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.
Mr Francis Seow opened his case. He addressed the Court for about three hours. His first witness was Corporal Albert Brendan Kitchen, a Royal Air Force photographer stationed at the RAF station at Seletar, Singapore. He testified that he took 63 photographs of Pulau Senang during the afternoon of 13 July, and later handed the negatives to Inspector Maurice Oh. S.V. Rajan, a police photographer, gave evidence that he took 18 photographs of various scenes on the island. Five photographs were of four male corpses.
Before adjournment at 4:00 PM that afternoon, the Judge asked for the co-operation of counsel in not smoking in Court. There was a notice to that effect. “If you start smoking I will leave the Bench,” he warned. He also ordered that counsel must not talk to the accused in Court. Counsel would, of course, want to discuss matters with their clients and the prison authorities would make arrangements for them to see them at any time, either before the Court sits or after the adjournment. When Ball began to protest, the Judge reminded him that the trial was ‘quite a major operation’. He promised counsel that proper arrangements would be made for them to see their clients privately, not in Court.
Few of the accused could speak English. Simultaneous translations had to be organised in Chinese dialects and Tamil. The Judge asked the Court authorities to arrange for extra microphones. Counsel on the second morning of the trial also took the opportunity to raise another important matter. Could a short adjournment be made at 11:30 AM, ‘as some of us’, said Koh, ‘may not have as strong a kidney as the others’. Judge Buttrose: If you feel any discomfort during the sitting, Mr Koh, do please stand up and let me know. I am not going to make a 10-minute break a feature of the day. If the jurors feel discomfort they can also let me know.
Another defence counsel sought the Court’s permission for the accused to have paper and pencil with which to make notes. The Judge at once agreed. Then came the question of whether the accused would take pencil and paper back to prison. Crown Counsel said no; but did not object to the accused taking in an exercise book with the pages numbered. But pencils could not be taken into prison. The Judge agreed. At last, during the afternoon of 19 November, the trial of the 59 men began in earnest when Major Peter Lionel James was called to the witness box. He was asked about the note he wrote in April to Dutton about work hours. Mr Braga: The conditions on the island were such that they were being slave-driven, driven like beasts of burden rather than human beings? It was the injustice and unfair treatment they were receiving that brought about this incident? Major James: I cannot agree with you. In my opinion there was no slave-driving. The place was run in what I consider the most enlightened manner. In fact I would not mind saying too enlightened. Mr Braga: It was the corruption, the injustice, the forced labour that brought this about? Major James: No. Mr Francis Seow: Major James, you visited Pulau Senang regularly. Did they look like slaves? Major James: No, they were always cheerful. Pleased to see me. Crown Counsel: Did anyone appear undernourished? Major James: Quite the reverse. They were all tanned by the sun and they looked to me almost like a collection of weight-lifters, big hefty fellows.
Major James was asked if he knew Dutton well.
“I knew him intimately.”
“How would you describe his ability as superintendent of the island?”
“He was a natural leader of men. He was a born leader. He was a most accomplished engineer. He was a man with the most effervescent personality, a man who was afraid of no task, a man who was prepared to give his most and best to what he believed in. He was never happy unless he was outside doing things himself. He designed everything. There was nothing on Pulau Senang which was not designed or built by him.”
Dutton joined the British army as a boy, came to Southeast Asia with Mountbatten’s forces, took his discharge in Singapore and joined the Singapore Harbour Board police. In 1947, he joined the Prisons Department. James said that Dutton was a natural leader. If there was any good in a man he would bring it out.
James described Dutton as an extremely humane person. He would call upon James often and ask him to try to help find work for men released from Pulau Senang. “He would ask me to intercede with the Central Investigation Department (CID) over certain individuals released to the Work Brigade and had got into trouble with that organisation and were in immediate danger of being detained all over again. If a man had genuine trouble at home, Dutton was quick to apprise me of the facts.”
James said at Pulau Senang detainees led more or less a free existence: they moved about freely. They could play games. They could swim in the sea. It was better than Changi Prison. If a man went back to Changi as a criminal detainee, the maximum time out of his cell would be about four hours a day. They lived in dormitories on Pulau Senang: in Changi, in cells.
James said he did not see the urgency for the jetty being finished. Dutton on the other hand was most anxious to complete it and to get it into operation. Dutton said he was expecting bad weather. He feared that the tide would move, pass over the jetty unless he hurried up.
James explained to one defence counsel that the long-service prisoners from Changi were used at Pulau Senang as storemen, clerks and checkers. They did not take part in the riot. About 200 detainees were not involved. There were some 300 there altogether.
Major James emphatically denied that any detainee, or detainee’s relative, ever complained to him about being overworked. He didn’t agree they were overworked. Following talks with his staff, he felt there was no reason for the tempo of work to continue at such a pace. He was aware that they had been working extremely hard, and he wanted to tone it down. He emphatically denied that Dutton was a slave driver. He was one of the kindest men he had ever met.
James was asked if he did not agree that the violence on the island was an outburst of human intolerance.
He replied that the outburst was not personal hatred of Dutton, or revenge against Dutton. “Dutton had to be, had the misfortune to be, the living embodiment of a system affecting their lives on Pulau Senang. He represented the authority of the Singapore Government and in my opinion that holocaust was directly directed against the Singapore government and the system that detained them.” James repeated that Dutton represented a system, a better way of life to which these men-‘the scum of Singapore’- were antagonistic. They couldn’t stand a system which took them out of their unpleasant habits in Singapore.
James’ explanation of the savage riot was that the detainees knew that prison accommodation in the State of Singapore was at an absolute premium: they knew that a prison designed for 2,000 (Outram Road Prison) was being pulled down. They knew that one man, and one man alone, in the State Prison Service could build Pulau Senang. They thought that if this man, Dutton, was done away with and the place destroyed, the Singapore Government would be in an extreme difficulty to contain them.
James described the island before it became a settlement as being ‘completely virgin, with the exception of a retired lighthouse keeper who lived on the beach’.
