Alex Josey - Cold blooded murders

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 statement 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.”