Blood Lust Read online

  In an effort to emphasise that he was involved in what he believed to be a kidnapping, not a murder plot, David told the Court that the man he helped carry to the car tried to free himself and groaned.

  The danger of the family waking up during the attack upon the three men was one possibility for the failure of the plot (whether murder or kidnapping). Another was the fact that the three men with the gold arrived in two cars, one a white Mercedes, the other a Volkswagen. They were parked outside Chou’s house in Chepstow Close. The car which brought the gangsters, a Cortina, was also nearby. Though Chepstow Close was a very quiet area, it was unlikely that this concentration of cars would go unnoticed. It did not. Chou’s next door neighbours, Shirley Lim Yew Neo and her husband, returned from the cinema at 12:30 am. The bodies of the three murdered men were lying in Chou’s backyard. David called ‘Good evening’ to her as she was opening her door. She saw Andrew talking to a group of men. She was not to know then that they were grouped around the bodies of three murdered men. She noticed the white Mercedes and the Volkswagen.

  The trial of the Chou brothers and seven others took 40 days. The evidence came to 17 volumes running into 4,083 foolscap pages. On Friday, 1 December 1972, Mr A.W. Ghows, the Solicitor-General, made his final submission. He submitted to the two Judges, who sat without a jury, that all nine should be found guilty as charged. The tenth man was Augustine Ang Cheng Siong, Andrew Chou’s close friend. He confessed to the police that he had been an accomplice from the outset and had taken part in the murderous attack on the three men. To save his own life, he had turned State evidence. The police thereupon decided to withdraw the murder charges against him, and Ang was discharged. The discharge did not amount to an acquittal, it being the law that a magistrate’s court has no power to grant an acquittal in such circumstances. Ang was promptly arrested under another law which permits the Government to hold suspected gangsters without trial indefinitely.

  The two Judges, Justice Chua and Justice Choor Singh did not take long to make up their minds. On Friday, at the close of counsel’s submissions, they announced that they would give their verdict the following Monday morning. They accepted Augustine Ang’s evidence. They said he was a truthful witness. Accordingly, the Judges convicted all nine accused. Seven were sentenced to death. Two youths escaped the death penalty because they were under 18 years old when the murders were committed. They were ordered to be detained at the President’s pleasure.

  In their Grounds of Judgement, published later, the Judges said: ‘After considering all the evidence we did not believe the story of each of the nine accused. We also considered the case against each accused separately in the light of his defence. Their defence did not create a reasonable doubt in our minds as to the strength of the case for the prosecution nor as to the guilt of each of the accused. We were convinced that Augustine Ang was speaking the truth. His story runs true when considered in the light of the rest of the evidence and the surrounding circumstances. Andrew Chou was, without doubt, the prime mover of the conspiracy because without him there would have been no gold to rob. Augustine Ang was merely Andrew’s errand boy and was all the time acting under his orders. David Chou was in charge of operations, while Peter Lim Swee Guan was the person who recruited the ‘boys’.”

  Together with Augustine Ang, Andrew Chou, his brother and Peter Lim were the principal conspirators to kill the gold dealer and his two assistants for their gold. The Judges said they had no difficulty in coming to the conclusion that the common object of all nine accused was to kill the three men.

  The only witness whose evidence implicated all the accused was Augustine Ang, Andrew Chou’s long-time friend. He was a self-confessed murderer and was undoubtedly an accomplice. “We looked to see if there was corroborative evidence which confirmed in some material particular not only the evidence of Augustine Ang that the crime or crimes were in fact committed, but also his evidence that each of the accused committed the three offences charged. There was clearly no corroboration of Augustine Ang’s evidence,” said the Judges. “We therefore warned ourselves of the danger of acting on the uncorroborated evidence of Augustine Ang. Augustine Ang was in the witness box for nine days, out of which seven were spent in his cross-examination. The cross-examination was not only long but also severe and very thorough as he was repeatedly questioned by five different counsels on all the essential facts of the prosecution’s case. His answers were consistent throughout. Furthermore, we observed his demeanour very closely while he was giving evidence in the witness box. It did not appear from his manner and conduct that he was inclined either to shuffle, to prevaricate, or to speak that which was false. He appeared to us to have all the marks of sincere contrition and we were well satisfied that, however iniquitous or obnoxious his former conduct had been, he was determined to speak the truth to the Court. We also studied his evidence in the light of the other evidence adduced by the prosecution and he struck us as a truthful witness notwithstanding the role he played in the whole affair. We had no hesitation in acting upon his evidence.”

