Alex Josey

Cold blooded murders

THE PERFECT CRIME

Pulau Dua or the Sisters Islands

Pulau Dua are two little islands separated by a straits, about 700 feet apart. The straits vary in depth between 30 and 35 feet.

“The islands are about four miles from Jardine Steps in Singapore Harbour and they are among the southernmost islands of the Southern Islands, beyond which stretches the open seas, with Indonesia in the distance.

… the waters are extremely hazardous. They are dangerous because of the remarkable eddies and swirls which occur there, and the speed of the current around the islands varies with the speed of the tides from half a knot to some four knots.”

— Crown Counsel

Verdict

“Members of the jury, have you agreed upon your verdict?”

“Yes.”

“What is your verdict?”

“Guilty.”

“Is that unanimous or by a majority?”

“It is unanimous.”

Justice Buttrose addressed the young man in the dock, “Ang, the jury have by a unanimous verdict found you guilty of this crime of murder, and I accordingly convict you.” The judge turned to counsel. “Do either of you wish to address me?”

“No, my Lord.”

Justice Buttrose said, “Ang you have been convicted by the unanimous verdict of the jury of a terrible crime. You killed this young girl Jenny, whose only fault apparently was that she had the misfortune to fall in love with you, and to give you everything she possessed: her all. You killed her for personal gain. It is a crime cunningly contrived to give the appearance of an accident, and it was carried out with consummate coolness and nerve. At long last the time has come for you to pay the penalty for your dreadful deed.”

Ang showed no emotion. The faint smile, which had been on his thin lips through most of the 13 days’ trial, was still there as the judge sentenced him to death. Outside the courtroom, his law-student sister, Juliet Ang, broke down and cried.

August 1963 was a month of intense political activity in the tropical island-state of Singapore. Strong feeling had also been aroused by the discovery, by workmen digging foundations, of human bones, further proof of Japanese military atrocities during the Second World War. Most of Singapore’s population of some two million are of Chinese origin: they suffered considerably during the Japanese occupation. Politically, Singapore (lying at the foot of the Malay Peninsula, an island of some 225 square miles, most of the equatorial swamps and jungle turned into modern roads, and industrial sites and commercial centres) was fast moving into complete independence through merger with Malaya and the creation of Malaysia. This experiment in multiracialism regrettably failed when Singapore was separated from Malaysia almost exactly two years later.

In August 1963, Singapore papers were full of the sensational case in England involving Christine Keeler and a British Cabinet Minister. In Moscow, leaders of the United States and the Soviet Union drank champagne after signing the test-ban treaty. Sir Alec Home, the British Prime Minister, said that the world had become a safer place.

In Washington, President Kennedy’s two-day-old son died in hospital. Monks in Vietnam burnt themselves to death. In Britain, the Great Train Robbery of more than?2.5 million thrilled the world. In Kuala Lumpur, capital of Malaysia (connected to Singapore by a mile-long causeway), a Member of Parliament accused the Minister of Education, Abdul Rahim bin Haji Talib, of corruption. “Say that outside,” demanded the Minister. Obligingly, the Member did. The Minister took him to Court, and lost.

Lord Nuffield died, and ended an era. There was a drought in Singapore, where 71 secret society gangsters were charged with murder during a. riot at an open prison on a nearby isle, Pulau Senang, the previous month. Eighteen were later hanged.

During much of August 1963, Singapore was preparing for Malaysia Day, the last day of the month when the creation of Malaysia would be celebrated. Indonesia, just across the waters, was already objecting, and Tunku Abdul Rahman, then Malaya’s Prime Minister, had flown to Manila to talk to President Sukarno and President Macapagal. Agreement was reached that the United Nations be asked to satisfy themselves (which they did) that the Borneo states of Sabah and Sarawak in fact wanted to become part of Malaysia. At these talks Sukarno described the Tunku as ‘a great statesman’, and Macapagal ‘a great leader of Asia’. For his part, the Tunku was prepared to admit that Sukarno and Macapagal were both ‘dynamic leaders who have fought colonialism and imperialism’. Within days the agreement completely collapsed. After abandoning the United Nations, Sukarno spent much of the following three years trying to smash Malaysia.

On Sunday, 25 August 1963, 100,000 people assembled on the grassy padang in front of Singapore’s City Hall, next to the Courts, to demand that Japan pay SGD$50 million as a gesture of atonement for their war atrocities to civilians during the occupation. During that month of August feelings were running high for many reasons. Political tension was apparent. Communist elements were trying to exploit every issue they thought could be distorted to embarrass the government: they did all they could to frighten, confuse and threaten the people over Singapore’s impending merger with Malaysia.

Against this excited and troubled background, a news item in The Straits Times headed ‘Barmaid out diving with boyfriend disappears’ aroused no more than casual interest. Nobody knew then that nearly two years later, this Tuesday afternoon swimming tragedy was to form the substance of one of the most remarkable murder trials ever heard in the Far East. The Straits Times report, obtained from the police, read as follows; A barmaid, Cheok Cheng Kid, 22, went skin-diving with her boyfriend off Pulau Dua at 2:30 pm yesterday. Three hours later she vanished in the sea. Until late today Marine Police launches were searching the sea off the island but found no trace of Cheok’s body. Cheok had hired a motor sampan with Sunny Ang, 24, part-time law student, at Jardine Steps yesterday afternoon. About 3:00 pm they reached Pulau Dua near St John’s Island. They fitted on their goggles, mouthpiece, flippers and compressed air cylinders and dived from the sampan in turns in search of coral. After several dives they took off their gear and rested for a little while. They then decided to start diving again. While Mr Ang was fitting on his gear, Cheok plunged into the water. Mr Ang found a break in his breathing apparatus and asked the boatman to help him repair it. When he failed to repair the leak he signalled Cheok to surface. He tugged at her lifeline several times until it snapped before he gave up and rushed to nearby St John’s Island to report to the Marine Police. The police, helped by five islanders, rushed to the scene and dived several times in search of Cheok, but found no traces of her. Cheok lived at Tanglin Halt and worked in a bar in North Bridge Road. Mr Ang told the police that he had been going steady with her for the past six months. Their favourite hobby was skin-diving and they had gone to Pulau Dua several times before.

Neither the police, nor The Straits Times, were then to know that this report was inaccurate in several instances. ‘They’ did not fit on their goggles, etc. Only Cheok fitted on diving gear. ‘They’ did not dive from the sampan in turns. Only Cheok dived. And she dived twice. She was never seen again. Ang did not get even his feet wet that day. He did not dive in search of her (though one of the Malays who did was 62 years old), when Cheok did not surface. Cheok no longer worked as a barmaid. Ang had not been going steady with her for six months. He had only known her three months. They had never before been skin-diving together at Pulau Dua, a notoriously dangerous area for swimmers. Not until the trial was the importance of these discrepancies to be revealed. According to the prosecution, this was the story of ‘the accident’, which Ang had carefully concocted and thought would be believed. It might have been, and Ang might today be a free man, had he not been greedy.

When Ang first made his report, the police did not know that three hours before Jenny Cheok got in the sampan which took her to her death, Ang had reinsured her life for five days (the previous 14 days’ policy having expired the previous day), for $150,000. When Jenny, a penniless barmaid, made her fatal dive she was covered by nearlv half a million dollars’ worth of insurance, all of which Jenny had willed to Ang’s mother. Ang had, in fact, tried to get $900,000 worth of cover, but failed. Within 24 hours of Jenny’s disappearance, Ang was claiming the half-million dollars from three different insurance companies. The letters were identical: Jenny had met with a tragic accident while scuba-diving off one of the islands south of Singapore at about 5:00 PM on 27 August 1963. The letters went on: ‘She is presumed to have either drowned or been attacked by a shark. Her body is yet to be found.’

In due course, the police were to find evidence indicating that Ang, in July, had been thinking about involving Jenny in an aeroplane ‘accident’. Formerly a member of the Singapore Flying Club, Ang in 1961 held a pilot’s licence. He made inquiries about flying risks, saying that Jenny intended joining the club as a student pilot (he said she was the owner of a poultry farm), and also about personal accident risks. Jenny was eventually insured for $200,000 and Ang paid the premiums and collected the policies. That same day, Sunny Ang went to another insurance company and made inquiries which ended up a few days later in Jenny being insured for another $150,000. He paid the premium. Three weeks before she disappeared in the sea off Pulau Dua, Ang took Jenny to an old and reputable firm of lawyers so that she could make her will. Jenny left everything, her entire estate, which was worthless, and her expectations of nearly half a million dollars once she was dead, to Madam Yeo Bee Neo, whom she had never met. Madam Yeo Bee Neo is Sunny Ang’s mother.

Ang apparently abandoned the aeroplane ‘accident’ idea after getting his girlfriend interested in scuba-diving. This followed his unsuccessful night-time attempt to kill her in a motor ‘accident’. Ang was a skilled driver. He competed in the 1961 Singapore Grand Prix, and had put up a credible performance. On 13 August, he drove Jenny 300 miles to Kuala Lumpur, on the way, Jenny was told, to the Cameron Highlands for a holiday which was to last between a week and a fortnight. Half-way to Kuala Lumpur they stopped for breakfast, which gave both of them stomach ache. They decided to stay in Kuala Lumpur for a couple of days to recover before going on. During the night, or at least some time before the following morning, they apparently abandoned their plans for a holiday, and decided to return to Singapore. But first Sunny Ang went out and bought a 14-day accident policy for Jenny and himself. His was for $30,000. Hers was for $100,000. He paid the premium.

Ang at his trial said Jenny insisted upon him taking out the policy because of his reckless driving on the way up. Only two people knew the truth about what happened that night on the way back. Ang’s story was that on turning a right-hand corner on a dark road he saw a dog lying on the road. He sounded his horn and braked simultaneously. He said he braked very hard. As a result Jenny’s head struck the windscreen, and frosted it. Ang said he veered to the left and hit the earth embankment on the side of the road, the same side of the car where Jenny was sitting.

Jenny had a swelling on her forehead, bruises on the body, and a cut on her lower lip. The car was very badly damaged, mostly on the passenger’s side. It had to be towed away. Ang told the judge he was probably doing 50 mph when he crashed into the earth wall. They returned the rest of the way to Singapore by train. They arrived at 7:00 AM in the morning. Ang sent her home by taxi. He gave her a dollar to see a doctor. At his trial, Ang denied Cheok was naive. He agreed she was simple. He also agreed that no doctor in Singapore would treat a patient for a dollar. He told the Court that he loved Jenny and planned to marry her.

Ang may have planned to kill her the day he met her, in the Odeon Bar, one evening at the end of May, or beginning of July 1963. He may have gone to the bar where she worked, deliberately searching for a suitable victim. He was a bankrupt. He needed money urgently. There is no evidence to substantiate this theory, but it is likely because less than three weeks after Ang had met Jenny he attempted to take out an accident policy on her life worth $200,000.

Suspicions aroused, the insurance company sent out an investigator. Jenny told the insurance man who called upon her that she knew nothing about an insurance policy. But she could remember Ang giving her a paper to sign. In view of this the insurance company decided not to go on with the policy. Ang promptly tried another company which also refused to insure Jenny, the managing director, after conversation with the other company, coming to the conclusion that the application was suspicious and fraudulent. Ang waited a few days before going to the third company. He told this company that Jenny was the proprietress of a chicken farm. With them he insured Jenny’s life for $150,000.

Ten months after Jenny’s disappearance, Sunny Ang was still trying to get the money. He knew the police were making inquiries, but in desperation he telephoned the company. He told them that if they were willing to give him two-thirds of the claim, he would be prepared to sign an affidavit admitting that Jenny had never in fact owned a poultry farm. The company man on the telephone asked Ang where Jenny was. Ang replied, briefly, “At the bottom of the sea!”

With Jenny still alive after the road accident, Ang hurried with his preparations to murder her with the scuba-diving accident. Ang was forced to hurry: all the policies were short-term. He could not afford to keep renewing them. Time was fast running out: days counted. On the morning of 27 August he renewed one of Jenny’s insurances which had expired the previous day, for a further five days, and then took her out to sea, to her death. Part of the equipment Jenny wore when she dived to her doom was a flipper with a heel-strap partly severed by a sharp knife.

More than 16 months elapsed before the police charged Ang with murder. He was arrested on 21 December 1964. He appeared before a magistrate the following day. On the charge sheet, Cheok was described as Jenny Cheok Cheng Kid, aged 22, a divorcee and mother of two. No plea was entered. Ang was remanded in custody.

The Inquiry

Six days later ang again appeared in court and was given a discharge not amounting to an acquittal by the magistrate, Mr Sachi Saurajen. Ang’s counsel, Mr Punch Coomaraswamy, objected to Ang being kept in remand while the prosecution was unable to fix a date for the preliminary inquiry, and successfully applied for Ang’s discharge. Counsel said that the alleged offence was committed 16 months ago, and if the prosecution was still not ready with the case, Ang should be let free. Senior Inspector T. S. Zain told the Court he had received no instructions to fix a date for the preliminary inquiry.

About an hour later Ang was re-arrested, and, the following morning, charged again with the same offence before the same magistrate, Mr Sachi Saurajen. Mr Punch Coomaraswamy again raised objections to the prosecution’s application for a week’s adjournment. He asked the Court to fix a date for the preliminary inquiry. Otherwise his client, he argued, should be released on bail. Senior Inspector T. S. Zain regretted he had no instructions to fix a date for the inquiry, only to ask for a week’s adjournment.

‘In the interests of justice’, the magistrate adjourned the Court until after lunch in order that the Inspector could contact his superiors. When the Court resumed, the deputy public prosecutor, Mr K. S. Rajah, hastily summoned, explained that the prosecution asked for a week’s adjournment because of ‘certain circumstances’. He admitted it was true that the alleged offence had been committed 16 months ago, but Ang, he pointed out, had only been arrested on 21 December, the day before he appeared in Court. Mr Rajah added that the prosecution wanted to ‘tread warily’. The alleged offence he said was not a trivial one. Twenty-live witnesses would be called, and ‘further evidence might come to light’.

Mr Coomaraswamy replied that although Sunny Ang was arrested on 21 December, the police must have started their investigation long before then. The magistrate decided to grant the week’s adjournment, and Ang was remanded in Outram Prison. His request for bail was refused.

Fixed for 24 February 1965, the preliminary inquiry into ‘a tentative murder charge’ did not in fact start until the following day. This was because Mr Punch Coomaraswamy failed to turn up. He was engaged on another case in Kuala Lumpur. Mr Francis T. Seow, senior crown counsel, spent almost the entire day in Court, and protested that Mr Coomaraswamy should at least have had the courtesy to inform him he was on another case. Mr Coomaraswamy apologized when the inquiry began the next day.

The inquiry lasted seven days and Ang was committed for trial. Mr Seow started off by asking the Court to warn ‘in the strongest terms’ parties concerned against what he called any future suborning of prosecution witnesses. Mr Seow also asked the Court to exclude from the hearing Ang’s mother, Madam Yeo Bee Neo, whom, he said, stood to benefit by $400,000 from the death of the murdered girl. In addition he wanted the Court to exclude all members of the Ang family, as well as any other persons who might be called by the defence as witnesses.

Mr Seow alleged that attempts had been made to suborn his witness, Yusuf bin Ahmad, a boatman of Pulau Brani. Mr Seow protested that Yusuf, his main witness, had been approached on two separate occasions by Ang’s mother and his brother Richard after Ang’s arrest. “Money in fact had been given to this witness, and a gift in kind, before this witness was brought to counsel for the defence. Money had also in fact been given to Yusuf after he had seen counsel.” Mr Seow said the implications were very clear. “It is nothing but an attempt to suborn a witness for the prosecution.”

After an exchange between the two counsels, Mr Seow said, “Mr Coomaraswamy saw Yusuf in his chambers. He had no business whatsoever to interview or record a statement from this witness. What is the object of giving this witness money? Not only money, but also a gift in kind?”

Mr Coomaraswamy replied, “In view of Mr Seow’s categorical statement I am happy to say that I did see this witness. I did it knowing full well what I was doing, and after obtaining professional advice on the matter. I am conscious that an allegation of this nature would be made without any foundation. I have taken the fullest precautions and am prepared, if necessary and at the appropriate time when asked, to state that I have acted with the utmost propriety, both as an officer of this Court, and also as an honest man.”

Yusuf told the Court that after Ang’s arrest, Ang’s younger brother saw him at his house. The brother brought him a tin of powdered milk ‘for my family’. He accepted the tin, but ‘being afraid to consume it’, he later sold it for $4.50-less than market price. Yusuf added that Ang’s brother said he would take him to see a lawyer ‘to make a statement’. Later the brother called again and gave him $10. On another occasion, Ang’s mother took him to see Mr Coomaraswamy. After interviewing him, Mr Coomaraswamy gave him $30 to compensate for his loss of earning for the day, and his fare. Yusuf added that his minimum earnings were $3–4 a day. The highest he had ever earned was $20. He agreed that Mr Coomaraswamy told him not to receive any money from any other persons in connection with the case.

The magistrate issued a general warning that it was most serious for anyone to try to suborn any witness, but he did not address his remarks to anyone in particular. He thought that at this stage it would not be justifiable to exclude Ang’s relatives from the Court, or indeed anyone wishing to attend.

But he did, the following day, on the ground that if the case went up to the High Court Madam Yeo would almost certainly be a witness. Mr Coomaraswamy said he could not speak for Madam Yeo, as she was not his client, but he said the hearing must be open to all, and there should be no breach of that principle.

What The Straits Times called ‘another highlight’ of the day’s proceedings at the inquiry, was the sudden collapse in the witness-box of the crown’s principal witness, the boatman Yusuf. Yusuf fell to the floor with a thud as Mr Coomaraswamy began to cross-examine him. Yusuf was taken in an ambulance to the General Hospital, where he was X-rayed and later sent home by the police. He was not injured. Under cross-examination, Yusuf revealed that an insurance company had offered him $6,000 to tell the truth, the whole truth. He said he told the police about this.

Another prosecution witness, Captain Vernon Bailey, of the Singapore Marine Department, testified that the waters around the Sisters Islands were extremely hazardous. He produced an admiralty chart which showed that the straits had a minimum depth of 30–35 feet. He gave details of tidal streams and eddies.

Lee See Hong, managing partner of the Odeon Bar and Restaurant, said that Jenny worked only a couple of months in his bar. She left in mid-July 1963. Her salary was $90 a month. He estimated that her daily tips from customers came to about $10.

“This Court,” declared Mr Francis Seow, on the seventh and last day of the inquiry, “is not being asked to make any finding of facts. It is only a Court of Inquiry, and all that you need to do is to be satisfied that there are sufficient grounds to commit the accused for trial. We are only asking you whether the evidence so far is credible enough, and that is all.”

Mr Seow spoke of what he called the ‘overwhelming, the overpowering, motives’ in the case. He asked, “Why should an ex-waitress, with little or no money of her own, be insured to the tune of $400,000? Why should the accused pay the premiums? Why should all the lies have to be told to various insurance companies?”

Earlier, evidence had been given that Jenny left all her money to Ang’s mother, whom Jenny had never met. Evidence was also given that Madam Yeo, Ang’s mother, applied to the High Court on

4 November 1964, for a motion to have Jenny presumed dead. Jenny went skin-diving on 27 August 1963 and failed to surface. Eileen Toh, unemployed, told the Court that Jenny was her half-sister. They had grown up together. She said Jenny was married, and had a son and a daughter. Both children were with her husband from whom Jenny was separated. Jenny’s spoken English was not good because she had left the English school at Standard Three, “We were very close, and we previously lived together in Lim Liak Street, and later in Tanglin Halt.” Toh said that Jenny met Ang for the first time in the Odeon Bar. “Ang then became Jenny’s boyfriend. She was very fond of him.” Ang visited Jenny three or four times a week.

Among the exhibits produced at the inquiry was a skin-diver’s flipper, with clean cuts on a strap. The prosecution claimed that this had been recovered, near where Jenny failed to surface, by David Henderson, formerly of the RAF Changi Sub-aqua Club. He was one of the divers who took part in attempts to find Jenny. Phang Sin Eng, a government chemist, told the Court that the flipper had two clean cuts on the top and the bottom of a strap, and a tear right across it. He said it was most unlikely from the positions of these cuts, and the tears that followed them, that the cuts could have been made by coral. But the cuts could have been made by any sharp instrument, like a pair of scissors, a knife, or a razor blade.

A schoolboy, David Benjamin Woodworth, identified the flipper. He was a classmate of Ang’s brother William, in Singapore, in 1963, and he also knew Sunny Ang. He said he lent two pairs of flippers to William: this was one of them.

Another important exhibit were the four books which Inspector Richard Lui of the Special Investigation Section of the Criminal Investigation Department seized at Ang’s home when he arrested him on 21 December 1964. The books were Atkinson’s Skin-Diving, Hampton’s The Master Diver and Underwater Sportsman, Ivanovic’s Modern Spear Fishing, and Du Ros’s Skin-Diving in Australia. These books, one in particular, were to play a vital role in the case against Sunny Ang at his trial.

Altogether, the prosecution called 39 witnesses at the inquiry. Several were from the insurance companies. An official from an insurance company produced a letter dated 28 August 1963, the day after Jenny disappeared. It was from Sunny Ang, writing from 57 Sennett Road, Singapore 16. The letter was read in Court. It said:

This is to inform you that Madam Cheok Cheng Kid, who is insured with your company bad met a tragic accident while scuba-diving in one of the islands off Singapore at 5:00 pm yesterday. She is presumed to have been either drowned or attacked by sharks. Her body is yet to be found. Further information about the incident can be obtained from Inspector Aziz of the Marine Police. Please acknowledge receipt of this letter. Thank you.

Another letter, from Ang, written the same day to a different insurance company referred to ‘a tragic accident at sea’.

Mr Coomaraswamy addressed the Court for an hour. He dealt exhaustively with the functions of a magistrate in an inquiry of this nature. He explained why he had cross-examined only some witnesses, and he finally submitted that the prosecution had not made out a case for committal. The evidence, he said, was not of a nature which would lead a Court to say that the only one and irresistible inference was that Jenny was dead. Even assuming she was dead, it had not been ascertained how she died. Even if there had been a death, there must be evidence that it resulted from a voluntary act on Ang’s part. Counsel argued there was no such evidence.

Mr Saurajen adjourned the Court for 20 minutes and then gave his verdict. He said, “Having heard the evidence in support of the prosecution case, I am of the opinion that on the evidence as it stands the accused should be committed for trial.”

Mr Coomaraswamy said that Sunny Ang reserved his defence.

What is Murder?

Singapore’s criminal law follows closely the pattern of British law upon which the Singapore legal system is structured. Over the 140-odd years of Singapore’s existence in a legalistic sense, first as a British trading post, then as a colony which rapidly developed after the Second World War into a protected self-governing state before becoming part of independent Malaysia (Singapore became an independent sovereign state in August 1965), there had been many murder trials. But there had always been a body. This was the first time a man stood in a Singapore Court charged with the murder of a person whose body could not be produced.

And no one saw the murder. No one saw the girl die.

At the time Jenny died, her body swept out to sea, her air tank probably exhausted and her flipper lost, Sunny Ang was talking to the boatman. The prosecution argued that Ang did not dive in at all that afternoon because he wanted to remain in sight of the boatman, his alibi. It could therefore never be said of him that he went under the water and killed Jenny. He was with the boatman all the time. By remaining in the sampan throughout the entire incident he could always say it was an accident with which he was in no way concerned.

Thus, not only did the prosecution have to satisfy the jury that Jenny Cheok was dead, a conclusion to be reached only through circumstantial evidence, for her body had disappeared, but the prosecution, by the same means, by circumstantial evidence, had also to prove that Sunny Ang was responsible for the accident which was intended to cause Jenny’s death.

“Murder,” Justice Buttrose told the jury, “is the unlawful killing or causing of death of one human being by another human being with the intention of doing so. An accidental killing or causing of death is not murder because, in such a case, the intention to cause death was absent. The intention to kill, therefore, is of the essence of the offence.”

On the question of intention, the judge said that “every person is presumed to intend the natural and probable consequences of his acts. In other words, that he intends to do what he in fact does.” He gave an example. “If two persons are walking together along a high cliff-top, with the sea and the rocks hundreds of feet below; and as they approach a certain point on the cliff which is known to one of them to overhang the rest of the cliff and to be in a dangerous condition; and he turns to the other-his intended victim, whom he intends to murder-and says, ‘You go along the edge and have a look over because the view is superb and you can see the breakers crashing on the rocks below’; and the unsuspecting victim goes on, while the other who has asked him to go on has conveniently discovered a pebble in his shoe, and he steps behind to take off his shoe and to get rid of this imaginary pebble; and his victim on reaching the cliff-edge, it caves in, and he is dashed to his death on the rocks below-now that, members of the jury, is murder, just as if the other had gone along and pushed his victim over the edge.”

“Similarly,” explained Justice Buttrose, “if you take a novice scuba-diver to waters which you knew to be inherently dangerous with the intention that this novice scuba-diver shall dive into those waters, and you intend that by so doing she will never come up again, that she will be killed-for whatever reason at all is quite immaterial-if that is your intention, that this novice diver should go down into those waters and you intend that she should be killed, then that is equally murder as if you had accompanied that novice diver down to the bottom of the sea-bed and strangled her with your own hands.”

Justice Buttrose said the prosecution had to prove three things. First, that the death of a human being had taken place. Second, that such death was caused by or in consequence of the act of the accused. Third, that such act was done with the intention of causing death.

On the first point, the judge went on, “If no death, then of course no murder. You will observe that I have deliberately and intentionally said, ‘If no death, then no murder’, not ‘If no dead body, then no murder’. The difference in phraseology is vital because the distinction is very real. It seems to have become a popular fallacy that there can be no conviction for murder unless the body of the victim is found and produced. Nothing could be more fallacious or more untrue. I direct you, as a matter of law, that a person may be convicted of murder without the body of the victim being found or produced.” Justice Buttrose said that what the prosecution must do was to prove the death of a human being, not to produce a dead body. The production of the dead body, of course, made the proof of death very easy. The absence of a dead body, of course, made the proof of death more difficult, and the onus on the prosecution of proving it, heavier. But that was all.

The judge warned the jury they must be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that Jenny was murdered by Ang, in that he caused her death with the intention of causing her death. “There is no actual eye-witness as to how she died. There is no one who can tell us what happened, down on the sea bed some 30–40 feet below the surface, to this young girl of 22 years of age on this fateful afternoon, the 27 of August 1963. Only Jenny herself could have told us, but, according to the prosecution, her lips have been sealed forever.”

The prosecution case was that Jenny was dead, and that Ang deliberately and intentionally caused her death. They relied entirely on circumstantial evidence to prove it. “Now,” said the judge, “in case there should be any idea in your minds that circumstantial evidence is intrinsically or necessarily of any less value than the direct testimony of eye-witnesses, let me at once disabuse you on it.” Justice Buttrose said that the fact of death may be proved, and proved quite adequately, by circumstantial evidence, as may the fact that murder had been committed be proved, and proved quite adequately, by circumstantial evidence.

“But,” added the judge, “there are two things I must tell you about circumstantial evidence. The first is that it is the cumulative effect of all the evidence that is important, not one isolated link in the chain of circumstantial evidence. It would be quite wrong for you to consider the case link by link, and looking at one link in the chain, say to yourselves, ‘Well, that is certainly very suspicious, but not enough’, and discard it: and so on through each separate link doing the same thing until nothing is left. That would be an utterly erroneous approach to this question, and you must consider circumstantial evidence in its totality. The cumulative effect of every one of those links must be considered together, not individually. The second thing I must draw your attention to is that the question in this case, depending as it does on circumstantial evidence, is whether the cumulative of all the evidence leads to the irresistible conclusion that it was the accused who committed this crime. Or is there some reasonably possible explanation such as, for example: was it an accident?”

The Trial: Case For The Prosecution

The trial lasted 13 days. The foreman of the seven-man jury was a Dane, Nielsen Jorgan Neinholdt. Court documents showed that the case had been marked No. 13 of 1965. Mr Francis Seow, prosecuting on behalf of the State, was assisted by Mr Syed Alwee bin Ahmad Alsree.

The charge was: “That you, Sunny Ang, alias Sunny Ang Soo Suan, alias Anthony Ang, on or about the 27 day of August 1963 at or about 5:00 PM at sea off Pulau Dua, also known as the Sisters Islands, Singapore, committed murder by causing the death of one Jenny Cheok Cheng Kid and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Penal Code Chapter 119.”

“I claim trial,” said Sunny Ang.

Mr Francis Seow’s opening speech was not unduly lengthy. “The case for the prosecution,” he began briskly, “is that Sunny Ang on 27 August, 1963, at about 5:00 PM murdered Jenny Cheok Cheng Kid by causing her to be drowned whilst she was scuba-diving in the Straits between Pulau Dua… the prosecution suggests that her body was carried by the currents probably out to the open sea. At any rate, it was never found, despite intensive search for several days by divers from the Royal Navy and from the RAF Changi Sub-aqua Club.”

At once Mr Seow sought to establish the legal fact that murder can be determined through circumstantial evidence even though the body of the victim is missing. He said, “This is the first case of its kind to be tried in our Courts. There is no body here. There is a general belief that you cannot charge a person with, let alone convict him of, the offence of murder where the victim’s body has not or could not be found. This is, of course, quite fallacious. If a person who kills another person is crafty enough to dispose of the body of the victim successfully, say by dissolving it in an acid bath or where he intentionally causes his victim to drown at sea, using his knowledge of the tides and currents, calculates that his victim’s body would be carried by tidal streams out to the open sea (which makes it difficult if not impossible to recover the body), it does not mean that he cannot be prosecuted for murder, and if prosecuted, cannot be convicted of it. It only means that the onus of proof on the prosecution becomes heavier than usual. In such cases, there are two main questions which the prosecution will have to prove to your satisfaction. The first is: is the person named in the charge dead? Is Jenny dead? If so, the second question will be, at the end of this trial: has it been proved that the prisoner, Sunny Ang, murdered her? In the context of this case, members of the jury, and subject to what my Lord may say, murder is the intentional killing of one human being by another human being.”

“Jenny,” continued counsel, “at the time of her disappearance was 22 years of age. She received her formal education in English up to Standard Three. She was married according to Chinese rites at an early age to Yui Chin Chuan, with whom she had two children. A few years later she separated from him and continued to remain separated up to the date of her disappearance. Her father had died and her mother married Toh Kim Seng. They had a daughter, Eileen Toh, with whom Jenny grew up and with whom she later lived.”

Jenny worked as a waitress at the Odeon Bar, North Bridge Road, where she earned a modest wage of $90 a month, in addition to which she would receive tips from customers whose generosity, no doubt, depended upon the quality of service she had rendered to them. In any event, Jenny’s average daily income by way of tips was about $10. In all, she earned approximately $350 a month.

Sunny Ang was 27. He came from a middle class family of not inadequate means. Since leaving school in 1955 with a Grade One pass, he had a varied career. He included part-time studies in law, canvassing for insurance, and poultry-farming, among his many activities. In 1962 he was made a bankrupt, which meant that his affairs were, ‘and still are’ being managed by the Official Assignee.* (*The Official Assignee had given evidence at the inquiry that Ang had been made a bankrupt on the petition of Madam Goh Ah Eng who obtained judgment for $2,091. Ang in his statement of affairs admitted that he also owed a total of $3,187 to two other creditors.)

Jenny met Sunny Ang sometime about May 1963. He proceeded to cultivate Jenny’s acquaintanceship. “You may think, in the course of this trial,” remarked counsel, “that Jenny was a simple and naive girl, who, flattered by Sunny Ang’s attentions, fell completely under his spell. He came from a world so very much different from hers. He was far superior in intellect and in education to this unhappy waitress. The stage was soon reached when Jenny began to entertain notions of matrimony and the probability that Ang encouraged her in that belief cannot be excluded. Indeed, members of the jury, you will hear evidence that he intended to marry her. At any rate, within two months or so after they had first met. Sunny Ang had so completely won Jenny’s confidence that at his suggestion, and without so much as a murmur of protest, she was to leave everything she possessed to Yeo Bee Neo, a woman whom she hardly knew.”

Mr Seow then dealt with the insurances which Sunny Ang hurriedly look out on Jenny’s life. On 18 June 1963 Jenny applied to the Great Eastern Life Assurance Company, through Sunny Ang, for a $10,000 endowment insurance policy for 20 years with accident benefits of $200,000, the premium for which was $453 per year, and the premium for the $200,000 additional accident benefits was $250 per year. Thus the total premium payable was $703 per year, or $61.60 per month. Sunny Ang filled in the application form, and Jenny’s occupation was given as, ‘I serve food and drink to customers at a bar and restaurant’. The beneficiary was named as Madam Yeo Bee Neo. She was described as a close friend.

The Great Eastern Life Assurance wrote to Jenny asking her why she wanted accident benefits of $200,000 and why Madam Yeo was named as beneficiary. “You may agree with the company,” Mr Seow told the jury, “that it was most unusual that Jenny should want to leave the benefits to a relative stranger when she had other relations living, among whom was her half-sister, Eileen, for whom she had real affection.”

On 29 June, the Great Eastern Life Assurance received a letter from Jenny in which she attempted to answer the queries, but the company was not satisfied. A few days later, the company received another letter dated 2 July. This was also signed by Jenny. It was a further attempt to answer the queries. Jenny said she intended to make flights in commercial aircraft to the Borneo territories. This was completely untrue, and was obviously said in the hope that the company would be influenced to grant the policy. There was a marked difference in the English language between the two letters. Although signed by Jenny it was in fact written by Sunny Ang. Neither of the letters satisfied the company, which remained suspicious; and they decided to grant only $20,000 accident benefits, and not $200,000. This brought the total premium down to $41.90 per month.

On 9 July, the company received another application signed by Jenny. This was for a 1-2-4 policy for $40,000. This was a policy which ensured that at the end of the assurance term Jenny would receive $40,000. In the event of death by natural causes the beneficiary would receive twice that amount, but in the event of death by accident the beneficiary would get four times the sum assured, in this case $160,000. In her letter, Jenny again described herself as ‘I serve food and drink to customers at a bar and restaurant’. Again, Madam Yeo Bee Neo was named as the beneficiary. Mr Seow raised his eyes from his notes and directly addressed the jury. “Who,” he asked, “is this Madam Yeo Bee Neo? She is none other than Sunny Ang’s mother. She did not know Jenny. Why should she be named beneficiary? Why?”

Counsel pointed out that the premium for this 1-2-4 policy would have come to $212.65 per month. Where would a waitress, whom her sister said was always ‘broke’, get the money to buy and maintain such a large policy? If she did not have that kind of money who then would pay? “If it was Sunny Ang, as we say it was, why was he doing it? These are some of the questions (and there are many more), which I ask you to bear in mind… questions the answers to which, I submit, will irresistibly and inexorably bring the charge of murder home to the prisoner.”

Mr Seow went on to say that when the application for the 1-2-4 policy was received by the company, the managing director, Allen Geddes, instructed a member of his staff, Lo Ku Him, to find out why Jenny wanted such a large policy. Consequently, Lo called on Jenny at 33 Lim Liak Street, where Jenny rented a room. Lo asked Jenny why she wanted such a large policy, and why the beneficiary was not even a close relative. Jenny replied that she knew nothing about the policy application. The letter she said had not been written by her. Her friend wrote it. “All the insurance forms, with one exception,” observed counsel, “were in fact filled in by Sunny Ang and signed by Jenny.”

Lo was not satisfied, and made arrangements for Jenny to meet Geddes the next day, but she failed to keep the appointment. Counsel suggested that Ang had advised her against it. “Ang knew,” argued Mr Seow, “that if Jenny had kept the appointment with Geddes, Jenny’s gullibility would have been revealed and Ang’s own complicity in the affair would have been prematurely exposed.”

When Lo reported to Geddes after his interview with Jenny, Geddes sent for the agent, Sidney Kong, and told him that he did not like the application, and instructed Kong to cancel both policies.

Sidney Kong was a friend of Sunny Ang. Later it was to be revealed that it was Sidney Kong’s car which Sunny Ang borrowed to take Jenny to Kuala Lumpur. This was the car which Sunny Ang used in what was believed to be his first attempt to murder Jenny, in a carefully contrived road accident which severely damaged the car, but only slightly injured the unsuspecting Jenny. Sidney Kong never appeared in Court during the trial. Mr Seow told the jury that he understood that Sidney Kong had left the country.

Kong did not in fact have an opportunity to carry out Geddes’ instructions to cancel the two policies, for, following Lo’s interview, Jenny wrote to the company expressing her wish to withdraw the policies ‘for personal reasons’, and asking for the return of the premium which had already been paid on one of them. Curiously, the letter was dated 28 July, the day before Geddes instructed Sidney Kong to cancel the policies. The company sent a cheque for $335.80 made out in favour of Jenny. That cheque was paid into the account of Low Bock Seng, one of Ang’s creditors. Low is a poultry-feed dealer.

About this time, certainly after the cancellation of the Great Eastern Life Assurance Company’s policies, the Prudential Assurance Company received an application from a young girl for $100,000, for a policy on her life with accident coverage. This application was referred to the branch manager, Blyth. He recalled a luncheon conversation with Geddes during which Geddes had told him about his company’s recent experience. Blyth checked with Geddes and discovered the applicant was in fact Jenny. Blyth promptly rejected the application.

On or about 26 July, Jenny gave up her job as a waitress at the Odeon Bar. From then until her disappearance almost a month later, Jenny was unemployed. On 27 July, one day before Jenny wrote to the Great Eastern to withdraw her two policies, she went with Ang to Edward Lumley and Sons, in Raffles Place. Lumley’s were brokers to Lloyds, the London underwriters. Jenny, it must be remembered was now unemployed. With Ang she inquired about personal accident policies. Ang told the claims manager, Seow Chong Pin, that Jenny wanted an insurance cover for flying risks for a sum between $150,000 and $200,000. The manager referred Ang and Jenny to Michael Rutherford, the managing director. With Rutherford, Ang negotiated on behalf of Jenny, an accident policy for $100,000, and a flying risks policy for $50,000, making a total of $150,000. Ang told Lumley’s that Jenny intended to take up flying at the Royal Singapore Flying Club. Ang said that Jenny had inherited a chicken farm from her father, and, because she was the eldest in the family, she wanted to provide for her death duties.

All this, of course, was completely untrue. Jenny was unemployed. What was Ang’s purpose in telling Lumley’s all these lies? Sunny Ang did all the negotiations. Jenny remained silent. Ang filled up the forms and handed them to Jenny to sign. The premium on this particular policy was $518. Ang paid it. Jenny’s occupation was now changed to that of a poultry-farm proprietress, and the beneficiary was shown as Jenny’s estate. The next day Ang returned alone to collect the policy. That was on 29 July. Jenny did not have many more days to live. On 30 July, Sunny Ang again called at Lumley’s. He was alone. He said he wanted another $100,000 accident coverage for Jenny. After negotiations this was reduced to $50,000, subject to the approval of Lloyds of London. The next day, Ang telephoned Lumley’s. He was told that Lloyds had approved. Later the same day he went to Lumley’s, paid a premium of $100.50 and collected the policy.

