Sessional_Paper_1929 — Page 223

215

well-fed, and she gave her evidence clearly and intelligently except that she very nearly broke down two or three times in speaking of her mother, the murdered woman.

It was only nearly at the end of the case for the Crown that we discovered-what none of the police or Court officials had known till then--that the girl was not the daughter of the murdered woman at all, but a mui-tsai. She had referred to the woman throughout as her "mother". I think that class of incident would rather surprise some of the critics of the custom. It would also surprise them to know that our Chinese servants--at any rate in some cases-apply the term "mui-tsai" to some European members of our house- holds who have important and honourable duties in connection with the upbringing of our children. The fact that Chinese apply the term to persons of that class shows that the word cannot have for them the connotation of "slavery" as so many critics of the system think.

The criticism, too, I am afraid, has often been ignorant. One well-known society of repute which considered it had a duty to go into the question and advise H. M. Gov- ernment, wrote a formal letter in the belief that there were boy as well as girl mui-tsai -a surprising mistake. Two other societies in addressing themselves formally to the question talked about declaring mui-tsai illegal, evidently ignorant of the fact that mui- tsai is the name of a person and not of a thing. Mistakes of that kind are perhaps only surface mistakes, but I am afraid they do show the existence of a certain type of mind uncritical and rather apt to jump to conclusions without sufficient evidence.

I think that what is more important perhaps than confusion of mind or ignorance of details is lack of sympathy with an alien civilisation. Chinese civilisation has an an- cient and an honourable record, and I, for one, think that in some respects it is superior to our own. I do not say that the custom of employing mui-tsai is one of those points. The social structure of that civilisation is very different from ours, and to embark on the task of changing that social structure, even in one detail, is one that may well cause even the boldest legislators to pause. It is recognised, therefore, that we must go slowly and carefully, and we are anxious to avoid doing any violence to sentiments and customs with which perhaps we are not in entire accord.

The custom of employing mui-tsai has grown up in the course of long years of adjustment to social and economic conditions and we realise that we incur certain dangers in attempting to deal with that custom. There is a danger that we may lose the quasi- parental control and responsibility which I am sure the better class of employer recog- nises. There is also the danger that we may increase the risks of neglect, kidnapping and prostitution. But when all allowances and apologies are made for ill-informed cri- ticism, and while we acknowledge that the custom of employing mui-tsai is by no means wholly bad and that many of the mui-tsai-I think the majority-are contented with their lot and are fairly well off, and while we recognise the dangers of this legislation, it can- not be denied that the system does lend itself to abuse, and grave abuse, in the hands of evil and unscrupulous persons. Hence this Bill.

The Bill is divided into four parts. Parts I and IV may be called formal or auxi- liary. Part II is intended to come into force as soon as the Bill is passed and the Ordin- ance is gazetted. Part III is to be postponed and not to come into operation until pro- claimed by the Governor-in-Council. Part II provides that hereafter no one is to take into his employment in the Colony any mui-tsai as a mui-tsai, and Part III provides that all mui-tsai are to be registered, that no one is to employ an unregistered mui-tsai, and that all mui-tsai over a certain age shall be entitled to wages.

Now as regards the details of the Bill. Clause 2 of the Bill is declaratory. Pay- ment by an intending employer to a parent or guardian of a child has never in this Colony conferred any rights whatever on such employer to retain possession of the child as against the parent, or even to retain possession of the child as against the child itself. The clause, therefore, is simply declaratory of the existing law. Clause 3 is the defini- tion clause. A mui-tsai is defined as a female domestic servant whose employer has. obtained her services by means of a payment. Paragraph (ii.) of the definition is in- tended to cover two cases: one is the case where the girl has been transferred from one employer to another, and the other is the case where the employer has died and the care of the house and the custody of the child has devolved on the widow, the son, or the concubine of the employer.