Revival

I must say that I am overwhelmed by this incessant need to jot down my thoughts once more. After such a long pause in writing anything, I dare say I am in severe lack of any one ounce of intellect.

Seeing where Life has brought me so far, he has gamely slapped me with a challenge.

In the midst of all the very successful scholars around me (even in camp), I am called to take courage that I can still one day fulfill my dream of being a steward of justice (corny isn't it, but a post which I highly regard). Right now, maybe it's because of friends who have the ability to apply for law school through good grades (though I might heartlessly say that they lack the aptitude for it, though not all), or that I have yet to apply for university since application dates have not yet arrived, there is a deep stir and unrest within me.

What if I cannot fulfill this burning ambition? I used to sit in wonderment of being amongst international courts trying corrupt officials and ridding the world of the unscrupulous. But now, I fear, that I may have to continue sitting in wonderment forever...

Army has been good to me. It has taught me values and the need for a solid system in any organisation. These have distracted me, for now.

I wish I can sigh out loud, but what is the use? Laments are for the weak and there can be no weakness for this challenge. Oh why, oh why did I not buck up in my studies? If it meant studying for a subject I hated for the greater good, why not? Why did I lapse into disappointment and despair? I know that I have not reached my fullest potential, but which university would see? Results is the only vernacular that the world will ever understand, and for that plain reason, I may have doomed myself.

Checking out.

2010

Wow, it has indeed been a very long time since I last wrote anything here..

Funny it seems, if you would notice the break. Like a man deep in coma finally arising once more and all he recalls hitherto is a long dash from that last moment of consciousness. A lot of things have changed, I'm sure, for everyone of us. The As, I am happy to say, no longer serves as a sticking point for any conversation or as a conceivable priority in my life anymore. Other then the periodic panic pangs I suffer from this interminable wait for release of our results..

Army Life.

Ahh.. It feels good to be a soldier strangely. I glance through facebook and most guys out there hate the army to its green pixelated guts. I mean, yes, there is reason to feel disdainful. After all its two years of our lives. But, by the same token, it's only two years of our lives. Unless you have testicular cancer or something, I cannot see why the huge fuss over this two years. Tell me honestly, if given these two extra years, would you have done something meaningful with it?

I would think not.

To me, the opportunity to serve, is one to re-evaluate our lifestyles and thinking. Don't think of it as pure brain rot (though it is still a valid factor), but as a re-awakening of your unstimulated post As self. I find that certain key traits are emphasized in the army, and if you allow it, they can serve you well in the future.

To name a few. Discipline. Professionalism. Perseverance. And not to mention, foresight and the ability to take hardship, which are crucial factors in the course of leadership. I was a skeptic myself. But I am glad I chose to think positively. I can see myself becoming a better man after the army. And not ever before have I said something about myself with such certainty.

Right now, I can sense that I am changing. I used to be ambivalent and indifferent about certain tasks that I do not care about. But now, all that matters is that you complete the mission. Like it or not. There is no choosing responsibility. When it is given, you answer the call.

As a PR, certain responsibilities are removed from me. Such as entry into OCS. Although it does remove certain achievements that I would like to be able to complete, nonetheless SISPEC is still a goal.

If you ask me, even if you do not line yourself with the ideology of the army, the skills that you pick up will make you a better boyfriend, husband, father, colleague, leader and person.

That I can promise. But you must first believe it to be so.

ITE

It's The End

End of 1 month of painful examination.

End of 2 months of mindless mugging.

End of 2 years of weary trudging.

End of 12 years of a truly Singapore-ific educational system.

End of 18 years of youthful abandonment..

What now?

Start of ? months of gaming.

Start of 2 years of National Servitude.

Start of ? years rekindling my faith.

Start of ? years of volunteerism.

Start of ? years enjoying everything and anything that my present youth allows me to.

Start of ? years of university.

Start of ? years of building up my career.

Start of ? years achieving greater heights.

Start of ? years of starting a family??

