The Judge referred to rumours of settlement attendants being involved in corruption. They were alleged to have taken detainees’ letters to relatives in Singapore. They invariably asked for money. For every $50 the relatives sent back the settlement attendant demanded a cut of $15, and the gangster $5. “Rather an expensive way of getting money-a total payment of $20 to get $30,” observed the Judge. Clearly the Judge did not place much importance on these rumours.
On the value of evidence generally given by prosecution witnesses, the Judge said that a riot was a shattering and terrifying experience-‘a shouting and yelling mob… this heavy barrage of bottles… the shouts of ‘kill’ and ‘burn’… Can we, sitting here, have any conception, gentlemen of the jury, of the fear, the terror, the excitement and the panic that must have been in the minds of the witnesses, some of whom had literally to run for their lives?”
Because these witnesses had not, ‘in the agony of this uprising been able to give completely consistent accounts of what happened, consistent accounts as to the sequence of events, and as to the movement and positions of themselves in relation to themselves and others at any given moment, can they be fairly and properly criticised as being witnesses on whom you can place no reliance, as liars, as they have been called?’ The speed of this disaster spoke for itself: it was a lightning stroke, a constantly fast-moving and ever-changing scene.
The Judge advised the jury to consider the discrepancies, the inconsistencies and contradictions which appeared in some of the evidence of 60-odd witnesses. These did exist and the defence were entitled to the fullest benefit and advantage they could get out of them. “But you must ask yourself what effect they had in your mind. All I am asking you to do is that you consider it in the context in which it arose, in the heart of this violent uprising.”
For four days the Judge summed up. He praised the jury for the ‘unflagging interest and attention’ they had given the case from start to finish. They now had to consider their verdict. “If you accept the prosecution evidence, (and whether you do or not is entirely a matter for you) I, myself, do not see how you can escape the conclusion that the common object of this unlawful assembly was to wipe out Pulau Senang, to destroy it, and with it, its superintendent, those in authority with him, together with informers and anyone else who thwarted this unlawful assembly in its progress. It was their open commonly declared and proclaimed object to kill and to destroy. It appears (if you accept the prosecution evidence) to have been a well planned and boldly executed operation. And again I do not see (if you accept the prosecution evidence, and whether you do or not is for you to decide), how you can escape the conclusion that murder was an offence which the members of that unlawful assembly knew to be likely to be committed in the prosecution of the common object. The very nature of the unlawful assembly itself, quite apart as I say from the evidence as to the plotting and the planning of it, the very nature of the unlawful assembly itself, the weapons which the members of it openly collected, armed themselves with, carried and used, the conduct of the members of the unlawful assembly, was but the logical follow-on and consummation of the declared object. The shouts of ‘burn’ and ‘kill’, ‘come down and be assaulted to death’, ‘death to the informers’-in all their various connotations, repeated time and time again; and finally the climax to all this, the killing of Dutton, of Singham and of Tan Kok Hian. Whichever way you look at the evidence I do not myself see how you can escape the conclusion that the crime of murder was committed. Here again I hasten to add that all this is a matter entirely for you to consider, but I repeat again that if you accept the prosecution evidence I do not see how you can escape the conclusion that murder was committed, committed in circumstances of such utter brutality and callousness that beggars description. How can it possibly (you will ask yourselves) be said, gentlemen of the jury, that those who were concerned in striking those terrible blows on these three persons did not do so except with the intention of killing or causing such bodily injury as they knew to be likely to kill, or were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to kill?”
The Judge said that Mr Suppiah had, in his address to the jury ‘rather lavishly’ sprinkled alternative verdicts for them to consider. One of them was culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The Judge said he could only repeat again, by what possible stretch of the imagination could it be said that those persons who struck those fearful blows did not mean to do it, did not intend to kill? Mr Suppiah had also suggested a possible alternative verdict was arson. The Judge reminded the jury that they were concerned with murder. The accused were not charged with destroying buildings. It would be quite improper for the jury to consider arson as an alternative verdict. He directed the jury that in this case arson was not an alternative verdict. The accused were charged with murder. Three verdicts were open to them. Firstly, that the accused were members of this unlawful assembly. Secondly, that the common objects of unlawful assembly were to cause the deaths of Dutton, Singham, Tan Kok Hian, Cartoon, Chia Teck Whee, and others, and to destroy Pulau Senang. Thirdly, that while these accused were members of this unlawful assembly, one or more of them in the persecution of the common object of that assembly murdered Dutton (the first charge), Singham (the second charge), Tan Kok Hian (the third charge) and fourthly, that murder was an offence which the accused knew to be likely to be committed in the prosecution of the common object. Those accused who were members of that unlawful assembly were guilty of murder and the jury must return a verdict accordingly. But if the jury was satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused were members of that assembly but had a reasonable doubt as to whether some of them were still members at the time when Dutton, Singham and Tan Kok Hian were killed, then those in respect of whom the jury had a reasonable doubt would not be guilty of murder. An alternative verdict of rioting could be returned. Or, if the jury had any reasonable doubt about any of the accused being members of the unlawful assembly, they could return a verdict of ‘Not Guilty’, and that would be the end of the case. “If you are left in any reasonable doubt as to whether the accused, or any of them, committed these offences, you must give the accused the benefit of the doubt in every case. But if on the other hand, you are satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt, you are sure that some or more, or all of them, committed the crimes with which they had been charged, then of course you will do your duty and return a verdict against them.”
The Judge told them to take as long as the interests of justice required to reach their verdict.
The Court adjourned at 11:35 AM on 11 March 1964. The jury returned at 4:10 PM the following day.
The following prisoners were found not guilty and acquitted: ·
Kwek Kok Wah · Tay Teck Bok · Leow Ah Chai · Lim Kim Sian · Soh Ah Kang · Koh Ah Tiaw · Tan Tian Lay · Gan Kim Siong · Ng Pang Leng · Chia Tiong Guan · Low Chai Kiat
The following were found guilty of rioting: · Heng Lian Choon · Tok Kok Peng · Cheong Kim Seng · Choy Peng Kwong · Lim Heng Soon · Lim Thiam Huat ·
Sim Cheng Tee · Ang Teck Kee · Yong Ah Chew · Teng Ah Kow · Koh Teck Thow
The Judge said they could consider themselves the luckiest people alive ‘in that the evidence against them, apparently, failed in the eyes of the jury, to come up to the standard which the law requires before they could be convicted of the offences with which they were charged.’ There could be no possible doubt whatever that they were members of the unlawful assembly and were among the rioters taking part in the uprising. “The sentence I am about to impose upon each of you is, in my view, utterly inadequate to the occasion. My hands are tied. You will go to prison for two years-the maximum penalty prescribed by law for this offence.”