230
(a) Accommodation: It became evident that the average daily population of the Hong Kong Prisons was far in excess of the space provided if Section 7 (1) of the Prisons Ordinance No. 38 of 1932 were to be carried out. When the Acting Superintendent of Prisons appeared before us on the 29th June, he stated that Victoria Gaol was originally intended to hold 644 prisoners in single cells and Stanley Prison was built to accommodate 1,500. At that moment about 800 of the cells at Stanley were useless as they were without locks, but on the 24th June. the muster was Victoria 1,228 and Stanley Gaol 1,154. The Female Prison was originally intended to hold 100 but on that date the muster was 228. On the 26th October, 1937, the muster at Stanley was 2,599 and in the Female Prison 268, Victoria Gaol having been closed. Mr. Hopkins was emphatic that proper discipline could not be maintained without confinement in separate cells. He stated that those put in association however were short sentence prisoners, i.e., under two years. The number of convicts, i.e., over two years, out of a total of 2,300 prisoners was 312. It is obvious therefore that unless some method is found to check the flow of short sentence prisoners the present accommodation of the Gaol is and will remain inadequate and to that extent will nullify the disciplinary effects of imprisonment.
(b) Discipline: An examination of the Gaol timetable submitted to the Com- mittee by the Acting Superintendent of Prisons when compared with the daily routine provided by the Acting Superintendent of the Convict Prison at Changi, Singapore, and what we saw in the Canton Prison, led this Committee to the belief that prisoners in Hong Kong are given a comparatively easy time and it is our fixed opinion that a tightening up of discipline on this side is necessary and would have a salutary effect. We realise that the maintenance of such discipline will be difficult until such time as separate cells shall be available but consider that an effort at least should be made in this direction. For example more stringent punishment should be given for failure to carry out an allotted task, for laziness, or for making frivolous complaints. Our experience as Visiting Justices has more than once led us to believe that sufficiently stern action has not been taken with malingerers and malcontents.
We would further suggest that the practice of leaving lights on until 8.30 every evening should be stopped and that all lights in the prison cells should be turned out at not later than 14 hours after sunset.
With regard to returned banishees undergoing sentence of imprisonment, we are of the opinion that these men having been in a sense outlawed should not be granted any privileges when serving sentence for returning from banishment, except under special authority of the Medical Officer, that is to say that they should be subjected to the strictest discipline, the minimum scale of diet and be granted no remission marks. We consider it essential that these men should be kept in separate cells.
(c) Food: On investigating the question of diet, we were at once struck by the extremely high cost of the prison diets. These are tendered for by ration and it appears that the present cost of a first class ration is 42 Cents per diem or about $13.00 per month per head. This Committee caused careful inquiries to be made. amongst local firms employing large numbers of local labourers on hard manual work, amongst Chinese of the better paid clerical class, and amongst Chinese Police Constables Messes which are self run. These investigations proved beyond doubt that the average cost of a full diet per man varies from $5.00 to $7.00 per month, and it is clear therefore that the present cost of rationing prisoners in the Hong Kong Prisons is excessive. Singapore reports that the highest average daily cost of Chinese prisoners rations is 14.15 Cents (Singapore). We learned with some astonishment that the system of tendering adopted by the Hong Kong Prisons has for many years been by ration, and for approximately 20 years has been obtained by a contractor under the sign of Hop Kee. We endeavoured to discover who this contractor was but could only find an office in Connaught Road with one clerk in attendance who professed to know nothing about it. We are of the opinion that this matter should promptly be attended to, that the rations should be contracted for by weight and that