Dutton first landed on Pulau Senang with a group of detainees on 18 May 1960. They were ferried to and fro until 1st June when the working party, selected from Changi Jail by Dutton himself, slept there for the first time. They camped just off the beach for three months, and slowly cut their way back through the virgin jungle. Button lived in a hut with his second-in-command, Jenardaran, 100 yards from the detainees.
Within four or five months, Dutton had brought over some hens and pigs.
Major James explained that after the first working batch selected by Dutton, the rest sent over to Pulau Senang were selected by the Superintendent of Prisons at Changi Prison. They were selected entirely on the length of time they had been in Changi. They would have been in Changi at least 12 months. They were sent over in batches of 30.
Nothing had been fixed as to how long they had to stay on the island. On an average, a man would be there for between 12–18 months before his name went to a Review Board to see whether his ‘conduct and industry’ were of a nature which would enable the Board to consider release. Major James was the chairman of the Board. The Board sat every month and Button had instructions to submit 30 names for consideration every month. Dutton would be present at the meeting and discuss the man’s record. The police had the final say on who would be released. Many names were put on the list eight or nine times before the Board would agree to let them go. This recommendation would then go to the Minister for Home Affairs. If he agreed, then the man would be sent to the Work Brigade Camp at Jalan Bamai (on Singapore Island) where he would work for six months, and then set free. But if he managed to get a job with an employer after three months, he could go without delay.
If a detainee infringed the rules of conduct at Pulau Senang he would be sent back to Changi Jail, where he would serve six months, and forfeit the period of time he had spent on Pulau Senang.
Pulau Senang was an open prison in the fullest sense of the word. Detainees were told if they went to Pulau Senang, they would have to work, it was not a picnic holiday camp. It they did not want to go they could stay in Changi where their chances of release were, as Major James told the Court, ‘negligible’. But, explained Major James, if a detainee at Pulau Senang ‘kept his nose clean and worked hard’, he had an almost certain chance of getting released. Mr Ball: Was it a fact that a prisoner did have the sure knowledge that he could, by his own efforts, obtain his release? Or could the police overrule that?
Major James said he had no doubts about it, whatsoever. So long as a man behaved and worked hard, his chances of release from Pulau Senang were almost a certainty. But, he added, the police had to be watchful. If kidnapping was prevalent in Singapore (as it then was), the police could be most reluctant to allow a known kidnapper to be released at that time. He might be tempted to revert to his old ways again.
Major James admitted that the Ministry of Education had been unable to send any teachers to Pulau Senang; there were no organised recreational facilities, and entertainers (a mixed troupe of men and women) had called at the island once. He said they got so seasick they never came back.
At first, detainees were paid $0.10 a day, and then $0.30.
In March 1961, Major James wrote to Dutton about the hours the men were working. He told him that the settlement had reached a stage of development where the pace would have to be slackened a bit. In April 1963, he wrote to him again and laid down the hours the detainees were to work.
Dutton kept to this scheme for a time when he became very enthusiastic about certain buildings, when he increased them again. The first letter read (dated 6 March 1961): I feel the time has come for you to introduce a scale of work at Pulau Senang. I suggest 7:30 AM to 12:30 PM with your usual mid-morning break, and from 2:30 PM to 5:00 PM for weekdays and from 7:30 AM to 12:30 PM on Saturdays and Sundays, and thereafter the detainees are free for recreational and educational activities.
The second letter was dated 22 April 1963 and was an instruction. It read: With effect from receipt of this order, the hours of work of detainees at Pulau Senang will be as follows: Weekdays 7:30 AM to 11:00 AM 12:30 PM to 4:00 PM Sundays 7:30 AM to 11:30 AM
Criminal law detainees will not work on Saturday afternoons or public holidays but will have normal maintenance tasks. It may be necessary for certain projects, such as the jetty, which depends upon tides, for them to work outside these hours. They will be given compensating time for extra hours worked. No detainee will exceed a 44-hour week without the written authority of the Director of Prisons.
On 9 July, 1963, 13 detainees, all carpenters, were sent by Dutton back to Changi Jail. Major James promptly summoned Dutton to his office and asked him why. Dutton explained that on the Saturday afternoon these men had refused to work on an urgent job at the end of the jetty.
A defence counsel asked Major James whether it was true that men had been ordered to work in the rain without raincoats. Major James: I can only answer you by saying that at Pulau Senang I have seen men working in the rain practically nude, which would be their normal way of working in the rain outside Changi Prison. Working in the rain in these circumstances on a tropical island could on occasions be heavenly.
Major James said that he told Dutton to select as the first batch ‘what you can find in the way of masons, brick-layers, tradesmen’. They were told that if they were selected they would have to work hard. There were more volunteers than room on the island.
James admitted that prior to 6 March 1961, the detainees worked 12 hours a day. They were then paid $0.10 a day.
Major James said that in April 1963, he sent Dutton a letter. This was because there had been trouble over working on a Saturday afternoon. An attendant, a former detainee, had been attacked by detainees with cangkuls, James said he had to call out the Reserve Unit. The row started when a settlement attendant warned a detainee about an offence. The detainees’ story was that they had been working all night, and they had asked the attendant for water which he had refused to give them. Major James said this story was untrue: they had not been working all night.
James agreed that Dutton had worked the detainees, unauthorised, overtime, but he held that Dutton was not disobeying orders but, as the man on the top, he used his judgement in cases of emergency. James said that Dutton had satisfied him on 23 April that overtime had been necessary. A road was caving in and there were threats of rain. The road had to be repaired before the rains came.
Under heavy cross-examination, James explained that certain construction projects depended on tide. When it was low tide at night, they worked at night. If something collapsed in the middle of the night ‘we would put it right at night. Not wait until morning.”
James said he had heard rumours of corruption at Pulau Senang and had reported the matter to the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau.
James told the Court that all detainees were returned to Singapore once a month to receive visits from relatives in prison.
One of the defence counsel asked Major James what he thought was the real purpose of the island. Was it to produce a magnificent feat of engineering, like a jetty? Or was it to teach the detainees how to become good citizens, and respect law and order?
James told him the short answer was that the idea of Pulau Senang was to show detainees that there was a better way of life than living as a secret society gangster. It was an essential ingredient of this better life that they could become proud of achieving something by their own efforts. They achieved that. “They built a magnificent establishment, the best prison establishment I have seen anywhere in the world. They built this with their own efforts under Dutton’s leadership.”
