Sessional_Paper_1935 — Page 214

Appendix No. 14.

No foundation for this opinion.

Opinion widely held.

Correct view. Muitsai wards of Secretary for Chinese Affairs.

Demand for greater State assistance.

Policy of Government's protection.

The real question

"Should Protection be

removed at 187"

Protection most needed between 18 and 21.

Guardian ought to have full

discretion,

206

in any such manner as aforesaid shall cease to be a Muitsai on "attaining the age of eighteen years or on marriage, whichever

shall first happen."

CK

It is suggested that the Hong Kong Government might consider the advisability of amending its own definition by a similar proviso."

Answer.

This question has caused the Committee considerable difficulty. Sir George Maxwell appears to be under the impression that the Female Domestic Service Ordinance, 1923, in some way, rendered lawful a condition of servitude otherwise unknown to Hong Kong Law.

The Committee are of the opinion that this impression is ground- less. A Muitsai is as free to leave her employer as any maidservant employed by the hour. The Muitsai has no status and is under no contract enforceable by law.

The Committee feel that as views contrary to their own are widely held, an authoritative opinion should be obtained and given the widest publicity for the guidance of all concerned.

In the opinion of the Committee, the correct interpretation of the law is that the Secretary for Chinese Affairs is Guardian of all Mui- tsai with powers possibly restricted. The Female Domestic Service Ordinance, so far as it concerns the relative rights and duties of the child and employer deals merely with matters of minor importance.

Public opinion to-day makes greater demands on the State re- garding the poor and unfortunate than at the time this policy of pro- tection was laid down. The small progress made in Hong Kong in this direction has been made since 1929. On such matters in the opinion of the Committee a more active and sympathetic yet well con- sidered policy is required of the Government.

The policy underlying the law seems to be that worked out be- tween 1879 and 1887, i.e., to provide these children with the pro- tection they need by reason of their condition, their years, and their sex, experience showed that the children were in peril from both employer and parent. The Ordinances and Regulations have further protected the children from both.

The need for protection in general having been conceded and the possible effect of adopting Sir George Maxwell's suggestion being to remove that protection at the age of eighteen, it remains to be con- sidered whether the protection becomes unnecessary at that age.

In the Committee's view a Muitsai, indeed any Chinese girl, is in greater need of parental control between the ages of eighteen and twenty-one than in her more tender years. If they are correct in their assumption that the Ordinances are merely beneficial to the Muitsai, the proposed alternation has no advantage but many disad- vantages. The Committee feel that at this age, the children do require a proper and suitable personal guardian. It may very well be that the best personal guardian at that period would be the employer, or it might be her father or mother. This could be ascertained only after an enquiry into each case. The Committee feel that the Official Guardian should have an absolute discretion to decide the best person to whom to entrust the child. This discretion should be preserved until the child reaches an age when the guardianship can be safely removed. The Common Law declares this age to be 21 years.