Cold Blooded Murders

by Alex Josey

  Quek Hai Cheng: Gangster.

  Counsel: You belong to 969 Secret Society?

  Quek Hai Cheng: Yes.

  Counsel: What were you in the society?

  Quek Hai Cheng: Fighter.

  Counsel: Did you ever have fights with them in Changi Jail?

  Quek Hai Cheng: Yes.

  Asked about gangs in Pulau Senang, Quek said there were all sorts of gangs in Pulau Senang … 69, 569, 13 Wonders, the O.A. Group.

  Mr Braga asked him the duties of a fighter and Quek replied: “To fight until the enemy runs away.”

  Mr Braga suggested that Quek was in fact one of the leading rioters. Quek contemptuously denied this, or that he struck Tailford. “If I had,” he replied, “he would have been dead.” He said that as a gangster he had never killed.

  Group 969 was an affiliate to Group 24—969 added up made 24.

  The sheer monotony of the evidence, the covering of the same ground by numerous witnesses, irritated Judge and Counsel.

  Crown Counsel questioned a witness to establish the time of an incident.

  Witness: According to my watch it was 2:00 PM.

  Judge: Next question.

  Counsel: Now what I want to know is: was it accurate?

  Witness: I don’t think it was accurate. It was, at the time, under repair. I took it for repair afterwards.

  Judge: Don’t ask him the make of the watch, please.

  Counsel: As it pleases you.

  Judge: Well, it is not as it pleases at all—I am merely extremely angry. This is not finished.

  Occasionally there were flashes of humour, but not many. Chua Cheng Hin, a witness (in jail serving a three-year sentence for armed robbery, transferred to Pulau Senang to serve as a records clerk), was complimented by the Judge on his ‘magnificent voice production’. Added the weary Judge: “I only wish that other witnesses can reproduce it. I think you should leave robbery alone, and give your attention to being a drill instructor. You would make a reputation.” The witness smiled: “Thank you very much, my Lord.”

  Another witness was asked: “What were they supposed to do after killing Dutton?”

  “Escape in boats.”

  Goh Kheng Wah, another witness, was asked by Mr Braga whether he had an old grudge against one of the accused.

  Goh Kheng Wah: No.

  Mr Braga: There was an incident at Changi concerning a septic tank?

  Goh Kheng Wah: At Changi I worked as a man who swept the floor, served the people, served them with food.

  Mr Braga: I suggest the accused asked you to help him in the repair of a septic tank some months ago?

  Goh Kheng Wah: No.

  Mr Braga: And you nearly had a fight over it?”

  Goh Kheng Wah: No.

  Interpreter: One of the accused is vomitting, my Lord.

  Judge: Have him moved and we will adjourn for a moment. Is he unwell?

  Interpreter: He is Chua Hai Imm.

  Judge: Take the poor fellow below.

  He was taken below.

  Judge: Get someone to clean it up.

  Interpreter: I have sent for the sweeper to come.

  Judge: And with speed.

  The man had a pain in his chest. The Court adjourned until the afternoon when a doctor’s chit was produced certifying that he was fit to stand trial. The accused told the Judge that he did not feel so bad, but ‘I’m afraid that when I get the wind the vomit will come out’.

  Judge: Can you please let me know when he feels it coming on again?

  The following day another prisoner was taken ill with stomach-ache. He went downstairs for two minutes to take pills.

  Later Tan Kheng Ann said he felt ill and was taken downstairs for five minutes.

  Naturally defence counsel set out to discredit prosecution witnesses if they could.

  One witness complained he was confused when counsel after counsel asked him the same questions or variations of them. How many were in the mob which attacked? What time was that? Exactly where? What was the time?

  “I have no watch,” repeated the witness. “You want me to answer yes, or no, some want me to make guess, to estimate. I am confused.”

  Mr Braga asked Low Ah Kow, a former detainee turned settlement staff, whether he took part in the riot. Low had said he was looking after the non-rioters and trying to see who were taking part in the riot. “If I were to take part in the fight all the staff might have been killed, in which case there would have been no witnesses at all.”

  Judge: Entirely logical; we would not be here either.

