SHE has no formal legal training, but has no qualms filing lawsuits, taking to court relatives who she feels have wronged her.
Family Torn apart: Madam Ong and her elder daughter.
Fighting the cases herself, she single-handedly won three of four cases.
The latest one is still pending.
The 38-year-old, who is a graduate and a housewife, is a mother of two.
To protect the identity of her daughters, aged 5 and 10, we are not using the real names of the parties involved in the cases.
In 2001, Madam Ong sued two of her brothers-in-law for using criminal force and causing minor injuries to her during a family quarrel.
She did not have a lawyer, but representing herself, she won the case when the court ordered both men to pay her $800 in compensation, make a verbal apology, and sign an undertaking not to repeat their actions.
In 2003, after she was estranged from her husband, she took him to the Family Court and demanded that he pay a fixed sum of money monthly to support her and her children.
She won and was awarded a monthly sum of $600.
In 2006, she filed charges against one of her brothers-in-law again, for using abusive words and gestures on her.
Again, she got what she wanted when the man was ordered to apologise to her before the judge.
Last month, the housewife was back in the Subordinate Courts - this time for a pre-trial hearing after she lodged a Magistrates' Complaint against her brother-in-law.
In the fresh charge which she drafted herself, Madam Ong alleged that he had used abusive and insulting words with intent to cause harassment, alarm and distress to her in public.
In the case, the man was alleged to have used his right index finger to make several circular motions around the right side of his head while sticking out his tongue, before uttering the word 'crazy' to her.
A one-day trial has been set for 1 June.
In an interview with The New Paper on Sunday, Madam Ong said it did not bother her even though her lawsuits have affected her relationship with her husband, who no longer lives with her.
The slim and bespectacled woman said she is willing to go through everything all for 'the sake of justice'.
She did not mind the tedious process of drafting and filing legal documents and attending court sessions.
When asked why she chose to air her domestic disputes publicly in a courtroom instead of trying to resolve them privately, she replied: 'I just want to see that justice is done.
'My main intention is to let them realise that they have violated the law and they are not going to get away with it.'
It appears that things always come to a head in this family because one or both parties refuse to give in.
Her brother-in-law said: 'It's not like I did not try (to give in), but enough is enough.' He now prefers to let the court decide which party is right (see report on pg 4).
Madam Ong said she decided to file the suits herself because she wanted to save on legal costs.
'I don't have the money and I don't want to waste it even if I have,' she said.
By fighting the cases herself, the arts and social sciences graduate just had to pay the $1 fee for every summons issued to an accused person to appear in court.
Madam Ong
Seen here outside the Subordinate Courts as she prepares to take on her brother-in-law in the latest case.
As she does not have a lawyer, she would have to accompany the court officer to serve the court papers on the defendants.
While she didn't have to pay any legal fees for serving the papers, she had to pay for the cab fare incurred during the trip.
Madam Ong also said that she is interested in law and 'feels very passionately about it'.
TRAWL THE NET
So she does most of her legal research by trawling the Internet for information and reading articles on past cases.
She said: 'I was determined to familiarise myself with the Penal Code, and the rights I had.'
To learn more about how to present her case, Madam Ong also sat in for 'court hearings to check out the formality of the proceedings'.
The former administrator said: 'I went from courtroom to courtroom to listen to all the different cases, and took notes of all the exchanges.
'I paid particular attention to the legal lingo so that I could do more research.'
She also tapped on the expertise of her ex-schoolmates who studied law.
And by the time she had to meet her brothers-in-law in court, Madam Ong said she was able to draft her charge sheets.
Both men were facing charges for pushing her on to the road during a confrontation.
She added: 'The greatest satisfaction was when I won the case.'
Her husband stayed away from the hearings because 'he was sandwiched between his brothers and me,' she said.
However, she admitted that her marriage was a stormy one - and that each time after their quarrels, her husband would take off and seek refuge with his family.
The couple married in 1996.
She claimed: 'It's not that we have separated or divorced, he just needs some time to cool off.'
It was during one of their arguments that she decided to apply for a Maintenance Order in September 2003.
In that judgment, Madam Ong's husband, a former IT engineer, was ordered to pay her a monthly maintenance of $600.
'It was a matter of principle, to get him to commit to paying a regular sum,' she claimed.
But in a document dated 26 Oct to his lawyer, Madam Ong's husband described her as 'a person used to getting her own ways with whatever she sets her mind unto... All this, as long as she can achieve what she determines is fair and right in her eyes.
'By her so doing, she has caused much distress, misery and anguish not only to myself but also to the people around me, including my relatives.'
He also wrote that 'due to extreme anguish caused to me by her unreasonable and abusive behaviours', he had to stop living with her.
'The latest of this episode had me staying with my mother at her place, starting four years ago and ending two months ago,' he stated.
Madam Ong's husband had, by then, considered filing for a divorce, but for some reasons, he backed out at the last minute.
He could not be contacted for an interview.
And despite Madam Ong's seeming familiarity with the law, it did not keep her away from getting in trouble herself.
In May 2003, she was sentenced to a week's jail and fined $2,500 (see report on page 4).
Still Madam Ong harbours the lofty vision of highlighting the plight of 'unfortunate victims who don't have the financial means or the knowledge to seek justice'.
She claimed she had the support of her own family members.
'They respect how I feel and understand that I'm not doing this just for myself,' she said.
'There are many cases whereby victims have no resources to pursue further. Maybe the relevant authority can review the current system.'
For this reason, Madam Ong said she did not hesitate to file the new charges against her brother-in-law.
She said: 'I hope that the public can gain some insight using my real-life experience on such issues.'
