Cold Blooded Murders (33 page)

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.

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.”