Just a little before 8am on Friday, 19th October, my dad stormed into my room asking if I required transportation to the interview. Shortly after replying him that I would be going on my own, I proceeded to take a shower. I spent longer than usual in the bathroom as I was busy rehearsing my answers in front of the mirror.
After getting dressed, I sat at my table and looked at the mirror in front of me and began to speak aloud. The purpose of doing this was to ensure that ‘word salads’ do not occur during the course of the interview; in addition, it was to warm up my answering reflexes. Halfway through that, my girlfriend called to wish me good luck. We spoke for a short moment before I resumed my practice.
Promptly at 10am, I departed for the train station. The weather was bright and sunny at first, but gradually grew windy and cloudy—a sign that a heavy thunderstorm is impending. True enough, it started to pour the moment I stepped into the train.
I got off at Bukit Nanas station, a mere hundred yards away from Renaissance Hotel. The rain was incredulously heavy which made it nearly impossible for me to get to the hotel, even with an umbrella. Fifteen minutes went by and the rain had not abated. I decided to take the risk and made a run for it. When I finally arrived at the hotel, my slacks were drenched in rainwater. I sought for the nearest toilet to dry off and to put on my tie. Just before I left the toilet, I looked into the mirror for the final time and there I saw a truly successful applicant; I knew at that moment that I was ready for the interview.
When I arrived on the second floor, I had to verify my identity at the counter with the staff from MABECS. After that, I went to a waiting area where I met three other applicants awaiting their interview. There was one guy from Taylors applying for engineering sciences, one girl for law, and another girl which I could not recall. We talked for several minutes before a representative came for me.
I was brought to a reading room where I was handed a five-paged legal extract and given about thirty minutes to read it. I wasted no time and quickly employed my full concentration to digesting the extract. Very simply, it was a criminal case titled R v Benson involving an individual charged for three counts of crimes, of which he pleaded guilty to two of them. He seeks to appeal the final count: whether or not fingers can be constituted as an imitation of a firearm. The judgments from two judges, Judge Kennedy and Judge Bingham, were included. The former supports the notion that fingers constitute an act of imitating a firearm, while the latter was against it.
While reading the passage, I made notes on the A4 paper stating the main ideas of each paragraph, which I could later refer to during the interview. I managed to finish reading the extract within twenty minutes. I then took a ten-second break and drank a bottle of water before re-reading the extract. Halfway through the third time, a lady came in and called out my name. I acknowledged by raising my hand and followed her outside the room. We introduced ourselves and made our way to the interview room.
After settling down, she initiated the conversation with some pleasantries and touched on domestic affairs, specifically on whether the Chief Justice of Malaysia should be appointed by the Prime Minister or the King. I responded by saying that the former should have the final decision. As judges make laws that affect the general public, it is only justified that the Prime Minister, who is elected by the general public, should decide on the appointment of judges. She seemed to be satisfied with my answer and quickly moved on to the case extract.
She began by asking for a summary of the case, which I gladly provided in a succinct manner. We then discussed the two judgments: that of Judge Kennedy and Judge Bingham, and whether they were justified in the context of this case. She then asked whose judgment I supported, in which I replied that I stood with the latter judge’s line of reasoning since fingers are not objects, as opposed to the two metal pipes conjoined to look like a double-barreled shotgun in R v Morris. I was also asked what the purposive approach was and whether or not it was relevant to the current case.
Throughout the interview, she was constantly writing notes below the table, which I suspect to be, on my level of responsiveness. The interview finally came to an end where I was required to ask questions, if any, on Oxford and its law course. My first question was what had attracted her to Oxford; the second was on the examination structure. I thanked her for the time and the ‘once-in-a-lifetime’ opportunity and that she enjoy the rest of her stay in Kuala Lumpur.
All in all, I would say it was a great interview. I managed to answer all the questions and did not hesitate much. There were no trick questions or ‘curved balls’ thrown at me, which is, in a way, the worrying part since many of the successful applicants had a grueling and horrible interview experience. Nonetheless, I am wishing for the best! Good luck to me! :)
