I was reading the papers and found the professor Ong, presently testifying at the Novena court case to be funny. If it is as traumatic for a senior consultant in psychological medicine, imagine what it could be for the rest of us common people.
-----------------------------------
The New Paper
29 June 2008
Sitting in the witness stand, I felt traumatised
UPSET WITNESS PROFONG SAYS OF DEFENCE LAWYERS:
'HE'S BOTAK'
'HE TREMBLES'
By Arul John
BOTAK and raving lunatic.
That was how one witness described two lawyers in the case at the High Court yesterday.
It was Day Five of the current phase of the civil trial involving Madam Amutha Valli Krishnan, 52. She claims she was the victim of a forced exorcism at the Novena Church on 10 Aug 2004.
Represented by MrRSBajwa, she is demanding compensation and is suing the Redemptorist Order, which runs the church, two priests and six church-goers who allegedly helped in the ritual. Mr Tito Isaac is representing the Order and Father Simon Tan, one of the priests involved.
A senior consultant in psychological medicine at Tan Tock Seng Hospital, Associate Professor Ong Thiew Chai, who was in the witness stand yesterday, asked Justice Lee Seiu Kin for permission to speak his mind about how he had been treated in court.
'COLD SWEAT'
He said: 'Yesterday, I went home and had my meal and went to sleep. At 2.30(am), I woke up with cold sweat. It was not out of fear but of anger at the abuse I received from that very short man over there.'
As he spoke, he inclined his head in the direction of lawyer Denis Tan, who is representing three of the church-goers.
Prof Ong also called Mr Tan 'a raving lunatic' and then called Senior Counsel Jimmy Yim, who is representing Father Jacob Ong, one of the priests involved, a 'botak' (Malay for bald). He said another defence lawyer, MrAnthony Lee, 'trembles as much as he talks'.
Prof Ong said: 'Sitting in the witness stand, I felt traumatised. I cannot go anywhere. 'I need closure. I do not want to go back infragmented pieces, I want to go back in onepiece.'
Justice Lee then calmly placated and reassured Prof Ong, saying that he had recorded his appreciation for his willingness to go through his ordeal in court. He said: 'It is not easy to handle a contentious case like this one.
'Unfortunately, in our adversarial system, evidence is tested in the crucible of cross-examination. 'One of the ways to get at the truth is to test the evidence of the witnesses in cross-examination,' he said.
Justice Lee told Prof Ong that each lawyer had a different style, which may depend on the nature of the evidence and nature of their client's case. He said: 'I try to ameliorate the intensity of cross-examination, but there is only so much I can do without shackling their (the lawyers') cross-examination.'
Justice Lee advised Prof Ong to try not to give long answers when simple 'yes' or 'no' replies would do.
Prof Ong replied: 'I have no problem with Mr Tito (Isaac), but the others have gross emotional immaturity.'
His foul mood did not lift even at the close of yesterday's proceedings. After cross-examining him, Mr Tan said: 'Thank you, Dr Ong. Your trauma is over with us.'
Prof Ong replied: 'I do not think so. I think it will be there for some time and I hope to be able to give it back to you someday on my turf.'
Laughter broke out in the courtroom.
Prof Ong also told Justice Lee that he had aproblem lending a medical book to the defence lawyers to read over the weekend as he 'does not like them'.
Prof Ong's comments were not the only instances of name-calling brought up yesterday.
Mr Bajwa asked Justice Lee Seiu Kin to look into some snide remarks made by lawyer Isaac during earlier proceedings, calling Madam Amutha 'the snake woman of NUH' and then laughing it off.
He said: 'The plaintiff's daughter took grave offence at that remark and complained about it. The counsel should conduct himself with decorum.'
Mr Isaac replied that hehad been informed that the remarks about Madam Amutha arose during ward visits by doctors at National University Hospital and he had asked her former psychiatrist, Prof Ong, if he was aware of them.
He said: 'Dr Ong said he was not aware of it.'
