地址：185 Uxbridge Road,
伦敦 W12 9RA
此信函以传真寄出:65 6538 9000
三名被告与其他五人在大约上午十一时从后门侵入新兴工业工友联合会 (PIEU) 办公室进行骚乱，造成工会财产被损。
罗柏黄，Robert, PIEU IRO, 受薪职员
艾温纳杜Edwin Anthony Netto, PIEU IRO, 受薪职员
事后回想起来，可惜的是我问彭由国有没有犯罪记录这个问题被TS 辛纳度莱法官判定为“完全无关” (见海峡时报1974年12月13日报导)。如果当时被允许，我会沿着这条线索追问下去。
“被驱逐出境的星大绘测系最后一年的学生告诉法庭在陈被指控在10月30日会所内骚乱那天，他没见到星大学生会 (USSU) 会长陈华彪在新兴工友联合会在企业通道周围的地区。
Singapore exile, Tan Wah Piow writes to AGC asking for convictions in 1975 quashed
Mr VK Rajah, SC
Attorney General, Singapore
1 Upper Pickering St,
Singapore 058288 by email:
byfax: 00 65 6538 9000
re: In the matter of the 1975 criminal conviction of Tan Wah Piow, Ng Wah Leng and Yap Kim Hong
I am Tan Wah Piow, one of the three defendants convicted in 1975 following a 47-day trial which started on the 10th December 1974. We were tried at the First District Court before Judge Mr T S Sinnathuray.
The details of the charge are as follows:
‘Tan Wah Piow, Ng Wah Leng and Yap Kim Hong are accused that you on or about 30 October 1974 at about 11 am at the office of the Singapore Pioneer Industrie s Employees’ Union at Block 20, No.1, Corporation Drive, Singapore were a member of an unlawful assembly, and in persecution of the common object of such assembly, viz, in committing criminal trespass committed the offence of rioting and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 147 of the Penal Code, CAP.103.’
The Prosecution case
The three accused, together with five others invaded the office of the Pioneer Industries Employees’ Union through the rear door at around 11 am and rioted, causing damage to union property.
The Defence case
The riot was a fabrication. It was a frame-up stage d by Phey Yew Kok, the General Secretary of PIEU. The background of the case was political.
The three accused were guilty. First accused Tan Wah Piow was sentenced to a year’s imprisonment, second accused Ng Wah Leng, and third accused Ms Yap Kim Hong were both sentenced to a month’s imprisonment. The defendants had, throughout the trial, and there after, maintained their innocence on the basis that the entire riot was staged by trade union officialsat the instigation of Phey Yew Kok. None of us were present at the so-called riot.
The reason for writing to you now on this matter which happened 42 years ago is that new, compelling and unequivocal evidence has emerged which makes the conviction unsafe.
In 2016 Phey Yew Kok was convicted of embezzlement of trade union funds and fabrication of evidence. I wish to draw your attention to the remark made by Presiding Judge Jennifer Marie when she sentenced Phey Yew Kok to 60 months.
She said of Phey: “
The facts reveal that Phey, like a serial criminal,systematically and with deliberation over a period of six years, perpetrated these offences. He had no qualms in trying to evade detection and had the temerity to instigate his staff to fabricate false evidence.”
This revelation impinges on the credibility of Phey Yew Kok as a prosecution witness in the 1974 trial. This is because the trial judge, TS Sinnathu ray, arrived at a guilty verdict based on the evide nce of someone we now know to be a crook and a thief, and who had the capacity to exert his criminal influence over his staff. Although the 2016 remarks were not directed at those in the 1974 case, the main key prosecution witnesses were Phey’s staff at the material time. They were:
Lawrence Kwek Juan Bok, Asst. General Secretary of the Pioneer Industries Employees Union (PIEU), paid staff of the union
Lee Bak Hong, PIEU Industrial Relations Officer (IRO), paid staff
Robert Ng, PIEU IRO, paid staff
Edwin Anthony Netto, PIEU IRO, paid staff
If Judge TS Sinnathuray was aware of what we now know that Phey Yew Kok had the propensity to influence trade union staff to pursue his criminal enterprise, the weight he would put on the veracity of the prosecution evidence must be very different. Likewise the outcome of the verdict would have inevitably been different.
May I invite you to consider two propositions.
Firstly, if the criminality of Phey Yew Kok, or his propensity to lie, cheat, steal and cajole his staff to join his criminal enterprise were known to the judge in 1974, is it not unreasonable to suggest that the prosecution case would have collapsed even before the defence gave their evidence.
Secondly, Phey Yew Kok’s 2016 conviction is of direct relevance to the 1974 ‘Riot’ case because his criminality dated back to 1973. It was the defence’s case that the “riot” was fabricated by Phey Yew Kok as part of his vendetta against me. I was then the President of the University of Singapore Students’ Union, and together with my colleagues from the University, we had exposed the lies of Phey Yew Kok and had threatened his position as a trade union boss.
