Cold Blooded Murders

by Alex Josey

  From the hospital, Low rushed to the administrative block to report to Dutton. Dutton then was outside the building about to fire his Verey pistol. By now two groups of rioters were approaching the building. First they set fire to the general office, then the workshop. They attacked the guard room. Tailford was outside, trying to ward off the assault. He was felled, stabbed in the temple. Attacked by three thugs, Dutton dashed into his office. When he came out, his clothes on fire, four rioters brutally attacked him.

  The savagery of the attack on Dutton was amazing. Medical evidence showed that Dutton had several cut wounds on his body, three on his head, two on the trunk and nine on the limbs. On the skull there was a large horizontal cut on the right side of the head. The fifth, ninth and 10th ribs were fractured. There was also a deep cut towards the back of the head. Death was due to haemorrhage from intracranial bleeding. The body was almost completely burnt, except the feet, which were covered by his boots. If he had not died from the fracture of his skull, he would have died from the burns.

  The preliminary hearing took 18 days. When it ended, 64 of the accused were committed for trial in the High Court. But only 59 actually stood trial before Justice Buttrose on 18 November 1963. The Public Prosecutor decided not to proceed against five: they were stood down.

  Never before, in Singapore, had there been such a mammoth trial. A special dock was constructed to accommodate all 59 prisoners. In the crowded Court, over which Justice Murray Buttrose presided, were, in addition to the guards and court officials, 11 counsel, and a jury of seven (all Chinese). Listed as Assize Case No. 68/63 of Twelfth Assizes, 1963, the trial of Tan Kheng Ann (alias Robert, alias Robert Black, alias Ang Chuar), and 58 others, lasted from 18 November 1963–12 March 1964. The Court sat on 64 days. The evidence was recorded in 21 large volumes of typescript, a total of about half a million words.

  All 59 prisoners pleaded not guilty. And 44 said nothing in defence: they remained silent. Eleven went into the witness box and made their defence on oath. Three made their defence by unsworn statements from the dock. The Judge took nearly five days to sum up. He ordered the Press not to report anything he said in his summing up until the jury returned with their verdict. The jury retired late in the morning of 11 March 1964. They came back into Court in the afternoon of 12 March 1964. They found 18 guilty of murder 29 guilty of rioting. The rest were found not guilty of murder or rioting and were acquitted though not set free, for they were still under Criminal Law detention.

  The Trial

  MR HUMPHREY A. BALL AND MR G. ABISHEGANADEN were privately retained to represent 40 of the defendants, Mr P. Suppiah (at the request of the Court), three, Mr Chng Kiat Leng, four, Mr Tann Wee Tiong, two, Mr G.J. Advani, three, Mr C.H. Koh, two, Mr Y.R. Jumabhoy, two, and Mr A.J. Braja, three.

  The 59 accused were:

  1. Tan Kheng Ann alias Robert Black alias Ang Chuar

  2. Chia Yeo Fatt alias Botak

  3. Cheong Wai Sang alias See Chap Kau Sien

  4. Somasundram son of Suptramaniam

  5. Lim Tee Kang alias Bobby

  6. Somasundarajoo son of Vengdasalam alias Ali

  7. Lim Kim Chuan alias Tua Tai alias Tua Pui

  8. Khoo Geok San alias Kepala Batu alias Ah San

  9. Chan Wah alias Hak Kwei Soh

  10. Chin Kiong alias Hakka Chai

  11. Hoe Hock Hai alias Ah Hai

  12. Ponapalam son of Govindasamy alias Tom Tom

  13. Peh Guan Hock alias Han Chee Gong

  14. Chia Geok Choo alias Jimmy alias Sar Kang Huay

  15. Chew Seng Hoe

  16. Yeow Yew Boon alias Mee Mee

  17. Teng Eng Tay alias Robert

  18. Ong Sik Kwong alias Sar Siow

  19. Chew Thiam Huat alias Baby Chai

  20. Heng Lian Choon alias Ah Liang

  21. Lim Teck San

  22. Sia Ah Kow alias Ark Bar

  23. Sim Cheng Tee alias Kok Tau

  24. Chua Hai Imm alias Botak

  25. Sim Hoe Seng alias Chat Ah Seng

  26. Ng Cheng Liong alias Ah Pong

  27. Tan Yin Chwee alias Ah Eng

  28. Kwek Kok Wah

  29. Toh Kok Pen

  30. Teo Han Teck

  31. Sim Teck Beng

  32. Ng Chuan Puay

  33. Tan Tian Soo alias Tian Ah alias Ah Tian

  34. Ang Teck Kee alias Ah Kuah

  35. Tay Teck Bok

  36. Aziz bin Salim alias Terry

  37. Chew Yam Meng alias Ah Soi

  38. Teo Lian Choon alias Ah Ngar

  39. Cheong Kim Seng

  40. Tan Chin alias Soi Han

  41. Leow Ah Chai

  42. Lim Kim Si an

  43. Yong Ah Chew alias Au Chua alias Put Yeow

  44. Soh Ah Kang

  45. Tan Eng Hoe alias Kang Or

  46. Choy Peng Kwong

  47. Heng Boon Leng

  48. Koh Ah Tiaw

  49. Teng Ah Kow alias Ah Kow

  50. Tan Tian Lay

  51. Neo Lim Leong

  52. Gan Kim Siong alias Ang Kee

  53. Lim Heng Soon alias Ah Soon

  54. Ng Pang Leng

  55. Chia Tiong Guan

  56. Koh Teck Thow

  57. Lim Thiam Huat alias Botak

  58. Cheng Poh Keng alias Kow Kia

  59. Low Chai Kiat alias Jimmy

  Of the lot, 55 of the prisoners were Chinese, three were Tamil Indians and one was a Malay.