Sunny Ang had been busy on 30 July. In addition to calling on Lumley’s to discuss the extra accident coverage on Jenny, he also went to the American International Underwriters. He took away some forms. The next day he brought back one of the forms applying for a $10,000 coverage on himself for a period of 21 days with effect from 4 August 1963. A policy was accordingly issued to him. Twenty-four hours later Ang came back with a travel accident insurance form, filled in by him and signed by Jenny, for $150,000. This policy was for 14 days to take effect from 12 August, beginning at 7:00 AM. Time for Jenny was fast running out. Ang paid the $81.30 premium. The beneficiary under this policy was shown as Jenny’s estate.

“You will have noted,” crown counsel told the jury, “that the beneficiary under the various accident insurance policies was now given as Jenny’s estate, not Madam Yeo Bee Neo. I suggest this change was due in no small measure to the fact that the Great Eastern had previously questioned Jenny about her relationship with this woman.” Mr Seow said evidence could be produced to prove that if Madam Yeo’s name had been given in these policies, they would in fact have been queried by the companies. Mr Seow explained that the effect of putting the word ‘estate’ as beneficiary meant that benefits would go to Jenny’s estate. If she had died without making a will, this estate would have been distributed among her next-of-kin. If this had happened there would be little purpose in Sunny Ang paying out large sums for Jenny’s policies. And so on 7 August 1963, he took Jenny to a solicitor, K. T. Ooi, of Braddell Brothers, in Raffles Place, in order to make a will. This was drawn up, and was interpreted and read back to Jenny in Ang’s presence. Jenny left her entire estate to Madam Yeo Bee Neo, Sunny Ang’s mother. Jenny hardly knew her. Who then was the real beneficiary? “You need not go far to seek his true identity. We will show you,” declared counsel, “that the real beneficiary was Sunny Ang. Why was all this subterfuge necessary? Ask yourselves. Was it to throw suspicion away from himself from any accusation that he was responsible for Jenny’s death if she suddenly died?”

After the will was signed, it was left with Ooi. Two days later, Ang was back again at Braddell Brothers with a letter, signed by Jenny, authorizing Ooi to give him the will.

On 13 August, three days after Jenny had made her will, Sunny Ang borrowed Sidney Kong’s car, ostensibly to take Jenny for a fortnight’s tour of Malaya. They arrived in Kuala Lumpur the same day. They booked in at the Kowloon Hotel at about 6:30 PM in the evening. The very next morning, Ang called at the Insurance Company of North America, and obtained forms for a travel accident insurance policy. He filled in the form for Jenny, and asked if he could also sign it on her behalf. He was told he could not. So he took the form away and brought it back a quarter of an hour later, signed by Jenny. It was an accident insurance policy on Jenny’s life for $100,000. Ang told the insurance representative, Tan Kim Heng, that he wanted the policy for two weeks, as Jenny and he and a group of friends intended to go from Kuala Lumpur to the Cameron Highlands. The policy was due to expire on 28 August 1963 at 11:00 AM. Ang paid the premium of $48.50. Jenny’s estate was given as the beneficiary. Ang also took out a policy on himself for $30,000 for a fortnight. The premium was $14.50.

About noon, almost immediately upon his return to the hotel with the insurance policies, Sunny Ang and Jenny checked out of the Kowloon Hotel, and, instead of heading northwards to continue their tour of Malaya, they turned south and headed back for Singapore, but did not actually leave Kuala Lumpur until about 5:00 PM. Within two hours it would be dark. Near Rembau, some 12.5 miles from Seremban, driving along an unlit road, Ang braked hard to avoid a dog on the road. Jenny was thrown forward against the windscreen. Ang veered left and crashed into an embankment. The nearside of the car, the side where Jenny sat, was very badly damaged. Jenny was bruised on her body and face. “From the damage to the car, and from her injuries, it would appear that Jenny had a close brush with death. Ang came out of the accident apparently unscathed. They returned to Singapore by train. The car was left where it was, and was subsequently towed to the Lian Seng Hackney Motor Workshop at Seremban.”

“This incident,” said counsel, “standing on its own, probably would excite little or no comment. But looking at it against the background of the facts which we now have, you may agree it assumes a somewhat sinister significance. Was it a brazen attempt to kill Jenny under the guise of a road accident?”

In Singapore, Ang gave Jenny $1 to see a doctor about her injuries. Mr Seow said it was inconceivable that Ang should think that the services of a doctor could be obtained for such a paltry sum. Jenny’s sister Eileen had to give her $10, and Jenny’s mother, ‘who had been cut off from her will without so much as a cent’, brought her to see a doctor to have her injuries examined. “Is it not a strange commentary on Ang’s attitude towards Jenny, a strange commentary on Ang’s so-called love for Jenny?”

Mr Seow said that on 16 August, Ang and Sidney Kong went to Seremban and saw the manager of the Lian Seng Hackney Motor Company. The manager told them that the car would not be ready for the road for a month. In fact it was not ready for two months.

On 25 August, Ang’s American International personal travel accident policy for $10,000 lapsed. He did not renew it. Jenny’s policy for $150,000 lapsed at 7:00 AM the next morning. On 27 August at 11:00 AM, Ang called at the American Insurance office to extend Jenny’s lapsed policy for another five days. Ang paid the premium of $48. Jenny’s policy with the Insurance Company of North America was due to expire the next day. “If anything was to happen, if any accident was to happen,” said Mr Seow, “I suggest in the very nature of things it must happen within the next 24 hours.” The tragic climax was not far off.

During the afternoon of 26 August, Ang brought three air-tanks to the Singapore Oxygen Company’s place in Bukit Timah Road, and left them there to be charged with air. Later in the day he returned to collect them.

On 27 August, the fateful day, Sunny Ang took Jenny scuba-diving off Pulau Dua. This was a Tuesday, a working day. Pulau Dua are two little islands separated by a straits, about 700 feet apart. The straits varies in depth between 30–35 feet. The islands are about four miles from Jardine Steps in Singapore Harbour, and they are among the southernmost islands of the Southern Islands, beyond which stretches the open sea, with Indonesia in the distance.

Mr Seow quoted Captain Vernon Bailey, of the Singapore Marine Department as saying that the waters around the Sisters Islands were extremely hazardous. They were dangerous because of the remarkable eddies and swirls which occur there, and the speed of the current around the islands varies with the state of the tides from half a knot to some four knots.

Ang, that Tuesday afternoon, hired a boat from Jardine Steps and directed the boatman, Yusuf bin Ahmad, to go to Pulau Dua. They arrived there about 3:30 PM, about three minutes before high tide. Ang told the boatman to drop anchor at a spot in the straits. Ang then dropped what is known as a ‘shot’ rope, to which was attached a piece of weight, into the sea, and told Jenny to go down first.

“I think,” said counsel, “it is necessary at this stage for me to say something about Jenny’s scuba-diving prowess. The word ‘scuba’ stands for ‘self-contained underwater breathing apparatus’. This consists of a tank into which air is compressed under very high pressure, and a breathing assembly which consists of a demand valve regulator, a mouthpiece with two tubes, one for inhaling air from the tank and the other for exhaling used air into the water. The regulator controls the flow of air from the tank as and when demanded by the diver. When not in demand the regulator shuts itself off so that the air from the tank is not unnecessarily wasted.” Mr Seow went into detail about how the tank is carried on the back of the diver by means of harnesses which, in the interests of safety, have a quick release buckle, or device. There were certain other accessories which completed the scuba-diver’s equipment: the mask which enables the diver to see underwater; the swim-fins or nippers, which give him speed and manoeuvrability; lastly, the weight belt which is an important item of a scuba-diver’s equipment. The average person is naturally buoyant, and therefore, to counteract this buoyancy he has to wear a weight belt. The amount of weight varied according to the natural buoyancy of the diver, but usually it was not more than five pounds. The weight belt must have a quick release so that in an emergency the diver could release it without difficulty. “We know that until Jenny met Sunny Ang she could not swim. He taught her to swim, and to skin-dive with scuba equipment. The prosecution, however, submits that in the very short time that Ang had known Jenny she could not have acquired a sufficient knowledge of her scuba equipment, nor could she have reached that degree of proficiency in scuba-diving which made it safe for her to dive in such a place as the straits between the Sisters Islands.”

Without emotion, counsel went on to describe Jenny’s last hours alive. In the boat, he said, Jenny wore: · a one-piece, tri-coloured (black, white, orange vertical stripes) bathing costume; · a pair of green Walter web-feet nippers; · a black Espadon face mask; · an improvised Scout belt with two weights tied to it, weighing two and a half pounds each; · a sheath knife; · a small axe in a leather case, which also held the knife, fixed to her Scout belt; · a Sealion 40 cubic feet tank, blue in colour, to which was attached a Sealion breathing assembly.

After Jenny had fastened on her improvised weight belt, Ang helped her to fasten the Sealion tank on her back, before she jumped into the sea. Ang then gave the boatman his transistor radio, ‘with which to divert himself’, while Sunny attended to the other scuba equipment in the boat. Eight to 10 minutes later, Jenny surfaced, and Sunny Ang assisted her into the boat. Jenny and Sunny chatted for a while, and then Jenny went down again. But this time, before she jumped, Sunny Ang changed her air-tank. Why? Was it really because it had no more air?

Counsel went on to say that after Jenny jumped in, Sunny Ang fastened on his own air-tank. Then he asked the boatman to release the valve. When the boatman did this, Ang heard the sound of escaping air, and so he asked the boatman to turn the valve off. Ang explained that the air-tank was leaking. He took off the air-tank and detached the breathing assembly and told the boatman there was no washer in the outlet of the tank. “This is not such a startling discovery,” Mr Seow told the jury, “because it is immediately apparent to anyone whether the washer in the outlet of the tank is missing or not before the regulator is fixed to the tank. I suggest that Sunny Ang deliberately tampered with his own tank so that the missing washer would provide him with an excuse for not joining Jenny in the sea. This explained his subsequent failure to search for her when Jenny failed to surface.”

Ang and the boatman managed to improvise a washer from the strap of Ang’s own diving mask, which Ang fitted into the outlet of his tank. But, when he released the valve the washer was forced out of place. Ang made another washer, and, with the first, again tried to fit them into the outlet. But the air still escaped. At this stage, Ang stopped working on the tank and tugged at the ‘shot’ rope three times. Ang then asked the boatman in Malay, “Where is that girl?” The boatman replied, “I don’t know.” Ang then pulled in the ‘shot’ rope, but there was no sign of Jenny. Ang asked the boatman to look for air bubbles, but there were none. The boatman advised Ang to go to St John’s Island, to telephone the police, and so off they went. From St John’s Island they went to a neighbouring island to collect some Malay fishermen. Then they went back to the spot when Jenny had disappeared. Repeatedly, the Malays dived in, but Jenny was missing. Ang, meanwhile, remained in the boat. He did not join in the diving for the girl he planned, he said, to marry. Instead, he had a discussion with one Malay fisherman about the buoyancy of the air-tanks and to prove his argument that they would float, he dropped Jenny’s original tank into the sea. It slowly sank out of sight. No efforts were made to recover it. Ang did not ask the divers to get it, and thus this tank, worth $125, disappeared, like Jenny. Counsel pointed out that an air-tank, when it becomes empty, becomes progressively buoyant, and will, therefore float. If Jenny’s original tank had been empty it would have floated and not sunk to the sea-bed. The fact that it did sink proved the tank still contained a lot of air. Why, therefore, did Ang change Jenny’s original tank? Why did he not use this tank, after finding that his own was leaking, to search for Jenny when she failed to surface? What did he do to the second tank he strapped on Jenny’s back?

In response to his telephone call from St John’s Island for help, Marine Police launches arrived on the scene, but they were unable to join in the search because of darkness. It gets dark in Singapore about seven o’clock most evenings throughout the year.

Counsel stressed that from the time when Jenny disappeared and throughout the Malay divers’ search, Sunny Ang remained ‘singularly calm and detached’. He was brought back to the Marine Police Station in Singapore, where he made a report. Later the same evening, Jenny’s clothes and personal effects, including a gold ring, were returned to her relatives. “Within five hours after Ang had renewed Jenny’s American Insurance policy, Jenny was dead. In Ang’s own words Jenny was ‘presumed to have either drowned or been attacked by a shark’. The next day Ang sat down and typed three letters to the insurance companies informing them of the tragedy and the circumstances of Jenny’s death.”

Royal Navy and RAF divers were brought in by the Marine police to search for Jenny’s body. They carried out several searches, but without success. On 3 September 1963, however, a former RAF diver recovered a green flipper. The heel-strap had been severed. He found it wedged between the rocks off the Sisters Islands. This flipper was subsequently identified by a schoolboy as the one he had lent his classmate, William Ang, brother of Sunny Ang. Counsel suggested the jury would have little difficulty in coming to the conclusion that it was one of the flippers worn by Jenny that fateful afternoon.

Experts decided that the strap had been cut by a sharp instrument, a razor or sharp pair of scissors, in two places to weaken the strap. Because of these cuts the strap had burst. The experts held that the cuts could not have been caused by corals: the strap had been deliberately cut.

Counsel then went on to tell the jury that after Ang had been arrested, the police seized four books on skin-diving. In one of these books, Skin Diving with Snorkel and Aqualung, the author. Jack Atkinson, describes by way of a cautionary tale, a hypothetical story of the dangers a boy and a girl could meet while skin-diving. It ended with this interesting passage: ‘A torn fin strap, a broken mask buckle, or a loose mouth-piece… could have ended in tragedy… a tiny nick in rubber will tear wide open with little strain.” Two-thirds of the strap on Jenny’s flipper had been cut. Why? If, as a result of the cuts, the strap burst and the diver got into difficulties and was drowned, who would benefit from her death? Who, asked Mr Seow, had the strongest motives to see Jenny dead? Mr Seow revealed that Ang had actually tried to get a total insurance coverage of $900,000 on Jenny’s life. In the end he got $450,000.

Once Jenny had disappeared, Sunny Ang and his mother, Madam Yeo Bee Neo, made strenuous efforts through various solicitors to prove Jenny’s death in order to collect this money. They insisted that Jenny was dead, ‘and, members of the jury, who was in a better position than Sunny Ang to assert with such finality that Jenny was, indeed, dead?’

The rest of the first day of the trial was taken up by witnesses involved in the insurance policies. An official of the Great Eastern Life Insurance Company Limited produced a letter from Jenny. It read as follows: Cheok Cheng Kid 33, Lim Liak St.,

Singapore, 3. 28 June 1963

Dear Sir, Regard to your letter LKT/MT your agent have ask me many times to buy insurance. I think good idea to save money. So I buy policy for 20 year endowment for $10,000 (with, not without profit) cost about $40 one month and I also very happy can buy $200,000 insurance for only $20 one month. I feel happy got insurance because I dream my died father tell me if I buy insurance I cannot get accident or harm-like good luck charm. Also I can afford it, all only $60 one month. I earn more $450 one month. If amount too big, less it, I not mind. Next month I want to buy 10 year endowment for $30,000 policy. I want to save money for open dressmaking shop next time. Then I no need work in bar. But I get cold now, cannot go for doctor exam. My cold OK then I go. Madam Yeo Bee Neo is old lady is my friend mother I like better than my own mother. My own mother married another man already. My father is died. But name I anyhow put, I may change to my sister I also like very much. But now name not important, I can always change.

Yours faithfully [sgd] Cheok Cheng Kid

Later, the witness received another letter. He read it to the Court. It went as follows:

Cheok Cheng Kid 33, Lim Liak St., Singapore, 3. 2 July 1963 The Actuary The Great Eastern Life Assurance Co Ltd 16, Cecil Street, Singapore, 1. Dear Sir, Further to my letter dated 28 June, 1963, I wish to add, in order to dispel any fears you may justifiably have, that I am prepared to narrow down the scope of your double indemnity cover to exclude liability from death through third party agency, whether felonious or accidental. Believe me I want accident cover just for the sake of having it for the reason I disclosed in my last letter, and because I may make occasional flights in commercial aircraft in the near future to the Borneo territories. I expect of course a proportionate reduction of the premium charged, or since I’ve paid about $21 DI premiums, how much more cover can I obtain for the same premium at the reduced rate? The above reduced-liability clause, would, of course, not apply to the endowment sum. Thank you. Yours faithfully [sgd] Cheok Cheng Kid

By the end of the second day 13 witnesses had given evidence for the prosecution, including K. T. Ooi, a senior partner of Braddell Brothers, the lawyer who drew up a will for Jenny. She left her estate to Ang’s mother. Ang was present when the will was drawn up. At the end of the third day, Justice Buttrose granted the defence a week’s postponement after being told that the prosecution intended to call an additional expert witness. He said it was ‘most disgraceful’ that the prosecution had not completed its investigation when the case came up for hearing. Mr Seow explained that it was only after the case had been fixed for trial that it occurred to him to call in a scuba-diving expert.

The key prosecution witness, the boatman, Yusuf bin Ahmad, gave evidence when the trial was resumed on Wednesday, 5 May 1965, the fourth day of the trial. It was during this day’s hearings that the judge described as ‘scandalous’ the circumstances which led to the defence counsel interviewing Yusuf while Ang was under arrest.

Yusuf bin Ahmad gave his evidence in Malay.

In the Lower Court, during the inquiry, Mr Seow had created something in the nature of a sensation when he revealed that attempts had been made to suborn his main witness, Yusuf. Mr Seow told the magistrate that Yusuf had been given two sums of money and a gift. Yusuf himself disclosed that he had received two sums totalling $40 and a tin of milk powder. Mr Seow protested that Yusuf had been approached by the accused’s mother, and by his brother Richard, on both occasions after Ang’s arrest. Mr Seow said, “Money, in fact, had been given to the witness and a gift in kind, before this witness was brought to counsel for the defence. Money also had in fact been given to him after he had seen Mr Coomaraswamy.” Mr Seow argued that Mr Coomaraswamy had no business whatsoever to interview or record a statement from Yusuf. “What,” he asked, “was the object of giving this witness money?”

Mr Coomaraswamy agreed that he did see Yusuf. “I did it knowing full well what I was doing and after obtaining professional advice on the matter.” He claimed he acted with the utmost propriety both as an officer of the Court and also as an honest man.

Yusuf told the Lower Court that after his interview with Mr Coomaraswamy he was given $30 by Mr Coomaraswamy to compensate for loss of earnings for that day and his fare. He said his minimum earnings a day were $3–4, and the highest was $20. He said Mr Coomaraswamy had told him not to receive any money from any other person in connection with the case.

At the trial before Justice Buttrose, this interview with Mr Coomaraswamy in his chambers was the subject of a brisk exchange between Mr Coomaraswamy and Justice Buttrose. Mr Coomaraswamy was cross-examining Yusuf. Mr Coomaraswamy: Did the accused’s mother ever at any time ask you to change your story? Yusuf: No. Mr Coomaraswamy: Did I ask you at any time to change your story? Yusuf: No. His Lordship: I would be delighted to hear that, Mr Coomaraswamy, because if you did, you would be off the Rolls, I am afraid. Mr Coomaraswamy: My Lord, I do not want to force myself into the position where I have to defend myself and defend my client at the same time. But perhaps, in view of your Lordship’s earlier statement about something scandalous, I have to make a statement- His Lordship: Well, speaking entirely for myself, Mr Coomaraswamy, when a crime has been committed and persons were being arrested in connection with it, and you know full well that the person you seek to interview is a key witness to this incident, I am appalled at what has taken place. I will say no more than that-I am appalled. Well, it has nothing to do with this case, so let us forget it for the moment. Quite apart from other considerations it is crass foolishness doing a thing like that. Can’t you see it yourself? Mr Coomaraswamy: Well, I must, I am afraid, defend myself at this stage. His Lordship: No, no. There is no question of defence-there are certain views which I should like to express at a proper stage, if necessary. You will be given every opportunity to do so. I am not going to say anything, but solely on this question of whether the accused committed this offence or not. Mr Coomaraswamy: Precisely, my Lord. I want to say why this evidence was admitted. His Lordshjp: It is not objected to. You may well want it in, for all I know. If you do object, I want to deal with that one way or another. But you have not objected, so I am not going to cut it out. Mr Coomaraswamy: I certainly want it in. His Lordship: But let us say no more at this juncture. What I am concerned about is that he said that he had never been asked to change the story, and the jury has heard it. Mr Coomaraswamy: Well, my Lord, in view of your Lordship’s observations, I still feel that I should explain myself and my conduct at this stage. The reason is that your Lordship has used words like ‘scandalous’ and ‘appalling’. His Lordship: Yes, Mr Coomaraswamy, and I repeat them. Mr Coomaraswamy: These words will create a certain impression, and I feel, my Lord, not only for my personal sake, but for the sake of my client, I should attempt to remove any impression created by these words. His Lordship: I shall myself tell the jury when I come to sum up, when I reach that stage, that the issues they are concerned with are clear and simple and nothing else. But I certainly, if you feel that you are labouring under any sense of injustice, Mr Coomaraswamy, I shall certainly allow you to continue your cross-examination if you like. If you wish to add anything at the end of it you may certainly so do. Mr Coomaraswamy: Well, in view of the words used by your Lordship just now, I don’t think I need pursue the matter any more. His Lordship: It is entirely your responsibility, Mr Coomaraswamy. I shall tell the jury what they have to consider and nothing else. Mr Coomaraswamy: As your Lordship pleases. His Lordship: But don’t let that debar you from saying anything at this juncture that you think you should be allowed to say, provided it is relevant and admissible, and has a bearing on the case. I will give you every attention. Mr Coomaraswamy: Well, in that event, my Lord, I should like a few minutes to consider the position. His Lordship: You needn’t make the decision at the moment, but I will leave the matter before you at any time during the continuance of this hearing. Mr Coomaraswamy: As your Lordship pleases.

Mr Coomaraswamy continued with his cross-examination of the boatman, Yusuf, until the end of the day’s proceedings when he asked the judge’s permission to make a personal statement. “My Lord,” he began, “I must with the greatest respect differ from your Lordship as to what is the proper conduct of an advocate and solicitor in the circumstances I was placed- ”

His Lordship: What were the circumstances? Mr Coomaraswamy: As to the taking of the statement from this witness. His Lordship: I am told he was given some milk by somebody and he got $10, and he got another $30. This is impropriety on the part of a solicitor. What were the circumstances? Why did you do it? Mr Coomaraswamy: That is what I am about to explain. His Lordship: I am sure you did it with the best of intentions. Mr Coomaraswamy: The position was that I was informed of an attempt being made to interfere with this witness, and I thought one way to ensure things would be to have a statement recorded from him. His Lordship: Surely the right thing to do was to lodge a complaint forthwith with the State Advocate-General to the effect that information has come to your ears that this key witness has been interfered with? Surely this was the proper thing to have done? Mr Coomaraswamy: Unfortunately, in this particular case there were circumstances which made it impossible for me to communicate with the State Advocate-General. I don’t want to disclose these reasons now. In any case, my Lord, I think I am straying from the point, but I have always known it to be the position, and this is the attitude taken by the Law Society in England with the full approval of Lord Goddard, the Lord Chief Justice, that there is no property in a witness whether it is a witness for the defence or a witness for the prosecution. The defence can, as soon as a man is arrested for an offence, serve subpoenas on everybody and thereby deprive the prosecution of witnesses. Now, there are some persons who hold the view that the position in Malaya is different because of certain provisions, but I see no reason to make that distinction, and, in fact, before interviewing the witness, I did consult a very senior criminal lawyer with a considerable criminal practice. His Lordship: Even the greatest of criminal lawyers are known to make mistakes. Some of them have been warned by the Law Society. But I accept your point. In the whole of my extensive career both at the Bar and on the Bench, I have never heard of this being done before. Mr Coomaraswamy: May I continue? His Lordship: If you were informed of an attempt to do so, surely you should have communicated with the Public Prosecutor’s Department? Why didn’t you do it? Mr Coomaraswamy: There were very good reasons why I shouldn’t. His Lordship: We are talking in riddles. I accept that what you did you did with the best of intentions, and that so far as you are personally concerned you feel that you did what was right.

Mr Coomaraswamy went on to tell the judge that he took the precaution of having another lawyer at his office, somebody from an entirely different office and totally unconnected with the case, who was there throughout the interview, and the purpose for which he was there was also known to the witness, and there was absolutely no question of tampering with the witness in any way. His Lordship: It is not suggested in your case. You say it was done under circumstances over which you had no control. I accept your explanation. Mr Coomaraswamy: In that case I wouldn’t pursue this point. His Lordship: And I shall tell the jury in the clearest terms what their duties are in this case. If there is anything you would like me to add to what I am going to say on this please let me know. I will do it.

When, days later, Justice Buttrose began his summing up he did in fact refer to this matter. He recalled that he had queried the propriety and the wisdom of Mr Coomaraswamy interviewing the key witness for the prosecution after Sunny Ang has been charged with murder. The judge said that he had accepted Mr Coomaraswamy’s explanation, in that, according to his lights at any rate, he did what he thought was proper in the interests of his client. “You will,” said the judge, “remember that the boatman, in his evidence, said that he never changed his story, nor did anyone ever ask him to do so… you will dismiss that incident from your mind entirely.”

Before the fifth day of the trial was over the judge had been told to his astonishment that Yusuf had been brought to the Supreme Court by Sunny Ang and a lawyer on 29 October 1964 (14 months after Jenny had disappeared), to swear an affidavit. His Lordship: The accused himself came to Pulau Brani to see you? Yusuf: Yes. His Lordship: Who was the lawyer he took you to? Yusuf: I do not know the name of the lawyer, my Lord. He is hunch-backed and bald-headed. His Lordship: Let me look at those affidavits. (He examines them.) Presumably somebody from Lim and Lee. Who is this hunch-backed lawyer? Mr Coomaraswamy: Mr Lim Tiong Quee, my Lord. His Lordship: More remarkable evidence, Mr Coomaraswamy. Mr Coomaraswamy: Well, this was long before the accused was arrested. His Lordship: I am once again startled-not by you, but by what has been going on in this case. Very well, the jury will no doubt form their own conclusion. Anyhow, the accused approached you personally at Pulau Brani, brought you back and you saw somebody from Lim and Lee. And you were then, presumably, asked to swear an affidavit. Right? Yusuf: Yes.

Evidence was also given that Sunny Ang made an affidavit (which was not read out in Court) and that Yusuf in his affidavit said he agreed with it when it was read over to him. Crown Counsel: Did the girl speak to the accused in any language other than English? Yusuf: The girl spoke one or two words in Malay. Crown Counsel: Can you remember what they were? Yusuf: ‘ Banyak chantek pandang dalam ayer. ’ (Very beautiful under water.) Crown counsel: The rest was in English which you do not understand? Yusuf: That is so. Crown Counsel: Your affidavit confirms that what Jenny said to the accused was true: how do you explain that, if you don’t know what she said? Yusuf: Well, I believed the accused when he told me so.

Later, Yusuf was questioned about Sunny Ang’s conduct. Crown counsel reminded him he had made a statement to Malaysian Adjustment (an insurance investigation agency) that Ang was actually weeping. In another statement he said he did not know whether the moisture on Ang’s face was tears or sea water. Yusuf: I remember that he was weeping because the tears came out. Crown Counsel: Now you say he was in tears? Yusuf: Yes. Crown Counsel: You saw tears: did you hear him crying? Yusuf: No, I did not hear him. Crown Counsel: Those tears or water you saw. What was the volume? How many drops? Did they flow fast and furious? Yusuf: I merely saw tears over this part of the face below the eyes. His Lordship: Just a little moisture that you saw? Yusuf: Yes. His Lordship: Which appeared to you to be tears having come from the eyes? Yusuf: Yes.

Vernon Bailey, a marine officer attached to the Singapore Marine Department, gave evidence that the channel between the two Sisters Islands is not very wide. The narrow channel he described as ‘something in the nature of a funnel’. His Lordship: A funnel between the two reefs, is that it? Bailey: Funnel between the two islands and between the two reefs. His Lordship. Which makes it a more constricted funnel? Bailey: It makes it a more constricted area, the funnel. By nature of the channel between the islands the water is almost pushed in. His lordship: Sucked in? Bailey: Sucked in and blown out the other end. His Lordship: It blows out? Bailey: Yes, accelerates and blows out and you get whirls and eddies which are sort of circular motions of the water, not to be confused with a whirl, a circular motion of water. His Lordship: Of some force, of some severity? Bailey: Of some considerable force.

On Friday, 7 May, the sixth day of the trial, Sunny Ang’s 15-year-old brother, William, was called by the prosecution to give evidence that Sunny had taught him to scuba-dive. He had been scuba-diving for six months and had read Sunny’s books on the subject. He said that Sunny had warned him about the hazards. Crown Counsel: What were the hazards against which he warned you? William Ang: The hazards were mainly caused by pressure. Well, when you are diving and you are about to go up at say from 50 feet, the pressure below is always greater than the pressure above, so that as you go higher the air in your lungs will expand. So you must release some of the air when you go up, or else your lungs will, with the air inside, expand and burst your lungs. Therefore, it is very important to go up very slowly.

The green flipper was produced and crown counsel asked the witness if he recognized it. William Ang: I think I do. Crown Counsel: That was one of the two, which you borrowed from David Benjamin Woodworth? William Ang: I think so.

David Benjamin Woodworth, a student, was a classmate of William Ang in 1963, and he gave evidence that he lent William two pairs of flippers. Crown counsel: Is that one of the green pair you lent him? Woodworth: Yes. Crown Counsel: And when you lent it to him in what condition was it? Woodworth: I think it was in good condition. Crown Counsel: Was the strap burst? Woodworth: No. Crown Counsel: Or cut in any way? Woodworth: No.

David Henderson, specially flown out from England for the trial, said he was a senior aircraftsman at RAF Changi and a member of the RAF Changi Sub-aqua Club when he dived down and found the green flipper in the straits of Pulau Dua on 3 September 1963, a week after Jenny’s disappearance. The boatman Yusuf and a police party were present. He went down twice the day before. Mr Coomaraswamy: My Lord- His Lordship: Just a moment, Mr Seow. Yes, Mr Coomaraswamy? Mr Coomaraswamy: Fully conscious of any possible repercussions that may arise by my standing up so frequently- His Lordship: I am delighted to see the enthusiasm with which you are conducting the defence, Mr Coomaraswamy. Mr Coomaraswamy: I mean, I should be regarded as an irritating counsel by you- His Lordship: You may by your colleagues, but certainly not by myself and my fellow brother judges.

Mr Coomaraswamy went on to complain about the legal technicalities concerning the notice of this evidence.

Henderson continued with his evidence of the second day’s diving, on 3 September 1963. He said he made two dives wearing full equipment, about 11:00 AM. Crown Counsel: On your first dive did you find anything? Henderson: No. Crown Counsel: What was the depth you reached on the first dive? Henderson: Forty-five feet. Crown Counsel: That was at sea bottom? Henderson: Yes. Crown Counsel: For how long were you under? Henderson: Fifty-five minutes. Crown Counsel: You came up to change your tank? Henderson: Yes, I did. Crown Counsel: Then you went down again? Henderson: Yes. Crown Counsel: What depth did you reach this time? Henderson: Forty-five feet. Crown Counsel: Did you find anything? Henderson: I found a green-coloured flipper. Crown Counsel: I see. Where? Henderson: On the sea-bed. His Lordship: How did you find it? How was it on the sea-bed? Henderson: It was lying on the sea-bed at that particular point- or rather rough rocks, or what-have-you. It was lying beside those rocks. His lordship: Was it in any way covered or was it just quite open to view? Henderson: Quite open to view. His Lordship: Not covered with sand or mud? Henderson: There was a little mud over it, but not very much. His Lordship: Not very much. It was quite plain to the eye was it? Henderson: Yes. Crown Counsel: You handed it subsequently to the police? Henderson: Yes. Crown Counsel: Can you describe the condition of the flipper as you found it that day? Henderson: The heel-strap was severed. The rubber was in good condition. There were no barnacles or growth of any type or other. Crown Counsel: That means to show that it had been lying there for a long time? Henderson: Yes. Crown Counsel: Did you find any current?

Henderson replied that there was a current, and that visibility was about 12 feet at the bottom on the seabed. There was also an undertow that carried him downwards. He stemmed it with considerable effort but at one point he was carried away about 150 yards.

Later the witness emphasized that a novice diver should never dive alone.

Crown Counsel: Is this what the Americans call the Buddy System? His Lordship: Let us try and still carry on in the English language, with due respect to any American. Crown Counsel: You must always dive with another person with you? Henderson: Yes. Crown Counsel: Would you be able to tell this Court what would be a scuba-diver’s greatest enemy under water? Henderson: Panic. Crown Counsel: What would happen to a diver who suddenly loses his, one of his, flippers while he is scuba-diving? Henderson: His equilibrium would be upset, his mobility would be impaired, and this may well lead to panic in the case of an inexperienced diver. Crown Counsel: Have you yourself experienced losing a flipper while scuba-diving? Henderson: I have. Crown Counsel: Can you tell this Court what happened to you? Henderson: My flipper came off. They were slightly too big for me. One came off, and like I said, equilibrium was upset, mobility was impaired, so I dropped my weight belt and surfaced.

Cross-examined by defence counsel, Henderson said that while there were no barnacles on the flipper when he found it, there were certain types of growth.

Mr Coomaraswamy: Like what? Henderson: I do not know the name. Mr coomaraswamy: How long would the thing have to be under water before barnacles grow? Henderson: I would say round about two to three weeks. Mr Coomaraswamy: Is it not correct that when you found the flipper it was in fact wedged in rocks? Henderson: It was not wedged or surrounded by rocks. Mr Coomaraswamy: What was the nature of the rocks at the place where you found this flipper? Were they high or undulating in between? Henderson: High, very different forms.

Having agreed roughly on the map the place where the flipper was found, defence counsel asked, “Would a thing like a flipper sink to the bottom?”

Henderson: This type would. Mr Coomaraswamy: You spoke of undertow. Henderson: I did. Mr Coomaraswamy: Would there be currents nearest the bed of the sea? Henderson: Yes. Mr Coomaraswamy: Would undertows form? Henderson: Yes, at various times. Mr Coomaraswamy: Would that undertow down move a flipper? Henderson: Not over a rough terrain.

Later, Henderson was asked about fitting on a flipper. He was asked if it were correct to say that the modern tendency is to put the feet first and then the heel. He agreed.

Mr Coomaraswamy: In other words, shoe-fitting? Henderson: Yes. Mr Coomaraswamy: What is the normal way? Henderson: First the foot, the heel and then stretch over the back of the heel. Mr Coomaraswamy: With what? Henderson: With the finger. Mr Coomaraswamy: Would you agree any other way would be difficult? Henderson: I cannot see any other way of doing it. Mr Coomaraswamy: More or less run your finger round the heel from the side? Henderson: Just below the back.

Defence counsel concluded his cross-examination by putting it to him that he did not find the flipper where he said he did. “I am telling the truth,” said Henderson.

Phang Sin Eng, a government chemist gave evidence that he received the green flipper from Inspector Richard Lui on 25 September 1963. He examined it under a microscope and found that the strap had two cuts. The cuts had been made, he said, by a knife, a razor or a pair of scissors.

Crown Counsel: Is it possible for these cuts to be the result of the strap being cut by coral? Phang Sin Eng: No, I think it is most unlikely. Crown Counsel: Why do you say that? Phang Sin Eng: For the following reasons. First of all the position of the cuts: one cut is from the top of the strap and the other is from the bottom of the strap. And under microscopic examination there was striation marking in both cases. The cut from the top of the strap has two directions: one direction is vertically down and then continues in another direction at a slight angle indicating two separate and independent actions in producing the cut from the top, one vertically down and one at an angle.

Cross-examined by defence counsel, the witness was asked, “If one were to pull the strap up with one’s fingers and put it over the arm like that (demonstrating) would that pressure be enough to break it?” “I don’t know,” said Phang Sin Eng.

Inspector Evan Yeo stepped into the witness-box on the afternoon of the seventh day of the trial and was questioned about a 61-page statement he took from Sunny Ang on 30 August 1963, three days after Jenny’s disappearance.

William Ang was called for cross-examination by the defence counsel during the morning and was rebuked by the judge for being impertinent. Crown counsel, re-examining, had asked him if Sunny Ang knew anything about cars.

Crown Counsel: Does he tinker with cars? Does he open up the bonnet and have a look at the car, generally tinkering with the car as a lot of people do? William Ang: He seldom does that. Crown Counsel: Does he know anything about cars? William Ang: I can’t read his mind. His Lordship: Don’t be impertinent. William Ang: I don’t understand him. His Lordship: It is a perfectly simple question. Try. William Ang: I suppose he knows a little.

The prosecution next called Maxime Bertrand, director of a firm which dealt in scuba-diving equipment, and an experienced scuba-diver with nine years’ experience in Singapore and Malayan waters. He gave evidence about the tests he had made at the request of the police in the Straits of Pulau Dua, and tests of home-made washers on an air-tank specified by the police. He said there was not a perceptible leak in his tests with his home-made washers. He told Mr Seow that if a novice should suddenly lose a flipper, and if there was a strong under-current the novice would surely feel alarmed. The situation would be very serious.

Inspector Evan Yeo, of the Special Investigation Section of the CID, said he interviewed Sunny Ang in the evening of 30 August 1963. Ang told him that when Jenny went down the second time she was wearing a pair of flippers belonging to a friend of his younger brother.

Crown Counsel: Did you ask Ang why he did not dive to see if he could find Jenny when she failed to surface? Inspector Yeo: I did. Crown Counsel: And did he give you any reply? Inspector Yeo: The answers he gave me are as follows. Firstly, his equipment was not serviceable. Secondly, he could not hold his breath for long and therefore he could not dive in those rather deep waters. Thirdly, he saw no point in diving when he failed to see Jenny’s air bubbles around the boat; and visibility in that depth was only a few feet. And fourthly that Jenny might have been attacked by sharks, according to him, and his instinct for self-preservation prevented him from going down.

The inspector said that Sunny Ang told him that he had paid about $500 on Jenny’s premiums, money borrowed from his father. The inspector said that, according to Ang, the extension of the policy on the day of Jenny’s disappearance was necessary as he and Jenny had intended to catch the mail train to Seremban, to drive back the car he had borrowed from Sidney Kong of Singapore.

Cross-examined by Mr Coomaraswamy, Inspector Yeo agreed that Jenny, according to Ang, had given Ang $600 later to settle the $500 loan taken by Ang from his father, and to pay other premiums on her insurance. The inspector told counsel that Deputy Superintendent Ong Kim Boon did most of the interrogation of Ang, though he was present.

Deputy Superintendent Ong, in charge of the SIS of the CID, said that, questioned several times in August and September, 1963, Ang told him that he was very friendly with Jenny and had intended to marry her. Ang told him about the insurance policies.