Start of ? years of leaving behind all semblance of youth and the deep embrace of age.

Start of ? years of pursuing a deeper purpose.

Start of ? years of retirement.

Start of ? years looking back at the ? of years that God has so graciously blessed me with.

...

...

Then really, ITE.

That my friend, is what life is about. No matter how you fare for your A levels, be aware that you should never limit your self-belief or purpose to one mangy piece of rotten certificate. There still is a long road ahead.

It is hard, I understand it just as well as you do. But let us not fall into this deep farce which is the elitism stemming from our unyielding national embrace of meritocracy.

Society will never judge you by this certificate, only if you let it to.

Find a way.

Lighten up

I am officially free in 27 days.

Sorry for the randomness.. Back to study.

Do something

I've got this HUGE burning desire to do something. Not play or whatever, but to really go out there in the world to help someone in need; to organise and set up some huge event; to start up a business (Ha); be the ambassador of the Zoo; start a band; to build someone a house or to learn a new skill. I'm not interested in a job but maybe a spot in a firm where I can learn something, not sure what exactly but that mystical "Something".

Argh, this is so frustrating. There's nothing online at all. And you ask where is the empathetic volunteerism in Singapore!

I need to do something Bigger with my life. Just not contented with the prosaic.

Cambridge Law admission!

After viewing several debates and moots by the UK parliament and law students, out of curiously, I went to take a look at what Cambridge law offers. This is a specimen of their 3 part entry test. All materials are taken and can be found freely from the website of the University of Cambridge, Faculty of Law.

And you thought GP was bad..

Specimen questions

1. “Judges should be given no discretion in sentencing criminals: all criminal penalties should be fixed by statute. The exercise of discretion in sentencing requires an exercise of moral judgment by the judge, and judges in a modern democracy should not be allowed to exercise moral authority over their fellow citizens.” How far do you agree? Give reasons for your answer.
2. Should people be regarded as having fundamental moral rights, quite independently of law? If so, how should we decide what those rights are? Give reasons for your answer.

Specimen question

A piece of legislation (“the Act”) provides as follows:

Section 1
(1) A person who is not a party to a contract (a “third party”) may in his own right enforce a term of the contract if—
(a) the contract expressly provides that he may, or
(b) subject to subsection (2), the term purports to confer a benefit on him.
(2) Subsection (1)(b) does not apply if on a proper construction of the contract it appears that the parties did not intend the term to be enforceable by the third party.
(3) The third party must be expressly identified in the contract by name, as a member of a class or as answering a particular description but need not be in existence when the contract is entered into.

Section 2
(1) Where a third party has a right under section 1 to enforce a term of the contract, the parties to the contract may not, by agreement, cancel the contract, or vary it in such a way as to extinguish or alter his entitlement under that right, without his consent if—
(a) …;
(b) the promisor is aware that the third party has relied on the term, or
(c) the promisor can reasonably be expected to have foreseen that the third party would rely on the term and the third party has in fact relied on it.

Consider the application of the Act to each of the following alternative circumstances. In doing so, you can assume that a contract exists where two (or more) parties enter into an agreement in which they intend to be legally bound, and that a contract need not be in writing.

i. G and H are friends. In the pub one night they decide to play the National Lottery each week. Each is to contribute £1.50 and they would each choose three sets of numbers every other week, with H choosing three sets of numbers one week and G three sets of numbers the other week. They agree that any winnings are to be divided equally between the two of them and J, a friend. In the sixth week, when G has chosen the numbers, one of the combinations won a prize of £250,000. G, in whose name the ticket was registered, wishes to keep the prize. Can J sue G under the Act? Give reasons for your answer.

ii. On Mr and Mrs C’s marriage, their wealthy relative B buys an expensive 3 piece suite as a wedding gift from A Ltd, a well known department store. B makes it clear when purchasing the 3 piece suite that it is a gift for friends. The contract includes a term to the effect that the goods are of satisfactory quality. After 2 weeks of wear the fabric on the suite wears thin and frays, and after 3 weeks, two castors collapse. Can Mr and Mrs C sue A Ltd under the Act? Give reasons for your answer.

iii. X promises Y to pay Z £500 and Z, on hearing of this and because of it, immediately pays some outstanding bills. Before any money is handed over to Z, X and Y change their mind and agree to cancel their contract. Can Z sue X under the Act? Give reasons for your answer.

