(1) The stretching of the normal review procedures last year severly strained public credibility. There was pointed public comment at the time and the liang kong non-communist
Press gave full coverage to a letter from eighty prisoneĽS
accusing the Board of Review of being partial towards left-
wing prisoners,
(11) The unofficial members of the Board were upset by the
criticism being levelled at them in private conversation by many who did not approve of any leniency towards this category of prisoner. We could not rely on their further
Co-operation,
(111)
No.
The remaining confrontation prisonera are mostly serving sentences of four years or more (those serving three years and sentenced in 1967 or early 1968, with full remission, have been released by now). For the most part they must be hard-core communiat supporters whose offences involved violence, possession of offensive weapons or connection
with the bomb campaign. Their release with special rmission vwould not be acceptable to publie opinion and the bending of review procedures to procure their release (whether or not accompanied by the release of other offenders convicted of comparable offences) would be widely condemned.
It is not going to be possible to disguise any abnormal and
increased use of the powers of special remission after
review.
Conclusion
10. The Boardof Review procedure is a normal feature of prison
administration in British territories and the instrument for the
application of a flexible and enlightened policy in the treatment of offanders. Its misuse to procure the release of a particular category of prisoner, for political reasons and without regard to criteria applied fairly and objectively to all prisonere, can only bring it into disrepute and debase its valus. And such misuse
cannot be concealed, given the participation of unofficials on the
Board