Crown Counsel: Did he tell you the reason why his mother should be the beneficiary? Deputy-Supt Ong: Yes, because he was bankrupt. He therefore suggested his mother instead. Crown Counsel: Did Ang tell you whether his mother knew that she had been named in the Great Eastern Life Assurance policies as Jenny’s beneficiary? Deputy-Supt Ong: Yes, he told me that the mother was aware of it only after Jenny’s disappearance, after the 27 August. Crown Counsel: Did he tell you why Jenny should make a will leaving everything to Madam Yeo Bee Neo, Sunny Ang’s mother? Deputy-Supt Ong: Because, he said, Jenny disliked every member of her own family. The mother was the beneficiary in name only. His Lordship: The real beneficiary-did he tell you who the real beneficiary was? Deputy-Supt Ong: I remember the accused said that everything eventually would go to him. Crown Counsel: To him? Deputy-Supt Ong: Yes, because without him, the mother would never have been named the beneficiary. Crown Counsel: Did Ang tell you whether or not Jenny had ever been to 8 Karikal Lane? Deputy-Supt Ong: Yes, my Lord, he did. He told me that Jenny went on a few occasions. And that she met his mother only once. Except for that one occasion she waited outside the house. Crown Counsel: Do you know who lives at 8 Karikal Lane? Deputy-Supt Ong: Sunny Ang and his family. Crown Counsel: What did Ang tell you about the conversation with his mother? Deputy-Supt Ong: Her reaction was more to his concern than to the actual benefits. His Lordship: She was more interested in the accused than she was with the benefit she was getting under the will? Deputy-Supt Ong: Yes. His Lordship: Anything else? What did she say if she got the money? Deputy-Supt Ong: Everything will be given to him. His Lordship: The mother would give everything to Sunny Ang? Deputy-Supt Ong: Because without him she would not have been made the beneficiary.

The witness was questioned about what Sunny Ang told him, during interrogation, about the letters he wrote to the insurance companies. He asked Ang why he wrote so early and Ang replied that there was a condition in the policies that the company should be informed as soon as the insured died, and in this case there was no point in delaying, for in his mind he was satisfied that Jenny had died.

Under cross-examination by defence counsel, Deputy-Superintendent Ong was asked if Ang had told him how it came about that Jenny wanted accident cover.

Deputy-Supt Ong: Ang explained that Jenny was working in a bar, and there were some hazards as a bar waitress. A month before she was assaulted by customers when they got drunk. Under ordinary insurance policies if you were injured or maimed by assault you would not be compensated. Therefore, she thought of having personal coverage, personal accident coverage. According to Ang the initiative came from Jenny. Defence Counsel: Did he tell you on whose initiative it was that Jenny made the will? Deputy-Supt Ong: On the advice of Sidney Kong. Defence Counsel: Did he tell you that since Jenny got separated she had not seen her husband and children? Deputy-Supt Ong: Yes, he did.

Mr Francis Seow concluded the case for the prosecution at 3:00 PM on the afternoon of Tuesday, 11 May 1965, after calling 47 witnesses. Mr Coomaraswamy at once submitted, in an argument lasting half an hour, that the prosecution had failed to make out a prima facie case. There was no evidence that the accused had committed the offence. The bulk of the evidence was evidence that Ang had a hand in taking out various insurance policies on the life of Jenny. He argued that looking at that evidence from the worst possible point of view, no one for a moment suggested that the motive was to kill. He pointed out that the prosecution had relied upon circumstantial evidence to prove every single ingredient of the offence. There was no proof of death. All the evidence showed was that Jenny went diving and had not been heard of since. “It cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be said that Jenny is dead. One question that the jury will have to ask themselves over and over again, as indeed your Lordship must do yourself at this stage, is whether one can convict for murder in the absence of a body.”

His Lordship: Are you suggesting that can’t be done, because there is a wealth of authority against you-and when I say wealth, I mean copious authority both in England, Australia, New Zealand, and France, I think. Mr Coomaraswamy: I do not know about France, my Lord, but I do know of the existence of the other authorities. His Lordship: But are you suggesting that you cannot convict for murder in the absence of a body? Because if so I shall rule against you. Don’t waste time. Mr Coomaraswamy: No, what I am saying is that it is so unsafe to convict in the absence of a body, or even to call upon the defence in the absence of a body. And this particular case is one of those very unsafe ones.

Mr Coomaraswamy spoke about the flipper. If, he submitted, that flipper was in fact the flipper that Jenny was using that day, “it is strange that it should be there in spite of these fierce currents that the prosecution speak about.”

His Lordship: I hate to interrupt you, but Mr Henderson, if the jury believe him, and I do not suggest any reason why they shouldn’t, said it is because this was found hemmed in by rocks in a little cove. Because it was surrounded by rocks, that is the only reason why. He may be lying, but when we arrive at the summing-up stage, I shall address the jury that I can suggest no reason why they shouldn’t believe him. But it is entirely a matter for them. Mr Coomaraswamy: But, with respect, Henderson’s evidence, my Lord-I do not think there is any question of his stating that the flipper was hemmed in by rocks. His Lordship: It was found in a place that was surrounded by rocks. I can find it if you like, because I was reading it over myself yesterday. Mr Coomaraswamy: But I do not think he used the words ‘hemmed in’. His Lordship: No, ‘hemmed in’ is my own interpretation of his evidence-my gloss on his evidence.

Mr Coomaraswamy continued that his other point was that if the flipper was, in fact, Jenny’s flipper, the presence of the rocks could well account for the flipper having come off. He described the evidence of the discovery and subsequent location of the flipper as ‘totally unsatisfactory’.

Counsel dealt with the assumptions he had made. First, no proof of Jenny’s death. Second, no evidence that she died from drowning. What was the act? “I have yet to hear what the prosecution say was the act done by the accused and upon which they rely on this charge of murder.” Counsel said it was his submission that if that heel-strap was cut in any way it would not have survived the tension that would be applied to it in the process of putting it on. It would be a matter of law for the judge to indicate whether one can ‘in the state of our Penal Code’, commit a murder by inducement. “In any event, my Lord, it is my submission that there is absolutely no evidence of the accused having induced Jenny to do anything at all.” Defence counsel submitted, “most respectfully, my Lord, that one must not decide to call upon the defence purely out of curiosity as to what the accused would say.”

His Lordship: I shan’t do that, Mr Coomaraswamy. Mr Coomaraswamy: No, I have no doubt that your Lordship would not do that. But, nevertheless, I feel it necessary to state, if not for present purposes, at least for subsequent purposes, my Lord, that one does not call upon the accused to make his defence purely out of curiosity, or to know what it is he would say. His Lordship: Come, come! You are wasting time, Mr Coomaraswamy, please. We are not here out of curiosity. We are here to try and do justice in a case where a man is on trial for his life. No one is curious. We are trying to perform a very onerous and responsible duty to the best of our ability. Mr Coomaraswamy: The point I was making was this, my Lord: that the sense of ‘Let us find out what he has to say’ should not be a consideration in deciding whether or not to call upon the defence. His Lordship: It does not enter my mind, Mr Coomaraswamy. Mr Coomaraswamy: Now, as I said earlier, my Lord, we are going purely on assumptions, and I submit to your Lordship that there is no evidence that the accused committed this offence as to make it necessary for his defence to be called.

The judge did not trouble Mr Seow to rebut defence counsel’s submission. He said, “In my judgment there is evidence that the accused committed this offence. Whether the evidence in the eyes of the jury is acceptable or satisfactory and sufficient is entirely a matter for them, and I shall therefore call upon the accused to enter upon his defence.”

The judge addressed the accused, “Ang, now is the time for you to make your defence to this charge of murder. You can do it in any one of three ways. You can go into the witness-box and make it on oath, in which event you are liable to be cross-examined by the prosecution, asked questions by myself and members of the jury. You can remain in the dock and make an unsworn statement, in which event you are not liable and cannot be asked any questions at all. You can remain silent. Which of these three courses do you wish to adopt?”

“I elect to give my evidence on oath,” said the accused.

“Let him be sworn.”

Calm and confident, aware that all eyes in the court were upon him, knowing that he was making headlines in all the newspapers, Sunny Ang, who the prosecution said murdered a bar girl for the money to go to England to become a barrister, stepped into the witness-box to defend himself. He was asked by crown counsel to speak louder.

“Ang, try to keep your voice up,” said his Lordship. “It must carry right across to the jury. They are very interested to hear what you have to say.”

Ang said he could not remember exactly when he first met Jenny, but it was at the beginning of 1963. “We were on very friendly terms. I took her home frequently from her bar.”

To questions by his counsel on how the question of insurance cropped up, Ang said that Jenny had of her own accord asked him to describe the various types of policies available from the Great Eastern Life Assurance Company Limited. This led to her submitting a proposal form.

Ang said he first went out skin-diving with her a few days after meeting her early in 1963. “She could float around and that was about all. Subsequently she learnt to swim. She became a reasonably good swimmer,” he said, before they went scuba-diving. “She made amazing progress.”

On the second day of the defence (the ninth day of the trial), Mr Coomaraswamy asked Ang how his mother, Madam Yeo Bee Neo, came to be named beneficiary in the policies. Sunny Ang: Jenny had wanted to make me the beneficiary, but I suggested my mother instead. His Lordship: Why? Sunny Ang: For a few reasons. His Lordship: Let’s have them. Sunny Ang: One of them is that this form would have to pass through Mr Sidney Kong (divisional manager of the Great Eastern and a friend of Ang), and I was afraid he would tease me about it if my name were on the form as a beneficiary. I was in the habit of having my other properties in my mother’s name. His Lordship: What do your other properties consist of? Sunny Ang: I have a car. His Lordship: In your mother’s name? Sunny Ang: Yes, and the financial aspect of the poultry farm is also in my mother’s name. Also a few shares. His Lordship: Also shares? Sunny Ang: Yes. His Lordship: Is that because you are a bankrupt? Sunny Ang: Yes, my Lord.

After giving his version of how Jenny came to take out the insurance policies, Sunny Ang told defence counsel about the car accident. He then went on to give evidence about scuba-diving with Jenny. He said that before 27 August 1963, he had definitely been out ‘at least’ once with her on a scuba-diving expedition in the Pulau Dua Straits. This was on a Sunday-two days before her disappearance. He said the boatman was Yusuf. (Yusuf on oath denied this.) Sunny Ang: Both Jenny and I dived. We saw some good coral specimens. We went down two or three times, a total of an hour. I took the trouble of roughly marking up that spot with the aid of the visual eye in relation to trees and other points of the two islands.

He said that on the morning of 27 August, he went to the offices of the American International Underwriters to extend a policy, a personal accident policy on Jenny.

Mr Coomaraswamy: Why did you extend Jenny’s policy? Sunny Ang: Because we might have to drive back the car from Seremban, if it was ready, and the prospect of having to do that made her insist upon extending the policy. His Lordship: Why not leave her behind? Sunny Ang: Well, if the car was ready, we would look around. We would go to Malacca and then back to Singapore. I just wanted to take her along with me-that’s all. His Lordship: I want to be fair: I thought you told us she disliked to be driven at all after the accident at Seremban? Sunny Ang: I insisted on taking her along.

He told Mr Coomaraswamy that “we intended that afternoon to collect the coral we had seen the previous Sunday at Pulau Dua. We intended to go diving at high tide.” Mr Coomaraswamy: Why did you fix high tide? Sunny Ang: Because, from experience, there was little or no current at beaches I have been to at high tide. On the Sunday I went with Jenny there was a slight current. Mr Coomaraswamy: Where did you anchor? Sunny ang: We took the trouble to be over the spot where we were over the previous Sunday, according to the land marks I mentioned just now. The water was calm.

Ang said that he helped Jenny with her equipment. She put on the green flippers. Mr Coomaraswamy: You then released the air supply to the regulator? You turned it on? Sunny Ang: I turned on the tap on the tank. Mr Coomaraswamy: Why did you do it and not Jenny? Sunny Ang: No particular reason. I was behind her and I did it for her. Mr Coomaraswamy: Did she then jump into the water? Sunny Ang: Yes, near the guide line. His Lordship: At that time had you taken off your clothes? Sunny Ang: I was in my bathing costume. His Lordship: And you had done nothing about your own equipment? Sunny Ang: I think I was getting my own equipment ready. His Lordship: But you couldn’t be doing both at the same time could you? You have told us that you assisted Jenny with her equipment. By that time had you done anything about your own equipment? You could not be doing both at the same time. Sunny Ang: No. On the way in the boat I had the equipment ready, you see, and I was just starting to get my own equipment ready when we anchored.

He said that when Jenny surfaced she said they were not exactly over the spot they had marked out that day, but there were equally good coral where they were. Ang told the judge that Jenny got back into the boat and they chatted for 20 minutes to half an hour, during which time he got back to fixing the tanks. His Lordship: You were not in a hurry to join her in the next jump apparently? Sunny Ang: Neither was she. What I mean is we both got ready eventually at the same time. In fact we had both gotten ready and she was about to go down when she told me there was not enough air left in her tank. So I had to undo everything all over again.

He changed her tank, turned on the valve and Jenny dived into the water. Mr Coomaraswamy: Why did she go in first? Sunny Ang: It’s more or less a matter of courtesy. His Lordship: That she should brave the perils of the deep before you? Sunny Ang: Not exactly, my Lord, but always ladies first. His Lordship: I see, even in deep waters? Sunny Ang: Immediately she went down I tried to open the air valve in my own tank. It was rather awkward. I asked Yusuf to do it for me. He did, but there was a loud rush of air. So I asked him to turn it off immediately.

Together they took off the tank. “I soon discovered that the cause was that the washer that should have been between the regulator and the tank was missing.” He tried to improvise a washer, and so did Yusuf, but was unsuccessful. He tried to make use of the washer in the first tank Jenny used but damaged it and that was unusable. Mr Coomaraswamy: Did you have any reason to think that Jenny would have surfaced by now? Sunny Ang: No. What I mean is normally she is a patient girl. I thought she would have waited for me down there. His Lordship: How long did you think she would have waited? Sunny Ang: Ten to 15 minutes. Mr Coomaraswamy: Did you have any arrangement with her to wait for you? Sunny Ang: No. Before she jumped I told her she could go down first and I would follow immediately. Mr Coomaraswamy: Did you become anxious? Sunny Ang: Not immediately. When I realized I could not go down because of the missing washer, I signalled her to surface. I assumed she might be at the other end of the guide line. Mr Coomaraswamy: Did you have any pre-arranged signal? Sunny Ang: Yes. Three jerks meant come up.

Two minutes later, when she had not surfaced, and while he was still attending to his tank, he again pulled on the guide line. “I noticed there were no air bubbles breaking on the surface of the water.” Mr Coomaraswamy: What did you do? Sunny Ang: I was not alarmed. I thought she might have got tired of waiting for me and may have wandered off on her own. So I looked around and could not see any air bubbles. I then asked Yusuf to look around too. Mr Coomaraswamy: Did either of you see any air bubbles? Sunny Ang: We did not. Mr Coomaraswamy: What did you do then? Sunny Ang: My reaction was not one of alarm. His Lordship: What was your reaction? Sunny Ang: That she might have been playing with me; that is she might have been directly under the boat when the bubbles would not have been noticed; or she might have swum to and landed on one of the islands. His Lordship: One of the Sisters Islands? Sunny Ang: Yes. His Lordship: You seriously thought that at that time? Sunny Ang: Yes. His Lordship: Do you still think so? Sunny Ang: I don’t think so. Mr Coomaraswamy: Did you come to realize that day that an emergency existed? Sunny Ang: Yes, I looked under the boat on both sides but I could not see any bubbles at all, and both Yusuf and myself scanned both the islands for traces of footsteps or any other signs that would show that she had landed but we found none. It was about that stage I realized she had gotten into trouble. His Lordship: I would prefer the word ‘got’ to ‘gotten’. Mr Coomaraswamy: What did you do then? Sunny Ang: I then asked Yusuf what could be done. I vaguely remembered there was a telephone on St John’s. He confirmed this and we decided to go to St John’s to ring up for help. Mr Coomaraswamy: Did you at any time ask Yusuf to go faster? Sunny Ang: No, I did not. Mr Coomaraswamy: Why not? Sunny Ang: Because the boat went as fast as it could. Mr Coomaraswamy: Yusuf says that you were normal at that time. Could that be a correct description? Sunny Ang: I was alarmed. But there was no outward expression of it. Mr Coomaraswamy: He also said that at one time you were weeping, and further he said he saw tears in your eyes. Would that be correct? Sunny Ang: Water came out from my eyes, but there was no particular sign. His Lordship: He is saying the truth or what? Sunny Ang: I may have shed tears without consciously knowing it.

On the jetty at St John’s Island he met Jaffar bin Hussein, and told him what had happened, and he went to the telephone. He remembered running, but not whether it was to the telephone or back to the jetty. The judge asked, “Either coming or going?”

“That is so,” said Sunny Ang.

Asked about the disappearance of Jenny’s first tank while the Malay divers were searching for Jenny, Ang told the Court, “I gave a casual demonstration. I had forgotten that the tank was… I was under the impression that tanks are buoyant.” His Lordship: You have forgotten what? Sunny Ang: I was under the impression that tanks would float regardless whether they were full or empty. His Lordship: The tank sank? Sunny Ang: Yes. Mr Coomaraswamy: Did this happen in the straits between the two islands? Sunny Ang: Yes, more or less over the spot where Jenny disappeared. Mr Coomaraswamy: Why did you not dive into the water? Sunny Ang: With the Malay fishermen? Mr Coomaraswamy: Yes. His Lordship: Any time after you pulled the rope? Sunny Ang: The main reason was her air bubbles could not be located. She would be under where air bubbles were… I presumed she was nowhere around. So there was no point in diving. There were other vague and hazy reasons which crossed my mind, but they were not important. His Lordship: Other reasons? Sunny Ang: She might have been attacked by sharks. I think that is about all.

Defence counsel went on to ask him why he wrote three letters to the insurance companies the next afternoon. Ang explained that it was necessary in accident policies that notification should be given to the companies. “Any time limit?” asked the judge.

“No.” Ang replied.

In the afternoon, when the trial continued, defence counsel asked Ang if he had cut the green flippers Jenny had used. “No, I did not cut them,” said Sunny Ang.

The next question came from crown counsel. “Do you,” he asked Ang, “describe yourself as a truthful person?” The battle of wits which Ang had purposely sought by going into the witness-box, with the representative of the State, the people, had begun. Calm and at ease, Sunny Ang replied, “Normally I tell the truth. Sometimes I do tell white lies.” Mr Francis Seow: When do you depart from the truth? Sunny Ang: I cannot give you instances. Everybody does depart from the truth some time or other. Mr Francis Seow: Would you depart from the truth when it suits your purpose? Sunny Ang: Not exactly. Mr Francis Seow: Then when? Sunny Ang: I told you I cannot quote instances, but I do. Mr Francis Seow: In this particular case have you told any untruth? Sunny Ang: No. Mr Francis Seow: Not one? Sunny Ang: Not one untruth. Mr Francis Seow: Either to the insurance companies or to any person in connection with this case? Sunny Ang: I admit I did tell some untruths to the insurance companies. His Lordship: Would you describe them as white lies or blunt untruths? Sunny Ang: Untruths. His Lordship: They were falsehoods. Sunny Ang: Yes. Mr Francis Seow: To gain a certain purpose? Sunny Ang: Not exactly. Can you give me an example? Then I will tell you whether I did for a certain purpose or not. Mr Francis Seow: What about the letters to the Great Eastern Life for the purpose of getting insurance which Jenny had applied for? Sunny Ang: That was not the primary reason. The primary reason was to get commission, which I would get if the policy is accepted. His Lordship: You lied with the golden hope of gaining? Sunny Ang: To get commission. Mr Francis Seow: Where is Jenny? Sunny Ang: I do not know. Mr Francis Seow: Is she dead? Sunny Ang: Presumably so. Mr Francis Seow: Why do you presume she is dead? Sunny Ang: Because she has not been heard of since. Mr Francis Seow: If she is alive would she have contacted you? Sunny Ang: Yes. Mr Francis Seow: And she has done that? Sunny Ang: No.

Crown counsel asked Ang about his plans to change his name, about his participation in the Singapore Grand Prix in 1961, and about his anxiety to have a coroner’s inquiry into Jenny’s disappearance. Mr Francis Seow: Because the coroner could make a finding that she is formally dead? Sunny Ang: We had hopes of that. Mr Francis Seow: You had hopes of that? Sunny Ang: Yes. Mr Francis Seow: And, once the coroner makes that finding, the way is then very clear for you to collect $450,000 through your mother? Sunny Ang: $300,000. Mr Francis Seow: You have calculated that? Sunny Ang: That is obvious. Mr Francis Seow: You had hopes to collect that other $150,000? You were going to contest it? Sunny Ang: It is impossible to contest. Mr Francis Seow: But you were prepared to contest for $100,000? Sunny Ang: Not prepared, but we were thinking of doing so. Mr Francis Seow: Anyway, the $300,000 was practically safe in the kitty if you could get the coroner’s formal findings? Sunny Ang: Yes. Mr Francis Seow: And with that end in view, you badgered your counsel to chase after the coroner. Isn’t that correct? Sunny Ang: I didn’t badger: the solicitor badgered. Mr Francis Seow: On your instructions? Sunny Ang: I gave instructions but he did it by himself.

Ang admitted he went to five different lawyers before Mr Lim of Lim and Lee advised him to take up civil proceedings. Mr Francis Seow: Because of the coroner’s failure to hold an inquiry for which you had hoped? Sunny Ang: Yes. Mr Francis Seow: Therefore you forced the pace by taking up civil proceedings? Sunny Ang: Yes. Mr Francis Seow: In the meanwhile you read up various aspects of insurance law?

Ang said he had made many trips to the High Court Library to read up law, insurance law and other matters. He told crown counsel he did not know that the insurance companies were going to resist his probate action. “This motion you were taking out to presume Jenny’s death?”

“I did not know,” said Sunny Ang.

Ang told crown counsel that he knew papers had been served on the companies but did not know that the companies intended to contest the proceedings. He denied that he could short-circuit these proceedings with a compromise plan. Mr Francis Seow: Did you discuss this compromise plan with any of your counsel? Sunny Ang: Yes. But after the civil proceedings started. Mr Francis Seow: What was the compromise plan? Sunny Ang: We would settle for a lesser amount, provided they did not contest the claim.

Ang denied he rang up Rutherford of Edward Lumley and Company with the intention of discussing the compromise plan. Mr Francis Seow: Do you recognize this red book? (Handing it to Ang.) Sunny Ang: Yes, it’s my diary, for 1964. Mr Francis Seow: 27 May. You have a note there: ‘Ring Rutherford’. Is that not so? Sunny Ang: No. ‘Ring up Richard, good.’ His Lordship: Ring up Richard? Sunny Ang: No, the letter ‘R’. It stands for Richard, my brother. His Lordship: Ring up? Sunny Ang: Either ‘food’ or ‘good’. There is an ‘R’ and a dash. Mr Francis Seow: I suggest to you that this is an abbreviation which you use for Rutherford? ‘R-ford’? Sunny Ang: I do not think so. Mr Francis Seow: Now, look at the entry for 28 May, the next day. Isn’t there an entry to the effect: ‘Ring up Rutherford’, which you spell ‘Ruth’d’? Sunny Ang: No. Mr Francis Seow: What is it then? Sunny Ang: I don’t know. If I had abbreviated Rutherford into, as you say, ‘R-ford’ I would have stuck to the same one. His Lordship: How do you abbreviate ‘Rutherford’? Sunny Ang: I don’t abbreviate ‘Rutherford’. His Lordship: In your diary do you always write ‘Rutherford’ in full? Sunny Ang: I don’t know. I never had the opportunity to write it in the diary. His Lordship. What do you say that entry is then? Tell me. It is in your handwriting, in your diary. Tell me what it is. Sunny Ang: I wouldn’t know. Sometimes I write things, and, for the life of me, I can’t say what they are. His Lordship: Well, you had better try now, for the life of you. What do you think that is? Sunny Ang: I don’t know. Neither can I say. Mr Francis Seow: Now look at the entry for 2 June 1964. Isn’t that ‘Ring up Rutherford’? Sunny Ang: It isn’t. Mr Francis Seow: To whom does that refer? Sunny Ang: To a friend of mine. Mr Francis Seow: Who is that? Sunny Ang: It is a girl. His Lordship: What is her full name and address? Sunny Ang: She lives in Kuala Lumpur. His Lordship: What is her full name? Sunny Ang: Ruth Tan. Mr Francis Seow: What is her address in Kuala Lumpur? Sunny Ang: I wouldn’t know. Mr Francis Seow: What is her telephone number? Sunny Ang: I don’t know. But I know where she lives. Mr Francis Seow: Look at the entry for 4 June 1964. Is that not ‘Ring up Rutherford’? Sunny Ang: It is ‘Ring up Ruth again’. Mr Francis Seow: On one page is ‘Ring up Ruth’. And on the opposite page ‘Ring up Ruth. Not in desk. Enroute to UK.’ His Lordship: Doesn’t that suggest to you that is Mr Rutherford? Sunny Ang: It does not. His Lordship: What does it suggest? That Ruth Tan has gone to UK for a holiday is that it? Sunny Ang: I don’t know. It says ‘On leave in the UK’. His Lordship: You don’t know what the diary means? Mr Francis Seow: I put it to you that it refers to Mr Rutherford who, you were told, was on leave in theUnited Kingdom? Sunny Ang: No.

Sunny Ang, questioned about a telephone call to McDougall, the then acting manager of Edward Lumley and Sons, who took over while Rutherford was in the United Kingdom, denied he made the call or suggested to McDougall that he was prepared to swear an affidavit that Jenny was not a chicken farm proprietress if the company were prepared to settle for less. “Right. What was this compromise plan of yours?” asked Mr Francis Seow.

“Just to settle for a lesser amount,” said Sunny Ang.

Ang was asked to comment on the fitting of washers to the tank, produced in court, which Ang said leaked on 27 August 1963, thus preventing him from going down to search for Jenny. He denied that he had loosened it deliberately so that there would be a leak for Yusuf’s benefit. His Lordship: You saw Henderson fix the washer into this tank and there was no leak at all? Sunny Ang: Yes. His Lordship: Using this improvised washer which you made on the boat on the day in question? Sunny Ang: Yes. Mr Francis Seow: Can you explain why it did not leak? Sunny Ang: This is quite impertinent. For the same reason as Mr Henderson would not be able to explain why his washer leaked. Mr Francis Seow: I’m asking you about the particular washer, which was cut and improvised on the day you did not go down into the sea, because you said that the tank leaked. Sunny Ang: Yes. Mr Francis Seow: Now, using that same washer on the same tank and the same regulator, the tank leaked. Can you explain why? His Lordship: Apparently it leaked on 27 August 1963, but not two days ago. Sunny Ang: Many-a few reasons. His Lordship: Let’s have them.

Ang said the washer may not have been put in properly that day. It might not have been clamped sufficiently tight. There might have been dirt on the washer.

Replying to further questions by crown counsel, Sunny Ang said he first met Jenny by accident near the coroner’s court. He did not know her then. He agreed in response to cross-examination that he had only known her three months before she disappeared. He told the judge that it had taken him 15 years to become a good swimmer. He said he taught Jenny to swim and skin-dive in a dozen lessons spread over two months. She learned to scuba-dive at the same time. He was questioned by crown counsel about the gloves. Mr Francis Seow: Why is it necessary to bring gloves along with you? Sunny Ang: Because the coral is sharp. Mr Francis Seow: This was an expedition to collect coral? Sunny Ang: Primarily. Mr Francis Seow: And when Jenny went down the second time was that with the object of collecting coral? Sunny Ang: Not she alone. Both of us would have done it together. His Lordship: When she did go down the second time, her intention was to collect coral? Sunny Ang. Not her intention alone, my Lord. Our intention was. Mr Francis Seow: Her intention and your intention were to collect coral? Sunny Ang: Our collective intention was. His Lordship: Don’t be silly. I shall lose my patience with you. Mr Francis Seow: Jenny had gone down first with that object? Sunny Ang: Her object was to help me to collect coral. Mr Francis Seow: How? Sunny Ang: Help to carry them. Mr Francis Seow: From the bottom of the sea? Sunny Ang: Yes, after having chipped them off. She was supposed to help: general help. Mr Francis Seow: And it was necessary to wear gloves for that? Sunny Ang: Yes. Mr Francis Seow: Did she wear gloves when she went down the second time? Sunny Ang: She did. Mr Francis Seow: Do you recognize this bag? Sunny Ang: Yes. Mr Francis Seow: It was left by you at the Marine Police Station? Mr Francis Seow: That is right. Mr Francis Seow: What colour gloves did Jenny wear when she went down? Sunny Ang: I can’t remember. Mr Francis Seow: Can you explain how the two pairs of gloves are still here in the swimming bag? Would you care to look at them? (Ang. smelt the gloves.) Sunny Ang: I can’t explain. His Lordship: She never wore any gloves? Sunny Ang: So far as I remember, she did. Mr Francis Seow: Please explain how these two pairs of gloves are still in your swimming bag which you left in the Marine Police Station. Sunny Ang: Ask the police. His Lordship: Don’t be impertinent. Sunny Ang: I’m sorry. Mr Francis Seow: I’m asking you. Sunny Ang: I cannot explain. Mr Francis Seow: Do you agree that those two pairs of gloves are still very new? In fact they have not even touched water? Sunny Ang: That is why I smelt them, yes.

Sunny Ang told crown counsel that he did not know about Jenny’s unhappy past until about a month after he met her.

Mr Francis Seow: Would it be fair to say that you were intimate with her in every sense of the word? Sunny Ang: I refuse to answer the question. His Lordship: Why? Sunny Ang: It is irrelevant. His Lordship: You will answer the question. You were on intimate terms with her in every sense of the term? Sunny Ang: Yes.

He agreed that Sidney Kong was a close friend, a confidante, a sort of adviser, with whom he had discussed the compromise plan to settle for half the amount of one of the claims. Ang said he was going to lend him $50,000 from the insurance money to invest in a housing enterprise in the United Kingdom. (Kong left Singapore a week after Ang’s arrest.) Mr Francis Seow: I suggest to you that this $50,000 is his cut of the proceeds? Sunny Ang: He was going to pay me interest of $500 a month.

Crown counsel questioned Sunny Ang in detail about the car accident near Seremban. He said that when they got back to Singapore he had $3. He gave Jenny $1 to see a doctor, and $1 for a taxi. The last dollar he spent on a bus to go home. His Lordship: Tell me, were you in love with Jenny? Sunny Ang: Yes. His Lordship: Did you intend to marry her? Sunny Ang: Well, it was more a tacit than an expressed understanding. His Lordship: Did you intend to marry her? Sunny Ang: Yes, my Lord. Mr Francis Seow: Do you know that Jenny’s education was only of Standard Three level? Sunny Ang: Yes. Mr Francis Seow: She was not a particularly bright girl, was she? Sunny Ang: Oh, she was. Mr Francis Seow: Very bright? Sunny Ang: Not very bright. But she learned things fast. Mr Francis Seow: Under your expert tuition? Sunny Ang: Yes. Mr Francis Seow: Would you describe her as somewhat naive? Sunny Ang: No, I wouldn’t. Mr Francis Seow: Simple? Sunny Ang: She was simple. But not naive. His Lordship: What do you understand by ‘naive’? Sunny Ang: Well, sort of believing everything she is told. Mr Francis Seow: Impressionable? Sunny Ang: No, she had a mind of her own. Mr Francis Seow: She trusted you? Sunny Ang: No, she did not. His Lordship: You intended to marry her, but you say she did not trust you? Sunny Ang: She did not trust me, well, in my driving. Mr Francis Seow: We are not talking about trusting you in your driving. Sunny Ang: And also about going out with other women. Mr Francis Seow: Apart from that she trusted you, in your good faith, in your integrity? Sunny Ang: I don’t know about that. His Lordship: You don’t know? Sunny Ang: She could be suspicious at times. His Lordship: With justification? Sunny Ang: With justification. Mr Francis Seow: Your mother, Madam Yeo Bee Neo, dotes on you, doesn’t she? Sunny Ang: She loves me as a mother loves her son. Mr Francis Seow: When her name was put in as beneficiary in the Great Eastern Life Assurance application form, Jenny had not yet met your mother? Sunny Ang: No. Mr Francis Seow: And your mother was unaware of the fact that she had been named as Jenny’s beneficiary? Sunny Ang: She was unaware. Mr Francis Seow: In actual fact you were the real beneficiary? Sunny Ang: Yes.

Ang gave evidence that Jenny, sometime in July 1963, met his mother at 8 Karikal Lane. “You can’t call it a natural meeting. My mother was in the kitchen, cooking and Jenny was outside in the sitting room. And just as we got to the door I did call out to my mother and I said, ‘Mum, this is Jenny Cheok.’” His Lordship: That was all? Sunny Ang: I think Jenny smiled at my mother and I think my mother said, ‘Hullo’. That was all. His Lordship: So they had never really met at all? That could hardly be described as a substantial meeting: it was merely a passing greeting, a nod and a smile. And that was the only time they ever met? Sunny Ang: Yes.

Ang agreed with crown counsel that it was untrue to describe Jenny on the form as a close friend of his mother. Mr Francis Seow: Is that the only occasion you departed from the truth? Sunny Ang: I did not depart from the truth. (His friend Sidney Kong actually wrote the words on the form.) Mr Francis Seow: But you were party to an untruth? Sunny Ang: Well, yes, but here again… may I say something? His Lordship: Yes, indeed. Sunny Ang: The primary purpose of agents, or even divisional managers, in an insurance company is to effect business and I may say with all sincerity that many untruths and misrepresentations occur in filling up application forms. His Lordship: Well, I should think insurance companies would be shocked, because insurance companies work on the principle of the utmost good faith. Sunny Ang: I know that. His Lordship: But you say that it is more honoured in the breach than in the observance? Sunny Ang: Yes, it is a common practice among insurance companies.

Asked to confirm that Jenny had been inside his home only once, Ang at first agreed, and then remembered she had been there on another occasion but had not met his mother.

His Lordship: You told me a minute ago you were quite sure it was only the one occasion. Now you say a second occasion. Sunny Ang: I just remembered. His Lordship: Well now, is that absolutely final? Only twice? Or are you going to think of another one in another minute? Sunny Ang: My Lord, with all respects, I do not like such insinuations. His Lordship: Just answer the questions. You have already said only one. I am asking you: is that all, or are you going to remember another one later on? Sunny Ang: No. Mr Francis Seow: If Jenny were suddenly to die after having effected any insurance policy, and if your name had been put down as beneficiary, do you agree you would have been the first suspect? Sunny Ang: Suspected of what? Mr Francis Seow: Of her murder, her death? Sunny Ang: Yes. Mr Francis Seow: If your mother’s name had been on it there would be less suspicion? Sunny Ang: Worse-more suspicion. His Lordship: On you? Sunny Ang: Even more on me. Mr Francis Seow: Why do you say that? Sunny Ang: Well, it was an obviously-how shall I say? His Lordship: Palpable ruse? Sunny Ang: Let us say it was a cheap attempt to try to divert- His Lordship: What I am saying is that it could be looked upon as a palpable ruse to switch the suspicion on you-that is what you are trying to say? Sunny Ang: That is right. Mr Francis Seow: Your mother is very ambitious for you? Sunny Ang: No. His Lordship: What an unusual mother! I thought mothers were always ambitious for their children. Doesn’t your mother want you to get on? Sunny Ang: Well, it depends upon the degree of ambition. His Lordship: Isn’t she ambitious for your future? Sunny Ang: She is not ambitious for me. She wants me to settle down. Mr Francis Seow: Well, are you ambitious? Sunny Ang: Yes. Mr Francis Seow: You want to get on? Sunny Ang: Yes. Mr Francis Seow: You want to be a barrister-at-law? Sunny Ang: Yes. Mr Francis Seow: Among other things? Sunny Ang: Yes. Mr Francis Seow: Are you a student of the University of Singapore? Sunny Ang: No. His Lordship: Have you ever been? Sunny Ang: No. Mr Francis Seow: Have you ever sat for the entrance examination? Sunny Ang: No. Mr Francis Seow: And if you were to say you had, that would be untrue? Sunny Ang: Yes. Mr Francis Seow: In December 1964, did you tell the Under Treasurer of Gray’s Inn in a letter that you are a student at the University of Singapore? Sunny Ang: I can’t remember. His Lordship: Can’t remember! Wait a moment. You first of all said you never were. Now you say you can’t remember whether you said to the Under Treasurer at Gray’s Inn that you were a student in the University of Singapore. Sunny Ang: I can’t remember whether I wrote to Gray’s Inn at all. His Lordship: Possibly your memory may be refreshed? (Hands Ang a letter.) Mr Francis Seow: Is that your letter? Sunny Ang: It is my letter. But it was never sent. Mr Francis Seow: Are you quite sure you never sent it? Sunny Ang: I can’t remember if I sent it. I never mailed it. The letter is torn here. I couldn’t have sent a torn letter. His Lordship: It could have been torn on its return, or while it was in England, if it were ever sent. Is that possible? Sunny Ang: That is quite possible, but I couldn’t have. Mr Francis Seow: Will you please look at that letter and see the postal cancellation marks, the traces, on it? His Lordship: Have a good look Ang, please. And take your time. Answer the question and let the answer be right. (Ang is shown the letter.) Did you send it? Sunny Ang: I must have.

Justice Buttrose read the letter, which was signed by Sunny Ang: it was addressed to the Under Treasurer, Gray’s Inn, London WC1. Dear Sir, I am a student at the University of Singapore but I intend to join Gray’s Inn next year. My admission to the University of Singapore was gained not through obtaining a Higher School Certificate but through passing their University Entrance Examination. However I possess a School Certificate Grade 1 with distinctions in English and Science. I would appreciate it very much if you could tell me if I am eligible as a scholar with Gray’s Inn. Thanking you, I am, Yours faithfully, [sgd] S. Ang Sunny Ang: May I explain? His Lordship: Yes, indeed you may. Sunny Ang: I wrote the letter because I wanted to find out if there was any way of getting into Gray’s Inn without having two Principal Level subjects as advanced subjects. And I wanted to find out if, being a student at the University, and having passed the Entrance Examination, which I believe would be easier to do than to take the Higher School Certificate. Join the university for a few months and then qualify myself to — His Lordship: Yes, Ang, I accept all that. But the thing that the jury and I are interested in is: do you think that is a good way to start your entrance into Gray’s Inn, by writing to the Under Treasurer and telling him things that are not true? Do you think that is a good way to start your legal career? Sunny Ang: No, my Lord, but only I did it with the best of intentions. I had to present them with my qualification eventually, so there is no point in lying to them. I did intend to take the Entrance Examination. His Lordship: Supposing you did not succeed in passing, but failed: they still have your letter saying not only that you were a student at the University, but that you passed an examination you have not even sat for? Mr Francis Seow: That is the only time you departed from the truth? His Lordship: That is repetition, and we are wasting time.

Ang, by now, had firmly established himself as a man not to be believed. He admitted sending another letter stating he was, in 1964, a licenced commercial pilot, when in fact he was not.

