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