  Augustine Ang was visibly moved when the Judges pronounced the death sentences on the two Chou brothers and the other five accused. All seven appealed. At the appeal, in November 1973, a British Queen’s Counsel, Mr Basil T. Wigoder, on behalf of the Chou brothers, submitted that the observation of the trial Judges that Ang was a truthful witness was ‘wholly unwarranted and unsupported by the evidence’.

  Mr Wigoder argued that Augustine Ang was not only a self-confessed murderer but was also a self-confessed liar with the strongest possible motive of implicating all the other accused in order to exculpate himself.

  Mr Wigoder’s first ground of appeal was that the Judges erred in law and in fact in refusing the application of defence counsel for separate trials and had thereby unfairly prejudiced the trial of the two brothers.

  Referring to the Judges’ Grounds of Decision, Mr Wigoder said that the Judges had erred in law and in fact in finding that Augustine Ang was a truthful witness and that his uncorroborated evidence could be accepted. Although the Judges found Ang to be a self-confessed murderer and an accomplice they had described him in terms of a ‘glowing testimonial for an applicant for high office’. Queen’s Counsel continued: “The Judges had to come to that conclusion, that Ang was speaking the truth, if they were to uphold their finding of guilty against Andrew and David because once an element of doubt was allowed to creep in, one would be left with no corroboration. Their observations are wholly unwarranted and unsupported by the evidence at the trial. I submit that when one looks at the way Ang’s evidence went, the trial Judges must have been wrong by taking the view that they did.”

  Mr Wigoder went on to point out that Ang at the time was under detention and did not know whether these charges would be preferred against him again. In other words, he was in a position of excruciating difficulty, so much so that in English law, such a position would not be allowed to arise at all.

  Mr Wigoder also submitted that the finding that Ang was merely the errand boy taking instructions from Andrew was untenable. He said it was Ang who took the decision to exceed the bounds of the plot and turn it into a killing. He submitted that in order to make out a case on the charges, the prosecution had to prove that murder was in fact the common object; that the common object was by members of an unlawful assembly and each accused was a member of such an assembly at the time of the murder. The trial court did not take any heed, counsel said, of the possibility that the accused had other defences in mind and did not know that murder was likely to be committed. It was clear from the evidence that three men had been attacked at the brothers’ home and that having been attacked, they either died there or shortly afterwards. “It was also not disputed that at the time of the attack all nine accused were either in or around the house, and that there was a tenth man, Augustine Ang, who was called by the prosecution as their principal witness. The real issue was to which, if any, of the ten men should the charges be brought home by the prosec
ution. It is clear that the motive of the attack was one of robbery.” This, he said, had arisen from the fact that the gold dealer was engaged in illicit dealings of gold bars. Added Mr Wigoder: “It would be tempting to regard all the explanations as untrue because of nine varying explanations, but the Court must rather take each explanation on its individual merit.”

  Mr Wigoder conceded that Andrew’s defence, that he did not conspire to kill but had only conspired to rob the dealer of the gold, stipulating that no violence should be used, if accepted, clearly involved him in other offences of some gravity. But it was equally clear that Andrew’s account was a defence against the three charges, and that he was not at any time a member of an unlawful assembly whose common object was to kill. The same could be said of David whose defence was that he turned down Andrew’s invitation to assist in the robbery but had been persuaded to help overpower a man that night.

  Reviewing the 10-day testimony of Ang at the trial, counsel submitted that it was quite clear from Ang’s evidence that Andrew and David were parties to premeditated murder and robbery, ‘and this cannot be disputed’. The question then was whether it was safe to accept Ang’s evidence or regard him as a reliable witness. “One must recognise that Ang’s position in the witness box was obviously very difficult. He was giving evidence in November 1972 about events that took place in December 1971. He was also subjected to the cross-examination of various counsel for five days. The Court might well consider that Ang must be a superhuman person if some error did not emerge in those circumstances. But it is not merely such errors that we are referring to. What in fact transpired was one instance after another in which he changed his story in circumstances which are impossible to attribute to a mistake. Ang was deliberately lying. There were cumulative occasions when he contradicted himself as well as other evidence. This is consistent with our submission that he was relying heavily on his imagination in his endeavour to spread the blame on as many people as possible.”

  Mr Wigoder submitted that the trial Judges erred in finding that there was no evidence that Ang had tried to exculpate himself at the expense of the others. He asked: “In view of all these facts, is it reasonable to come to the conclusion that this man was a witness of truth, a reliable witness?” The case against the Chou brothers, counsel added, turned on the wholly uncorroborated evidence of Ang who was an accomplice. Mr Wigoder cited authorities on the dangers of convicting accused on such unconfirmed evidence and argued that the Court of Criminal Appeal should regard such convictions with caution.

  Mr Wigoder addressed Chief Justice Wee, sitting with Justice Winslow and Justice Kulasekaram, for three days. In his concluding remarks, he argued that the undisputed facts in the case were consistent with a variety of common objects other than murder. He added that the trial Judges had erred in finding that David was in charge of operations of a plot he knew hardly anything about. The trial Judges, whose findings fell squarely on the evidence of the prosecution’s key witness, Augustine Ang, also did not consider the question of whether there were common objects other than murder. There was also, counsel contended, no supporting evidence for that part of Ang’s testimony which incriminated the Chou brothers, so that once Ang was shown to be untruthful and unreliable one would only be left with the undisputed facts in the case. Even the implements that were chosen to carry out the attack on the victims—that is, rope and cloth—were far more consistent with robbery and abduction than with murder.

  Mr Wigoder continued: “When the bodies were found, there was a piece of cloth wound around the neck of one victim and a piece of nylon cord on top of another victim’s body. These are curious facts which perhaps indicate that something happened of which we know very little about … something that happened after some of the accused left Chepstow Close with the victims.” The undisputed facts were consistent with a variety of common objects, such as robbery and abduction of the victims, a mere disposal of the bodies or even assault with the knowledge of robbery, believing it to be business revenge. “All these common objects are possible and it is difficult to distinguish between them. It is not sufficient for the prosecution to say that since it is clear that there was an unlawful assembly and there was murder, therefore the common object was murder. It is essential to prove that each member of the unlawful assembly had intended to kill. The Court had powers to convict the accused of any offence which was disclosed by the evidence even if that offence was different from the one for which the accused was charged. In this case it would be difficult to contend that on Andrew’s own evidence a case for robbery and abduction could not be made out against him and that a case for robbery and assault could not be proved against David.”

  Three Singapore counsel followed Mr Wigoder, representing the rest of the accused. They were Mr G. Gopalan, who made no reference to Augustine Ang’s testimony; Mr Leo Fernando, who described Ang as a ‘diabolical bar with the Sword of Damocles hanging over his head’; and Mr J.B. Jeyaretnam, who said that his main ground of appeal was that Ang’s evidence was insufficient in law and in fact to find his clients guilty. There must be a doubt for the evidence was ‘too unsatisfactory, nebulous, and vague’.

  Answering all the points submitted by defence counsel, the Solicitor-General, Mr Ghows, submitted that the trial Judges were right in law in allowing a joint trial of all the accused: there was no reason for the Court of Appeal to interfere with their decision. As for the evidence of Augustine Ang, the prosecution had to rely on the evidence of self-confessed cheats and self-confessed murderers because ‘obviously, simple, God-fearing people don’t get themselves involved in things like these’. Mr Ghows said that most of the discrepancies in Ang’s evidence were due to his poor knowledge of English. At the preliminary inquiry, his evidence was quite slipshod and careless. His explanation was that his mind was disturbed then. “He had made so many contradictions and discrepancies, but an honest mistake is poles apart from dishonesty which was alleged by defence counsel. The trial Judges have discovered him to be a truthful witness.” As for Mr Wigoder’s point about other common objects, the Solicitor-General sought to demolish that with the argument that although all the accused may have had other objects, ‘the point is that it is clear as daylight that murder was an object common to them all’.

  After an eight-day hearing, the Court of Criminal Appeal reserved judgement. Four months later, the Chief Justice and his two colleagues announced their decision to dismiss all the appeals. The Appeal Court rejected the submissions of counsel that the trial Judges were wrong in their finding that all nine accused had the common object to kill the victims. The Appeal Court also upheld the trial Judges’ finding that Augustine Ang, although an accomplice, was a truthful witness, and that there was sufficient evidence to warrant the conviction of all the accused.

  “We do not think that the verdicts of the trial Judges were wrong nor do we think them in all the circumstances unsafe, or unsatisfactory or unjust ... We are of the opinion that the trial Judges were correct in refusing the application for separate trials.”

  The seven condemned men petitioned for special leave to appeal to the Privy Council against the decisions of the Singapore Court of Criminal Appeal. Once again, the two Chou brothers were represented by the same British QC, now elevated to the English peerage. Lord Wigoder was opposed by Mr Christopher French, QC, representing the Singapore Public Prosecutor. On 4 December 1974, the Privy Council’s Judicial Committee turned down the petitions. Only one hope for the seven condemned men then remained. This was a plea for mercy to the President. On 22 February 1975, it was reported that President Sheares had rejected the clemency petitions. Six days later, at 6:00 am. All seven were hanged.

  The last wishes of the Chou brothers, to donate their eyes and kidneys to hospitals, were not met. One report said that the medical facilities at the hospital jail were inadequate. Another report said none of the surgeons at the Outram Hospital Renal Unit was keen to perform the operation. “For the transplants to be carried out the surgeons have to b
e on stand-by during the entire execution and this, said the surgeons, would be a very unsavoury and unpleasant task and they do not have the stomach to do it.”

  The seven guilty men were hanged in Changi Prison on 28 February 1975, together with another man, a Malay labourer, sentenced to death for the murder of a one-armed man two years earlier. In the death cells, each of the murderers finally lost his identity and, like the labourer, became just another person to be hanged. Six of the condemned men walked to the gallows three at a time. The two others followed. More than 200 relatives waited outside the heavily guarded jail to claim the bodies.

  By coincidence, shortly after the seven men were hanged (their bodies were still in Changi Jail), a Singapore Airlines Boeing 747 flew into Singapore’s International Airport carrying $233 million in gold bullion. The 1,700 gold bars had been bought by the Singapore Government from the United States Federal Reserve Bank. They were taken under armed guard to the Treasury vaults in Empress Place. Four months later, more gold bars, worth $130 million, arrived. Just how much the Government of Singapore invested in gold is a State secret.

  The Lust for Gold

  WHAT IS THE ALLURE OF GOLD? What is the magic of its attraction? Why do men fight and slave and murder for gold? What makes men lust for gold? What is this substance that has wrought more havoc and destruction in the world than mankind itself? Gold is malleable, beautiful, treacherous and yet more enduring than life itself. You can beat it, squeeze it, heat it, boil it ... you can hardly get rid of the stuff ... it is gorgeous, desirable, all-powerful ...