Shown another entry in his 1964 diary, Ang wrote, ‘the police are damn sure she was murdered, i.e. she is dead’. He was asked by crown counsel if he wrote that. His Lordship: That is in your handwriting and you made that entry? Sunny Ang: Yes. (He smiles.) His Lordship: You seem to be amused. Is it funny? Sunny Ang: I have my reasons. His Lordship: Perhaps. We shall investigate that in a moment. Mr Francis Seow: Is she dead? Sunny Ang: Yes, to me she is dead. His Lordship: That is a matter for the jury and not for this witness.

Giving evidence about the chicken farm, which Ang said he had sold to Jenny (he said she had made two payments, one of $500 and another of $1,500, the remaining $8,000 to be paid out of profits), Sunny Ang said they did not intend to get married for five years. He agreed that Jenny had no experience in running a chicken farm.

Shortly after lunch on the third day of the defence, the 10th day of the trial, crown counsel cross-examined him about the fateful Tuesday afternoon. Ang said he knew it would take at least half an hour for the sampan to get to St John’s Island, and half an hour to get back. “Time was of the essence if this girl is to be rescued?” asked Mr Francis Seow. “Yes,” said Sunny Ang.

Asked why he did not use Jenny’s tank to dive down to search for her, he said it did not occur to him. His Lordship: Why not? Sunny Ang: If she had been anywhere round the boat I would have seen her air bubbles. His Lordship: Did you realize that this girl, whom you love and whom you were going to marry, had gone down and disappeared, and you calmly turn round to the boatman and said, ‘All right. Go to St John’s’? Sunny Ang: If she was anywhere around the boat we would have seen her air bubbles. His Lordship: It didn’t occur to you to go down and search for her? Sunny Ang: No. His Lordship: Why? Sunny Ang: Because I thought there was obviously a leak and also if she was anywhere around the boat we would have seen her air bubbles. Mr Francis Seow: But the point remains that the Sealion tank of Jenny in the boat could have been used if you had used it? Sunny Ang: Yes. Mr Francis Seow: And it had seven minutes of air or more? Sunny Ang: Yes. Mr Francis Seow: And your answer is: ‘It never occurred to me’? Sunny Ang: Yes. Mr Francis Seow: You had skin-diving equipment with you in the boat? Sunny Ang: Yes. Mr Francis Seow: The girl you were going to marry was obviously in difficulty, if not actually dead already. Why didn’t you use your skin-diving equipment to go down?

Sunny Ang paused for several long minutes. The courtroom was hushed when he replied, “I was not quite sure what sort of difficulties she was in. It occurred to me-it was a vague thought-that she might have been attacked by sharks. In fact, I remarked upon that to Yusuf. Not then, but long after the incident.”

His Lordship: You could have gone down to find out? Sunny Ang: She might have been attacked by sharks. Mr Francis Seow: Was one of the main reasons that sharks may be lurking where your boat was? Sunny Ang: Yes. Mr Francis Seow: Why did you bring her there in the first place, if sharks were lurking there? Sunny Ang: The idea of sharks being there never occurred to me. In fact, it was Yusuf who recommended the spot to me-I mean the Sister Islands. Mr Francis Seow: When did you change back into your street clothes? Sunny Ang: I think I remember I put them on, on my way to St John’s Island. Mr Francis Seow: So that when the Malay divers were going in you were then in your street clothes, and you saw no point in joining them? Sunny Ang: I do not say I saw no point. I was in my street clothes and there were more experienced skin-divers, and there were five of them. Besides I knew the chances of finding her were very slim. His Lordship: You never got into the water at all that day? You never got your feet wet? Sunny Ang: That is so.

Sunny Ang admitted to crown counsel that on 28 August 1963 (the day after Jenny’s disappearance), Robert Cheok, brother of Jenny, came to his house and insinuated that Ang had murdered her.

Mr Francis Seow: And didn’t you tell him that if you had gone down together with Jenny, and if you had surfaced without her, then he could suspect you, and not otherwise? Sunny Ang: Yes. Mr Francis Seow: I put it to you that, after you insured Jenny heavily, you deliberately took her out to Pulau Dua where you tampered with her scuba equipment so that she would drown underneath the sea? Sunny Ang: I did not. Mr Francis Seow: So that you could collect the money? Sunny Ang: No.

Ang was in the witness-box for eight hours over three days. His counsel did not re-examine, and, when Ang returned to the dock, called Yeo Tong Hock of Penang. Yeo gave his evidence in Hokkien. He said he was a food hawker, but in 1963 a brothel-keeper, and a pimp. At first he claimed that he had seen a woman similar to Jenny alive in Penang, and later in Kedah, after her reported disappearance. Later, shown a picture of Jenny, he agreed it was not the same girl.

He agreed with defence counsel that a photograph was first shown to him by an insurance investigator. He went to the High Court in Kuala Lumpur to make an affidavit.

Cross-examined by crown counsel, Yeo admitted he had bad eyesight. In September 1964, he met Stephen Lim, an investigator from Malayan Adjustment. He was shown a photograph. The investigator suggested it might be Jenny Cheok. He said he was prepared to make a statement but not swear an affidavit. Crown Counsel: And Lim told you that if you did not swear an affidavit, and if the girl was subsequently found, you would not be entitled to any award? Yeo: Yes. Crown Counsel: And he told you that $25,000 would be for you if you swear out this affidavit? Yeo: No. He said if this person were to be found then there would be a reward for me. Crown Counsel: The insurance company would pay you $25,000? Yeo: Yes. His Lordship: Can you say, looking at this photograph now, in this court, at this moment, that it is the same girl you saw in Penang? Defence Counsel: Could he look at both the photographs? His Lordship: Certainly. (Photographs shown to witness.) Tell me. on sober reflection, now, with the greatest care with your answer-can you say absolutely whether or not that is the girl? Yeo: Not the same.

As Mr Coomaraswamy rose to re-examine the witness. the judge told Yeo that he need fear no consequences of any answer he may give to any question he may be asked. Mr Coomaraswamy: Now, where have you been living for the past 10 days? Mr Francis Seow: I object to that- His Lordship: How does this come up in cross-examination? Mr Coomaraswamy: My instructions are that he was held incommunicado by the Penang police and threatened that he would be in trouble if he gave evidence in support of what he said in the affidavit. His Lordship: Where have you been for the past 10 days? Yeo: I left Penang on 2 May for Taiping. From Taiping I went to Kuala Lumpur. Last night I received a phone call saying I was wanted in Singapore. His Lordship: I am bound to say, exercising all the restraint I can, that I think it was, Mr Coomaraswamy, a most unhappy remark for you to say that this witness had been kept incommunicado by the Penang police for 10 days. There is not the slightest evidence to support it. I shall have a lot to say about this to the jury when I come to sum up. Mr Coomaraswamy: I was doing it on instruction, my Lord, and the instructions were given to me by a responsible person.

On the 11 ^ th day of the trial (the fourth day of the defence), Mr Coomaraswamy drew the court’s attention to a report in The Straits Times that Richard Ang was facing charges in connection with a witness in the case. The judge called for a copy of the paper and ordered the jury not to read the report.

Defence counsel said that Richard Ang had been arrested on 22 April and produced in court on 23 April. The case was mentioned on 30 April and hearing fixed for August. (Subsequently the case against Richard Ang was dropped). Mr Coomaraswamy complained that it was significant that the report should have appeared when his intention of calling him as a witness had already been known. Mr Seow assured the judge that the prosecution had nothing to do with the report. “I should be horrified if you had,” said the judge.

Mr Coomaraswamy closed his case after calling three more witnesses: two police officers who gave evidence about the car accident, and 16-year-old William Ang. One policeman said he had never in two and a half years in the area even seen dogs in the vicinity of the accident and William Ang said that Jenny had learned to swim ‘quite fast’. He said he had seen Jenny scuba-diving twice off Changi Beach.

Both Mr Coomaraswamy, for Ang, and Mr Francis Seow addressed the court on the 12 ^ th day of the trial. Defence counsel spoke for two hours. Crown counsel spoke altogether for an hour and a quarter. Then the judge began his summing up. He addressed the jury for three-quarters of an hour on Monday, 17 May 1965, and for another hour and three-quarters on Tuesday morning.

The Trial: The Defence

In his two-hour speech for the defence, Mr Coomaraswamy spoke from rough notes. He submitted there were numerous ways in which Jenny could have met her death-if, in fact, she was dead. She could have been swept away, or struck her head against some coral and become unconscious and subsequently lost her flipper. She might have been attacked by a shark. She might have been suffering from nitrogen narcissus (a form of numbness). “In a case like this, you cannot act on evidence that maybe she is dead. You cannot even act on evidence that allows you to say, ‘You may be pretty sure she is dead.’ You have to go beyond that and act only if you can be morally certain beyond reasonable doubt that she is dead.”

He submitted that on the evidence, the jury could not say beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused did kill Jenny in the manner alleged by the prosecution.

Quoting extensively from a law book on the assessment of circumstantial evidence, Mr Coomaraswamy said that the prosecution evidence, put simply and stripped of all the trimmings, was that the accused stood to gain by the death of Jenny, that he was with her when she disappeared, that after her disappearance he made representations that he presumed her to be dead, and that he had told untruths in the witness-box. “On this basis the prosecution is going to ask you to return a verdict that he is guilty of murder.”

Dealing with the allegation that Ang told untruths in the witness-box, Mr Coomaraswamy read extracts from accused’s diary and submitted that if the diary was a ‘diary of truth’, as the prosecution contended, it was strange that it contained no entry on 8 June of a telephone call to McDougall (a director of Edward Lumley Limited, the insurance company).

Ang had also been cross-examined on certain representations he had made to institutions of higher learning as to his qualifications and his name. “What has this to do with the case?” asked counsel. “For this, are we going to convict him of murder?”

He asked the jury to consider the accused’s evidence as a whole and his evidence in relation to the statement he made to the police soon after the incident, when there was no time for fabrication. They could then ask, was he telling the truth or not?

Mr Coomaraswamy also invited the jury to look at those parts of the accused’s evidence, where he could easily have lied, but where obviously he had given truthful answers. For instance, there was an important matter on which he could have lied: that he and not his mother was the real beneficiary by Jenny’s death.

Mr Coomaraswamy reminded the jury that, as the prosecution had freely acknowledged, the evidence against the accused was purely circumstantial and, correspondingly, the prosecution’s task and burden was greater. In other words, the prosecution must produce in seven ‘independent minds’ a degree of persuasion very much greater than it would have had to achieve had there been direct evidence of death and the mode by which death was achieved.

Counsel then cited a long passage from an authority on the assessment of circumstantial evidence, with the tendency of police officers to form a conclusion, and then seek out evidence to support that conclusion.

Counsel said that within two to three weeks of the alleged offence, accused was subjected to a long interrogation and he made a ‘full and frank statement’. Counsel submitted that the prosecution had all the evidence it wanted by October 1963, but it was not until 16 months later that the accused was arrested.

Mr Coomaraswamy said that it was always possible to place a suspicious interpretation, if one so wished, on any piece of evidence. For instance, the prosecution had asked the accused if he knew that Jenny treasured a ring, which was handed over to the Marine Police. Accused had admitted that he did. The interpretation sought to be placed on this admission was that this man, who had so professed his love for the girl, would have wanted to retain the ring as a memento. But if the accused had, in fact, retained the ring, he would have been described as an evil man who, not satisfied with the money he stood to collect from her death, also took the ring that belonged to the girl. “What the prosecution is going to ask you to do is to act on suspicion and speculation.”

Nevertheless, the prosecution had not yet tried to crystallize the speculation and theories so that the defence could meet them. One clue to the prosecution’s speculation was in crown counsel’s question to the accused, suggesting that after he had insured her heavily he took her out to Pulau Dua so that she could drown at sea, and so that he could collect the money.

Counsel said that the evidence should be examined to see how it fitted this theory. Jenny was a bar girl, who encountered a large number of men, each adopting different methods to win her favours. “To put it shortly, you must accept it that she was a worldly-wise girl,” said Mr Coomaraswamy. He submitted that Jenny wanted insurance for her own reasons. The jury must believe that there were limits to gullibility even for a bar girl.

Dealing with the question of the beneficiary under the insurance policy, defence counsel said that accused had said in his police statement that his mother, Madam Yeo Bee Neo, had been named beneficiary because he himself was a bankrupt.

With regard to the will, counsel said that it was difficult to conceive the circumstances in which an unwilling or uncooperative person would make one. He submitted that in this particular instance there was very good reason for a girl like Jenny to make a will. She was married and estranged from her husband, and in the event of her death the only person who could enforce any claims on what Jenny might have had would have been the estranged husband. “It is in my submission quite clear that Jenny knew exactly what the will was, knew the consequence of making it and knew its effect,” said Mr Coomaraswamy. The evidence was clear that she was a full and willing party to the making of this will.

Defence counsel also touched on the theory that the accused had designed an accident on the road to kill Jenny so that he could get the insurance money, but having failed in that had set up another device. “It is my submission that accused’s story of the accident is the correct one, that he was driving fast round this notorious bend,” said Mr Coomaraswamy. Another improbability of the prosecution theory on this was that the accused would design a serious motor accident with himself as the driver. “My submission is that the prosecution theory is as fanciful as the rest of their case.”

In his argument on the evidence regarding one of the flippers which was found, counsel said there were three possibilities: · the flipper was not cut when Jenny went down for her first dive; · the flipper was cut between the first and second dives; and · the flipper was not cut at all.

He asked the jury to dismiss the second possibility and to consider whether or not the flipper was cut before the first dive. If, as the prosecution alleged, it was the accused’s object to kill Jenny on her first dive, the accused could have tampered with either her aqualung, weight belt or flipper.

If the flipper had been cut the first time, Jenny would have discovered it, and the flipper would not have withstood the tensions applied to it while it was being put on. But she went into the water and came up again with no apparent sign of difficulty.

Counsel submitted that if the prosecution theory was true, the only possible assumption about the accused was that he was a calculating and cold-blooded killer. “Would accused have taken the risk of Jenny detecting the cut flippers?” he asked. “In the light of the evidence it is my submission that the evidence of this flipper is not enough and it is highly dangerous to act on it.”

Defence counsel said that the speculation in the case finally crystallized on the answers to two questions. The first was: is Jenny dead? “On this, you will have to disregard anything you have heard outside this court, and the views of all other persons,” he told the jury, “and you will have to come to a conclusion upon the hard facts of the evidence adduced before you.”

“It is not my task, nor that of my client, to explain the non-production of the body but the task of the prosecution to satisfy you that Jenny is, in fact, dead, although her body has not been found.”

He referred to the evidence of a witness, Yeo Tong Hock, who in November 1964 was willing to swear an affidavit that the person whom he knew to be Jenny was seen by him in late August 1963, in Penang, and subsequently in Alor Star. This was the only evidence available of whether Jenny was alive or not.

Mr Coomaraswamy said it was possible that Jenny was carried by currents, but did not find her air-tank unserviceable. The theory was not too far-fetched. It was strange that her body had not been found if, in fact, she was dead.

“In a case like this, you cannot act on evidence that maybe she is dead,” he submitted. “You cannot even act on evidence that allows you to say, ‘You may be pretty sure she is dead.’ You have to go beyond that and act only if you can be morally certain beyond reasonable doubt that she is dead.”

He submitted that the jury could not reach that conclusion on the evidence given. He reminded them that the accused was not being charged with fraud or telling lies, which carried penalties of imprisonment on conviction. Accused was charged with the most serious offence. The more serious and grave the punishment, the more careful they must be in making inferences.

If the jury came to the conclusion that Jenny was dead, they must reach a further conclusion. How did she come by her death? “Unless you come to the conclusion where you feel that the accused is responsible for her death, you cannot find him guilty of murder,” said counsel.

Even assuming for a moment that accused did cut Jenny’s flipper, could the jury say with moral certainty and beyond a reasonable doubt, after eliminating all other things that could have happened, that the accused was responsible for her death? “Can you, acting so that you are morally certain beyond a reasonable doubt, come to the conclusion that the accused did kill Jenny in the manner put forward by the prosecution?”

Mr Coomaraswamy concluded, “It is my submission that there are many explanations to the disappearance that are possible, and even on the assumption that she is dead, there are many ways in which she could have come to her death.”

Prosecution’s Closing Speech

In his closing speech, Mr Seow argued that it had been clearly established that, until Jenny met Ang, she did not know how to swim or scuba-dive. Ang had apparently taught her to do both in the short space of three months. “Do you think she could have possibly reached that degree of proficiency in scuba-diving to make it safe for her to dive in the channel between the Sisters Islands? Jenny was at best still a novice in scuba-diving, and Sunny Ang her instructor knew this.”

Yusuf was Ang’s regular boatman. He remembered having taken Jenny and Ang together only once before: that was to Pulau Tekukor, about two months before 27 August 1963, and on this occasion Jenny did not scuba-dive. The boatman did however have an opportunity of observing Jenny’s prowess at swimming. He described this as ‘unskilled’. The only occasion Yusuf had taken Jenny and Ang scuba-diving was on 27 August, which was Jenny’s first scuba-venture out at sea. Eileen Toh, who was at a picnic at Tanah Merah Besar, noticed that Jenny could barely swim as late as August.

Counsel made much of what he called ‘the cursory search’ for Jenny when she failed to respond to Ang’s jerking on the rope. Ang was in his swimming trunks: he was a very good swimmer and yet he did not go into the water in search of Jenny. In fact he never got his feet wet at all that day. Why did he not go in himself in search of Jenny? “You are left with the inescapable feeling that the prisoner was reluctant, most reluctant to look for her. And indeed we have his own word for it. Astonishing as it may sound, he saw no point in diving to look for her because he could not see her air bubbles anywhere near the boat, and because visibility in that depth could be only a few feet.” Ang further thought that sharks might have attacked her and his instinct for self-preservation prevented him from diving down.

Counsel said that it took Ang some 15 minutes or more to realize that he had an emergency situation on his hands. “And, upon that realization, was he galvanized into immediate action to save the girl he says he loved, and whom he says he had intended to marry? With all the scuba-diving equipment on board, all he did was vaguely to recall that there was a telephone on St John’s Island, some distance away, and, upon confirming this with the boatman, went there to summon the police for help. On the way, Ang apparently found time to change back into his street clothes.”

At St John’s Island, Jaffar bin Hussein, the guard, advised Ang that, until the police arrived, some pawangs (sea witch doctors) should be summoned to help, and accordingly five were brought to the spot where Jenny disappeared. They did not find her.

“What,” asked Mr Seow, “were her chances of survival in those treacherous waters? The torn and cut flipper, which Ang does not dispute was worn by Jenny, which was recovered near the spot where she last dived, suggests unmistakably that Jenny, as intended by Ang, swam into difficulties. Having regard to the strong currents known to be prevalent in that area, to her inexperience in swimming and in scuba-diving, the sudden and unexpected loss of the flipper triggered off a chain of panic-stricken reaction, with the inevitable result that she drowned.”

There was, remarked counsel, never any doubt in Sunny Ang’s mind that Jenny was dead. To put the matter of Jenny’s death beyond any doubt, Ang and his mother instructed their counsel to instigate and to expedite a coroner’s inquest into Jenny’s disappearance so that a formal finding of her death could be returned, failing which they next attempted to move the High Court by way of probate proceedings to presume that Jenny had died on 27 August 1963. “That was the degree of their certainty that Jenny was dead.”

Counsel said that it was incredible that after Ang had asserted, not only in various letters and documents, but also in the witness-box, that Jenny is dead, he should call as his witness Yeo Tong Hock to suggest in effect that a girl whom he once saw in Penang in 1963, and presumably again in Kedah in 1964, was in fact Jenny. “Yeo Tong Hock now affirms before you quite positively that the girl he saw was not Jenny.”

Mr Seow permitted himself to be amazed that the defence ‘should be in such confusion, such disarray, that in one breath it asserts that Jenny is dead, and in the next breath that she is still alive.’ He argued that if Jenny was alive it meant that she was hand-in-glove with Ang in a conspiracy to cheat the insurance companies. “Now assuming the evidence of the boatman is a truthful account of what took place, which I submit it was, there are two possible ways in which the deception could have been achieved. Firstly, Jenny swam the four miles back from the Sisters Islands to Singapore, which, having regard to her known swimming or scuba experience, was most unlikely. Or, secondly, she swam underwater part of the distance, surfaced, and was picked up by a boat lurking nearby. Here again, her scuba, swimming prowess precludes any such spectacular effort. No such boat, or anyone nearby, was seen by the boatman that day (which was confirmed by Ang in his own diary), and you may therefore rule out that possibility.”

The prosecutor went on to argue that if, for argument’s sake, Jenny did somehow manage to get back to Singapore and was alive, surely Ang would have told the police by now that she was alive? “Do you not think that, if he could, he would have produced Jenny and thus provided a complete defence to the charge that he had murdered her?” Mr Seow addressed the jury, “Ask yourselves: would not Jenny, were she alive, have walked through the very doors of this Court by now, to save Ang?”

Counsel dealt briefly with the insurances on Jenny’s life. He said that a matter that called for some comment was Jenny’s conduct. Did she know what was happening? He thought not. “The picture which emerges from the evidence is that of a young and lowly educated and impressionable girl with an unhappy past (although Ang describes her as simple), who, it seems, could be as easily fascinated by a typewriter as by a poultry farm, and who could be as equally interested in flying as in scuba-diving. Contrast her with Ang. Is it any wonder that within a month of meeting her he was able to sell an insurance policy and persuade Jenny to name his mother as her beneficiary-a woman Jenny never met? She thought he was going to marry her. In such circumstances, it is not difficult to imagine this ignorant and love-struck barmaid signing her life away. Ang virtually supported her, paid all the subsequent accident policies. Jenny had no poultry farm and Ang’s assertion that she had was another figment of his vivid imagination.”

Ang, said Mr Seow, was an expert and skilled motorist. He had been among the first 10 in the 1961 Singapore Grand Prix of 180 miles. Was not the so-called accident, in which he and Jenny were involved, contrived by him? Was this not a brazen attempt by Ang to kill Jenny? Within 13 days of that accident, Jenny was involved in another accident-this time at sea. After the first abortive attempt on her life, this unsuspecting bar waitress without any visible means of support was heavily insured by Ang and taken out scuba-diving by him. Ang knew the treacherous nature of the waters, especially the undertows. And it was to this very place that he brought his inexperienced pupil on a quiet and lonely Tuesday afternoon to scuba-dive. Against all rules of safety, he instructed her to dive in alone. Against all rules of safety, she was allowed to put on her weight belt first, after which her air-tank was harnessed on her back. After her tank was changed by Ang, Jenny went below alone and never surfaced again. Counsel said that Ang had never satisfactorily explained why he had changed her tank when it still had a lot of air in it.

“It would have been awkward for Ang if both he and Jenny had gone down together and only he came up. He had to create an alibi that he was in the boat when she swam into difficulties, and was drowned. Ang also had to create an excuse for himself for not going into the sea when Jenny failed to surface-an alibi and an excuse which could be vouched for by a third party, the boatman Yusuf. What was the alibi? What was the excuse? Well, washers do not normally drop out by themselves. How, then, did the washer of Ang’s tank come to be missing? It was deliberately removed by him. “Nevertheless the fact remains that, due to wear and tear, washers do occasionally drop out-and therein lies the ingenuity of Ang’s stratagem.

But if it did drop out, you would immediately be aware of this, before you fixed the breathing assembly to the tank. How was it that Ang was not immediately aware of this? Why did he not test the tank after he had fixed the breathing assembly to see if it leaked? This would have been the most natural thing to do before he put the tank on his back. But he says he did not. Why? After the tank had been harnessed on he asked the boatman to turn the valve on, as it was tight. Then he heard the loud outrush of escaping air. When he discovered that the cause of the leak was the missing washer, Ang, oddly enough, did not remark to Yusuf that it might have dropped out in the sampan, or start a search for it. Does not his behaviour strike you as that of a person who knew that the washer was not there? Because he had deliberately removed it? What he did was simply to go through the motions of play-acting for the benefit of the unsuspecting boatman. A washer was improvised from a rubber strap of a diving mask. But the tank still leaked.”

Counsel reminded the jury that the improvised washer in question was put in as an exhibit by the defence. “And with that very same washer, on that very same Healthway tank-which Ang said leaked-Henderson demonstrated before your very eyes and ears that the tank did not leak. But Yusuf also said he heard it leak. What then is the explanation? It is very simple. The washer was fixed on the tank by Ang but he deliberately did not clamp it tight, so that when the valve was turned on, the tank was bound to leak. Henderson was himself able to cause a deliberate leak on his own tank in that manner when he dived on 26 April 1965 off Pulau Dua. And, to prove it beyond doubt, you have seen in this Court how with its proper washer the Healthway tank leaked if it was not clamped on tight. Yusuf of course had no means of knowing this. Firstly because he knew nothing of scuba-equipment (a fact known to Ang), and secondly, it was Ang who had fitted it on.”

Counsel recalled that they had examined the improvised washer before and after Henderson’s demonstration in Court “so that you could see a slight impression on it whereas there was none before. This indicates that the washer was never clamped on tight as it should have been on 27 August 1963. Ang said he next attempted to prise out the washer from the 40-cubic-feet Sealion tank (originally used by Jenny) with a knife which had cut the washer. Ang had said that relying on common sense he knew he was unable to use it on his own Healthway tank. Yusuf did not remember this.”

On instructions from the police, Bertrand had experimented with cut washers, and washers which had been gouged or prised out from their seats, after which he had used them on his tank. In all instances there was no perceptible leak. “Henderson has also told you how, with an improvised rubber washer in his own tank, he had been able to dive to a depth of 45 feet, where he remained for 10 minutes. And how he repeated this experiment with a string, reaching a depth of 100 feet, where he remained for 22 minutes without any apparent discomfort. If you accept the evidence of Henderson and Bertrand on this-and also the evidence of your own eyes and ears, it shows conclusively that Ang had been lying about the washer, about the leak, and about the unservice-ability of his scuba equipment. Why should he lie? This was an emergency. His best girl had not surfaced. She had been down some 15 minutes or so, and, on his own calculations, there would be little or no air left in her tank-if nothing else in the meanwhile had happened to her. This was the girl he was going to marry. He was a very good swimmer. He was also a skin-diver. He had all the equipment on board. He was an instructor in scuba-diving. And yet he never dipped one little finger into the water, so to speak, to render her immediate assistance. He never made so much as a token dive to look for her. His bathing trunks never got wet.”

Counsel asked the jury: “What would you have done if your best girl, someone you love most dearly had gone down and not surfaced for 15 minutes? Would you not have been frantic with fear, with anxiety, for her safety? If you were a very good swimmer and a skin-diver, would you not in the circumstances have plunged into the sea to search for her? Why did Ang not do so? The boatman saw moisture below Ang’s eyes. He was not sure whether this was sea water or tears. I suggest to you that this moisture was in fact sea water from his diving mask. Yusuf never heard him weep. If Ang had been truly concerned over Jenny, he would have bestirred himself into greater energy than he had shown. He did not in fact appear a bit concerned or alarmed at Jenny’s disappearance. He did not urge the boatman to hurry to get to St John’s Island. On the contrary, he appeared to have found time to change back into his street clothes. At St John’s Island, Jaffar walked with him to the telephone, and back to the jetty. Ang did not hurry the boatman back to Pulau Dua. Ang wanted her to die. He wanted to make sure she really died. If he had carefully planned her death there was not much point in him going down to look for her-and that, I suggest, was the reason he did not do so.”

Mr Seow said that Ang had told the Court that they were at Pulau Dua to collect corals. Because they were sharp it was necessary to wear gloves. Ang had therefore brought two pairs of gloves. Jenny had gone below to wait for him: they were to collect corals. Yet she never wore her gloves. Ang could not explain how, if Jenny had indeed worn them, they were found in his swimming bag later. “This was no coral-collecting excursion. This was an excursion where, at the end of it, Ang was to collect $400,000 for himself.” Ang had also brought along two improvised weight belts. They had been specially improvised for Jenny. Ang never used a weight belt. The weights were tied at Jenny’s back, but as water is a lubricant it was possible, owing to gravity, for the belt to swing round back to front. “In that eventuality I think you would agree that it would be extremely difficult for Jenny, in an emergency, to jettison the belt, and surface.”

Mr Seow turned next to the flipper. “Who cut the strap? The person who engineered her death. There were three persons in the boat. One of them is the killer. Why was the strap cut? Who had an opportunity of cutting it? Who had the strongest motives to want Jenny’s death? Sunny Ang was the answer to all those questions.’” Counsel argued that all the evidence led to the irresistible inference that Sunny Ang knew that Jenny was dead, and that Ang had killed her, and that he was determined to profit as speedily as possible from her death. “This is a case of a man who planned, and carefully planned, to murder for gain, for $400,000, and who hoped to succeed, as he thought he would, if no trace of the body of his victim could be found.”

Summing Up

Justice Buttrose began his summing up on the afternoon of 17 May 1965. He dealt first with what he called the propriety and wisdom of Mr Coomaraswamy, the defence counsel, interviewing the key witness for the prosecution, the boatman, after the accused had been charged with the offence. He repeated that he accepted Mr Coomaraswamy’s explanation, in that, according to his lights at any rate, he did what he thought was proper in the interests of his client. He told the jury to dismiss the incident completely from their minds. The boatman never changed his story, nor did anyone, he said, ever ask him to do so.

Next the judge warned the jury to ignore completely any rumours they may have heard during the past 21 months that Jenny was still alive. He reminded them that they were concerned only with the evidence. They must be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that Jenny was dead. What the prosecution had to do was to prove that she was dead. It was not necessary to produce a body. “The absence of a dead body makes the proof of death, of course, more difficult and the onus on the prosecution of proving it heavier. But that is all.” The two questions they must ask themselves were: were they satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that Jenny was dead? Were they satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that she was murdered by the prisoner? There was no actual eye-witness as to how she died. “There is no one who can tell you what happened down on the sea-bed some 30–40 feet below the surface, to this young girl of 22 years of age on this fateful afternoon of 27 August 1963. Only Jenny herself could have told us, but, according to the prosecution, her lips have been sealed for ever.” The judge explained the importance of circumstantial evidence. “The fact of death may be proved, and proved quite adequately, by circumstantial evidence, as may the fact that murder has been committed be proved, and proved quite adequately by circumstantial evidence.”

Justice Buttrose drew the jury’s attention to the disparity in general background between Jenny the bar waitress who could speak only very, very little English, and Ang, a well-educated and knowledgeable young man, then 26 years old. “Jenny you may think felt highly flattered by the attention of this, in her eyes at any rate, young and more mature, better educated and experienced young man. She might-you may not unreasonably, I suggest, conclude-have entertained views of matrimony with him.” The judge referred to Ang’s evidence that there was a tacit understanding between them to marry and that they were in love with each other. “They were also on terms of complete intimacy.”

The judge said there was no dispute over what he called the “extraordinary series of insurance transactions entered into by Jenny, or in her name, or on her behalf. Nevertheless he went through them all, coming finally to the $150,000 policy for five days from 27 August 1963, at 11:00 am, ‘the very day that this tragic occurrence took place, the actual day of the tragedy, when he went to the office of the American International Underwriters alone, bringing with him an application form duly filled in and signed by Jenny’. The beneficiary was again Jenny’s estate. Within three weeks of Jenny meeting the accused she had been insured for very large amounts of money with five different. insurance companies. At the time of the tragedy Jenny had been covered by insurance ‘to the tune of something not far short of half a million dollars’. In some cases, Ang’s mother was the beneficiary, in others, Jenny’s estate. “But the whole of her estate was to go to the accused’s mother by the will that she had drawn up in August.’

Thus, within the short space of three months, Ang had got the whole of Jenny’s estate in his hands, ‘the very substantial benefit of all her insurance policies, and, when we come to his defence, not only had he been paid $2,000 by this bar girl on account of the purchase of the poultry farm, but there was a further $8,000 still due to him by Jenny on account of the balance of the purchase price’. “One must, I think,” added Justice Buttrose, “agree that by any standards, this was quite an achievement and when one considers the youth and age of the accused it is staggering. I don’t think it unfair to say to you, members of the jury, that in the short space of two and a half months he had got the lot. Jenny, so far as the evidence goes, had never before taken, or considered taking out any insurance policies, or of making a will, and it was only after she had met Ang that she did so. And this, gentlemen of the jury, is, according to the prosecution, the motive, the overwhelming motive, for this crime: the golden hope of gain by this undischarged bankrupt with high ambitions.”

The judge drew the jury’s attention to the three letters which Ang sent to three insurance companies the day immediately following the tragedy. They were identical. Jenny had met with a tragic accident while scuba-diving off one of the islands south of Singapore at about 3:00 pm on 27 August 1963. The letter went on, ‘She is presumed to have either drowned or been attacked by a shark. Her body is yet to be found.’

And there the judge stopped, promising to ‘pick up the threads again’ at 10:30 am the following morning, when he pointedly reminded the jury that the insurance policies had all been not endowment policies but accident policies. He questioned whether Ang had in fact sold the poultry farm to Jenny. “One is tempted,” remarked the judge, “to wonder what the accused’s mother would have thought of this sale of the poultry farm to a bar girl, or ex-bar-girl, whom she had never met in any real sense of the term at all?” Jenny’s half-sister said Jenny owned no property, no poultry farm and was always short of money. “Eileen said Jenny did not know how to swim, but used to play about in the water.” Jenny was unable to pay half the rent of the flat because she was unemployed and had no money. Ang paid her share. Does this sound to you like Jenny being able to enter into an arrangement to buy a poultry farm for $10,000 and to have paid, on account of that sum, $2,000 to the accused?”

Justice Buttrose went into some detail about the evidence given by David Henderson, the RAF scuba-diver, who found the flipper on the sea-bed. “At the point where he found it, the sea-bed, he said, was rough. There was little mud over it, but it was plain to see. The heel-strap was severed, although the rubber was in good condition.” There were no barnacles. By that Henderson meant there was no sea-growth or fungus attached to that flipper on 3 September, when he discovered it, nesting by the side of these rocks. That was why, he told us, it was because of these rocks that the flipper had not been swept away. He said there was nothing whatever to indicate to him that the flipper had been there for any length of time.’ Henderson had said he found the current to be three or four knots and difficult to swim against. There was also an undertow, and a very powerful undertow because he could not stem it and was carried some 150 yards away. “That is the evidence, members of the jury, of an expert, first-class scuba-diver. If he couldn’t stem the tide and he was swept away 150 yards, what chance do you think a novice scuba-diver would have in those circumstances?” The judge reminded the jury that in Henderson’s considered opinion the area between the two islands was quite unsuitable for a novice scuba-diver.

Justice Buttrose dealt briefly with Henderson’s tests on the tanks. Henderson had dived, using a piece of string as a washer, to a depth of 100 feet and remained there for 21 minutes. “Is this not an outstanding instance of the old saying that ‘where there’s a will there’s a way’? The prosecution in this case say there was a way, but that the accused had not the will.” The judge suggested to the jury-“it’s entirely a matter for you to decide”-that Jenny was undoubtedly a novice diver and should never have dived alone. “You will ask yourselves: was not the accused an experienced diver and well aware of this?”

Coming back to the nipper, the judge said that the chemist, Phang Sin Eng had found that two areas of the heel-strap had clean cuts. Under microscopic examination, they were found to contain striations, or fine-line markings. The presence of these fine-line markings, in the opinion of the chemist, was consistent with the two cuts being caused by a sharp instrument, such as a knife, a razor blade or a pair of scissors. He said that the strength of the strap would obviously be weakened by these cuts and would require little effort to tear. In his opinion it was most unlikely that the two cuts were caused by coral, firstly because of the position of the two cuts, one from the top down and the other from the bottom up, and the presence of these striations, or fine-line markings: secondly the top cut had two directions, one vertically downwards and a second continued on at a slight angle downwards indicating two separate and independent actions in producing it. Finally, the chemist had given evidence that under the microscope there was no trace whatever of any particles of coral. There were no traces whatever of calcium carbonate in either of these cuts.

As to the argument of the defence that if the strap could easily be broken by stretching once it was cut-as the chemist demonstrated in court-then it could just as easily be broken putting it on, the judge demolished it by explaining that the chemist had performed his experiments 21 months after the flipper had been found. “Rubber does perish and if that flipper had been kept in a store in a police department for 21 months what effect do you think it would have on the resiliency of the rubber itself? Would it not have grown much more fragile, much more wasted and much easier to snap than it would have on 27 August 1963?” Besides much depended upon the way in which the heel-strap was put on. “If you use your right hand and use the right side of the heel-strap to lever it over your heel, and the cut is on the left side of the heel-strap, isn’t the tension likely to be far stronger on the right side which you are pulling round to fit on your heel than on the left?” The judge added. “These are matters for you to consider.”

Coming to the fateful day, the judge said that the party pushed off from Jardine Steps at 2:30 pm that afternoon. Ang was paying the boatman $12 for three hours hire on what was, ‘for all intents and purposes, to be a pleasant afternoon’s outing and some scuba-diving’.

The judge paused. “I pause here,” he explained, “to remind you that but some three hours earlier that very same morning the accused called at the offices of the American International Underwriters, taking with him Jenny’s application form already filled in, renewing the $150,000 policy which had expired the day before. You may think it odd why he did not himself renew his own policy with the same company which had expired the previous day also, for the sum of $10,000, but he did not.” The judge paused again. “And so,” he continued slowly, “at that precise moment Jenny was insured to the tune of some $450,000.”

They dropped anchor in mid-channel at Ang’s direction, and Jenny donned her scuba-diving equipment and went overboard. Jenny was underwater for some eight to 10 minutes and, said the judge to the jury, “you may agree with me that while some eight to 10 minutes had elapsed the accused did not appear to be in any hurry to show any enthusiasm in getting ready to go down and join Jenny. For the next half an hour, they were laughing and chatting in the boat. “How comes it then, that during that half-hour the accused was not able to be ready? What attempt, if any, did he make to get himself ready during that half-hour? The boatman did not see him making any preparations during that time, except that, at the expiry of the half-hour, he helped to change Jenny’s tank because he said there was insufficient air in it. After it was fitted on her back, Jenny went overboard for the second and last time. She never surfaced again. You will ask yourselves, again, as to why it was that the accused did not ask Jenny to wait so that they could go down together this time, for, after all, this was a joint coral hunt, in which presumably, they were going to enjoy themselves?”

Justice Buttrose said that he found Ang’s ‘ladies’ first’ excuse for not going down himself to investigate the perils of the deep ahead of her a little thin, but that was a matter for jury to decide. ‘But,’ he added, ‘can that possibly apply the second time as well? Does it not, gentlemen of the jury, force you to the conclusion that the accused had no intention whatsoever of going down under the water that day at all? That is the question you must ask yourselves.”

