Cold Blooded Murders (34 page)

Judge Buttrose pointed out that Tan Kheng
Ann had been identified by 30 prosecution witnesses. “Their evidence
establishes—if you accept it—that he played a prominent, if not (a) major, role
in this uprising. He was one of the original plotters, took part in the attacks
on Dutton and Singham which resulted in their deaths. The evidence
establishes—if you accept it—that he was a leader of this unlawful assembly
from start to finish. Of the thirty witnesses only four bore him a grudge. What
the prosecution said was that the cumulative effect of the evidence of all
thirty witnesses leads you inexorably and inevitably to one conclusion only:
that Tan Kheng Ann is guilty of the offences with which he has been charged.”

Chia Yeow Fatt had been identified by nine
witnesses, Cheong Wai Sang by 19 witnesses, Lim Tee Kang by 24 witnesses, Khoo
Geok San by 21 witnesses, Hoe Hock Hai was identified by 13 witnesses, Peh Guan
Hock by six witnesses, Chia Geok Choo by 18 witnesses.

The Judge referred to a comment by Counsel
that it was extraordinary that in such a short space of time, a number of
weapons could apparently have passed through the hands of one individual.
“Well, I suggest one explanation is that they did not keep these weapons in
their hands throughout the uprising. They used them as missiles. They flung
them at the settlement attendants. So it was not strange that one accused
person was seen with perhaps five or six different weapons in his hands at
different times.”

Yeow Yew Boon had been identified by five
prosecution witnesses, Teng Eng Tay by five, Ong Aik Kwong by 10, Chew Thiam
Huat by 10, Heng Lian Choo by five, Lim Teck San by seven, Sia Ah Kow by three.
Sim Cheng Tee had made his defence from the witness box. The gist of his
defence was that he took no part in the riot. He called two witnesses both of
whom saw the accused, but saw no rioting. “Does that not leave you with a sense
of unreality?” asked the Judge. (Apparently it did. The jury found Sia guilty
of rioting.) Sim Hoe Seng was identified by 18 witnesses, Tan Yin Chwee by
seven, Toh Kok Peng by five, Ng Cheng Liong by eight, Sim Teck Beng by seven,
and Tan Tian Soo also by seven.

Ang Teck Kee gave evidence on oath. He said
he had been a shop assistant. He could not explain why several witnesses
identified him as a rioter. (The jury found him guilty.) Chew Yam Meng remained
silent. He had been identified by 10 witnesses who said he was one of a group
strutting around like victors or conquerors. Tan Lian Choon remained silent.
Cheong Kim Seng was identified by three witnesses. Tan Chin remained silent. He
had attacked Tailford, according to the evidence. Leow Ah Chai had remained
silent. Only one witness had identified him, and the Judge cautioned the jury
that if they had any reasonable doubt about the evidence against him they
should return a verdict of ‘Not Guilty’. Chia Teck Whee, the witness against
him, had said that Leow had been armed with a stick.

If the jury were satisfied that Leow was a
member of the unlawful assembly when Dutton and the others were killed ‘then it
would be open to you to find him guilty of rioting with deadly weapons, if you
are satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that he had been identified correctly by
witness Chia, that he was armed as alleged’. The jury decided there was a
reasonable doubt and Leow was found ‘Not Guilty’. Yong Ah Chew made an unsworn
statement to the effect that he did not riot, though two witnesses said he did
(and the jury believed them). Yong said the two witnesses lied. Soh Ah Kang was
identified by only one witness, Chia Teck Whee. Again the Judge warned the jury
about accepting this evidence (the jury did not: Soh was found ‘Not Guilty’).
There were two witnesses against Choy Peng Kwong, four against Heng Boon Leng,
two against Teng Ah Kow.

Neo Kim Leong gave evidence on oath. His
defence was that he took no part in the riot, but ran off with the others to
the jetty. He did not know why he joined them. He never asked why they were
running, or what it was all about. He went into the sea because the others did.
Sergeant Abdul had given evidence that Neo had been in the front line of the
rioters.

Lim Heng Soon gave evidence on oath. He said
he had nothing to do with the rioting, he was merely seizing an opportunity to
escape in a boat. It was a sudden decision. He found conditions on the island
inhuman. The Judge pointed out that one of the men in the boat with Lim had
been heard to say earlier the same morning that they planned to kill Dutton and
escape by boat.

