1. Introduction
Legal scholars usually narrate international law’s histories through a macro lens,Footnote 1 while among legal historians, there is preference for a global history approach that emphasizes ‘connectedness’ and ‘integration’ over ‘place-based knowledge and expertise’.Footnote 2 This over-emphasis on macro-history is present even among TWAIL scholars engaging in historical research.Footnote 3 This article argues for more attention to be given to microhistorical approaches – to the using of a ‘microscope’ instead of ‘telescope’ – when studying international law’s histories.Footnote 4 Such microhistorical approaches should be of particular interest to TWAIL scholars as TWAIL and microhistory share much in common, though not much attention has been given to their cross-disciplinary potential. For example, many microhistories focus on ‘ordinary’ people or less powerful actors.Footnote 5 By narrowing the scale of analysis when studying discrete events and individuals, particularly the marginalized, microhistory shares much with TWAIL’s focus on international law’s impact on the under-represented and disempowered. TWAIL-ers and microhistorians also generally aim to answer larger structural questions through the doing of history. One of the ‘cardinal features’ of microhistoria is its interest in ‘great historical questions’ or ‘structures’,Footnote 6 while one of the key objectives of TWAIL researchers is to ‘understand’, ‘unpack’, and ‘deconstruct’ the structural asymmetries underlying international law.Footnote 7 As stated by Anghie and Chimni, TWAIL scholars aim to assess the impact of ‘positivist rules through the lens of lived experience of Third World peoples’.Footnote 8
This synergy is particularly evident in microhistory and TWAIL’s treatment of actor agency. Both TWAIL-ers and microhistorians take the agency of historical actors seriously. As Magnússon and Szijártó explain, microhistorians treat their subjects as ‘active individuals’ and ‘conscious actors’ instead of as ‘merely puppets on the hands of great underlying forces of history’.Footnote 9 TWAIL researchers generally prioritize the voice and ‘lived history’ of marginalized individuals and groups.Footnote 10 Indeed, one of TWAIL’s commonly stated goals is to ‘empower and emancipate voices that have not been heard before’.Footnote 11 Apart from shared goals and assumptions, TWAIL-inspired historical research may benefit from the methods of reading and analysis developed by microhistorians. It is rare for formal historical records to directly capture the stories and perspectives of the disempowered.Footnote 12 Microhistorians have developed reading and analytical techniques aimed at extracting evidence and broader theories from ‘slender records’.Footnote 13 As Trivellato explains, the microhistorian’s approach to reading and analysis focuses on ‘the encounter with primary sources that at first sight contain details that are incongruent with standard narratives’.Footnote 14 By reading ‘banal details’ and ‘documentary fragments’ against the grain, microhistorians have analysed ‘larger historical issues’ and identified ‘more general socioeconomic and cultural patterns’.Footnote 15
This article highlights the cross-disciplinary potential of these sub-fields by studying the active and complex exercise of agency by victims in an understudied historical instance of post-war justice, namely, the Singapore ‘Sook Ching’ trial or Nishimura trial which dealt with the arbitrary massacre of Chinese residents by the Japanese military during the war.Footnote 16 It challenges representations of disempowered victimhood by using TWAIL and microhistory methods to analyse the Nishimura trial’s transcripts and related archival material, with a focus on the trial experiences of trial witnesses, survivors, and community representatives. By studying the Nishimura trial as mobilization and meaning-making opportunity, this microhistory draws attention to the exercise of social and political agency by the Chinese community under difficult post-war conditions and British colonial rule. Chinese community leaders represented the community as collectively victimized and firmly united in seeking post-war justice. However, a close analysis of trial transcripts reveals tensions within the Chinese community and the need for a more complex understanding of victimhood, with many Chinese civilians anxious over being labelled as collaborators due to their wartime co-operation with the Japanese occupation authorities.
2. TWAIL, microhistory, and the Nishimura trial: A note on methods
While there are comparative or country-based studies of post-Second World War trials, there have yet to be microhistories of these trials.Footnote 17 This reflects microhistory’s marginal position within international law’s turn to history.Footnote 18 By focusing on the Nishimura trial and select trial participants, this article takes a microhistorical approach defined as ‘the intensive historical investigation of a relatively well defined smaller object’.Footnote 19 This article also spotlights the experience of non-Western trial participants and survivors, unlike most studies of post-war trials that emphasize Allied perspectives.Footnote 20 It does so by studying the Nishimura trial through the experiences of three trial participants: Richard Lim Chuan Hoe, Chua Choon Guan, and Shinozaki Mamoru. Lim and Chua were members of the local Chinese community that was specifically targeted by the Japanese military during the war. Shinozaki, a Japanese official, has been credited for saving many Chinese from ‘Sook Ching’ operations though his role was subject to scrutiny and criticism after the war. By undertaking a fine-grained and contextual analysis of how these individuals navigated the post-war justice process, this microhistory aims to make visible the social and political agency of ‘Sook Ching’ victims.
Like all microhistories, this article explores ‘big questions in small spaces’. Through the stories of Lim, Chua, and Shinozaki, this article analyses broader political and social changes impacting the local Chinese community in post-war Singapore.Footnote 21 It sheds light on how Chinese community leaders used the issue of post-war justice to mobilize the community while depicting the Chinese as unvindicated wartime victims. Post-war trials were organized by the British in a largely top-down manner, but this did not prevent the Chinese community leaders from trying to influence the course of ‘Sook Ching’ investigations by petitioning the British authorities, seeking trial witnesses, and having a Chinese prosecutor on the prosecution team. Nevertheless, while Chinese community leaders represented the community as unified in their push for trials and justice, a close analysis of trial records demonstrates tensions within the community due to allegations of wartime collaboration and disloyalty, many of which remain contested till today. Some trial participants experienced the Nishimura trial as an opportunity to contest and re-construct their individual, group, and community identities and align themselves with victors of the changing post-war order.
