Cold Blooded Murders (31 page)

The Court adjourned for a week over
Christmas and assembled again on 30 December.

While Robert Choo, another settlement
attendant, was giving evidence, he identified Chua Hai Imm as a rioter. Chua
swore at him. The Judge warned Chua. He shouted back at the Judge.

Judge: If I have another sound from him
I will have him gagged. If his counsel does not advise him, I shall take steps.
It is quite scandalous. This is the last warning. If he does it again I shall
have him gagged.

Mr Braga got the witness, Choo, to admit
that he had been a member of the 13 Wonders gang (18-
Chap Sar Yeo
) but
Choo denied he had ever been beaten up by Koh Teck Thow’s gang. The last gang
fight he had was a very long time ago, with gang 329. He was assistant headman
in his gang. He organised gang fights, but did not take part himself.

Witness Chia Teck Whee, a rehabilitation
officer in the prison service, gave evidence that there had been 29 settlement
attendants on Pulau Senang and 319 detainees.

Language had its problems. Chia Teck Whee
gave his evidence in English. He was recalling a conversation in Dutton’s
office in the morning. He had told of how one of the accused, Heng Lian Choon,
had handed over his mug to his friend, See Kar Chua, a significant gesture that
meant that Heng was about to leave Pulau Senang and was saying farewell.

Mr Francis Seow: When he was telling
you this where was Dutton?

Chia Teck Whee: Mr Dutton was in his
office. He sat on the chair in front of his table.

Judge: He was seated at his desk.

Chia Teck Whee: No. He sat on the chair
in front of his table.

Judge: When you sit at the desk you
normally do not sit on it. When I sit myself at my desk I usually sit on the
chair in front of it. He sat at his desk?

Chia Teck Whee: On a chair.

Judge: Leave it like that.

Inevitably, the evidence was repetitious.
When, on 6 January 1964, Sergeant Warder Abdul Ghani bin Mohd. Ali was in the
box, the Judge referred to this ‘tedious business’.

He said to Crown Counsel: “Why go into it?
The jury must be as sick as I am with people running up to the circus and
sitting down in the circus. If you have something to prove, prove it, but are
you going to call all the witnesses who gave evidence at the preliminary
inquiry?”

Mr Francis Seow: I will call all of
them.

Judge: If you are calling them to prove
something. When they have proved it, sit down.

Mr Francis Seow: I am giving the
background.

Judge: If the jury and I don’t know the
background by now we had better get hold of another judge and jury. I am
getting utterly sick of it if you are going to get 80 witnesses to this court
to tell the same old story that they saw rioters coming down Mess Road, and
some from Workshop Road, and non-rioters squatting on the circus. I am getting
a little tired of it.

A witness, Kok Ah Tong, ran into the sea and
swam for his life. He floated until he was picked up by a boat. His nickname
was
Kiah See Kwai
(a timid devil). He said he was not timid, just
anxious not to get involved.

When Abdul
Rahman bin Maryadi alias Tengku, another settlement
attendant, was giving evidence, Seow asked him about the canteen. Did he see
footprints on the wall, showing that somebody had
climbed to the ceiling? Was the wall dirty?

Judge: A few days ago I asked what was
the good of this. No one in his senses will dispute that the place was razed to
the ground. Why waste time on it? What I and the jury are interested in is are
there any of those accused in the dock responsible? We want to know who did
these things. Who were killed? Who did the killing? Have another look at the
evidence. Don’t stumble along haphazardly.

On 7 January, Chua Hai Imm was reported to
be sick again. His counsel, Mr Tann, said he was screaming his head off.

On 10 January at 10:45
am
, Tan Eng Hoe alias
Khan Or
was, on the application of Mr Francis Seow acting under Section 203 of the
Criminal Procedure Code, stood down. Mr Francis Seow informed the Court that he
had decided not to proceed further against him on the three charges. An
independent prosecution witness had given evidence that Tan had been with him
and had not been involved in rioting. The case against the other 58 accused
continued.

