The incumbent PAP seems to be down in the doldrums based on what I observe on social media sites (Mark, that really only means Facebook these days). Yes, everybody knows what I feel about the PAP...and I really hope that everyone puts their vote where their mouth is (whichever party they support). Of coz, this is assuming that elections aren't going to be rigged -- not that I'm suggesting that it would, but I certainly can't rule out that possibility.
I can't help but feel that there are some inherent misconceptions that Singaporeans harbour with regard to Singapore's political system. Here, I hope that I can clarify that somewhat.
Firstly, our political system (if that is even a term) is based upon the Westminster system inherited from the UK (as a result of our colonial heritage). Amongst other things, the Westminster provides for a clear separation of powers. That is the Legislature (Parliament), the Government, and the Judiciary should be independent from each other. This serves as a check and balance on one another.
This is where the problem begins. Unlike the US, where there is a 'total' separation of powers with the President not being a member of Congress, the Westminster system provides (to cut the long story short), that our Cabinet Ministers (who form the Government) have to be part of the Parliament as well. Do you see where the problem lies? If the Cabinet is part of the Parliament, then where is the clear separation of powers? In any case, this system is also in place in Australia (another ex-British colony).
However, the REAL problem with Singapore is that (for now at least) the PAP has such a dominance in the Parliament -- over 90% majority -- that effectively, the PAP is equated with the Parliament. This is the reason why most Singaporeans do not really make the distinction between the Government (PAP) and the Parliament.
The PAP hierachy is also top-down. You and I know who is at the very top. Hence, it is probably true that if any PAP MP proposes a Bill, it has been cleared by the very top. And if that is the case, that PAP MP can certainly count on the support of all the other PAP MPs to vote for it -- remember that the PAP has over 90% majority in the Parliament.
The implications of this are:
1) The PAP as a whole can basically propose any Bill it wants, without fear of it being rejected.
2) It does not really need to justify the efficacy of that Bill to Parliament -- that would be like justifying to yourself that you want to eat, when you are already down at the hawker centre, ordered your food, and about to tuck in. With due respect, there are still the 2 opposition MPs in the Parliament -- that is another story altogether.
3) The PAP has indeed taken advantage of this for the past 50 odd years, ESPECIALY in the last 5 years. I don't want to comment any more on what they have done.
The above implications (or should I say consequences) are the reasons why there needs to be an alternative voice in Parliament. By that, I really mean, a stronger non-PAP contingent in the Parliament to ensure that all Bills are given sufficient justification in Parliamentary debates. This will ensure that it is no longer a one-way passage for the PAP MPs to gain Parliamentary approval.
I daresay that if such a situation comes to be (it may very well be come May 7 2011), the PAP will be severely restrained from making further policies that would continue to, economically and even socially, condemn you, me and the auntie downstairs. Godwilling, we may even see a reversal of some of the very detrimental policies that they have introduced in the last 5 years.
The Judiciary
The 3rd limb of the Westminster system is the Judiciary. While you may deny this, many commentators have observed the lack of independence of our judiciary -- need I mention Chee Soon Juan, Tang Liang Hong or JB Jeyaratnam? (In my opinion, they are all good people, but that's another story altogether). The judiciary has to be independent from the Parliament and the Government so as to serve as check on wanton abuse of legislative and executive powers. Yes, 'wanton' is the word now to describe the situation. The mark of a strong, independent judiciary is a sign of First World Nation status. How can Singapore claim to be First World when citizens are afraid to speak out against the authorities for fear of defamation suits that would probably bankrupt them? Worse, many have been arbitrarily detained under the formidable and feared Internal Security Act (ISA). I'm not saying that the authorities should condone any sort of unfounded allegations -- but ultimately, this is up to the judiciary to decide, whether it is unfounded or not.
My thoughts
It seems very strange that the very issues that I have been lamenting about the last 2 years have suddenly exploded among netizens, and probably amongst most Singaporeans. Was I the first few to have seen this? Or many have just kept quiet and endured in silence save the commentators in Temasek Review, The Online Citizen (amongst others).
Although I'm based overseas now, I still keep an active interest in Singapore affairs. It pains my heart to read about inept HDB policies, the burgeoning population, the depression of real wages, the degradation of social graces. Other than the 'astounding' economic growth (which probably only benefits the top echelon of Singaporeans), there really doesn't seem to be any good that has come out of Singapore in the last 5 years. Need I even talk about the evils that the two casinos have brought upon us?
It really pains my heart that our Ministers no longer have the ordinary Singaporeans at heart. Worse, with all the alleged 'under the table' dealings that Singapore has with drug-trafficking administrations (like Myanmar), the proliferation of scandals involving 'charitable organisations' (one of which is a subsidary of the PAP Government), the super-duper high salaries of our Ministers, I cannot help but wonder --- will we see a Suharto situation in Singapore?
Almost all of them (who are around my age), are contemplating a career move or change either in the next few months or the next 1-2 years. I guess it is pretty normal given that most of them have been working at their current jobs for at least 5yrs or more.
The first thing that struck me was that the aim of changing jobs is purely remuneration-driven. One friend contemplated a move from accountancy to law. He was really tired of his current job as an accountant and disliked the long hours and hard work. He felt that being a lawyer would provide better remuneration which is his main priority. Of course, there is nothing wrong with that -- I mean, who does not want more $$$? But I find it really strange that nobody really puts much emphasis on what they really want out of their careers -- by that, I mean a sense of job satisfaction -- feeling a sense of self-fulfillment and meaning by what they are doing. It is strange to me because that was the very first thing on my mind when I contemplated a career change. I was prepared to earn lesser, suffer loss of opportunities, in order to chase what I wanted to do. The prevailing mentality among my friends (in Singapore) sometimes makes me question if I'm abnormal or just plain idealistic. But certainly, I can't see myself doing something that I dislike or have no passion for, for the long-term.