  On Monday, 9 December, the Judge announced that he had received a note from the prison hospital regarding Chua Hai Imm. He was found to be in a state of hysteria. He was referred to a psychiatrist. The Judge had no option but to adjourn. The Court met the next day when the Judge said he had received a certificate to the effect that Chua would be unable to appear for a week. The Court accordingly adjourned. They met the following Monday. Chua returned, certified fit. But then another man went down, followed by another.

  The danger of which Mr Ball had warned, (that a mass trial could collapse if but one single prisoner fell ill) now seriously threatened the proceedings. What should be done?

  Crown Counsel suggested that rather than hold up the trial, the Judge should order a discharge not amounting to an acquittal, of the two sick prisoners, and continue with the trial of the others.

  Judge: You have no authority you can give me in support of that?

  Mr Francis Seow: I have not been able to find any authority.

  Mr Ball (on behalf of the two sick men): I cannot find anything in the Halsbury Criminal Law in England in regard to the discharge of the jury partially. My submission is that if Your Lordship pronounces the words, the jury is discharged then, and the jury is discharged in respect of all.

  Judge: This could go on and this trial will become a farce, which I want to avoid.

  Mr Ball: If there is an application for an adjournment then Your Lordship ought to discharge the jury and the prosecution should consider whether they should not then have separate trials as we applied for in the first instance.

  Judge: The same position could arise, not with the same magnitude as this, with only one accused.

  The Judge said that in this matter he expected all the counsel to consider the matter carefully. “You are all officers of the court. While you have a prime duty to your clients, you also have a duty to see to the administration of the law. And what we have all got to try to see is that this case shall be concluded in a proper and fair manner.” He adjourned the Court until Wednesday, 18 December.

  When the Court reassembled the Judge said he had received two further certificates. They said that the two prisoners would be absent for another week. The Judge said he had come to the very clear conclusion that the Prosecutor’s suggestion was inappropriate. This could go on week after week. An accused feels unwell. The prison doctor sends him to Woodbridge Mental Hospital, and the Woodbridge doctor keeps him for a week’s observation. “If this happened to every one of the accused we could sit here for over a year while the accused go to and from Woodbridge. The position would be a complete farce. What has been exercising my mind is how to plug the hole. What do you suggest?”

  Mr Francis Seow: My Lord, may I suggest we send them all down to Woodbridge. My application is that the accused be remanded in custody for observation by the psychiatrist.

  Judge: That would take months.

  Mr Francis Seow: The psychiatrist says a year.

  Judge: What do you suggest—that we sit and simply go into cold storage for a year?

  Mr Seow eventually asked for the jury to be discharged in respect of all the accused because of the illness of some of them.

  Mr Ball opposed this. “It would be unfair and improper for persons to have to stand 16 days’ trial and then, for a reason which is quite beyond their control, to have their jury discharged and be obliged to stand another trial at a later date.” He asked the Judge to direct
the jury to acquit some of them before the jury was discharged.

  Judge: On what grounds do you suggest that the jury should discharge some of the accused, and in which case, which accused, Ball?

  Mr Ball: Well, I should say all my accused, naturally.

  Judge: Are you making this application seriously, Mr Ball?

  Mr Ball: I think it is my duty to do so.

  Judge: I should like some authority on this. On what grounds do you suggest I should discharge your clients, or the jury should acquit them?

  Mr Ball: On the grounds that serious injustice would be done if the jury is discharged at this stage, after 16 days of trial and for no reason of their own.

  The Judge thought the application completely without merit. The rest of the defence counsel addressed the Judge. They all opposed the discharge of the jury except Mr Suppiah, who did not object.

  Mr Francis Seow: You have discretion under section 191 of the Criminal Procedure Code to discharge the jury ...

  Judge: Section 191 applies only to where one accused or two or three accused went sick and cannot stand trial; then of course the jury will be discharged. But here we have, say, 57 accused perfectly fit and they want their fates decided. Two have fallen by the wayside. We can either wait, adjourn, or we can go on without them. What you are asking me to do is to discharge the jury from this case though there are 57 accused ready and willing to be tried. I don’t think I can do it … If it happens again, the accused must be brought here with the doctor. I shall have the doctor put in the witness box and I shall question him myself. I am not going to accept his certificates any further. I shall require the doctor’s personal presence. As I say, I am not going to have this trial jettisoned or sabotaged. It is going on if we sit for a year. I hope I have made that clear to everybody—to the accused and their counsel? Mr Seow your application is overruled. The case will proceed. You must decide what you are going to do with the two absent accused.

