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