This microhistory’s exploration of victim agency also contributes to, and engages with, international criminal law scholarship critical of the depiction of victims in dependant and vulnerable terms.Footnote 22 Today, victims are generally viewed as the ‘central actors’ and ‘drivers’ of post-conflict justice.Footnote 23 However, as argued by Schwöbel-Patel, official international criminal law actors like the International Criminal Court (ICC) frequently invoke an ‘infantalized’. ‘feminized’, and ‘racialized’ idea of victimhood.Footnote 24 Researchers have drawn attention to the political and social agency of victims in post-conflict settings and the need for a more nuanced understanding of victimhood.Footnote 25 As Moffett observes, victim identities in post-conflict situations are seldom ‘clear-cut’ or ‘black and white’.Footnote 26 Those identifying as victims may have been involved in atrocities while those labelled as perpetrators may have experienced some form of victimization.Footnote 27 As this article demonstrates, witnesses in the Nishimura trial pointed to the clear involvement of Chinese civilians in ‘Sook Ching’ operations while qualifying their own involvement as coerced or ineffectual. By approaching the Nishimura trial as a platform for victim mobilization and identity contestation, this microhistory contributes a more complex understanding of war victimhood.
3. Situating the Nishimura trial in post-war Singapore
In the early months of Japan’s occupation of Singapore during the Second World War, the Japanese military massacred thousands of Chinese residents in an attempt to eradicate ‘anti-Japanese elements’.Footnote 28 Similar massacres of Chinese civilians were committed by the Japanese military across present-day Malaysia and in other parts of Southeast Asia.Footnote 29 As Gunn observes, it is ‘surprising’ that these Southeast Asia massacres have attracted less attention, despite surpassing the more notorious Nanjing massacre in terms of the ‘actual number of victims’ and ‘overall degree of planning’.Footnote 30 These massacres are locally referred to as ‘Sook Ching’, which means ‘purge through cleansing’.Footnote 31 The most ‘extreme’ of these massacres took place in Singapore through February and March of 1942. Here, Chinese residents were ordered to gather at certain locations where Japanese military personnel registered and picked out those to be exterminated. Japanese military personnel adopted inconsistent and often casual screening methods. Overly broad and irrelevant factors were used. For example, at Singapore’s Jalan Besar, some Japanese personnel targeted Chinese civilians wearing spectacles were targeted as these civilians were presumably educated and therefore anti-Japanese.Footnote 32 At Telok Kurau English School, Japanese personnel simply called on those who had been educated in the Chinese school system to put up their hands.Footnote 33 Those identified through such screening measures were then taken away and killed. The precise number of Chinese civilians killed remains unknown. The Japanese admit to killing 6,000 Chinese while the Chinese Chamber of Commerce puts the number of those killed between 50,000 and 100,000.Footnote 34 As Lam points out, given the fact that the Singapore population stood at 795,000 in 1942, these massacres were indeed ‘very severe on a per capita basis’.Footnote 35 These atrocities were prosecuted by the British in post-war Singapore and continue to feature in Singapore’s present-day war memories.
3.1 War crimes trials in Singapore: Context and law
On 12 September 1945, the Supreme Allied Commander of South East Asia Command (SACSEA) Lord Louis Mountbatten formally accepted the surrender of the Japanese at a grand ceremony organized at Singapore’s Municipal Building.Footnote 36 British war crimes prosecutions in Singapore proceeded not long after, in line with Allied policy.Footnote 37 Like all war crimes trials conducted by the British in Asia and Europe at the end of the war, the trials in Singapore – including the Nishimura trial – were organized pursuant to a 1945 Royal Warrant (Warrant) adopted by the British executive on 18 June 1945.Footnote 38 These trials applied a mixture of international law and British military law, and trial proceedings roughly followed common law rules. These rules were unevenly applied, and exceptions were made for efficiency reasons. Under this framework, each court comprised at the minimum of three judges who were usually from the British military, though the Warrant also permitted the appointment of judges from an Allied Force.Footnote 39 The Nishimura trial was heard by a panel of five judges from the British military, probably due to the scale of atrocities and public interest in the case.Footnote 40
These British military trials were intended by British leaders to be expeditious. ALFSEA Instruction No 1, one of several army instructions issued to facilitate trial implementation, emphasized the ‘summary nature of trials’ and that ‘justice be administered promptly and efficiently’ by these courts.Footnote 41 In Singapore, the British organized more than a hundred trials from 1946 to 1948 at different locations across the island.Footnote 42 For example, the first war crimes trial was held in the Supreme Court Building.Footnote 43 Among other administrative challenges, the British faced a shortage of appropriate trial venues. In May 1946, the case of Sugihara Hikaru and another had to be held ‘under a tent pitched in the grounds of the Goodwood Park Hotel’, though the Straits Times emphasized that this arrangement was only ‘temporary’ and an ‘emergency measure’.Footnote 44 The Warrant authorized these British military courts to pass sentences of death, imprisonment, confiscation, or a fine.Footnote 45 Some courts would give brief explanations of the factors considered when pronouncing their finding or sentence. However, these courts did not issue written judgments with detailed reasoning. All acquittals handed down by these courts were considered final, but convictions had to be confirmed in post-trial proceedings by a confirming officer.Footnote 46 Petitions could be submitted by the defence at this post-trial stage which also benefited from post-trial reviews of the case prepared by the deputy judge advocate general. This procedure enabled cases to be tried and concluded expeditiously.Footnote 47 In Singapore, the shortest trial lasted one day while the longest trial lasted 31 days.Footnote 48
In terms of substantive law, the 1945 Royal Warrant and its regulations were relatively brief. These trials took place at a time when the scope and content of applicable legal concepts remained fluid.Footnote 49 For example, the most common defence put forward in these post-war trials, including the Nishimura trial, was the defence of superior orders. Defendants argued that they had acted pursuant to superior orders and should not be held liable or punished for the crimes concerned. The charters of the Nuremberg and Tokyo Tribunals prohibited superior orders from automatically exculpating an accused though these ‘may be considered in mitigation of punishment if the Tribunal determines that justice so requires’.Footnote 50 However, the 1945 Royal Warrant and its regulations did not expressly address the applicability of this defence. The British military had in fact amended its position on the defence of superior orders during the war, which raises retrospectivity and fairness concerns. Prior to 1944, the British Manual of Military Law (MML) recognized that superior orders could exonerate an individual.Footnote 51 In 1944, the British MML was amended to state that just because a ‘rule of warfare’ was ‘violated in pursuance of an order’, this did not ‘deprive the act in question of its character as a war crime’ or ‘in principle, confer upon the perpetrator immunity from punishment by the injured belligerent’.Footnote 52 At the Nishimura trial, as discussed below, all defendants argued they had acted according to superior orders. While the Nishimura court did not acquit the accused on this basis, the defendants’ superior orders argument appears to have been considered during sentence mitigation and post-trial proceedings.
