Blood Lust Read online

  Gui Liat Kok: I deny that.

  Counsel: Your case is simply this: the account is in my name, so the gold is mine?

  Gui Liat Kok: Yes. I should add the gold was bought with family funds. Therefore, the gold belongs to the family.

  Counsel: Is it not a fact that you personally have not received one single bank statement in relation to that account?

  Gui Liat Kok: That is correct.

  Counsel: Is it not a fact that you did not go to inspect this account before this inquiry—before 9 September 1974?

  Gui Liat Kok: That is correct.

  Counsel: Is it not a fact that even at this stage you are not able to point to a sum of money belonging to your family in this account?

  Gui Liat Kok: That is correct.

  Counsel: Is it not a fact that you personally have not a shred of evidence to prove that this gold was bought with your family money?

  Gui Liat Kok: I believe what my brother told me. He told me he had bought the gold with the money.

  Counsel: That is the only evidence you have?

  Gui Liat Kok: Before Ngo’s death, my elder brother told me he was going to make use of a portion of the family fund to buy gold.

  Counsel: That is all?

  Gui Liat Kok: Yes.

  Counsel: Did he ever tell you how much?

  Gui Liat Kok: A million Hong Kong dollars.

  Counsel: Did he tell you the purpose for using a million Hong Kong dollars to buy the gold?

  Gui Liat Kok: He told me the gold would be used as a reserve fund, because it was safer to keep gold than money.

  Counsel: Did you know the gold bars were about to be shipped to Vietnam?

  Gui Liat Kok: No.

  Counsel: If the gold was on its way to Vietnam it could not possibly be your brother’s gold?

  Gui Liat Kok: All I know is that my brother told me he was buying gold. I do not know which particular lot it was. My brother told me that the 120 gold bars for which Ngo was murdered had been purchased by family funds.

  Counsel: It is possible that your brother assumed the gold was his when in fact it was not?

  Gui Liat Kok: I suggest these questions be put to my brother.

  Counsel: Is it not a fact that anyone can buy gold in Hong Kong?

  Gui Liat Kok: Yes.

  Counsel: Is it not a fact that the price of gold in Hong Kong is slightly lower than the price of gold in Singapore?

  Gui Liat Kok: I do not know.

  Counsel: Is it not apparent that if your brother in Hong Kong wanted to buy gold for financial security he would have bought the gold in Hong Kong?

  Gui Liat Kok: I do not question my brother about business transactions.

  Counsel: Is it not a fact that gold can only be bought in Singapore for export within four hours?

  Gui Liat Kok: I do not know the regulations.

  Counsel: Is it not a fact that there is no point in exporting gold from Singapore to Hong Kong?

  Gui Liat Kok: I have no experience of how this business is done.

  Counsel: Ngo was engaged in transferring gold from Singapore to Vietnam because there was a black market in Vietnam. If you and your brother were interested in gold would you not sell it in Vietnam because there is a black market there?

  Gui Liat Kok: I do not believe it would be done in that manner.

  Counsel: You are not interested in the black market?

  Gui Liat Kok: No.

  Counsel: The account is all about black market?

  Gui Liat Kok: I do not know how Ngo operated my account.

  Counsel: Had you suspected that Ngo was operating on the black market you would have stopped it?

  Gui Liat Kok: Yes.

  Gai Tian Sung, giving evidence in Hokkien, said he was Gui Liat Kok’s elder brother. Gai said he lived in Hong Kong and was also known as Wee Tian Sung. He had four other brothers. They lived in Amoy, China. He had known Ngo when he was 14 in Amoy. He was then 57. He was basing his claim for the 120 gold bars on his remittance from Hong Kong of US$157,000 on 28 December 1970 and a further remittance of US$35,000 on 29 December 1970 to the UOB in Singapore to buy gold. The money was remitted by telegraphic transfer through the Hong Kong Bank Ltd. This bank would remit the American dollars to Singapore through an American bank known as Crockers.

  Why did he buy gold in Singapore rather than in Hong Kong? Gai explained that in Hong Kong gold is 99th of a 100th per cent pure, whereas in Singapore it is 999th of a 1000th pure. There was little difference, he said, in price.

  In reply to a question by counsel, Mr Gai said he knew the 120 gold bars were destined for him in Hong Kong. Previous consignments had passed through Vietnam on their way to Hong Kong. When he came to Singapore for Ngo’s funeral, Mrs Ngo confirmed to him that the gold was to have been sent to him in Hong Kong through Vietnam.

  On 4 February 1975, the magistrate, Mr John Lee, ruled that his Court did not have the jurisdiction to hear an inquiry into the disposal of the gold bars and the seized money. He reached his decision after hearing submissions from the DPP, Mr Jeffrey Chan and counsel for the claimants. He ordered that the 120 gold bars and the $32,550 be returned to the police for disposal in accordance with an order from the High Court.

  What happened finally to the gold bars for which three gold merchants were murdered and seven men hanged?

  In July 1980, they were still in the legal possession of the police, lodged for safekeeping in the Treasury vaults. And there they were likely to remain ‘until such time as they are disposed of in accordance with the law’.

  And the tenth man—Augustine Ang Cheng Siong, who told all to save his neck? He is still in jail, but will probably be released, to live with his troubled conscience, after a few more years.

  Missing Money

  ON 9 NOVEMBER 1979, INSPECTOR OH CHYE BEE, then aged 33, was charged in a magistrate’s court with criminal breach of trust. He was alleged to have been entrusted with $3,550 in his capacity as an inspector in the Singapore Police Force, on 6th March 1975. The money had been seized in the course of the murder of Ngo, Leong and Ang. Oh, now attached to the Organized Crime Branch, claimed trial.

  Inspector Oh appeared before Senior District Judge Michael Khoo on 5 May 1980. Special Investigator Yeo Peng Soon said that the $3,550 was part of the $32,550 seized by the police during the investigations into the Gold Bars: Triple Murder Case. The money was missing when the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau studied the papers in 1979. Oh was charged with misappropriating the money. Yeo said he discovered the loss on 25 April 1979 after he had studied the files following an interview with Oh in connection with a corruption case.

  In his statement to the Bureau, Oh said that while he was attached to the CID’s Special Investigation Section, he was the only one authorised to have access to the exhibits. But after his transfer in mid-1972, the authority, he said, was vested in other officers in the section. Oh related how after an inquiry in November 1974 (concerning the disposal of the 120 gold bars and the $32,550 seized) was abandoned following a magistrate’s ruling that he had no jurisdiction over the matter, the solicitor for one of the claimants wrote to the Attorney-General’s Chambers claiming the money. Oh said that on the instructions of Deputy Public Prosecutor, Mr Jeffrey Chan (now a magistrate) he took the money from the SIS and went to see Mr Chan on 6 March 1975. Oh said Mr Chan told him then that as he was expecting further instructions, Oh should keep the money meanwhile in a fixed deposit in Oh’s name, and that any interest be donated to the Poor Box. Oh said that when he went to the Tanjong Pagar branch of the Chartered Bank that day he forgot about two smaller envelopes in which the $3,550 were kept. So he decided to deposit the balance of $29,000 which was in a large envelope as it was already nearly closing time. He said he subsequently wrote to Mr Chan stating that he had complied with the instructions and also forwarded a copy of the receipt for the $29,000 deposited. In his statement, Oh said: “I held the remaining $3,550 in my custody on my own initiative because it was a small sum. I was then
attached to Police Headquarters and I kept the money in a filing cabinet to which only I had the key.”

  Oh went on to say that Mr Chan instructed him to release the $29,000 to the claimant’s solicitors in May 1975, but did not tell him what to do with the $3,550 in his custody. Oh said that so far as he could remember, he handed the $3,550 to an officer in the SIS but he could not recall what he had done with the receipt given by the officer.

  ***

  Assistant Supt. Ranjit Singh, a prosecution witness, testified that when he took over as head of SIS in November 1976, he had also taken over all the items which were kept in the SIS safe. He received a total of 31 items relating to 17 cases, but none of the items were exhibits from the gold bars case.

  Mr Chan on oath denied he had instructed Inspector Oh to put the money in fixed deposit in the inspector’s name. Mr Chan testified that by the time the claimant’s solicitors wrote to the Attorney-General’s Chambers, it was clear that the claimant had a valid claim for at least $29,000. Asked by Oh’s counsel whether the reason for initially putting the money in a fixed deposit was that he wanted to generate interest for the Poor Box, Mr Chan replied that he could not now recall how the question arose. But he recalled it was more the question of easy availability of the money that was discussed. The question of interest was to the best of his knowledge, incidental. Asked if it would not have been easier to retain the money and then release it to the solicitors, Mr Chan recalled that the solicitor had asked for a cheque, and he had confirmed in writing that payment would be by cheque. Mr Chan said that because of the long time which had elapsed and the many discussions he had with Oh, he could not remember most of what happened then. Mr Chan said he never instructed Oh to put the money on fixed deposit in Oh’s name. “So far as I was concerned, I took it that he would deposit the money in accordance with whatever regulations that governed this.” Mr Chan could not recall asking Oh about the balance of $3,550.

  On 7 May 1980, Inspector Oh was acquitted. Senior District Judge, Michael Khoo, said that the prosecution had failed to prove that Inspector Oh did not hand the money over to the then head of the SIS, Deputy Superintendent T.C. Perreau. Mr Khoo, however, stressed that his finding was not in any way to be interpreted as casting any aspersion on the integrity of Perreau. Perreau died in 1977. The Judge said that in his statements, Inspector Oh had defended himself by saying he had handed over the money to the proper officer, Perreau. “The onus in this case lies not on him to prove that he had handed over the money, but on the prosecution that he had not done so. Until this is proved, a presumption of misappropriation or criminal breach of trust does not arise ... it is for the prosecution to establish by definite and clear evidence that the case for the defence is untrue.” The Judge said that it was unfortunate that Perreau had died, but in any event this had the same effect for both the prosecution and the defence. The prosecution was unable to prove that Inspector Oh did not hand over the money, while the defence could not substantiate its claim that the money was given. The Judge pointed out that if he accepted the prosecution’s case as reasonable and called the defence, and Inspector Oh elected to remain silent without calling witnesses, he would have to convict Oh. “This, I find, I will be unable to do in all the circumstances of the case and on the evidence before me.” He ordered Inspector Oh to be acquitted.

  The Overlords

  Charged with being a member of a notorious heroin-smuggling gang operating in Singapore, Malaysia and London, May Wong in December 1976 pleaded guilty. She explained that she had infiltrated the gang, the Overlords, in an effort to track down the men behind the murder of her father in Singapore.

  She confessed that she became an essential operator in the gang’s drug network in London. Between 250 and 900 drug addicts depended upon her for regular supplies. Within seven months of her arrival in Britain early in 1975, May was banking £9,000 (S$37,500) a day. She lived extravagantly. One report said that her dresses cost an average of $300 and were exclusively designed. She had only a few pieces of jewellery, but these were very expensive. Her lover owned Saville Row-tailored suits. He wore Pierre Cardin shoes. On his wrist was a solid gold watch.

  On 26 October 1976, May walked into a police trap at Heathrow Airport when she returned from a visit to Singapore. She was charged with conspiring with others to bring £500,000 worth of heroin into Britain. She pleaded guilty. She spent 15 months on remand in Holloway Prison.

  After their arrest, May and her lover, Li Jaafar Mah, collaborated with the police. Li Jaafar Mah led the police to an unoccupied flat in North London which they had used as a warehouse to stock heroin. The police found £700,000 worth of the drug and two automatic pistols with ammunition. Two red account books in which May methodically kept day-to-day records of heroin sales and the names of purchasers were also seized by the police. These led to the arrest of her street-pushers and small-time dealers. This did not result in the collapse of the gang. May Wong was no more than a wholesaler working for the unknown Overlords who were extremely efficiently organised. May Wong and her distributors dropped out. Others would take their places. Heroin-smuggling is a profitable business. May is believed to have earned more than $300,000 in her few months as a heroin wholesaler in London.