When Jenny went down the second time, the accused, according to the boatman, had no equipment on at all. Why not? This was important. Why not? Why didn’t he put it on while Jenny was in the boat with him during the half-hour they were chatting together? It was only after Jenny had gone down the second time that Sunny Ang asked the boatman to assist him to fit on the big tank, and then it was found, so Ang said, to have a leak and could not be used, the accused telling the boatman there was no washer in the tank. “You will ask yourselves: why? What was it that Sunny Ang was doing to the tank when the boatman saw him working on it? Was Ang deliberately removing the washer?”

An improvised washer was made but there was still a leak and Ang decided he could not use the tank. During the whole of this operation Jenny had not surfaced. Then, apparently, and only then, did he decide he might as well pull the guide line. Having done so three times he returned to the tank and detached the assembly, the breathing apparatus. Then he asked the boatman, ‘Where is the girl?’ Ang pulled the guide line again, and yet again the girl failed to surface. Ang told the boatman to look for bubbles. Then Ang said, ‘What do we do now?’ and the boatman replied, ‘Nothing’. But the boatman suggested they had better go to St John’s Island to phone the Marine Police. And this they did. They returned with some Malay pawangs. They searched for half an hour for the girl, but no sign of her was found. On the evidence of the 63-year-old pawang, a strong current was running.

“Now,” continued the judge, “while this search was going on for the girl, whom Sunny Ang said he was in love with, and intended to marry, he was apparently having a conversation with a man named Jaffar, in the boat, as to whether the small tank the girl had first used, would float. Ang said maybe it would.” To test his belief he placed it in the sea and it promptly sank. It disappeared under the surface of the sea, “and has never been seen from that day to this-like the girl. The accused does not know what happened to the girl after she went down the second time, nor did he appear to have made any real attempt to find out. That is the boatman’s evidence.”

Coming back to the green flipper, Inspector Richard Lui was handed the flipper on 3 September 1963 by David Henderson, when Inspector Yeo was also present. The strap had been severed. Justice Buttrose said the defence had made some point because the inspector had said in the Lower Court that he had been handed the flipper on the 4th and not the 3rd of September. “Mr Coomaraswamy has told you that this is an unsatisfactory matter and must influence your minds in considering the whole question of the flipper. Is it unsatisfactory, members of the jury? A mistake in the date, by an inspector starting an investigation into one of the most difficult cases it has ever been my experience to try?” The judge indicated his own view by adding that he would not waste any more time with that aspect of the case. Inspector Lui handed the green nipper to the chemist on 25 September, though the chemist did see it a week or two before, perhaps three weeks earlier; but it was only a cursory glance because the inspector wanted to get his views on the flipper before he took it back to continue with his investigation. There was, therefore, no substance in the comment that the chemist only saw it really for the first time on 25 September 1963. On 21 December 1964, the inspector arrested the accused at Sennett Road. The judge reminded the jury that it was Inspector Lui who found the improvised washer in Ang’s swimming bag which he left at the police station on the night of the tragedy.

Justice Buttrose concluded his review of the case for the prosecution bv summarizing briefly, “the links in this chain of circumstantial evidence which the prosecution says binds the accused tight in its coils.” He listed 16. 1. The first was motive, which the judge described as ‘powerful and compelling’. Ang was a bankrupt, in need of large sums of money to carry out his ambitious plans for the future. ‘That is the motive for this crime.’ 2. On the very day Jenny disappeared Ang had made sure that a policy which had lapsed the day before was renewed ‘to the tune of $150 000 by the girl but he did not renew his own’. That was the second link. 3. The third link was the opportunity to commit the crime. He picked a weekday. On Tuesday no other boats were likely to be in the vicinity of the Sisters Islands. 4. Fourth link was the dangerous, hazardous waters. There could be no dispute about that, or that the accused knew they were dangerous, hazardous waters. This was not the place to swim, let alone scuba-dive. 5. Fifth link: Jenny was a novice, barely able to swim and Sunny Ang knew this. 6. Sixth link: he sent Jenny down alone when he knew scuba-diving should not be done alone ‘let alone when you are a novice and in these dangerous waters’. 7. Seventh link: Ang did not go down himself and had no intention whatever of going down ‘or, as it was put to you, even wetting his feet that day’. 8. Eighth link: on Jenny surfacing he sent her down again, because, he said, his equipment was not ready. 9. The ninth link, the judge continued, was that the prosecution said that the accused contrived to render the remaining two tanks in the sampan useless so that they could not be used, or at least to the eyes of the unsuspecting boatman, who knows nothing about scuba-diving or its equipment. 10. The 10th link was that Sunny Ang made no attempt himself to use Jenny’s first tank, ‘which we know’ must have been more than a quarter full of air. “He did not make any attempt to use the tank before he, according to the prosecution, ruined the washer by prising and hacking it out with a knife.” 11. The vital green flipper was the 11th link in the circumstantial chain. It was found within six days after ‘the accident, or the tragedy’. The heel-strap had been severed, cut by a knife or other sharp instrument-‘and I don’t see how you can escape this conclusion’-and it had been identified conclusively as one of the flippers which Jenny was wearing that day. But, once more, the judge reminded the jury that this was entirely a matter for them to decide. 12. Twelfth link was the attitude and demeanour of Sunny Ang at, and after, the disappearance of the girl. Apparently utterly calm and unmoved, ‘as he has been throughout this trial, not, as I suggest you might expect, in a state of utter grief and despair at the loss of this girl whom he loved and intended to marry’. The judge drew the jury’s attention to the fact that while the pawangs were diving, looking for Jenny’s body, Ang was calmly discussing with Jaffar and the boatman the sinkability or floatability of the tank. 13. Less than 24 hours after this tragedy, with what has been described as somewhat ‘indecent haste’, he made formal claims on the three insurance companies. “You may think these letters show a somewhat casual and coldblooded approach to the matter.” That was the 13th link in the chain. 14. The 14th was Ang’s ‘hot pursuit’ of the insurance money. There was the compromise plan to stifle the probate proceedings which the insurance companies were going to contest: this compromise plan would have given him half the insured money for a quick pay-off. There was the telephone call to one company about a mis-description of Jenny in the policy. There were the series of letters to the coroner exhorting him to hurry to complete his inquiry. There was the fact that Ang had been round to a number of solicitors to enlist their aid. 15. Fifteenth link was the prosecution’s statement that the accused did not dive in at all because he wanted to remain in sight of the boatman. The boatman was his alibi, ‘and so it could never be said, gentlemen of the jury, that he went into the water himself after Jenny and killed her under the water. By remaining on the sampan throughout the whole incident, it was always open, he hoped, for him to say that it was an accident in which he was in no way concerned’. 16. Finally, the 16th link, the washer, one of the washers improvised in the sampan by the boatman and Sunny Ang: “It was tested here before our very eyes, gentlemen of the jury, both by David Henderson and by the accused himself. The washer worked perfectly on this very tank and never leaked at all.”

Justice Buttrose reminded the jury again about circumstantial evidence: one of its points was its cumulative effect. “The question for you is: where does the totality of them, the total effect of these links, lead you to? Adding them together, considering them, not merely each one in itself, but altogether, does it, or does it not, lead you to the irresistible inference and conclusion that the accused committed this crime? Or is there some other reasonably possible explanation of those facts? The prosecution case is that the effect of all this evidence drives you inevitably and inexorably to the one conclusion, and one conclusion only: that it was Sunny Ang, the accused, who intentionally caused the death of this young girl.”

Justice Buttrose went on to examine the defence. He said that Ang’s evidence on oath from the witness-box was, the gist of it, that this was an accident. “He cannot tell us what sort of an accident it was because, of course, he did not see it. He said she might have got tired of waiting for him and, I use his own words, ‘she may have wandered off on her own on the sea-bed and got swept away by the tide or current’.”

Ang completely excluded the possibility of Jenny swimming underwater to one or other of the Sisters Islands, ‘because he said that he and Yusuf examined them from the sampan for any sign of life or for footprints. There was no vestige of either. He did not however discard or discount the possibility of sharks. He, at any rate, is quite certain that she is dead and was of that same opinion right from the start’. The judge reminded the jury of the three letters to the insurance companies.

Ang denied that he cut the strap of the flipper which he admitted looked like the one that Jennv wore on the fateful day. The judge told the jury he could not see how on the evidence they could escape the conclusion that it was. Ang denied in any way tampering with her equipment so that she would drown.

Ang’s evidence, the judge said, was that he met Jenny when she was a bar girl at the Odeon Bar. She showed an interest in his poultry farm, and expressed a desire to own the farm herself. Eventually it was agreed he would sell it to her for $10,000 payable over a period of time. At the date of her disappearance, according to Ang, she had paid him $2,000 on account. “How this bar waitress, earning $90 a month and some $10 a day in tips when she worked, was going to find the money to pay $2,000, let alone the remaining $8,000, is a matter which I find difficult to understand or appreciate, particularly when you bear in mind her sister Eileen’s evidence that Jenny was always short of money.” Furthermore, on the accused’s own admission, Jenny knew nothing about, and had had no experience whatever, in chicken farming. “Again, what do you think the accused mother’s views on this transaction would have been? You must ask yourself whether or not you can accept this evidence. Ang was not going to help this girl. He was going to use the money to go to the United Kingdom to further his studies. Ang said that it was Jenny who paid the insurance premiums. He had said that Jenny wanted to make him the beneficiary and he had suggested his mother’s name instead. All his other property was in his mother’s name. This was because he was a bankrupt.”

Justice Buttrose referred to Ang’s car trip to the Federation with Jenny and remarked, “I am bound to say I find that a most remarkable tale, but,” he told the jury, “it is your views, not mine, that count.”

The judge continued, “Quite glibly, the accused told us of some incidents on the way up, of a few narrow shaves. He said he overtook cars quite recklessly and skidded once, but managed to recover. Why should he want to overtake cars quite recklessly, I cannot conceive. Or, gentlemen of the jury, was it to prepare, so to speak, for the inevitable accident that subsequently happened on the way back?” They originally planned, so Ang said, to go to the Cameron Highlands for a holiday. But what did they do? The next morning Ang took out a travel accident insurance policy for himself for $30,000, and a $100,000 policy for Jenny for 14 days. Ang had said in the witness-box that Jenny was quite fearful of driving back with him. She told him, he said, they would have an accident on the way back and she insisted on him taking out an insurance policy to cover medical and other expenses should they get involved in a serious accident. “Does that ring true?” asked the judge. “I find it myself wholly extraordinary. What do you, the jury, think? Did the accused take Jenny to Kuala Lumpur for their holiday to the Cameron Highlands, or was it merely to obtain further insurance on her because Singapore was getting a bit hot for him? That the news might be getting round the Singapore insurance companies that here was a young man and a young girl, large policies were being effected-accident policies in the girl’s name-and that their chance of getting further insurance in Singapore was getting more and more remote. Was this, therefore, purely a venture to get insurance in Kuala Lumpur?”

On the way back, sure enough, they had the accident which if not regarded as a ‘moral certainty’ was anticipated by them both. The judge directed the attention of the jury to the contrast of the police evidence concerning the accident and the evidence given by Sunny Ang. He asked them to keep in mind the fact that the car, badly damaged, would not be ready before the middle of September. Yet, the judge went on, Ang gave as the reason why he extended Jenny’s insurance on the morning of 27 August for five days-to use his own words-‘We might have to go to Seremban that night by night train and drive the car back if it was ready and, if not, to see that the workmen are getting on with the job of repairing the damaged car’. The judge said he found this explanation extraordinary. “Was that the real reason for extending this policy for a further five days? What had the accused in mind? Had he decided that very afternoon, while scuba-diving in this dangerous channel, that a golden opportunity presented itself to him for getting rid of her, while cunningly contriving to give it the appearance of an unfortunate but innocent accident? That is the question you must ask yourselves.”

The judge carefully examined Ang’s version of what happened on the spot, ‘in mid-channel to which he had directed the boatman’. Their intention according to the accused was to go down and collect coral together, a joint expedition, ‘an intention that was never carried put’.

Jenny went down first and surfaced after 10 minutes, Then, Ang said, it had been his intention that they would both go down together to collect coral. He turned on Jenny’s air valve to her tank and down she went. “And it is important, gentlemen of the jury, to note that the accused said that at that time his tank was then on his back. He said he let Jenny go down first on the principle of ‘ladies first’, a matter of courtesy.” Here the judge paused. He said he wanted to remind the jury of the boatman’s evidence which was that when Jenny went down the second time Sunny Ang had none of his equipment on at all. All he had on were his bathing trunks. “Now, someone is, therefore, lying. Is it the accused or is it the boatman? Why should the boatman be lying? It is of no interest to him, one way or the other.”

The judge went on to examine Ang’s version of the washers and the tanks, recalling his attempts to fix the leak and the successful efforts of the experts. “At this stage,” remarked the judge, “Ang had apparently been successful in putting out of action all the available scuba-diving equipment. They could no longer be used and Ang said he couldn’t use them.” “It was then,” recalled Justice Buttrose, “that I asked Sunny Ang what he thought Jenny would be doing all this time, and he gave the astonishing reply, ‘Oh, Jenny was a patient sort of girl’; she would be waiting for him, hanging on to the bottom of the guide line rope on the sea-bed for some 10 or 15 minutes. He considered that quite a reasonable time. What do you think, members of the jury? Is it not only possible, but probable, that having waited for a short while her curiosity got the better of her and she got a little more bold by then? She might have decided to let go of that guide line for a little while and gone to have a look to see what was about. And was it not then that one of the undertows got her and swept her away? With her flipper heel-strap broken, then as a purely unskilled novice scuba diver, she in fact, before seeing where she was, was swept hundreds of yards away? The air in her tank then ran out and she died. Is that a possible explanation for there being no air bubbles seen by anyone at any time?”

The judge pointed out that even at that stage the accused said he had not become anxious. He was in no way perturbed or alarmed. He pulled the guide line three times to signal to her to surface and then went back to attend to his tank. Two minutes later he again pulled the guide line and even at that stage, he said, he had not decided to abandon the expedition, let alone become alarmed about Jenny. He said he wanted her to come up to preserve the air in her tank so that they could go down again together. “What do you think of that, gentlemen of the jury? If that was a genuine reason why then did he not signal to her to come up long before? He said he had seen no air bubbles breaking on the surface of the water. He was still not alarmed and he made, to me at any rate, an astonishing statement: that she might have wandered off on her own or that she was playing a game with him and hiding under the boat. It seemed to me quite remarkable. He even said that she might have swum underwater and landed at one or other of the islands. He said he seriously thought so at the time, but he definitely did not think so now. So what do you think?”

Ang said he looked under the sampan on both sides but could see no air bubbles. He and the boatman scanned the shore on both sides to see if there were any traces of footsteps or other signs of life. “It was only then, and then only, for the first time, that the accused realized that Jenny might have got into trouble. You may think he took a long time to do so.”

Then Ang became alarmed and they looked for air bubbles. He vaguely remembered a telephone on St John’s Island. Yusuf confirmed this and off they went to phone the Marine Police. “Ang told us he never asked Yusuf to go faster because, he said, the sampan was going flat out. He said he might have shed a tear, but without knowing it. He maintained that he did run to the phone, but Jaffar denied he ran at all.”

The judge returned to the scene of the tragedy and the ‘curious discussion’ about the weightlessness of a tank in water. “He thereupon took the small tank that Jenny had used on her first time down and placed it in the sea. The tank sank because, according to Ang, it had been painted-painted, if you please, gentlemen of the jury. He put it in the water because he was under the impression that tanks could float, whether full or empty. Do you think a coat or two of paint would have any effect?”

Here the judge erred. As defence counsel pointed out during the appeal, one of the accused’s brothers had said the tank was painted. “I asked one of the experts if painting the tank was likely to increase its weight. But the accused never said so,” explained Mr Coomaraswamy.

Justice Buttrose said that Sunny Ang’s explanation for not going into the water himself was because he saw no air bubbles: that was the main reason. He presumed she was not there, and there was no point in diving to look. He also thought she might have been attacked by sharks. He also told us he could only hold his breath underwater for some three-quarters of a minute to a minute.

The judge called attention again to the three letters Ang wrote to the insurance companies the following day claiming under the policies. “That, gentlemen of the jury, in brief is the outline of his defence: an accident in which he was not concerned in any way, and had no part. He does not know what happened. He did not intend or contrive her disappearance. He neither cut the flipper, nor in any way tampered with the equipment. He explained why he did not go down to look for her.”

Ang called three witnesses, firstly a gentleman by the name of Yeo Tong Hock, who described himself as, in effect, a brothel-keeper, and admitted he was a pimp. What joy the defence got out of his evidence, the judge said, was something he failed to understand. “Because if he came to bless the case for the defence, he left to curse. How can you be left under any doubt, members of the jury, that now he is quite sure, absolutely sure, that the girl whom he saw in Penang and later in Kedah is not Jenny?”

The judge was highly critical of Mr Coomaraswamy’s statement that the witness had been kept out of the way, incommunicado, by the Penang police for 10 days before the trial. “You heard Mr Coomaraswamy say that from the Bar. Now, a more ill-considered and irresponsible statement from the Bar I have yet to hear in a case of this gravity and magnitude. There is not a shred of evidence to support it. It was emphatically denied by the witness himself.”

The judge went on to deal briefly with the evidence given by Ang’s younger brother, Richard Ang, and the two police officers called by the defence to give evidence about the car accident. Justice Buttrose said he failed to appreciate the relevance of that evidence at all; he did not intend, he said, to waste any time on it, ‘except to remind you again that the corporal said it was not a sharp bend in the road but a gentle bend’. Ang had said the bend was sharp.

What reliance, asked the judge, could be placed on Sunny Ang’s evidence? He said he was a truthful person. He did, however, admit to telling a few white lies. ‘That was the opening gambit. On being pressed he admitted to telling lies to the insurance companies, not white ones, but full-blooded red ones. What he told the insurance companies were quite untrue. ‘Yes, I lied to them, but they were necessary because I had to get my commission’, he explained, in a sort of off-handed manner, as if that not only explained them but excused them. But what you must consider, in weighing up his evidence, is: if the accused will lie in order to get commission on the sale of insurance policies, what will he do for half a million dollars, or for even higher stakes?”

The judge, nearing the end of his summing up, came to the gloves. Ang had admitted that he brought two pairs of gloves with him in the sampan on 27 August 1963, one dark blue and the other dark brown. He said they were to wear them because the coral they were going to collect were sharp and the gloves would prevent their hands being cut. Ang had said this was an expedition for the express purpose of going coral-hunting. “When Jenny went down the second time the intention was to collect coral, and she was to help Ang carry them. Ang said it was necessary to wear these gloves and he said that Jenny did wear them when she went down on the second occasion, never to return. That,” said the judge, “would appear to be a complete falsehood, gentlemen of the jury, because both pairs of gloves were still in his bag which he had left that night at the police station. They were produced before you. If Jenny had been wearing the gloves there would have been only one pair left for you to see.” When he saw them in court, Ang was forced to admit that they appeared very new, that they had never been in the water. What then, became of his evidence that they were going down to collect coral? “Did he ever intend that afternoon that they should? Ang was unable to offer any explanation as to how the gloves came to be in the bag.”

Ang denied ever telephoning Rutherford (of one of the insurance companies). He was shown his diary, ‘that red-back diary’. He admitted that it was his and in his handwriting. “And then we had a succession of astonishing answers which speak much for his powers of improvisation and ingenuity under pressure.” The judge thought his reference to Ruth-R-U-T-H-as Ruth Tan a remarkable effort. “Finally on being shown the entry alleged to be referring to Rutherford and beside it ‘on leave in the United Kingdom’, that did stump him. He said he did not know what it meant. The only thing he did maintain was that it did not refer to Rutherford, who was on leave in the United Kingdom.”

The judge dealt briefly with the ‘astonishing episode of the letters’ which Ang wrote to the Under-Treasurer of Gray’s Inn. One of Ang’s ambitions was to become a barrister-at-law. “Though never a student at the University of Singapore he wrote that he was. What a sorry performance this was! First of all he said he never sent the letter: then he could not remember if he sent it: then, on being shown the letter he said he did not think he sent it because it was torn. He said he never despatched torn letters. Finally, on being shown the postmark he said, ‘I must have sent it’. Quite a remarkable performance, don’t you think?”

The judge told the jury that these were matters selected at random, as instances, ‘instances only’, of Ang’s lack of regard for the truth. Justice Buttrose told the jury that when they came to consider Ang’s evidence they must take these matters into consideration. “How much reliance can you place on his evidence? That is the question you must ask yourselves. How much weight can you attach to his evidence that Jenny had made amazing progress in her swimming and scuba-diving? That he and Jenny had been to the Sisters Islands two days before with the boatman Yusuf? That he had his tank on his back when Jenny went down a second time, and was ready to go down with her? That he had sold Jenny his chicken farm?”

The judge instructed the jury that if they were in any reasonable doubt as to whether Jenny was dead, or that Sunny Ang murdered her, they would resolve that doubt in favour of Ang and acquit him. “But equally, gentlemen of the jury, on the other hand, if you are satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that Jenny is dead, and that the accused murdered her, you will, of course, do your duty and return a verdict of guilty accordingly.”

The jury retired at 12:13 PM and luncheon was sent in. They were out for less than two and a half hours. At 2:38 PM they returned with a unanimous verdict. They found the accused guilty.

Ang stood stiffly in the dock, his hands clasped before him as the judge sentenced him to death. It was the 13th day of the trial.

Ang showed no emotion when he was taken in a green prison van for the 10-mile ride to Changi Jail. He was checked in at the main gate. His details were recorded in the normal manner. He asked for a meal and then listened impassively as the prison routine was explained to him. Prison officials told a Straits Times reporter that the calmest prisoner in the prison that day was Sunny Ang. He was still supremely confident he would not hang. There were 18 other condemned prisoners in the prison, and ‘an air of tension prevailed within the prison walls’.

A medical officer examined him after his personal clothing and other articles were taken away from him. He had a bath and a shave, in accordance with prison regulations. Escorted to his sparsely furnished cell in a concrete block, Ang looked around as the door slammed behind him. He was told that he would be allowed newspapers, books and periodicals; relatives and friends could visit him. He would be allowed to write and to receive letters. His day, officials told him, would begin at 6:30 AM every morning with a cup of tea, but he would not be wakened if he was still asleep. There would be three meals a day, and twice a day he would leave his cell, for a bath and for exercise. Lights out at 10:00 PM.

The Appeal

Five months after his trial, Sunny Ang’s appeal against conviction and sentence opened on 25 October 1965, before Justice Tan Ah Tah, the Acting Chief Justice, Justice Chua and Justice Winslow. The defence presented eighteen principal grounds of appeal. The hearing lasted nine days. In a few words the Acting Chief Justice delivered the judgment of the Court. He said, “Although Jenny’s body has never been found, there is overwhelming evidence on the record that the appellant murdered her. In our judgment no miscarriage of justice has occurred in this case. The appeal is dismissed.”

Ang was in court. He showed no emotion.

In his petition, put forward by his counsel, Mr Coomaraswamy alleged that his conviction was a ‘substantial miscarriage of justice’ on the following grounds.

· The trial judge erred in law in allowing the prosecution to tender irrelevant evidence of a collision involving a car, which the appellant was driving and in which Jenny Cheok was a passenger. · The trial judge erred in law in permitting the prosecution to adduce this evidence at the preliminary inquiry, notwithstanding that the notice under a section of the Criminal Procedure Code was not served on the accused or his advocate before the trial. · The trial judge erred in law in permitting the prosecution repeatedly to abuse the provisions of a section of the Criminal Procedure Code by adducing evidence of witnesses who did not give evidence at the preliminary inquiry, on the prosecution serving notice three minutes before the commencement of the trial, notwithstanding that the evidence of such witnesses was available to the prosecution long before and during the preliminary inquiry. ·

The trial judge erred in law in allowing evidence of inadmissible hearsay, in particular, evidence relating to the circumstances in which Jenny Cheok was alleged to have taken out insurance policies. · The trial judge erred in law in permitting the prosecution to adduce irrelevant evidence, in particular, (a) evidence of alleged attempts to suborn a witness, (b) evidence of a proposal form which Jenny Cheok was alleged to have submitted to the Prudential Assurance Company Limited, there being no evidence whatever to connect the accused with the proposal form. ·

The trial judge erred in casting unnecessary and unwarranted aspersions on the conduct of the appellants’ advocate and others associated with the accused. Further, having made them of the appellant’s advocate, the trial judge failed to give the appellant’s advocate an adequate opportunity to explain himself before the jury. ·

The trial judge erred in law in rejecting admissible evidence of statements made by Jenny Cheok to her sister as to her intentions to go to Britain, and as to her intention that she would be going away for a long time. · The appellant was throughout the trial subject to such prejudice that he could not in the circumstances be said to have had a fair trial. · The trial judge erred in law in permitting the deputy public prosecutor to suggest to the jury that a flipper used by Jenny Cheok was cut by the appellant between her first dive and her second dive, notwithstanding that no such suggestion was made in the course of the deputy public prosecutor’s opening address. Nor was this suggestion put to any witness who could have given evidence on the matter. · The trial judge in his summing up to the jury was so biased against the appellant and implied, or suggested as proved, facts which were challenged, with the result that the appellant could not be said to have had a fair trial. · The verdict of the jury was wrong and against the weight of evidence. · The trial judge erred in law in failing to direct the jury on a possible verdict of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. · The trial judge in his direction to the jury erred in law in using, upon the facts of the case, the analogy of a person being induced to walk to a cliff top to illustrate the necessary intention for the offence of murder, and the trial judge generally failed to direct the jury adequately on intention. · The trial judge erred in failing to direct the jury adequately on causation, in particular, he failed to direct the jury that if Jenny Cheok was dead, (a) she significantly contributed to her death by voluntarily going into the water, and (b) a number of possible causes for which the appellant was not legally responsible could have caused her death. · The trial judge erred in law in failing to direct the jury adequately on certain questions of law relating to the offence of murder. · The trial judge did not at times clearly distinguish between prosecution allegations, evidence and his own views thereon. · The trial judge erred in law in failing to direct the jury adequately on the burden of proof on the prosecution. · The trial judge was wrong in his direction to the jury on circumstantial evidence and erred in law in failing to direct the jury adequately on the dangers of convicting an accused person on circumstantial evidence.

Mr Coomaraswamy’s first ground of appeal was based on the admission of evidence relating to the accident when Ang was driving a car with Jenny as passenger near Seremban. He said the accident happened a full two weeks before the alleged murder. He submitted that what happened, on 13 August could not be said to be ‘part of the same transaction’ or ‘closely associated in time, place and circumstances’-which, he argued, were the conditions laid down in law for such evidence to be admissible.

“This particular accident, which took place two weeks earlier and 200 miles from Singapore cannot be associated in time, place and circumstances with the facts that were the subject matter of the charge,” defence counsel submitted. He said it was clear that the prosecution could not seek to adduce evidence of this accident for the purpose of showing that the accused was a person, who by his past conduct, was likely to have committed the crime with which he was charged. If that were the purpose, it would be totally and completely irrelevant. Therefore, the only other purpose was to show that the accused deliberately crashed the car and tried to kill or maim Jenny and that the events of 27 August could not be an accident. Counsel argued that this piece of evidence was highly prejudicial because, if the interpretation the prosecution sought to put on the car collision remained, it would be evidence of the commission by the accused of an offence other than that with which he was charged. It could have been evidence of anything, ranging from voluntarily causing grievous hurt to attempted murder. That in itself was evidence of bad character and tended to show that the accused had committed an offence which was not the subject matter of the charge. The fact that an accused was of bad character, Mr Coomaraswamy argued, was irrelevant in criminal proceedings. He cited a series of authorities to substantiate his arguments.

Counsel submitted that the trial judge had admitted hearsay evidence and disallowed relevant evidence. He had disallowed evidence which would have shown that Jenny intended going to Britain and would be away for a long time. Had the judge allowed this evidence, counsel said, he would have submitted to the jury that there was a likelihood Jenny was alive and abroad, because of her expressed intention of going to Britain.

On the third day of the appeal, Mr Kirpal Singh, who was assisting Mr Coomaraswamy, took over. Earlier, Mr Coomaraswamy dealt with the ground of appeal which alleged that the trial judge had erred in casting unnecessary and unwarranted aspersions on the conduct of the appellant’s advocate and others associated with the accused, and had failed to give the appellant’s advocate an adequate opportunity to explain himself before the jury.

He next referred to Yeo Tong Hock, the brothel-keeper and self-confessed pimp. Mr Coomaraswamy said he had been informed by A. P. Godwin of Donaldson and Burkinshaw, a legal firm acting for the underwriters, that he (Godwin) had interviewed Yeo that morning in his office, and that Yeo had told Godwin that he had been held incommunicado by the Penang police for 10 days before he had appeared in Singapore. Counsel complained about the words the judge used.

The Acting Chief Justice said, “Those words by the judge would not have been uttered if you had told him that Godwin gave you the information. The judge does not know what is happening. Here counsel says his witness was kept incommunicado for 10 to 14 days. Witness is asked and he said ‘No’. All that must have seemed very significant at the time. You did not call Godwin and the witness denies what you said. He is your witness. Almost any judge would have made the same comment. Godwin left the courtroom and nothing more was heard about him. What was the judge to think? Many a judge would have said ‘Most extraordinary’.”

Later, counsel dealt with another ground of appeal, which alleged that the appellant was, throughout the trial, subject to such prejudice that he could not in the circumstances be said to have had a fair trial. Counsel cited a passage in the trial evidence and the remarks made by the judge. He submitted that there was risk, from these remarks, of the jury thinking that even if there was a conviction the accused would go to a court of appeal anyway. In his other comments, counsel alleged, the trial judge gave the impression that defence counsel was wasting his time. Mr Coomaraswamy said that throughout crown counsel’s opening address he had called the accused ‘prisoner’, a term used in Queen Victoria’s reign, but no longer used even in Britain. The word ‘prisoner’ might lead a jury to think that he had been sentenced for another offence. Mr Coomaraswamy suggested that on one occasion the trial judge’s remarks were indicative of his sarcasm. He also commented on the judge’s sarcasm towards the accused, which he said was bound to have an adverse effect on the minds of the jury.

Quoting an example, defence counsel said the accused had in reply to a question by the judge said, ‘Sometimes I write things in my diary which, for the life of me, I do not know what they are’. That remark ‘for the life of me’ might have been unfortunate, but the trial judge’s reply was ‘Now you have to try, for the life of you’. Mr Coomaraswamy described the judge’s remark as an improper one in a capital charge, though it was said on the spur of the moment.

Mr Kirpal Singh took over the submission at this point and said that the trial judge had left the jury in doubt as to which particular act or acts had caused death. He said this was tantamount to a misdirection of the law.

During the proceedings, additional grounds of appeal to amend those already submitted were put forward. · The learned trial judge had erred in law in failing to direct the jury that it was a matter for them to decide whether the Pedas collision was accidental or deliberately designed. If they came to the conclusion that it was accidental and not deliberately designed, to disregard the matter entirely; and if they came to the conclusion that it was deliberately designed, to utilize the evidence thereon for its proper purpose and not as evidence that because the appellant did a thing once he was likely to do it again. · The learned trial judge had erred in law in not directing the jury to ignore inadmissible hearsay evidence. · The learned trial judge had erred in law in failing to withdraw the case from the jury at the end of the prosecution case. ·

The learned trial judge had erred in law in failing to direct the jury adequately on the quantum of proof necessary before they accept an allegation of the prosecution, and on the quantum of proof necessary before they accept an explanation offered by the appellant.

Mr Kirpal Singh believed that if the trial judge had properly directed the jury it was possible that the verdict might have been an acquittal on the charge of murder. Or the jury might have found Ang guilty of the lesser charge of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. Mr Kirpal Singh submitted that Justice Buttrose, in his definition of murder, had omitted three vital words which would have made it clear that murder was the unlawful killing or causing of the death of one human being by another ‘by an act’ with the intention of doing so. If these three words had been used as required by law, the jury would have been prompted to ask what was the act alleged to have caused death.

Counsel submitted that the trial judge did not think that the cutting of the flipper worn by Jenny was the act. He said, “We are not clear as to what is the cause of death. There is no firm clear answer which particular act caused death. We do not know.” There was evidence, and it was overwhelming, to the effect that the waters in and around the Sisters Islands were dangerous even for expert swimmers. It could be said on evidence that Jenny was not an experienced swimmer or diver. Therefore, it could be said to be a reasonable inference that the combination of these two factors (dangerous waters and inexperienced swimmer) caused her death. It might even be said that the accused was aware of both these factors and presumably, before setting out for Sisters Islands, he might have told Jenny they were going into the water. Telling her ‘we are going into the water’ would be the act within the meaning of the law. The question was whether it would be proper to place it within the first limb of Section 299 (doing an act with the intention of causing death), or the third limb (doing an act with the knowledge that he was likely, by such act, to cause death). Counsel argued that the accused was entitled to a direction to the jury under the third limb. Had this been done, a possible verdict would be acquittal or culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

Justice Chua said, “Taking a novice to dangerous waters. Is that not an act within the meaning of the law?” Mr Kirpal Singh replied it was not.

“If he had told her to dive in?” asked “the Acting Chief Justice.

“Yes, an act would have been clear,” said Mr Kirpal Singh.

On the fifth day of the appeal, the defence submitted that Justice Buttrose had treated some of the evidence for the defence with scepticism and scorn. Defence counsel also alleged that some of the judge’s remarks were an outright direction to the jury to disbelieve. While surveying the defence, the judge had presented the case for the prosecution over again.

Mr Coomaraswamy referred to the two pairs of gloves which had been left at the police station by Ang. In the course of his evidence Ang had been shown two pairs of gloves and asked if he agreed that they were very new. He said they smelt new. Counsel said that 21 months after the gloves were supposed to have been surrendered to the police they still smelt new. He submitted that the judge should have commented on this.

The Acting Chief Justice, “The idea is that they might not have been the very gloves? The police might have substituted new gloves?”

“That is so,” said Mr Coomaraswamy.

Counsel said there was no evidence to show that the books on scuba-diving seized from Ang in December 1964 had been in his possession before 27 August 1963. The judge, he said, had repeatedly referred to these books, and ‘very much play made’, he said, of a passage in the book which warned that a little nick in the flipper might lead to an incident with disastrous results.

As for the green flipper that Jenny wore, Mr Coomaraswamy said it was his submission that the jury should not have been deprived of the opportunity to find, if they wanted to, that the flipper was, in fact, tampered with after Henderson found it.

Counsel described Justice Buttrose’s summing up as ‘extremely partial’ and ‘grossly unfair to the accused’. In fact, ‘he did not put his defence to the jury’.

Mr Francis Seow began his reply on the sixth day of the appeal. He submitted that Sunny Ang had a lust for money and tried through an ‘accidental death’ to gain $400,000.

Dealing with the road accident involving Ang and his passenger Jenny, Mr Seow quoted from a manual on evidence, ‘Previous attempt to commit a crime is akin to preparation. It is also closely allied to the preparation for the commission of an offence.”

Counsel argued that Sunny Ang himself had closed the door to a defence open to him at his trial. He had excluded from his defence the question of fraud and conspiracy between him and Jenny against the insurance companies. Ang, Mr Seow said, could not now be heard on his counsel’s argument that there might have been a possibility that Ang did not intend the death of Jenny, but had conspired with her to share in the insurance money he could collect after she had gone into hiding. Mr Francis Seow said, “This was not a defence raised by counsel though it was a defence open to him at the trial. It was, in fact, not explored, nor developed.” He said Ang had tried to get $900,000 worth of insurance on Jenny, and at the time of her disappearance she was carrying accident coverage of $450,000.

Continuing his arguments on the eighth day of the appeal, Mr Seow described the defence suggestion of an alternative or lesser verdict as ‘grotesque’.

Referring to the two pairs of gloves found in Ang’s bag, crown counsel submitted that at no stage did Ang deny they were his gloves. Mr Coomaraswamy’s suggestion that they could have been substituted by the police was monstrous.

Mr Seow said the essence of the case was that the victim must die and the victim must die by accident. “If she dies a natural death, Ang or his mother cannot possibly stand to gain anything. So she must die by accident whether under the guise of a road accident, or accident at sea, or an accident in the air. I submit that the facts which we have adduced show that Ang directed his mind to the accomplishment of that aim. It was cunningly contrived, and carried out with consummate coolness. In achieving that objective he must kill.” Crown counsel argued that the judge’s summing up was favourable to Ang.

Making his final address on the last day of the appeal, Mr Coomaraswamy pointed out that the Court of Appeal could order a re-trial. He said that although he had made complaints about the trial judge’s conduct, he was not for a moment saying that it was intended. “Those of us who know the judge know that he does things in a certain way, but the accused does not know, neither do the members of the jury.” Counsel said that he felt it unlikely that Ang would get a fair trial in a re-trial before a jury. The three stages of publicity, he said, to which the present case had been subject, would not give him a fair trial. He urged the Court of Appeal to give Ang a re-trial under Section 304, culpable homicide. This would be without a jury, but by a judge alone.

Dismissing the appeal on 19 November 1965, Justice Tan said, “It is true that the learned trial judge expressed himself with great emphasis and in strong terms on various matters. But the jury were left in no doubt that they were the sole judges of the facts in the case.”

Justice Tan dismissed as ‘quite trivial’ a good number of the grounds of so-called bias on the part of the trial judge. “In one instance, however, it is clear that the learned trial judge was in error, when he stated in his summing up that both the appellant and the witness Henderson used an improvised washer during demonstrations in court. In fact, it was Henderson who used an improvised washer, while the appellant used a new Healthway washer in the course of another demonstration. In our view this was a slip of no great consequence made in the course of a long trial, and is no indication of bias on the part of the learned trial judge.”

The Acting Chief Justice said, “The appellant’s real intention was to murder Jenny, and in pursuance of that intention he assisted Jenny in putting on the diving equipment, which had been brought in the sampan and allowed her, a novice, to go down alone wearing a flipper, which had previously been cut, into waters which he knew were dangerous and hazardous, with the result that she met her death.”

Sunny Ang was driven back to Changi Jail. He was still confident he would not hang.

Appeal To Privy Council

More than a year was to elapse before Ang’s application for special leave to appeal to the Juridical Committee of the Privy Council could be heard. On 5 October 1966, Mr Ralph Millner Q.C. appeared before the Committee on his behalf.

Sunny Ang’s legal advisers decided to base their application principally on the ground that Justice Buttrose wrongfully allowed the prosecution to tender evidence of the road accident in which Ang, driving the car with Jenny as the passenger, was involved. Such evidence was ‘evidence of the res gestas, and also evidence of similar acts by the accused to rebut the defence of accident or mistake’.

The prosecution, they said, appeared to rely upon this evidence as showing a previous attempt by Sunny Ang to kill Jenny, although this suggestion was never put to him in terms in cross-examination, ‘and does not appear in terms anywhere in the learned trial judge’s summing up to the jury’.

Sunny Ang’s legal advisers argued that this car accident was not connected with, and was removed in time from, the matters which formed the subject matter of the charge against Ang, and could not be said to be part of the res gestas (or the alleged intention of Ang to kill Jenny).