  They were all charged collectively that ‘on or about the 12th day of July 1963, at about 1:15 PM at the Pulau Senang Settlement, Singapore’, they were members of an unlawful assembly whose common objects were to cause the death of Daniel Stanley Dutton, Arumugam Veerasingham, Tan Kok Hian, Wang Loke Hai, alias Cartoon, Chia Teck Whee, and others, and to cause the destruction

  of the settlement, and that while members of that assembly, ‘committed murder by causing the death of Dutton, an offence which the members of the assembly knew to be likely to be committed in the prosecution of the common objects of the assembly’.

  They were all further charged with murdering Veerasingham and Tan Kok Hian.

  Ball applied to the Court for separate trials, or alternatively for the accused to be tried in groups. He also complained that the prisoners were wearing detainees’ clothing and not their own clothing.

  Judge Buttrose: The issue here Mr Ball is not whether they are detainees, but whether one or more or all of these detainees committed this offence.

  Mr Ball also asked the Judge to note on record that the dock had a door with a grille around it.

  Judge Buttrose: Mr Ball, are you seriously contending that this is not justified in this case?

  Later the Judge remarked (the jury was not present) that he would feel ‘distinctly alarmed’ sitting there for the next three months ‘with everything wide open’. He pointed out that any reasonable number of determined men could do irreparable harm in a very few minutes.

  Mr Ball: We do have cases in other countries where we don’t have this kind of precaution.

  Judge Buttrose: Unfortunately, Mr Ball, we have not in my experience ever had a case of this sort.

  Mr Ball: Not of this magnitude.

  Judge Buttrose: Or of this appalling kind.

  Counsel argued that these unusual security precautions were brought about because of the large number of accused, which he held produced an unfavourable atmosphere for the accused. This could be avoided if there were small groups and if they wore their own clothing.

  Mr Ball pointed out the magnitude of the trial. He held that the prosecution would have to prove, and the defence to meet, and the Court to give separate directions, in respect of 177 murder charges, because there were three charges for each of the 59 people. In respect of each case no less than 15 issues appeared to arise on the wording of the charges alone. And in respect of these several thousand issues, the evidence of 95 witnesses had to be tabulated and considered in each case. Such multiplicity would not arise in the case o
f separate trials, or trials of smaller groups. He argued that separate trials might well shorten the proceedings especially where one or more of the accused should fall ill in the course of the trial, ‘because if any one of them chooses to fall ill, so to speak, the whole trial might be delayed for an awfully long time’. All the other defence counsel supported Mr Ball’s application.

  Crown Counsel, Mr Francis Seow, objected. He was confident that the prosecution could put across its case in respect of all three charges against the 59 accused in one trial. The Judge intervened to observe that if there were separate trials ‘we could go on for several years’.

  Seow pointed out that the riot took place on a penal island and the persons on trial were detainees. “There is no way of getting round it, my Lord: and the fact would also come out that these persons are secret society members. That is why they have been arrested under the Criminal Law. Many of the witnesses will be similarly attired: they are also Criminal Law detainees.” Crown Counsel added that having group trials would take too long a period.

  Judge Buttrose: That, of course, is quite irrelevant, unfortunately. Obviously all of us want to get this case over and done with, but we can’t just say that we can’t have separate trials because they would take too much time.

  Crown counsel argued that it would be difficult to avoid press reports of each trial and the question of injustice might then arise.

  Judge Buttrose: The fact that the issues may be multifarious, the fact that there are a large number of accused, the fact that it may be difficult perhaps, or more difficult than usual, to give a clear picture of this case to the jury, is, of course, no reason why either separate trials or trials in groups should be ordered. All I think I need say for the purposes of dealing with the arguments is in my view, difficult and unpleasant though the task and duty would be, that I direct that all the accused shall be tried together at this trial on the three charges.

  The Judge, having ordered each accused to wear an identification number (‘how can you expect seven jurors to remember 59 names?’), urged all concerned to ‘let us get this case started on the rails’. Mr Ball formally applied for separate trials for separate charges on separate charge sheets, and the Judge refused the application, noting that all defence counsel associated themselves with the objection to a mass trial. “Now, have them charged,” demanded the Judge, and the trial was under way. One juror asked to be excused because he knew one of the accused by sight, ‘and I also have a lot of work to do’. The Judge excused him because he knew the accused. Another person was empannelled, and Loo Ting Soo was elected Foreman. The other six jurors were Lee Em Long, Ang Buck Chin, Siew Ngar Kee, Goh Siew Hee, Boey Poh Wai and Ong Kim Siang.

