Tag Archives: World from a lawyer’s eyes

Feeling Lost

Standard

We like to have everything planned out to the last detail…. Everything must be perfect, nothing can go wrong… Not now not to me… but when has that EVER prevented things from getting messed up….

Life to is too fragile, vulnerable to change….Change can be either good or bad…. but since when do we complain about change when its good… as friendships get stronger… as our love grows…. as our wealth accumulates.

Are we at the receiving side weeping about it all ? On the other hand, a close friend, relative or sibling dies, fail an exam, get sick or age…How come we are first in line to complain and curse everything we embraced when change was moving favorably.

Maybe, it is cos we get so happy and worked up about ‘happy changes’ that when ‘sad changes’ transpire, we react with negative emotions. How about if we were just unemotional to change AT ALL irrespective of its impact on our lives.

Wouldn’t life be so much simpler, less painful or less stressful. What I am trying to get at is what if we were unemotional to ‘change’ as a concept. We think nothing of it, just like being ‘white’ or ‘black’, I wouldn’t care if someone is ‘white’ or ‘black’, it is irrelevant and I just accept it as a ‘matter of fact’ and move on….

Argh… if life was this simple….

It takes a lot of courage to release the familiar and seemingly secure, to embrace the new. But there is no real security in what is no longer meaningful.

Advertisements

Category (a) or Category (b)

Standard

Firstly, I HATE numbers….. I can argue and even convince you that 1 + 1  ≠ 2 BUT give me a question where I have to add 1 and 1… now that’s a totally different ball game… numbers are my kryptonite, it makes me feel even just for a (mini)second…. human….

Anywaz, this post is gonna be about an interesting theory I came up with while I was ‘trying’ to do my finance questions;

THEORY CATEGORY (A)+(B)

Guys as a gender fall into two categories, category (a) or category (b). Of course, my theory has the assumption that at any given time there is no guy moving from one category to another (no ‘stuck in the middle’ scenarios).

Category (a)

These are the guys who follow the first commandment, Article 1 of the Code of the Brotherhood (Cap 89) – bros over ladies. Whether there are with their gfs,wives or just women they might/are/could be interested in – they would always make time for their bros irrespective of his needs. Conversations dn’t need to rotate around or involve women – For them, they dn’t need a women to make their life complete (p.s. – Category (a) guys have a perfectly straight sexual preference)

Category (b)

Every single one of us knows a guy who falls into this category. The guy who can go into a public place filled with people (hundreds or even thousands) and is able to instantly spot all (only) the women. The best way to explain this is…… imagine you were a ghost…. you can see and communicate with only other ghost, everyone else (humans, demons etc) exist BUT is of no relevance to you…

These guys in category (b) are like these ghosts… for them only women matter… everything else is of no relevance. Other guys, animals or things (cumulatively called ‘objects’) only become relevant to fulfill the ultimate goal of communicating to women.

Let me illustrate this with a diagram:

  • The axis represents bros (Y axis) and girls (Y axis).
  • The number of girls and bros increase as we move horizontally and vertically in the graph.
  • Equilibrium is a 45 degree line with the ratio of girls to bros remain constant.
  • X and Y points are the points where the number of bros and girls associated by category (a) and category (b) are identical – perk point

The best way to explain this is to take an example:

A total Stranger’s House Party

Behaviorial characteristics of category (b) guys

He would enter the party and first thing he does is observe the guy to girl ratio. Since he can see all the girls in that apartment instantly, his ratio is close to only 6 sigma in error (99.999997% accurate). Then, he uses ‘objects’ such as other guys in other to reach his ultimate goal (which can range from communicating to few/all of the girls to sleeping with a few/all of them). This is why, the curve (in brown) jumps up at the initial stage.

The reason why he does not talk to women first is because category (b) guys are constantly with a guilty conscious, they rarely envisage any good when they initiate a conversation with a women. This prevents them from directly confront women at a early stage.

Finally, this guy would reach ‘perk point’ where he would have communicated with sufficient women that he no longer needs ‘objects’. Therefore, the curve becomes linear (constant rate), it does not go down because once this guy has communicated with someone – ‘object’, he can’t really prevent that ‘object’ from talking to you later that same evening (hence, remaining ‘temporary’ bros for the evening). Therefore, normally, one-third of the initial ‘objects would remain at this constant rate while the number of girls he communicates with increases rapidly.

