20 JUNE 1925, Page 14

[To the Editor of the SPECTATOR.] SIR, —In the Spectator of

June 6th I noticed a letter entitled ". Licensed Vice in Singapore." Having lived nearly twenty years in Malaya, and knowing Singapore well, I am fully aware of the facts, and I should like to correct some of the gross errors that appear in that letter.

Brothel-keeping is not considered a reputable business in. Singapore. There exist about 200 brothels, but there is no-

registration whatever of these houses. There are about ten streets in the City where brothels have for years settled them- . selves. There are no streets entirely given up to this business.

Your correspondent goes on to say that rickshaws ply between the wharf and these houses. This is an exaggeration.: In every other large port town in the world passengers from, ships are liable to be accosted by people who want to show them round. but Singapore is, in my opinion, freer of this sort of thing than some other ports that I know of.

All young Chinese women desiring to lead the life of pros- titution are. entirely in their own int !rests, interviewed by an

officer of the Chinese Protectorate, and are informed that' should they find themselves in any difficulty they should apply to the Protector for assistance. Prostitutes are not certified or licensed in any way.

Conditions in the East are entirely different from those in the West, and on a subject of this nature, which bristles with difficulties, the essential thing is that the facts should be soberly and correctly stated. Exaggeration is silly, and mis- statements are dangerous as well as discreditable.—I am, [We publish this letter because it comes to us with very exceptional authority, and not from any disregard of

Mr. Harris's perfectly reasonable request.—En. Spectator.]