James went on to say that work was the major factor of rehabilitation to men in whose vocabulary the word work did not exist-‘not unless you call extortion work’.
Did Dutton have favourites? James said that would be out of character with a man like Dutton. He thought highly of some of the detainees: these would have been the ones he would have thought he could have relied on. Mr Braga: Do you know that he used a system of informers among those whom I call his favourites? Major James: I don’t doubt there were plenty of people who would run to him with information. That would be common in an establishment of that nature.
James added that he thought some of the informers might be among the most shrewd and cunning performers he could think of anywhere. Mr Braga: Didn’t Dutton force detainees to become blood donors? Major James: They gave of their own free will.
He said that the Blood Transfusion Unit came and prisoners gave blood-as they would anywhere-for the cake and cup of tea. Mr Braga: But I was told that if they did not do so they would be sent back to Changi. Major James: That is a diabolical untruth.
He explained that twice the detainees won a prize for being the organisation with the greatest number of blood donors of the month. The money was paid into the General Amenities Fund which bought sports equipment for the detainees.
James was questioned about corruption on the island. He said an officer had told him that a member of the staff was driving about Singapore in a car owned by the relatives of a detainee. “He told me that the same person was wearing a Rolex watch which had been given to him by the family of that detainee.” James said detainees were not allowed to receive money from relatives. He said that Settlement Attendant Low Ah Kow had often been accused of trafficking, bringing contraband-cigarettes and tobacco-from Singapore into Pulau Senang. Surprise searches were made but nothing was ever found.
Former Chief Officer Jenardaran gave evidence that he had heard reports of corruption: there were complaints against Low Ah Kow but nothing was proved. He passed this information on to Dutton. He knew nothing of Low conveying messages from relatives to the detainees, or of him receiving money on consequence. He had made a complaint against Chia Teck Whee to Major James for receiving money from detainees to secure release. It had been alleged that Chia had been seen driving around in a detainee’s car, taking the detainee’s relatives for a ride.
James told a defence counsel that instructions regarding tools at Pulau Senang were that they were kept in the guardroom: tools used at the worksite were kept in the workshop. At the luncheon break tools that were being used would be left at the worksite.
Witness followed witness. Much of the evidence was repetitive. The patience of judge and jury, accused and witness, became sorely tried. A new note of interest was struck when one of the prosecution witnesses, a detainee, Chong Sek Ling (alias Low Ho Kia), revealed that he had held the rank of General Headman of the Group 18 Secret Society (also known as Chap Sar Yeow). This is one of the highest ranks in a secret society.
On one occasion, the Judge asked Crown Counsel why he continued to cross-examine a witness. Mr Seow explained that he was trying to establish a recapitulation of what happened. Judge: It does not add any strength to your case. It only irritates me and the jury. You do yourself more harm than good.
Chong Sek Ling said he had been lazy in Pulau Senang and twice had been sent back to Changi.
In his evidence he told of a meeting in the dining hall. Chong said there were seven of them. It was a gathering of those who were high in positions in their respective secret societies. Mr Ball: I object to that answer being recorded. Judge: On what grounds? Mr Ball: On the grounds of attacking the character of the accused. Crown Counsel: I’m afraid I’m bereft of words. We must face facts. This island was set up for Criminal Law detainees. The witnesses are themselves members of various secret societies. Whether the Crown wishes it or not, directly or indirectly, the fact is that all our witnesses were former members of secret societies, and by any irresistible inference all the accused are themselves members and that is why they have been detained under the Criminal Law, and the sooner we face the facts of this case I think the better it would be. Mr Ball: I have nothing to say. Judge: Your objection is overruled.
Chong said that he met Tan Kheng Ann after a visit to Singapore and Tan told him that Dutton was very cocky and the leaders of the secret societies had met and they had made the arrangement and trouble would start in the near future. Tan said they had made up a list of the persons they were going to liquidate. There were seven of them; Dutton headed the list. Chong said he told Dutton all about this. Dutton laughed. He said he was not afraid. Anyone who attacked him would land himself in hospital for a week. One punch would be enough. Witness: He took the names down in a booklet. Mr Francis Seow: Where did he get the booklet from? Witness: From his hip pocket. Judge: What does it matter whether he produced it from his shoe or his armpit? Why waste time? If Counsel does not like it, they can cross-examine on it.
Chong said he did not join in the riot. Instead, he went to the kitchen to lay in some food and to have a good feed. Did he like the food at Pulau Senang? He said he considered the food at Changi better because he did not have to work hard for it. If he did any work at Changi it would be light work. He was 38 years old. There were no members of his society in Pulau Senang at the time among the detainees but a settlement attendant, Robert Choo, was. There were members of rival secret societies with whom he had gang-wars prior to his imprisonment at Changi. He admitted that the men he gave evidence against in Court were all members of rival secret societies.
Why did the group of rival gangsters tell him the plot? Because, Chong said, they had affection for him. They warned him not to tell anyone. Crown Counsel asked him why he wanted to help Dutton. He said: “Because during my three years at Pulau Senang, I found Dutton was not corrupt. He was fair. He gave equal treatment to all.”
Chong said that Tan Yin Chwee told him that the leaders of the secret societies had decided to kill Dutton, Chia, Tungku, Singham, Cartoon and SA527 (Tan). Tan Yin Chwee said he had been assigned to kill Dutton.
On the night before the uprising there was a cinema show. There one of the ringleaders told Chong that the revolt would shake the whole of Malaysia.
In an effort to discredit witness Liew Woon, Mr Abisheganaden asked if it was true that accused Chia Yeow Fatt had been associating with his wife, So Fah, for years? Witness: Rubbish. Counsel: Are you known as ‘Mighty Mouse’? Judge: Is this relevant? Is it relevant to this case whether he is called ‘The King of Siam’ or ‘Mighty Mouse’? Please don’t waste any more time. I have given you excessive latitude and my patience is running out.
Another counsel persisted: Are you known as ‘Mighty Mouse’, alias ‘The Pimp’? Braga: You came forward to give evidence because you were not happy about this incident? Witness: Out of righteousness I came forward to give evidence, Mr Braga. Out of righteousness. Braga: Why did you do that? Were you unhappy? Witness: They were too cruel.