3.2 The Nishimura trial: A human portrait
The British organized two trials addressing ‘Sook Ching’ killings in Singapore.Footnote 53 The first trial, Nishimura Takuma and others (Nishimura trial), ran from 10 March 1947 to 2 April 1947.Footnote 54 The second trial, Mizuno Keiji (Mizuno trial), was held a year later and ran from 8 March 1948 to 12 March 1948.Footnote 55 This article focuses on the Nishimura trial which dealt with a larger number of accused and attracted much public attention and criticism.Footnote 56 For the British, these trials came with high political stakes. Upon returning to the region at the end of the Second World War, the British encountered increased resistance to their colonial rule. Calls for independence and acts of political defiance, which had been largely restricted to the local elite before the war, now took on a ‘youthful, militaristic face’.Footnote 57 The British were eager to obtain the support of less radical community leaders. Give the Chinese community’s push for prosecutions in Singapore, it was important for the British that ‘Sook Ching’ prosecutions delivered a fair and just result in the eyes of the Chinese community and their leaders. For Chinese community leaders, these prosecutions were viewed as vindication of their community’s suffering and status. However, trial proceedings also destabilized the collective image and unity of the Chinese community as wartime victim by revealing instances of local collaboration. Trial testimonies show a more complex picture of victimhood, where those identifying as victims may have been involved in the perpetration of atrocities.
Seven defendants were tried in the Nishimura trial: Nishimura Takuma (lieutenant general), Kawamura Saburo (lieutenant general), Oishi Masayuki (lieutenant colonel), Yokota Yoshitaka (lieutenant colonel), Jyo Tomotatsu (major), Onishi Satorou (major), and Hisamatsu Haruji (captain).Footnote 58 As mentioned above, five judges presided over the Nishimura Trial, instead of the usual three.Footnote 59 Making up the prosecution team was Major F. W. Ward and Richard Lim Chuan Hoe.Footnote 60 The defence was conducted by three Japanese defence counsel – K. Kakuda, S. Kurose, and M. Fujiwa – who were barristers of the Tokyo Supreme Court.Footnote 61 Defence counsel in this trial was assisted by one British defence advisory officer, Captain R. T. Wait.Footnote 62 Wait’s role, as an advisory officer, was to advise Japanese defence counsel on the British law that applied in these trials. The Nishimura trial featured numerous local witnesses; many were ‘Sook Ching’ survivors.
The Nishimura trial began at 10am on 10 March 1947 and was attended by a ‘crowd estimated at 1,200’.Footnote 63 The ‘majority’ of attendees were from the Chinese community, including Wu Paak Shing, Chinese Consul-General, and A. C. T. Kwong, Chinese Consul. Press representatives took up ‘two whole blocks of seats’ and the size of the crowd attending was such that it ‘was practically impossible to get seats’.Footnote 64 All were standing and some ‘even stood on chairs to get a good view’.Footnote 65 The trial was recorded for broadcast purposes, and the media carried detailed reports about how Kawamura ‘kept blinking as he sat in the dock’ with his face ‘screwed up in a nervous twitch all the time’ while Yokota was ‘tight-lipped’ and ‘shouted a defiant “Not Guilty” in answer to the charge’.Footnote 66 The media carried vivid descriptions of the defendants. For example, when Kawamura, the second defendant, took the oath, media reports described Kawamura as having a ‘wicked and vicious-looking’ face and a ‘moustache like a rat’s whiskers’.Footnote 67 Kawamura’s breathing and expression was such that those attending the trial reportedly laughed.Footnote 68 Defence counsel explained Kawamura was ill and asked if he could use a handkerchief to cover his ‘unsightly expression’.Footnote 69 The court agreed and also offered Kawamura a glass of water.Footnote 70 Media attention to such details demonstrate that the Nishimura trial was closely followed by the public. This was to be expected given the Chinese community’s mobilization around the issue of justice for ‘Sook Ching’ atrocities.
4. Victims as agents for justice: Richard Lim Chuan Hoe and other Chinese community leaders
After the war, Chinese community leaders made persistent demands to the British for the arrest and punishment of those responsible for ‘Sook Ching’ atrocities. These community leaders sought to mobilize their community to seek justice for ‘Sook Ching’ atrocities, encouraging Chinese civilians to come forward with evidence or serve as witnesses. Chinese newspapers of the time repeatedly described the Chinese as unjustly targeted by the Japanese military and as justified in their demands for justice and retribution. The idea of collective ‘Sook Ching’ victimhood, as deployed by Chinese community leaders and the press, insisted that the Chinese had a rightful interest in ensuring that justice was done and aimed to press the community into action. As this section demonstrates, while the trials were under British control, Chinese community leaders put consistent pressure on the British and sought to influence the shape of investigations and prosecutions.
