We represent the Law Society

Okay let's take this as an appetizer to the main internship entry.

Last Friday, I was brought to the Supreme Court. One of the litigators at the firm was representing Law Society in a case before the Court of Three Judges.

For those who don't know the difference between a Court of Three Judges and a Court of Four Judges (something which doesn't exist) but vaguely suspect that it represents some kind of important tribunal, you are absolutely right.

See when a lawyer does something naughty, he will be subjected to disciplinary action. Punishment can range from a reprimand ("you bad bad boy/girl!"), a fine (a slap on the Rolex-ed wrist), suspension ("phew it's not that bad") to being struck off the rolls ("now this is bad!"). The more serious sanctions (suspension and striking off the rolls) can only be imposed by the Court of Three Judges.

Okay back to the case.

So my poor lawyer got the least enviable job of representing the law society against his own brethren. As if that wasn't bad enough, my lawyer was late for court that day. It was supposed to start at 10a.m., we arrived at 10.40a.m. And our submissions were not tabbed, which was unprofessional and most probably gave the judges a bad impression. And why weren't they tabbed? Because we were still printing and binding them that very morning. Why weren't they done earlier? Err.. search me.

So anyway, as my dear readers would have suspected by now, we didn't do very well for the oral submission. But considering the circumstances, that was perhaps inevitable. Out of respect for my lawyer, I shan't go into the details here (about how he got whacked and everything and how the other side couldn't wait to do him in and so on).

That's not the main point. The main point is I got to see CJ Chan and Andrew Phang in action! Oh wait, you say. Weren't there supposed to be three judges? Where's the other one. Err.. I think the other one was Justice Chao but I'm not too sure (shame on me yes). But you must understand, my friend, in appellate courts like this (though this is not technically an appellate matter), there will be a panel of judges. But not all will speak and make an impression.

Take the US Supreme Court judges for instance. Justice Scalia's known as the funniest and Justice Ginsburg the least so. Some judges rarely speak up during bench trial, some keep interrupting. And today, Justice Chao didn't speak up that much. I think he spoke a grand total of 2 sentences.

Nevermind about that, the CJ and Andrew Phang J were very entertaining on their own. I don't know where I got the impression but I always imagined Andrew Phang J to be a very gentle person, as a academic would usually be. But boy, he was shrewd! Appearing opposite us in court were the four errant lawyers. One of them, M, was represented by AV, a very prominent litigator. He once came to our school to give a talk and we had to wait about two hours for him. A very important man he is!

But the truth is: AV was really good at his trade. It was the kind of standard that you would see in movies or TV dramas and not at all boring or monotonous as it is in real life. But the CJ and Andrew Phang J saw right through it. The CJ was, of course, nicer and prompted AV to move on to other things when the latter kept harping on what a good hockey chairman his client was. Andrew Phang J, on the other hand, jumped right it and told him to, and I quote the wise judge, "stop muddying the waters". Man it felt good when the judge said it. It reminded me of something one of the law professors once mentioned in jest (or it could be one of the guest speakers, can't remember whom) that all litigators are liars and cheaters.

But regardless, AV was very entertaining. Many in the gallery probably went because of him. They all left when he was done. The other two lawyers and the lady who represented herself were less entertaining, even though yet to the point of being boring. I found the last defendant (the lady) most interesting because even though she was saying how remorseful she was, her attitude was telling a completely different story. She was like "okay, whatever" through the whole submission. I'm not saying that she actually said those words but that was basically her attitude. And as expected, the judges were not very impressed with her.

Even though our side did miserably, it was a real eye-opener for me. To see the CJ and Andrew Phang J in action was well worth the trip. And plus, I got to wear my Massimo Dutti and lug the Catalog Case (you know the bag that pilots and air stewardess lug around?). I probably looked the part. When we met a lawyer from the other side at the junction, I think he took me for an associate. And when passers-by look at me, I knew they had the look of envy and awe in their eyes. Okay, shall stop imagining these things haha.