Quek Hai Cheng gave evidence that Corporal Choo fell while running away from a rioter with a parang. “While he was on the ground I threw my body over him.”
“Why?“
“To save his life. Corporal Choo was a very nice man. He is married with children. I was quite prepared to sacrifice my life for him. Robert withdrew his parang. Choo was carried to the office.”
Quek Hai Cheng, a prosecution witness, was under cross-examination. Counsel: What were you? Quek Hai Cheng: Gangster. Counsel: You belong to 969 Secret Society? Quek Hai Cheng: Yes. Counsel: What were you in the society? Quek Hai Cheng: Fighter. Counsel: Did you ever have fights with them in Changi Jail? Quek Hai Cheng: Yes.
Asked about gangs in Pulau Senang, Quek said there were all sorts of gangs in Pulau Senang… 69, 569, 13 Wonders, the O.A. Group.
Mr Braga asked him the duties of a fighter and Quek replied: “To fight until the enemy runs away.”
Mr Braga suggested that Quek was in fact one of the leading rioters. Quek contemptuously denied this, or that he struck Tailford. “If I had,” he replied, “he would have been dead.” He said that as a gangster he had never killed.
Group 969 was an affiliate to Group 24-969 added up made 24.
The sheer monotony of the evidence, the covering of the same ground by numerous witnesses, irritated Judge and Counsel.
Crown Counsel questioned a witness to establish the time of an incident. Witness: According to my watch it was 2:00 PM. Judge: Next question. Counsel: Now what I want to know is: was it accurate? Witness: I don’t think it was accurate. It was, at the time, under repair. I took it for repair afterwards. Judge: Don’t ask him the make of the watch, please. Counsel: As it pleases you. Judge: Well, it is not as it pleases at all-I am merely extremely angry. This is not finished.
Occasionally there were flashes of humour, but not many. Chua Cheng Hin, a witness (in jail serving a three-year sentence for armed robbery, transferred to Pulau Senang to serve as a records clerk), was complimented by the Judge on his ‘magnificent voice production’. Added the weary Judge: “I only wish that other witnesses can reproduce it. I think you should leave robbery alone, and give your attention to being a drill instructor. You would make a reputation.” The witness smiled: “Thank you very much, my Lord.”
Another witness was asked: “What were they supposed to do after killing Dutton?”
“Escape in boats.”
Goh Kheng Wah, another witness, was asked by Mr Braga whether he had an old grudge against one of the accused. Goh Kheng Wah: No. Mr Braga: There was an incident at Changi concerning a septic tank? Goh Kheng Wah: At Changi I worked as a man who swept the floor, served the people, served them with food. Mr Braga: I suggest the accused asked you to help him in the repair of a septic tank some months ago? Goh Kheng Wah: No. Mr Braga: And you nearly had a fight over it?” Goh Kheng Wah: No.
Interpreter: One of the accused is vomitting, my Lord. Judge: Have him moved and we will adjourn for a moment. Is he unwell? Interpreter: He is Chua Hai Imm. Judge: Take the poor fellow below.
He was taken below. Judge: Get someone to clean it up. Interpreter: I have sent for the sweeper to come. Judge: And with speed.
The man had a pain in his chest. The Court adjourned until the afternoon when a doctor’s chit was produced certifying that he was fit to stand trial. The accused told the Judge that he did not feel so bad, but ‘I’m afraid that when I get the wind the vomit will come out’. Judge: Can you please let me know when he feels it coming on again?
The following day another prisoner was taken ill with stomach-ache. He went downstairs for two minutes to take pills.
Later Tan Kheng Ann said he felt ill and was taken downstairs for five minutes.
Naturally defence counsel set out to discredit prosecution witnesses if they could.
One witness complained he was confused when counsel after counsel asked him the same questions or variations of them. How many were in the mob which attacked? What time was that? Exactly where? What was the time?
“I have no watch,” repeated the witness. “You want me to answer yes, or no, some want me to make guess, to estimate. I am confused.”
Mr Braga asked Low Ah Kow, a former detainee turned settlement staff, whether he took part in the riot. Low had said he was looking after the non-rioters and trying to see who were taking part in the riot. “If I were to take part in the fight all the staff might have been killed, in which case there would have been no witnesses at all.” Judge: Entirely logical; we would not be here either.
On Monday, 9 December, the Judge announced that he had received a note from the prison hospital regarding Chua Hai Imm. He was found to be in a state of hysteria. He was referred to a psychiatrist. The Judge had no option but to adjourn. The Court met the next day when the Judge said he had received a certificate to the effect that Chua would be unable to appear for a week. The Court accordingly adjourned. They met the following Monday. Chua returned, certified fit. But then another man went down, followed by another.
The danger of which Mr Ball had warned, (that a mass trial could collapse if but one single prisoner fell ill) now seriously threatened the proceedings. What should be done?
Crown Counsel suggested that rather than hold up the trial, the Judge should order a discharge not amounting to an acquittal, of the two sick prisoners, and continue with the trial of the others. Judge: You have no authority you can give me in support of that? Mr Francis Seow: I have not been able to find any authority. Mr Ball (on behalf of the two sick men): I cannot find anything in the Halsbury Criminal Law in England in regard to the discharge of the jury partially. My submission is that if Your Lordship pronounces the words, the jury is discharged then, and the jury is discharged in respect of all. Judge: This could go on and this trial will become a farce, which I want to avoid. Mr Ball: If there is an application for an adjournment then Your Lordship ought to discharge the jury and the prosecution should consider whether they should not then have separate trials as we applied for in the first instance. Judge: The same position could arise, not with the same magnitude as this, with only one accused.
The Judge said that in this matter he expected all the counsel to consider the matter carefully. “You are all officers of the court. While you have a prime duty to your clients, you also have a duty to see to the administration of the law. And what we have all got to try to see is that this case shall be concluded in a proper and fair manner.” He adjourned the Court until Wednesday, 18 December.