4.1 Mobilizing for justice: The ‘blood debt’ and Chinese community as collective victim
Chinese media reports and publications arguing for the prosecution of ‘Sook Ching’ atrocities made constant reference to the idea of ‘blood debt’ or xue zhai, which expressed the idea that the Chinese community was ‘duty bound’ to seek retribution from the Japanese for ‘Sook Ching’ atrocities.Footnote 71 For example, on 1 June 1946, the Chinese press carried a notice about a grievance conference to be held the next day at the Chinese Chamber of Commerce in Singapore, inviting the public to attend and participate to arrive at a ‘common strategy’ to seeking justice.Footnote 72 This notice describes the ‘Sook Ching’ as the ‘most brutal atrocity’, even worse than the Nanjing massacre or Nazi atrocities, resulting in a ‘blood debt’ that was ‘as deep as the sea’.Footnote 73 An editorial, published by Nanyang Siang Pau on 7 February 1947, argued that those responsible for the ‘Sook Ching’ had to be prosecuted ‘not only for the sake of clearing the blood debt, but also to restore justice to the world and to protect the civilised progression of humankind’.Footnote 74 The ‘blood debt’ phrase evokes the idea of revenge, in its demand of ‘blood’ for ‘blood’ and may explain the disappointment and anger expressed by many Chinese when the trial resulted, as further explained below, in only two death sentences. Today, officials and media from China continue to invoke this ‘blood debt’ idea when demanding justice for unprovoked wrongs.Footnote 75
The Chinese community had set up several associations in Singapore to address the suffering of victims in the war’s aftermath. For example, the Chinese Massacred Victims Dependant Association was established to provide aid to families whose male members had been killed during the ‘Sook Ching’.Footnote 76 The Singapore Women’s Mutual Aid Victim Association (Women’s Mutual Aid Victim Association) was another organization set up for this purpose, composed of 1,000 widows and female dependants of Chinese ‘Sook Ching’ victims.Footnote 77 To ensure the prosecution and punishment of those responsible for ‘Sook Ching’, the Chinese community established the Overseas Chinese Appeal Committee (Appeal Committee).Footnote 78 This Committee was chaired by Tay Koh Yat from the Chinese Chamber of Commerce and comprised 37 notable figures from the Chinese community.Footnote 79 When the trial finally commenced, Tay publicly expressed his hopes that the trial would ‘shed light on the truth’ and ‘mete out the punishment’ deserved to the accused.Footnote 80 Tay’s hopes would turn into disappointment at the trial’s end, when five of seven accused escaped the death penalty.
Chinese community leaders were thus heavily invested in the fight for justice in the aftermath of ‘Sook Ching’. This fight for retribution and justice was especially transformative for women, who were ‘most vocal about blood debt’ and who took on social and political roles in post-war Singapore.Footnote 81 There was much local support for the work of the Women’s Mutual Aid Association. For example, on 23 February 2947, the association organized a remembrance ceremony for ‘Sook Ching’ victims at Edward Garden.Footnote 82 This ceremony was attended by 200 to 300 relatives of ‘Sook Ching’ victims.Footnote 83 The wartime loss and deaths of male family members resulted in much suffering to the women left behind, who became responsible for protecting and providing for their children and other dependants. When interviewed by the English press, Li Poay Keng, the 29-year-old chairwoman of the Women’s Mutual Aid Victim Association, declared that ‘women have changed after the war’ and that they had become ‘fearless through their travails’.Footnote 84 While this cannot be taken as representative of all Chinese female survivors in post-war Singapore, the pursuit of justice for ‘Sook Ching’ atrocities did result in some Chinese women taking on more visible public roles.
4.2 Prosecuting the ‘Sook Ching’: Richard Lim Chuan Hoe as prosecutor
The Nishimura trial was also the only war crime trial in Singapore where a Chinese prosecutor served on the prosecution team. Richard Lim Chuan Hoe’s prosecutorial appointment and participation in the Nishimura trial demonstrates that the Chinese community’s activism had some substantive impact on the British post-war justice process. Presenting themselves as ‘an aggrieved clan demanding retribution’, the Chinese community actively demanded that those responsible for ‘Sook Ching’ killings face justice.Footnote 85 These intense calls for justice and retribution from the Chinese community reflected the large number of Chinese summarily killed during ‘Sook Ching’ operations. Survivors and family members pinned their hopes on the organization of war crimes trials that would lead to the execution of those responsible.Footnote 86 Lim was already a prominent leader of the Chinese community in Singapore prior to the war. Apart from being a successful lawyer, Lim was elected by the British as a member of the Municipality and served as legal advisor to the Chinese Consul-General.Footnote 87 The latter authorized Lim to represent his office in assisting the Chinese community in the prosecution of Japanese war criminals.Footnote 88 Lim’s inclusion on the prosecution team in the Nishimura trial reflects the importance placed on this trial by the Chinese community in Singapore. Trial records and media reports show Lim taking an active part in the questioning of witnesses and the accused.
