THE HONG KONG GOVERNMENT GAZETTE, AUGUST 4, 1933.
PAPERS.
535
3. The following papers were laid on the table :-
Order made by the Governor in Council under section 43 of the Distress for Rent Ordinance, 1883, Ordinance No. 1 of 1883, dated 2nd June, 1933. Rules, approvals and appointments, and regulations made by the Governor in Council under the Liquors Ordinance, 1931, Ordinance No. 36 of 1931, dated 8th June, 1933.
Regulation made by the Governor in Council under section 2 of the Advertise- ments Regulation Ordinance, 1912, Ordinance No. 19 of 1912, dated 14th June, 1933.
QUESTIONS.
4. The Hon. Mr. R. H. KOTEWALL, C.M.G., LL.D., pursuant to notice, asked the
following questions:---
1. Is it a fact that on account of overcrowding in the Prisons, the Government has sanctioned or contemplates sanctioning the release of certain prisoners before the expiration of their terms of imprisonment?
2. Will the Government furnish this Council with comparative figures for the
month of May 1932 and 1933, showing: -
(1) The number of prisoners serving terms in Victoria Gaol and the
Laichikok Prison respectively.
(2) The number of prisoners serving terms for
(a) hawking offences, and
(b) other minor offences.
(3) The number of juvenile prisoners, if any.
3. If the comparison reveals an increase in the present number of prisoners, to what cause or causes does the Government attribute such an increase?
The Colonial Secretary replied as follows:-
1. Yes, a number have been released and it may be necessary to release
Those selected are under orders of deportation from the Colony.
more.
2. (1) The daily average number of prisoners :--
In Victoria Gaol in May 1932
May 1933
In Laichikok in May 1932
May 1933
626
927
355
457
(2) (a) The total number of persons received into prison for hawking
offences were :---
May 1932
May 1933
54
166
(b) For other minor offences, ie. terms of imprisonment of one month
or less for offences other than hawking :-
May 1932 May 1933
203
257
The latter figure includes a number of persons convicted for opium offences and it should be stated that these are only treated as "minor in a relative sense, i.e., they are short sentence opium convictions.
(3) One juvenile was sent to prison in May 1932, and one in May 1933. 3. The increase is attributed largely to the greater number of convictions for opium offences-46 persons were sent to prison for such offences in May 1932 and 228 in May 1933. On 20th June there were in prison 488 persons convicted for opium offences.