  Mr Francis Seow opened his case. He addressed the Court for about three hours. His first witness was Corporal Albert Brendan Kitchen, a Royal Air Force photographer stationed at the RAF station at Seletar, Singapore. He testified that he took 63 photographs of Pulau Senang during the afternoon of 13 July, and later handed the negatives to Inspector Maurice Oh. S.V. Rajan, a police photographer, gave evidence that he took 18 photographs of various scenes on the island. Five photographs were of four male corpses.

  Before adjournment at 4:00 PM that afternoon, the Judge asked for the co-operation of counsel in not smoking in Court. There was a notice to that effect. “If you start smoking I will leave the Bench,” he warned. He also ordered that counsel must not talk to the accused in Court. Counsel would, of course, want to discuss matters with their clients and the prison authorities would make arrangements for them to see them at any time, either before the Court sits or after the adjournment. When Ball began to protest, the Judge reminded him that the trial was ‘quite a major operation’. He promised counsel that proper arrangements would be made for them to see their clients privately, not in Court.

  Few of the accused could speak English. Simultaneous translations had to be organised in Chinese dialects and Tamil. The Judge asked the Court authorities to arrange for extra microphones. Counsel on the second morning of the trial also took the opportunity to raise another important matter. Could a short adjournment be made at 11:30 AM, ‘as some of us’, said Koh, ‘may not have as strong a kidney as the others’.

  Judge Buttrose: If you feel any discomfort during the sitting, Mr Koh, do please stand up and let me know. I am not going to make a 10-minute break a feature of the day. If the jurors feel discomfort they can also let me know.

  Another defence counsel sought the Court’s permission for the accused to have paper and pencil with which to make notes. The Judge at once agreed. Then came the question of whether the accused would take pencil and paper back to prison. Crown Counsel said no; but did not object to the accused taking in an exercise book with the pages numbered. But pencils could not be taken into prison. The Judge agreed. At last, during the afternoon of 19 November, the trial of the 59 men began in earnest when Major Peter Lionel James was called to the witness box. He was asked about the note he wrote in April to Dutton about work hours.

  Mr Braga: The conditions on the island were such that they were being slave-driven, driven like beasts of burden rather than human beings? It was the injustice and unfair treatment they were receiving that brought about this incident?

  Major James: I cannot agree with you. In my opinion there was no slave-driving. The place was run in what I consider the most enlightened manner. In fact I would not mind saying too enlightened.

  Mr Braga: It was the corruption, the injustice, the forced labour that brought this about?

  Major James: No.

  Mr Francis Seow: Major James, you visited Pulau Senang regularly. Did they look like slaves?

  Major James: No, they were always cheerful. Pleased to see me.

  Crown Counsel: Did anyone appear undernourished?

  Major James: Quite the reverse. They were all tanned by the sun and they looked to me almost like a collection of weight-lifters, big hefty fellows.

  Major James was asked if he knew Dutton well.

  “I knew him intimately.”

  “How would you describe his ability as superintendent of the island?”

  “He was a natural leader of men. He was a born leader. He was a most accomplished engineer. He was a man with the most effervescent personality, a man who was afraid of no task, a man who was prepared to give his most and best to what he believed in. He was never happy unless he was outside doing things himself. He designed everything. There was nothing on Pulau Senang which was not designed or built by him.”

  Dutton joined the British army as a boy, came to Southeast Asia with Mountbatten’s forces, took his discharge in Singapore and joined the Singapore Harbour Board police. In 1947, he joined the Prisons Department. James said that Dutton was a natural leader. If there was any good in a man he would bring it out.

  James described Dutton as an extremely humane person. He would call upon James often and ask him to try to help find work for men released from Pulau Senang. “He would ask me to intercede with the Central Investigation Department (CID) over certain individuals released to the Work Brigade and had got into trouble with that organisation and were in immediate danger of being detained all over again. If a man had genuine trouble at home, Dutton was quick to apprise me of the facts.”

  James said at Pulau Senang detainees led more or less a free existence: they moved about freely. They could play games. They could swim in the sea. It was better than Changi Prison. If a man went back to Changi as a criminal detainee, the maximum time out of his cell would be about four hours a day. They lived in dormitories on Pulau Senang: in Changi, in cells.

  James said he did not see the urgency for the jetty being finished. Dutton on the other hand was most anxious to complete it and to get it into operation. Dutton said he was expecting bad weather. He feared that the tide would move, pass over the jetty unless he hurried up.

  James explained to one defence counsel that the long-service prisoners from Changi were used at Pulau Senang as storemen, clerks and che
ckers. They did not take part in the riot. About 200 detainees were not involved. There were some 300 there altogether.

  Major James emphatically denied that any detainee, or detainee’s relative, ever complained to him about being overworked. He didn’t agree they were overworked. Following talks with his staff, he felt there was no reason for the tempo of work to continue at such a pace. He was aware that they had been working extremely hard, and he wanted to tone it down. He emphatically denied that Dutton was a slave driver. He was one of the kindest men he had ever met.