by Alex Josey
Reviewing the defence, the Judge pointed out that 44 of the 58 accused said nothing in their defence; they remained silent; 11 went into the box and made their defence on oath, three made unsworn statements from the dock …
“Now, because an accused person has elected to remain silent or to make an unsworn statement from the dock you must not draw any adverse inference against him. It is a course which the law expressly provides that he may adopt. The proper way, I suggest, to treat the position of an accused remaining silent is this: that the accused is in effect saying to the prosecution: You must prove your case against me. Unless and until you have done this there is nothing for me to answer. And in such a case you are left with the prosecution’s evidence. An accused person who makes an unsworn statement from the dock cannot be cross-examined but the statement is entitled to, and must receive the most careful scrutiny and attention, for it is his defence in accordance with the law.”
Judge Buttrose pointed out that Tan Kheng Ann had been identified by 30 prosecution witnesses. “Their evidence establishes—if you accept it—that he played a prominent, if not (a) major, role in this uprising. He was one of the original plotters, took part in the attacks on Dutton and Singham which resulted in their deaths. The evidence establishes—if you accept it—that he was a leader of this unlawful assembly from start to finish. Of the thirty witnesses only four bore him a grudge. What the prosecution said was that the cumulative effect of the evidence of all thirty witnesses leads you inexorably and inevitably to one conclusion only: that Tan Kheng Ann is guilty of the offences with which he has been charged.”
Chia Yeow Fatt had been identified by nine witnesses, Cheong Wai Sang by 19 witnesses, Lim Tee Kang by 24 witnesses, Khoo Geok San by 21 witnesses, Hoe Hock Hai was identified by 13 witnesses, Peh Guan Hock by six witnesses, Chia Geok Choo by 18 witnesses.
The Judge referred to a comment by Counsel that it was extraordinary that in such a short space of time, a number of weapons could apparently have passed through the hands of one individual. “Well, I suggest one explanation is that they did not keep these weapons in their hands throughout the uprising. They used them as missiles. They flung them at the settlement attendants. So it was not strange that one accused person was seen with perhaps five or six different weapons in his hands at different times.”
Yeow Yew Boon had been identified by five prosecution witnesses, Teng Eng Tay by five, Ong Aik Kwong by 10, Chew Thiam Huat by 10, Heng Lian Choo by five, Lim Teck San by seven, Sia Ah Kow by three. Sim Cheng Tee had made his defence from the witness box. The gist of his defence was that he took no part in the riot. He called two witnesses both of whom saw the accused, but saw no rioting. “Does that not leave you with a sense of unreality?” asked the Judge. (Apparently it did. The jury found Sia guilty of rioting.) Sim Hoe Seng was identified by 18 witnesses, Tan Yin Chwee by seven, Toh Kok Peng by five, Ng Cheng Liong by eight, Sim Teck Beng by seven, and Tan Tian Soo also by seven.
Ang Teck Kee gave evidence on oath. He said he had been a shop assistant. He could not explain why several witnesses identified him as a rioter. (The jury found him guilty.) Chew Yam Meng remained silent. He had been identified by 10 witnesses who said he was one of a group strutting around like victors or conquerors. Tan Lian Choon remained silent. Cheong Kim Seng was identified by three witnesses. Tan Chin remained silent. He had attacked Tailford, according to the evidence. Leow Ah Chai had remained silent. Only one witness had identified him, and the Judge cautioned the jury that if they had any reasonable doubt about the evidence against him they should return a verdict of ‘Not Guilty’. Chia Teck Whee, the witness against him, had said that Leow had been armed with a stick.
If the jury were satisfied that Leow was a member of the unlawful assembly when Dutton and the others were killed ‘then it would be open to you to find him guilty of rioting with deadly weapons, if you are satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that he had been identified correctly by witness Chia, that he was armed as alleged’. The jury decided there was a reasonable doubt and Leow was found ‘Not Guilty’. Yong Ah Chew made an unsworn statement to the effect that he did not riot, though two witnesses said he did (and the jury believed them). Yong said the two witnesses lied. Soh Ah Kang was identified by only one witness, Chia Teck Whee. Again the Judge warned the jury about accepting this evidence (the jury did not: Soh was found ‘Not Guilty’). There were two witnesses against Choy Peng Kwong, four against Heng Boon Leng, two against Teng Ah Kow.
