Blood Lust (15 page)

The seven condemned men had less than a year
to live. In December 1974, the Privy Council turned down their petition for
special leave to appeal against the decision of the Singapore Court of Criminal
Appeal to uphold the murder convictions. Their last hope was to plead to
President Sheares for clemency. In February 1975, they were told their
petitions had failed. A few days later, at 6:00
am
, on
28 February 1975, all seven men were hanged—three years and two months after
they had brutally beaten and strangled the gold dealer and his two associates.

***

Their execution aroused little public
interest, and the Gold Bars Triple Murder Case, a sordid, recklessly organized
crime prompted by man’s lust for gold, was soon forgotten.

Fresh interest in the case was, however,
awakened a year later when Ngo’s beautiful 30-year-old daughter, May Wong, was
arrested in London accused of trafficking in heroin. In her defence, she told a
fantastic, stranger-than-fiction story of how she had joined a ‘Gang of
Overlords’ in an effort to trace the ‘real killers’ of her father in Singapore.
The implication was that the Chou brothers were acting on instructions from
others. Did this story have the slightest ring of truth? It is highly unlikely.
Faced with the prospect of hanging for their misdeed, the Chou brothers were
prepared to tell any story to save their necks: they would have been eager to
blame others. Yet there was never any mention at their trial of a Gang of
Overlords giving orders from above. Why then did May Wong introduce this
extraordinary fiction into her defence in London?

The
murder trial was still on
when a merchant, a Filipino
restaurant owner, Jaime Guiaco, also known as Gui Liat Kok, claimed sole
ownership of the gold bars, which at the beginning of the trial, were worth
$500,000 but at the end of the trial, $700,000. According to his solicitors,
the gold was validly bought for him in Singapore by Ngo, acting as his
authorised agent. Others also claimed the gold by the time the trial was over.

Mr John Lee presided over the Second
Magistrate’s Court on 4 November 1974 when the inquiry began into the disposal
of the 120 gold bars and the $33,550 seized by the police. Andrew Chou and his
former friend who testified against him (Augustine Ang) were called to give
evidence. The gold bars were now worth $1.56 million. Fifteen armed policemen escorted
Chou to court. They were guarding him and the gold bars. He testified from the
witness box in handcuffs. The handcuffs were removed to enable him to raise his
hand to swear his oath. The handcuffs were snapped on again immediately
afterwards.
The Straits Times
reporter,
Ben Davidson, said that Chou looked tired but calm. Chou was questioned by Mr
Tan Teck Chuan, counsel for a Vietnamese claimant, Vuong Hoa, a businessman,
about his transactions with Ngo. Andrew Chou admitted he acted as contact man
for Ngo in exporting gold from Singapore to Saigon. He said the Air Vietnam
crew loaded the gold on the plane: they would verify the amount. Chou said he
was also contact man for the money, US dollars, brought from Vietnam. He was
told to give the money to Ngo. He presumed it was payment for the gold. Ngo had
introduced a Vietnamese to him in connection with the gold, but he could not
remember who it was.

According to Lim Tee Kiat, in charge of the
gold department of the United Overseas Bank, the gold, which was worth $503,496
at the time of the murder, was now valued at $1,561,660. Lim testified that the
sale of gold in 1971 in Singapore was restricted to non-residents, although a
resident could buy on behalf of a non-resident. The murdered man, Ngo, was a
mandatory of Gui Liat Kok. Ngo had been given authority to operate Gui’s
account. Gui was a Filipino. Ngo could buy gold on his behalf.

The Vietnamese, Vuong Hoa, claimed 60 gold
bars. Ngo’s family (represented by Mr L.A.J. Smith) claimed all 120; Gui, the
Filipino (represented by Mr Arthur Y.K. Loke) also claimed all 120 bars and the
$33,550, and Mah Liong Kim, the Singapore goldsmith, claimed 10 bars. Mah was
represented by Mr S.K. Lee. Mah said he was the owner of Thai Yong Sin Yee, a
firm in Jalan Sultan, dealing in gold and silver. He bought 10 gold bars from a
North Bridge Road goldsmith (Tan Seng Wah) without suspecting anything, in
December 1971. He paid $41,774 for them. They were now worth $130,000. Mah said
he intended to use the gold to make some ornaments for his wholesale and retail
trade.

