Sessional_Paper_1935 — Page 237

229

An announcement appeared in the Times of May 4th last, reading as follows:- Hong Kong, May 3rd.-The Government announce that more inspectors are to be appointed to supervise the numbers and treatment of the Mui-tsai.

The Government indicate that if it is found that any girls are being introduced into Hong Kong as adopted daughters, to become Mui-tsai, compulsory registration of all adopted children will be enforced.

EXPERIENCE has unfortunately taught us that re-assuring statements of this nature must be accepted with reservations. The announcement is a fine example of official vagueness. "More inspectors are to be appointed" we are told. What we want to know is how many more and when? One wonders if the "more" now promised means that the present three will be augmented to four. It is quite possible. Unless the number is considerably increased it is hopeless to think that adequate inspection can be carried out.

As we have already been told, the Governor of Hong Kong in 1929 stated that "an army of inspectors would be required with fullest powers of entry and search" to enforce registration. It was after this uncompromising statement that three in- spectors were appointed. The futility of such inspection was shown in a letter from the Colonial Office, written in August, 1933, stating that in June, 1932, 770 of the registered Mui-tsai had disappeared from their registered address. And further by a reply to a question in the House of Commons in February 1933, that the regis- tered number of Mui-tsai in the previous November was 3,017. It is a mockery to pretend that this army of three can properly inspect such numbers of little slaves in the power of those whose utmost cunning is exerted to evade inspection.

The second paragraph of the Times announcement can only move us to bitter laughter. "The Government indicate"-it says "that if it is found that girls are being introduced into Hong Kong as adopted daughters, to become Mui-tsai, com- pulsory registration of all adopted children will be enforced". It is perfectly well known that the term "adopted daughters" is but a subterfuge to hide Mui-tsai. For several years now the Alliance I represent has passed a resolution at its annual meeting and forwarded it to the Colonial Office, demanding the early registration and inspection of so-called adopted daughters in Hong Kong.

I suppose we must take it as a sign that our importunity is having some effect, when the Government indicate that they may do what we have been urging them to do for so long a time.

Mui-tsai-'the Little Sister"-it sounds so charming to the uninitiated and so sinister to those who know the evil thing it is. These children are not bought for playthings or for pets-they are purchased to work hard for their owners. The Slave Market News of January last reports a case of a kidnapped child of seven, who was made to cook pig-wash, and whose master beat her with a small bamboo on both legs because he said she took too much time in washing clothes. Picture an English child of seven trying to wash clothes and remember that the hands of a Chinese child of that age would be much smaller. The children are sold and bought and sold again. They pass from hand to hand like so much inanimate matter. And it is common knowledge that in frequent cases, when they are old enough they are sold once again, this time into brothels.

We are told that the girls can complain if they are ill-treated. That is as stupid as it is heartless. How can children of tender years in the power of pitiless owners complain, even if they understand that they have the right to do so?

The Governor of Hong Kong in 1929, already quoted, stated further that "very drastic powers would be required if registration were to be made effective and that such powers would be intensely unpopular.

"Intensely unpopular," here, I cannot help thinking, we have the key to all the official delay, shilly-shallying and prevarication. Other measures are equally un- popular, but they are enforced, nevertheless.