Sessional_Paper_1935 — Page 219

211

Government could not

Unless and until the law is altered no new diplomatic problems Hong Kong arise. If, however, the British Government were to sanction an amend- ment to enable a Chinese gentleman to travel from Shanghai to Canton properly imply through Hong Kong accompanied by a Muitsai, this would be tantamount that Muitsai to an allegation in statutory form that Muitsai are still lawful in China. in China.

a lawful status

In view of the great difficulties of the Chinese Government in its Committee

deprecate further efforts to modernise its territories, at a period when its people are discussion. in the throes of a social revolution, the Committee feel that a dis- cussion by them of this question, at the present juncture, would be inadvisable.

Sixth Question.

SIXTHLY-The Ordinance, as its title shows, relates only to "females", "Muitsai" (see paragraph 5 (1)) means "little sister"'; and the Attorney General, when he introduced the Bill in the Legislative Council on the 28th December, 1922, was scornful of the people who made the "surprising mistake" of imagining that there were "boy Mui- tsai". On the other hand, Sir Cecil Clementi (see paragraph 4) drew a vivid picture of famine stricken parents begging passengers to accept as a gift the children who would otherwise starve. As boys are as liable as girls to starvation, it seems hardly credible that girls only should be offered. Certainly, Sir Cecil Clementi does not suggest it.

Some years

In this connexion, I may mention a personal incident. ago, I was stationed in Penang (in the Straits Settlements). My eldest son was about three years old. One day his Cantonese amah (nurse) said to my wife that the boy had no one of his own age to play with in the house in the day-time, and suggested that I should buy

Chinese boy of his age as a playmate. Not noticing the surprise on my wife's face, the amah went on to say that sturdy, healthy boys cost no more than fifty or sixty dollars and that there were plenty of them on offer. When my wife came to me and asked whether such a thing was possible in a British Colony, I could only say that the Chinese Protectorate know all about it, and that the policy of the British Government was "Non-recognition". It is quite possible that there may be in Hong Kong some system, distinct from, but analogous to the Muitsai System, relating to the employment of small boys and youths who have been acquired by gift or sale.

Answer.

It is perhaps understandable that anyone with a super- ficial acquaintance with Chinese customs and Chinese "family life" should fall into error and confuse the sale of boys and the Muitsai System. Both are based on old custom.

China (and Hong Kong), unlike England, have no Poor Law System, and a Chinese mother would sell her child to save its life. The family being greater than the individual-the individual was, if the necessity arose, sacrificed by the Head of the family to the needs of the family. Girls being of little account to the family were sold first. Boys being essential to the family--to maintain the chain of ancestor worship-were only parted with in the very last resort. These sales were not evidence of a lack of parental affection. The Chinese hold their children in as great affection as any race.

The Chinese are essentially an agricultural race and to a great extent til river mud. They are accustomed to periods of famine, floods, and other disasters, during which parents seek any and every means to save the lives of their children. These major disasters tend to preserve the custom of selling children. Poverty is another cause. The power of the Head of the Family e.g. the grandfather to sell his