fortably
-IO-
after a proscribed date, and suggested that the consequence
might very well be to the detriment of the girl. This
question undoubtedly arises in the present conneètion.
Until it is thoroughly examined by a competent tribunal,
the real nature of the problem as a whole can not be
disclosed. Evidence is required; and I suggest that it
be taken from the European and Chinese inspectors, from a
few mui-tsai and ex-mui-tsai in other employment, from
some of the many respectable employers of mui-tsai, and
from some of the leading members of the Chinese community.
Prosecutions for failure to comply with the law are of no
avail,if,as the Committee seems to think, the law is
faulty. In this connection, it will be observed that the
last half-yearly report recorded 25 prosecutions for
keeping un-registered mui-tsai,and four prosecutions for
importing un-registered mui-tsai.
Reviewing the subject as a whole, I see that
the Committee is gravely concerned by the position. Its
first conclusion, on page 24,is that "the most urgent need
is for a full Enquiry into the sale and adoption of
Chinese girls". On page 15 (as already mentioned) it
asks the question "What is the position of a mui-tsai
not registered as such?". In the marginal note it states
"The Ordinances fail to deal with many problems".
Lower
down on the same page it states,in a marginal note,
"To say that there have been no mui-tsai since 1923 is
wholly wrong". The next marginal note contains the
remarkable statement that the "number of registered
mui-tsai is unknown".
"un-registered".
Perhaps the word should be
The marginal note onpage 24 is:-
"Committee fear British Government may be more concerned
in Mui-tsai than children generally". My mention of these
points serves to indicate the Committee's concern.
does not mean that I agree.
In particular, I demur to
It
55
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.