If the fact that Phey Yew Kok was plundering the trade union coffers since 1973 was known to the judge at the time of the trial in 1974, it would be reasonable to suggest that any judge looking at the matter fairly and reasonably would have found the defence credible. Certainly, we were an existential threat to Phey’s criminal enterprise.
When considering the above propositions, you may wish to note that in the course of the trial, I did attempt to raise the issue of Phey Yew Kok’s credibility, but without much success due to the absence of concrete evidence at the time.
On hindsight, it is ironic that Judge TS Sinnathuray ruled as ”wholly irrelevant” my question to Phey Yew Kok as to whether he had any criminal record.
[see Straits Times Report 13.12.74]
I would have had developed that line of inquiry if allowed to do so.
However, when Phey Yew Kok returned to court the following day, he asked Judge Sinnathuray’s permission to answer the question because “the question was quite malicious and that since the press had reported it, he wanted to answer the question.”Permission was granted. Phey Yew Kok informed the judge that he had “no criminal record whatsoever”. It was was accordingly reported in the Straits Times [14.12.74] with the caption ‘Mr Phey … no criminal record ’. For your convenience, I hereby attach the illustration in the Straits Times.
When considering my submission that the conviction was unsafe, you may wish to further take into account the following points.
If Judge Sinnathuray was aware that this ‘star prosecution witness’ was someone who was “like a serial criminal ”, and “had no qualms in trying to evade detection and had the temerity to instigate his staff to fabricate false evidence ”, would he have disallowed my various attempts to introduce evidence which would be relevant in exposing Phey’s lies?
One such evidence which was disallowed was a tape recording of a meeting when Phey Yew Kok made a threat to “fix” me. Commenting on this matter, G Raman acting for Ng Wah Leng said in his submission: “It is quite unfortunate that the tape recording was not allowed in as an exhibit as otherwise we would have had the exact mood and the tenor of the crowd at the meeting. Also Phey’s own attitude.”
It was the Defence case that the plot to fabricate the evidence against me and the other two defendants was hatched by Phey Yew Kok following an encounter on the 23 October 1974. This short extract from the Straits Times report of the trial dated 25.1.1975 is instructive.
“A deported final year architecture student of the University of Singapore told the court that he did not see USSU President Tan Wah Piow, anywhere within the precincts of the Pioneer Industries Employees Union in Corporation Drive on October 30 when Tan was alleged to have rioted within.
Mr Choo Foo Yoong of Ipoh, the fifth witness for the defence, said in his evidence yesterday that he was in the field in front of the PIEU that morning and that he only saw Tan at the hawkers’ centre near the PIEU and on another occasion across the road opposite the PIEU.
… Mr Choo said he went to the PIEU premises on the morning of Oct 23 to collect first-hand information n on the retrenchment problem for the students’ union. The judge also at first disallowed further questions on the October 23 meeting when the workers met NTUC president Phey Yew Kok (also PIEU general secretary), but later allowed Tan to question witness on Mr Phey’s response to Tan’s remarks in relation to Tan’s defence that Mr Phey wanted to “fix” him up.
Mr Choo testified that Mr Phey had said words to the effect that he would “check on Wah Piow and put him in the right place.” Mr Choo said: “Phey made such a remark because Wah Piow had exposed lies made by Phey Yew Kok during the meeting”.
Asked by the Judge if he could recall what was it that Tan had said that prompted Mr Phey to make the remark, Mr Choo said the gist of Tan’s remarks was that “Phey as a trade union leader and as an MP should love the workers as a father loves his children and not be so arrogant and aggressive. Mr Choo said Tan had also remarked that according to “the Singapore labour law” the salary of workerswas payable only by legal tender and not as Mr Phey had said that it was alright to issue coupons in place of cash.
Mr Choo also gave an account of an alleged informa l meeting in the students’ union on October 29 when he and a few students said that Tan should take precaution s and not be at the PIEU site on Oct 30.
They had also urged Tan not to go “as Phey was not orious for taking revenge on people” but when Tan said that he wanted to follow up on the American Marine lay-off problem, they came to a compromise that he should keep a distance from PIEU.”
The 1974 trial is one which is imprinted in the mindset of many Singaporeans, especially those of my generation as an example of gross injustice. From the commentaries in internet blogs following Phey’s conviction, it is obvious that there is a nexus between his 2016 conviction and my trial in 1974.
In the light of the new evidence, it is incumbent upon you as the Attorney General, to take all necessary steps to quash the convictions against each of the three defendants. Only this can put right the injustice.
This is one simple step towards winning public confidence in the criminal administration system, a goal which you had recently set out to achieve in your January speech at the opening of the 2016 LegalYear.
I look forward to hear from you.
This letter will be made public as the matters raised herein are of public interests.
Tan Wah Piow,