Behaviorial characteristics of category (a) guys

He would enter the party and would feel more relaxed as he has no ulterior motives…. JUST HAVE FUN…. this ‘laid back’ attitude enables him to be more comfortable and ‘smooth’ among the ladies. This is why this curve is inversely proportionate to category (b) curve at the initial stage. Till, one reaches ‘perk point’, after which there is a gradual reduction is the girls:guys ratio as he meets more bros. Given the assumption that he follows the first commandment of Code – the ratio must logically reduce. However, one must note that his curve does not touch the Y axis at any given point. Therefore, even without trying he does maintain a certain number of girl.

You Know What’s Wrong With This World ???

Standard

You know whats wrong with this world …. People think they can always do better….. you can try but it’s never worth all the sacrifices you have to make to get there…..

Why???? Cos this World cares only about WINNERS…

Yeah, we get to hear about all the forbes millionaires who made it big because they wanted to do better than what was been done… but for every millionaire that makes it there are another million joes who dn’t. We never hear their stories…. the guy who drops out of the college so he can start his own fashion line, the girl who wants to ‘make it in Hollywood’ who starts off in adult pornography till she gets her big break in Hollywood scene or the teenage band, kids who skips school so they can practice in their grandma’s garage.

These are all stories no one gets to hear…. why because this world rarely gives a shit about losers…. people who try their best but dn’t have what it takes to make it are put into the same cauldron as people who dn’t even try. In this World, they are winners on one side and ‘others’ on the other side (see even that side has ‘other’ in front of it)  We have created a world were only winners are looked up upon and losers are JUST LOSERS… no one cares no one gives a shit…..

Its sad yet true

Implied Assertions – Racism in Singapore????

Standard

As a law student, I am nothing but impressed by Singapore’s Policies on Minority Protection to Racism & Racial Discrimination. The complex Presidential Council for Minority Rights lead by our honorable President Nathan has done wonders. Furthermore, the Constitutional safeguards under Article 153 and Articlee 153A and the Government’s promise to all times to protect the political, economic, social and cultural interests of the Malays, Eurasians and other minorities domiciled in Singapore (Paragraph 8(8) of Heads of Agreement as appended to the Memorandum to Colonial Government, Report of the All-Party Constitutional Conference, 1956, David Marshall, Chief Minister) have ensured that a 1962 would never happen again.

I know what I am going to say now is controversial and could fall under the Sedition Act (Cap 290, 1985 Rev.Ed), s3. Furthermore, I totally agree and understand the concerns expressed by Richard Magnus in Public Prosecutor v Koh Song Huat Benjamin and Another Case [2005] SGDC 272 ;

The right to propagate an opinion on the Internet is not, and cannot, be an unfettered right. The right of one person’s freedom of expression must always be balanced by the right of another’s freedom from offence, and tampered by wider public interest considerations. It is only appropriate social behaviour, independent of any legal duty, of every Singapore citizen and resident to respect the other races in view of our multi-racial society.  Each individual living here irrespective of his racial origin owes it to himself and to the country to see that nothing is said or done which might incite the people and plunge the country into racial strife and violence

My intention is neither mala fide nor harmful to create racial strife and violence but merely an expression of assertions of racism present in Singapore for individuals like myself.

The individuals I have come across have only learn to tolerant minorities like myself. Acceptance and integration into their lives have NEVER crossed their minds. Maybe, if the present government had not been so stringent and effective on their racial harmony laws, this country may well have had several 1962 incidents to this day. Fortunately, the ‘better safe than sorry’ attitude has worked….. But unfortunately I feel that this would last only as loong as a government such as the present are able to effectively carry out these laws.

The people, I have met, dn’t call me a ‘black’ or ‘smelly’ or ‘funny accent’ or ‘illegal immigrant’ because they know the consequences of their words (which I would define as express racism). But, this hasn’t stopped them from implying these words via conduct. ‘Actions speak louder than words’ is soo true when it comes to these circumstances. For the record, my law friends and acquiesces are EXCEPTIONAL, the broad mindness of these individuals have given me a glimmer of hope that there are still good people in this country who can see past color.

Biz is a totally different playing field…. The attitude hasn’t changed since my matriculation in 2005. A faculty dominated by one race hasn’t made integration for minorities any easy. Furthermore, these students come from ‘lower ranked’ JCs making chinese their first language. I lost count the number of times I would be in a group discussion that would be in chinese or group lunches where I would laugh at chinese jokes just to fit in and not feel out of place. Or sit in lectures or tutorials which is filled – packed every SINGLE SEAT – except the 2-3 seats to the left and right of me. Or the empty seat next to me in the internal shuttle bus regardless of the distance or the people in the bus. Or is it the question ‘Which part of India are you from?’ – I can’t even recall if I ever run into a person when I asked him ‘Which part of China are you from?’. Think about??? Would you like,  as a respectable singaporean be asked that question. Or the security guard checking my matriculation cards for staying outdoors after 11pm (suspicious that I would steal, vandalise or moles someone) when he would just igorantly pass exchange students or chinese individuals. Yes… yes … when i conforted about this double standard, all he said was that most of the crimes are by minority indivudals. Whether that is true or not is of no relevance. All it says that people have a presumption I am always upto no good… I can go on and on and on and on…… the four years have been anything but easy…..Constantly, I have to prove myself….. to the people who are my friends and know me… they NO DOUBT respect me. Yet sadly, for the rest of them, saying I am from law or speaking (in an non-‘indian’ accent’) of my academic achievement are the only way to get respect. Respect which in the first place I deserve  since I am just flesh and blood just like them regardless of who my parents, my history or skin color.

Failure swimming alone

Standard

Well…. second time running I wasn’t good enough….. this time around I didn’t take it as serious as I should have… maybe being in biz gives me ‘a laid back’ attitude to everything I do…. Yesterday, coming out of the room I knew I was better than that… ALOT BETTER….  ‘density’ arguments, lack of courtesy AND  lack of spontaneity are not characteristics associated to me…..Yet…. yesterday was different…. of course, he was good… better than I thought he would be…. But, then again I am no pushover either…..

Failure sucks a^^….. of course there are like a million quotes on failure & its importance to human being:

A life spent making mistakes is not only more honorable but more useful than a life spent in doing nothing.

Bullshit…. Failure just sucks a^^

Code of the Brotherhood (CAP 89, 2008 Rev. Ed.)

Standard

Note: This Code has been amended c.f. below link for the newer version:

https://offbrown.wordpress.com/2008/10/29/amendments-to-the-code-of-the-brotherhood-cap-89-2008-reved/

or Post: Amendments to the Code of the Brotherhood (CAP 89, 2008 Rev.Ed.).

As law students, one of the most important aspects before drafting new legislation is to do your due diligence. You have to be insane or a freaking genius (god-like) to draft legislation from scrap. Only a few have succeeded – Stephen the legendary draftmans of the Evidence Act (which is now used in over 4 jurisdictions), Macaulay who drafted the Indian Penal Code or Macaulay’s Code or the 1837 Indian Code, which numerous countries adopted. Even, these codes which were drafted from scrap couldn’t provide for all present and future possibilities (making life for law students every difficult)

No matter, I shall learn from these great draftsmen and not repeat their mistakes… So, this Act is based on the legendary ‘bro code’ created by the first decedents of Adam (obviously Eve had no role to play in its creation). A short legislative history;

The Bro Code is a living document – manifest in its 83 amendments – and as such is not yet publicly available in an unabridged volume. The original document is hused in a non-disclosed location, two stories beneath sea level in a vacuum-sealed bulletproof chamber.

Years ago, I set forth to compile and articulate the unspoken mores that exist between and among Bros the world over. While not intending to write a “Guide To Being a Bro,” if men should treat it as such and choose to pass this compendium of knowledge from generation to generation, I have little doubt it would bring a tear to my eye… but not out of it – that would be a violation of ARTICLE 77: “A Bro never cries.”

Overall, The Code of the Brotherhood would have;

Five Main sections:

1. Preamble

2. Part I: SacreD Obligations – Article 1-50

3. Part II: Emergency – Artcile 51-55

4 Part III: Boundary Limitations – Article 56- 89

5. Appendix

I have attached a few sections for your viewing pleasure;

  • Artcile 26(1) – “A bro will, in a timely manner, alert his bro to the existence of a girl fight.” A Bro must never hesitate before  communicating the possibility of fisticuffs between two humans of the female variety [[HENCEFORTH “GIRL FIGHT”]], in an effort to make possible and probable that another Bro or Bros can partake in observation.
  • Article 26(2) – Said Bro must use any and all methods of media distribution at his disposal, including but not limited to:
    • telecommunications,
    • elbow nudging,
    • fiber optics,
    • the express delivery services, and
    • postcards.
  • Artcile 26(3) – If an informed Bro is unable to witness the girl fight firsthand, the spotter Bro is responsible for documenting and relating details of the girl fight via pictures, video, or barring any other reasonable method, interpretive dance and/or pantomime
  • Draftsman’s intend
    • There is no guys who does like to see a girl fight…. some guys live their whole life with hopes that they may one day have a glimpse of a girl fight. Therefore, alerting your bro about a girl fight is most scared gift any bro can give to another bro.
    • A timely manner is open to interpretation based on the initial Bro’s viewing and processing of the potential feminine conflagration.
    • Tabling Bro obligations to witness a XX chromosomal scuffle is not only condoned, but encouraged, and in some cases, required. Please refer to the Brobligation rubric as elucidated in AMENDMENT 83: “The REALLY hot sister and other hump trumps.” * SEE ZaBroder film
  • ARTICLE 3: Chick Availability
    • If a girl falls into the following criteria, she is off limits forever until the end of time:
      • Was an ex-girlfriend.
      • Your friend specifically told you he wanted her.
      • Is you’re buddy’s sister.
    • However, if it’s your buddy’s cousin, well she’s up for grabs, and you’re welcome to rub it in his face for years to come.
  • Draftsman’s Intend
    • Great Civilizations have fallen & Bestest of Bros have killed each other because Article 3 was ever followed.
    • It must be remembered this is an absolute rule – there are NO exceptions – it is totally exclusionary in nature. A strict liability irrespective of knowledge by the bros or consent.
    • If you see any girl that falls into this category instantly turn away and RUN

I encourage all guys out there to check the full Code which is attached below….. I hope this Code would provide moral authority to your actions and strength the brotherhood.

code-of-the-brotherhood-cap-89-2008-reved1

Interesting precedents ???

Standard

Working at a law firm can fun in more than one way. One of things I enjoy the most is all the funny personal stories I hear from the clients. Unfortuately, I can’t write about them here due to my firm’s confidentiality rules. However, the precedent cases I have to read to do research for my firm can be just as hilarious and amusing. These are some of them I came across:

1. While research on contempt of court (i.e. in layman’s terms: to say something which brings the court into disrespect like insulting a judge or his decision etc)

In September, 2004, Judge A K M Patabendige, in Walasmulla, Sri Lanka (my home country), jailed a man for a year for yawning in court. N V P Ajith, a defendant in a criminal case, stretched out and yawned in a way that so infuriated the judge, the punishment for contempt was immediate

2. Most law students know the quality of Australian decisions. They are very very loong (with over 5 different judgments dragging over 100 pages) and emotional. The judges get caught up in the moment and say the weirdiest stuff:

Sentencing a young woman at the Magistrate’s Court in Port Adelaide, Australia, in 2003, a magistrate Michael Frederick said:

“You’re a druggie and you’ll die in the gutter. That’s your choice… I don’t believe in that social worker crap. You abuse your mother and cause her pain. You can choose to be who you are. You can go to work. Seven million of us do it whilst fourteen million like you sit at home watching Days of Our Lives smoking your crack pipes and using needles and I’m sick of you sucking us dry”.

He then concluded: “It’s your choice to be a junkie and die in the gutter. No one gives a shit, but you’re going to kill that woman who is your mother, damn you to death.”

The funny thing is that after he gave the woman a prison sentence, unaware that that was unlawful in the type of case in question. Later, she appealled which was successful and Chief Justice condenmed the judge’s behavior and he had to make a public apology.

3. While handling some research on appeal cases for murder I came across this case which was quite popular even in the papers.

In 2005, Pavel M., a Romanian prisoner serving 20 years for murder, sued God, founding his claim in contract. He argued that his baptism was an agreement between him and God under which, in exchange for value such as prayer, God would keep him out of trouble.

The amusing thing about this that he had precedent with regards to this matter. There was previous ruling from Italy where Italian atheist Luigi Cascioli was ordered to pay a $1,900 judgment after a court ruled he had filed a fraudulent suit against an Italian priest for saying Jesus Christ existed. Cascioli contended the cleric violated a law that forbids deceiving the public. The atheist said the priest, who had publicly criticized him for casting doubt on the truth of the gospels, had no evidence Jesus ever existed. Specifically, he claimed two Italian laws had been broken: the “abuse of popular belief” – which amounts to intentionally deceiving someone – and “impersonation” – meaning one gains by giving a false name to someone.

However, this guy lost the case because firstly, civil law jurisidctions like Ilaty does have have stare decisis and secondly the prosecutor main defence which was:

“God is not a person in the eyes of the law and does not have a legal address where he could be served with court papers”. So due to technical issues with the requirements under the Rules of Court, God got away from being sued.

4. Finally, my favorite was this case in India where it all came down to definitions. It must be noted that I didn’t come across this while I was doing research rather I was googling ‘law against contraceptives’ and came across this:

In 2007, a court in India was asked to decide whether a vibrating condom is a contraceptive or a sex toy. The condoms contain a battery-operated device, and, for the avoidance of doubt, are marketed as “Crezendo”. Opponents argue it’s a sex toy and thus unlawful in India, whereas the manufacturer says it’s a contraceptive and promotional of public health