Blood Lust

by Alex Josey

  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?

  Who Owns the Gold Bar?

  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.

  The following day, surprise was caused when Mr Arthur Y.K. Yoke, counsel for Gui, unexpectedly announced that Gui’s elder brother, Ngai Ting Sung, had decided to join him in claiming the 120 gold bars. Counsel said he was also representing Ngai. Gui Liat Kok told the Court that his brother Ngai was in charge of the family business in Hong Kong. He said that Ngai used the family funds to buy gold from Singapore and Ngai had told him to go to Singapore to make a claim for the gold.

  Ngai said he based his claim on two remittances of US$157,000 on 12 December 1971 and another US$35,000 on 29 December 1971 to the United Overseas Bank from Hong Kong for the purpose of buying the gold bars. Asked by his counsel how he arranged the money to buy the gold, Ngai said he used the money from the Hong Kong Bank Ltd in Hong Kong to buy US dollars, and then remitted the US dollars to Singapore through Crockers, an American Bank. Ngai said he lived in Hong Kong.

  A number of witnesses were summoned to the inquiry and a great deal of information about gold dealing and other matters were produced. It was revealed for instance that Ngo had a first wife, Mdm Tan Poh Chin. Mdm Goh Chang Hong was his secondary wife: he was separated from Mdm Tan. Rose Chan Ah Loy, when asked by the DPP if she had been Ngo’s mistress, claimed that she could also be regarded as a secondary wife. She said she had been kept by Ngo for two or three years before his death. She said she had known him a long time.

  Inspector Oh explained how the inquiry came into being. After the trial, he had been instructed to apply for an inquiry into the disposal of the gold bars. He therefore swore a complaint before a magistrate. Then he drafted a press statement calling for claimants. This was published on 22 August 1974. The notice set 6 September 1974 as the deadline for claimants to make their claims. Four parties then claimed the gold.

  Rose Chan said she knew all about the sale of gold to Vietnam. Sometimes, she said, she went to the hotel to collect US currency from Vietnamese pilots. She never saw any of the gold.

  Gui Liat Kok insisted that Ngo bought the gold to send to his brother in Hong Kong.

  Counsel (Mr L.A.J. Smith): You know that gold in Hong Kong costs the same as it does in Singapore?

  Gui Liat Kok: I heard there was a profit to be made.

  Counsel: I put it to you: your brother would have suffered a loss if he imported 120 gold bars from Singapore?

  Gui Liat Kok: My view is my brother would have made money.

  Counsel: I put it to you that you have given false evidence?

  Gui Liat Kok: I am telling the truth.

  Counsel: You were promised a cut if you succeeded?

  Gui Liat Kok: That is not true.

  Counsel: When did you know the 120 bars were to be bought?

  Gui Liat Kok: I went to Hong Kong on 24 September 1971.

  Counsel: The gold was bought on 29 December 1971?

  Gui Liat Kok: I knew gold prices fluctuated. I gave my brother authority to buy.

  Counsel: You knew three months ahead that you were going to buy gold on 29 December 1971?

  Gui Liat Kok: I often went to Hong Kong and my brother informed me.

  Counsel: When purchasing gold two factors must be considered: they
are, one, the price of gold, and two, the cost of American dollars?

  Gui Liat Kok: I agree.

  Counsel: And the place you sell the gold to must be prepared to pay a good price?

  Gui Liat Kok: I do agree.

  Counsel: You are a financial wizard to anticipate all factors three months ahead?

  Gui Liat Kok: My elder brother and my late father were doing this kind of business for several decades.

  Counsel: I am putting it to you that you are not telling the truth?

  Gui Liat Kok: I am on oath. I am telling the truth.

  Counsel: Andrew Chou told the Court that the 120 gold bars were destined for Saigon. Do you now tell us that it was meant for Hong Kong?

  Gui Liat Kok: How it gets to Hong Kong doesn’t matter. What is important is that my lot of gold reaches the destination.

  Counsel: You are part of a conspiracy to claim the gold?

  Gui Liat Kok: I am the owner of the gold.

  Counsel: You are making a fraudulent claim?