The Malaysian Bar - YL Personality

Home

Committees

National Young Lawyers

YL Personality - Ong Yu Jian

Contributed by Valerie Choo Huae Ling

Thursday, 28 August 2008 05:41am

Ong Yu Jian graduated from Northumbria University in 2003 and was thereafter admitted to the English Bar in 2005 (as a member of Grays’s Inn). He is presently practising in Kuala Lumpur in the area of civil litigation. Being a pragmatic optimist from Georgetown, he thinks that the cup is neither half-full nor half-empty; to a thirsty person, drinking that glass of water is more important. Valerie Choo spoke to him on the current issues in the country.

1. The eyes of the world were on the 29th Olympic Games which kicked off in Beijing on 08.08.2008 with a spectacular opening ceremony. Are you a fan of the Olympic Games? Which of the sports featured are you following?

I am not exactly a “fan” of the Olympics per se but I do appreciate the momentousness of the occasion and in awe of the celebration of humanity through sports. Does that sound politically-correct yet totally rubbish enough? I should be in politics.

On a serious note, I’ve not been following much of the games as much as I’d like to due to work commitments (hint hint, bosses) but thus far, the men’s football seemed pretty interesting. Watching Michael Phelps set the waters on fire with his record gold haul and witnessing Usain Bolt tearing up his opponents on the track were a few of the highlights of Beijing too, in my books.

2. Motorists entering Kuala Lumpur on 14th July morning were caught in massive jams as police mounted roadblocks to deter people from attending a gathering outside Parliament. Were you affected by the massive traffic jam that unfortunate morning? What can you say about the road block operations undertaken by the police?

Yes, whenever there’s a roadblock, someone like me who commutes from Petaling Jaya to the heart of KL everyday would most definitely be affected. Specifically, I was held up on the SPRINT Highway in front of Section 17 for a good 45 minutes that morning.

My opinion is that a road block set up for such a purpose is an annoying exercise in futility. It served no purpose other than to raise levels of stress in the citizens and indirectly encourages further contempt against the government of the day. I do not see the point in cutting down a busy 4-lane highway to a single lane only for the dozen or so police officers deployed at the scene to non-chalantly wave every car through without even bothering to inspect or even look at the passing vehicles.

3. What is your opinion on the statement made by the Home Minister Datuk Seri Syed Hamid Albar that the police roadblocks were carried out in the interests of the public and the police were merely exercising their rights in taking preventive measures?

It’s amusing how people in power still assume that today’s thinking citizens would simply accept the vague and oft-repeated “in the interests of public” phrase without a second thought. Such vernacular should be banned and people uttering such phrases should be compelled to define “public” and clarify whose “interests” are really being protected.

There is simply no acceptable evidence suggesting that those road blocks would have “prevented” any untoward incident from occurring. In fact, there was no discernible untoward incident that would justify the roadblock other than “rumours and gossips”. It was plain and obvious that such an operation gave the impression of abuse of power and the very Malaysian habit of over-reacting to non-credible suspicions.

4. As a result of the police roadblocks, CLP candidates who did not sit for the first paper on Monday can take it in October. What is your take on that? Do you think it is a fair move? Why?

Of course it isn’t fair. On a macro level, the non-participation of the CLP students through no fault of their own would inevitably affect the rate of passing / scoring for that entire batch. When coupled with the alleged strict “quota system” or passing rate, this would mean that this year’s CLP batch results would have been largely affected by the roadblocks.

On a micro level, it is unfair to make a student “re-take” an exam he did not fail. If the “re-take” is much harder than the original CLP, then there would be cries of it being unfair to those who had to re-take. If it is easier, then it is unfair to those who took the CLP exams originally. It cuts both ways prejudicially.

In the first place, the whole CLP system and exam is a joke and everyone knows it. But that’s veering into another topic so I shall refrain from making further disparaging comments on the misconceived creature called CLP and why it should be consigned to the dustbin of our nation’s history.