When the Court reassembled the Judge said he had received two further certificates. They said that the two prisoners would be absent for another week. The Judge said he had come to the very clear conclusion that the Prosecutor’s suggestion was inappropriate. This could go on week after week. An accused feels unwell. The prison doctor sends him to Woodbridge Mental Hospital, and the Woodbridge doctor keeps him for a week’s observation. “If this happened to every one of the accused we could sit here for over a year while the accused go to and from Woodbridge. The position would be a complete farce. What has been exercising my mind is how to plug the hole. What do you suggest?” Mr Francis Seow: My Lord, may I suggest we send them all down to Woodbridge. My application is that the accused be remanded in custody for observation by the psychiatrist. Judge: That would take months. Mr Francis Seow: The psychiatrist says a year. Judge: What do you suggest-that we sit and simply go into cold storage for a year?
Mr Seow eventually asked for the jury to be discharged in respect of all the accused because of the illness of some of them.
Mr Ball opposed this. “It would be unfair and improper for persons to have to stand 16 days’ trial and then, for a reason which is quite beyond their control, to have their jury discharged and be obliged to stand another trial at a later date.” He asked the Judge to direct the jury to acquit some of them before the jury was discharged. Judge: On what grounds do you suggest that the jury should discharge some of the accused, and in which case, which accused, Ball? Mr Ball: Well, I should say all my accused, naturally. Judge: Are you making this application seriously, Mr Ball? Mr Ball: I think it is my duty to do so. Judge: I should like some authority on this. On what grounds do you suggest I should discharge your clients, or the jury should acquit them? Mr Ball: On the grounds that serious injustice would be done if the jury is discharged at this stage, after 16 days of trial and for no reason of their own.
The Judge thought the application completely without merit. The rest of the defence counsel addressed the Judge. They all opposed the discharge of the jury except Mr Suppiah, who did not object. Mr Francis Seow: You have discretion under section 191 of the Criminal Procedure Code to discharge the jury… Judge: Section 191 applies only to where one accused or two or three accused went sick and cannot stand trial; then of course the jury will be discharged. But here we have, say, 57 accused perfectly fit and they want their fates decided. Two have fallen by the wayside. We can either wait, adjourn, or we can go on without them. What you are asking me to do is to discharge the jury from this case though there are 57 accused ready and willing to be tried. I don’t think I can do it… If it happens again, the accused must be brought here with the doctor. I shall have the doctor put in the witness box and I shall question him myself. I am not going to accept his certificates any further. I shall require the doctor’s personal presence. As I say, I am not going to have this trial jettisoned or sabotaged. It is going on if we sit for a year. I hope I have made that clear to everybody-to the accused and their counsel? Mr Seow your application is overruled. The case will proceed. You must decide what you are going to do with the two absent accused.
Mr Seow asked for a week’s adjournment. Mr Ball opposed the adjournment. Before making his decision, the Judge ordered the prison doctor and the director of Woodbridge Hospital to be brought before him immediately after the lunch break.
Dr S.K. Leong said he examined Lim Thiam Huat. “I was told at the hospital that he had suddenly turned mad.” The doctor said he examined him and found that his general condition was satisfactory. He was shouting and yelling and his whole body was covered with excreta. He had poured a pot of his own excreta over himself. “I gave him an injection to calm him down and advised a transfer to Woodbridge for observation.” Questioned by the Judge as to whether it was a genuine case or not, the doctor said he was not prepared to say. For one reason, he was not qualified to judge. As for Khoo Geok San, he was found lying on the floor in his cell-same symptoms. He was very excited and he was mumbling. Judge: Can you tell me if this was done deliberately or whether it was as a result of something he was suffering from? You cannot help me? Dr Leong: I do not think so. Judge: Doctor, I must impress upon you. You must look upon this with the greatest care. You see we are trying here a number of accused persons. And if this trial is being held up-it may be perfectly proper-but I have to be satisfied that it is being properly held up. The only people who can help me are people like you, and presumably Dr Wong. I must try to get to the root of this matter. If it is held up through illness, perfectly proper. And if it is feigned it has got to be stopped and I am going to stop it. Judge (to Dr Wong): Now doctor, we are engaged on a very serious and arduous trial and my duty is to see that it is conducted fairly, according to law, without let or hindrance and I am determined to see that it shall be. Dr Wong: Lim Thian Huat was malingering. It was feigned insanity. He will be sent back tomorrow. I can let you know about Khoo Geok San by Friday.
The Court adjourned until Monday.
All the accused were in the dock again on 23 December, Dr Wong having sent back Khoo with a certificate that he feigned insanity and was fit to stand trial. The Judge addressed the Court and told the accused again that they might be able to delay the trial, but tried they would be, and according to law. He also warned counsel that it was not their duty to sit back with a complacent smile while this sort of conduct was undertaken by clients. It was their duty to advise their clients. If by their silence they sat back and allowed this conduct to continue, they would have to take the consequences. Mr Ball: Your Lordship seems to have said something gravely reflecting on the conduct of counsel in this case, and I for my part, if I may, respectfully protest to that, especially as to any manner of demeanour. If there has been anything improper in my demeanour I apologise, of course, but I really must protest because I have not. Judge: Mr Ball, you said last week, when we were arguing on the question of what had to be done, that it was through no fault of the accused here that we were in this position. Now nothing in my view could be more misleading or incorrect. It was entirely due to the conduct of your two clients that we are in the position we are today. I don’t propose to argue any further. Will you please resume your seat.
When the trial re-started again on 23 December suddenly it was noticed that Khoo (alias Stonehead) had fallen asleep. Judge: Sit up properly. Official: He doesn’t want to. Judge: Well, make him. If necessary, tie him. I am not going to have the administration of justice flouted in this fashion.
‘Stonehead’ was duly strapped to the bench on which he sat.
Judge: If others feel so tempted they will be treated similarly. If necessary I will have a guard to each prisoner.
‘Stonehead’ again interrupted the proceedings in the afternoon when Ball said his client felt unwell having had a ‘lumbar puncture’. He was given a chair and told to make himself as comfortable as possible.
Interpreter: Accused has vomitted on the floor. Judge: Now I wonder if he could be asked why he waited until he came up here to do so instead of doing it in the cell below? Please get the amah to have it cleaned up so that we can proceed.