Neo Kim Leong gave evidence on oath. His defence was that he took no part in the riot, but ran off with the others to the jetty. He did not know why he joined them. He never asked why they were running, or what it was all about. He went into the sea because the others did. Sergeant Abdul had given evidence that Neo had been in the front line of the rioters.
Lim Heng Soon gave evidence on oath. He said he had nothing to do with the rioting, he was merely seizing an opportunity to escape in a boat. It was a sudden decision. He found conditions on the island inhuman. The Judge pointed out that one of the men in the boat with Lim had been heard to say earlier the same morning that they planned to kill Dutton and escape by boat.
Ng Pang Leng remained silent. Only one witness said Ng was rioting. Lim Thian Huat also said nothing in his defence. There were two witnesses against him. Cheng Poh Kheng remained silent. Four witnesses testified that he was among those who attacked Dutton.
The Judge referred to the four general witnesses for the defence called by Mr Ball. Two of them were among the thirteen carpenters who refused to work on 6 July. They told the jury they had not mentioned to fellow detainees that they were being sent back to Changi.
“Taking that evidence as it stands at its face value, do you think it likely that they would not, on the probabilities of the matter, tell their fellow detainees? Why shouldn’t they? Isn’t it the most natural thing in the world that they should? Is it conceivable that they would fail to tell them?” The Judge said the object, as he understood it, of these witnesses being called, was to show they had spoken to no one. (A prosecution witness had earlier given evidence that he had overheard several of the accused telling them that the carpenters would be avenged.)
The Judge returned to the defence of Somasundram, Somasundarajoo and Lim Kim Chuan defended by Mr Suppiah. Somasundram gave evidence on oath. He denied taking part in the riot. He called no witnesses. He had been identified by 18 witnesses, not only as participating but playing a major role in it. He denied throwing petrol over Dutton. He could offer no explanation as to why the witness Chia should falsely accuse him. Somasundarajoo also gave evidence on oath. He denied being a rioter. The evidence given against him by eight witnesses was untrue. He saw nothing of the riot. Witnesses said that he was among those who attacked Dutton. Lim Kim Chuan remained silent. He was identified as a rioter by 16 witnesses. He attacked Dutton and Tailford.
The Judge then dealt with the defence of Chan Wah, Chin Kiong, Ponapalam, and Chew Seng Hoe. Chan Wah remained silent. Eighteen witnesses said he was a rioter. They said he played a prominent part in the rioting from start to finish. All three kept silent. They were defended by Mr Chng. There were eight witnesses against Chin Kiong. He was an original conspirator. He slashed Dutton. There were 10 witnesses against Ponapalam. He also took a prominent and active part in the riot. He was seen pouring petrol over Dutton’s body. Four witnesses identified Chew Seng Hoe. One said he administered the final blows to Settlement Attendant 505 while he was on the ground. “The sound of the blows was like the beating of a mattress.” After beating him Chew walked away mumbling and muttering that the attendant was dead.
Chua Hai Imm and Tan Tian Lay were defended by Mr Tann Wee Tiong. Chua gave an unsworn statement to the effect that he did not take part in the riot. That was his defence. Six witnesses said he did. One of them said he saw Chua attack Tailford. Tan said nothing. One witness said he saw Tan charging with a cangkul.
Mr Advani defended Kwek Kok Wah, Teo Han Teck and Ng Chuan Puay. In an unsworn s
tatement from the dock, Ng said he saw the rioting, was frightened and ran away. Two witnesses said Ng threw stones at them.
Judge Buttrose: If you have any reasonable doubt about this matter, you must resolve it in his favour, because this is the sole evidence against him of implication in this uprising.
Teo Han Teck swore on oath that he was not a rioter. He had in fact, he claimed, helped to bandage Tailford’s head with a towel. Three witnesses swore he attacked Tailford with a cangkul. Ng Chuan Puay remained silent, made no effort to refute the evidence of five witnesses that he had been armed with a parang.