Specimen question

Jones (“J.”), a tramp who lived in an unoccupied building, woke up to discover that a cigarette he had been smoking had set fire to the mattress on which he was lying. He did not attempt to put out the fire, and moved to another room. The house caught fire. J. was convicted of the offence of arson under the Criminal Damage Act 1971. The Court of Appeal (“CA”) dismissed his appeal against conviction, but he appealed to the House of Lords (“HL”).

The CA asked the House of Lords to consider the following question:

Whether the offence of arson is committed when a defendant accidentally starts a fire and thereafter, intending to destroy or damage property belonging to another or being reckless as to whether any such property would be destroyed or damaged, fails to take any steps to extinguish the fire or prevent damage to such property by that fire?

Giving the judgment of the HL, Lord Diplock said:

The first question to be answered where a completed crime of arson is charged is: "Did a physical act of the accused start the fire which spread and damaged property belonging to another?”. This is a pure question of causation; it is one of fact to be decided by the jury. It should be answered "No" if, in relation to the fire during the period starting immediately before its ignition and ending with its extinction, the role of the accused was at no time more than that of a passive bystander. In such a case the subsequent questions to which I shall be turning would not arise. The conduct of such a person may indeed be deplorable, but English law has not so far developed to the stage of treating it as criminal; and if it ever were to do so there would be difficulties in defining what should be the limits of the offence.

If on the other hand the question is answered "Yes," as it was by the jury in the instant case, then for the purpose of the further questions the answers to which are determinative of his guilt of the offence of arson, the conduct of the accused, throughout the period from immediately before the moment of ignition to the completion of the damage to the property by the fire, is relevant; so is his state of mind throughout that period.

Since arson is a result-crime the period may be considerable, and during it the conduct of the accused that is causative of the result may consist not only of his doing physical acts which cause the fire to start or spread but also of his failing to take measures that lie within his power to counteract the danger that he has himself created; and if his conduct, active or passive, varies in the course of the period, so may his state of mind at the time of each piece of conduct. If at the time of any particular piece of conduct by the accused that is causative of the result, the state of mind that actuates his conduct falls within the description of one or other of the states of mind that are made a necessary ingredient of the offence of arson by section 1 of the Criminal Damage Act 1971 (i.e. intending to damage property belonging to another or being reckless as to whether such property would be damaged) I know of no principle of English criminal law that would prevent his being guilty of the offence created by that subsection. Likewise I see no rational ground for excluding from conduct capable of giving rise to criminal liability, conduct which consists of failing to take measures that lie within one's power to counteract a danger that one has oneself created, if at the time of such conduct one's state of mind is such as constitutes a necessary ingredient of the offence.

No one has been bold enough to suggest that if, in the instant case, the accused had been aware at the time that he dropped the cigarette that it would probably set fire to his mattress and yet had taken no steps to extinguish it he would not have been guilty of the offence of arson, since he would have damaged property of another being reckless as to whether any such property would be damaged.

I cannot see any good reason why, so far as liability under criminal law is concerned, it should matter at what point of time before the resultant damage is complete a person becomes aware that he has done a physical act which, whether or not he appreciated that it would at the time when he did it, does in fact create a risk that property of another will be damaged; provided that, at the moment of awareness, it lies within his power to take steps, either himself or by calling for the assistance of the fire brigade if this be necessary, to prevent or minimise the damage to the property at risk.