Justice Lee advised Mr Isaac to exercise discretion during his questioning, as Madam Amutha's family might take offence at any perceived levity.
-----------------------------------
The New Paper
29 June 2008
Sitting in the witness stand, I felt traumatised
UPSET WITNESS PROFONG SAYS OF DEFENCE LAWYERS:
'HE'S BOTAK'
'HE TREMBLES'
By Arul John
BOTAK and raving lunatic.
That was how one witness described two lawyers in the case at the High Court yesterday.
It was Day Five of the current phase of the civil trial involving Madam Amutha Valli Krishnan, 52. She claims she was the victim of a forced exorcism at the Novena Church on 10 Aug 2004.
Represented by MrRSBajwa, she is demanding compensation and is suing the Redemptorist Order, which runs the church, two priests and six church-goers who allegedly helped in the ritual. Mr Tito Isaac is representing the Order and Father Simon Tan, one of the priests involved.
A senior consultant in psychological medicine at Tan Tock Seng Hospital, Associate Professor Ong Thiew Chai, who was in the witness stand yesterday, asked Justice Lee Seiu Kin for permission to speak his mind about how he had been treated in court.
'COLD SWEAT'
He said: 'Yesterday, I went home and had my meal and went to sleep. At 2.30(am), I woke up with cold sweat. It was not out of fear but of anger at the abuse I received from that very short man over there.'
As he spoke, he inclined his head in the direction of lawyer Denis Tan, who is representing three of the church-goers.
Prof Ong also called Mr Tan 'a raving lunatic' and then called Senior Counsel Jimmy Yim, who is representing Father Jacob Ong, one of the priests involved, a 'botak' (Malay for bald). He said another defence lawyer, MrAnthony Lee, 'trembles as much as he talks'.
Prof Ong said: 'Sitting in the witness stand, I felt traumatised. I cannot go anywhere. 'I need closure. I do not want to go back infragmented pieces, I want to go back in onepiece.'
Justice Lee then calmly placated and reassured Prof Ong, saying that he had recorded his appreciation for his willingness to go through his ordeal in court. He said: 'It is not easy to handle a contentious case like this one.
'Unfortunately, in our adversarial system, evidence is tested in the crucible of cross-examination. 'One of the ways to get at the truth is to test the evidence of the witnesses in cross-examination,' he said.
Justice Lee told Prof Ong that each lawyer had a different style, which may depend on the nature of the evidence and nature of their client's case. He said: 'I try to ameliorate the intensity of cross-examination, but there is only so much I can do without shackling their (the lawyers') cross-examination.'
Justice Lee advised Prof Ong to try not to give long answers when simple 'yes' or 'no' replies would do.
Prof Ong replied: 'I have no problem with Mr Tito (Isaac), but the others have gross emotional immaturity.'
His foul mood did not lift even at the close of yesterday's proceedings. After cross-examining him, Mr Tan said: 'Thank you, Dr Ong. Your trauma is over with us.'
Prof Ong replied: 'I do not think so. I think it will be there for some time and I hope to be able to give it back to you someday on my turf.'
Laughter broke out in the courtroom.
Prof Ong also told Justice Lee that he had aproblem lending a medical book to the defence lawyers to read over the weekend as he 'does not like them'.
Prof Ong's comments were not the only instances of name-calling brought up yesterday.
Mr Bajwa asked Justice Lee Seiu Kin to look into some snide remarks made by lawyer Isaac during earlier proceedings, calling Madam Amutha 'the snake woman of NUH' and then laughing it off.
He said: 'The plaintiff's daughter took grave offence at that remark and complained about it. The counsel should conduct himself with decorum.'
Mr Isaac replied that hehad been informed that the remarks about Madam Amutha arose during ward visits by doctors at National University Hospital and he had asked her former psychiatrist, Prof Ong, if he was aware of them.
He said: 'Dr Ong said he was not aware of it.'
Justice Lee advised Mr Isaac to exercise discretion during his questioning, as Madam Amutha's family might take offence at any perceived levity.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment