a rather long entry. written whilst delirious.
written: 2:27 a.m. on Saturday, Oct. 27, 2007
LawMad, 26 October 2007, Upper Quadrangle, Bukit Timah Campus
It's been forever since I last posted pictures in this online thing. Facebook has created a shortcut for everything, including my own birthday pictures; but that's got to stop. At some point it's got to stop, this instant gratification, instant convenience mindset and lifestyle.
And since I'm actually really bloody sleepy but somehow can't make myself sleep until it's past 3 a.m. nowadays (it used to be 2 a.m. The Personal Prop assignment has extended my limit, most unfortunately) even though I was falling asleep earlier at 11-something while watching Lost, I thought I might as well do the pictures thing.
We "went for" LawMad yesterday evening. I have no idea what "LawMad" means and I say "went for" because we didn't stick around for the main event, which was the outdoors movie screening of Breakfast at Tiffany's. It was mainly my friends keeping me company while I attempt to corner my ex-boss during the free reception beer food thingy outside the second floor toilet (gosh, I make it all sound so glam), but it turned out that my ex-boss did not attend the event. However, I did manage to catch a very nice associate whom I talked to on a few occasions during my internship, as well as a partner whom I wasn't under, but knew. It's rather strange, in that during one of my late nights I would sit at some random unoccupied cubicle which was directly across the partner's office. So on one of those late nights, he and a few other associates came over to talk to me while I was slogging over something or other...was it the night I was doing the timeline for the defendant's affidavit? I think it was. Anyway, they came over to talk to me which was how I got to know the partner. But the catch? I had no idea that he was a partner at the time of my internship; it was only until after my internship, when I was bored one day, and surfed the firm's website, that I realised that he was a partner. But I plead...I don't know what I plead either, but in my defence, he was really nice and he looked really young. What I mean by he was really nice is that somehow I didn't expect partners to talk to lowly interns unless they are obliged to, i.e. unless the interns are attached to them, which I wasn't. This probably doesn't even make any sense but it was the illusion under which I was labouring anyway.
In any case, he remembered me! But he was talking to a few Year 2's and I didn't think it was nice to butt in and change the topic of the conversation so I lingered around until one of the Year 2's left which created an opening for me...but, most unfortunately, some other girl - Year 1 or 2, I dunno - also took the chance to join the conversation. In the end I was stuck listening to Year 2 conversation about internships and whatnot which would've been fascinating a year ago, but it's no longer a year ago.
Oh well, too bad.
Anyway, that was really the only reason I bothered signing up for the reception thingy. As expected it was full of Year 1s and 2s which is great except I don't know any Year 1s and 2s...okay, more accurately, I know less than 10 Year 1s and 2s combined so what was the point? Fortunately Siming was greedy enough to sign up for the shindig solely for the free food so at least I had SOME form of company. Wenzhao and a few (like, 4) Year 3s were there too.
Chloe sang at the outdoors place and she sings really well! Which she doesn't seem to agree with but she's way too hard on herself. She has a very sweet voice and I enjoyed listening to her! She should sing more. Chloe, you should sing more. Like, totally.
This whole LawMad event would've been something like last year's Law Frat concert, except half my classmates are abroad and the ones that are not abroad did not bother going for the event. So it got rather bleah after a while, and therefore the five of us - Rui, Mag, Chloe, Jean and I, obviously - decided to leave for dinner. And no sooner did we (i.e. Rui) get to the exit gentry that Chloe received a call from Nelson asking her where we were, there was leftover food from some seminar, did we want it?
So we detoured back to school and I mean literally 'detoured'; to avoid the long queue of cars along that road from which you turn right into BTC whose name I of course don't know, Rui drove into the estates and we almost got lost. If it weren't for Mag's brilliant idea of following the car in front, we might have got lost.
That was how we ended up sitting outside the MPA with 3 plates of dry mee siam (which was DAMN NICE), two plates of tarts, one styrofoam lunchbox of brownies and tuna puffs, and one plate of brownie. And lots of unglam eating, dirty jokes, random rubbish, inconsequential but memorable conversation because we don't do this often, or at all, this sem, five of us sitting down hanging out having fun being retarded. And we won't get many opportunities like this because Mag and Chloe won't be around next semester. Sigh.
Seriously, we have to do that movie marathon. Seriously. It's do or die this December!!!!!
I had a really good night, so thank you friends whom I love deep deep. Heh.
I think the reason why I'm so tired right now is because I've had two consecutive long-ass days. Thursday started at 8.30 in the morning and ended at 11.30 p.m. when I reached home, after which I spent an hour doing nothing, an hour watching America's Next Top Model, and half an hour doing nothing before I finally slept at 3. And the next day, Friday, started at 8 a.m. when I had to wake up for a completely useless 9 a.m. Evidence lecture, after which the whole day was spent in school until we left post-MPA dinner at...9 p.m. Seriously insane. But Friday in school was good though; very fulfilling conversation at the Year 3 canteen table with, inter alia, Lavan and Shaun. Initially the conversation was about the Novena Church trial which I really wanna go for but I have no idea where the High Court hearing dates are. Then the conversation shifted to s. 377A and a certain Public Law NMP professor's speech in Parliament which branched out into a lot of other different things. What I really took away from the entire conversation was something Shaun said about being logically consistent. Simply put, to use an example Lavan cited from Year 1 Legal Theory, if the basis of your conviction is that what consenting adults do - not even necessarily in the privacy of their homes I think - is their own business and therefore no activities of that nature, for example homosexual acts, should be criminalised, then incest should not be criminalised too. Lavan said that and Shaun and I were like, "Yeah, I totally agree."
Which would make me seem really weird but I don't see why you draw the line at incest when your criteria is consent between adults. Of course I'm not saying that I agree with it morally; I'm just saying that I leave it up to consenting adults to decide what they want to do. Of course this is under strictly ceteris paribus conditions, in the sense that we're assuming an absence of any undue influence asserted by one party over another which would seem like a given but adults do not have equal constitutions and dispositions; therefore, we're assuming that they're rational and, well, for want of a better word, 'normal', capable of making their own decisions. Not mentally disabled.
In further support of my stand I would like to state that I read a Guardian article two years ago while preparing for Legal Theory exam about siblings separated at birth who grow up not knowing each other at all. Apparently, an estimated (but it's closer to the true picture than not) half of these separated-at-birth siblings meet later in their adults lives either fall in love, or develop sexual relations with each other, or both. And they have no idea that they're siblings when the said relations occur.
My point is, there is always another side to the picture. And until you know the true story, don't be so quick to pass judgment, and certainly don't use law to interfere with an individual's personal life. I would take the extreme stand and say that we should decriminalise incest between consenting adults but I'm pretty sure that a lot of people would think I'm mad. But hey, the certain Public Law NMP professor believes in standing up for our beliefs and I'm standing up for mine.
And speaking of whom, I cannot disagree any more with her stand on 377A and I find her Parliamentary speech objectionable on a lot of levels. But to paraphrase Voltaire, I may not like what you say, but I'll defend to death your right to say it. And quite removed from that, I think she's a brilliant lecturer and professor who has an amazing command of the language and therefore writes amazingly well. Like they say in Christianity (et al?), love the sinner, hate the sin; accordingly, respect the person, disagree (to put it mildly) with the beliefs.
But like I was telling the people at the table though, I really think we need a prominent straight gay rights activist; otherwise the on-the-fence folks might think that only gays want 377A gone, which isn't true at all. I can go on all night about why I think 377A is, to state it simply and plainly, completely senseless, but like I told Kenneth on Thursday over dinner, I have to admit that there is some persuasive force in the PM's overwhelmingly and irritatingly moderate stance, i.e. we'll let you do what you want in private but we won't take away the provision because it's too huge a step. BUT we're not closing off the option of repealing it in the future.
