Cold Blooded Murders (35 page)

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,
together 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?”

The Judge said that Mr Suppiah had, in his
address to the jury ‘rather lavishly’ sprinkled alternative verdicts for them
to consider. One of them was culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The
Judge said he could only repeat again, by what possible stretch of the
imagination could it be said that those persons who struck those fearful blows
did not mean to do it, did not intend to kill? Mr Suppiah had also suggested a
possible alternative verdict was arson. The Judge reminded the jury that they
were concerned with murder. The accused were not charged with destroying
buildings. It would be quite improper for the jury to consider arson as an
alternative verdict. He directed the jury that in this case arson was not an
alternative verdict. The accused were charged with murder. Three verdicts were
open to them. Firstly, that the accused were members of this unlawful assembly.
Secondly, that the common objects of unlawful assembly were to cause the deaths
of Dutton, Singham, Tan Kok Hian, Cartoon, Chia Teck Whee, and others, and to
destroy Pulau Senang. Thirdly, that while these accused were members of this
unlawful assembly, one or more of them in the persecution of the common object
of that assembly murdered Dutton (the first charge), Singham (the second
charge), Tan Kok Hian (the third charge) and fourthly, that murder was an
offence which the accused knew to be likely to be committed in the prosecution
of the common object. Those accused who were members of that unlawful assembly
were guilty of murder and the jury must return a verdict accordingly. But if
the jury was satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused were members
of that assembly but had a reasonable doubt as to whether some of them were
still members at the time when Dutton, Singham and Tan Kok Hian were killed,
then those in respect of whom the jury had a reasonable doubt would not be
guilty of murder. An alternative verdict of rioting could be returned. Or, if
the jury had any reasonable doubt about any of the accused being members of the
unlawful assembly, they could return a verdict of ‘Not Guilty’, and that would
be the end of the case. “If you are left in any reasonable doubt as to whether
the accused, or any of them, committed these offences, you must give the
accused the benefit of the doubt in every case. But if on the other hand, you
are satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt, you are sure that some or more, or all
of them, committed the crimes with which they had been charged, then of course
you will do your duty and return a verdict against them.”

The Judge told them to take as long as the
interests of justice required to reach their verdict.

The Court adjourned at 11:35
am
on 11 March 1964. The jury returned
at 4:10
pm
the following day.

The following prisoners were found not
guilty and acquitted:

·
        
Kwek Kok Wah

·
        
Tay Teck Bok

·
        
Leow Ah Chai

·
        
Lim Kim Sian

·
        
Soh Ah Kang

·
        
Koh Ah Tiaw

·
        
Tan Tian Lay

·
        
Gan Kim Siong

·
        
Ng Pang Leng

·
        
Chia Tiong Guan

·
        
Low Chai Kiat

The following were found guilty of rioting:

·
        
Heng Lian Choon

·
        
Tok Kok Peng

·
        
Cheong Kim Seng

·
        
Choy Peng Kwong

·
        
Lim Heng Soon

·
        
Lim Thiam Huat

·
        
Sim Cheng Tee

·
        
Ang Teck Kee

·
        
Yong Ah Chew

·
        
Teng Ah Kow

·
        
Koh Teck Thow

The Judge said they could consider
themselves the luckiest people alive ‘in that the evidence against them,
apparently, failed in the eyes of the jury, to come up to the standard which
the law requires before they could be convicted of the offences with which they
were charged.’ There could be no possible doubt whatever that they were members
of the unlawful assembly and were among the rioters taking part in the
uprising. “The sentence I am about to impose upon each of you is, in my view,
utterly inadequate to the occasion. My hands are tied. You will go to prison
for two years—the maximum penalty prescribed by law for this offence.”

The following were found guilty of rioting
with deadly weapons:

·
        
Chin Kiong

·
        
Yeow Yew Boon

·
        
Lim Teck San

·
        
Teo Han Teck

·
        
Aziz bin Salim

·
        
Tan Chin

·
        
Neo Kim Leong

·
        
Peh Guan Hock

·
        
Teng Eng Tay

·
        
Sia Ah Kow

·
        
Ng Chuan Puay

·
        
Chew Yam Mang

·
        
Heng Boon Leng

·
        
Chia Geok Choo

·
        
Ong Aik Kwong

·
        
Chua Hai Imm

·
        
Tan Tian Soo

·
        
Teo Lian Choon

Here again the Judge felt bound, he said, to
tell the accused that they were ‘the luckiest people alive’, in that the
evidence against them apparently failed in the eyes of the jury to come up to
the standard which the law demanded before they could be convicted of ‘this
charge, or these charges of murder’. Again in his opinion the sentence he was
about to pass was inadequate. His hands were tied. The sentence of the Court
was that they go to prison for three years.

The following 18 were sentenced to death:

·
        
Tan Kheng Ann

·
        
Chia Yeow Fatt

·
        
Cheong Wai Sang

·
        
Somasundram s/o Suptramaniam

·
        
Lim Tee Kang

·
        
Somasundarajoo s/o Vengdasalam

·
        
Lim Kim Chuan

·
        
Khoo Geok San

·
        
Chan Wah

·
        
Hoe Hock Hai

·
        
Ponapalam s/o Govindasamy

·
        
Chew Seng Hoe

·
        
Chew Thiam Huat

·
        
Sim Hoe Seng

·
        
Ng Cheng Liong

·
        
Tan Yin Chwee

·
        
Sim Teck Beng

·
        
Cheng Poh Kheng

The Judge said he could not see how the jury
could possibly have arrived at any other verdict than guilty. “Each of you has
been convicted of the murder of Dutton and his two assistants. The evidence was
established that these murders were committed in circumstances of such utter
brutality, ruthlessness and savagery as defies description. It has indeed
shaken the whole of Malaysia as accused Hoe Hock Hai was alleged by Chong Sek Ling
to have said it would. In addition to these three murders you destroyed Pulau
Senang itself in little over half an hour, and you did so with a speed and
ferocity well nigh impossible of belief. The time has now come for you to pay
the penalty for your dreadful acts. If ever the punishment fitted the crime,
this case may be said with fairness and, I think propriety, to provide the
outstanding instance. The sentence of the Court upon you is that you be taken
from this place to a lawful prison and thence to a place of execution and that
you be hanged by the neck until you be dead and may the Lord have mercy on your
souls.