Tan King Hak, another witness, admitted he
had been a ‘Protected Member’ of a secret society. It was explained that a
‘Protected Member’ was a collector or extortioner.

On the 29th day of the trial, counsel
complained that only 31 witnesses had been covered. The Judge said he had
considerable fellow-feeling for his objections. “Do try and cut it short, Mr
Seow.”

When J.W.
Tailford was called on 16 January, he could remember
little
apart from the fact that somebody had assaulted him. He was stood down. The
Judge ordered that a statement be taken from him. If necessary, he could then
be recalled as a witness.

Evidence was given that three rioters
escaped by jumping into the sea and swimming to the lighthouse. They were recaptured.

Tan Chut Gim, owner of the canteen on the
island, said on 15 January that he was attacked by a rioter with a piece of
pipe. Of the 110 crates of soft drinks in the canteen, only 37 or 38 crates
were intact at the end of 40 minutes of rioting. Most of the bottles had been
used as missiles. All the bottles in the canteen were empty. Tan was an
ex-detainee.

Mr Francis Seow started off his questioning
of another witness, Alan Lim Kiat Pang, a long-sentenced prisoner sentenced for
armed robbery, by asking him whether he knew there had been rioting on the
island on 12 July 1963. Said the Judge, sarcastically, “Well, he must be the
only one on the island if he does not. Even the jury and I know that.”

***

John Victor Roy, a warder, said he was
chased and he jumped into the sea and swam to Pulau Pawai, a nearby island.

On 17 January, Tan Chin Chai, a detainee,
told the Court that he was working on the poultry farm at the time of the
revolt. He admitted to Mr Ball that he had a ‘bad fight’ with another detainee
some while before, and had in consequence spent a month in hospital. He had
been accused of being an informer. That was why he named friends of this man
who had beaten him up. Tan denied he was an informer, or that he had identified
them out of spite.

He said that rioters had shouted: “Fellow
sufferers! Pulau Senang is not going to be a success! We have been here for 30
months and we are still here! Join us!”

Shortly after 11:30
am
on the morning of 21 January, Crown Counsel interrupted
the proceedings to inform the Judge that Yeow Yew Boon had developed a rash
which apparently needed urgent attention. Judge Buttrose promptly adjourned and
Yeow was sent to hospital. When the Court reassembled after lunch, Dr Peck Tsun
Yee told the Judge that Yeow was suffering from a hypersensitive reaction to a
drug which had been given to him by another doctor the previous day. She said
Yeow was unfit to sit in Court. He was drowsy. The Judge adjourned until the
following morning, when Yeow took his place again in the dock.

When the 50th witness was produced on 23
January, the Judge asked whether the prosecution case could be finished by the
end of the month. Mr Seow said he hoped so.

Mr Francis Seow to witness: You are known as
Mad Chwee Hock?

Witness: That is so.

Mr Francis Seow: Dutton found out that
you had been fighting and gave you a severe beating?

Witness: Yes.

Judge: He punched you?

Witness: Yes.

Counsel: It took you a week in hospital
to recover?

Witness: I never went to hospital.

A.N. Jenardaran, who served on Pulau Senang
as Dutton’s first chief officer, told the Court that Dutton was hardworking,
resourceful and fair. He was planning to build a school with 12 classrooms and
a ring road round the island. The Judge refused to allow evidence on other
projects. He felt it was irrelevant.

Tailford went into the box again on 29
January. He was still wearing the watch he wore when he was attacked. It no
longer worked. It had stopped at 1:05
pm
on 12 July. The fingers of the watch, he said, were bent. He could remember nothing
except that he ended up with his arm broken, his watch broken and cuts on his
head. He could not say who caused the injuries. He could not identify anybody.

