209
The Committee are unable to discern what practical advantage Returns of no would follow the publication of these Returns until a full and complete practical value. survey of the whole subject, and the historical, legal and sociological problems involved has been made. Until this is done, there is a danger that the statistics will mislead anyone not fully acquainted with Chinese customs, the conditions in Hong Kong and the local law and methods. No such survey has yet been undertaken so far as this Committee knows. The lack of reliable information was deplored by the League Appendix No. 21. of Nations' Slavery Convention.
Writers on Muitsai have found the subject to be so full of pitfalls Opinions of little that in the Committee's opinion nothing but a complete and accurate value until full survey can be of final value.
survey made.
Sir George Maxwell in this question has fallen into error. Part II Ordinance not of the Ordinance for practical purposes did not come into force until enforced until 1st December, 1929. The figures given require amendment accordingly.
1929.
The Ordinances lack precision. For example, what is the position The Ordinances of a child who is an adopted daughter in China and who is brought fail to deal into Hong Kong? What is the position of a Muitsai not registered as problems. such? What is the position of a child adopted out of charity in infancy who is expected to do housework? The instances where the Ordi- nances are silent are too numerous to explore, and it is evident that statistics are of little value to show how far the Ordinances have achieved their object in suppressing the system.
The Ordinance provides in Part II Section 4 "No person shall Interpretation hereafter take into his employment any Muitsai.
This may mean that Muitsai taken before 1923 were in a con- dition of lawful servitude which is perpetuated by registration. The Committee cannot accept this view.
The other view is that the taking of Muitsai is made a general offence after 1923; in this case, it is a false argument to ignore, as Sir George Maxwell does, possible breaches of the law.
The Committee cannot accept as accurate the statement "There have been no Muitsai since 1923". This statement is probably still inaccurate if 1923 is changed to 1934.
It is impossible to get accurate figures for two reasons. For the first reason the law itself is uncertain. For the second the Chinese custom of transferring girls from one family to another family for nurture, or adoption or because of necessity or some other reason- leaves no doubt that nothing less than a regular house-to-house inspection would give reliable figures.
Fourth Question.
FOURTHLY:"It is open to question whether the statutory mini- mum wages are adequate (see paragraph 56). The value of the Hong Kong dollar fluctuates with the price of silver. At present, the Hong Kong dollar is worth about two shillings. In Malaya, where the Straits Settlements dollar is worth two shillings and fourpence, the minimum statutory wages are two dollars a month for girls under the age of 15 years, and three dollars a month for girls over that age. It is not possible for anyone unacquainted with local circumstances to express any opinion regarding suitable minimum wages, and I content myself with inviting attention to the matter."'
of Ordinance.
To say that there have been
no Muitsai since 1923 wholly wrong.
Number of registered
Muitsai unknown.
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.