CHINA’S CHILD WAIFS

Dominion, Volume 23, Issue 80, 28 December 1929, Page 13

CHINA’S CHILD WAIFS

THE MUI TSAI IN HONG-KONG FAILURE OF PENAL ORDINANCE 5 Official correspondence regarding the efforts of the British Government to combat the system of domestic service in Hong-Kong known as mui tsai, under which girls between the ages of 4 and 14 are adopted or sold as domestic servants, was published a few days ago. The Government had passed an Ordinance to abolish the system, but owing to opposition on the part of the Chinese community Part 111. of this Ordinance, providing for registration and inspection of mui tsai, was suspended. Lord Passfield, Colonial Secretary, informed the Governor of Hong-Kong that public opinion in Britain and in the House of Commons would not accept a continuation of the system with equanimity. He therefore directed that the third part of the Ordinance should be put into force forthwith, and that Part 11. should be amended to forbid the bringing intj the colony of any mui tsai. Writing on the matter recently, the Hong-Kong correspondent of the London “Times” said:—Hong-Kong, again in the pillory, is again protesting; in the circumstances it can do little else. Hong-Kong is not China. It is, how- ' ever, sufficiently attached physically to that disordered country to share its social evils, and the mui tsai question Is one which is not easily solved. The mui tsai is a pathetic outcrop of China’s economic faults, the disposable part of a surplus population. Child of 1 pauper parents, she is sold into the domestic service. She goes with the daughters of the rich as part of their dowries. She toils unremittingly for wealthy people, for well-to-do middle-class families, or lower iniddle-class families. She may be treated well, she- may be treated ill, she may be married as a first Wife into a family of the lower class or sold as poncubine or prostitute. A frequent defence of the system is that the slaves of the better class fare better than they would With their parents. But in all classes may be found varying degrees of cruelty. In one home it may be directly brutal, in another the result of a lazy mistress’s InsensltivenesS to the feelings of a child who drudges throughout the day and night with but a few hours for sleep. There are homes where she is well fed, if overworked; there are others whore she is beaten or tortured by burning. Child Purchase. If we could forget that it is technically slavery, and if we could preyent abuse, the system might be tolerable in China’s present state, but the prevention of abuse will require a great deal more control than has hitherto been exercised, and it Is very doubtful whether the necessary degree of control is practicable. In HongKong, whenever cruelty has been reported the Government has always Prosecuted, but prosecutions are comparatively few because of the difficulty of obtaining corroborative evidence. Tn view of these difficulties, an agitation for complete abolition of the system has grown up. The GovernJtnenfs difficulties in abolishing the mui tsai system may be summed up as follows:—Fear of departing from the traditional British Colonial Policy of interfering as little as possible with native institutions so as to avoid proyoking mass resentment Difficulty of distinguishing between mui tsai and adopted daughters. Both mui tsai and adopted daughters are bought. That i g&l is a mui tsai is not easily proved in law. Difliculty of providing for thousands of slave girls if these were suddenly freed. Difficulty of providing for the unwanted female Children of poor parents if there were no market for them. If homes were estabKiihed they would be swamped by the unwanted girls not only of Hong-Kong but of the adjacent province. Moreover, if girls could not be sold or given into slavery, or to the Government, there would probably be a great increase of infanticide. The problem of the constant influx into Hong-Kong of .Chinese refugees and sojourners, who bring their slaves with them. The Hong-Kong Government has ■frequently proclaimed that purchase of at child confers no property right in British law, but that has accomplished nothing and has not satisfied the reformers, who have fought hard to compel the Government to pursue an active leburse. In 1923 the Government passed an Ordinance called “The Female Domestic Service Ordinance, This Ordinance declared:— “Whereas certain persons have erroneously supposed that the payment of money to the parent or guardian or employer of a female child, such payment purporting to be in return for the transfer of certain parental rights, may confer certain rights of property in the child and certain rights of re-* teining possession, custory, and control of the child as against the child’s parent or. guardian, and as against the (Child herself, It is hereby declared and enacted that no such payment can confer any such rights whatsoever upon the person making such payment or K?on any other person." t The Penal Ordinance. Among the principal provisions of jthe Ordinance were the following “No person shall hereafter take into his employment any mui tsai ; no person shall hereafter take into his employment any female domestic servant pnder the age of 10 years. “No employer of a mui tsai shall (overwork or illtreat such mui tsai, or (subject such mui tsai to any punishment *to which such employer might not reasonably subject his own (daughter. “Every employer of a mui tsai shall provide such mui tsai with sufficient food and clothing of a reasonable kind, and, in case of illness, with such medical attendance as such employer might reasonably have been expected to provide for his own daughter. “Every person who after the 14th day of February, 1923, shall become' the actual employer of a mui tsai by reason of Jhe death of the former employer of such mui tsai, or for any other reason, shall report’ such fact in the prescribed manner Within one week after he shall have become the actual employer of such mui tsai. “Any mui tsai who wishes to bo reirtored to the custody of her parent or natural guardian, and any mui tsai under the age of 18 years whose parent or natural guardian wishes such mui tsai to be restored to his custody, shall, without any payment whatsoever be restored to such custody, unless the Secretary for Chinese Affairs shall see some grave objection in the interest of ■uch mui tsai to such restoration.” The Ordinance made no attempt to jfiee the then existing mui tsai, except Jto decUraiioa axs fif

their rights. It provided tentatively for registration of them, and prohibited the enslavement of any more, but it has remained a dead letter. The clause providing for registration has never been put in force. Cases of cruelty have been punished as before, but all the old evils have continued. Owners of mui tsai have been able to prosecute mothers for “fraud” when a child has (allegedly) been enticed back home. In these cases they have pleaded "adoption.” Prosecution has tended to confirm mui tsai owners in the enjoyment of their property. The Government is also embarassed in connection with another adjunct of the mui tsai system—sale into brothels. The Government itself registers these girls for brothels —a startling statement, but explicable. The Government tolerates brothels and licenses the inmates. When a girl appears for registration, the official can only satisfy himself that she enters the brothel of her own free will—a dubious freedom, but not always challengeable. There are, of course, cases in which stick girls are “rescued” by the Government, but those cases are not published, and it is impossible to know to what extent the Government plays the part of saviour. In these official brothel transactions there is, naturally, no evidence that the girl is being sold and bought; that can only be assumed. There are, however, innumerable sly brothels which defy Government action.

In consequence of the recent outcry, the Government has taken the active measures desired. It has made another proclamation, reminding mui tsai that they are free, warning their owners against detaining them against their wills, and offering to the girls the Government’s protection. So far only one mul tsai is known to have run away from her mistress, and she not because of the proclamation, but because her mistress/beat her. The Government prosecuted, but the mistress pleaded that the child was her adopted daughter. The magistrate decided that the treatment of the child proved her to be a mul tsai. He accordingly fined the woman the equivalent of £2 10s. The decision was obviously designed as a precedent and a warning,