42
as giving at all events an opportunity for abuses of this nature, and as also affording a ready occasion for tobacco or implements or food being handed to Chinese prisoners. We enquired about the alleged misconduct of Principal Warder No. 32, but we are satisfied that such misconduct did not take place.
(d) With regard to the allegations of prisoners being ill-used, we have carefully questioned the above 6 witnesses upon the subject, and are of opinion that such allegations are not well founded.
(e) Upon the food question generally, we may add that it is clear that a considerable outbreak of beri-beri occurred in the gaol in October/ November last, which caused a further shortage of the gaol staff in those months inasmuch as 'many of the prisoners were removed to Kennedy Town. The beri-beri was due to the prisoners being put on a diet of white rice, and we think it regrettable that the beef congee diet was not started sooner. The experiment which was tried of mixing bran with the rice, though no doubt good from a medical point of view, was a failure, as the prisoners absolutely refused to eat the rice mixed with bran. Such an incident shows that prisoners are by no means so powerless to voice their grievances as is suggested by Wong Kwong; and the state- ments of the Chief Warder, Principal Warder Robertson, and Mok Sing have satisfied us that prisoners are afforded ample and unrestricted opportunity of making complaints about food, ill-treatment and other
matters.
(f) There were certainly no deaths from starvation in 1918 or 1919. In every
case of a death in the gaol an Inquest is held.
(g) We do not think it worth while to comment further on Wong Kwong's
statements.
In dealing with questions relating to the food, clothing and treatment of prisoners, we have thought it advisable (though it does not fall strictly within the terms of the reference to us) to go into the statements of the other convicted man, Mok Sing, as reported in the Daily Press of Tuesday the 23rd March, 1920, more especially as his remarks were far more connected and coherent than those of Wong Kwong; and, in order to sift his complaints fully to the bottom, we have taken a very full statement from Principal Warder Robertson (referred to by Mok Sing at his trial as a kind man) and have interviewed Mok Sing himself at some length.
(1.) As regards food, Mok Sing complains :--- (a) That he was not given enough food;
(b) That the rice was not properly cooked;
(c) That the prisoners were sometimes given rotten fish and bad food; (d) That condemned prisoners do not receive the proper allowance of food; (e) That short sentence prisoners do not get the proper Regulation allowance
of food;
(f) That long sentence prisoners do not get the proper Regulation allowance of
food;
(g) That if prisoners wanted to weigh the rice they were hindered in doing so.
Our findings on the above are as follows:
(a) That such is not the case;
(b) That during the white rice period last year, owing to the rice being partly broken rice, it was very difficult to cook and was, in some instances, not well cooked;
(c) That, in summer time, the fish was occasionally bad, but that it was changed by the compradore, on complaint being made, either for fresh fish, or, if that could not be procured, salt fish was supplied in its place;
(d) That such is not the case;
(e) and (f) That such is not the case. We recommend however that a new measure be made for the equivalent of 16 oz. of food, which is one of the regular rations.
Mok Sing
(g) We are satisfied that this statement is absolutely unfounded.
admitted that he was allowed, when he complained of short allowance.