Ng Pang Leng remained silent. Only one
witness said Ng was rioting. Lim Thian Huat also said nothing in his defence.
There were two witnesses against him. Cheng Poh Kheng remained silent. Four
witnesses testified that he was among those who attacked Dutton.

The Judge referred to the four general
witnesses for the defence called by Mr Ball. Two of them were among the
thirteen carpenters who refused to work on 6 July. They told the jury they had
not mentioned to fellow detainees that they were being sent back to Changi.

“Taking that evidence as it stands at its
face value, do you think it likely that they would not, on the probabilities of
the matter, tell their fellow detainees? Why shouldn’t they? Isn’t it the most
natural thing in the world that they should? Is it conceivable that they would
fail to tell them?” The Judge said the object, as he understood it, of these
witnesses being called, was to show they had spoken to no one. (A prosecution
witness had earlier given evidence that he had overheard several of the accused
telling them that the carpenters would be avenged.)

The Judge returned to the defence of
Somasundram, Somasundarajoo and Lim Kim Chuan defended by Mr Suppiah.
Somasundram gave evidence on oath. He denied taking part in the riot. He called
no witnesses. He had been identified by 18 witnesses, not only as participating
but playing a major role in it. He denied throwing petrol over Dutton. He could
offer no explanation as to why the witness Chia should falsely accuse him.
Somasundarajoo also gave evidence on oath. He denied being a rioter. The
evidence given against him by eight witnesses was untrue. He saw nothing of the
riot. Witnesses said that he was among those who attacked Dutton. Lim Kim Chuan
remained silent. He was identified as a rioter by 16 witnesses. He attacked
Dutton and Tailford.

The Judge then dealt with the defence of
Chan Wah, Chin Kiong, Ponapalam, and Chew Seng Hoe. Chan Wah remained silent.
Eighteen witnesses said he was a rioter. They said he played a prominent part
in the rioting from start to finish. All three kept silent. They were defended
by Mr Chng. There were eight witnesses against Chin Kiong. He was an original
conspirator. He slashed Dutton. There were 10 witnesses against Ponapalam. He
also took a prominent and active part in the riot. He was seen pouring petrol
over Dutton’s body. Four witnesses identified Chew Seng Hoe. One said he administered
the final blows to Settlement Attendant 505 while he was on the ground. “The
sound of the blows was like the beating of a mattress.” After beating him Chew
walked away mumbling and muttering that the attendant was dead.

Chua Hai Imm and Tan Tian Lay were defended
by Mr Tann Wee Tiong. Chua gave an unsworn statement to the effect that he did
not take part in the riot. That was his defence. Six witnesses said he did. One
of them said he saw Chua attack Tailford. Tan said nothing. One witness said he
saw Tan charging with a
cangkul
.

Mr Advani defended Kwek Kok Wah, Teo Han
Teck and Ng Chuan Puay. In an unsworn statement from the dock, Ng said he saw
the rioting, was frightened and ran away. Two witnesses said Ng threw stones at
them.

Judge Buttrose: If you have any
reasonable doubt about this matter, you must resolve it in his favour, because
this is the sole evidence against him of implication in this uprising.

Teo Han Teck swore on oath that he was not a
rioter. He had in fact, he claimed, helped to bandage Tailford’s head with a
towel. Three witnesses swore he attacked Tailford with a
cangkul
.
Ng Chuan Puay remained silent, made no effort to refute the evidence of five
witnesses that he had been armed with a
parang
.