So has this trial inspired me to become a litigator and chuck the corporate work? You know how funny it is that lawyers like to ask me what area of practice I want to go into later on and when I said corporate, they would usually give a nod of approval (real or imaginary) and seemed to be saying "just like what I thought". Why can't I do litigation? Okay this is a majorly silly debate. And the truth is: unless you are a litigator in a big firm, you are probably not earning a lot. The litigators in my firm are not doing that well. Corporate work, on the other hand, pays rather handsomely. And it is definitely less demanding than litigation. And according to CP, the wonderful mentor, I have a knack for corporate work. Doesn't matter if he was just being nice. I shall take it to be true!

Alright that's it folks. I'll blog about the other parts of the internship later. Maybe days later. Maybe weeks later. Maybe not at all. Tendency is towards option 3 at the moment. Heehee.

[Preview] I am an intern

I am ending my month-long internship next week. It has been a fun experience. Not nearly as shitty as internships are supposed to be. I am also very well remunerated. To find out more, watch this space!

Forrest Gump

Oh my God. It was such a GOOD movie!!! Can't believe I'm 13 years late (It came out in 1994). No wonder people kept talking about the character. For some reason, I always assumed it was something like "Army Daze". Dont' ask me why.

The thing about the movie is that it gives you a sense of hope and makes you believe in the goodness of life again. But it is depressing (some would say comforting) to know that some things just happen to you, even/especially if you didn't particularly ask for it. Forrest Gump knew nothing about football and yet he became an All-American football star and even got to meet the President of United States and had 15 free Dr Peppers. He didn't know what the Vietnam War was about and yet he came back with a medal. He knew nothing about the "shrimping business" and yet because of a promise he made to a dead comrade (and "best good friend" in his own words), he went into the shrimping business with the $25 000 he got from endorsing ping-pong paddles (oh ya he was a ping-pong star too and was part of the team to China during the ping-pong diplomacy). And because some Hurricane destroyed the whole shrimping industry and his boat was the only one surviving, he made it big in the shrimping business. He and his partner, Lieutenant Dan (who lost his legs during the goddamn war) even appeared on the cover of Fortune. Lieutenant Dan later invested in a "fruit company" whose stocks soared. Guess which company it is? Clue: Ipod.

And Forrest Gump had a childhood sweetheart who offered him the seat beside her on the bus when no one wanted Forrest to seat next to them cos Forrest was a dimwit and all. They were like peas and carrots until high school and in fact, all the way to college. Whenever the neighbourhood boys pick on Forrest (like throwing stones at him), Jenny, the childhood sweetheart would say this: "Forrest, run, Forrest!" And ran he did. In fact he ran so fast that he even got a scholarship to play football in college. Otherwise, there was no way he could have gotten to a college. In fact, his primary school principal didn't want to admit him initially cos his IQ was 75 and below normal. His mother had to give the principal sexual favours before he would agree. It was all very sad.

Jenny had a rough childhood. The father either beat her and her sisters up all the time or "touched them inappriopriately". The film didn't make it clear even though he sure as hell looked like a alcoholic with a bad temper. That was probably why she led a wild life for the better part of her life. She separated and reunited with Forrest a couple of times until finally she married Forrest when their son was about 5 (it could have been 7, I'm bad at gauging kids' age) and she was down with some terminal illness.

The first time Forrest told her he loved her she didn't believe Forrest knew what love was about. He probably didn't at that time. The second time he told her he loved her she said she loved him too and they had sex. It was quite nice. But she left the next day. The third time it was she who said she loved him and asked him to marry her. And she did love him till the day she died. It was all very sad and romantic. For some reason, I kept thinking Jenny was played by Keira Knightley. I mean she felt right for the character. Isn't that weird?

There is a saying in Chinese that goes something like this: Silly people have their own brand of luck. I think that's what happened with Forrest Gump. Be a little nicer to people around you, even those you would consider unsavoury characters. You never know how your life's gonna be changed by these people.

5 out of 5 popcorns for Forrest Gump.