Wong Loke Hai, another witness for the prosecution, said he was a settlement attendant. He admitted that he had been sentenced to eight years in Changi for armed robbery before he became an attendant at Pulau Senang.
The Court adjourned for a week over Christmas and assembled again on 30 December.
While Robert Choo, another settlement attendant, was giving evidence, he identified Chua Hai Imm as a rioter. Chua swore at him. The Judge warned Chua. He shouted back at the Judge. Judge: If I have another sound from him I will have him gagged. If his counsel does not advise him, I shall take steps. It is quite scandalous. This is the last warning. If he does it again I shall have him gagged.
Mr Braga got the witness, Choo, to admit that he had been a member of the 13 Wonders gang (18- Chap Sar Yeo) but Choo denied he had ever been beaten up by Koh Teck Thow’s gang. The last gang fight he had was a very long time ago, with gang 329. He was assistant headman in his gang. He organised gang fights, but did not take part himself.
Witness Chia Teck Whee, a rehabilitation officer in the prison service, gave evidence that there had been 29 settlement attendants on Pulau Senang and 319 detainees.
Language had its problems. Chia Teck Whee gave his evidence in English. He was recalling a conversation in Dutton’s office in the morning. He had told of how one of the accused, Heng Lian Choon, had handed over his mug to his friend, See Kar Chua, a significant gesture that meant that Heng was about to leave Pulau Senang and was saying farewell. Mr Francis Seow: When he was telling you this where was Dutton? Chia Teck Whee: Mr Dutton was in his office. He sat on the chair in front of his table. Judge: He was seated at his desk. Chia Teck Whee: No. He sat on the chair in front of his table. Judge: When you sit at the desk you normally do not sit on it. When I sit myself at my desk I usually sit on the chair in front of it. He sat at his desk? Chia Teck Whee: On a chair. Judge: Leave it like that.
Inevitably, the evidence was repetitious. When, on 6 January 1964, Sergeant Warder Abdul Ghani bin Mohd. Ali was in the box, the Judge referred to this ‘tedious business’.
He said to Crown Counsel: “Why go into it? The jury must be as sick as I am with people running up to the circus and sitting down in the circus. If you have something to prove, prove it, but are you going to call all the witnesses who gave evidence at the preliminary inquiry?” Mr Francis Seow: I will call all of them. Judge: If you are calling them to prove something. When they have proved it, sit down. Mr Francis Seow: I am giving the background. Judge: If the jury and I don’t know the background by now we had better get hold of another judge and jury. I am getting utterly sick of it if you are going to get 80 witnesses to this court to tell the same old story that they saw rioters coming down Mess Road, and some from Workshop Road, and non-rioters squatting on the circus. I am getting a little tired of it.
A witness, Kok Ah Tong, ran into the sea and swam for his life. He floated until he was picked up by a boat. His nickname was Kiah See Kwai (a timid devil). He said he was not timid, just anxious not to get involved.
When Abdul Rahman bin Maryadi alias Tengku, another settlement attendant, was giving evidence, Seow asked him about the canteen. Did he see footprints on the wall, showing that somebody had climbed to the ceiling? Was the wall dirty? Judge: A few days ago I asked what was the good of this. No one in his senses will dispute that the place was razed to the ground. Why waste time on it? What I and the jury are interested in is are there any of those accused in the dock responsible? We want to know who did these things. Who were killed? Who did the killing? Have another look at the evidence. Don’t stumble along haphazardly.
On 7 January, Chua Hai Imm was reported to be sick again. His counsel, Mr Tann, said he was screaming his head off.
On 10 January at 10:45 AM, Tan Eng Hoe alias Khan Or was, on the application of Mr Francis Seow acting under Section 203 of the Criminal Procedure Code, stood down. Mr Francis Seow informed the Court that he had decided not to proceed further against him on the three charges. An independent prosecution witness had given evidence that Tan had been with him and had not been involved in rioting. The case against the other 58 accused continued.
Tan King Hak, another witness, admitted he had been a ‘Protected Member’ of a secret society. It was explained that a ‘Protected Member’ was a collector or extortioner.
On the 29th day of the trial, counsel complained that only 31 witnesses had been covered. The Judge said he had considerable fellow-feeling for his objections. “Do try and cut it short, Mr Seow.”
When J.W. Tailford was called on 16 January, he could remember little apart from the fact that somebody had assaulted him. He was stood down. The Judge ordered that a statement be taken from him. If necessary, he could then be recalled as a witness.
Evidence was given that three rioters escaped by jumping into the sea and swimming to the lighthouse. They were recaptured.
Tan Chut Gim, owner of the canteen on the island, said on 15 January that he was attacked by a rioter with a piece of pipe. Of the 110 crates of soft drinks in the canteen, only 37 or 38 crates were intact at the end of 40 minutes of rioting. Most of the bottles had been used as missiles. All the bottles in the canteen were empty. Tan was an ex-detainee.
Mr Francis Seow started off his questioning of another witness, Alan Lim Kiat Pang, a long-sentenced prisoner sentenced for armed robbery, by asking him whether he knew there had been rioting on the island on 12 July 1963. Said the Judge, sarcastically, “Well, he must be the only one on the island if he does not. Even the jury and I know that.”
John Victor Roy, a warder, said he was chased and he jumped into the sea and swam to Pulau Pawai, a nearby island.
On 17 January, Tan Chin Chai, a detainee, told the Court that he was working on the poultry farm at the time of the revolt. He admitted to Mr Ball that he had a ‘bad fight’ with another detainee some while before, and had in consequence spent a month in hospital. He had been accused of being an informer. That was why he named friends of this man who had beaten him up. Tan denied he was an informer, or that he had identified them out of spite.
He said that rioters had shouted: “Fellow sufferers! Pulau Senang is not going to be a success! We have been here for 30 months and we are still here! Join us!”
