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.”
The Judge turned to the defence of Lim Kim Sian and Koh Ah Tiaw. Lim remained silent. There was only one witness against him-Chia had said Lim was armed with a cangkul. In the lower court Chia had said that Lim had a pipe. There was therefore a discrepancy. Lim remained silent. Koh said nothing in his defence. Again, the witness was Chia. In the lower court Chia said Koh had a stick in his hand. Before the jury he swore it was a cangkul. The defence said that as their identification of Lim and Koh depended on Chia’s evidence alone it would be unwise to convict them, in these circumstances.
Chia Tiong Guan, Koh Teck Thow and Low Chai Kiat, were represented by Mr Braga. They all gave evidence on oath. Chia Tiong Guan had been identified as a rioter by one witness, who could not say if Chia was armed. Chia said the witness had a grudge against him. Remarked the Judge: “My only comment is this: if it were true that Foong Lai Chuan had a grudge against the accused, does it not seem likely, to say the least, that Foong would say that he didn’t see if the accused carried a weapon. If he had a grudge is it not more likely that he would say the accused did carry a weapon?”
Koh Teck Thow admitted hacking at a punishment cell with an axe to free a friend, but he denied taking part in any riot. A ‘sworn brother’ of Low Chai Kiat testified that Low never took part in the rioting. “You will ask yourself why this ‘sworn brother’ did not call the accused to come with him to the beach.”
The Judge again reminded the jury of the danger of convicting an accused on the evidence of only one witness. Gan Kim Siong, for instance. The only evidence against him substantially was that of Marlow, the mechanic. He said he saw Gan in the boat when Marlow had been forced into the boat by Teng Eng Tay. “That is not, I suggest, sufficient evidence to justify a conviction, and you will in these circumstances have little difficulty in returning a verdict of ‘Not Guilty’ against him. It would in my view, be improper for you to consider a possible alternative verdict of escaping from lawful custody against him. Such an offence has no connection with the offence of murder with which he has been charged.”
The following were also accused by one witness: Tay Teck Bok, Soh Ah Kang, Ng Pang Leng, Low Chai Kiat, Leow Ah Chai, Koh Ah Tiaw, Chia Tiong Guan, Lim Kim Sian, and Tan Tian Lay. Five of them-Tay Teck Bok, Leow Ah Chai, Lim Kim Sian, Soh Ah Kang and Koh Ah Tiaw had been identified as rioters solely by Chai, the rehabilitation officer who had been on the island for a year and knew the faces of them all well. “If there is a reasonable doubt as to Chia’s identification you will acquit them.”
Kwek Kok Wah had been identified by two witnesses. They said he threw large stones at them. “Does this evidence leave you with a reasonable doubt about him being involved in the rioting in which Dutton and the others were killed? Did he see the witnesses fleeing and threw a stone at them because he was frightened?”
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.