They held that the alleged acts of Ang on the day of the road accident were not ‘similar acts’ to those that the prosecution alleged he did in the commission of the offence with which he was charged. The evidence relating to the motor car accident, they said, would not have been sufficient to sustain a charge of attempted murder: at its highest it could only have given rise to some suspicion against Sunny Ang.

Therefore, they submitted, this evidence was irrelevant and inadmissible, and, as it was put forward in effect as evidence of some other offence or misconduct on his part, was highly prejudicial to Ang’s defence. Furthermore, the prejudicial effect was so disproportionate to any possible evidential value that it ought to have been excluded in fairness to Ang. In any event, the judge, having ruled that the evidence was admissible gave the jury no direction whatsoever as to how it was to be treated or applied. They submitted that if the evidence was admissible at all, he should have directed the jury that, if they thought the occurrence might have been a pure accident, the evidence would be of no assistance to them, and they should also ignore it if it only gave rise to suspicion. The evidence would have been relevant to rebut a possible defence of accident only if they were satisfied that Ang tried to kill Jenny by deliberately causing the accident. They held that the evidence would not sustain such a conclusion.

Ang’s petition to the Privy Council also submitted that Justice Buttrose misdirected the jury as to the effect of circumstantial evidence, in particular as to the way the jury should consider and evaluate the evidence relied upon by the prosecution as showing Sunny Ang’s guilt. Justice Buttrose had said that it was the cumulative effect of the evidence that was important not one isolated link in the chain of circumstantial evidence. He said it would be wrong to consider the case link by link, and reject any one link being by itself as too weak.

While the petitioners did not dispute that such a direction would be proper in a case ‘in which all the pieces of the circumstantial evidence are directed to show that an accused committed the particular act or was responsible for the particular omission which is relied upon as being the act of murder’, it was inappropriate and misleading where, as in Ang’s case, the prosecution alleged a number of acts or omissions, the cumulative effect of some, or all of which is relied upon as contributing the offence.

In Ang’s case, apart from evidence of motive or intention, and evidence as to subsequent conduct, which the prosecution relied upon as showing guilt, the prosecution case was that the death of Jenny was caused by: · Ang taking her scuba-diving in what he knew were dangerous waters and when, as he knew, she was a novice scuba-diver; ·

Ang cutting her flipper causing it to come off in the water and causing her to panic and to get into greater danger; and · his delaying, on a false pretence, for some ten minutes, instead of himself diving in or joining her, or making any effort to rescue her.

In these circumstances the judge’s direction to the jury as to how circumstantial evidence should be regarded was wrong. It was incumbent upon him to consider separately the various acts and omissions for which Ang was alleged to be responsible, and which taken together, made up the alleged crime. Instead, the judge invited the jury to lump all the circumstantial evidence together. He should have brought to their minds that the various pieces of circumstantial evidence were directed respectively to various acts and omissions, the combination of which the prosecution relied upon as constituting the crime of murder.

The petition said that the ‘main ingredient in the alleged crime of murder’ was the cutting of Jenny’s flipper. Ang’s act of cutting it, they submitted, was strongly in issue, ‘and there was some evidence to support the defence contention that it could not have been cut by Sunny Ang at the time and manner suggested by the prosecution’. Had the judge directed the jury correctly on the weight and effect of circumstantial evidence, he would necessarily have invited the jury to consider how the case stood if they were not satisfied that Ang had in fact cut Jenny’s flipper. He should have directed the jury in this context: that they should be satisfied that Ang induced or persuaded Jenny to scuba-dive in dangerous waters and so caused her death. The petition also argued that there was no direct evidence that Ang ever persuaded or induced Jenny to go to the particular spot where she made the dive from which she did not return. There was no direct evidence that Ang cut her flipper.

The petition complained that the Appeals Court followed the learned trial judge in taking the prosecution’s evidence as a whole, instead of distinguishing the various pieces of evidence in relation to the different acts or omission which the prosecution said constituted the offence of murder. “The cutting of the strap of the flipper, either by Ang or with his knowledge, must necessarily have been evidence in a different category.” The Appeals Court, the petition pointed out, said “Ang ‘allowed’ Jenny to go down into waters which he knew were dangerous.” For all these matters complained of, submitted Ang’s legal advisers, he had suffered ‘substantial and grave injustice’, and in consequence Ang petitioned for special leave to appeal against the judgment of the Appeals Court.

The petition was denied.

Psychopath

Ang was a psychopath. Two psychiatrists came to this conclusion after examining him in Changi Jail,

Dr Wong Yip Chong, then the government psychiatrist, saw Ang five times in 16 days in October 1966. He also interviewed his father, mother, sister and two of the brothers, as well as several members of the public with close association with Ang in the past. Dr Wong found Ang in good physical condition, and noted that his intelligence quotient (IQ) was recorded as 128-within the superior intelligence range.

Ang had a good academic record and was among the first 10 in the primary classes and maintained these positions to the secondary level except when he finished at the bottom of the class through playing truant. He completed his Senior Cambridge in 1955, and obtained distinctions in English and Science, and a C3 for Mathematics, thereby obtaining a Grade I certificate. This was obtained with the minimum of effort. Ang claimed that he never studied until the last two weeks of the examination. According to his form master, Maurice Baker, later to become Singapore’s first High Commissioner to India (now professor of English at the University of Singapore), Ang was a fairly quiet boy but bright, and with a great sense of adventure. “If there were a war, he would have distinguished himself.” He was apparently a likeable boy, though conceited. His school records show his conduct to have been good.

In early 1956 he went to work with Dunlops, but resigned after three months in anticipation of discovery by the company of his having ‘irresponsibly and improperly’ diverted some of the company’s products to his own home. He idled away the rest of the year, and in 1957 became a student teacher at Bedok Boys’ School for about six months. His conduct as a student teacher was deplorable. True to his philosophy of maximum results from minimum effort he would leave his pupils’ books to be corrected by his sister or mother. According to the records at the Teachers’ Training College, Sunny Ang was the only student never to attend any classes throughout the term. In 1958 he returned to teaching at St Thomas School, a private school, for one year. There his irresponsible behaviour continued. He was often away from his class. On one occasion he misappropriated school fees, though he later managed to return them to the school.

But in between these two periods of teaching, Ang had tried to become a commercial airline pilot. In May 1957 he was released by the Director of Education from his teacher-in-training course to train as an airline pilot with the aid of a Colombo Plan scholarship. He had always been interested in flying, and earlier that month (on 10 May 1957), he had qualified for his student pilot licence. He obtained his private pilot licence on 29 November, and passed his examinations for his Restricted Flight Radio and Telephone Operator’s Licence in May the following year.

This Colombo Plan scholarship training programme started off with six selected students, but only four were to be chosen for advanced training to commercial pilot level in India. In terms of efficiency, as reflected in the number of hours registered to qualify for solo flying, Ang ranked fourth with 13 hours. But he was not chosen. The fifth student, with over 20 hours, was chosen in his stead. Ang was greatly disappointed: he considered it a gross distortion of justice. He was determined to go on with his training in Singapore, and his mother pawned her jewellery, and borrowed money to enable him to do this. By the time he was finally grounded in May 1959 he had completed 139 flying hours: it had cost his mother nearly $5,000.

Ang admitted to Dr Wong that he had been involved in a number of irresponsible flying incidents, such as skimming over the water and the tops of coconut trees. He would come down low over house-tops to salute friends or a relative, or to look at girls sunbathing on the roof-tops.

Ang also admitted with nonchalance that he was an inveterate liar. His arrogance and his conceit were noted by Civil Aviation officials and his flying instructor. Ang was also over-confident, which is a dangerous disposition in flying. These were in fact the reasons why Ang was not selected for further training to commercial pilot level: an arrogant, conceited, over-confident person, given to irresponsible behaviour, does not often make a good pilot.

Ang was grounded in May 1959 following an emergency landing. He misread a compass and had run out of fuel. At the inquiry he lied and said he had a bird in his engine. This inaccurate explanation was not accepted, and he was not allowed to fly again. He should never have been allowed to fly in the first place because of defective eyesight. A friend took the first examination for him. The second he passed by learning the eye-chart by heart.

His hopes to become a commercial pilot dashed, Ang returned to teaching for about a year. Early in 1960 he became a chicken farmer. He cleared the land, built cages and reared thousands of chickens, and ducks as well for a time. He managed to make about $300 a month, and the farm thrived except when an epidemic wiped out almost all his stock. But he carried on, in spite of a financial loss, and in 1964 he also began to plant tomatoes. He was still farming when he was arrested and charged with Jenny’s murder.

Ang’s sex life seems to have been normal, if enthusiastic. He confessed to getting several girls into trouble: some of them had abortions. He told one girl he wanted to marry her and he induced her mother to lend him various sums of money totalling between $6,000 and $7,000. Much of this money he spent on paying for a Sunbeam sports car which he drove in the 1961 Singapore Grand Prix. When the girl’s mother realized his duplicity she made him a bankrupt. He was so enamoured with another girl that he would talk to her on the telephone when she was away for as long as two and a half hours at a time. He ran up telephone bills of $500 a month. His diary revealed that he had to sell about 200 chickens to settle these bills.

Ang liked girls, but not alcohol, and neither did he gamble. He never frequented night-clubs and he did not know how to dance. All his life he had few friends. Ang was faddish about food. He would never eat pork, the favourite meat of practically all the Chinese. He would eat no other meat than the meat of a chicken.

He was egocentric and vain. His physical health and appearance meant much to him. He would keep fit with a careful diet and regular physical exercises including running. Pimples would seriously upset him. He paid careful attention to his teeth. He was dissatisfied with himself for not being taller than five feet and six inches. For years he tried courses to get taller. He tried to improve his memory and his command of the English language. He was constantly striving to improve himself, physically and mentally.

His fondness for cars led him into trouble. He stole between $6,000 and $7,000 from his father, making the theft appear as though an outsider had taken the money. The police dismissed this possibility and a detective followed him to a car dealer where he was seen to hand over money and take possession of a car. The following day the receipt arrived home. Despite all this evidence, he flatly denied that he had stolen the money. An angry, miserable father drove him out of the house. Sunny went calmly and stayed away for a few days, coming back when his mother forgave him.

He was a skilful and fast driver, though shortly after the 1961 Grand Prix, driving the same Sunbeam he had raced in that event, he killed a pedestrian. He drove the car on to a road island. He claimed he was avoiding the man who, he said, had suddenly stepped onto the road. The coroner returned an open verdict. Ang was subsequently fined $30 for negligence.

At home, Sunny was obedient and helpful to his mother. He was the odd-job man in the house. He was kind to stray cats and dogs. Even during his trial he was concerned for a sick dog on the farm, and from the prison gave detailed instructions for its proper care.

There is ample evidence to show that Sunny Ang’s lying and thieving began at about the age of 10. The thefts started in his own home, then the homes of neighbours, and eventually in shops in the city and society at large. He was in his teens when he bought a set of oxyacetylene cutting instruments to better equip himself for future burglaries; but he sold them before he could use them, to help a friend who had lost his bicycle.

He stepped up his burglary activities after he was grounded from flying. He chose shops in the main shopping centres which were empty at night; he abhorred physical violence. At 1:00 AM in the morning of 12 July 1962, he was caught trying to burglarize a radio shop. David Marshall, Singapore’s foremost criminal lawyer, defended him and successfully saved him from a prison sentence, Ang being placed on probation. Staring at Mr Marshall coldly and with disdain (when counsel had expected a smile and a sigh of relief), Ang walked out of the dock without a word of thanks. He had apparently expected to be acquitted. That night David Marshall said to his wife, “Today I got a man off, and for the first time in 25 years’ practice at the Bar I will live to regret it.”

On probation, Ang worked hard on his farm, though he exasperated his probation officer. He also took stock of himself. He had left school seven years and had achieved very little. He would like to study law, and was confident that he could get a degree within 18 months if he went to Britain for his studies: but he did not have a Higher School Certificate. Nor the money to travel. He now felt that he would like to do well in society. “If I cannot beat them,” he told the psychiatrist, and by ‘them’ he meant the police, society, “then I will join them.” He probably remembered the words of his father the very morning of the day he was arrested in the radio shop. “Do not underestimate the ability and the power of the police,” his father had warned him. Ang made inquiries at the University of Singapore, but met with no encouragement. He read law books in his spare time. And then, sometime in 1963, his father introduced him to a friend, an insurance agent. Sunny began to sell insurance policies. It was about then that he conceived the murderous idea of a quick way to raise money to finance his trip to England to get his law degree.

Dr Wong came to the conclusion that in the legal sense Ang was not of unsound mind. He had no psychotic illness or insanity. There was no defect in his reasoning. In the context of the M’Naughten’s Rules for Criminal Responsibility he would be considered fully responsible for his actions.

As Ang was a psychopath, Dr Wong felt that the abnormality of his mind would be such as to have substantially impaired his mental responsibility. On medico-legal grounds he recommended a reprieve, but hastened to add that, with the facilities available in Singapore at that time, he saw little hope for a cure for Ang. He felt that a sentence of life imprisonment for Ang, ‘with his superior intelligence and his almost classical degree of psychopathy’, should mean what it says. “He is a dangerous person, if released prematurely. Ang has said simply but significantly, ‘I would do it again.’”

The End

When it was known that the Privy Council had rejected Ang’s appeal, friends and relatives at once began to organize a petition to President Yusof bin Ishak to spare his life. Late in October 1966, this petition, and a plea from Ang for clemency, were submitted to the President. The President must accept the advice of the Cabinet. On the last day of January 1967, Ang was told that President Yusof bin Ishak had rejected his appeal for clemency. He would be executed on Monday, 6 February.

Even then Ang did not abandon hope. He was planning a dramatic escape. During exercise time a helicopter would fly over the jail compound, with a rope dangling down, and Sunny would be whisked away to freedom. The coded letters failed to get to his accomplice.

On Friday he was told there was no hope. He accepted this unemotionally and requested the prison chaplain, the Rev. Khoo Siaw Hua, to baptize him. Then he wrote the chaplain the following letter: Dear Rev. Khoo, There is so much that I want to say to you but I am finding it very difficult to put my thoughts into words. So forgive me for this, my farewell letter, being so brief, and, 1 fear, incoherent. Do you remember the day you first saw me here, how I kept repeating to you ‘I’m an atheist!’, almost with pride? But as I watched you come here so often, spending so much of your time and giving so much of yourself to the Pulau Senang boys and the rest of us, expecting and receiving nothing in turn, I asked myself, ‘What is it that motivates this man to such altruistic acts? Is there really a God as he so undoubtedly believes?’ This, plus my brother Victor’s example, led me to spend hours on end pondering over the question of Life. Death, the Existence of God, truth of the Bible and other related matters, my mind ranging far and wide into hitherto unexplored realms. The conclusion I came to were foregone, but I still refused to open my heart to God as I had some unfinished business to carry out, viz. a vendetta. Months passed without any change: but one day, the 17th of December 1967-for no apparent reason I was overwhelmed by a desire to kneel down in prayer and pour out my heart to God, surrendering myself to Him and admitting to Him that revenge was in my heart He listened and understood and as I got to know Him better through the succeeding days and weeks, He told me that I should be above revenge and hate, that only love and understanding should occupy my thoughts and guide my actions. How I wish I could have met you in less tragic circumstances and derived the benefit of your courses. But I nevertheless thank you for everything you have done for me and will be doing for me in the next few days. Through you I found Christ and through Him I shall find the Kingdom of Heaven. We’ll meet again in happier circumstances. Till then, fare thee well. Yours in Christ Sunny Ang

Sunny Ang spent the last few hours of his life praying with the Rev. Khoo, and reading the Bible. The chaplain said, “We talked only about religion and nothing else. He was all the time calm and smiling.”

Ang was told that acccording to prison regulations he could have a last meal to the value of $5. He said, “I just want a nice cold glass of milk.” Milk is not a popular drink with Asians.

Shortly before dawn, Ang, apparently unrepentant and unafraid, walked steadily the 100 paces from his cell to the gallows. The noose was slipped around his neck, the trap-door opened, and at 5:55 AM, on the morning of Monday, 6 February 1967, Sunny Ang paid the penalty for his crime.

The hangman grimly closed the final chapter of a murder case that made legal history in Singapore. This had been the first murder trial without the body of the victim: it was the first time a man charged with murder had been found guilty entirely on circumstantial evidence. The case was also unusual in that it was a crime of coldly calculated murder for greed and gain, a crime in which the death of the victim, and not robbery, was the primary consideration.

At 9:00 AM, Juliet Ang, then recently admitted to the Bar, arrived at the prison in a car driven by a magistrate. She entered the prison and identified Ang’s body. Half an hour later she emerged and the car that brought her drove away. About the same time a van from the Singapore Casket Company arrived. Sunny Ang was buried at Bidadari Cemetery that afternoon.

Sunny Ang was a Chinese. The judge was born in Australia. The foreman of the jury (most of them Chinese) was a Dane. The prosecuting counsel was a Chinese, his assistant a Malay. Ang’s defence was conducted by two Indians. The witnesses were Chinese, Malays, Indians, Eurasians and Europeans. Evidence was given in Chinese dialects. Malay and English. Ang killed Jenny (a Chinese) when Singapore was a self-governing British colony. His trial began when Singapore was part of Malaysia, He was found guilty three months before Singapore was separated from Malaysia. Singapore had become an independent republic by the time his appeals were heard, and President Ishak rejected his plea for clemency. Justice Buttrose retired from Singapore in 1968 and went to live in England. He was the last of the British expatriate judges to serve in Singapore, where he had worked in the legal profession for 23 years. He became a High Court judge in 1957. The Chief Justice, Mr Wee Chong Jin, described Justice Buttrose’s retirement at the age of 65 as a ‘great loss, especially in that he was a judge with immense experience and knowledge, not only of the country’s laws, but also of the people’.

The Perfect Murder

Sunny Ang thought he had planned the perfect murder. He considered his execution an injustice because he had been found guilty for the wrong reasons. “I did not kill her that way. I killed her another way,” he told a visitor just before the end. “But I suppose it’s poetic justice,” he added with a grim smile, “that I should die.”

What he boasted he did was to give Jenny instructions, which if carried out properly, would inevitably have resulted in her death. He had told her, just before she descended, to take a deep breath, to fill her lungs completely, as she was about to surface. She was to hold that breath all the way up. The air in Jenny’s lungs would have distended with increased pressure thereby forcing air bubbles directly into her blood stream and eventually leading to obstructions in the blood vessels in her brain. Death would have been instantaneous.

Ang was a great reader. He had a passion for detective stories, a deep interest in psychology and law. He had a collection of law books. He also had many books on flying, and several Teach Yourself books, including books on chicken rearing, tomato planting and scuba-diving. In one book on scuba-diving the corner of a page had been turned down. There was a warning on this page against divers holding their breath when surfacing. The author warned that death had occurred this way.

This manner of death was set out in detail in Harrison’s Principle of Internal Medicine, 1963, which Sunny Ang had also read: This stated that, If a diver breathing compressed air holds his breath during ascent to the surface, the intrapulmonic (inside the lung) pressure becomes relatively higher than the hydrostatic (liquid or blood stream) pressure. A difference in pressure in excess of about 80 mm of mercury may overdistend the lungs so that gas is forced or aspirated (sucked) into the blood stream (traumatic air embolism). Gas emboli (bubbles) transported to the left ventricle (i.e. the heart) are disseminated to the central nervous system (i.e. the brain) to produce the most serious injury in diving. Fatal accidents have occurred during ascents from only 13 feet to the surface.

Ang intended that Jenny’s body should be recovered (so he said), for, he argued, a post-mortem could have shown only accidental death. No one could ever have accused him of being in any way responsible for this highly technical accident. He maintained that he had, in fact, made an earlier attempt, two days before, in the same boat, hoping, with many others around, to have the benefit of witnesses to testify to his innocence. Unfortunately that attempt failed (probably Jenny did not obey his instructions fully), though she complained of pains in her chest. On the fateful Tuesday he tried again hoping that her damaged lung condition would favour his plans. This time he succeeded. Jenny was never seen again.

Ang was completely callous. That Jenny had to die was a misfortune on her part: her death was no more than a mere incident in his own life. All that he regretted, he said shortly before he was hanged, was that he did not give her a decent last meal. He also regretted that he had failed to insure her for a higher figure. Curiously enough, he had decided that, with part of the money he hoped to get from the insurance companies, he would provide for Jenny’s two children during their childhood.

His callousness was evident immediately after her death. When he informed the police and the insurance companies of the tragedy, he did so calmly, and with such lack of compassion that suspicions were aroused. Noted K. B. Ong, a police officer in his report, ‘The general conduct of Sunny Ang after the disappearance, and during interrogation-he does not appear in the least worried or depressed.’

Ang was confident he could never be incriminated for Jenny’s death. Why should he worry? Life, until his arrest 16 months later, went on as usual-chicken farming and girl-chasing. He sat for the Higher School Certificate in 1964. Throughout his trial his confidence actually increased and he made little effort to conceal his disdain for, and contempt of, the legal machinery. He insisted upon directing counsel for the defence, supremely confident his guilt could never be proved. Against the advice of Mr Coomaraswamy he insisted on entering the witness-box entirely for the immediate emotional satisfaction of crossing swords, matching wits, with Mr Francis Seow, the state prosecutor, whom he hated as the representative of society and law and order.

He continued to be confident after sentence, while in prison. He read books in German, French, Chinese and English. He continued to give advice to his brothers in Singapore and in England, on how to improve their studies. The only time he was known to have shown emotion was when his father went to the prison in November 1966 (for the first time since Ang’s arrest in December, 1964) to tell him that the Privy Council had rejected his appeal. Ang burst into tears. But he soon recovered and quickly regained his confidence that, somehow, his concept of justice would eventually emerge triumphant: after all ‘they’ had not found out how exactly he had caused Jenny’s death, so ‘they’ were not entitled to claim the supreme forfeit.

In his last speech from the Singapore Bench in 1968, Justice Buttrose stressed the importance of maintaining and administering justice. He was mindful that ‘justice, like lightning, should ever appear to few men’s ruin but all men’s fear’.

He considered himself privileged to have offered the greater part of his working life, some 23 years, to the cause of justice according to law, the rule of law, the cornerstone of human rights and human freedom.

Justice Buttrose said, “It is more than ever essential in this present day and age that the rule of law should be preserved inviolate: that those who respect and obey it shall live in freedom and security under it; that those who flout it and seek to set it at nought shall be brought to book and punished.”

He said that the interpretation of the law was a different matter and each court also had a different atmosphere-with each judge bringing to his court the aura of his own personality.

“I must admit I have in my time been the author and at times the beleaguered recipient of some animated controversial opinions regarding the interpretation of laws.” Justice Buttrose added, “It is perhaps inevitable that our human nature gives birth on such occasions to passing feelings of disagreement and criticism, or irritability and impatience.

Pulau Senang-The Experiment that Failed

THE EXPERIMENT THAT FAILED

Introduction

This is the true story of an idealistic belief, translated into actuality for a short while in the early 1960s, that violent, lawless men could find their own way back to decent society were they given a proper chance to work and create. The argument was that these men had drifted into crime because they’d never had an opportunity to know disciplined creative work.

Hundreds of them in Singapore were given this chance in 1960. Inside a few months, hitherto work-shy gangsters (hardened criminals most of them, unproven murderers, extortioners, callous robbers, psychopaths, rapists), transformed a deserted tropical island into an attractive, busy settlement with roads and water supply, huts, workshops, canteen, dormitories, laundry, community hall. Practically all the criminals were members of secret societies. Having built a comfortable settlement with their own hands, within forty minutes one sunny afternoon, they deliberately destroyed it and murdered the man largely responsible for making the scheme possible. With him died three of his assistants.

The island was called Pulau Senang. In the Malay language this means ‘the island of ease’. As a rehabilitation settlement, it was a noble experiment that failed. Why? Why did the gangsters destroy it, having toiled and sweated in the tropical sun to build it? No completely satisfactory explanation has been forthcoming. One belief is that the leading secret society chief on the island ordered the destruction of the settlement to prove that he was more powerful than the government. During the trial of this man, Tan Kheng Ann, alias Robert, alias Robert Black alias Ang Chuar (and 58 others), witnesses said that the decision to kill the man in charge, 39-year-old Prison Officer Daniel Stanley Dutton, was because Dutton had tormented them beyond endurance. Breaking point had been reached when he ordered 13 carpenters to work overtime to complete the construction of a pier which could be worked on only during certain tides. When the carpenters refused, Dutton ordered them back to Changi jail, thus blighting their hopes for rehabilitation. Witnesses said this decision inflamed the rest of the men and triggered off the revolt. Another belief is that the secret society chief had tormented the opposition to Dutton and had been waiting for just such an opportunity before giving the order to attack and burn the settlement to the ground.

Pulau Senang Rehabilitation Settlement originated in the mind of a political prisoner of the British. Though he admitted that he was well-treated himself in detention as a pro-communist subscribing to the violent overthrow of colonialism, Devan Nair was horrified at the conditions in the prisons for convicted criminals, and for criminal suspects detained indefinitely without trial. He was determined one day to do something about this.

Daniel Button’s Belief

In Singapore at the time was prison officer Dutton, a strong man who believed that work was the salvation of all. Dutton’s stubborn faith was that even hardened criminals, secret-society gangsters, could be saved, brought back into the community again to become useful citizens. His almost fanatical belief was that men usually went astray through idleness. They needed a chance to work, to create. Given this opportunity, with persuasion, guidance, supervision, and helpful discipline, they could find their own way back to decency. Dutton believed this: few men were naturally evil: they wanted a chance to create. Dutton died a terrible death trying to prove he was right. “All our evils can be conquered by hard work: we can sweat the evil out of us,” he told me. I knew him well. He was an Irishman born in Walthamstow, London. On Pulau Senang they called him the ‘Laughing Tiger’. In the East, everyone, including gangsters, respects a tiger. Dutton refused to arm any of his staff. He was a powerful man and ruled with his fist. If a prisoner was insolent, he would knock him down with a blow. “If I report him for insubordination, he knows he will have to go back to Changi and that will be the end of him. He’ll rot there. So he takes my punishment and behaves himself.”

Dutton showed me round the island a few weeks before he was murdered. He reckoned that 63 of the 440 men then on the island were murderers, though none of them was convicted in court because witnesses were too frightened to come forward. Secret society men were feared. Dutton knew that if these men-Chinese, Malays, Indians, Eurasians-decided to attack him and his staff (never more than 20 strong), they could organise a mass-escape.

“They don’t want to escape,” Dutton told me with confidence. “They volunteered to come here, to get away from prison routine. For the first time in their lives they’ve got a steady job. There are no cells here. Everybody does a full eight hours’ work, gets twice as much grub as they would in jail, and goes to bed healthily tired. They are too busy to scheme. We keep them too occupied in interesting work, and in leisure, for them to have either the time or inclination to plot revolt. They wouldn’t get very far anyhow. This island is 15 miles off Singapore, remember?”

Dutton’s fatal blunder was in overlooking the possibility that the 400 men on Pulau Senang, or at least a militant group of them, did not follow the usual pattern of logic either in thinking, or in response to their own actions. They plotted to destroy Dutton and the settlement, but few of them made any attempt to flee the island. Instead, they stayed to celebrate, sang songs and awaited their inevitable fate.

Dutton landed on the island (227 acres) in June 1960, with 50 prisoners. Each man had food rations and two blankets. They brought a few tools. Pulau Senang then was no more than a tree-and-scrub-covered rock in the China Sea which had a reasonable layer of fertile soil and two or three fresh-water wells. “Let’s see you sweat your way to respectability,” demanded Daniel Dutton. He worked with them as they hacked their way through the undergrowth. Within a short while, Pulau Senang was a busy, orderly island with hard-surfaced roads carrying jeeps and small trucks, drainage, workshops, reservoirs, farms, pig-sties, sports ground, a tiny radio programme. There were showers, a steam laundry, ample electricity and piped water, fresh vegetables and fruits.

To his fellow prison officials, Dutton was recognised as an amazing Robinson Crusoe. Gifted with an ability to make practically anything with his hands, Dutton set out to prove in practical manner, his contention that creative work can be more interesting and satisfying than crime. Give Dutton a few wheels, some scrap metal and a piece of wire and he could make a dynamo, a motorcar, a circular saw, a lathe, or a steam laundry. A born leader (he was commissioned in Greece when he was 18, and dropped into occupied Yugoslavia), Dutton had the knack of inspiring enthusiasm.

Showing me round the island, Dutton was shyly approached by one of the prisoners. The man wore nothing but shorts and sandals. There were secret society tattoo marks on his body. He wanted Dutton to inspect a small engine he had built.

“Are you sure it will work?” demanded Dutton in Chinese. “If not, don’t waste my time.” The prisoner started it up, then anxiously looked into Dutton’s face, waiting for the Laughing Tiger’s gruff word of praise. Approval given, he went off happily to connect the engine with an expansion project. Work on the island had a practical purpose, a meaning. “He’s one of our best workmen,” remarked Dutton. “He never did a day’s work in his life before he came here, except beat up old women. He never realised what he was capable of doing.”

Daniel Dutton believed sincerely that his purpose in life was to make good citizens out of thugs. He was almost a fanatic, but he was not a fool. He knew some could never change, but these he considered sick men. Dutton was not a sentimentalist; yet he had a carefully concealed soft side and was genuinely proud that seven of the warders on the prison island were men he had helped back to society after working 18 months on Pulau Senang. One ‘old lag’ from the island had gone to the University of Singapore to study social science. In effect, he had matriculated on the island.

In less than two years, 255 tough criminals passed through Dutton’s care on Pulau Senang. Of these, no more than 23 had got into trouble again. This low rate of recidivism caused Devan Nair, by then a leading trade unionist believing in democratic socialism, to claim that the ‘social therapy of Pulau Senang makes the island one of the most successful penal experiments anywhere in the world’. Alas, Nair spoke too soon. The settlement was just about three years old when Dutton was murdered and the settlement destroyed.

Yet Nair had grounds for his optimism. For when gangsters in the streets were arrested, taken to jail, and not brought to trial, they knew that their only hope of getting back into normal society was through Pulau Senang. After about a year in jail, they could volunteer for manual work on the island. Most of them expected to be there for six months. Upon arrival, the ‘Laughing Tiger’ saw to it that they were taught the rudiments of a trade: anything from pig-keeping, poultry farming, carpentering, haircutting, bricklaying, book-binding, sign-writing and boot-making to furniture-making and plumbing. Every month, Dutton reviewed their work. If he was satisfied they were making progress, Dutton would recommend their release to the Work Brigade. If he was dissatisfied, he would recommend they be taken back to jail. Dutton was powerful and the men knew this. He was respected and feared.

Organised on semi-military lines, the Work Brigade had been set up by the government to cater for the unemployed, and for men and women seeking rehabilitation. Usually, men from Pulau Senang were put into the Work Brigade for six months and then released into society, but they could be released earlier if they could satisfy the authorities that they had a job to which they could go.

“Creative work in healthy surroundings. That is what reforms men,” asserted Daniel Dutton, pointing to a group of men working on the farmland. Everyone was paid $0.30 a day and given a ration of five cigarettes. They had to save half the money they earned. On their own, they made a collection and asked Dutton to buy them a cinema projector. He did and then arranged for a weekly English-language action film show in the community hall. Not all of them could follow the English dialogue, but to Dutton’s amusement, they all seemed to understand the usual message in these carefully selected films: that, in the end, the bad man always got his come-uppence. Dutton told me that most of the 63 murderers he had on the island when I called in, enjoyed the ‘cops and robbers’ films.

Daniel Dutton was the only European on the island. His deputy then was of Ceylonese origin and his two assistants of Chinese origin. Dutton believed in the minimum of supervision: he believed in encouraging prisoners to work hard, in their own way, at their own pace. Dutton had faith in the experiment. At the same time, he normally slept in his uniform, jungle boots handy by the bed. In spite of his ulcers, he was contented. He got a great deal of satisfaction from his job. He had informers on the island. When they told him the gang leaders were plotting to kill him, he laughed at the informers. Right till the end, he could not believe that the people he was trying so hard to rehabilitate would want to destroy him. In any case, he thought he could cope with the situation. Too late he realised the extraordinary power of secret society leaders.

Gangsters And Secret Societies

There have always been gangsters and secret societies in Singapore: they came with the immigrants from China, where the first secret societies were said to have been formed at 3,000 bce. In 1644, the Manchus overthrew the Ming Dynasty, and behind the fortified walls of the Shaolin Monastery, 108 monks plotted to restore China to the Ming emperors. They failed, having been betrayed by a traitor. Five survivors formed the Triad Society to carry on their work. Over the years, the high principles were blurred and the society degenerated into a protection racket. Eventually, the Triad Society broke up into different gangs, each with its own area of control and sphere of protection. In China, these secret societies had a considerable influence on the ordinary people, almost equalling the importance of the family unit. Secret societies were abolished in China in 1949 when the communists took over, but they continued to exist in Malaya and Singapore where gangsters still claim that their societies are directly descended from the original triad. One big gang in Singapore is called the 108 gang, in remembrance of the 108 monks of Shaolin.

In Raffles’ days, and for a long time after, secret societies in Singapore helped new arrivals from China. In effect, they were benevolent societies which provided for needy members and ensured that they had a decent burial (of singular importance to persons of Chinese origin). In consequence, one historian felt that secret societies might with fair accuracy, be described as ‘Pirates and Robbers Co-operative Associations’.

Secret societies have always been bitterly hostile to one another, and their rivalries, usually over territory, periodically culminated in bloody street fights. Rival mobs would often suspend operations to allow Europeans to pass through their midst unscathed. Members were forbidden to give any assistance to the police. The penalty was merciless flogging, mutilation and painful death. In 1854, 40 °Chinese were killed in 10 days of street fighting among secret society gangsters in Singapore.

In 1881, 11 secret societies were registered in Singapore with a collective membership of 62,376 people. Six years later, in 1887, the British decided they had enough. They decided to suppress them.

The simple argument of the British was that the Government must be the paramount power in the island. So long as secret societies existed, this was not so in the eyes of many Chinese. The effect of the suppression order was to drive secret societies still further underground. Brothels were deregistered in 1895, but secret society gangsters kept up the protection racket, and rival groups-the 108 gang, the Low Kwan gang, the Tai Hok gang, the Hung Khwan Society, and all the others-struggled for monopoly of extortion, as they still do today, from prostitutes, hawkers and small shopkeepers.

During the Japanese occupation of Singapore in World War II, all secret society activities were suspended. The Japanese did not jail gang suspects: they chopped off their heads and exhibited them on poles. Immediately after the Japanese surrender when the more tolerant British returned, triad societies sprang up throughout Malaya and Singapore with such rapidity that their membership soon reached scores of thousands. Sometimes over a thousand people would turn up to watch a single initiation ceremony. The result was that in certain areas in Malaya, and in some districts of Singapore, the civil government was almost powerless to check the growing numbers of murders and extortions, robberies and piracy.

When the People’s Action Party (PAP) in Singapore achieved self-rule in 1959, the newly elected government, headed by Lee Kuan Yew, zealously and determinedly decided to wipe out gangsterism. They had no alternative if they were to become an effective, corruption-free government. Gangsterism was beginning to dominate everyday life. In 1959, there were 21 gangland murders. There were 416 known gangster fights, mostly over territory. The PAP knew they must tackle this problem without delay. At the same time they decided to humanize prison conditions. They did. Today, Singapore claims to have an enlightened and efficient prison system. All prisons are open to inspection by the International Red Cross. But the PAP failed to eliminate the secret societies, though they have managed to restrict their activities almost completely.

On 24 October 1959, the Minister for Home Affairs broadcasted an explanation why the Government, a few days earlier, had offered an amnesty to gangsters. “Why did we offer them a chance to reform and become law-abiding members of society? Because we believe that not all secret society gangsters are bad men. Many, through foolishness, got entangled in the web of crime and did not know how to free themselves.” It was to such people, the Minister said, that the offer was made. All they had to do was to go to the Advocate-General and make a full statement about their past association with secret societies and declare their intention to break away. If the amnesty was ignored they would suffer, for the Government was determined to crush gangsterism. “We will relentlessly pursue every gangster and gang until they are utterly destroyed.” Backed by the people, the Government would move against the gangsters in force ‘to crush those who think that they can defy the organised might and anger of society’. The gangsters were given two weeks to make up their minds.

It was estimated that there were then 10,000 gangsters in Singapore belonging to 120 gangs. Close to 1,000 suspects were in jail. Altogether, 816 gangsters took advantage of the amnesty. As soon as the amnesty ended, the police began rounding up suspects. Among them were the all-girl Ang Hor Tiap (or Red Butterfly Gang). Formed by prostitutes and bargirls, they offered their services for the protection of those in the crime trade, as well as to housewives suffering from unfaithful husbands. For a small fee they would beat up any woman who had enticed away the husband of a client. The gang-girls were identified by a tattooed red butterfly on the upper part of a thigh. Most of the gang were soon arrested. The remnants of the gang surfaced again in 1967, but they were finally smashed with 17 arrests in 1968.

By then, not every secret society had an initiation ceremony. Singapore’s industrialisation and the building of new towns with high-rise flats meant that lonely woods, temples and old houses in which these illegal ceremonies could be organised had become scarce. When the ceremonies were held they followed the usual pattern: terrible oaths were sworn, a finger pricked, blood was mixed with rice wine and drunk from a bowl. Gang clashes continued and traitors were executed.

In 1960, gang fights dropped to 241 and only 11 gangsters were killed. The following year there were fewer collisions, but 18 murders. In 1971, from 700 gang fights in 1959 the number had fallen to less than 70. But the killings were even higher in 1971 than they were when the PAP came to power 12 years before. From these figures, it was fair to conclude that the gangs had become wiser, knowing that the police would actively intervene in gang fights. So they avoided open clashes, but continued to kill one another, a happening that did not cause the police much unhappiness.

In 1972, more than 800 secret society gangsters were under detention. They belonged to gangs such as the Sio Koon Tong, the 08, 24, 36, the Sio Gi Ho, Sio Loh Kuan, or the triads (the societies with initiation ceremonies) such as the Tiong Neng Tok. There were five or six main groups to which lesser gangs were associated. The average age of a gangster was between 15–21 years old; they were mostly school drop-outs. Why did they join gangs? The police did a survey and found that of 87 picked up, one said he joined for excitement, 48 joined through friends, and 23 were forced to join. In 1972, it was estimated that there were perhaps 20,000 gangsters in Singapore, about half of them active. Most of them were either Cantonese or Hokkien.

Two years later, the Home Minister told Parliament that the secret societies were under control, but he admitted that gangs still existed and the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act, first introduced in 1955, was still needed. He told Parliament that in 10 years, 1,000 suspects had been arrested on an average every year. Five months later, the New Nation reported that secret society members were still responsible for more than half the daily crime in Singapore. The police reckoned that 10,000 gangsters belonged to 161 secret societies, both active and inactive. The most powerful group, the paper said, was the Sri Tong independent group which was ‘controlling all the major bars, brothels and gambling dens’. Next on the list were the Loh Kuan and Sio Loh Kuan groups. Of the 50 murders that year in Singapore, 20 were gangland reprisals.