Most gay Sony Cybershot commercial

I'm not sure if any of you have seen the Sony Cybershot T100 (okay obviously you won't necessarily remember or take note of the model. I didn't. It came from research.) commercial, you know the one about a girl walking down a quiet lane and then suddenly there is carnival/circus thing going on. She whips out her Cybershot camera and tries to take a picture of this girl in pink outfit and later uses the inspiration for her fashion show. Okay she doesn't just take the picture of one girl; it's a bunch of girls. But the girl in pink is featured most prominently. And the song playing in the background goes "I've been waiting all my life...". So it's as if the camera girl's been waiting for the pink carnival girl all her life. Pretty gay hur?

Homophobic bigots!!!

It surprises me how homophobic and illogical some of these people are. There is this guy who wrote in to Straits Times about how Minister Mentor's (what a crappy title by the way) comments about liberalising laws regarding homosexuality (he said that?) had him and his family worried.

Worried about what? That gay men would go on a rape rampage? He claimed that decriminalising homosexual behaviour would turn Singapore into an "un-wholesome" place as if Singapore is some fishing village where the people are mostly pure and innocent folks. Oh please! And oh yes, if you want to raise birth rates, don't legalise homosexuality. Because fewer babies... mismatch of "resources". Rubbish! Lesbians are probably the most proliferate females around. Err.. not entirely true either. But still the birth rate argument is lame.

And what is with "Homosexuals lead a promiscuous and hedonistic lifestyle"?? This is over-generalisation at its worst! Senseless people like Jonathan Cheng Hern Sinn should not be allowed to write into the Straits Times. They should just... blog. Quietly. Or just die.

But what was more amusing was this piece by a NUS law professor. Another reason to heave a sigh of relief that I wasn't accepted into NUS law. It's a pretty long piece, the main point of which being decriminalising homosexuality would be a slippery slope. If you tell people it's okay to be gay, everyone is gonna take the opportunity to be gay! Even if they're not pre-disposed to be gay. They will do it if they see their friends do it. Cos' it's cool and hip!

Obviously that's not going to happen! What will happen is that people who have been repressing their sexual orientation will find a little more breathing space. No that they will be free from nagging/despisal/marginalisation from people around them who are not as ready to accept their difference. Decriminalising will not transform homosexuality into something "wholesome" overnight. What it does is that homosexuality is now recognised as a behavioural trait that is perhaps deviant from the accepted societal norms but not necessarily criminal.

The author claimed that "An active homosexual agenda has engendered clashes with fundamental liberties such as free speech and religious liberty." and that "People who oppose the homosexual agenda are branded as intolerant, bigoted, homophobes, or hateful towards homosexuals who are merely 'different'." So to the author, it is a choice between 1) legalising homosexuality or 2) continuing to give bigotic homophobes the freedom to be bigoted and homophobic and oh, openly hateful towards homosexuals. It's like saying let's not think of Jews as humans, otherwise we can't put them into gas chambers. Criminalising homosexuality serves the purpose of depriving of homosexuals of a legal platform to put across their agendas. So much for the right to freedom of speech.

Would legalising homosexuality really lead to moral degradation (empirically measured in number of childless homosexuals)? To answer that, one would have to examine the basic assumption that homosexuality is bad. What are some of the reasons people give for demonising homosexuality?

1) That God forbids so. Obviously He won't tell us why so let's just sidestep this reasoning for the moment.

2) That homosexuality is against the nature. Nature as defined by...? If it is nature as defined by God then we're back to Reason No. 1. If it is nature as in mother nature, then it is useful to note that homosexual behaviour is anything but rare in animals. But if you claim we're not animals like "them animals", then well...

3) Declining birth rates. We've been there before. Even if you put a man and a woman together, they might still not reproduce.

4) Homosexuals are promiscuous and are the major carriers of HIV and AIDs because of the way they engage in sexual behaviours. Even if it were true, it is really more of a matter of personal hygiene than anything else. Furthermore, not all homosexuals are sex fiends. And the argument is inherently unsound. It is not like when you decide to criminalise drink-driving. Drink-driving is bad because it has potentially lethal consequences and it is a threat to public safety. You cannot apply the same logic to homosexuality. You don't criminalise heroin users because they share needles (which transmit HIV) but because drug use is illegal.