Lim’s prosecutorial approach in the Nishimura trial was consistent with the prosecution’s overall strategy of showing that the defendants had much discretion over the screening operation’s implementation even if were following superior orders. The prosecution also sought to show that the defendants had failed to give their subordinates proper instructions. Lim was involved in the questioning of Sugita Ichiji, the prosecution’s first witness who had been a colonel in the Japanese Army and who had worked in intelligence.Footnote 89 In his re-examination of Sugita, Lim focused on establishing that the screening order handed down to the various accused was of ‘a very general nature’, with ‘details to be worked out’ either by Kawamura or his ‘subordinate officers’.Footnote 90 Lim’s questioning was relatively effective, though some of Sugita’s answers appear deliberately vague. For example, when Lim asked Sugita if one of the accused Kawamura had left the ‘manner’ of the screening to his subordinate officers, Sugita confirmed that ‘concrete measures’ were indeed ‘left to the subordinates’ while also insisting that ‘they were carried out according to the orders of the superiors’.Footnote 91 Lim also sought to establish that ‘no method of screening’ had been adopted by the accused, resulting in victims being ‘chosen at random’.Footnote 92 In response, Sugita stated that those implementing these orders ‘made the investigations as much as possible’ and ‘then carried them out’.Footnote 93
When questioning Oishi Masayuki, one of the accused, Lim sought to establish that Oishi had failed to exercise care in implementing the screening order and had given his subordinates an overly wide discretion. Upon Oishi’s failure to give satisfactory answers, Lim would press him to answer the question.Footnote 94 During his questioning of Hisamatsu Haruji, another accused, Lim referred to a speech given by Hisamatsu to the police at Tanjong Pagar Police Station. In his speech, Hisamatsu had stated that anyone who ‘obstructs’ Japanese military operations would be acting against the liberation of Asia. Lim pointed out that by giving this speech to the police, Hisamatsu had the ‘purpose of frightening the police so that they might do exactly’ what they were instructed to do, specifically to assist in the screening of civilians.Footnote 95 Hisamatsu denied this, stating that those listening to his speech had been ‘much moved’ and ‘swore allegiance to the Japanese’.Footnote 96 Lim nevertheless persisted in his line of questioning.Footnote 97 For this, Lim was applauded in the local Chinese press. Lim’s ‘sharp words’ were praised and he was described as ‘righteous and steadfast’.Footnote 98 When Lim was later recognized by the Chinese community for his role in the Sook Ching trial, alongside the British prosecutor F. W. Ward and war crimes investigator M. G. A. Watson, Lim sought to give recognition to his ‘superiors’ or the community leaders who had appointed him for this prosecutorial task.Footnote 99 For many, Lim represented the Chinese community rather than the British prosecutorial authorities in the Nishimura trial. Lim’s inclusion on the prosecution team shows that though the British authorities were not obligated to consider the view of victims in designing and implementing the justice process, they nevertheless could not ignore the activism and demands of the Chinese community.
5. Victims as witnesses: Chua Choon Guan and surviving the ‘Sook Ching’
The Nishimura trial included many prosecution witnesses who had been targeted during the ‘Sook Ching’ screening process but who had miraculously escaped. Their testimonies contained vivid details of the massacre and its aftermath. The content and form of these witness testimonies were shaped and limited by the questioning of counsel and trial proceedings. Nevertheless, a close reading of these testimonies reveal different dimensions of the victimhood experienced by witnesses. As this section demonstrates through its analysis of Chua Choon Guan’s testimony, the arbitrariness of the ‘Sook Ching’ screening left its mark on the memories of victims. Further, witnesses did not act as mere transmitters of information when testifying at trial but exercised care in representing their own roles when describing their ‘Sook Ching’ experience. Though Chinese community leaders persistently depicted the community as collectively victimized by the Japanese, witness testimonies in the Nishimura trial mentioned the involvement of locals in ‘Sook Ching’ operations and there was much anxiety among civilians of being accused of wartime collaboration.Footnote 100
5.1 The arbitrariness of ‘Sook Ching’: Making sense of the senseless
Chua Choon Guan, a survivor who testified, had been a taxi driver prior to Japan’s occupation of Singapore.Footnote 101 His trial testimony demonstrates the random nature of the killings and the bewilderment of those caught up in the screening process as well as those who survived. Chua was third of five sons and had emigrated with his parents from China to Singapore.Footnote 102 Shortly after Singapore fell to Japan, Chua was brought to the Jalan Besar footfall field. He was picked out during the screening process and among ‘400 to 600’ people transported in 11 lorries to the beach at Changi.Footnote 103 There, Japanese military personnel tied Chua and other detainees ‘11 in a row’.Footnote 104 Chua recalled: ‘All of us moaned and cried because we knew it would be the last of us.’ The Japanese soldiers then brought the men onto the beach and ‘machine gunned’ them.
During the trial, Chua showed the court the gunshot wounds on his body and legs.Footnote 105 Upon being shot at the beach, Chua had fallen down with others falling on top of him. He was then knocked unconscious by ‘a hard knock’ on his head.Footnote 106 He woke up ‘late in the night’ when the incoming tide ‘washed’ against his face. Chua then freed himself by rubbing his cords against a rock on the beach and crawling away.Footnote 107 Other witnesses who were ‘Sook Ching’ survivors offered similarly chance-like descriptions of their escape. Two prosecution witnesses, Low Sze Thang and Ng Kim Song, described how their group was separated and brought into the forest by a Japanese soldier who then proclaimed himself as their ‘saviour’ before letting them go free.Footnote 108 Another witness, Hong Peck Lee, explained that he had managed to free himself by begging a Chinese civilian accompanying a Japanese soldier to get the latter to allow him to return home.Footnote 109
When asked why he had been targeted by the Japanese, Chua answered that he had ‘no idea’.Footnote 110 Other survivors and victims who were ordinary civilians must have similarly bewildered, particularly when picked out through haphazard screening processes. Chua testified at trial that all ‘big sized people’ were picked out at his detention area.Footnote 111 He believed that he had been picked out because he ‘showed [his] identity card’.Footnote 112 Instead of going into hiding, most Chinese civilians had presented themselves for registration as instructed by the Japanese military, unaware that they would be subject to such arbitrary screening and execution. This screening process was to identify security threats, but prosecution witnesses repeatedly testified about the vague and irrelevant criteria used to identify such threats. Japanese personnel conducting such screening targeted those worked with the government, those who were educated, and property-owners. Some picked out those who had tattoos, presumably as triad members would be tattooed. Among prosecution witnesses were two members of the Straits Settlement Volunteer Force (SSVF), Wong Sin Joon and Augustus Joseph Vas.Footnote 113 Wong had been detained and brought to Tanah Merah beach for execution. Miraculously, he survived the mass shooting and managed to escape. He confirmed that he was a member of the SSVF and had not surrendered as a POW as they were told to ‘come back later on’.Footnote 114 In contrast, Vas had surrendered as a POW and had been ordered by the Japanese to clear the dead bodies of those killed.Footnote 115 This random and senseless nature of the ‘Sook Ching’ screening experience clearly contributed to the sense of injustice and victimhood experienced by the Chinese community.
5.2 The involvement of civilians in ‘Sook Ching’ operations
Witness testimony in the Nishimura trial also revealed uncomfortable details about the ‘Sook Ching’. The Japanese military had involved locals in the ‘Sook Ching’ screening operations in seeking to identify ‘anti-Japanese elements’. While these individuals were not on trial, the Nishimura court showed interest in learning more about those assisting the Japanese military in ‘Sook Ching’ operations. In his examination-in-chief, Chua described ‘a crowd that came and picked’ him during the screening process.Footnote 116 The court specifically questioned Chua about the nationality of those who did the selection. Chua stated that they were ‘Japanese’.Footnote 117 Other prosecution witnesses who had survived the massacre testified that locals had been involved in the screening. Cheng Kwang Yu, who had been detained at Jalan Besar, stated that he saw ‘3 Japanese officers and one Chinese detective and several Japanese guards’ at the exit where individuals were picked out.Footnote 118 Wong Sin Joon, who had also been detained at Jalan Besar, stated that he had been ‘picked’ out as a member of the SSVF by ‘[o]ne of the officers’ in his company and an ‘NCO’.Footnote 119 Kang Thian Huet explained that he saw ‘Japanese guards sitting at the exit with Chinese detectives’ who were picking out individuals as they walked past. Kang had tried to give a false name but was accused of doing so by ‘a Malay and a Japanese’ and subsequently beaten.Footnote 120
The testimonies of some witnesses showed that the Japanese military had coerced civilians into assisting ‘Sook Ching’ screening operations. Thomas Isaac, a prosecution witness, described how at ‘a Chinese detective or a bad hat was placed together with a Japanese military personnel’ to pick out criminals and anti-Japanese elements.Footnote 121 He saw a Japanese Kempeitai officer ‘hit one of these men’, a Chinese, ‘on the head’ to force him to pick out individuals.Footnote 122 Those witnesses whose testimonies included their own role in ‘Sook Ching’ operations were careful to emphasize their reluctant and coerced involvement. Yip Peng Yew, who had worked with the Special Branch Police, testified that after the surrender, a ‘Japanese in uniform’ had come to his home and brought him to screening areas where he was ‘told to pick out bad hats and communists’.Footnote 123 When questioned by the court, Yip stated that he ‘was very worried about [his] personal safety’ and insisted that he ‘did not point out anybody’.Footnote 124 Civilians describing their own involvement in any ‘Sook Ching’ screening represented this as coerced and minimal, portraying themselves as also victims of the Japanese military.
6. Victims as collaborators: Shinozaki Mamoru and the Nishimura trial’s subtext
There was a real fear among locals in post-war Singapore of being accused of collaborating with the Japanese. When the Japanese surrendered, anti-Japanese resistance fighters and private individuals meted out acts of vengeance against those viewed as collaborators across Malaya.Footnote 125 Many accused of collaboration were executed without proper trial or subject to acts of cruelty and mob violence.Footnote 126 Those who had suffered under the Japanese occupation demanded the punishment of not only Japanese war criminals but also those who had worked for the Japanese and facilitated their wartime occupation. Apart from prosecuting Japanese nationals for war crimes like the ‘Sook Ching’ massacre, the British authorities also prosecuted locals for treason and other collaborationist crimes.Footnote 127 Such collaboration, even when unwilling or coerced, demonstrates the need for a more nuanced understanding of victimhood that accounts for the diverse wartime experiences of a subjugated community.
6.1 Interrogating the role of collaborators: Shinozaki Mamoru as prosecution witness
Shinozaki Mamoru served as the prosecution’s second witness in the Nishimura trial. In his trial testimony, Shinozaki sought to affirm not only his own wartime role but also that of several local leaders. Though he is at times popularly referred to as the Japanese ‘Schindler’, Shinozaki’s wartime role remains controversial.Footnote 128 Before the war, Shinozaki had been convicted by the British authorities for espionage and was still in prison when Singapore fell to the Japanese. He was released and worked for the Japanese military as an advisor, chief education officer, and chief welfare officer in occupied Singapore. During the Nishimura trial, when cross-examined by the defence, Shinozaki explained that he had issued two types of passes to Chinese civilians – transport and protection passes – which enabled their holders to avoid detention.Footnote 129 He estimated that he had issued about 20, 000 to 30, 000 passes at the start of the Japanese occupation.Footnote 130 He stated that when these passes did not work, he would personally go to where the individual concerned was detained to obtain his release.Footnote 131 If the sector commanders concerned did not permit the release of civilians, Shinozaki said he would seek the intervention of two accused persons, Yokota Toshitaka and Jyo Tomotasu.Footnote 132 He estimated that he had secured the release of 2,000 people in this manner, ‘[t]hrough Yokota and through Jyo’.Footnote 133 Apart from painting Yokota and Jyo in a positive light, Shinozaki also described the accused Kawamura Saburo as ‘a very quiet person’ who ‘could not fulfil his work’.Footnote 134 When questioned by the defence through the court, he insisted that Yokota and Jyo had merely ‘forwarded on the order’ to the other accused who ‘did the actual work’.Footnote 135
In his trial testimony. Shinozaki referred to the role played by locals in the screening process. Shinozaki confirmed that ‘influential civilians’ and ‘local police’ were involved in the screening process but explained that they had done so because ‘they were afraid of the Kempeitai’. He further claimed that these individuals ‘didn’t know that the result’ or consequences of the screening.Footnote 136 Shinozaki did not hesitate to emphasize his protection of the Chinese community, observing during his testimony that ‘if Shinozaki [that is myself] were not in Singapore’ and if he did not have Yokota’s help ‘what would have been the fate of the Chinese’.Footnote 137 Defence counsel asked Shinozaki to explain how he managed to issue so many passes, hinting that this could not have been done ‘without the Army’s help’. In response, Shinozaki gave the following explanation as to why he had helped Chinese civilians:
I wish to state the meaning of my name first. My name is Shinozaki. Shine means China and Kaki means Cape. So my name would mean cape of China. My name Mamoru in Japanese means protection in English. This I have heard from my father when I was a child.Footnote 138
Shinozaki was also called to give testimony at the sentence mitigation stage. During this stage, he made some strong and lengthy statements about atonement and reparations. The court observed that these statements were probably irrelevant to sentence mitigation but allowed Shinozaki to elaborate on them.Footnote 139 Shinozaki claimed that for this ‘great mistake’ ‘all Japanese express the deepest apologies’.Footnote 140 He proposed to ‘ask the Japanese Government for a large sum excluding general reparations’.Footnote 141 As a ‘member of the Japanese Foreign Office’, Shinozaki said he would ‘take the responsibility’ to ‘amend’ Japan’s mistakes ‘in the bill of humanity’.Footnote 142 He went on to specify he would ask ‘20 thousand dollars’ for each victim. He further declared that he intended to dedicate ‘the rest’ of his life ‘to do something for the families in Singapore’.Footnote 143
6.2 The Overseas Chinese Association and allegations of treason
When testifying at the Nishimura trial, Shinozaki also explained how he and Lim Boon Keng had set up the Overseas Chinese Association (OCA). Lim was a prominent Chinese leader who had been arrested during ‘Sook Ching’ screenings and then released. Shinozaki explained that the role of OCA was to ‘co-operate’ with the Japanese military and ‘protect the Chinese Community’, and that the organization was formed with the ‘permission and understanding’ of senior Japanese officials.Footnote 144 Shinozaki tried to paint the defendant Yokota in a positive light, describing him as ‘a man of understanding’ and ‘sympathy’.Footnote 145 According to Shinozaki, Yokota had asked him to ‘look after’ Lim Boon Keng and establish the OCA. Shinozaki then went on to name several Chinese leaders who had been released by the Japanese military to establish and run the OCA.Footnote 146 Researchers have challenged Shinozaki’s account of the OCA’s establishment. In his landmark book, Red Star Over Malaya, Cheah Boon Kheng explained that the Japanese military had ‘tortured’ and ‘threatened’ Chinese community leaders to secure their participation in the OCA.Footnote 147 One of the main aims of the OCA was to raise 50 million Malayan dollars as a ‘gift’ or ‘atonement’ to the Japanese administration for the Chinese community’s pre-war anti-Japanese resistance.Footnote 148
Shinozaki argued that the OCA ‘actually protected the Chinese people’ and functioned ‘like a brother looking after his younger brother’.Footnote 149 As the British ‘father’ had left, the ‘elder Chinese people had to look after the younger brothers’.Footnote 150 He argued that it was ‘unfair’ for the OCA to be viewed as collaborationist.Footnote 151 Shinozaki explained that the OCA was necessary because the British had ‘left’ the country and ‘left behind so many children’ when the ‘strong step-father came in’.Footnote 152 The ‘eldest brother’, referring to the OCA, ‘came forward to the step father to look after their younger brothers and sisters’.Footnote 153 This familial analogy tracked official propaganda used by the Japanese during the war, depicting Japan as the ‘nucleus’ of the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere.Footnote 154 Apart from the OCA, Shinozaki was also involved in the establishment of the Eurasian Welfare Association (EWA) which served as the link between the Eurasian community and the Japanese administration in Singapore. Charles Joseph Pemberton Paglar, an influential Eurasian surgeon, was appointed as head of the EWA. Paglar was tried by the British after the war for treason and collaboration. At Paglar’s trial, Shinozaki served as a witness and defended Paglar’s actions. He denied that Paglar had ‘whole-heartedly’ co-operated with the Japanese.Footnote 155 Rather, Shinozaki testified that he had issued orders to Paglar and that Paglar had only co-operated with the Japanese to protect the Eurasian community.Footnote 156 Paglar was eventually granted a discharge amounting to an acquittal when the prosecution decided to withdraw the charge.Footnote 157
