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. Counseclass="underline" When was this? Chia: He stole my sea-shells. Counseclass="underline" Yes. I want to know when. Chia: In 1961 when he was a police detainee. Counseclass="underline" What sort of sea-shells did he steal from you? Chia: It is a form of sea-shelclass="underline" we call it ‘King Kong’. They are coloured shells. They can be displayed. Counseclass="underline" 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. Counseclass="underline" 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. Counseclass="underline" 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. Counseclass="underline" 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.