Tay Teck Bok and Azis bin Salim were defended by Mr Koh. Tay remained silent. He had been identified as a rioter by a single witness who said he saw Tay armed with a cangkul. Witness said Tay was among those who attacked an attendant. Aziz gave evidence from the witness box under oath. He said his eyesight was bad without glasses. The Judge told the jury he felt bound to call their attention to ‘what appears to be the somewhat strange conduct of a man who alleged he was a non-rioter and did not get mixed up in the riot, because as we go on with the evidence it discloses that he appeared to have followed in the wake of the rioting detainees throughout. How easy it would have been for him to have slipped away from all this trouble. His explanation for following literally on the heels of the mob was that he hoped to find the security of the settlement attendants, someone who would protect him. He said he had a bottle in his hand because a rioter offered him a drink. He at first refused and the rioter said go on, it’s free, so to satisfy him he took a gulp. That was how he came to be seen with a bottle in his hand. I must confess gentlemen, though this is, of course, a matter purely for you, that sounds to me as if the accused was taking a leisurely stroll in the grounds of the island in the wake of a full-scale riot which was going on a very short distance away from him. He seemed to have left it very late to get away from the riot.” The Judge added that the remarkable thing about Aziz’s evidence was that although he said he could see practically nothing without his spectacles, he did not wear them, though he had them with him during the whole of his wanderings in the wake of this riotous assembly. “Do you really think, members of the jury, that a man whose eyesight is as bad as Aziz’s would not put on his spectacles when he was literally following on the heels of a full-scale riot? Don’t you think that the first thing he would want to do would be to see what was happening, where he was going, what was afoot? Yet he said he had seen detainees throwing bottles and stones. He seems to have seen quite a lot for a man without glasses. Eight witnesses said he took part in the riot. He said they were not telling the truth.”
The Judge turned to the defence of Lim Kim Sian and Koh Ah Tiaw. Lim remained silent. There was only one witness against him—Chia had said Lim was armed with a cangkul. In the lower court Chia had said that Lim had a pipe. There was therefore a discrepancy. Lim remained silent. Koh said nothing in his defence. Again, the witness was Chia. In the lower court Chia said Koh had a stick in his hand. Before the jury he swore it was a cangkul. The defence said that as their identification of Lim and Koh depended on Chia’s evidence alone it would be unwise to convict them, in these circumstances.
Chia Tiong Guan, Koh Teck Thow and Low Chai Kiat, were represented by Mr Braga. They all gave evidence on oath. Chia Tiong Guan had been identified as a rioter by one witness, who could not say if Chia was armed. Chia said the witness had a grudge against him. Remarked the Judge: “My only comment is this: if it were true that Foong Lai Chuan had a grudge against the accused, does it not seem likely, to say the least, that Foong would say that he didn’t see if the accused carried a weapon. If he had a grudge is it not more likely that he would say the accused did carry a weapon?”
Koh Teck Thow admitted hacking at a punishment cell with an axe to free a friend, but he denied taking part in any riot. A ‘sworn brother’ of Low Chai Kiat testified that Low never took part in the rioting. “You will ask yourself why this ‘sworn brother’ did not call the accused to come with him to the beach.”
The Judge again reminded the jury of the danger of convicting an accused on the evidence of only one witness. Gan Kim Siong, for instance. The only evidence against him substantially was that of Marlow, the mechanic. He said he saw Gan in the boat when Marlow had been forced into the boat by Teng Eng Tay. “That is not, I suggest, sufficient evidence to justify a conviction, and you will in these circumstances have little difficulty in returning a verdict of ‘Not Guilty’ against him. It would in my view, be improper for you to consider a possible alternative verdict of escaping from lawful custody against him. Such an offence has no connection with the offence of murder with which he has been charged.”
The following were also accused by one witness: Tay Teck Bok, Soh Ah Kang, Ng Pang Leng, Low Chai Kiat, Leow Ah Chai, Koh Ah Tiaw, Chia Tiong Guan, Lim Kim Sian, and Tan Tian Lay. Five of them—Tay Teck Bok, Leow Ah Chai, Lim Kim Sian, Soh Ah Kang and Koh Ah Tiaw had been identified as rioters solely by Chai, the rehabilitation officer who had been on the island for a year and knew the faces of them all well. “If there is a reasonable doubt as to Chia’s identification you will acquit them.”