Cross-examined by Mr Jeffrey Chan, the DPP,
Mah agreed that in 1971, gold in Singapore could only be purchased with the
approval of the Controller of Foreign Exchange. He was aware that gold was then
a controlled commodity and could not legally be purchased without a licence. He
knew it was common for goldsmiths to sell gold to each other. He didn’t know
these transactions were illegal.

Tan Seng Wah, former managing director of
Tan Thye Hin Goldsmiths Pte. Ltd., in North Bridge Road, testified that at the
request of his elder brother, he contacted Mah during the afternoon of 30
December 1971 and arranged to sell 10 gold bars to him. He said the gold bars
were brought to his shop by a woman and a man. Mah knew Tan’s father and had
been dealing with his shop for 20 years. He asked him whether the gold bars had
been smuggled. Tan assured Mah they were ‘legal and proper’.

DPP: When your brother asked him to
find a buyer, did you have reason to believe that the gold came from a dubious
source?

Tan Seng Wah: At that time I was a bit
scared, but my brother assured me that it was a hundred per cent okay. I was
initially frightened, because I thought an offence might have been committed in
dealing with gold bars. I knew it was an offence to deal with gold bars at that
time.

Tan said that he and his brother
received a commission on the sale. His share was over a thousand dollars.

Cross-examined by Mr L.A.J. Smith,
Tan admitted that it had occurred to him that the gold might have something to
do with the murder and robbery which he read about in the newspapers on 31
December. He said he told his brother about it and they decided to make a
report if nobody turned up to collect the $10,000 balance for the sale of the
gold. Later, the woman came and took the money, and his brother told him that
the gold had nothing to do with the newspaper story. Tan Kay Wah, the elder
brother, said the woman and the man were known to him as Catherine Tay and
Augustine Tan. They came to see him in November 1971, and said they had
somebody who had smuggled gold and was he interested? He replied that he would
have to consult his brother. They brought him a sample gold bar one night and
subsequently, on 30 December, they brought 10 bars. Cross-examined by the DPP,
Tan said he was not aware of the government regulation which called for persons
to hold a licence to buy gold.

Mr Chan: When Catherine brought the
gold to you did you not think it proper to report to the police that you had
reason to believe that the gold bars had been smuggled?

Under pressure, Tan admitted that he
knew it was an offence to handle smuggled gold.

Mr Chan: So you already knew that in
this case Catherine was involved in something illegal and was dragging you into
it?

Tan Seng Wah: Yes.

There was little that Augustine Ang could
add to the story about the gold bars that was not already known. He said he
knew the gold transactions were ‘tainted with illegality’. He related again how
the gold bars were sold. Urged by the DPP to ‘help solve the mystery as to whom
the gold belongs’, Ang said he could not remember having seen the Vietnamese,
Vuong, or anyone resembling him. Ang said he did not know where Ngo got the
gold from and he didn’t know its destination. He knew that it was normally put
on an Air Vietnam plane, but did not know if the gold was taken to Saigon.

Vuong, described as a former restaurateur in
Saigon, claimed that Ngo had bought the 120 bars for him. He had, he said, met
Ngo in Saigon in 1970 and when he came to Singapore in 1971, he discussed with
Ngo the business of buying and selling gold. ‘Ngo told me that he was a
resident and therefore had no right to buy or sell gold. But he said he had a
friend, Gui Liat Kok, a non-resident, and that he could use Gui’s account with
the United Overseas Bank to buy gold. He told me that the gold purchased must
be taken out of the country within four hours. It was arranged that I would
send him US currency through a pilot in Saigon to buy the gold. Ngo got a
commission from me for his efforts. I instructed Ngo to buy gold in January
1971. Sometime in November that year, there was a loss of over US$220,000 at
the airport. About US$60,000 of that belonged to me. In all, about US$100,000
were recovered and I got back US$40,000. For a while I stopped the business,
but carried on again after a month. The last time, I sent him US$75,000.”