Surprisingly, this is one of the very few occasions in which I'm begrudgingly willing to say that the government isn't doing something entirely wrong, or something that totally affronts my sense of right and wrong and whatever. Of course, it's entirely possible that I feel this way because I haven't any vested interest in the issue because I'm not gay and I think that might be it. As much and strongly as I feel for the cause, there's no way I can fully conceive of the effects the provision has on gay people, be it mentally or socially or whatever. There's no way I can ever feel as strongly about it as a gay person. I can put myself in their shoes, but it's never going to be the same as actually being the owner of the shoes.
But I'm convinced that one day and it won't be after I'm dead (and I'm assuming I die by 40) that 377A would be gone. Shaun said that the perception of homosexuality and people's attitude towards it has changed drastically from 10 years ago which of course I don't remember anything about and since he's three years my senior, I'll take his word for it. For now, that is. Because I'm like, tired, and stuff.
I don't know if anyone's noticed but this entry is very rambly and stream-of-consciousness; I'm VERY TIRED because it's 3.20 a.m. and I think a part of me is falling asleep. But I'm currently working under that state of delirium where your brain is alert but your body on the verge of collapse and therefore you're not really thinking as you ought to which leads to you saying/writing/producing things that don't necessarily connect logically. But hey, what the hell.
Anyway, on to more light-hearted matters. On Thursday I had Personal Prop seminar...which was a complete nightmare. Before I go into the details though, I think I didn't write about the seminar the week before for which I did zero preparation because I was rushing my assignment. So he got to the mixtures/whatever topic, and he decided that he felt like calling on me for the FIRST TIME since the course started. So he was talking about a case whose name I don't remember, and while I was busying trying not to burst out laughing at something Simon said on MSN, my tutor was all, "[Yelen], what did Lord Denning say in this case?"
I heard my name and instinctively went, "Sorry?" It was damn obvious that I was not paying attention. He repeated his question and mentally I was like, "What the fuck?" And so I said, "I don't know, I haven't read the case."
And it was the first time I ever said anything in class. Brilliant, right? He decided to call on me exactly when I hadn't prepared for class. My bad luck apparently extended to the next seminar, this Thursday. He didn't manage to finish the Mixtures/whatever seminar so he brought it forward to the next one. Needless to say I didn't get round to preparing for that topic because choses in action (the topic after Mixtures/whatever) is fucking a lot and difficult and so I spent Wednesday night attempting to prepare but dying in the end. Anyway once again he decided to call on me to answer a question for a seminar for which I read ZERO cases, not even the Powerpoint. So he called me to answer some hypothetical and I read it and my eyes glazed over and I went, "Um." Long silence. A good thirty seconds passed before he said, "Time really flies ah."
WAH LAU WHAT THE... I was trying hard to avoid saying "I don't know" because I said that last week, but the SECOND he said "time really flies" I just resigned to my fate and went, "I don't know. I have no idea."
OMG.
But that wasn't the worst part; IT GETS WORSE. He asked Rui to answer, poor thing, and then went on to say something about specification which I have no idea what it means. Then, for some STRANGE REASON, he finished his point and then said, "[Yelen] was saying something about specification just now. [Yelen] do you think it's right that the owner gets nothing after the manufacturing process blah blah blah?"
In my head I was like, "WHAT? I DIDN'T SAY ANYTHING. I SAID I DIDN'T KNOW. AND I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT. I DIDN'T PREPARE FOR THIS SEMINAR. WHAT'S GOING ON?"
Outwardly I frantically scrolled through his Powerpoint slides and read out the first thing that appeared to make sense. I was all, "Yeah I think it's fair because the original good becomes something else altogether after the manufacturing process." Or whatever. Apparently I talked utter nonsense because he said, What did Lord [insert name] say in [this case], and I pressed down to the next slide and lo and behold it was the quotation he was talking about! So I tried to act smart by reading it out, and I read it out, something about how ownership can only vest in the manufacturer if the original good or something completely disappears.
Which obviously contradicted what I said earlier but at that time I had no idea; I was just reading out loud. It was only after five minutes later that I realised, Shit, I just completely contradicted myself.
