Cold Blooded Murders Read Free

‘tread
warily’. The alleged offence he said was not a trivial one. Twenty-live
witnesses would be called, and ‘further evidence might come to light’.
    Mr Coomaraswamy replied that although Sunny
Ang was arrested on 21 December, the police must have started their
investigation long before then. The magistrate decided to grant the week’s
adjournment, and Ang was remanded in Outram Prison. His request for bail was
refused.
    Fixed for 24 February 1965, the preliminary
inquiry into ‘a tentative murder charge’ did not in fact start until the
following day. This was because Mr Punch Coomaraswamy failed to turn up. He was
engaged on another case in Kuala Lumpur. Mr Francis T. Seow, senior crown
counsel, spent almost the entire day in Court, and protested that Mr
Coomaraswamy should at least have had the courtesy to inform him he was on
another case. Mr 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