Then it begs the question of whether homosexual behaviour is illegal. Why is drug use illegal? Because it has harmful social consequences. And according to our dear NUS law professor, "It is a known medical fact that homosexual intercourse or sodomy is an inherently unhealthy act that carries higher risks of a number of sexually transmitted infections. The law should not facilitate acts which threaten public health." So homosexual behaviour is illegal.

Well, if it were that case, then having multiple sex partners and having unprotected sex should be criminalised as well, not to mention heterosexuals who prefer to, occasionally, "enter through the back door". So essentially, it is not the act itself which is bad or wrong (if you go by her argument) but how the act is being carried out, namely recklessly. So if men can screw each other in a protected manner, then the argument would fall apart.

As for the slippery slope argument, it is even more ridiculous. It is wrong to continue criminalising homosexuality just because decriminalising it would potentially open the floodgates to more tricky issues such as greater gay rights, same-sex marriage and gay adoption (of babies, not adoption of homosexuality as an alternative lifestyle). You can't say it's gonna be a messy business so let's not go there.

The question here is whether homosexuals here are willing (not that they have much choice but...) to accept the deal of keeping their private life hush-hush (the tacit understanding is that the government would not raid the bedrooms of homosexuals if they don't openly demand more rights such as the abolition of Section 377A) in exchange for being "tolerated" by the majority of "wholesome" Singaporeans. And is it really so bad to accept such a deal? Hmm...

The point of Project Work is...?

None!

There is absolutely no sense in Project Work. It's nothing but crap and agony. Well admittedly more agonising for those who put in as much effort but didn't do well in the end. Like myself. I was a victim of racial hatred. Ha! Kidding! The fact that my instructor was a Malay had nothing to do with the fact that I got a miserable Band 3 (as it was known then; it is the equivalent of a C grade now). It was more of a deep personal dislike. Nothing racist.

And it is not surprising that the issue of fairness has come up year after year. People are upset because some JCs have 80% of their students scoring As while others have only 1% of its students doing so. While it is commonly accepted that no teacher will have the bad sense to shortcome his or her own students (well... mine didn't but I guess I didn't give her much choice), it doesn't necessarily prevent others from doing all possible to help their students (making the students submit 5 drafts is one good way).

At the end of the day, it is really up to the teachers/instructors. And really, this is the only A-level subject that the school has, to some degree, determining power of how their students are going to fare. So it will be really dumb if schools are to stand by the principle of fairplay or crappy things like "it is the learning that counts, not the grades".

The only people who can say grades as if it is none of their business are people who really have no business talking about it in the first place. It is, of course, easy for the teachers or professors (under some of whom I have suffered terribly but this is a story for another day) to say that to the students because they are not the ones whose futures are dependent on a lousy piece of paper with alphabets on them. It is not that the students are too grade-oriented or shallow, it is the whole society, the admission offices, parents who are grade-oriented and shallow. Honestly, stop giving us the crap about looking beyond grades. It is stupid and lame.

Okay I shall digress a bit and talk about my results for the 2nd semester of my first year in SMU. They are, at best, unspiring. But still better than what I have imagined or feared they would be. Suffice to say that my entire future depended on the grades. They determine whether I can make a cross over to Law School. Imagine my horror when the first grade I got was a B for Communications 101. No words can describe how nasty the professor was (and will always be for posterity). So I shan't attempt to describe that. Let's just leave it at he hates me and I hate him (still very much) but I pretend to be subservient and he pretends to be nurturing. After I saw the grade, I immediately dispatched an email (if you can actually "dispatch" an email but I think it sounds nice so let's just leave it) to him. It was a super "fake" email in which I extolled him for being such an inspiring professor. Which wasn't entirely false since he did inspire much hatred in me. And boy guess what? He replied with an even longer and "faker" email telling me how grades shouldn't be the centre of my life and how he is glad to have me as a student. I am completely and utterly defeated. For now.

The funny thing is under the Law curriculum, Communications 101 is not one of the University Cores as opposed to all other curricula. Imagine if I were to write him an email later and talk about that. Haha!

Okay more about that later, mightily hungry right now. Lunch!

Disclaimer: Hatred is unhealthy. The author is a trained personnel and no other person should attempt to do this at home without the supervision of a trained personnel.

