Sessional_Paper_1929 — Page 242

234

ure 1

report of meetings of the Anti-Muitsai Society in Hong Kong, included allegations that the pledge given to Parliament on the 21st March, 1922, by the Secretary of State for the Colonies had never been carried out, that the system is in full operation and that the number of mui-tsai has increased. You asked me to telegraph my observations on the above charges, on the immediate reforms pressed for by the Anti-Muitsai Society and on the question of bringing into force part III of the Female Domestic Service Ordinance No. 1 of 1923.

2. I was unable to telegraph any observations, for I found that no representations whatever had in recent years been made to the Hong Kong Government by the Anti- Muitsai Society. This Society had held its last annual meeting in Hong Kong on the 20th October, 1928, but did not hereafter address this Government or make any proposals for immediate reforms. In fact the whole agitation concerning mui-tsai had been quiescent for many years in face of serious local emergencies which arose owing to the political conditions in China.

3. On searching the official archives of the Colony since I assumed the Govern- ment in November, 1925, I find that on the 17th March, 1927, my eye was caught by a paragraph in the Wa Tsz Yat Po, one of the vernacular papers of Hong Kong, stating that, since regulations had been promulgated in Canton abolishing the mui-tsai, the number of persons selling children in Hong Kong had increased. I asked the Secretary for Chinese Affairs for a report on this statement and he replied on the 28th March, 1927, that he had on that day interviewed Mr. Yeung Shiu-chuen, President of the Anti-Muitsai Society in Hong Kong, and had ascertained from him that it was Mr. Yeung himself who had caused the paragraph in question to be inserted in Wa Tsz Yat Po. Mr. Yeung could not, however, supply any definite information on the subject and was not very helpful. * Regarding the truth of the statement in the Wa Tsz Yat Po, the Secretary for Chinese Affairs reported that he had not observed any increase in the num- ber of cases of traffic in children brought before his department. He added: "I am inclined to regard the Canton regulations merely as propaganda. Brigandage and general distress in South China which is also reflected in the notable increase in emigration, would be quite enough to account for the prevalence of the traffic".

*

*

*

*

*

4. The inquiry which I had initiated, appears to have galvanized the Anti-Muitsai Society into fresh activity, for on the 9th April, 1927, this Society assembled at the Chinese Young Men's Christian Association Headquarters in Hong Kong in the first Enclos meeting it had held for several years. I enclose an extract from the South China Morn- ing Post of the 11th April, 1927, giving an account of the proceedings, which did not, however, result in representations of any kind being made to this Government by the Society. The Secretary for Chinese Affairs after further investigation, reported to me on the 20th July, 1927, that no doubt the traffic in children still persisted, being the custom of the country which it would take a long time to alter, but that it remained to be proved that this Government's efforts were not making headway against the abuses of the custom. He pointed out that the Anti-Muitsai Society was not very representative of Chinese opinion. "The Chairman" he wrote, "comes up occasionally and makes gen- eral reports, which give no opening for special enquiries or action: on being pressed to carry his own enquiries far enough to give us some opening, he has produced a case or two of little or no importance. Recently he has produced a case of gross cruelty to a child but not a mui-tsai or a bought child." In view of this report and the absence of any case at all under the Female Domestic Servants Ordinance, No. 1 of 1923, during the years 1923 to 1927, both included, no further action was taken by this Government.

5. The next event in this connection was the annual meeting of the Anti-Mnitsai Society on the 20th October, 1928, to which I have already referred. I attach a transla- tion of an extract* from the Wa Tsz Yat Po of the 23rd October, 1928, giving the names of the members of the committee then appointed by this Society, also an extract* from the South China Morning Post of the 22nd October. 1928, giving an account of the proceedings at the annual meeting. As I have already said no representations were made to the Hong Kong Government by the Society after this meeting; but it is upon the proceedings of this meeting that the letter of Mr. J. H. Harris to the Manchester Guardian was based. I can only suppose that the newly elected Committee of the Anti-Muitsai Society, which is not representative of local Chinese opinion, preferred to make an effort

*Not printed.