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. Counseclass="underline" 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 Balclass="underline" 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.