5. Bar Council organised a forum on ‘Social Contract’ on 28th June. Disagreeing with the hosting of the forum, Prime Minister Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi said discussions on the social contract might lead to feelings of animosity and give rise to tension. Can you share with us your thoughts on that?

Cultural, political and racial divides can only be eliminated through understanding and learning from one another. Without the maturity to disagree, debate or discuss issues concerning the same, no matter its sensitivity, we will never progress beyond the stage of pre-conceived prejudices against one another.

A government that truly wants its citizens to grow as one and unite should play an active role in promoting such open discussions. But of course if the intention is to merely talk about racial integration whilst secretly segregating the races in bids to ‘divide and conquer’ with fear-mongering amongst the grassroots, then that’s a different story altogether.

6. The courts may soon be given more bite when dealing with errant lawyers. What do you think of the above statement?

It’s an academic statement. Much like everything else in this country, the laws are there. The rules are clear. The problem lies in enforcement. Simply put, the world’s best typewriter can also produce warbled text with no meaning when put in the hands of a monkey.

So no, the courts are well equipped with enough bite to strike the fear of God into errant lawyers based on existing laws and regulations. What we need is an overhaul of mentality, administration and attitude. This sadly, could not come overnight. Not especially when most of us still have the mentality of a 3rd world country.

7. The Bar Council recently held its controversial ‘Conversion to Islam: Article 121 (1A) of the Federal Constitution’ forum despite opposition and criticism from various parties. Do you share the Council’s thoughts that the forum should proceed as scheduled? Why?

As stated above, any forum / talk / discussion which touches on the sensitive topics SHOULD not only be allowed, it should be encouraged fervently. Just as you cannot forge metal with silk, such talks and disagreements are necessary for society to progress. The people who are incensed at perceived “attacks” on their religion or race should get off from their high chairs of hypocrisy and engage in intelligent discussions to defend such principles if they dare call themselves civilised.

It is ridiculous to justify keeping our mindset stuck to the middle ages of ignorance just because such talks may potentially cause “opposition and criticism” from various parties. As long as the powers that be bow to the unreasonable pressure from immature zealots – whatever race they may be - there is sadly no hope for racial integration in our country.

8. The objective of the forum was to highlight the plight of families caught in legal dispute resulting from conflicts in the civil and syariah legal system. What is your comment on the allegations that the forum organiser was trying to challenge the position of Islam and question the provision of Article 121 (1A) conferring jurisdiction to the Syariah Courts?

Those allegations go further to prove that large segments of our society will still react on impulse without actually trying to understand the cause of their anger. It is reasonable to suggest that majority who protested vehemently that day did not even know specifically what the discussion was for or its purpose. As long as some self-anointed “leaders” amongst them tell them that an attack on their religion is about to happen and they are to defend it, they will march blindly to battle. In a way, I don’t blame the protestors as much as the puppet-masters manipulating them for their hidden agendas.

9. As a member of the Bar, in your opinion, what measures can the Council take if it wishes to hold similar forums on religion in the near future?

It is not what measures the Council should take but rather at what length the Council is willing to sacrifice itself to promote intelligent exchange of opinions and ideas. As long as there are foreign agents out there bent on preserving the status quo of ill-will and misconception in society, the Council will always face stiff opposition when trying to educate the public. The Council is indeed in a thankless position. To keep quiet and you have quarters calling it an ineffective and puppet Council. To initiate changes and other quarters would call them trouble-makers and opposition-influenced. It’s a lose-lose position, sadly.

10. With threats of the ISA being used on members of the Bar Council, do you think statements made and caught on video by protestors who attempted to storm the Bar Council ought to be investigated and threatened with the ISA too?

Most definitely. Technically speaking, the protestors that day should have been given the same lashing that HINDRAF supporters felt the brunt of not long ago, if not more, supposing we were living in an utopian model of society. Sadly, in this very real world and very real country, we all know what happened that day and what did not happen after that.