My Lords, in the instant case the prosecution did not rely upon the state of mind of the accused as being reckless during that part of his conduct that consisted of his lighting and smoking a cigarette while lying on his mattress and falling asleep without extinguishing it. So the jury were not invited to make any finding as to this. What the prosecution did rely upon as being reckless was his state of mind during that part of his conduct after he awoke to find that he had set his mattress on fire and that it was smouldering, but did not then take any steps either to try to extinguish it himself or to send for the fire brigade, but simply went into the other room to resume his slumbers, leaving the fire from the already smouldering mattress to spread and to damage that part of the house in which the mattress was.

The recorder, in his lucid summing up to the jury told them that the accused having by his own act started a fire in the mattress which, when he became aware of its existence, presented an obvious risk of damaging the house, became under a duty to take some action to put it out. The Court of Appeal upheld the conviction, but the basis for their decision appears to be somewhat different from that of the recorder. As I understand the judgment, in effect it treats the whole course of conduct of the accused, from the moment at which he fell asleep and dropped the cigarette on to the mattress until the time the damage to the house by fire was complete, as a continuous act of the accused, and holds that it is sufficient to constitute the offence of arson if at any stage in that course of conduct the state of mind of the accused, when he fails to try to prevent or minimise the damage which will result from his initial act, although it lies within his power to do so, is that of being reckless as to whether property belonging to another would be damaged.

My Lords, these alternative ways of analysing the legal theory that justifies a decision which has received nothing but commendation for its accord with commonsense and justice, have, since the publication of the judgment of the Court of Appeal in the instant case, provoked academic controversy. Each theory has distinguished support. Professor Smith espouses the "duty theory"; Professor Williams prefers that of the continuous act. When applied to cases where a person has unknowingly done an act which sets in train events that, when he becomes aware of them, present an obvious risk that property belonging to another will be damaged, both theories lead to an identical result; and since what your Lordships are concerned with is to give guidance to trial judges in their task of summing up to juries, I would for this purpose adopt the duty theory as being the easier to explain to a jury; though I would commend the use of the word "responsibility," rather than "duty" which is more appropriate to civil than to criminal law, since it suggests an obligation owed to another person, i.e., the person to whom the endangered property belongs, whereas a criminal statute defines combinations of conduct and state of mind which render a person liable to punishment by the state itself.

So, I would answer the certified question "Yes" and would dismiss the appeal.

Answer both of the following questions:

1. Explain in your own words, and indicating how it differed from the reasoning of the Court of Appeal, the reasoning of Lord Diplock in this case.
2. In the first paragraph of his judgment, Lord Diplock suggests that a bystander who came across the fire would not be guilty of any offence if he failed to take steps which were within his powers to put it out. Why should that be? Do you agree that such a person should not be guilty of an offence? Give reasons for your answer.

If after NS, you expect me to have that one ounce of brain material left to even understand the question, you're mistaken. 3 words. OMG. Help me.

A Native American grandfather was talking to his grandson about how he felt about a tragedy. He said, “I feel as if I have two wolves fighting in my heart. One wolf is the vengeful, angry, violent one. The other wolf is the loving, compassionate one.” The grandson asked him, “Which wolf will win the fight in your heart?”

The grandfather answered, “The one I feed.”

Expected

Mind's a twirl, everything's in limbo.

You know, I expected this to happen. After 2 years of seeing repeat after repeat of the same thing, one does get used to it; and hope seems to diminish away. Got butt-raped in bio. Got mind-screwed in math. Got jacked-up in chem. What can I say?

It's a weird feeling. Having to know what you will get, yet hoping this will be different, and then seeing that what you expected came to pass. A tingling down the cape of the neck. A cold shiver engulfs you and goosebumps appear. Temperature check, nope, 36.0. Yet, why do I feel like something just sucked the living lights out of me? Something called Failure just swept me off my feet.

It's stupid to moan. No input, no output. Moaning and blues don't comfort, they taunt. Each time, reinforcing that which drains you.

More than a shadow. I want to be more than a shadow, of others, of myself. It's silly to say it here, but when you face let-down after let-down, it's quite easy to imagine yourself losing confidence in your abilities. You doubt these hands that work. Beyond just work. In your social life. Friends pass you, no more greetings are exchanged. To each his demon. Mine's called Achievement. Either you're It, or you're nothing. You lose your smile, your laughter ebbs away. You begin to be cynical. To question than to embrace. Humour fails you, relationships bore you. The heart is weary, the soul is in pain.

A shadow cannot live. Yet, when the Sun is at it's highest and brightest, the shadow is at it's weakest. So we seek the Sun; but where is the Sun, my friend?

Quantifying the unquantifiable

Not long after our T3A hand-ups and I'm again dealt with another chop.

What's with this obsession about validation? Intellectual, intra-personal and inter-personal? I mean, doesn't it all seem a little superficial to you? Yes, I am well acquainted with the notion that interviewers need to know more about the person, and that if we do not have such systems, by what means can we know a person? Hence, CVs and resumes.

But that only comes when the person has the time to build up his portfolio, and he also knows that he is about to be judged. Us? Other than the T3A's and testimonial by the teachers, I am not aware of yet another 3 qualifications that I must put down. 2 years of struggling with one's studies and syllabus also doesn't grant you the time to truly learn "valuable" life skills. Phff, this is so unreasonable. Are we expected to develop character changes over 2 years of mugging?

For example, the idea of validating "resilience" is ludicrous. If I want to, can I say that after failing exam after exam, I am "resilient" in that I never gave up? Despite no resultant achievement, can I say that I never let down? I think not, teachers won't accept it. Interviewers won't accept it. But if this is genuine, can it not be a glaring quality? That this individual does possess determination, but is merely bounded by the lack of time (2 years) to fulfill his potential.

You ask what is wrong with our system. I say nothing. There is no wrong in such systems if one is pragmatic and mercantile, getting freshly-made adults to write T3A and its like. But if you ask me, to force us to quantify the unquantifiable. To calcify the intangible. To cause us youths to grow into a people who does everything for selfish reasons just so that we can validate them in personal statements - it's just wrong.

The man in the mirror

We preen ourselves in front of it. We pop zits in front of it. We judge the capability of the hair-cutting auntie in it. We use a silver version of it to detect aldehydes. Some of you even practice kissing in front of it (I know you do haha =P) What am I talking about? The mirror.

Admit it, we judge ourselves every time we look into the mirror. We see perceived flaws so clearly where others see nothing. We obsess with ensuring that what we see in the mirror is perfect, and when it isn't, we feel defeated.

It's merely a piece of glass, yet it holds the life of us with an iron grip. Think of the bulimic young girls. Grossly thin you say? No, the mirror still maintains that they're fat. Despite all our indignant protests - no I'm not, we are stuck with the "man in the mirror".

We are also like mirrors, each of us reflecting a side of us to different people, different situations. Thus, we communicate by reflecting ourselves onto others. So when we end up in an embarrassing or awkward situation, we just feel like digging a hole through the concrete floor and dying in it. Coz we hate what we reflect. We hate what we "see", and strangely enough, we tend to see ourselves in largely third person viewpoints.

Oh man, she's probably not into me now, I can't believe I said that.. We think we know what the other person sees, but we don't.

Why, because we're stuck with the man in the mirror. He's our perceived self. Call him Personality, Character, Mindset or whatever, he's stuck with us for all eternity. So the best way is to engage him and make him work for us. Not the other way round.

Thanks MJ, good song.

Oh yea, that reminds me. I know we're all sad and depressed, FML, MJ's gone.. But honestly, will ppl just stop being retards and give it a rest. Everyone is talking about how he's so brilliant, how he's changed the world and made it a better place for you and me. Wow, he's like an angel, him with his 2 little wings and halo, spreading love and warmth to all...

Oh screw it, although we're all shitting rainbows thanks to him, can we all just respect him and let him go in peace? All of the retards out there spamming youtube and facebook with RIP MJ, erm it's pretty ironic, but you're not letting him RIP are you? So just beat it. Just beat it. Let him go.