Cold Blooded Murders

by Alex Josey

  Low Chai Kiat, defended by Mr Braga, was a secondary schoolboy, a former Boy Scout. He claimed he was no rioter. Indeed he had gone to Tailford’s assistance.

  Mr Braga did not deny there was a riot, though his three clients, he said, did not take part. The riot was really a rebellion. They were rebelling against unjust treatment when they destroyed the settlement which they had by their sweat and toil developed into a ‘showpiece of the world’. Counsel insisted that the prosecution had failed miserably to prove the charges against the accused. He argued that Dutton had been over-enthusiastic and not treated the men as human beings. Low tide came in twice a day and Dutton had worked the men on the jetty on both tides every twenty-four hours. Men were exhausted and so hungry that they had even to ask for bread in advance and to have it deducted from their rations later. Mr Braga said that human emotions were like the spring of a watch. If the watch was properly wound it would serve well. If this was not handled with care it would require repairs. If it was given a final twist it became irreparable. “And so it was on the day of the riot. The safety valve went loose and the detainees went berserk.” Counsel said he supported Mr Ball’s contention that Pulau Senang had not been run under prison regulations as it should have been.

  During the next two weeks, from 10 to 27 February, defence counsel made their submissions. On 5 March, Crown Counsel concluded his address to the jury. Then Judge Buttrose began his summing up.

  The Summing Up

  “You have been told,” observed the Judge, “that it was better that 10 guilty men should go free rather than one innocent man should be convicted. Of course it would be better, but that is not good enough. It is our duty to see that such a situation does not arise. That such a situation should be allowed to exist and to grow and to develop in stature would, in my opinion, constitute a grave reflection on the administration of the criminal jurisprudence of any civilized country. It is, gentlemen of the jury, more than ever necessary in this present day and age that the rule of law should be proclaimed aloud for all to hear: that those who offend against it shall be punished; and those who observe and obey it shall be allowed to live in freedom and security under it.” He reminded them that ‘it is on the evidence and the evidence alone, given before you and nothing else, that you must decide this case’. He told them to dismiss from their minds entirely the question of some of the accused going sick and holding up the proceedings. The accused, ‘having been certified as fit, the trial proceeded and the incident closed. It had nothing to do with the issues with which you are concerned—namely whether the 58 accused are guilty or not guilty of these three charges of murder’.

  He explained that there were four main elements of the charge. First, that all the accused were members of an unlawful assembly. Second, that the common objects of that unlawful assembly were to cause the death of Dutton, Singham, Tan Kok Hian, Cartoon, Chia Teck Whee, and others, and to cause the destruction of Pulau Senang. The third is that while these 58 were members of that unlawful assembly, one or more members of the assembly committed murder by causing the death of Dutton, Singham and Tan Kok Hian. The fourth ingredient is that murder was an offence, which the members of that unlawful assembly knew to be likely to be committed in the prosecution of the common objects of that assembly.

  The Judge gave an illustration of a common object of an unlawful assembly. “Supposing two persons go out one night to steal a bicycle which they found on the side of the road and, as they were taking it away in the furtherance of their common object to steal, the owner suddenly appears and endeavours to prevent them, and one of them suddenly pulls a gun from his pocket and shoots the owner through the heart and kills him—and you will assume, for the purposes of this illustration that the agreement between the two accused was simply to steal the bicycle and nothing more. Well, then the man who pulled out the gun and shot the owner through the heart would have been exceeding the common intention of the two, which was merely to steal the bicycle. One, therefore would not be guilty of murder, unless it could be shown that they had agreed beforehand that should the owner resist they were prepared to kill him, and had weapons with them to do so.

  “What was the common object of this unlawful assembly? Was it merely to riot, attack the prison staff, knock them about, damage a building or two? Or was it rather to wipe Pulau Senang off the map and all it stood for, including those in authority and anyone else who thwarted or opposed this unlawful assembly in achieving this common object, this end? Or was it perhaps, as Major James told us, an act of open and deliberate defiance against the Singapore Government to show that Pulau Senang, and those in authority there, could not contain these police detainees?