Cross-examined by the DPP, Vuong admitted he
had been smuggling gold into Vietnam from Singapore and Hong Kong for eight
years. He also admitted that besides being a restaurateur in Saigon he was
engaged in black market activities. When the DPP went on to ask what the
punishment for black marketing was in Saigon, Vuong’s counsel (Mr Tan Teck
Chuan), successfully objected to the question on the ground of its relevance.
Mr Tan pointed out that the Singapore Government had in fact welcomed people to
come to Singapore to buy gold.

Vuong said that the last lot of gold from
Ngo was to have reached him in December 1971, but he never got it because of
Ngo’s death.

DPP: So far as the records go your name
would not appear as a purchaser? This being so, how did you know Ngo could be
trusted with the money you sent him?

Vuong Hoa: In this business it must be
a matter of trust.

Vuong said that 60 of the bars belonged
to him, the balance to two other Vietnamese he knew.

DPP: Would it be correct to say that
you three, and maybe others, were part of a syndicate importing gold illegally
into Saigon?

Vuong Hoa: No, we operated
individually, but we were in the same line.

Gui Koon Seng, Ngo’s manager, testified that
Ngo had been the purchasing agent in Singapore for a number of gold buyers in
Indonesia, South Vietnam, Taiwan and Thailand. Ngo had told him that the 120
bars were destined for Saigon. “I knew that gold was sent to Saigon to Vuong,
Ngo’s good friend. Ngo told me he had sent gold on a number of occasions.” Gui
Koon Seng said that Ngo had also told him about the Filipino, Gui Liat Kok. Gui
Liat Kok came to Singapore to open a bank account. Ngo told him he was using
Gui Liat Kok’s account to buy gold for other people. He mentioned no names
other than Vuong’s. On the day of Ngo’s death, the witness was with Ngo until
about 6:00
pm
. Ngo had told him
the 120 bars were destined for Saigon.

Gui Liat Kok, described as a Filipino
restaurateur, denied that his bank account in Singapore was merely used as a
front by Ngo for gold transactions. He said he opened a US-dollar account in
mid-1969 at his elder brother’s instructions. It was this brother, Ngai Tin
Sung, who dealt with Ngo. Gui said he appointed Ngo as his mandatory, giving
him authority to operate his account, but actually it was Gui’s brother, Ngai,
who gave instructions to Ngo to buy the 120 gold bars. Ngo was chosen because
‘we had known each other for a long time, and Ngo was trustworthy. After Ngo
was murdered I received information from my brother that the gold was in the
custody of the Singapore Government. We agreed that Mr William Lo (a Hong Kong
lawyer) be entrusted with our claim and we later executed a power of attorney
in his favour.’

Cross-examined by Mr Tan, Gui said that his
bank account was handled by his brother because his brother managed the
family’s business. He denied that he was no more than a nominee or trustee. His
brother put in a few thousand US dollars into the account. He himself had put
in some dollars, but he could not remember the date or amount because of the
lapse of time.

Gui Liat Kok: Since my forefathers’
time my family has dealt in gold. I don’t deal in gold in the Philippines. It
is illegal there.

Mr Tan: I put it to you that your bank
account is nothing but a front for Ngo to carry out his gold transactions in
other countries. You have not put in even a single American cent into that US
dollar account?

Gui denied the suggestion.

Mr Tan: Why are you coming to court now
at such a late hour?

Gui Liat Kok: It is a big sum of money.
I deserve to get such a large sum of money.

Mr Tan: Is it not true that you have
been advised by counsel in Hong Kong to claim the gold because your name is in
the account? The simple reason for this is that the other claimants who
actually own the gold do not have a single document?

Denying Mr Tan’s suggestion, Gui said: “It
is my money. I deserve to take it.”

Under cross-examination by Mr Jeffrey Chan, the
DPP, Gui said he changed his name to Jaimie Guiaco after he became naturalised
in the Philippines. He agreed that he entered Singapore in mid-1969 under the
name of Jaimie Guiaco and opened an account with the United Overseas Bank in
the name of Gui Liat Kok. Gui said
he changed his name
between 1970 and 1971 and that as a result he obtained a new passport under
which he was currently travelling. After further cross-examination, Gui Liat
Kok admitted he had, in all, three passports, one in the name of Gui Liat Kok,
and two in the name of Jaimie Guiaco. He admitted that he had contravened the
laws of the Philippines, but he said he had never made use of the old passport
after he obtained the new one.