50
4. Conclusion.
The Commissioners are therefore of opinion that, whilst it is impossible to state where and exactly by what means the pirates got on board the ship with their arms, it was an easy matter for them to have done so at any of the coast ports.
IV.--(b) to inquire how it was possible for the pirates to seize the ship
The pirates depended for success on getting control of the ship by surprise; and the execution of their carefully prepared plan was facilitated by a disregard in certain respects, on the part of the owners and of the officers of the ship, of the spirit and the letter of the Piracy Prevention Regulations. The causes of this divergence and the re- sponsibility for it are dealt with in a later paragraph. For the purpose of reply to the question under consideration it is sufficient to note that the control on board was lax in the following respects:-
1.-The officers did not carry revolvers (Regulation 3).
2.-The main deck grilles were continuously open, and the starboard grille
on the saloon deck was generally open.
3. The guards' quarters were situated outside the grilled area, and no precautions were taken to secure a continuous watch at the times of changing guard. Indeed there was little if any control of the guards by the officers.
4. Further the grilles were of a nature that made them sufficiently easy to scale, and it is probable that the pirates launched their main attack by passing through the open main deck grille doors, scaling the grilles at the fore-end of the centre castle to the boat deck, and so gaining ac- cess unnoticed to the bridge.
Generally, the impression was created, that the Piracy Prevention Regulations were not taken very seriously among the officers, and that there was a false sense of security on board with a lack of piracy precautions. It should be noted that the s.s. "Sunning" at the time of the piracy had no authoritative "Scheme of Defence" as required by Re- gulation 21. The statement applied to many other ships at the time, and still applies. In view of the final recommendations of this Report, it is necessary to mention this fact only to draw attention to the lack of any plan of defence organised by owners and officers, such as might reasonably have been expected to exist pending the formulation of the "Scheme of Defence" required by the Regulations.
V. (c) To consider the efficiency of the anti-piracy fittings in the ship and to make recommendations as to the alterations and additions, if any, that may be deemed necessary in the s.s. "Sunning" or other sea-going ships.
1. Grilles and access to lifeboats.
A certain number of minor criticisms of the grilles was received, but none of them were of a nature to affect the general question. One general objection only to the grilles principle was received by the Commission: that in times of panic they may be liable to interfere with life-saving, and that in particular they are not in harmony with the Board of Trade Instructions as to the Survey of Life Saving Appliances, 1926; para- graph 190 of which states "...Proper provision must be made for access of passengers to the embarkation deck and for controlling and marshalling them and finally embark- ing them in the lifeboats in the shortest possible time......" It is possible that circum- stances may arise in which certain grilles would prevent ready access to lifeboats; but the weak foundation on which the general criticism stands and it is not supported in detail -is shewn by the following quotation from the letter dated 11th February, 1927 of the Hong Kong General Chamber of Commerce, which appears in Appendix I :-
"At present the anomalous condition exists that shipping companies are compelled by the Piracy Prevention Regulations to take measures which the Board of Trade surveyor ought, strictly speaking, to refuse to sanction."