Shortly after 11:30 AM on the morning of 21 January, Crown Counsel interrupted the proceedings to inform the Judge that Yeow Yew Boon had developed a rash which apparently needed urgent attention. Judge Buttrose promptly adjourned and Yeow was sent to hospital. When the Court reassembled after lunch, Dr Peck Tsun Yee told the Judge that Yeow was suffering from a hypersensitive reaction to a drug which had been given to him by another doctor the previous day. She said Yeow was unfit to sit in Court. He was drowsy. The Judge adjourned until the following morning, when Yeow took his place again in the dock.
When the 50th witness was produced on 23 January, the Judge asked whether the prosecution case could be finished by the end of the month. Mr Seow said he hoped so.
Mr Francis Seow to witness: You are known as Mad Chwee Hock? Witness: That is so. Mr Francis Seow: Dutton found out that you had been fighting and gave you a severe beating? Witness: Yes. Judge: He punched you? Witness: Yes. Counsel: It took you a week in hospital to recover? Witness: I never went to hospital.
A.N. Jenardaran, who served on Pulau Senang as Dutton’s first chief officer, told the Court that Dutton was hardworking, resourceful and fair. He was planning to build a school with 12 classrooms and a ring road round the island. The Judge refused to allow evidence on other projects. He felt it was irrelevant.
Tailford went into the box again on 29 January. He was still wearing the watch he wore when he was attacked. It no longer worked. It had stopped at 1:05 PM on 12 July. The fingers of the watch, he said, were bent. He could remember nothing except that he ended up with his arm broken, his watch broken and cuts on his head. He could not say who caused the injuries. He could not identify anybody.
Evidence was later given by Professor L.F. Tinker of the General Hospital. He said Tailford’s skull was fractured and he had other wounds and bruises. His forearm was broken. He had a paralysis on the left side of the face, which was indicative of damage to the control system of the brain. When he was discharged on 6 August 1963, his mental condition was normal but, as was to be expected, his power of recollection was impaired. The Professor said it was extremely unlikely that he would regain his memory of past events leading up to his injury.
Further medical evidence was given that Tan Kok Hian died in hospital the evening of 12 July. Chok Kok Tong died early the following morning.
The case for the prosecution ended at 3:00 PM the afternoon of 30 January. Twenty minutes later, the jury were sent out while all the defence counsel submitted they had no case to answer. This argument lasted until lunch-time the following day when the Judge announced he had overruled it. There was, he said, no substance in the legal submissions. He decided that there was evidence that the accused had committed the offence with which they were charged, and he proposed to ‘call on them to enter their defence’.
On 3 February, he ruled that the two accused who feigned insanity were found to be shamming; there was no question of them being unfit to plead. “I am quite satisfied that they are not insane, and that this shammed insanity was but a ruse to delay and defeat the ends of justice and to frustrate the due processes of the law.”
The Judge announced that all the accused must make their defence. Before making the announcement, he ordered that the exhibits (the parangs and other weapons) be taken away and locked up in his chambers. “I don’t like my Court cluttered up. I dislike having them lying about here with all the risk of their being turned over and disappearing.”
He told the accused they could make their defence in any one of three ways: they could go in the box and give evidence on oath (in which event they would be liable to cross-examination). The second alternative was that they could make an unsworn statement from the dock (in which event they could not be asked questions by anyone), or thirdly, they could remain silent. The Judge asked each of the accused which they preferred. Altogether, 42 accused elected to remain silent, 15 elected to give evidence on oath, and one (Yong Ah Chew alias Au Chua alias Put Yeow) decided to make an unsworn statement from the dock. The Judge told counsel that they could address the jury first or open their defence and then make a final statement. Mr Ball decided to address the jury. His address lasted exactly one and a half hours.
Mr Ball set out to attack the legality of Pulau Senang. He said it was misleading of the prosecution to refer to the accused as Criminal Law detainees. As they were not convicted persons they were not obliged to work. It was said they volunteered, but in fact they had no option. They worked, and worked long hours and got very little pay. Mr Ball warned the jury about accepting much of the evidence. Many witnesses were ex-detainees and members of rival secret societies. There had been talk of a death list. No such list had been produced. As for there being a conspiracy, where was the proof?
It was 12:55 PM when Mr Ball concluded his address to the jury. He was asked by the Judge to carry on with the rest of his defence. Then, the Judge said, the Court could hear the defence of Mr Suppiah’s clients. Mr Ball protested. He would prefer Mr Suppiah to make his address. Then all the accused could be separately defended. The Judge ruled against this. “I think you just take your clients and their witnesses. You can call your witnesses at the end of such of your clients as are giving evidence on oath or making an unsworn statement.” Mr Ball: Well, I am taken by surprise by that. And if it is a ruling I will bow to it. Judge: I’m afraid it is.
Sim Cheng Tee was the first to give his defence on oath. He swore he was a non-rioter. He produced two non-rioting witnesses to support him. On oath they also swore that Sim was a non-rioter.
Ang Teck Kee, the next prisoner, was asked why another detainee should have given evidence against him. Ang said that at Changi in 1962 they had quarrelled during a volley-ball match. He had questioned a decision given by Ang. Ang had been the referee. He called no witnesses.
Yong Ah Chew (defended by Mr Abisheganaden) made his unsworn statement from the dock. He said that Chi, who had given evidence against him, bore him a grudge over a mango the accused had picked up. As for the other man who had identified him as a rioter, well, he just wanted an early release. The two prosecution witnesses had lied. Mr Abisheganaden: May I be permitted to ask him where he was at the time of the riot? Judge: No but I will allow you a special privilege. You may confer with him, but I will not allow you to question him.
The accused then told the Court that at the time of the riot he was at the vegetable patch.
Neo Kim Leong swore he did not take part in the riot. He said that the settlement attendant who gave evidence against him had quarrelled with him in 1962. He had refused to give medicine to him. He was then in charge of the hospital. As for the sergeant who gave evidence against him, he had a grudge because he had caught the accused fishing in the sea.
Lim Heng Soon, aged 24, unmarried, said he did not take part in the riot, but had seized the opportunity to try to escape in the boat.
Mr Suppiah began the defence of Somasundram, Somasundarajoo and Lim Kim Chuan. Somasundram was 23. He was educated up to fourth standard in English and first standard in Tamil. He had lived with an uncle. His parents were killed during the Japanese occupation. He said the witness Chia had several grudges against him. Eighteen witnesses had picked him out as a rioter. Accused said he could not understand why. He could not recognise any rioters himself.
