of the Hong Kong Govern- ment into operation, and by enlisting the co-operation of the educated and leading members of the Chinese population, a highly creditable measure of success has been achieved. As the right hon. Gentle- man said, there were six months from 1st December, 1929, in which all mui-tsai in Hong Kong had to be brought before the authorities and registered. It is true, as the right hon. Gentleman said, that in the first four months, despite the publication of full details in the ver nacular Press, fewer than 300 were brought up for registration. Efforts were then redoubled, many thousands of cir- culars were distributed, the consequences of failure were pointed out, and by the end of the six months 4,183 had been registered: 116 were registered subse- quently, bringing the total number regis- tered up to 4,299.
In spite of what the right hon. Gentle- man has said, I believe that there are
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.