by Alex Josey
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.
Mr Abisheganaden: May I be permitted to ask him where he was at the time of the riot?
Judge: No but I will allow you a special privilege. You may confer with him, but I will not allow you to question him.
The accused then told the Court that at the time of the riot he was at the vegetable patch.
Neo Kim Leong swore he did not take part in the riot. He said that the settlement attendant who gave evidence against him had quarrelled with him in 1962. He had refused to give medicine to him. He was then in charge of the hospital. As for the sergeant who gave evidence against him, he had a grudge because he had caught the accused fishing in the sea.
Lim Heng Soon, aged 24, unmarried, said he did not take part in the riot, but had seized the opportunity to try to escape in the boat.
Mr Suppiah began the defence of Somasundram, Somasundarajoo and Lim Kim Chuan. Somasundram was 23. He was educated up to fourth standard in English and first standard in Tamil. He had lived with an uncle. His parents were killed during the Japanese occupation. He said the witness Chia had several grudges against him. Eighteen witnesses had picked him out as a rioter. Accused said he could not understand why. He could not recognise any rioters himself.
Somasundarajoo was aged 24. He spoke Chinese. He had spent two years in school when his father died. Eight witnesses had said he was rioting. He denied it. He saw no rioting, just buildings burning and bottles being thrown about.
Lim Kim Chuan at first complained that he had a headache, then he decided he would like to remain silent. This was not good enough for the Judge.
Judge: I’m not going to have it said later on that he remained silent because he had a headache. If he does want to remain silent that is a matter entirely for him. It must be completely a voluntary decision, and not forced upon him by the fact that he has a headache.
Mr Suppiah: Accused says that the incident took place quite some time ago. He was afraid that he would be confused were he to give evidence. He preferred to remain silent.
Judge: You are properly satisfied that this is his own choice, not because he has a headache, or any other reason?
Mr Suppiah: Yes, my Lord.
Mr Chng’s clients remained silent. He called no witnesses.
Chua Hai Imm was to have given his evidence on oath. He changed his mind and said he would make an unsworn statement from the dock.
He said the prosecutor was unjust. “I did not take part in the riot. Robert Choo has a grudge against me. The prosecutor is very unfair.”
Tan Tien Lay decided to remain silent. No witnesses came forward on his behalf. Both were defended by Mr Tann.
Mr Advani then addressed the jury on behalf of Kwek Kok Wah, who made an unsworn statement. He called no witnesses. In his statement he said he did not riot.
Teo Han Teck, formerly a seaman, claimed he had helped Tailford by rubbing his chest. He helped to carry him to the shade of a big tree, then he bandaged his head with a towel. Teo said he stood up to help when an officer called upon them to help and told them: ‘You will be released earlier’. That, said Teo, ‘was one of the golden opportunities which I seized’. Ng Chuan Puay elected to remain silent. He called no witnesses.
Mr Koh’s two clients, Tay Teck Bok and Aziz bin Salim (alias Terry) had elected to remain silent, but Aziz at the last minute changed his mind and gave evidence on oath. Mr Koh addressed the Court briefly on behalf of Aziz, Aziz spoke English. He had been educated at Bartley Secondary School and had left in form five, the top form. His father had been manager of a big cinema in the suburb of Katong. Aziz wore spectacles. He said he was in the mosque when the siren sounded. Eight witnesses had identified him as a rioter. He said he couldn’t understand why. They were either mistaken or had grudges against him. The first witness who said he saw Aziz taking part in the rioting was Chong Sek Ling, ‘otherwise known as Lau Hor Kia, the Number One General of the 13 Wonders Secret Society’. Aziz insisted that Chong was mistaken. Aziz said he knew Cartoon (Weng Loke Hai) had a grudge against him. A Malay witness also had a grudge against him because Aziz had accused him of stealing rations from the kitchen. Aziz said he did not recognise anybody rioting because he never had his glasses on. The Judge observed that he had worn his glasses throughout the trial. Aziz said he was never armed but he admitted drinking from a bottle a rioter offered him and having drunk from it he threw the empty bottle on the grass. A witness testified that he saw Aziz in the kitchen at the time he was supposed to be rioting.
Mr Jumabhoy’s client, Lim Kim Sian, changed his mind about giving evidence on oath and decided instead to make an unsworn statement from the dock. Koh Ah Tiaw remained silent.
Twenty-one year old Chia Tiong Gunn, a cobbler on the island, gave evidence on oath. He said he ran into the jungle when trouble started and stayed there until the police arrived.
Chia said that the warder who gave evidence against him had a grudge against him. They had quarrelled when the warder was himself a detainee.
Counsel: When was this?
Chia: He stole my sea-shells.
Counsel: Yes. I want to know when.
Chia: In 1961 when he was a police detainee.
Counsel: What sort of sea-shells did he steal from you?
Chia: It is a form of sea-shell: we
call it ‘King Kong’. They are coloured shells. They can be displayed.
Counsel: How many did he steal from you?
Chia: When he was attempting to steal my sea-shells I caught him.
Judge: You caught him red-handed did you?
Chia: Yes.
Counsel: What happened?
Chia: I had an argument with him. I accused him of being a thief in Pulau Senang. He was ashamed and started to quarrel with me.
Counsel: Apart from this incident, was there any other incident?
Chia: Yes, when he became Settlement Assistant he asked me to make a pair of shoes. I refused and he told me to look out.
Counsel: And you say it is because of these two incidents that he has identified you?
Chia: Yes.
Kok Teck Thow (known as ‘Bamboo Head’) also gave evidence on oath. He was 30 years old. He told his counsel that he sent secret letters to relatives and others through a settlement assistant whom he identified. This man collected the money relatives sent in this irregular manner and he and Kok each took a percentage as commission. Kok said four or five detainees were doing this. Kok admitted that he had beaten up a witness a month prior to the rioting ‘for dirtying the hall after I had cleaned it’. Consequently, the man bore him a grudge.