THE CHINESE CHURCH, LABOUR AND ELITES AND THE MUI TSAI QUESTION IN THE 1930'S 93
position and their work often depended on the social and economic status of the person who had bought them.
In the nature of the case, some were sexually exploited by the male members of the family. Some were treated very cruelly by their mistresses. If they were attractive, they were often taken by the head of the family as a concubine.
Everyone acknowledged that, like all social institutions, there were abuses in the system, but the traditional view was that its advantages outweighed its negative side. There were several arguments to support this view.
Only the poor sold their children. If they could not sell them, many would be killed off as infants. Their lot in a foster home was much better than it would have been in their natural home. They were fed, clothed, and when of proper age, a marriage was arranged for them with a suitable partner. Everyone benefited by the system: the child who escaped death or starvation, the natural parent who was lifted out of poverty, at least for the moment, and the purchaser who acquired a servant.
In Chinese society, it had long been an unquestioned aspect of the social order. The buying and selling of human beings did not sit well with the English conscience of the latter half of the nineteenth century. However, most colonists felt it was best to leave undisturbed the modus vivendi which had been established in Hong Kong between British law and moral standards and Chinese social practice.
After some eighteen years on the bench in Hong Kong, Chief Justice John Smale, not long before his retirement in 1881, openly stated that, in his opinion, the practice of buying and selling children for domestic servitude was a form of slavery, and hence its continued toleration in a British colony was a blot on the honour of England. He received support from anti-slavery groups in England, but his views were not generally welcomed in Hong Kong, either by the Chinese or expatriates. There was some stir over the question for a short time, and then interest in it died away, not to be re-aroused until the question again came to public attention in 1917.
1917 - The Question Raised
Mr. C. G. Alabaster, in defending a client charged with kidnapping, raised a legal point regarding the status of children purchased as servants. The report of the case focused the attention of the English
THE CHINESE CHURCH, LABOUR AND ELITES AND THE MUI TSAI QUESTION IN THE 1930'S 93
position and their work often depended on the social and economic status of the person who had bought them.
In the nature of the case some were sexually exploited by the male members of the family. Some were treated very cruelly by their mistresses. If they were attractive they often were taken by the head of the family as a concubine,
Everyone acknowledged that like all social institutions there were abuses in the system, but the traditional view was that its advantages outweighed its negative side. There were several arguments to support this view.
Only the poor sold their children. If they could not sell them, many would be killed off as infants. Thier lot in a foster home was much better than it would have been in their natural home. They were fed, and clothed and when of proper age a marriage was arranged for them with a suitable partner. Everyone benefited by the system, the child who escaped death or starvation, the natual parent who was lifted out of his poverty at least for the moment, and the purchaser who acquired a servant.
In Chinese society it had long been an unquestioned aspect of the social order. The buying and selling of human beings did not sit well with the English conscience of the latter half of the nineteenth century. However, most colonists felt it was best to leave undisturbed the modus vivendi which had been established at Hong Kong between British law and moral standards and Chinese social practice.
After some eighteen years on the bench in Hong Kong, Chief Justice John Smale, not long before his retirement in 1881, openly stated that in his opinion the practice of buying and selling children for domestic servitude was a form of slavery and hence its continued toleration in a British colony was a blot on the honour of England. He received support form anti-slavery groups in England, but his views were not generally welcomed in Hong Kong either by the Chinese or expatriates. There was some stir over the question for a short time and then interest in it died away, not to be rearoused until the question again came to public attention in 1917.
1917 - The Question Raised
Mr. C. G. Alabaster in defending a client charged with kidnapping raised a legal point regarding the status of children purchased as ser- vants. The report of the case focused the attention of the English
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.