  What is murder? Murder is committed if the act which caused death is done firstly with the intention of causing death, or secondly with the intention of causing such bodily injury as the accused knew to be likely to cause death, or thirdly with the intention of causing bodily injury sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. Murder may therefore be simply defined as the unlawful killing of one human being by another human being with any of these three intentions—the intention to kill, the intention of causing such bodily injury which the accused knew to be likely to kill, or was sufficient in the ordinary cause of nature to kill.

  Every person is presumed to intend the natural and probable consequences of his acts: in other words that he intends to do what in fact he does. If a person for example, deliberately and intentionally slashes at another with a parang, or an axe or a cangkul, on the face or the head or the neck or the chest, or any other vital part of the human body, or fires a pistol at point-blank range at another man’s chest, or pours petrol over someone and sets it alight, you may, I think without difficulty and not unreasonably, arrive at the conclusion that he intended to kill him, or to cause him such bodily injury as he knew to be likely to kill, or was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to kill him. And if in fact the victim dies, then murder has been committed.”

  The Judge emphasised the importance of the fourth ingredient of the charge: that murder was an offence which the members of the unlawful assembly knew to be likely to be committed. The expression ‘knew to be likely to be committed’ connoted a knowledge based upon facts known to all members of the unlawful assembly at the time that murder was likely to be committed.

  “If in this case the offence of murder was one which the accused knew to be likely to be committed by one or more of them, then it may fairly and properly be imputed to all of them. So it matters not in this case who of these 58 accused struck the blow or blows which killed Dutton, Singham, Tan Kok Hian. If, while they were members of this unlawful assembly, in the prosecution of its common object, Dutton, Singham and Tan Kok Hian were murdered by a member, or members of that unlawful assembly then, if it can be shown that they knew that it was likely that the deaths of these three persons might result, that they were likely to be murdered, then all are equally liable for this offence—all these offences—although they may not have struck a single blow themselves. That is the law, and it constitutes what we call constructive murder, and you must accept my direction on it without question. It is not for you to question the wisdom or otherwise of any provision of the law. You must accept it as I direct you.” The Judge added that what the prosecution had to prove was that there was an unlawful assembly, that the accused were members of it, that they joined this unlawful assembly intentionally, that murder was committed by a member or members of this unlawful assembly while the accused were members of it, and that murder was an offence which the members of this unlawful assembly knew to be likely to be committed in the prosecution of the common objects of the assembly. He reminded the jury that the sole and ultimate responsibility on all questions of fact was theirs and theirs alone. “You, gentlemen of the jury, are as sovereign and supreme in the realm of fact as I am in the realm of law.”

  In this case, as in every criminal case, the onus or burden of proof was upon the prosecution to establish the guilt of
the accused. “It is an onus or burden which never shifts throughout the whole case. It

  is never for the accused or any of them to prove their innocence. They are presumed innocent until proved guilty. The prosecution must prove that guilt … ” The degree of proof required was the proof to the satisfaction of a jury beyond reasonable doubt.

  Said the Judge: “One fact right at the outset emerges clear and undisputed, and it is this: that this uprising, call it what you will, resulted in the virtual complete destruction of Pulau Senang and the killing of its superintendent and three of the settlement attendants killed with a brutality and a callousness which it is difficult to conceive. One of the remarkable and most astonishing features of this uprising, you may agree with me, was the suddenness of its beginning, the violence and the fury of its execution and the fantastic speed and consequent shortness of time in which all its objectives were accomplished. Within a little over half an hour, Pulau Senang was destroyed, four prison officers killed, a number wounded, some seriously. It was also clear beyond dispute that this destruction and slaughter were caused by some of the police detainees detained at Pulau Senang.”