I AM SUCH A GENIUS. I REALLY HAVE NO WORDS TO DESCRIBE WHAT A GENIUS I AM.
I bet Tehy thinks I'm utterly retarded.
But there are two (?) seminars left and I will salvage whatever little pride I have left!
Right, that was what I said last week and look what happened this week. UGH.
I was rather upset over it actually because it really just wasn't nice. But still, I spent my afternoon reading Similar Fact Evidence which I find quite interesting and connect-able and it's the first time I ever read anything for Evidence the entire semester. And the exam is like, in...5, 6 weeks? I'm SO DEAD.
I read Evidence from 1 to 5 and I only read three cases. And they weren't even Singapore cases. I didn't manage to get to the Evidence Act. How pathetic. I was meeting Kenneth for dinner which was why I stayed in school; he had CLT until 5-something. And as usual he took forever to show himself but at least he was apologetic about it.
Anyway the whole point was to buy him dinner because his birthday was last Wednesday and I was too preoccupied with Personal Prop and I didn't know what to get him so I thought, buy him dinner! Haha. How can that go wrong right? Free food and my amazing wonderful enjoyable company. Best birthday present ever.
Dinner was good, as usual. A rather funny thing happened: We got into the 377A debate and I was saying something about gays having sex and non-gays having sex. I can't remember what I was talking about exactly, but the salient point is, at the precise moment when I said "have sex" the very nice waiter came over to clear our table. Therefore ensued a funny-awkward moment when no one knew whether to laugh or not, until Kenneth and I looked at each other and started laughing, which prompted the waiter to laugh. I'm sure he found us terribly amusing. What he must've thought man, seriously, me saying "having sex" or "have sex". Terribly amusing.
Lastly, I would like to announce to the entire world that my friend Tong never fails to render me utterly speechless. He is truly one of a kind.
First he tells me, "u r a manifestation of jj spirit." (JJ meaning Jurong Junior of course)
I went:
Hahahahahah wtf
like, totally
...
you're more a manifestation of jurong junior spirit than me
Then I changed my nickname to '"u r a manifestataion of jj spirit" - tong'. It prompted the following and yes, I know the logical leap is rather hard to make but hey, this is TONG we're talking about:
Tong:
can u dont always place wad ppl c as your nick
VIOLATE MI PRIVACY
...
write this
'women were born to sweep the floor' tong
And I did. And Tong went on and on and on about his amazing thesis, to which I could only say, very intelligently, "BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA."
Other highlights:
wen i bcome prime minister
il issue a standard broom
2 evry woman
2 b held at all times of the day
except during sex
wen u check the thesaurus for 'woman'
u wil ged 1 entry
n 1 entry only
'broom'
or rather 2 entries
'broom'
and 'brooms'
And my reaction?
HAHAHAHAHAH WHAT THE FUCK
I'M GOING TO DIE LAUGJING
AND MY ESTATE WILL SUE YOU
I was really rather close to suing him for causing me nervous shock except I hadn't really gone into nervous shock and therefore I had no cause of action. If we had anti-discrimination laws or whatever I would get him under one of those and I bet if I think hard enough I would have a constitutional cause of action. As it stands though, he's just talking rubbish and it made me laugh until I almost died so no need to sue. YET.
But it got even more hilarious which prompted hilarious responses from my friends. Out of nowhere Tong said that he was hungry, and so:
cook some food n bring it here
...
chinese food will do
...
u r a wok
cook me someting
I thought that was the most hilarious shit ever and accordingly I changed my MSN nickname to "'u r a wok' - tong."
And the responses I got?
Peixuan:
haha what's with your nick?
Kenneth:
hello my dear Wok
Chloe:
woks are oily.
have you been cleaned by mama lemon?
In my humble opinion, Chloe is the worst of the bunch. MAMA LEMON? WHAT MAMA LEMON!
And Tong, I am NOT a wok, thank you very much.
3.57 a.m. I am half dead.
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