Evidence was later given by Professor L.F.
Tinker of the General Hospital. He said Tailford’s skull was fractured and he
had other wounds and bruises. His forearm was broken. He had a paralysis on the
left side of the face, which was indicative of damage to the control system of
the brain. When he was discharged on 6 August 1963, his mental condition was
normal but, as was to be expected, his power of recollection was impaired. The
Professor said it was extremely unlikely that he would regain his memory of
past events leading up to his injury.

Further medical evidence was given that Tan
Kok Hian died in hospital the evening of 12 July. Chok Kok Tong died early the
following morning.

The case for the prosecution ended at 3:00
pm
the afternoon of 30 January. Twenty
minutes later, the jury were sent out while all the defence counsel submitted
they had no case to answer. This argument lasted until lunch-time the following
day when the Judge announced he had overruled it. There was, he said, no
substance in the legal submissions. He decided that there was evidence that the
accused had committed the offence with which they were charged, and he proposed
to ‘call on them to enter their defence’.

On 3 February, he ruled that the two accused
who feigned insanity were found to be shamming; there was no question of them
being unfit to plead. “I am quite satisfied that they are not insane, and that
this shammed insanity was but a ruse to delay and defeat the ends of justice
and to frustrate the due processes of the law.”

The Judge announced that all the accused
must make their defence. Before making the announcement, he ordered that the
exhibits (the
parangs
and other weapons) be taken away and locked up in
his chambers. “I don’t like my Court cluttered up. I dislike having them lying
about here with all the risk of their being turned over and disappearing.”

He told the accused they could make their
defence in any one of three ways: they could go in the box and give evidence on
oath (in which event they would be liable to cross-examination). The second
alternative was that they could make an unsworn statement from the dock (in
which event they could not be asked questions by anyone), or thirdly, they
could remain silent. The Judge asked each of the accused which they preferred.
Altogether, 42 accused elected to remain silent, 15 elected to give evidence on
oath, and one (Yong Ah Chew alias
Au Chua
alias
Put Yeow
) decided
to make an unsworn statement from the dock. The Judge told counsel that they
could address the jury first or open their defence and then make a final
statement. Mr Ball decided to address the jury. His address lasted exactly one
and a half hours.

Mr Ball set out to attack the legality of
Pulau Senang. He said it was misleading of the prosecution to refer to the
accused as Criminal Law detainees. As they were not convicted persons they were
not obliged to work. It was said they volunteered, but in fact they had no
option. They worked, and worked long hours and got very little pay. Mr Ball
warned the jury about accepting much of the evidence. Many witnesses were
ex-detainees and members of rival secret societies. There had been talk of a
death list. No such list had been produced. As for there being a conspiracy,
where was the proof?

It was 12:55
pm
when Mr Ball concluded his address to the jury. He was
asked by the Judge to carry on with the rest of his defence. Then, the Judge
said, the Court could hear the defence of Mr Suppiah’s clients. Mr Ball
protested. He would prefer Mr Suppiah to make his address. Then all the accused
could be separately defended. The Judge ruled against this. “I think you just take
your clients and their witnesses. You can call your witnesses at the end of
such of your clients as are giving evidence on oath or making an unsworn
statement.”

Mr Ball: Well, I am taken by surprise
by that. And if it is a ruling I will bow to it.

Judge: I’m afraid it is.

Sim Cheng Tee was the first to give his
defence on oath. He swore he was a non-rioter. He produced two non-rioting
witnesses to support him. On oath they also swore that Sim was a non-rioter.

Ang Teck Kee, the next prisoner, was asked
why another detainee should have given evidence against him. Ang said that at
Changi in 1962 they had quarrelled during a volley-ball match. He had
questioned a decision given by Ang. Ang had been the referee. He called no
witnesses.

Yong Ah Chew (defended by Mr Abisheganaden)
made his unsworn statement from the dock. He said that Chi, who had given
evidence against him, bore him a grudge over a mango the accused had picked up.
As for the other man who had identified him as a rioter, well, he just wanted an
early release. The two prosecution witnesses had lied.