>and it was merely kept It was not merely kept, the scope of the sort of work allowed under that exemption was also reduced to non-hazardous work and that too

>and it was merely kept It was not merely kept, the scope of the sort of work allowed under that exemption was also reduced to non-hazardous work and that too was only allowed after school hours or during vacations. >So I'd wager the reason there was backlash against the bill was that it did not close the exemption I pretty much said the same thing in my original comment. >>The only explanation I could think of is that perhaps the law didn't go as far enough or didn't include certain amendments as they wanted and this was their way of pressurizing the government to listen to them. But that still left a bad taste in my mouth. Perhaps this is something my brain, trained to value truth above everything else, isn't quite mature enough to understand. >this quite thorough article [0] shows the similarity/difference This article is definitely more thorough than most others I have read, and at least quotes you relevant passages from the laws and points out all the different ways in which the bill was an improvement. But in the end, even this article ultimately concludes by calling the bill "one step forward and two steps back", which is a lie. The introduction teases you with "Thirdly, the legislation actually reduces the scope and applicability of some of the earlier provisions on prohibition of child labour" but that claim is never substantiated within the article.