Somasundarajoo was aged 24. He spoke Chinese. He had spent two years in school when his father died. Eight witnesses had said he was rioting. He denied it. He saw no rioting, just buildings burning and bottles being thrown about.
Lim Kim Chuan at first complained that he had a headache, then he decided he would like to remain silent. This was not good enough for the Judge. Judge: I’m not going to have it said later on that he remained silent because he had a headache. If he does want to remain silent that is a matter entirely for him. It must be completely a voluntary decision, and not forced upon him by the fact that he has a headache. Mr Suppiah: Accused says that the incident took place quite some time ago. He was afraid that he would be confused were he to give evidence. He preferred to remain silent. Judge: You are properly satisfied that this is his own choice, not because he has a headache, or any other reason? Mr Suppiah: Yes, my Lord.
Mr Chng’s clients remained silent. He called no witnesses.
Chua Hai Imm was to have given his evidence on oath. He changed his mind and said he would make an unsworn statement from the dock.
He said the prosecutor was unjust. “I did not take part in the riot. Robert Choo has a grudge against me. The prosecutor is very unfair.”
Tan Tien Lay decided to remain silent. No witnesses came forward on his behalf. Both were defended by Mr Tann.
Mr Advani then addressed the jury on behalf of Kwek Kok Wah, who made an unsworn statement. He called no witnesses. In his statement he said he did not riot.
Teo Han Teck, formerly a seaman, claimed he had helped Tailford by rubbing his chest. He helped to carry him to the shade of a big tree, then he bandaged his head with a towel. Teo said he stood up to help when an officer called upon them to help and told them: ‘You will be released earlier’. That, said Teo, ‘was one of the golden opportunities which I seized’. Ng Chuan Puay elected to remain silent. He called no witnesses.
Mr Koh’s two clients, Tay Teck Bok and Aziz bin Salim (alias Terry) had elected to remain silent, but Aziz at the last minute changed his mind and gave evidence on oath. Mr Koh addressed the Court briefly on behalf of Aziz, Aziz spoke English. He had been educated at Bartley Secondary School and had left in form five, the top form. His father had been manager of a big cinema in the suburb of Katong. Aziz wore spectacles. He said he was in the mosque when the siren sounded. Eight witnesses had identified him as a rioter. He said he couldn’t understand why. They were either mistaken or had grudges against him. The first witness who said he saw Aziz taking part in the rioting was Chong Sek Ling, ‘otherwise known as Lau Hor Kia, the Number One General of the 13 Wonders Secret Society’. Aziz insisted that Chong was mistaken. Aziz said he knew Cartoon (Weng Loke Hai) had a grudge against him. A Malay witness also had a grudge against him because Aziz had accused him of stealing rations from the kitchen. Aziz said he did not recognise anybody rioting because he never had his glasses on. The Judge observed that he had worn his glasses throughout the trial. Aziz said he was never armed but he admitted drinking from a bottle a rioter offered him and having drunk from it he threw the empty bottle on the grass. A witness testified that he saw Aziz in the kitchen at the time he was supposed to be rioting.
Mr Jumabhoy’s client, Lim Kim Sian, changed his mind about giving evidence on oath and decided instead to make an unsworn statement from the dock. Koh Ah Tiaw remained silent.
Twenty-one year old Chia Tiong Gunn, a cobbler on the island, gave evidence on oath. He said he ran into the jungle when trouble started and stayed there until the police arrived.
Chia said that the warder who gave evidence against him had a grudge against him. They had quarrelled when the warder was himself a detainee. Counsel: When was this? Chia: He stole my sea-shells. Counsel: Yes. I want to know when. Chia: In 1961 when he was a police detainee. Counsel: What sort of sea-shells did he steal from you? Chia: It is a form of sea-shell: we call it ‘King Kong’. They are coloured shells. They can be displayed. Counsel: How many did he steal from you? Chia: When he was attempting to steal my sea-shells I caught him. Judge: You caught him red-handed did you? Chia: Yes. Counsel: What happened? Chia: I had an argument with him. I accused him of being a thief in Pulau Senang. He was ashamed and started to quarrel with me. Counsel: Apart from this incident, was there any other incident? Chia: Yes, when he became Settlement Assistant he asked me to make a pair of shoes. I refused and he told me to look out. Counsel: And you say it is because of these two incidents that he has identified you? Chia: Yes.
Kok Teck Thow (known as ‘Bamboo Head’) also gave evidence on oath. He was 30 years old. He told his counsel that he sent secret letters to relatives and others through a settlement assistant whom he identified. This man collected the money relatives sent in this irregular manner and he and Kok each took a percentage as commission. Kok said four or five detainees were doing this. Kok admitted that he had beaten up a witness a month prior to the rioting ‘for dirtying the hall after I had cleaned it’. Consequently, the man bore him a grudge.
Low Chai Kiat, defended by Mr Braga, was a secondary schoolboy, a former Boy Scout. He claimed he was no rioter. Indeed he had gone to Tailford’s assistance.
Mr Braga did not deny there was a riot, though his three clients, he said, did not take part. The riot was really a rebellion. They were rebelling against unjust treatment when they destroyed the settlement which they had by their sweat and toil developed into a ‘showpiece of the world’. Counsel insisted that the prosecution had failed miserably to prove the charges against the accused. He argued that Dutton had been over-enthusiastic and not treated the men as human beings. Low tide came in twice a day and Dutton had worked the men on the jetty on both tides every twenty-four hours. Men were exhausted and so hungry that they had even to ask for bread in advance and to have it deducted from their rations later. Mr Braga said that human emotions were like the spring of a watch. If the watch was properly wound it would serve well. If this was not handled with care it would require repairs. If it was given a final twist it became irreparable. “And so it was on the day of the riot. The safety valve went loose and the detainees went berserk.” Counsel said he supported Mr Ball’s contention that Pulau Senang had not been run under prison regulations as it should have been.
During the next two weeks, from 10 to 27 February, defence counsel made their submissions. On 5 March, Crown Counsel concluded his address to the jury. Then Judge Buttrose began his summing up.