Tay Teck Bok and Azis bin Salim were
defended by Mr Koh. Tay remained silent. He had been identified as a rioter by
a single witness who said he saw Tay armed with a
cangkul
. Witness said Tay was among those who attacked an attendant. Aziz
gave evidence from the witness box under oath. He said his eyesight was bad
without glasses. The Judge told the jury he felt bound to call their attention
to ‘what appears to be the somewhat strange conduct of a man who alleged he was
a non-rioter and did not get mixed up in the riot, because as we go on with the
evidence it discloses that he appeared to have followed in the wake of the
rioting detainees throughout. How easy it would have been for him to have
slipped away from all this trouble. His explanation for following literally on
the heels of the mob was that he hoped to find the security of the settlement
attendants, someone who would protect him. He said he had a bottle in his hand
because a rioter offered him a drink. He at first refused and the rioter said
go on, it’s free, so to satisfy him he took a gulp. That was how he came to be
seen with a bottle in his hand. I must confess gentlemen, though this is, of
course, a matter purely for you, that sounds to me as if the accused was taking
a leisurely stroll in the grounds of the island in the wake of a full-scale
riot which was going on a very short distance away from him. He seemed to have
left it very late to get away from the riot.” The Judge added that the
remarkable thing about Aziz’s evidence was that although he said he could see
practically nothing without his spectacles, he did not wear them, though he had
them with him during the whole of his wanderings in the wake of this riotous
assembly. “Do you really think, members of the jury, that a man whose eyesight
is as bad as Aziz’s would not put on his spectacles when he was literally
following on the heels of a full-scale riot? Don’t you think that the first
thing he would want to do would be to see what was happening, where he was
going, what was afoot? Yet he said he had seen detainees throwing bottles and
stones. He seems to have seen quite a lot for a man without glasses. Eight
witnesses said he took part in the riot. He said they were not telling the
truth.”

The Judge turned to the defence of Lim Kim
Sian and Koh Ah Tiaw. Lim remained silent. There was only one witness against
him—Chia had said Lim was armed with a
cangkul
. In the lower court Chia had said that Lim had a pipe. There was
therefore a discrepancy. Lim remained silent. Koh said nothing in his defence.
Again, the witness was Chia. In the lower court Chia said Koh had a stick in
his hand. Before the jury he swore it was a
cangkul
. The defence said that as their identification of Lim and Koh
depended on Chia’s evidence alone it would be unwise to convict them, in these
circumstances.

Chia Tiong Guan, Koh Teck Thow and Low Chai
Kiat, were represented by Mr Braga. They all gave evidence on oath. Chia Tiong
Guan had been identified as a rioter by one witness, who could not say if Chia
was armed. Chia said the witness had a grudge against him. Remarked the Judge:
“My only comment is this: if it were true that Foong Lai Chuan had a grudge
against the accused, does it not seem likely, to say the least, that Foong
would say that he didn’t see if the accused carried a weapon. If he had a grudge
is it not more likely that he would say the accused did carry a weapon?”

Koh Teck Thow admitted hacking at a
punishment cell with an axe to free a friend, but he denied taking part in any
riot. A ‘sworn brother’ of Low Chai Kiat testified that Low never took part in
the rioting. “You will ask yourself why this ‘sworn brother’ did not call the
accused to come with him to the beach.”

The Judge again reminded the jury of the
danger of convicting an accused on the evidence of only one witness. Gan Kim
Siong, for instance. The only evidence against him substantially was that of
Marlow, the mechanic. He said he saw Gan in the boat when Marlow had been
forced into the boat by Teng Eng Tay. “That is not, I suggest, sufficient
evidence to justify a conviction, and you will in these circumstances have
little difficulty in returning a verdict of ‘Not Guilty’ against him. It would
in my view, be improper for you to consider a possible alternative verdict of
escaping from lawful custody against him. Such an offence has no connection
with the offence of murder with which he has been charged.”

The following were also accused by one
witness: Tay Teck Bok, Soh Ah Kang, Ng Pang Leng, Low Chai Kiat, Leow Ah Chai,
Koh Ah Tiaw, Chia Tiong Guan, Lim Kim Sian, and Tan Tian Lay. Five of them—Tay
Teck Bok, Leow Ah Chai, Lim Kim Sian, Soh Ah Kang and Koh Ah Tiaw had been
identified as rioters solely by Chai, the rehabilitation officer who had been
on the island for a year and knew the faces of them all well. “If there is a
reasonable doubt as to Chia’s identification you will acquit them.”

Kwek Kok Wah had been identified by two
witnesses. They said he threw large stones at them. “Does this evidence leave
you with a reasonable doubt about him being involved in the rioting in which
Dutton and the others were killed? Did he see the witnesses fleeing and threw a
stone at them because he was frightened?”