65
desirable to cut down on the hours of labour done by children, there was a limit to what could be done if the children were not to be worse off after legislation than before. To restrict labour would mean cutting down the income of families that already were at subsistence level.
Except in a very few cases, he did not believe there was sweated labour in Hong Kong. He admitted "the work is hard... but where it constitutes the alternative to starvation it should be allowed". The children working in China were mostly worse off than those in Hong Kong and for this reason the Commission did not recommend the total prohibition of work by children.
He claimed that to institute compulsory education would attract millions from China. Mr. Chow might have been asked why so many children should come to Hong Kong for education if their lot was so much worse in China and their labour was needed to keep the family from starvation. As an alternative to compulsory education, Mr. Chow suggested voluntary attendance at evening or Sunday classes.
An editorial in the China Mail on the Commission's Report stated that registration, inspection and compulsion would only add to the sufferings of the children, not alleviate them. It took a racial line and recommended that when child labour had been permitted for or on behalf of Europeans a heavier penalty should be imposed than in similar cases among the Chinese. Rather presumptuously he added, "We at least should get our hands clean first". The editor's negative critique was concluded with the statement that, "It is clear the Commission asks for more than the Government is likely to undertake".
19
The Hong Kong Telegraph expressed shock at the state of affairs: "In many respects it is no exaggeration to say that the inquiry revealed conditions nothing less than appalling". In its view the recommendations proposed by the Commission were “a good start upon a very difficult problem”.
The Child Labour Ordinance enacted
--
September 1922
Another year passed before the "Ordinance to regulate the employment of Children in certain Industries" had its first reading in
65
desirable to cut down on the hours of labour done by children, there was a limit to what could be done if the children were not to be worse off after legislation than before. To restrict labour would mean cutting down the income of families that already were at subsistence level.
Except in a very few cases, he did not believe there was sweated labour in Hong Kong. He admitted "the work is hard... but where it constitutes the alternative to starvation it should be allowed"." The children working in China were mostly worse off than those in Hong Kong and for this reason the Commission did not recommend the total prohibition of work by children.
He claimed that to institute compulsory education would attract millions from China. Mr. Chow might have been asked why so many children should come to Hong Kong for education if their lot was so much worse in China and their labour was needed to keep the family from starvation. As an alternative to compulsory education, Mr. Chow suggested voluntary attendance at evening or Sunday classes.
An editorial in the China Mail on the Commission's Report stated that registration, inspection and compulsion would only add to the sufferings of the children, not alleviate them. It took a racial line and recommended that when child labour had been permitted for or on behalf of Europeans a heavier penalty should be imposed than in similar cases among the Chinese, Rather presumptuously he added, "We at least should get our hands clean first”. The editor's negative critique was concluded with the statement that, "It is clear the Commission asks for more than the Government is likely to undertake**.**
19
The Hong Kong Telegraph expressed shock at the state of affairs: "In many respects it is no exaggeration to say that the inquiry revealed conditions nothing less than appalling". In its view the recommendations proposed by the Commission were “a good start upon a very difficult problem”.
The Child Labour Ordinance enacted
--
September 1922
Another year passed before the "Ordinance to regulate the employment of Children in certain Industries" had its first reading in
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.