the law.
written: 1:29 a.m. on Friday, Aug. 26, 2005

ALL HAIL WIRELESS INTERNET CONNECTION!

I probably shouldn't connect to an unsecured network but.

I was trying to do my closed memo until I confused myself while trying to identify a rule and the elements of that rule.

I also found out that I can't write legally to save my arse.

And I need major arse-saving.

Today's technically Friday which means my assignment is due about 47 hours from now.

I am seriously disturbed by the fact that my 'progress' is limited to me typing out the 'to from' business, two dubiously-worded issues and an uncertain 'brief answer' that consists of a sentence and a half.

OH FUCK I AM DEAD.

To top everything off, I succeeded in reading about 15 pages of the 51-page SLS reading. (Reading a reading...that is just godawfully weird.) Which is like, how very impressive, self!

I was reading the parliamentary debate over whether or not to abolish appeals to the Privy Council. My friend just told me on MSN that the debate occurred when Jeyaratnam (how to spell ah, question mark, stupid look on Singaporean face) successfully appealed against a local Court of Appeal judgment, something to do with our beloved Tort of Defamation and a very famous Lee and other crap along those lines. So basically, my point is, the opposition Non-Constituent Member or whatever his title is, was quite right in asserting that the debate too-coincidentally arose after the Jeyaratnam issue.

With this in mind, the whole abolishment of using the Privy Council as the final court of appeal now seems rather dubious.

I had great fun reading the Opposition dude's view on the whole Privy Council debate. My knee-jerk reaction to people who go, "I totally agree with the Government's proposal" is one simple word: Bullfuckingshit.

(Or rather, an amalgamation of two words, 'bullshit' and 'fucking'.)

I can't help it, I really can't. Maybe it's an anti-establishment thing, maybe it's my pretensions to rebellion (the grammar is quite wrong but pardon me for it is late), maybe it's just simply how it's quite obvious to anyone with half a brain that it's quite unnatural for a single political party to remain in power since time immemorial and to remain in power until the world ends or something. And so whoever completely agrees with whatever the Govt. says...is either a major sycophant or a major retard.

Colour me extremely jaded. Like I can help it. Going to Law school has made me even more jaded about fairness and its non-existence in society.

A short illustration: Tort law is supposed to provide remedy to an aggrieved individual, to attempt to put that individual back to the position he was in before the tort was committed. Now, let's take the example of that Singaporean film-maker who was severely injured by a negligent lorry driver while vacationing in India. It's quite obvious to me that the film-maker has a definite cause for (of?) action against the lorry driver, considering the fact that the lorry driver ran over the film-maker's legs a second time for some inexplicable reason after hearing the film-maker's cries when he was ran over the first time. My facts are solely based on that Sunday Life! article I read, but still, as it stands I don't think a reasonable person - let's not even narrow it down to lorry drivers - would conceivably run over the same person twice after knowing that he's ran someone over.

So let's say the film-maker sues the lorry driver and the film-maker wins the lawsuit. The court orders the lorry driver to pay the film-maker damages, which I believe would amount to quite a hefty figure. The film-maker had to amputate one of his legs, had to undergo a few operations and has lost normal use of speech and muscular movements; and then there's the whole issue about how he's lost something else, something less tangible and expressedly determinative, and that's his ability to do what he's passionate about: film-making.

So, we say that Tort law attempts to restore an aggrieved individual to the position he was in before the tort was committed. But how is the lorry driver supposed to pay damages if he doesn't earn enough salary to support himself? Even if the lorry driver is able to pay compensation by some strange stroke of luck, how is monetary compensation going to make up for the film-maker's physical and spiritual (assuming his passion is a spiritual thing) loss? You get a thousand dollars but is that going to help you get back a leg? What is money to you if your life is irrevocably changed, your physicalities irreparably damaged?

And so I'm jaded. I know for sure that if some freak accident happened to me that caused me to lose my sense of sight or intellect or intelligence or whatever, and I survive to feel its horrible repercussions, no amount of money is going to make it any better. Even worse, if the defendant can't pay my damages I don't even get any money. How is that fair to the claimant? How is it fair to the defendant, too, that he has to pay for what is arguably essentially an unintentional mistake?

And apparently, a mentally retarded person is usually held to the standard of care of a reasonable normal person. Um, how is that remotely fair?

I sound so childish, going off about fairness like a 5-year-old kid. But the three weeks in Law school have alerted me to how nothing is fair, period, now and forever, and that makes me sad.

Oh well.

I should at least try to read that 51-page monster document. At least half of it. 15 pages...is just pathetic.

But oh, I am oh so tired. It's 2.09 a.m. I ought to disconnect from this unsecure network.

Whatever, man.

**

Edited to add:

I'm waking up at 9 a.m. later on to wash my hair. I got some free hair treatment product thing at NUS and I want to try it. Yay. How fun. I think Amuro Namie is very pretty.

before sunrise // before sunset


Previously:
- - Tuesday, Aug. 29, 2017
I'm moving. - Sunday, Jul. 11, 2010
In all honesty - Tuesday, Jul. 06, 2010
What I want for my birthday... - Sunday, Jul. 04, 2010
On Roger's behalf. - Friday, Jul. 02, 2010