355
He admits that Mr. Guterres himself said nothing about making any deduction (p.18 of evidence).
Mr. Guterres' explanation is that a Chinaman came alone, professing to be Cheuk Foo. He did not know him and told him that he must bring evidence of identity, e.g., the Boarding master who shipped him, who shipped the man. The man went away and did not return. Ng Ying Sing called in support of Cheuk Foo's statements.
The evidence of ... does not amount to much except that he heard Mr. Guterres tell him to come back and bring Sai Yau with him, he would be paid.
I submit that there is no real divergency between the two accounts. It is probable that Cheuk Foo is giving his evidence in all good faith and really thought that Mr. Guterres wanted Sai Yau to be there because he wished to deduct the money; whereas Mr. Guterres really only wanted Sai Yau or someone else to identify the man. There may easily have been a little misunderstanding but I submit that the charge is much too flimsy to serve as a ground for dismissing an officer with nearly 38 years' service.
There seems to be some question whether Mr. Guterres had any right to refuse payment whether the man who produced the pay note was the right man or not. He may perhaps have erred from excess of caution but the fault is certainly a venial one. (Mr. Guterres says that the money is in the hands of the departmental shroff and his statement is not disputed.)
On charge (c) Mr. Guterres is not convicted although the boarding house masters give evidence in support of it. Why take their word in one case and not in another?
Charge (d) also is not proved and need not be examined, but I may add that Captain Rumsey says that it is absurd on the face of it (p.23). The Captains bring their own money, -dollars, notes, and small coin- and it is paid over to the men in their presence. No substitution could be made without their seeing it and even if it could, the change could not be worked without the connivance of the Shroff, to whom Mr. Guterres has to apply for change, no Government money being in his custody.
Charge (e) is that Mr. Guterres made a practice of deducting from the wages money lent to the men by boarding house keepers and others and charged a commission for so doing. He denies the charge in toto. One member of the Council held that there was no evidence in support of this charge. The rest thought Mr. Guterres was probably guilty. If a man is to be dismissed on a probability of this character, the position of a Government servant will not be enviable. There is no evidence of any individual case to which Mr. Guterres could reply. Ng Sz Ko alleges that he got Mr. Guterres to make deductions in 1902 (page 7) and in the "year when a man was stabbed in Singapore" (Probably this event has occurred every year since 1819?!), and so on. Inspector Hanson (p.2) states that he has been informed that Mr. Guterres was addicted to this habit. This is hearsay evidence.
To sum up, I submit that charge (a) is conclusively disproved: that Mr. Guterres' explanation of charge (b) is satisfactory, and that charge (e) is not a definite charge at all. In its nature, it admits only of the bare denial which Mr. Guterres gives it. If he is to be convicted on it, definite instances should be adduced.
Charges (c)...