Chronicle of a suicide foretold a.k.a suicide note

For those of you who are fans of Gabriel Marquez Garcia, you would know where I stole the title from. For those of you who aren't, you would, at least, know that I stole it.

For those of you who happen to be reading this and know who I am (I mean if you don't know who I am, then you shouldn't be worried about me killing myself), please do not be alarmed. I may very well still be alive. Actually, there is a very high probability that I am still alive. On hindsight, the title might have been a tad too sensational. But sensational is good.

Anyway, why would I think I would kill myself? Why would anyone want to commit suicide, for that matters? Usually, it is because something important has been taken away from them and they don't think they can continue living anymore. It is pretty much the same for me. I won't go into the details. What? You want details? Hmm... no. Okay, compromise. Let's just leave it that it's got something to do with a particularly nasty (pronounced with American accent) professor. Nope, I didn't sleep with him (that'd be unimaginable).

How would I die? The easiest would be to jump off a building. But I can't bear the thought of myself crushing and splitting and spilling. That'd be horrendous. Sleeping pills then? Where can I get such a huge quantity of them? I mean it takes 50 to kill a person right? What if I don't die but because I was discovered too late (yet not late enough to kill me) I become a moron from overdose? And that I can't control my bowels or drool all over myself? Can't imagine being such a liability. Slashing wrist? That's so 60's. Stabbing? Too samurai a.k.a Tom Cruise the cranky scientologist. Fake an accident? Then I can't be leaving a suicide note which will defeat the whole purpose. And plus, if I can fake a fatal accident, I would do it on the damned professor. Yea, I am completely consumed by hatred.

Let's see, what other options do we have. Drowning? That'd look like an accident because everyone knows I can't swim. Refer to point above about accidents. Shoot myself? This ain't no America. And plus I still can't get over the spilling part. And did I mention it is just so wrong to involve innocent people? I mean you can shoot the girl who caused you much misery but not the other students who barely know you/know that you exist. So if I have a gun I'll shoot the above-mentioned professor. Ah! I've got a brilliant idea! Since I can't muster enough courage to put a gun to my head/mouth, I'll pretend to shoot other students (without really shooting them) so that when the police arrive, they can shoot me for me. What a genius am I!

Okay this is really getting too morbid. Hope my mum doesn't see this.

And writing about killing myself is so therapeutic that I don't feel like killing myself anymore. Not that I was serioulsy contemplating about killing myself. Alrightie, relax people!

Ugly is the word

I don't want to complain but why is it that the girls running for Miss Singapore Universe are so freaking ugly, year after year? Not only are they ugly but their English is so bad that they...totally sound Singaporean!

And please people, stop saying "I have a dream, just like Martin Luther King". First of all, you have no right comparing yourself to that great man. Secondly, your dream (wild fantasy, to be exact) is nothing like his. You don't dream that you are a black person and that one day, you can seat in the front of the bus just like the white folks, do you? Yea, guessed as much. And plus, it is weird to have a dream about making wildlife documentaries on copulating monkeys. It just isn't right. Forgot which one of the girls said it. They all have pretty forgettable faces. "Pretty forgettable" as in "rather forgettable" and not "pretty but forgettable".

The whole thing is a farce. I mean the contest. The girls are stupid. It would be okay if they are also pretty. You can be pretty and stupid but you can't just be stupid. Viewers like myself, no scrap that, I don't watch MSU. Viewers who are brainless enough to watch the show/contest are going to feel cheated, if that is, they are smart enough to actually realise they are being duped. For the rest of us, superior beings, we are overwhelmed by a sense of helplessness. Like how we see the Africans elect murderers, plunderers or imbeciles to be presidents through not-very-democratic elections.

Could that fact that most of these "beauties" are either 1) NUS undergraduates or 2) air stewardesses be the root cause of their blandness and... stupidity? Alright, in all fairness, some of them may be real smart. Just not something that is exactly appreciated in a beauty contest. What do beauty contest winners do anyway? Tour the world and spread the messages of love? Take part in even more contests?

Why am I so irrationally angered by all this? Perhaps I am just jealous because I am a "Ugly Betty" myself? Yea, that's the reason.