Some Chinese community leaders publicly criticized Shinozaki’s trial account of his wartime role. The Appeal Committee convened a meeting at the end of the Nishimura trial during which members demanded that Shinozaki be deported from Singapore due to his spying activities.Footnote 158 At this meeting, Chuang Hui Chuan, the Manager of General Affairs of the Appeal Committee, denounced Shinozaki as a mastermind of the ‘Sook Ching’ massacre. Chuang’s speech criticizing Shinozaki was reported by the Chinese press. In this speech, Chuang argued that Shinozaki had only secured the released of those who ‘were not relevant to the Japanese enemy’s schemes’ or ‘those who were willing to assist the enemy as traitors’.Footnote 159 Chuang went on to observe that Shinozaki had lost his ‘status’ and ‘good name’ after the war and that he was ‘only masking his evil deeds as acts of kindness’.Footnote 160 He castigated Shinozaki for behaving as a ‘wily old fox’ in court and for his ‘shameless’ behaviour.Footnote 161 Much tension and uncertainty remains over such questions of collaboration and the role played by personalities like Shinozaki, especially as these remain scarcely discussed in Singapore’s mainstream historical narratives.Footnote 162
7. Conclusion: Subaltern stories in the Nishimura trial
On 2 April 1947, the Nishimura court concluded its hearing and pronounced on the defendants’ guilt.Footnote 163 Kawamura and Oishi both received death sentences while the other five accused were sentenced to life imprisonment. The local press reported that the courtroom was ‘extremely crowded’ and ‘tense’, with many of those in attendance having lost family members or friends.Footnote 164 There was a palpable change in the courtroom’s atmosphere, as the ‘audience lit up with pleasure, expressing their joy’.Footnote 165 The defendants were visibly downcast and ‘seemed to lose their composure’ as their faces ‘slowly turned white’.Footnote 166 Press reports however note that many trial attendees thought the sentences were ‘too light’ and ‘expressed their discontentment’.Footnote 167 On the same day, the Appeal Committee met and expressed their dissatisfaction over the sentences. The Committee declared that it would conduct further evidence collection so ‘they could sue again’.Footnote 168
Despite criticism and pressure from Chinese community leaders, the British authorities stood behind the Nishimura court’s findings and sentences. In their petition submitted at the post-trial review and confirmation stage, defence counsel repeated arguments of superior orders and military necessity in support of their request to ‘rescind the supreme penalty’ and ‘abrogate or at least commute the punishment’ of all defendants.Footnote 169 The review report of the deputy judge advocate general found that the defendants’ petition did not ‘disclose any material factors which were not before the court’ and advised its dismissal. The report also stated that there was ‘sufficient evidence’ to support the findings of the Nishimura court and advised confirmation of the court’s sentences.Footnote 170 Interestingly, the report noted the ‘great outcry against what are said to be the “lenient” sentences of imprisonment for life’, ‘a clamour for enhancement of those sentences’, and ‘other criticisms’ reported in the local Chinese press.Footnote 171 Nevertheless, the report explained that these life imprisonment sentences ‘cannot reasonably be described as lenient’ and that four of those punished with life imprisonment were ‘comparatively junior in the chain of command’.Footnote 172 The report also emphasized that it would be ‘an abuse of judicial discretion’ to refuse confirmation of the court’s findings based on ‘grounds wholly unconnected with the validity or justice of those findings’ with the aim of ‘enabling another court to be convened to pass more severe sentences’.Footnote 173 All sentences handed down by the Nishimura court were eventually confirmed.Footnote 174
This microhistory of the Nishimura trial highlights the varied experiences and agency displayed by survivors and complicates the idea of war victimhood. In doing so, it contributes to TWAIL’s ‘reassessment and rewriting of the past’ which aims at developing a ‘non-Western interpretation of historical developments in international law’.Footnote 175 TWAIL-inspired microhistories of post-war justice efforts, like the Nishimura trial, have the potential to reveal otherwise overlooked exercises of subaltern agency. In the case of the Nishimura trial, Chinese community leaders mobilized the community around the prosecution and punishment of ‘Sook Ching’ perpetrators. Chinese women, who had lost family members and suffered during the Japanese occupation, called for the repayment of the ‘blood debt’ owed by the Japanese for ‘Sook Ching’ killings.Footnote 176 The British authorities, whose legitimacy as colonial authority had been seriously undermined by the war, made efforts to address these demands. Though the Chinese community was persistently depicted by their leaders and the press as united in their suffering and victimization, trial testimonies highlighted the role of local collaborators in the ‘Sook Ching’ screening process. Pursuing justice for ‘Sook Ching’ atrocities had mixed consequences on survivors. While the war crimes prosecution of ‘Sook Ching’ atrocities consolidated local Chinese leadership and politicized many, it also had an ambivalent impact on survivors who sought avoid allegations of collaboration. Prosecution witnesses included Chinese who testified about being forced to work with the Japanese. These witnesses took the opportunity to emphasize the coerced or ineffectual nature of their involvement. Their experience highlights the need for a better understanding of war victimhood and the survival strategies deployed by civilians in times of conflict and occupation.
Apart from contributing to a better appreciation of victim experiences and perspectives, this article’s micro-historical approach and focus on the agency of colonized populations challenges international legal history’s continued Eurocentric tendency, a key objective of TWAIL scholarship.Footnote 177 Such Eurocentricism may be partially explained by international law’s focus on states and formal institutions.Footnote 178 It is challenging to excavate the less powerful voices of war survivors and colonial subjects from archival material compiled by those in positions of power. Nevertheless, as this article demonstrates, these voices and lives can be reconstructed through micro-historical methods of reading and analysis. By spotlighting and exploring the agency exercised by survivors in the ‘Sook Ching’ trial, this article privileges the perspectives of individuals and communities under wartime occupation and colonial rule, beyond their role as victim or survivor. Alongside the common narrative of these post-war trials as an Allied response to Axis atrocities are diverse narratives of civilian survival against shifting constellations of power. Also embedded in these trial transcripts are local stories of anxieties over wartime collaboration allegations. A fuller appreciation of the different roles and aims pursued by trial participants in the Nishimura trial demonstrates the agency exercised by individuals and groups emerging from brutal occupation while under colonial rule.
Open access
