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