  Mr Seow asked for a week’s adjournment. Mr Ball opposed the adjournment. Before making his decision, the Judge ordered the prison doctor and the director of Woodbridge Hospital to be brought before him immediately after the lunch break.

  Dr S.K. Leong said he examined Lim Thiam Huat. “I was told at the hospital that he had suddenly turned mad.” The doctor said he examined him and found that his general condition was satisfactory. He was shouting and yelling and his whole body was covered with excreta. He had poured a pot of his own excreta over himself. “I gave him an injection to calm him down and advised a transfer to Woodbridge for observation.” Questioned by the Judge as to whether it was a genuine case or not, the doctor said he was not prepared to say. For one reason, he was not qualified to judge. As for Khoo Geok San, he was found lying on the floor in his cell—same symptoms. He was very excited and he was mumbling.

  Judge: Can you tell me if this was done deliberately or whether it was as a result of something he was suffering from? You cannot help me?

  Dr Leong: I do not think so.

  Judge: Doctor, I must impress upon you. You must look upon this with the greatest care. You see we are trying here a number of accused persons. And if this trial is being held up—it may be perfectly proper—but I have to be satisfied that it is being properly held up. The only people who can help me are people like you, and presumably Dr Wong. I must try to get to the root of this matter. If it is held up through illness, perfectly proper. And if it is feigned it has got to be stopped and I am going to stop it.

  Judge (to Dr Wong): Now doctor, we are engaged on a very serious and arduous trial and my duty is to see that it is conducted fairly, according to law, without let or hindrance and I am determined to see that it shall be.

  Dr Wong: Lim Thian Huat was malingering. It was feigned insanity. He will be sent back tomorrow. I can let you know about Khoo Geok San by Friday.

  The Court adjourned until Monday.

  All the accused were in the dock again on 23 December, Dr Wong having sent back Khoo with a certificate that he feigned insanity and was fit to stand trial. The Judge addressed the Court and told the accused again that they might be able to delay the trial, but tried they would be, and according to law. He also warned counsel that it was not their duty to sit back with a complacent smile while this sort of conduct was undertaken by clients. It was their duty to advise their clients. If by their silence they sat back and allowed this conduct to continue, they would have to take the consequences.

  Mr Ball: Your Lordship seems to have said something gravely reflecting on the conduct of counsel in this case, and I for my part, if I may, respectfully protest to that, especially as to any manner of demeanour. If there has been anything improper in my demeanour I apologise, of course, but I really must protest because I have not.

  Judge: Mr Ball, you said last week, when we were arguing on the question of what had to be done, that it was through no fault of the accused here that we were in this position. Now nothing in my view could be more misleading or incorrect. It was entirely due to the conduct of your two clients that we are in the position we are today. I don’t propose to argue any further. Will you please resume your seat.

  When the trial re-started again on 23 December suddenly it was noticed that Khoo (alias Stonehead) had fallen asleep.

  Judge: Sit up properly.

  Official: He doesn’t want to.

  Judge: Well, make him. If necessary, tie him. I am not going to have the administration of justice flouted in this fashion.

  ‘Stonehead’ was duly strapped to the bench on which he sat.

  Judge: If others feel so tempted they will be treated similarly. If necessary I will have a guard to each prisoner.

  ‘Stonehead’ again interrupted the proceedings in the afternoon when Ball said his client felt unwell having had a ‘lumbar puncture’. He was given a chair and told to make himself as comfortable as possible.

  Interpreter: Accused has vomitted on the floor.

  Judge: Now I wonder if he could be asked why he waited until he came up here to do so instead of doing it in the cell below? Please get the amah to have it cleaned up so that we can proceed.

  ***

  Wong Loke Hai, another witness for the prosecution, said he was a settlement attendant. He admitted that he had been sentenced to eight years in Changi for armed robbery before he became an attendant at Pulau Senang.

  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.