  “Born,” as the Judge said, “with a golden spoon in her mouth, expensively educated in the best schools in Britain,” May Wong turned her back on her husband and three children to become, in the words of the prosecution, ‘little less than an assassin’ through the sale of heroin. Why? Vengeance—so she said. She believed that others had masterminded her father’s killing. Only their ‘hirelings’ had been punished. From her own source in Penang she learned that the Overlords (a Malaysia-Singapore crime organization) knew the identities of those behind her father’s murder. She discovered that an all-girl crime group known as the Butterfly Gang (they had a butterfly tattooed on the inside of their upper thighs), operating in a nightclub in Singapore, had links with the Overlords. She decided to make contact with the Butterflies. She began work in the nightclub as a hostess. Several months later she was accepted as a member of the gang and sent on heroin-delivery errands to contacts in London and Amsterdam.

  Then May met Mah in Singapore; he was four years her junior. He worked for the Overlords. He owed them $125,000 and was distributing heroin for them to repay the debt. The organization decided that May should become a distributing agent in London. Mah went with her.

  She was in Singapore when Mah was picked up by the police. They trapped her into returning and she was arrested at the airport. A newspaper report said that except for cursing the police in foul language for tricking her, May remained calm and controlled. When she was being interrogated later, she laughed and joked with the police. One policeman said that there was no mistaking May as the boss of operations. “She is as hard as nails, cold and ruthless. When the others, including Mah, were buckling under the shattering experience of being arrested, May remained cool and smiling. Unlike the others who were worried and asked about the number of years they could expect to serve in jail, May hardly asked any questions.”

  May sobbed uncontrollably in the dock when her counsel, Mr J.P. Harris, QC, told her story in his plea for leniency. He revealed that May had never been able to penetrate the inner circle of the Overlords in her efforts to find out who ordered her father’s murder. Counsel said: “When May left for Singapore in October before her arrest, she had come to a point where she felt she could go no further in the investigations. She had never meant to return to London, or to continue her heroin distribution there anymore and had taken, without Mah’s knowledge, almost all her valuable belongings with her back to Singapore.”

  He submitted that it was because she was concerned about the welfare of Mah (pretending to be a friend of May’s, the police had telephoned her to say that Mah had been involved in a serious accident), that she had returned to London, to walk into the police trap. “Concerned about Mah?” said the sceptical police. “Nonsense. She was worried about the her
oin stored at her warehouse. The woman is ruthless. The heroin meant money to her. She didn’t know that Mah had already told us where the warehouse was.”

  Did May Wong (her full name was Wong Shing Mooi), fabricate the entire story of her penetration of the Overlords, or was there a grain of truth in it? If it was sheer invention, why did she create it? The best explanation seems to be that May knew she would get a long prison sentence unless she could convince the Judge that all her wicked activities had been motivated by a loving daughter’s determination to bring the real murderers of her father to justice. To find them she was willing even to leave her husband and children and to become a nightclub hostess and even to dabble in heroin!

  Wisely, her counsel did not dwell upon all this in his plea for clemency. Briefly he told the story of the life of this beautiful, ruthless woman. He said that Wong, mother of two, aged 10 and three, and an adopted daughter, aged six, came from a wealthy Hong Kong family who settled in Singapore in 1960. Born in Selangor, she had been educated both in Singapore and at Roedean, an exclusive girls’ school in England. When her grandmother died she was told to return to Singapore, where she sat for her ‘O’ level examinations. Then she went back to London to attend a finishing school in Kensington. In London she attended a modelling school. On her return to the Far East she opened her own boutique and a beauty culture and modelling school in Penang. She married in 1966. Her husband was a business executive.

  Mr Harris said that May Wong’s ‘stranger than fiction’ story began on 29 December 1971 when her father, a bullion dealer and merchant, and two of his assistants were murdered by members of the ‘Gang of Overlords’. Seven of the nine murderers had been hanged in Singapore. After her father’s death, May and her mother (according to Wong) had received anonymous telephone threats. One kidnap attempt was made on her family.

  While working in her beauty salon, May said she heard stories of girl couriers being employed by the Overlords to bring heroin into Amsterdam. She suspected the same gang was involved in masterminding the murder of her father. So she left her husband, giving him the excuse that she wanted to stay with her mother in Singapore. In Singapore, May became a hostess in a nightclub because she hoped her work would bring her into contact with people who could give her more information about the Overlords.