  The Judge recalled that Pulau Senang was started on 18 May 1960 when the first batch of detainees arrived on the island. Dutton, as superintendent, was entrusted with the project which represented a unique and progressive experiment in the prison system development in Singapore. It was to be an open prison with the emphasis on constructive work by the detainees themselves and their rehabi-litation. They were to work and to construct and to see the result of their labour.

  Dutton was given a free hand in the choice of the first batch of detainees to go to the island. It was at that time completely virgin jungle. In the years that followed, under Dutton’s drive, the island was developed. Apart from putting up buildings he had certain parts of the island cultivated. That was part of the rehabilitation programme. Livestock was brought on to the island after the first batch of detainees had landed. Subsequent batches arrived at the rate of 30 a month, and on the day of the tragic disaster, the total number of detainees on the island was 316: and there were three long-sentence prisoners.

  The detainees spent a minimum of 12 months at Changi before they were sent to Pulau Senang. The period on Pulau Senang varied with each detainee. A Review and Rehabilitation Committee was set up to review cases meriting release once a month, and on an average a detainee would have to spend 12 to 18 months at Pulau Senang before his name came up for review. This committee took the place of the Visiting Justices. Names were submitted by Dutton. If the committee recommended release, the detainee was sent in the first instance to the Work Brigade at Jalan Damai Camp as part of the rehabilitation programme. And from there, if they proved themselves, they gravitated into employment by the Prisons Department in various capacities: some of them as settlement attendants. A detainee who broke the regulations or misbehaved on Pulau Senang was returned to Changi. This all the detainees disliked very much because their previous period of detention was written off and they had to start all over again.

  At the commencement of the project, the detainee had to work long and arduous hours in order to get the project underway to construct shelters, accommodation, sleeping quarters, among other things.

  Much had been made, the Judge said, about the hard work. “Now hard work never hurt anyone. It is idle hands that turn to mischief, and one of the prime motives of this rehabilitation programme was to physically exhaust them, to keep them working, to keep them from brooding and from thinking and planning or plotting. To keep them at it out in the sun, in the fresh air, and to send them, physically tired, to bed so that they could sleep.”

  Major James had said that the word work was unknown to them: it was anathema to them … This was an attempt to show that by hard work and effort they could construct something worthwhile, which they could turn to each other and say: ‘Look at what we have done’, and to stop them from sitting in isolation in a cell, brooding over what they considered to be their unjustified detention. “It was never intended that Pulau Senang should be a holiday camp for tired businessmen, nor yet a picnic island for schoolboys and university students on holidays. It was a prison settlement for persons detained under the provisions of the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Ordinance ... ”

  The Judge said that the prosecution’s case was that the ensuing wholesale destruction of Pulau Senang, the killing of the four prison staff, ‘stems from the incident of the 13 carpenters who refused to work overtime on that Saturday afternoon’.

  The Judge agreed with Major James that it was an ill-advised action on the part of Dutton. “To say that the subsequent action taken by the detainees concerned to avenge what they thought was an injustice was out of all proportion to the occasion is, I think, a masterpiece of understatement.”

  Four witnesses said they overheard Tan Kheng Ann, Chia Yuan Fatt and Cheong Wai Sang and two others (all of whom were said to hold high positions in their respective secret societies) plot to kill Dutton on 6 July. Chia told one of the carpenters: “Do not worry. We will settle accounts with Dutton and liquidate him.” “That meeting on 6 July was where this conspiracy to kill Dutton, to carry out some incidents when he was on the island, was first hatched ... ”

  The defence had described the evidence against the plotters as ‘a tissue of falsehood engendered by spite and by a desire for release’.