Kwek Kok Wah had been identified by two witnesses. They said he threw large stones at them. “Does this evidence leave you with a reasonable doubt about him being involved in the rioting in which Dutton and the others were killed? Did he see the witnesses fleeing and threw a stone at them because he was frightened?”
As for two lists of names of those said not to have been rioting, the Judge cautioned the jury: It would be dangerous to accept these lists at face value. It did not necessarily follow that because a detainee’s number appeared on the lists that they did not in fact take part in the uprising.
The Judge referred to rumours of settlement attendants being involved in corruption. They were alleged to have taken detainees’ letters to relatives in Singapore. They invariably asked for money. For every $50 the relatives sent back the settlement attendant demanded a cut of $15, and the gangster $5. “Rather an expensive way of getting money—a total payment of $20 to get $30,” observed the Judge. Clearly the Judge did not place much importance on these rumours.
On the value of evidence generally given by prosecution witnesses, the Judge said that a riot was a shattering and terrifying experience—‘a shouting and yelling mob ... this heavy barrage of bottles ... the shouts of ‘kill’ and ‘burn’ ... Can we, sitting here, have any conception, gentlemen of the jury, of the fear, the terror, the excitement and the panic that must have been in the minds of the witnesses, some of whom had literally to run for their lives?”
Because these witnesses had not, ‘in the agony of this uprising been able to give completely consistent accounts of what happened, consistent accounts as to the sequence of events, and as to the movement and positions of themselves in relation to themselves and others at any given moment, can they be fairly and properly criticised as being witnesses on whom you can place no reliance, as liars, as they have been called?’ The speed of this disaster spoke for itself: it was a lightning stroke, a constantly fast-moving and ever-changing scene.
The Judge advised the jury to consider the discrepancies, the inconsistencies and contradictions which appeared in some of the evidence of 60-odd witnesses. These did exist and the defence were entitled to the fullest benefit and advantage they could get out of them. “But you must ask yourself what effect they had in your mind. All I am asking you to do is that you consider it in the context in which it arose, in the heart of this violent uprising.”
For four days the Judge summed up. He praised the jury for the ‘unflagging interest and attention’ they had given the case from start to finish. They now had to consider their verdict. “If you accept the prosecution evidence, (and whether you do or not is entirely a matter for you) I, myself, do not see how you can escape the conclusion that the common object of this unlawful assembly was to wipe out Pulau Senang, to destroy it, and with it, its superintendent, those in authority with him, togethe
r with informers and anyone else who thwarted this unlawful assembly in its progress. It was their open commonly declared and proclaimed object to kill and to destroy. It appears (if you accept the prosecution evidence) to have been a well planned and boldly executed operation. And again I do not see (if you accept the prosecution evidence, and whether you do or not is for you to decide), how you can escape the conclusion 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 object. The very nature of the unlawful assembly itself, quite apart as I say from the evidence as to the plotting and the planning of it, the very nature of the unlawful assembly itself, the weapons which the members of it openly collected, armed themselves with, carried and used, the conduct of the members of the unlawful assembly, was but the logical follow-on and consummation of the declared object. The shouts of ‘burn’ and ‘kill’, ‘come down and be assaulted to death’, ‘death to the informers’—in all their various connotations, repeated time and time again; and finally the climax to all this, the killing of Dutton, of Singham and of Tan Kok Hian. Whichever way you look at the evidence I do not myself see how you can escape the conclusion that the crime of murder was committed. Here again I hasten to add that all this is a matter entirely for you to consider, but I repeat again that if you accept the prosecution evidence I do not see how you can escape the conclusion that murder was committed, committed in circumstances of such utter brutality and callousness that beggars description. How can it possibly (you will ask yourselves) be said, gentlemen of the jury, that those who were concerned in striking those terrible blows on these three persons did not do so except with the intention of killing or causing such bodily injury as they knew to be likely to kill, or were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to kill?”