Cold Blooded Murders (27 page)

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.

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 of 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.