  The Judge discussed the categories of witnesses called by the prosecution. A large number of them were fellow detainees. There were also ex-detainees who had become settlement attendants ‘who had, so to speak, graduated out from Pulau Senang to the Work Brigade and were then taken back as rehabilitated members of society’. The Judge warned that evidence of fellow detainees, ex-detainees and long-sentence prisoners required careful scrutiny, attention and examination. Their evidence must be considered with care and caution. In some instances, they were members of rival gangs to which some of the accused were members. He warned that the evidence of one accomplice cannot be used to corroborate the evidence of another accomplice.

  One witness, Chong Sek Ling, was not in the Judge’s view an accomplice. “He appeared to co-operate with Tan Kheng Ann when the plot to kill Dutton and destroy Pulau Senang was being hatched but only, if you accept his evidence, to obtain information to pass on to Dutton. Thereafter he took no part whatever in the subsequent uprising. The fact that he helped himself to some food in the canteen, is not in my view sufficient to constitute him an accomplice in this crime. That is a matter which you must consider ... ”

  “Chong Sek Ling said he saw Corporal Choo on the ground and Quek Hai Cheng using his body to cover him and protect him from the blows … Chong then went to the kitchen as he felt certain apparently at that stage that there would be no food that night, and like a sensible man, he said he wanted to equip himself for the long ordeal ahead. He had already, you may think, made a very sound and accurate appraisal of the situation. It is small wonder perhaps that he has risen to the rank of General Headman of Group 18, one of the highest ranks a secret society man can attain. You may think he was a person of considerable resource and initiative who, in any other walk of life, might have well been regarded as an elder statesman, or if at school, a head prefect, and it is a sorry reflection that he should have attained his ambition in the ranks of a secret society.”

  The Judge said that the detainees had affection for Chong—trusted him … looked upon him as a sort of elder statesman in their hierarchy of gangsterism. Chong denied he was an informer. He said he was spying on the accused to inform Dutton. He gave his evidence, he told the Court, not in the hope of getting release. He said he had wanted to help Dutton because Dutton was fair in the release of detainees. Dutton gave the detainees equal treatment, ‘rich or poor, influential or uninfluential’. He admitted that the detainees confided in him because they had an affection for him.

  The Judge said that Chan Wah and Sim Hoe Seng had climbed to the roof. Chan had chopped a hole with a small
axe. Sim poured in the petrol and set it alight. Dutton opened the wire door and rushed out, his clothing on fire, to be confronted by four armed detainees—Chia Yeow Fatt, Lim Tee Kang, Khoo Geok San and Sim Teck Beng. They attacked him. By the time he fell, there were 10 to 20 detainees round him. ‘Let’s bury him near the jetty,’ shouted one. Another was heard to say: ‘Just kill him and set him on fire. Don’t trouble to carry him to the jetty.’

  “One witness said that Tan Kheng Ann was well-known to be Dutton’s favourite and he went with Dutton when Dutton did survey work. Everyone suspected Tan to be Dutton’s informer. Now doesn’t that again tie in, in the most remarkable fashion, with Quek Hai Cheng’s evidence of Hoe Hock Hai raising Tan’s hand and saying ‘Don’t misunderstand him. He is not an informer’. Was this not one way in which Tan was vindicating himself to his colleagues who, according to Quek Hai Cheng, all suspected him of being Dutton’s informer, by being perhaps, one of the prime movers in his death? Doesn’t that explain the cry of Lim Kim Chuan? He proved himself—that he was not an informer—by killing Dutton.”

  Quek Hai Cheng claimed that when Corporal Choo fell down and Tan Kheng Ann was about to slash him with a parang, Quek threw himself over Corporal Choo’s body to protect him. His reason for doing so was that Corporal Choo was a very nice man, married with children while he himself was a gangster and prepared to sacrifice his life for Corporal Choo. And in his evidence Corporal Choo said that is exactly what he did. He claimed later that he was pretending to attack Tailford while actually trying to ward off the blows being rained on Tailford with a stick.

  The Judge remarked that if on 6 July the 13 carpenters had set to work with a will, they could have repaired the moulds on the jetty in about 20 minutes.