Mr. Korayon
Parliamentary Office
CONFIDENTIAL
with
(197)
FIA
102
(179)
Plac C
WBS // 602
The attached Parliamentary Question by Mr. Allaun is for oral
reply on 17 February, when we are top of the list for Questions. Mr. Allaun put down an earlier question on the subject of solitary confinement in Hong Kong which was answered on 19 December, 1968.
2. The draft reply and Notes for Supplementaries attached are
based on Hong Kong telegram No.120. Paragraph 5 of that telegram refers to an earlier telegram (Hong Kong telegram No.827) in which we were informed that during the period November 1967 - June 1968,
certain Communist confrontation prisoners were confined to their cells, except for the normal exercise periods, because they refused
to work. It seems likely that it is this incident which has given rise to Mr. Allaun's present question although it does not
necessarily follow that Mr. Allaun has any specific information about
that incident.
3. Refusal to work on the part of a prisoner constitutes an offence
against prison discipline. Such an offence is punishable under
Frisons Rules by one or more of the following punishments:
Separate confinement
Forfeiture of remission
Forfeiture of privileges
Deprivation of earnings
None of these punishments was in fact imposed on the occasion referred to in paragraph 2 above. This was because the Governor was anxious to avoid taking any action which might further exacerbate the already
tense situation vis-a-vis the local communists and, indeed, the
Chinese Peoples' Government itself. In following this course, the
Governor ran the risk of criticism from the general public that
special consideration was being shown to communist prisoners. in turn, might have had an effect on public confidence in the Colony.
It is for these reasons that the Governor suggests in paragraph 6 of Hong Kong telegram No. 120 that the information in paragraph 2
above should be used with discretion.
This,
14.