After 20 years in office, the PAP government was forced to admit that gangsterism still existed, though on a much reduced scale. Gang suspects continued to be jailed without trial,

Probably one reason why gangsters can survive in Singapore is their pragmatic approach to the extortion racket. They seldom make ‘unreasonable’ demands. They are content to extort comparatively low dues for their protection. They work on a low-profit margin, and try to involve as many prostitutes, hawkers, bargirls, small traders, taxi-drivers, as possible. The gangsters’ reasoning is that victims prefer to pay a small fee rather than be bothered about reporting the matter to the police, thus risking either physical injury from the gang, or a day’s loss of earnings by going to the police station. The gangsters rely on victims believing that it is safer and cheaper, in the long run, to pay up.

The Experiment

Devan Nair, a founder-member of the People’s Action Party, was in jail in 1959 when the PAP were voted into office. One of the conditions Lee Kuan Yew laid down before accepting the invitation of the Head of State to form a government was that Devan Nair and other pro-communist elements must be released. Nair by then was prepared to renounce his communist sympathies and to accept Lee’s democratic socialism. Lee’s conditions were accepted. Nair and the others were set free. At once, Devan Nair persuaded the Prime Minister to set up a Prison Inquiry Commission, “for I had not liked what I had seen of many of the demeaning conditions of imprisonment imposed by the British authorities-not on political detainees (on the whole my fellow detainees and I were treated well), but on convicted prisoners. For example, on the approach of a British prison officer, every convict had to kneel on the floor, with his head down. That aroused my ire, and it still does when I think of it.”

The Commission was appointed in November 1959 and Devan Nair was named chairman. Two of the Commissioners were academicians from the University of Malaya in Singapore: Professor T.H. Elliott and Dr Jean Robertson. The others were Jek Yuen Thong, Osman bin Abdul Gani, Chean Kim Seang, Tay Kay Hai, Sandrasegaram Woodhall and Francis Thomas.

The Commission submitted their report on 1 December 1960. “In terms of the modest aims which are being translated into practice in the new Asian states, and other parts of the world, our prison system will have to be almost wholly re-oriented if it is to make an effective contribution to the solution of the problem of crime and criminals in Singapore.” The Commissioners recommended that the reorganisation of the State’s prison institutions should proceed on the basis of the general principles and considerations set out in their report. The most obvious and fundamental of these considerations ‘is that the true object of the prison system is to achieve the rehabilitation of offenders so that they can return to the community as law-abiding and socially useful persons’.

The Government accepted most of the recommendations. Some were modified and some were not accepted. Prisoners were in three classifications: unconvicted prisoners (remand and civil prisoners, Criminal Law detainees, political detainees); convicted prisoners, and special categories (prisoners with less than six months, persons sentenced to death, persons detained at Her Majesty’s pleasure, vagrants, opium addicts).

Criminal Law detainees were gangsters: they were detained, without trial, under the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Ordinance 1955. A Government White Paper referred to their ‘violent and unruly character’. Determined to wipe out the gangster problem, the government realised that this would mean placing a strain on the accommodation in the maximum-security prisons, ‘and, as a result, may necessitate continued overcrowding in the cells’. It was this overcrowding in the cells which the Commissioners had held was inhuman treatment on the part of the British. Faced with the problem themselves, the new anti-colonial government was forced to continue to overcrowd the cells. At the same time, the government agreed with the Commission that the prison system must evolve towards providing a comprehensive and effective rehabilitation service. As a positive gesture in this direction the Government accepted the Commission’s recommendation that an open prison be established on an island 15 miles south of the main Singapore island, an island called Pulau Senang. There, the idea was, gangsters could work their way back to society through toil and sweat.

Appointed by the Head of State, Sir William Goode, on 11 November 1959, the Commissioners were asked by the government for an urgent solution to the serious problems arising in the prisons from the presence of some 400 persons detained under the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Ordinance, introduced by the British in 1955. They were violent, resentful, quarrelsome men: they lived 18 hours a day in their crowded cells in unhygienic conditions due to lack of adequate water supplies. The Commissioners discovered that ‘these men lived without hope or dignity’. They condemned in strongest possible terms the existing conditions. “No effort has been made to rehabilitate these men.” The Commissioners were determined that something should be done. To find an urgent solution, the Commissioners in January 1960, set up an Ad Hoc Committee consisting of Professor T.H. Elliott, Sandra Woodhull and Jek Yuen Thong. Within weeks they had produced the Pulau Senang Scheme.

The Commissioners commented briefly upon the scheme in their report because by then it had become an operative part of the prisons system. “We wish to indicate that, devised to deal with a special problem, it incorporates concepts different in some respects from those embodied in our Report, while observing those general principles that we consider fundamentally essential in any effective rehabilitative scheme.

The Pulau Senang Scheme assumes that most of the detainees are likely to be rationally responsive to a system of incentives and that with the increasing benefits they discover they enjoy through an increasing acceptance on their part of the normal values of society, they will also come to realise that there are other and more profitable ways of living in society than engaging in unacceptable anti-social activities of their former mode of living.”

The Commissioners continued: “In the prisons we have proposed a scheme which attaches great importance to the social acceptance of the individual and which recognises that there may be people who would be quite unresponsive to incentive inducements either because they are inadequate in a competitive world, or because of their resentment against society, or for other more complex reasons, and have consequently developed their own and personally satisfying scale of values. Clearly for such people a different approach is necessary. This we have attempted to provide by discounting incentives and competitive activities and by offering privileges which are not necessarily earned and which would not necessarily be taken away for misbehaviour. We would wish the difference between these two separate systems to be maintained in the hope that valid comparisons might be made at a later date when the results of the complementary approaches to the general problem of anti-social behaviour could be comprehensively assessed.

We would certainly regard the Pulau Senang Scheme as being in some degree experimental, but we do not consider that this is in any way to be criticised, when so little is known concerning the causes of anti-social behaviour and probably little more regarding their effective treatment.”

Making their investigations which eventually led to the establishment of the Pulau Senang Settlement, the Ad Hoc Committee found there were 426 police detainees held in Changi Prison, There were two groups: those who volunteered for work and those who did not. Only 57 volunteered. They constituted less of a problem than the others: they occupied separate cells and observed normal prison routine and followed normal working hours. The remainder, because of the high prison population, were accommodated three to a cell. They had two exercise yards. The men were classified according to their secret society affiliations. All the members of the 24 gang occupied one yard and members of the 08 gang the other.

For security reasons it was not possible to let all the detainees out at the same time during the day. Half were let out into the exercise yard in the morning and half in the afternoon. Consequently all detainees were held in cells for 18 hours each day under unhygienic conditions largely owing to inadequate water supplies. Release to the yards for the remaining six hours of the day offered very little improvement because of lack of constructive occupation and diversions. “The men we saw in the yards either squatting or aimlessly wandering around, appeared to be without hope or dignity and those that we had an opportunity of speaking to appeared if not intensely introspective and morbidly bound up with their own condition, to be filled with resentment at their detention, the conditions of which they could see were deteriorating daily as numbers increased.”

For 18 hours a day in the cells, the men depended upon what they could mentally offer each other, and ‘from their previous experiences and activities prior to detention the nature of this mutual counsel can easily be imagined. We observed that their sole reading matter was usually the more dubious type of illustrated comic literature.’ In the yards the men walked about or talked in groups.

Not surprisingly, the Ad Hoc Committee came to the conclusion that ‘this arrangement of segregation on a gang basis, with such opportunities for intercourse daily strengthens rather than diminishes the former gang affiliates and loyalties and provides an opportunity for the leaders to exercise their domination and organise junior members’. The committee expressed their surprise that proper facilities for recreation were not provided.

The committee condemned ‘in the strongest possible terms’ the existing conditions under which Criminal Law Detainees were held. Absolutely no efforts were made to rehabilitate them. Nevertheless, the committee did not blame the prison administration. “With inadequate funds and having a major problem already in dealing with the inflated convicted prison population, these officers have attempted to deal with the problem in accordance with the means at their disposal. That it has produced conditions that would be condemned in any society calling itself civilised, is a reflection not so much upon them as upon the society that by failure to recognise the problem, and by having possibly other priorities, has permitted these conditions to arise.” So long as they were held in those conditions the committee could not visualise any time in the future when they might be safely released. In those circumstances, they could be expected to become more anti-social, not less.

The committee considered important four principles: 1. No detainee should be regarded as irredeemable. 2. The aim of detention, although primarily protective of society should be finally to set free detained persons as loyal and law-abiding members of the community, capable of and wanting to earn an honest and productive livelihood and who, above all, will not consider that resort to violence provides an alternative means of livelihood. This implies total moral, and to a certain extent, political re-education. 3. The principal therapeutic measures by which these rehabilitative aims will be secured are discipline and hard work operating in a realistic situation approximating as nearly to normal ways of living as possible. This implies that any proposed scheme should offer possible incentives for progress and disincentives for those who do not respond. For success a carefully devised scheme of dilution will be necessary for those detainees who are reluctant to respond to discipline and work. 4. The scheme should be primarily educative, teaching detainees the normally acceptable standards of conduct. There must be a clear realisation on the part of the detainees of the mode of operation of the scheme, a clear concept of its implications for himself, his personal progress within the scheme, and a sure knowledge that he can by his own efforts obtain his release, and that having achieved his release he will find a secure place in normal society. Briefly the present attitude of hopelessness must be replaced by attitudes of hope based in a sure self-knowledge and an appreciation of the normally respected values of society.

In accordance with these principles, the committee proposed a ‘progressive rehabilitative scheme’ of four stages.

In the first stage, all detainees would go to Changi prison to be detained under the most rigorous conditions. Accommodation and diet should be spartan and simple. Here they would be sorted out and classified according to physique, intelligence, aptitude for work, responsiveness to discipline, strength of affiliation to secret societies. Detainees would have to volunteer for the scheme, but they should be encouraged to volunteer if necessary by ‘reducing the amenities at present enjoyed at Changi Prison’. Added the committee: “It is certainly essential to indicate to detainees who are reluctant to participate in their rehabilitation that their sojourn in Changi Prison might be prolonged.”

In the second stage, detainees would be sent to Pulau Senang where they ‘will learn as a community to be independent and self-supporting in the same way as normal communities are learning in the process that all members of a community are mutually dependent, and most important of all they will learn that they themselves are members of a wider community with correspondingly wider responsibilities and wider loyalties than they now possess. We have no illusions that this is a difficult lesson to teach. It is for this reason that we recommend that at first no facilities apart from the barest protection from the elements and adequate food supplies and clothing be provided. We consider it essential that all detainees so transferred should be personally responsible for the construction of their more permanent shelter and progressively responsible for the provision of their food, and any other amenities they may enjoy. As a corollary we recommend that they should be positively encouraged to secure for themselves as a community as many of the more pleasant amenities of life as they are able by their own efforts’.

The committee did not think, however, that the scheme would be successful in winning these men from their past and present allegiances, and their own assessment of society, merely by encouraging them to secure their material needs. That was but the first step. All men besides their physical needs had their intellectual and spiritual needs ‘however dimly they themselves may perceive this’. There should, therefore, also be an educational programme, which should include socio-political re-education. ‘Considerable attention’ should also be paid to recreational facilities which in themselves were educational.

The committee recommended the necessity to develop a ‘house system encouraging healthy competition in games’ (a proposal which some experienced police officers with knowledge of the deadly games rival secret societies were inclined to play-with knives and daggers, chairs, sticks, bars of iron etc-viewed with some misgiving). The committee urged that the men be mixed as completely as possible regardless of their secret society affiliations. In the Reformative Training Centre, systematic mixing had been practised, the committee noted, and members of rival gangs had learned to live together amicably.

As for the spiritual education of detainees, the committee was rather diffident about making recommendations, but they did suggest that detainees should be encouraged to re-establish any religious associations they may have had. But detainees should, the committee insisted, be free not to be approached by religionists. “We believe that an approach to moral attitudes of living can only be secured if the men cease to regard themselves as different, and completely divorced from society.” They recommended that groups of entertainers should visit the settlement, and radio should be available to the detainees. In this way, the committee hoped that it would be possible for the men to develop to some extent a proper interest in the outside world. Books, magazines and newspapers should, therefore, be available to them.

In the third stage, detainees would be moved back to Singapore to live in open security camps, in which they would be employed, at equitable rates of pay, on constructive projects designed to emphasise the contribution that could be made in the community. Friends and relatives could visit them and in this way, detainees could become progressively accustomed to normal society. The committee recognised that their stay on Pulau Senang would have accustomed them to a decidedly artificial way of living: they would have had no contact with normal society, particularly feminine society.

In the fourth stage, detainees would be released subject to supervision by the police or an after-care officer. The committee recommended that the only necessary conditions for release should be that the detainee was considered to have reformed to the extent that he was unlikely to return to gangsterism, and that permanent and regular employment was available for him.

The report of the Ad Hoc Committee was endorsed by the Commissioners. Jek, one of the members of the Ad Hoc Committee, later successfully fought a parliamentary election and became a Minister in Lee Kuan Yew’s cabinet. The other former detainee, S. Woodhull, was arrested again, this time by the Internal Security Council (consisting of representatives of the Malaysian, the British and the Singapore Governments) and detained. When released, he continued his legal studies in England and later practised law in Malaysia.

No time was lost by the Commissioners in approving this scheme and forwarding it to the government. It was acted upon without delay. By May 1960, long before the Commissioners had completed their overall inquiry into the prison system, the Pulau Senang Scheme was in operation. Hundreds of gangsters were working on the island, creating something of their own, and, in this way, through toil and sweat, earning the right, the Commissioners hoped, to take their place in the community of useful citizens. This was the experiment that failed.

Criticism

Pulau Senang was not without its critics. In the Assembly in June 1963 (a month before the revolt on the island), the former Chief Minister, David Marshall (15 years later to become Singapore’s first Ambassador in Paris), complained that the government was ‘using persons who have not been convicted by any courts, as slave labour’. They were paid very little. He said they should be paid trade union rates and their families should be supported by the government. Marshall said he had visited the island and he came away with a very strong impression of an aura of fear in all those detainees, an aura of helplessness and hopelessness, “because they are so utterly at the mercy of every minor official on that island. Their release or their continued detention is at the whim of officials and is no longer subject to law. They are beyond the pale of the law.” He thought it a very unhealthy atmosphere, and went on to say that he found it difficult to understand “whether, in fact, bringing these people in close propinquity over a long period, subject to not merely superior discipline of the officers from the prisons but the discipline of their own groups, does not build an esprit de corps which could endanger our peace, if in fact they are, as I have no doubts some of them are, drawn from secret society gangs.”

The Home Minister, Ong Pang Boon, reminded Marshall that the previous government had no scheme for rehabilitating secret society gangsters: they just locked them up three to a cell. When the People’s Action Party came to power, this state of affairs was considered undesirable, and Pulau Senang was being tried as an experiment. Only time could tell whether it would be a success. The Minister claimed that the results to date were encouraging.

As for an aura of fear at Pulau Senang, Marshall might have found sullen detainees because the week before, several warders had been assaulted and the detainees involved had been punished. The Minister said he had visited the island several times and found no aura of fear. As for the dependants of the detainees, they could always apply for aid to the Social Welfare Department.

Marshall explained that he was not criticising the concept of Pulau Senang: he thought the experiment a good one. What he criticised was the use of the detainees as slave labour. He had been impressed by the very considerable assets in buildings, vegetable gardens, irrigation works and the provision for water, which were constructed by the detainees. His submission was that if a man is made to work, he should be paid full wages, deducting there from the cost of his enforced lodging and the cost of his board. They did not even have a canteen. They could not order a cup of coffee. “Gangster or no gangster, Sir, if you are trying to attract them to a human way of life, I would suggest a proper approach, and from the point of view of socialists and persons who believe in the trade union movement, I resent the suggestion of using persons detained by executive act, as slave labour.”

The Home Minister told the House that canteen facilities were available: they could purchase cigarettes and tobacco, toilet articles, confectionery and groceries. Arrangements for meals and drinks were being made. He denied Marshall’s charge that the detainees had no alternative but to volunteer for work: he insisted that the work was of a voluntary nature, regarded and accepted as part of their training and rehabilitation process. “In their case work has a therapeutic meaning, and wages are a secondary matter.” He agreed that detainees had been told that if they want to secure their early release they must go to Pulau Senang. That was accepted. Only through work at Pulau Senang, his general behaviour there, could it be known if the gangster had reformed.

Dr Goh Keng Swee, then Minister for Finance, poured ridicule on Marshall’s suggestion that detainees should be paid the rate for the job. He accused Marshall of trying to make political capital out of Pulau Senang. His suggestion that the government was employing slave labour in Pulau Senang, the Minister described as ‘completely sanctimonious humbug’. Pulau Senang was a scheme to rehabilitate secret society gangsters. “It is not a matter of the wicked government catching innocent people and putting them to do some slave work for the benefit of the party or the government.”

Were the government ‘so absurd, so ridiculous’ as to accept Marshall’s proposal that the detainees should be paid the rate for the job, this surely would be an invitation to the public to join secret societies and thereby get a remunerative career in Pulau Senang, with food and everything thrown in. The Minister insisted that the main thing was to impress upon the detainees that work is creative and is of value to society, and to inculcate in these unfortunate young men pride in work, and a sense of social responsibility.

Marshall was stung to reply. “Who can speak of pride in work, being paid $0.30 a day whilst your family starves on social welfare pittance,” he thundered, “… whilst their families starve, they sweat at hard labour in the sun with pick and shovel and get paid by this beneficent government $0.30 a day. Mr Speaker, what kind of self-respect do you think you can build in a human being like that? What kind of attitude do you think you can build in a human being like that towards a society which treats him in that fashion?” Not one of these men, he reminded the House, had been convicted by an impartial judge.

The Prime Minister intervened to recall that he had spent a ‘rather exciting evening’ at the Aftercare Association, when the Superintendent of Pulau Senang had provided a concert consisting of ex-detainee performers. He urged Marshall to lend his patronage to this very deserving Aftercare Association. The Home Minister made two further points: all detainees were paid $0.30 a day, which was higher than the rate paid to convicted prisoners. In about three years, nearly 400 detainees had been successfully rehabilitated at Pulau Senang. Up to the end of 1962, the total cost of the upkeep of Pulau Senang was $1,110,495. Some $30,677 had been paid to the detainees for work done.

Destruction

On the morning of 12 July 1963, the tragic day of the Pulau Senang uprising, Major Peter L. James, a retired regular British army officer, then Director of Singapore Prisons, got to his office in (Upper Pickering Street about 12:30 PM. He had spent the morning on inspection in Changi Jail. He was told that Dutton wanted him urgently on the radio. Pulau Senang was linked to the main island by radio telephone. James rang Dutton at 12:40 PM. Dutton told him that ‘there is a rumour here that there is going to be trouble, that they are out to get me.’

James asked Dutton what action he had taken. Dutton said he had arrested the ring-leaders and was trying to contact the Marine Police. James told Dutton he would get in touch with the police in Singapore right away. Dutton protested that this was not necessary. As Dutton continued to argue, James broke the connection. Then he telephoned the police. James got through to the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Cheah Teng Check, and Cheah said he would send a troop from the reserve unit there without delay. James then telephoned Dutton to tell him to expect the police at about 2:00 PM. Button’s reaction was to grumble ‘there is no need for that’. At the trial of the ringleaders, James gave evidence that he told Dutton to carry out Standing Instructions. This meant that if there was trouble, Dutton and his staff should get off the island. Dutton replied: “Good God! There’s no need for that. There are always plenty of them who will stand by me.” James told Dutton that he would ring again at 2:00 PM.

On the island, the situation worsened rapidly. Dutton realised, too late, that he needed help, urgently. His frantic and belated call for help was received by the Marine Police at 1:12 PM. They recognised Dutton’s voice. Dutton kept saying: “Situation very bad. Please inform Coastguard.” The message was repeated three times. A police boat was instructed to proceed to Pulau Senang from Tanjong China. All marine officers at sea were informed. Lance-Corporal Abdul Aziz bin Saji was patrolling off Pulau Sebarok. He received a message at 1:14 PM. that there was rioting at Pulau Senang. He was ordered to proceed there immediately. He went in as close to the island as was possible with the low tide. Through binoculars he saw a lot of people on the beach. Five minutes later, he saw a prison boat heading towards Indonesian waters. The police boat set off in pursuit. He indicated for it to stop, but the boat continued on its course. The corporal fired two warning shots. He then fired at the engine, but missed. At 2:00 PM a Customs boat joined in the chase, overtook the police boat and rammed the escaping boat which sank. The seven occupants were picked up by the police boat. Just before the collision, Marlow, a mechanic, who had been kidnapped, jumped into the sea. He, too, was rescued. His real name was Chan Seng Onn. At Pulau Senang, where he was known as Marlow, he was in charge of outboard motors and their servicing. A group of gangsters had surrounded him and ordered him into the boat.

James knew nothing of this dramatic development. Just before 2:00 PM, he again rang Pulau Senang, but could make no contact. Almost at once the Master Attendant telephoned with the news that there was trouble on the island; fire was burning.

At once Major James made arrangements to get over to Pulau Senang. He arrived at about a 3:45 PM. The island was aflame as he approached. The police were already there and had rounded up the rioters. James was told that Button and two others were dead, and 75 per cent of the buildings were destroyed. Total damage was estimated, in financial terms, at about half a million dollars.

At the trial, the Public Prosecutor, Mr Francis Seow, said that Dutton had died a terrible death, ‘having blundered by under-estimating the size of the uprising’. Mr Seow reckoned that ‘quite a sizeable section’ of the 316 detainees on the island that day were involved in the rioting. He said that trouble had begun when 13 carpenters were sent back to Changi Jail on 9th July for refusing to work on the 400-foot jetty on a Saturday afternoon. Major James later told Dutton that he had been ill-advised to do this.

But even before Dutton had sent the carpenters back, some of the detainees were already plotting to kill him. Informers reported this to Dutton. On 10 July, some of the leaders of the riot drew up a death-list of six prison officers. This list was later amended to include known, or suspected, informers. Men were allocated their respective responsibilities in the uprising. Dutton heard about this the same day. He refused to treat the threat seriously. One of the detainees, the informers said, boasted that the riot would shake the whole of Malaysia (of which Singapore was then part). Dutton was given the latest intelligence reports and also informed about the plot to kill him. Dutton brushed them aside: he preferred to believe that the majority of the detainees would stand by him if there was trouble.

James did not share his optimism. To start with, the Director of Prisons doubted whether any long-time secret society gangster could ever be rehabilitated. He had also opposed the appointment of ex-Pulau Senang detainees as settlement attendants. In his opinion, to employ ex-prisoners in a position of authority in a prison system was wrong. It was quite possible that a detainee could find that he was being supervised by a settlement attendant who was, or had been, a member of a rival secret society. Dutton on the other hand sincerely believed that a man’s salvation came through hard work. He was anxious to retain the services of freed detainees on Pulau Senang who had showed peculiar talents for building, laying pipes, and so on. Dutton had argued that detainees set free would be grateful to be given a ‘government job’ on the island, and would never again turn to a secret society. James, a most experienced prison officer, disagreed. He later told the Court that he thought that ‘government circles’ agreed with him, but he added, ‘certain people’ in the end decided that ex-detainees could be employed as settlement attendants. He felt it to be a mistake.

At the time of the riot, there was a staff of 45 on the island. There were no firearms, no tear gas. There were wicker-shields and batons. In Court, at the trial, James gave his opinion that had Dutton been surrounded by regular prison staff, ‘we might have seen some of the rioters injured. I saw none.’ He added: “If you want my opinion I should say that the staff might well have given a better account of themselves.”

Major James told the Court that it was his decision that there should be no firearms on the island. “We were always out-numbered: if we had firearms there was always a real danger of these arms being taken from us, falling into the hands of the detainees.” The whole question had been discussed at great length with the police. There were no firearms in British prisons. It would have been psychologically wrong for prison staff to walk about Pulau Senang with firearms. “It was our intention to have firearms on the neighbouring island of Pulau Pawai where we were building an armoury. In the event of trouble the orders were to evacuate to this island. The armoury had not been completed by 12 July.” James was asked whether it wouldn’t have been a good idea to have smuggled a Sten-gun into Pulau Senang and hidden it somewhere where Dutton could have had ready access to it. James opposed the idea.

“Would a Sten-gun in that radio room at 1:00 PM on the 12th of July have saved the situation?” asked Mr C.H. Koh, one of the counsel for the defence.

Major James said, “That is debatable.”

Because of what James considered to be Dutton’s misplaced trust in the detainees, he decided to go over to Pulau Senang on 11 July (the day before the uprising) to tell Dutton to take seriously the reports of the plot to kill him, and to take precautions. That was when he told Dutton that he had been ill-advised to send the carpenters back to Changi. James told Dutton that he did not think the work on the jetty was urgent enough to insist upon work on Saturday afternoons. James told Dutton that he would probably send them back again to Pulau Senang within a reasonably short space of time.

The jetty was 400 feet long, and, as Major James explained during the trial, it was necessary to work on it at various odd hours because there is a straits between Pulau Senang and the neighbouring island of Pulau Pawai. There is an extremely strong tide between the two islands, and in building the jetty, Dutton was dependent entirely on the state of the tide. With improvised equipment, the men could only work at low tide. If the tide was low at night, they would work at night. It was not work that could be done at regular working hours. Work depended entirely on tide. Besides, Dutton believed in work.

James felt that Pulau Senang had reached the stage when the detainees had the best amenities that he had ever seen in any prison anywhere, and in 21 years of service, he had been to many prisons in various parts of the world. They had cinema, educational facilities, recreational facilities, good accommodation, laundry, workshops and canteen. James felt that the need for long working hours was over. The original enthusiasm for building could not be the same: the men could no longer see any reason for long working hours.

Dutton thought otherwise. Pulau Senang was not built to be enjoyed. That was not the purpose of the open-prison settlement. Dutton believed fervently that the men’s salvation was hard work.

A defence counsel got Major James to admit that he had ordered Dutton to reduce the working hours. The detainees knew this (there were few secrets on the island). The defence counsel asked James whether Dutton was setting a proper example to those he was trying to teach to respect law and order when Dutton himself disregarded orders. James denied the suggestion that Dutton flagrantly disobeyed orders. He had given Dutton considerable discretion. Dutton was the man on the spot. Pulau Senang was a place where time and tide waited for no man. Things had to be done. Chickens had to be fed, emergency work done. But the type of man on Pulau Senang was a man not liking work. Many people were in prison because they were lazy. Some joined secret societies because they were lazy. James said that no detainee had ever protested or complained to him about working hours, and every prisoner knew he had the right to approach the Director of Prisons with serious complaints.

At 11:30 AM on 12 July, the detainees stopped for lunch. Shortly after the start-work gong struck at 12:40 PM, they were mustered for gardening and issued with cangkuls and parangs. On an arranged signal, the riot began. Some of the rioters attacked the warders. Others made for the radio room where Dutton and his chief officer, J.W. Tailford, had stationed themselves. By now, the warning siren was blaring. By the time the riot squad arrived, inside the hour, Dutton and two others were dead and a third fatally injured. The settlement was in ruins. The final drama had come when the rioters beseiged the administrative block, the settlement’s nerve centre. Outnumbered, the prison staff were overwhelmed. Soon buildings were ablaze. Dutton, seriously injured, alone and helpless, was cornered in his office. Rioters tore a hole in the roof and poured petrol on him and tossed in fire to set him alight. Dutton rushed outside, his clothing in flames, and four rioters with axes and cangkuls finished him off. A rioter’s shirt, stained with Dutton’s blood, was set up on the mast, and as the body of Dutton burned, the rioters played music on a guitar and sang and danced.

None of the detainees was killed during the riot. In fact, only six suffered superficial head injuries. They received attention at the prison hospital. All six had previous records of misconduct on the island.

During the trial, Major James disagreed with the defence’s contention that violence on the island had been an outburst of human intolerance. He denied Dutton was a slave driver. He was one of the kindest men James had ever met. He was a natural leader. If there was any good in a man, Dutton would bring it out. He was an extremely humane person. He often called upon James to help men released from Pulau Senang. If a detainee had trouble at home, Dutton would seek James’ help in sorting it out. Defence counsel asked James whether it was not a fact that the outburst had been a demonstration of personal hatred of Dutton.

James denied this. He said: “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.” 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.”

Major James’ explanation of the savage riot was that the rioters knew that prison accommodation in the State of Singapore was at an absolute premium. They knew that a prison with accommodation for 2,000 prisoners was being pulled down (Outram Road Prison). They knew that one man, and one man alone, in the State Prison Service could build Pulau Senang. They thought that if this man, Daniel Dutton, was done away with, and the place destroyed, the Singapore Government would find it extremely difficult to contain them. They might have to release them.

No proof was ever forthcoming that this was in fact the motive behind the revolt, but during the trial, a former secret society leader and a detainee, both prosecution witnesses, revealed that a meeting of seven secret society leaders on 6 July decided that Dutton must be liquidated and Pulau Senang razed to the ground.

Among those at the meeting of seven was Tan Kheng Ann. Dutton spent long hours in the evening with him. Dutton believed Tan had reformed. An informer warned Dutton against Tan, but Dutton laughed. He rather liked Tan. In the end Tan was one of the men who killed him.

Retribution

When the riot squad arrived, they met with no resistance. The rioters threw aside their weapons and obeyed orders. They were taken away to Changi Prison. Six weeks later, on 26 August 1963, 71 detainees stood before the Fourth Magistrate, Khoo Hin Hiong, each charged with four counts of murder, one of attempted murder, and one of mischief by causing fire. Forty-seven photographs of damaged buildings and bodies of the murdered officers were produced. One picture showed a guitar among a pile of tyres. “Evidence will show,” said the Public Prosecutor, “that these people were singing and celebrating the holocaust.” Lee Meow Cheng, a settlement attendant, told the Court that the rioters had held a victory celebration. “Some of them changed into new clothes for the celebration. They strutted about like conquerors of Pulau Senang,” said Lee.

Low Ah Kow, a settlement assistant, gave the Court a detailed account of what happened. He said that at 12:15 pm that day, he and other officers fell in outside the guard room and were informed by Tailford, the chief officer, that trouble was expected. They were instructed that when the siren sounded, they were to fall in again outside the guard room. Tailford then dismissed them. Low went off to the mess room, where he was detailed to look after Halls, A, B, C and D. Another settlement officer was told to look after Halls E, F, G and H. Low heard the work-gong sound at 12:50 pm and then shortly after, while standing outside Hall A, he heard the three short blasts of the alarm siren. He saw a large group of detainees approaching him: they were armed with cangkuls, parangs, pipes and other weapons. They were led by the gang leader, Tan Kheng Ann, alias Robert. His prison number was 860/60. He had a parang in his hand. They charged towards the mess room, but made no attempt to assault him.

A group of rioters had surrounded Choo Ah Kim, another settlement assistant. He looked as though he was suffering from shock. Then Low saw an unarmed group of detainees rush into the armed mob to rescue Choo and carry him into the administrative block. Low himself went with them as far as the prison hospital to get some medicine. While he was inside the hospital, he saw, across the road, three armed rioters smash the petrol pump lock and draw some of the fuel, then run off towards the store. While still in the hospital grounds he heard a voice yell: “Bobby! Cut the radio wire!” Later, he saw Bobby (whom he identified as Lim Tee Kang) running towards the radio wire and cut it with an axe.

From the hospital, Low rushed to the administrative block to report to Dutton. Dutton then was outside the building about to fire his Verey pistol. By now two groups of rioters were approaching the building. First they set fire to the general office, then the workshop. They attacked the guard room. Tailford was outside, trying to ward off the assault. He was felled, stabbed in the temple. Attacked by three thugs, Dutton dashed into his office. When he came out, his clothes on fire, four rioters brutally attacked him.

The savagery of the attack on Dutton was amazing. Medical evidence showed that Dutton had several cut wounds on his body, three on his head, two on the trunk and nine on the limbs. On the skull there was a large horizontal cut on the right side of the head. The fifth, ninth and 10th ribs were fractured. There was also a deep cut towards the back of the head. Death was due to haemorrhage from intracranial bleeding. The body was almost completely burnt, except the feet, which were covered by his boots. If he had not died from the fracture of his skull, he would have died from the burns.

The preliminary hearing took 18 days. When it ended, 64 of the accused were committed for trial in the High Court. But only 59 actually stood trial before Justice Buttrose on 18 November 1963. The Public Prosecutor decided not to proceed against five: they were stood down.

Never before, in Singapore, had there been such a mammoth trial. A special dock was constructed to accommodate all 59 prisoners. In the crowded Court, over which Justice Murray Buttrose presided, were, in addition to the guards and court officials, 11 counsel, and a jury of seven (all Chinese). Listed as Assize Case No. 68/63 of Twelfth Assizes, 1963, the trial of Tan Kheng Ann (alias Robert, alias Robert Black, alias Ang Chuar), and 58 others, lasted from 18 November 1963-12 March 1964. The Court sat on 64 days. The evidence was recorded in 21 large volumes of typescript, a total of about half a million words.

All 59 prisoners pleaded not guilty. And 44 said nothing in defence: they remained silent. Eleven went into the witness box and made their defence on oath. Three made their defence by unsworn statements from the dock. The Judge took nearly five days to sum up. He ordered the Press not to report anything he said in his summing up until the jury returned with their verdict. The jury retired late in the morning of 11 March 1964. They came back into Court in the afternoon of 12 March 1964. They found 18 guilty of murder 29 guilty of rioting. The rest were found not guilty of murder or rioting and were acquitted though not set free, for they were still under Criminal Law detention.

The Trial

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.

The Summing Up

“You have been told,” observed the Judge, “that it was better that 10 guilty men should go free rather than one innocent man should be convicted. Of course it would be better, but that is not good enough. It is our duty to see that such a situation does not arise. That such a situation should be allowed to exist and to grow and to develop in stature would, in my opinion, constitute a grave reflection on the administration of the criminal jurisprudence of any civilized country. It is, gentlemen of the jury, more than ever necessary in this present day and age that the rule of law should be proclaimed aloud for all to hear: that those who offend against it shall be punished; and those who observe and obey it shall be allowed to live in freedom and security under it.” He reminded them that ‘it is on the evidence and the evidence alone, given before you and nothing else, that you must decide this case’. He told them to dismiss from their minds entirely the question of some of the accused going sick and holding up the proceedings. The accused, ‘having been certified as fit, the trial proceeded and the incident closed. It had nothing to do with the issues with which you are concerned-namely whether the 58 accused are guilty or not guilty of these three charges of murder’.

He explained that there were four main elements of the charge. First, that all the accused were members of an unlawful assembly. Second, that the common objects of that unlawful assembly were to cause the death of Dutton, Singham, Tan Kok Hian, Cartoon, Chia Teck Whee, and others, and to cause the destruction of Pulau Senang. The third is that while these 58 were members of that unlawful assembly, one or more members of the assembly committed murder by causing the death of Dutton, Singham and Tan Kok Hian. The fourth ingredient is 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 objects of that assembly.

The Judge gave an illustration of a common object of an unlawful assembly. “Supposing two persons go out one night to steal a bicycle which they found on the side of the road and, as they were taking it away in the furtherance of their common object to steal, the owner suddenly appears and endeavours to prevent them, and one of them suddenly pulls a gun from his pocket and shoots the owner through the heart and kills him-and you will assume, for the purposes of this illustration that the agreement between the two accused was simply to steal the bicycle and nothing more. Well, then the man who pulled out the gun and shot the owner through the heart would have been exceeding the common intention of the two, which was merely to steal the bicycle. One, therefore would not be guilty of murder, unless it could be shown that they had agreed beforehand that should the owner resist they were prepared to kill him, and had weapons with them to do so.

“What was the common object of this unlawful assembly? Was it merely to riot, attack the prison staff, knock them about, damage a building or two? Or was it rather to wipe Pulau Senang off the map and all it stood for, including those in authority and anyone else who thwarted or opposed this unlawful assembly in achieving this common object, this end? Or was it perhaps, as Major James told us, an act of open and deliberate defiance against the Singapore Government to show that Pulau Senang, and those in authority there, could not contain these police detainees?

What is murder? Murder is committed if the act which caused death is done firstly with the intention of causing death, or secondly with the intention of causing such bodily injury as the accused knew to be likely to cause death, or thirdly with the intention of causing bodily injury sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. Murder may therefore be simply defined as the unlawful killing of one human being by another human being with any of these three intentions-the intention to kill, the intention of causing such bodily injury which the accused knew to be likely to kill, or was sufficient in the ordinary cause of nature to kill.

Every person is presumed to intend the natural and probable consequences of his acts: in other words that he intends to do what in fact he does. If a person for example, deliberately and intentionally slashes at another with a parang, or an axe or a cangkul, on the face or the head or the neck or the chest, or any other vital part of the human body, or fires a pistol at point-blank range at another man’s chest, or pours petrol over someone and sets it alight, you may, I think without difficulty and not unreasonably, arrive at the conclusion that he intended to kill him, or to cause him such bodily injury as he knew to be likely to kill, or was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to kill him. And if in fact the victim dies, then murder has been committed.”

The Judge emphasised the importance of the fourth ingredient of the charge: that murder was an offence which the members of the unlawful assembly knew to be likely to be committed. The expression ‘knew to be likely to be committed’ connoted a knowledge based upon facts known to all members of the unlawful assembly at the time that murder was likely to be committed.

“If in this case the offence of murder was one which the accused knew to be likely to be committed by one or more of them, then it may fairly and properly be imputed to all of them. So it matters not in this case who of these 58 accused struck the blow or blows which killed Dutton, Singham, Tan Kok Hian. If, while they were members of this unlawful assembly, in the prosecution of its common object, Dutton, Singham and Tan Kok Hian were murdered by a member, or members of that unlawful assembly then, if it can be shown that they knew that it was likely that the deaths of these three persons might result, that they were likely to be murdered, then all are equally liable for this offence-all these offences-although they may not have struck a single blow themselves. That is the law, and it constitutes what we call constructive murder, and you must accept my direction on it without question. It is not for you to question the wisdom or otherwise of any provision of the law. You must accept it as I direct you.” The Judge added that what the prosecution had to prove was that there was an unlawful assembly, that the accused were members of it, that they joined this unlawful assembly intentionally, that murder was committed by a member or members of this unlawful assembly while the accused were members of it, and that murder was an offence which the members of this unlawful assembly knew to be likely to be committed in the prosecution of the common objects of the assembly. He reminded the jury that the sole and ultimate responsibility on all questions of fact was theirs and theirs alone. “You, gentlemen of the jury, are as sovereign and supreme in the realm of fact as I am in the realm of law.”

In this case, as in every criminal case, the onus or burden of proof was upon the prosecution to establish the guilt of the accused. “It is an onus or burden which never shifts throughout the whole case. It is never for the accused or any of them to prove their innocence. They are presumed innocent until proved guilty. The prosecution must prove that guilt… ” The degree of proof required was the proof to the satisfaction of a jury beyond reasonable doubt.

Said the Judge: “One fact right at the outset emerges clear and undisputed, and it is this: that this uprising, call it what you will, resulted in the virtual complete destruction of Pulau Senang and the killing of its superintendent and three of the settlement attendants killed with a brutality and a callousness which it is difficult to conceive. One of the remarkable and most astonishing features of this uprising, you may agree with me, was the suddenness of its beginning, the violence and the fury of its execution and the fantastic speed and consequent shortness of time in which all its objectives were accomplished. Within a little over half an hour, Pulau Senang was destroyed, four prison officers killed, a number wounded, some seriously. It was also clear beyond dispute that this destruction and slaughter were caused by some of the police detainees detained at Pulau Senang.”

The Judge recalled that Pulau Senang was started on 18 May 1960 when the first batch of detainees arrived on the island. Dutton, as superintendent, was entrusted with the project which represented a unique and progressive experiment in the prison system development in Singapore. It was to be an open prison with the emphasis on constructive work by the detainees themselves and their rehabi-litation. They were to work and to construct and to see the result of their labour.

Dutton was given a free hand in the choice of the first batch of detainees to go to the island. It was at that time completely virgin jungle. In the years that followed, under Dutton’s drive, the island was developed. Apart from putting up buildings he had certain parts of the island cultivated. That was part of the rehabilitation programme. Livestock was brought on to the island after the first batch of detainees had landed. Subsequent batches arrived at the rate of 30 a month, and on the day of the tragic disaster, the total number of detainees on the island was 316: and there were three long-sentence prisoners.

The detainees spent a minimum of 12 months at Changi before they were sent to Pulau Senang. The period on Pulau Senang varied with each detainee. A Review and Rehabilitation Committee was set up to review cases meriting release once a month, and on an average a detainee would have to spend 12 to 18 months at Pulau Senang before his name came up for review. This committee took the place of the Visiting Justices. Names were submitted by Dutton. If the committee recommended release, the detainee was sent in the first instance to the Work Brigade at Jalan Damai Camp as part of the rehabilitation programme. And from there, if they proved themselves, they gravitated into employment by the Prisons Department in various capacities: some of them as settlement attendants. A detainee who broke the regulations or misbehaved on Pulau Senang was returned to Changi. This all the detainees disliked very much because their previous period of detention was written off and they had to start all over again.

At the commencement of the project, the detainee had to work long and arduous hours in order to get the project underway to construct shelters, accommodation, sleeping quarters, among other things.

Much had been made, the Judge said, about the hard work. “Now hard work never hurt anyone. It is idle hands that turn to mischief, and one of the prime motives of this rehabilitation programme was to physically exhaust them, to keep them working, to keep them from brooding and from thinking and planning or plotting. To keep them at it out in the sun, in the fresh air, and to send them, physically tired, to bed so that they could sleep.”

Major James had said that the word work was unknown to them: it was anathema to them… This was an attempt to show that by hard work and effort they could construct something worthwhile, which they could turn to each other and say: ‘Look at what we have done’, and to stop them from sitting in isolation in a cell, brooding over what they considered to be their unjustified detention. “It was never intended that Pulau Senang should be a holiday camp for tired businessmen, nor yet a picnic island for schoolboys and university students on holidays. It was a prison settlement for persons detained under the provisions of the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Ordinance… ”

The Judge said that the prosecution’s case was that the ensuing wholesale destruction of Pulau Senang, the killing of the four prison staff, ‘stems from the incident of the 13 carpenters who refused to work overtime on that Saturday afternoon’.

The Judge agreed with Major James that it was an ill-advised action on the part of Dutton. “To say that the subsequent action taken by the detainees concerned to avenge what they thought was an injustice was out of all proportion to the occasion is, I think, a masterpiece of understatement.”

Four witnesses said they overheard Tan Kheng Ann, Chia Yuan Fatt and Cheong Wai Sang and two others (all of whom were said to hold high positions in their respective secret societies) plot to kill Dutton on 6 July. Chia told one of the carpenters: “Do not worry. We will settle accounts with Dutton and liquidate him.” “That meeting on 6 July was where this conspiracy to kill Dutton, to carry out some incidents when he was on the island, was first hatched… ”

The defence had described the evidence against the plotters as ‘a tissue of falsehood engendered by spite and by a desire for release’.

The Judge discussed the categories of witnesses called by the prosecution. A large number of them were fellow detainees. There were also ex-detainees who had become settlement attendants ‘who had, so to speak, graduated out from Pulau Senang to the Work Brigade and were then taken back as rehabilitated members of society’. The Judge warned that evidence of fellow detainees, ex-detainees and long-sentence prisoners required careful scrutiny, attention and examination. Their evidence must be considered with care and caution. In some instances, they were members of rival gangs to which some of the accused were members. He warned that the evidence of one accomplice cannot be used to corroborate the evidence of another accomplice.

One witness, Chong Sek Ling, was not in the Judge’s view an accomplice. “He appeared to co-operate with Tan Kheng Ann when the plot to kill Dutton and destroy Pulau Senang was being hatched but only, if you accept his evidence, to obtain information to pass on to Dutton. Thereafter he took no part whatever in the subsequent uprising. The fact that he helped himself to some food in the canteen, is not in my view sufficient to constitute him an accomplice in this crime. That is a matter which you must consider… ”

“Chong Sek Ling said he saw Corporal Choo on the ground and Quek Hai Cheng using his body to cover him and protect him from the blows… Chong then went to the kitchen as he felt certain apparently at that stage that there would be no food that night, and like a sensible man, he said he wanted to equip himself for the long ordeal ahead. He had already, you may think, made a very sound and accurate appraisal of the situation. It is small wonder perhaps that he has risen to the rank of General Headman of Group 18, one of the highest ranks a secret society man can attain. You may think he was a person of considerable resource and initiative who, in any other walk of life, might have well been regarded as an elder statesman, or if at school, a head prefect, and it is a sorry reflection that he should have attained his ambition in the ranks of a secret society.”

The Judge said that the detainees had affection for Chong-trusted him… looked upon him as a sort of elder statesman in their hierarchy of gangsterism. Chong denied he was an informer. He said he was spying on the accused to inform Dutton. He gave his evidence, he told the Court, not in the hope of getting release. He said he had wanted to help Dutton because Dutton was fair in the release of detainees. Dutton gave the detainees equal treatment, ‘rich or poor, influential or uninfluential’. He admitted that the detainees confided in him because they had an affection for him.

The Judge said that Chan Wah and Sim Hoe Seng had climbed to the roof. Chan had chopped a hole with a small axe. Sim poured in the petrol and set it alight. Dutton opened the wire door and rushed out, his clothing on fire, to be confronted by four armed detainees-Chia Yeow Fatt, Lim Tee Kang, Khoo Geok San and Sim Teck Beng. They attacked him. By the time he fell, there were 10 to 20 detainees round him. ‘Let’s bury him near the jetty,’ shouted one. Another was heard to say: ‘Just kill him and set him on fire. Don’t trouble to carry him to the jetty.’

“One witness said that Tan Kheng Ann was well-known to be Dutton’s favourite and he went with Dutton when Dutton did survey work. Everyone suspected Tan to be Dutton’s informer. Now doesn’t that again tie in, in the most remarkable fashion, with Quek Hai Cheng’s evidence of Hoe Hock Hai raising Tan’s hand and saying ‘Don’t misunderstand him. He is not an informer’. Was this not one way in which Tan was vindicating himself to his colleagues who, according to Quek Hai Cheng, all suspected him of being Dutton’s informer, by being perhaps, one of the prime movers in his death? Doesn’t that explain the cry of Lim Kim Chuan? He proved himself-that he was not an informer-by killing Dutton.”

Quek Hai Cheng claimed that when Corporal Choo fell down and Tan Kheng Ann was about to slash him with a parang, Quek threw himself over Corporal Choo’s body to protect him. His reason for doing so was that Corporal Choo was a very nice man, married with children while he himself was a gangster and prepared to sacrifice his life for Corporal Choo. And in his evidence Corporal Choo said that is exactly what he did. He claimed later that he was pretending to attack Tailford while actually trying to ward off the blows being rained on Tailford with a stick.

The Judge remarked that if on 6 July the 13 carpenters had set to work with a will, they could have repaired the moulds on the jetty in about 20 minutes.

Reviewing the defence, the Judge pointed out that 44 of the 58 accused said nothing in their defence; they remained silent; 11 went into the box and made their defence on oath, three made unsworn statements from the dock…

“Now, because an accused person has elected to remain silent or to make an unsworn statement from the dock you must not draw any adverse inference against him. It is a course which the law expressly provides that he may adopt. The proper way, I suggest, to treat the position of an accused remaining silent is this: that the accused is in effect saying to the prosecution: You must prove your case against me. Unless and until you have done this there is nothing for me to answer. And in such a case you are left with the prosecution’s evidence. An accused person who makes an unsworn statement from the dock cannot be cross-examined but the statement is entitled to, and must receive the most careful scrutiny and attention, for it is his defence in accordance with the law.”

Judge Buttrose pointed out that Tan Kheng Ann had been identified by 30 prosecution witnesses. “Their evidence establishes-if you accept it-that he played a prominent, if not (a) major, role in this uprising. He was one of the original plotters, took part in the attacks on Dutton and Singham which resulted in their deaths. The evidence establishes-if you accept it-that he was a leader of this unlawful assembly from start to finish. Of the thirty witnesses only four bore him a grudge. What the prosecution said was that the cumulative effect of the evidence of all thirty witnesses leads you inexorably and inevitably to one conclusion only: that Tan Kheng Ann is guilty of the offences with which he has been charged.”

Chia Yeow Fatt had been identified by nine witnesses, Cheong Wai Sang by 19 witnesses, Lim Tee Kang by 24 witnesses, Khoo Geok San by 21 witnesses, Hoe Hock Hai was identified by 13 witnesses, Peh Guan Hock by six witnesses, Chia Geok Choo by 18 witnesses.

The Judge referred to a comment by Counsel that it was extraordinary that in such a short space of time, a number of weapons could apparently have passed through the hands of one individual. “Well, I suggest one explanation is that they did not keep these weapons in their hands throughout the uprising. They used them as missiles. They flung them at the settlement attendants. So it was not strange that one accused person was seen with perhaps five or six different weapons in his hands at different times.”

Yeow Yew Boon had been identified by five prosecution witnesses, Teng Eng Tay by five, Ong Aik Kwong by 10, Chew Thiam Huat by 10, Heng Lian Choo by five, Lim Teck San by seven, Sia Ah Kow by three. Sim Cheng Tee had made his defence from the witness box. The gist of his defence was that he took no part in the riot. He called two witnesses both of whom saw the accused, but saw no rioting. “Does that not leave you with a sense of unreality?” asked the Judge. (Apparently it did. The jury found Sia guilty of rioting.) Sim Hoe Seng was identified by 18 witnesses, Tan Yin Chwee by seven, Toh Kok Peng by five, Ng Cheng Liong by eight, Sim Teck Beng by seven, and Tan Tian Soo also by seven.

Ang Teck Kee gave evidence on oath. He said he had been a shop assistant. He could not explain why several witnesses identified him as a rioter. (The jury found him guilty.) Chew Yam Meng remained silent. He had been identified by 10 witnesses who said he was one of a group strutting around like victors or conquerors. Tan Lian Choon remained silent. Cheong Kim Seng was identified by three witnesses. Tan Chin remained silent. He had attacked Tailford, according to the evidence. Leow Ah Chai had remained silent. Only one witness had identified him, and the Judge cautioned the jury that if they had any reasonable doubt about the evidence against him they should return a verdict of ‘Not Guilty’. Chia Teck Whee, the witness against him, had said that Leow had been armed with a stick.

If the jury were satisfied that Leow was a member of the unlawful assembly when Dutton and the others were killed ‘then it would be open to you to find him guilty of rioting with deadly weapons, if you are satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that he had been identified correctly by witness Chia, that he was armed as alleged’. The jury decided there was a reasonable doubt and Leow was found ‘Not Guilty’. Yong Ah Chew made an unsworn statement to the effect that he did not riot, though two witnesses said he did (and the jury believed them). Yong said the two witnesses lied. Soh Ah Kang was identified by only one witness, Chia Teck Whee. Again the Judge warned the jury about accepting this evidence (the jury did not: Soh was found ‘Not Guilty’). There were two witnesses against Choy Peng Kwong, four against Heng Boon Leng, two against Teng Ah Kow.

Neo Kim Leong gave evidence on oath. His defence was that he took no part in the riot, but ran off with the others to the jetty. He did not know why he joined them. He never asked why they were running, or what it was all about. He went into the sea because the others did. Sergeant Abdul had given evidence that Neo had been in the front line of the rioters.

Lim Heng Soon gave evidence on oath. He said he had nothing to do with the rioting, he was merely seizing an opportunity to escape in a boat. It was a sudden decision. He found conditions on the island inhuman. The Judge pointed out that one of the men in the boat with Lim had been heard to say earlier the same morning that they planned to kill Dutton and escape by boat.

Ng Pang Leng remained silent. Only one witness said Ng was rioting. Lim Thian Huat also said nothing in his defence. There were two witnesses against him. Cheng Poh Kheng remained silent. Four witnesses testified that he was among those who attacked Dutton.

The Judge referred to the four general witnesses for the defence called by Mr Ball. Two of them were among the thirteen carpenters who refused to work on 6 July. They told the jury they had not mentioned to fellow detainees that they were being sent back to Changi.

“Taking that evidence as it stands at its face value, do you think it likely that they would not, on the probabilities of the matter, tell their fellow detainees? Why shouldn’t they? Isn’t it the most natural thing in the world that they should? Is it conceivable that they would fail to tell them?” The Judge said the object, as he understood it, of these witnesses being called, was to show they had spoken to no one. (A prosecution witness had earlier given evidence that he had overheard several of the accused telling them that the carpenters would be avenged.)

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.

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.”

The following were found guilty of rioting with deadly weapons: ·

Chin Kiong · Yeow Yew Boon · Lim Teck San ·

Teo Han Teck · Aziz bin Salim · Tan Chin ·

Neo Kim Leong · Peh Guan Hock · Teng Eng Tay · Sia Ah Kow · Ng Chuan Puay · Chew Yam Mang · Heng Boon Leng · Chia Geok Choo · Ong Aik Kwong · Chua Hai Imm · Tan Tian Soo ·

Teo Lian Choon

Here again the Judge felt bound, he said, to tell the accused that they were ‘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 demanded before they could be convicted of ‘this charge, or these charges of murder’. Again in his opinion the sentence he was about to pass was inadequate. His hands were tied. The sentence of the Court was that they go to prison for three years.

The following 18 were sentenced to death: · Tan Kheng Ann · Chia Yeow Fatt · Cheong Wai Sang · Somasundram s/o Suptramaniam · Lim Tee Kang · Somasundarajoo s/o Vengdasalam · Lim Kim Chuan · Khoo Geok San · Chan Wah · Hoe Hock Hai · Ponapalam s/o Govindasamy · Chew Seng Hoe · Chew Thiam Huat · Sim Hoe Seng · Ng Cheng Liong ·

Tan Yin Chwee · Sim Teck Beng · Cheng Poh Kheng

The Judge said he could not see how the jury could possibly have arrived at any other verdict than guilty. “Each of you has been convicted of the murder of Dutton and his two assistants. The evidence was established that these murders were committed in circumstances of such utter brutality, ruthlessness and savagery as defies description. It has indeed shaken the whole of Malaysia as accused Hoe Hock Hai was alleged by Chong Sek Ling to have said it would. In addition to these three murders you destroyed Pulau Senang itself in little over half an hour, and you did so with a speed and ferocity well nigh impossible of belief. The time has now come for you to pay the penalty for your dreadful acts. If ever the punishment fitted the crime, this case may be said with fairness and, I think propriety, to provide the outstanding instance. The sentence of the Court upon you is that you be taken from this place to a lawful prison and thence to a place of execution and that you be hanged by the neck until you be dead and may the Lord have mercy on your souls.

The End

The 18 men sentenced to death appealed to the Singapore Court of Appeal and to the Privy Council, but without success. They petitioned the President of the Republic (for Singapore by now had become an independent sovereign state), but this was rejected. Early on the morning of Friday, 29 October 1965 (27 months after Dutton’s murder), they were executed at Changi Jail in batches of three. Three by three, at 10-minute intervals, they took their last short walk from their cells to the death chamber, their faces hooded, their hands tied behind their backs. The first three to step up to the gallows were Tan Kheng Ann (alias Robert Black alias Ang Chuar), Chia Yeo Fatt (alias Botak), and Cheong Wai Sang. The previous evening they had all been served their $5 last meal in their cells. At 3:30 AM, a police car drove up with the warrant of execution for the Director of the Prison, Yeow Koon Poh. Fifteen minutes later, the State Executioner arrived under police escort, and was taken straight to the execution chamber. By this time a whole troop of the reserve unit had been deployed along the road fronting Changi Jail. At 4:30 AM the prison chaplain, the Rev Khoo Siaw Hia of the Methodist Church arrived to say final prayers for the 18 men. They had, he said, been converted to the faith during their last months in jail, and he later produced a letter signed by the 18 condemned men to prove this.

Written in English, this is what the letter said:

Our Dear Rev Khoo Seow Wah. We, Tan Kheng Ann, Chia Yeow Fatt, Chong Wai Sang, Somasundram, Lim Tee Kang, Lim Kim Chuan, Khoo Geok San, Chan Wah, Sumasundrarajoo, Chew Cheng Hoe, Ponapalam, Sim Hoe Seng, Sim Teck Beng, Tan Eng Chwee, Ng Cheng Leong, Hoe Hock Hai, Cheng Poh Kheng, Chew Thiam Huat, do thank you from the bottom of our hearts and the depth of our souls in this humble expression of our dying gratitude for all you have done for us. You were everything to us in our hour of need-friend, adviser, confidant, father, and our unfailing source of strength and inspiration. You were the beacon that guided us to the haven of Jesus Christ. You taught us to have unquestioning faith in God’s Word, and to pray to Him on humbly bended knees to ask for his forgiveness for all the sins and transgressions that we have committed against His Commandments. During these long agonising months of mental torture, of waiting, of hoping, of seeing each hope crumble away till now when we stand at the very brink of death, at the very edge of eternity, you, dear Rev, have given so much of yourself to us in selfless devotion, to receive in return-absolutely nothing! Nothing that is, but the knowledge that you are serving God to the best of your ability and the satisfaction that you derive there from. It is through you that we now look Death in the face with courage and equanimity, for we doubt not God’s promise of forgiveness for past iniquities by the simple act of belief and acceptance. We know that in three and a half hours’ time when we pass from this earth our Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ, will be waiting with open arms to lead us to our new home in the house of our Father. If only every man in this world were like you, dear Rev, what a better place it would be. There would then be no wars, no murders, no covetings, no sins, no prisons, just peace and tranquillity everywhere. It is with a heavy heart that we must now bid thee goodbye, but we know that we shall see thee again one day-in a better place, a better time, a better day. With our dying breath we once again affirm to thee our undying gratitude-gratitude that will transcend even Death itself. Fare thee well, our dear Rev, Yours in Christ… (18 signatures)

It is not known who actually composed this remarkable document, nor whose hand wrote it, but it is most unlikely that any of the 18 men themselves were responsible, though at the time they signed the letter it may indeed have reflected their feelings. Most officials doubted, however, that any of the condemned men had seriously embraced Christianity or expressed any sincere remorse for their actions.

By 6:15 AM, as the sun was coming up, the last man was hanged. The State Coroner made the formal identification of the bodies before they were removed to the General Hospital mortuary to be claimed by relatives. At 8:55 AM, the first nine bodies were brought out in a van marked ‘Prison Industries’. The area around the mortuary was sealed off and remained closed until all the bodies were claimed by the relatives. All 18 men were buried on Sunday afternoon, some in Christian cemeteries. Among those to receive a Christian burial was the gangster believed to have been the ring-leader of the riot-Tan Kheng Ann, alias Robert Black. On his grave his brother, Eddie Tan, erected a magnificent headstone.

For the next five years, Pulau Senang was out of bounds. Then, in August 1968, the Government decided to convert it into a bombing range for the Singapore Armed Forces. Plans to develop the island for economic purposes, as the Prime Minister hoped in 1965, were abandoned.

Though in 1980 secret societies in Singapore were no longer the menace they had been, they still existed. There were still gang murders, gang fights, extortion, stabbings, robberies. It was no secret that prostitutes, small traders, taxi-drivers, amahs, hawkers, could still be threatened to pay for protection. But, as in the past, Europeans were still exempt from their attention. Secret societies and their operations remained essentially an Asian affair.

Why do Orientals join secret societies?

No one seems to know. There have been secret societies in Singapore for more than 150 years but there has never been an authoritative inquiry. In the early days, the societies served a useful purpose in that they protected the new immigrant, helped to find him a job, saw that he was properly buried. Modern secret societies are different: they are gangs, and have been for many years. In the 1970s, the University of Singapore Law Faculty interviewed 100 detainees, and made the astonishing discovery that they were all employed at the time of their arrest. Detainees said they had joined the gangs for a wide variety of reasons including revenge, status, greed for money, excitement, companionship and protection. Their average age was 17.

What sort of human beings were the guilty men of Pulau Senang? ·

Heng Lian Choon, 30-year-old bachelor. He had four years of English education. He was a vegetable seller. He was found guilty of rioting. · Toh Kok Peng, 24-year-old bachelor bachelor and vegetable farmer. He had five years of Chinese education. His father was dead. No previous conviction. Guilty of murder. · Ang Teck Kee, 24-year-old bachelor. He had worked in a pineapple factory, studied up to Standard Six. Guilty of rioting. · Cheong Kim Seng, 23 years old. Unmarried. Chinese-educated. Worked as a goldsmith, then in a foundry. Guilty of rioting. · Yong Ah Chew, 25-year-old bachelor. Worked in a weaving factory, then in printing works. No previous conviction. Guilty of rioting. · Choy Peng Kwong, 23-year-old bachelor. Worked as a labourer for the Singapore Harbour Board. · Teng Ah Kow, 25-year-old bachelor. Father dead, mother without means of support. Worked at a food stall, later in a laundry. No previous conviction. Guilty of rioting. ·

Lim Heng Soon, 24-year-old bachelor with four years of Chinese education. Helped parents in farm work. No previous conviction. Guilty of rioting. · Lim Thiam Huat, 19 years old. Unmarried, orphan. Five years of Chinese education. A mechanic. Guilty of rioting. · Chin Kiong, 24 years old. Four years of Chinese education. Delivery boy. Father a clerk. Mother in mental home. No previous conviction. Guilty of rioting with deadly weapons. ·

Peh Guan Hock, 28 years old bachelor. Unmarried. Chinese-educated. Cement worker. Father dead. No previous conviction. Guilty of rioting with deadly weapons. · Chia Geok Chee, 21-year-old bachelor with widowed mother. Left school at seventeen. Guilty of rioting with deadly weapons. · Yeo Yew Boon, 22-year-old bachelor. Chinese educated. No previous convictions. Guilty of rioting with deadly weapons. · Teng Eng Tay, 23-year-old bachelor. Five years’ English education. Guilty of rioting with deadly weapons. · Ong Aik Kwong, 22-year-old bachelor. Three years’ Chinese education. Guilty of rioting with deadly weapons. Odd-job labourer. No previous conviction. · Lim Teck San, 23-year-old bachelor. Two years’ Chinese education. Mee (noodles) salesman. No previous conviction. Guilty of rioting with deadly weapons. · Sia Ah Kow, 22 years old. Father dead. Two and a half years of Chinese education. Odd-job labourer. Guilty of rioting with deadly weapons. · Chew Yam Meng. 24 years old. Unmarried. Steel worker. Mother very old. Father unable to work. Two years’ Chinese education. Guilty of rioting with deadly weapons. ·

Teo Lian Choon, 27-year-old bachelor. Father dead. Six years’ Chinese education. Factory worker. Guilty of rioting with deadly weapons. · Tan Chin, 23-year-old bachelor. Father dead. Born in China, came to Singapore at the age of 12. Paint sprayer. No previous conviction. Guilty of rioting with deadly weapons. · Heng Boon Leng, 21 years old. Unmarried. Parents dead. Grandmother in hospital. Six years English education, odd-job man. No previous conviction. Guilty of rioting with deadly weapons. · Neo Kim Leong, 30 years old, married with three daughters. No education. Helped grandmother on poultry farm. Guilty of rioting with deadly weapons. · Teo Han Teck, 23-year-old seaman. Single. Orphan. Guilty of rioting with deadly weapons. · Tan Yim Chwee, 20 years old. Single. Father died when he was seven. Mother mad. Left school when he was 10. Guilty of murder. · Teo Han Teck, 23 years old, a seaman, was guilty of rioting with deadly weapons. ·

Aziz bin Salim, 23 years old, was English-educated. His father, until his death 10 years earlier, had been a cinema manager. Aziz’s relatives were all in good positions. Aziz was educated up to Senior Cambridge level. He was guilty of rioting with deadly weapons. · Chua Hai Imm was a cobbler. His mother was a schizophrenic. He was guilty of rioting with deadly weapons.

Why Did The Experiment Fail?

Why did this magnificent experiment fail? Is there a simple explanation? Here was a thoughtful, sincere, well-planned attempt to help unfortunates, a scheme to help young men from broken homes, most of them, persons without the comfort, the restraining influence, of family life, to turn away from crime and to re-enter decent society. Were the ‘scum of Singapore’, as Major James contemptuously described them, utterly beyond help? Were they, for their own reasons, character flaws perhaps, outside the scope of rescue? Could they never be brought back into normal society? Must they forever remain outside? Was the destruction of Pulau Senang evidence of a common intent to demonstrate to the authorities the gangsters’ rejection of this attempt to help them? Or was it, as defence counsel suggested, a terrible example of what could happen when men, justifiably or otherwise, feel that they have been goaded too far? Had they reached the limit of human tolerance? Some witnesses said that the gangsters had been disgusted with allegations of corruption among officials on the island. But this had not been proven, and in any case, corruption, even if true, could hardly be considered a primary reason for gangsters to riot.

Might it have been a contributory factor? After all, it is said that even gangsters expect a certain code to be observed. Is there honour among gangsters as there is supposed to be among thieves?

Sociologists and others have written a great deal about mob behaviour, but many important questions still remain unanswered. For example, it is generally accepted that mob hysteria is usually without logic, yet some mob activity clearly has definite purpose, as apparently the riot on Pulau Senang had a common purpose. This was to destroy all that had been built on the island, and to kill Dutton and others. Why did they want to do this? That is the question which has no satisfactory answer. Some mob activity seems to be without common purpose, except to destroy. What, for instance, except a senseless urgent desire to destroy, transforms an excited group of football fans into a howling mob of wanton destroyers determined to smash everything useful or beautiful within reach-to break chairs, mutilate mirrors, trample on paintings, tear material, rip out telephones, overturn cars, kick in doors, set fire to homes… to scream and destroy? What underlying motive releases this mad, dark passion, this frantic wish to destroy, which the experts tell us, is hidden somewhere deep inside every human being? What is this urge which, suddenly released, swiftly changes even normal decent people into raging beasts capable of the most hideous of crimes? Within seconds an ordinary person can become a rioter, a hooligan, a murderous barbarian. In a flash the stark truth is revealed that nothing but a thin veneer separates civilized man from raging beast.

Terrible tempers can be quickly aroused. Fortunately they cannot be long-sustained. At Pulau Senang, less than an hour was needed to drain all the savagery from the parang — wielding gangsters. By then they had achieved their common purpose. Dutton was dead. Pulau Senang was in ruins. Emotionally exhausted, drained of fury, the mobsters waited docilely for the retribution which they must have known would inevitably follow. Meekly, they marched away under armed escort to meet their fate, leaving behind the unanswered question: why did they want to destroy Pulau Senang?

Major James held the view that the riot was organized so that the detainees could go free. First they would have to destroy the settlement. Dutton had to be killed because he was the hated symbol of government and also because he was the only man they knew to be capable of rebuilding Pulau Senang. With Dutton dead and the place destroyed, everyone on the island would have to be released. There was nowhere to put them. All the jails in Singapore were crammed full. They would have to be freed.

This infantile reasoning might well be the correct explanation-the common logical outcome-of the riot. This is what the rioters might have believed, but there was no evidence at the trial to support this theory. Witnesses spoke of a conspiracy to kill Dutton and other officials and certain informers and alleged favourites of Dutton’s. There was talk of a list of men to be murdered. But not a scrap of evidence was forthcoming to back up Major James’ contention that the real purpose of the riot was to bring freedom to all detained on the island.

When, in France in 1789, an angry, hungry mob captured the Bastille (the French symbol of tyranny), they destroyed it. They killed the governor and released all the prisoners held in this state prison. They had an understandable reason for rioting: their common purpose was to overthrow tyranny. Pulau Senang rioters seemed to lack any such obvious motive. Counsel suggested the riot was a manifestation of what happens to pent-up human emotion, when, tolerance exhausted, it boils over. Driven beyond human endurance by overwork, short rations, and inhuman conditions, they could restrain themselves no longer. They rose against then-oppressors, not caring about the consequences. They could not suffer more.

I saw no evidence of this during my visit to the island shortly before the riot. I saw half-naked, sun-tanned men working in the blazing sun. I saw them in the canteen eating and laughing and talking. I saw nobody being forced to work. All the detainees looked to me to be healthy and fit. None appeared to be undernourished. One of the detainees came up to me whilst I was taking photographs. In Malay, he asked me if I recognized him. I said I did not. He said I should because he had been my golf caddy for many months and had carried my clubs during lots of games with the Prime Minister and other cabinet ministers. None of us at the time, of course, ever suspected that my caddy was a secret society gangster. On the island I hardly recognized my old caddy. He had filled out. Work in the open air had improved him physically. He looked fitter, stronger. He laughed when I said that Pulau Senang had done him good. He had no hard feelings. He said he had been a gang-leader’s personal bodyguard until the PAP came into power and started their onslaught on the gangs. We chatted about old times, and he reminded me of some of the bad strokes I made and the Prime Minister’s tendency to chop the ball when driving. Here was at least one detainee who did not find conditions on the island inhuman. He was not suffering from overwork. He farmed and he liked the work. Nobody pestered him, he said, and the grub was alright, ‘but not enough of it’. I smiled and remarked that there never was, and he chuckled and nodded. We were alone. With Dutton’s permission I had wandered off on my own. He said I could take photographs so long as nobody objected. Nobody did. Most of them offered to pose. I can say with all honesty that during my visit, which lasted several hours, (I lunched with Dutton and James in the hut where Dutton was to meet his death), none of the detainees gave me the slightest hint that they were working in inhuman conditions, or that they were fast approaching the limit of their endurance. On the contrary, they gave me the impression that this was a happy island. There was certainly no visible evidence to support belief that the detainees were being forced to do something they hated doing.

Could I have deceived myself? According to evidence at the trial even while I was on the island men were plotting the riot. Had I failed to detect their seething discontent? Had I been biased? I was a friend of Dutton’s and James’ and willing to believe all they told me. Was the riot, in fact, a sudden release of pent-up festering discontent, a sudden surge of uncontrollable hatred and rage? Was the riot, after all, a sudden impulse without common purpose, possessed of nothing more than the same inner fire which motivates the senseless destructiveness of football fans on the rampage? Recalling my visit to the island I asked myself these questions.

Were the rioters of Pulau Senang men with bitter grievances, humiliated, tortured beyond control? Or were the men suddenly inflamed with mob hysteria which knows no reasoning and is of itself a self-generating, rapidly spreading flame? Nothing is more contagious than mob hysteria. Is this what happened? Or were the rioters of Pulau Senang hungry, oppressed men storming their Bastille? If they were not, what were they? Why did they destroy Pulau Senang? Did they really believe that once Pulau Senang was razed to the ground, Dutton murdered, they would be set free? Surely only children could believe this sort of fantasy? But these rioters were not normal persons: they were gangsters, outcasts: few of them were capable of much logical thought: they lived in a world of their own, believing what they wanted to believe.

When the signal was heard, they seized their weapons and in a mob marched against authority. Did they believe then that they were marching towards freedom? If not, what did they think they were doing? Did they think at all about what would happen after they had killed and destroyed? In certain circumstances, great concords of men can easily be led. History had recorded many occasions of a single man arousing a huge murderous mob. That is why the law says that any assembly of at least three persons can be a riot if they have a common purpose which they intend to achieve by force and violence. The ring-leaders at Pulau Senang knew their immediate objective. They might even have expected certain consequences. Did most of the others? What I am trying to fathom is whether this riot was a protest against the experiment as such, or whether it was a protest against authority. In other words did the experiment fail because it had an inherent flaw, or did it collapse because of a riot against authority? Did the project ever stand a chance of success, or was this an experiment which was bound to fail, sooner or later?

The late Professor Tom Elliott, a member of the sub-committee which conceived the Pulau Senang concept told me, long after the trial, (I made a note at the time), that he had come to the conclusion that the very success of the project had defeated its objectives. He said that the basic idea had been to lead men back to decent society by proving to them that creative work was more satisfactory, more worthwhile, than gangsterism. At Pulau Senang the creative work had almost ended: work had become routine. “To be successful there must be continuous pioneering effort. Men who did work hard and had proved to themselves and to authority that the basic ideas of Pulau Senang were right, had returned to normal society. They left Pulau Senang, leaving the bad stuff behind,” said Elliott sadly. “These incorrigibles influenced the newcomers. Ideally, there should have been several islands to be worked. Once Pulau Senang has passed the pioneering stage, the settlement should have been institutionalized. Pulau Senang had stopped being a pioneering effort. It had become an accomplished fact, with roads and rules. Detainees were demanding regular hours of work, more leisure facilities. There was ample time for discontent, complaints and conspiracy. In this atmosphere, intrigue led to plotting.” That, in his view, was why the experiment failed. Yet to the end, Professor Elliott continued to believe in the principle of the experiment. He was convinced gangsters could be, and should be, helped to become decent citizens. This was not an opinion shared entirely by Major James. James thought that most gangsters had a serious character flaw, otherwise they would not become members of a secret society. Most of them were beyond redemption and should be kept away from the rest of society.

We will probably never know why Pulau Senang exploded that sunny afternoon. The truth lies buried somewhere in the ruins. We shall never know for sure why the experiment failed. There is Major James’ explanation. There are other theories. Why did they kill and destroy? Reflecting upon the, to me, utter senselessness of the riot, (for the rioters must have realised there was no escape from inevitable punishment, though a few hoped to swim to freedom, or of getting to Indonesia by boat), I am inclined to favour the belief that the forty-minute murder and destruction was not a violent effort to free everyone on the island, but a deliberate attempt by the secret society leaders to prove publicly that they, not Dutton or the government he represented, controlled their members. The government could order gangsters to build, to create. They did. Pulau Senang became a showpiece. But the gang-leaders could order them to destroy and they would be obeyed. In this way, the gang-leaders could prove that their hold over them was absolute, even when they were all under detention. That was why the gang-leaders ordered Dutton and the others to be killed, Pulau Senang to be destroyed. That was why they ordered their men to smash and burn what they had sweated to create. Like automatons, the secret society gangsters, sworn to obey, raised their weapons and attacked. Less than an hour was needed: Dutton’s mutilated body lay amid the debris. A blood stained shirt fluttered from a pole, an emblem of victory. Still clutching their weapons, they strutted like prize cockerels. Others sang and danced in celebration.

Those who organized the riot (and undoubtedly it was organized: it was not an impulsive gesture), might have argued that the punishment which would follow could not be much worse than what they were already suffering. What could the authorities do to them? Not much, except to throw them back into jail. The Government could not hang them all for Dutton’s death. No one need suffer if they all stuck together, as obedient secret society members, remembering their oaths, were supposed to behave. No government, they might have muttered during their whispered conspiracy, would dare to hang them all. If they thought along these lines, they were wrong on two points. Faced with death, strong men wilted: secret society discipline faltered and crumbled. For various personal reasons some of the mob talked to save their skins. Others followed. That was one point. The other was that they completely misunderstood the mood of the Government. This was a government fully prepared to use the due process of the law to hang them all, every single one of them, providing an impartial judge and jury were satisfied that they were members of that illegal assembly.

Soon after election to office, this new, inexperienced, fearless government had announced its determination to stamp out secret societies. The Government said they were prepared to meet the challenge head on. They knew there was no alternative if they, and not the mobs, were to govern Singapore. The full weight of the law would be used to crush them. If the law demanded that all 300-odd detainees must die for the murder of Dutton and his colleagues: they would die. Nobody doubted the Government’s firm resolve when, in due course, 71 suspects stood before the magistrate, charged with murder.

What did the government believe caused the experiment to fail? No formal statement was ever issued. Soon after the riot, the government announced that a high court judge would hold an inquiry. Wiser counsel prevailed: plans to hold an inquiry were abandoned when it was decided to bring charges against those detainees believed to be implicated in the affair. No attempt was made to resuscitate Pulau Senang. Eventually the Government decided to make the ‘Isle of Ease’ a target for the bombs of the airforce and the shells of the army. Devious minds wondered if this decision was a deliberate reflection of the attitude of a wiser, more experienced, government towards the experiment that failed: an expression which said that in certain circumstances, efforts to rehabilitate can be wasteful if not useless, that some things, some people, can never be changed, and realism in the world in which we have to live, demands that when society is challenged by gangsters, domestic or international, the government of the day must be prepared, if necessary, to meet force with force.

My own view is that while this might well have been the belief of a realistic government, by now much learned in the ways of secret societies, it had nothing to do with their decision to turn Pulau Senang into a bombing and firing range. That was not meant to be a sign that the Government had forever abandoned attempts to restore gangsters to normal lives. This goes on all the time in different ways. True, Pulau Senang failed, but not all had been lost in that hour of destruction. For those concerned with the problem of rehabilitating gangsters, the island experiment must have provided much useful, if tragically costly, information, (not all of it of negative value), which need not be wasted. There will be other experiments. I refuse to believe that Daniel Dutton died in vain.

Dutton died a terrible death trying to prove that evil men could be brought back to conventional life through hard work. He did not succeed with his experiment and he paid for failure with his life. His mistake was not in his handling of the experiment so much as his inability to understand how evil some wicked men can be. Dutton took no precautions against his own idealism. Until the end he wanted desperately to believe that the better bad-men on the island would restrain the evil bad-men. He was convinced the good bad-men would stand by him, protect him. He was wrong. By believing that, Dutton signed his own death warrant. He should have known that mob hysteria causes men to sink to the lowest level, rarely to rise to the nobler levels of human behaviour.

Content

Alex Josey
Cold blooded murders

THE PERFECT CRIME Pulau Dua or the Sisters Islands

The Inquiry

The Trial: Case For The Prosecution

Summing Up

The Appeal

Psychopath

The Perfect Murder

Introduction

Daniel Button’s Belief

The Experiment

Criticism

Destruction

Retribution

The Trial

The Summing Up

The End

Why Did The Experiment Fail?