Sometimes I question if the emphasis on meritocracy and competitiveness in Singapore led us to only use financial success and professional status as a benchmark for measuring achievements? Is this motivating parents to queue up overnight just to get a spot on the waiting list of a prestigious pre-school for 3yr old children?? To drive primary schools to offer mandatory supplementary lessons 3-4 times a week? A friend unbashedly stated that she would really push her children to achieve academic success as it is the only way to guarantee that they can take care of themselves in future. Are all Singaporean parents an 'Amy Chua' in the making?
On a more positive note, and the second thing that struck me was, I've had friends who made or are thinking of making some really interesting career changes -- from advocating awareness on child cancer, to speech therapy, and being a scrabble coach. Surely, they are going down a path less travelled by doing something they see meaning in, and which they are passionate about, and possibly a chance to make a difference to society.
I applaud these friends of mine for their unconventional ambitions. Certainly, they provide an inspiration for me in my quest to do the same.
Having lived in US and now in Oz as an adult, I'm beginning to form a clearer picture of what I want for myself and my (future) family. This does not mean that I'm certain of which country I would like to live permanently in or to bring up my kids (if any) in. But I understand now that no country is perfect, least of all Singapore, Australia or the United States.
Personally, I feel that Singapore has lost most of its charm and appeal. No longer do I get the rustic, spacious environment that I so loved and grew up in. I remember the bus rides home after school, where traffic was relatively smooth, buses were not always packed like sardines and when I could actually get a seat in the MRT train. It's really hard to explain that nostalgic feeling, but if you grew up in the 1990s, you'll understand what I'm talking about. People weren't always friendly in Singapore, I guess, but while you wouldn't expect anyone to greet you on the streets (like in Western countries), you also wouldn't expect the rudeness that is so prevalent today in the Singaporean society (take a MRT train ride during peak period if you want to know what I'm talking about).
So what is really wrong with Singapore? In the quest for economic growth, I believe that the Singapore government has sacrificed our standard of living. I have nothing against migrants or foreign workers, but the liberal influx of both these categories of peoples have created a harsh, dog-eat-dog environment which has exacerbated the inherent angry-ness that all city dwellers possess inside them. This 'angry-ness' is easily manifested when there is over-crowding in a bus, train, or on the roads. This 'angry-ness' is manifested in terms of jostling, horning, hostility, vulgarities, amongst others.
So the government speaks of being competitive? Yes, I agree, Singaporeans are slacking off, we no longer have the drive to work like our ancestors do -- but isn't this what our ancestors hoped to acheive? To enable the future generations to enjoy the fruits of their labour, so that we wouldn't have to slog like our ancestors did. On another note, how much economic growth is enough? What level do we need to acheive before the government says, "Ok, we've reached this so-and-so target, we can relax now" -- the answer is never. If that is the case, then I'm sorry to say that Singapore is just on a downhill course towards a society of burnt-out, frustrated, angry individuals.
The government says that we need to increase migration into Singapore to maintain the natural replacement rate. It says that this is to ensure that there would be more people in the workforce supporting the retirees. Honestly speaking, I'm not really sure if this is the way to go about doing it. Of course, I'm no policy planner. But my common sense tells me that these migrants also have their own parents to support -- erm, so does this mean that the Singaporean economy is also supporting the elderly retirees of other countries as well? Moreover, what makes you think that these migrants are gonna have more than 1 child?
The public housing policy is simply outrageous. Ask any newly-married couple or those planning to get married, the first concern on their minds is how to afford a HDB flat. Of course, the government says that you cannot be picky, and you should consider unpopular areas as well -- ok that's fair enough. But then again, these 'ulu' areas aren't cheap either. Secondly, with the standard of living so high, how do most couple afford (or trust) maids to look after their children? It would be hard to rely on the grandparents as well due to the 'ulu' location of their flats. Oh, did I mention that private vehicle ownership is exhorbitant as well? How do parents or grandparents travel around easily with the children to send them to and fro?
I have nothing against foreigners or migrants, but when I look around me, I see few 'native' Singaporeans anymore. I'm sure many of you feel the same way. It dulls one's sense of patriotism. While this is one reason that Singaporeans are losing their sense of identity, the lack of government investment in sports is another reason. The half-hearted funding given to sports councils and whatever sporting schemes are hardly enough to encourage anybody to make a career out of sports. Say what you want about the degeneration of Western societies (particularly Europe), but one thing is for sure, they are all fiercely patriotic. Why? maybe because of their past history, but definitely because of the country's sporting achievements. Nothing binds a country stronger than a great sporting achievement which makes all its citizens proud to be a citizen. The government's lack of sufficient funding in these areas will be costly in the long-term.
So what's good about Singapore? Well compared to Western countries, the cost of food and services, and other goods, are still very cheap. Yes, I love shopping in Singapore. Here, we can afford to eat out almost everyday -- try that in US or Oz, and your pocket will crumble and die. It is still safer than other countries, although the recent gang-related youth slashings seem to indicate that illegal gangs are still active in Singapore.
Tax is relatively low here as well, but this is a double-edged sword. In Western countries, the high taxes are often used to fund social welfare benefits, such as disability, unemployment, pension schemes, education, medical benefits etc. Hence, while people pay high taxes, they are less affected by financial catastrophes. The flip side to this is that people take advantage of the system by deliberately losing their jobs or do not make the effort in their jobs.
Compare that to the system in Singapore, basically if you are seriously sick, but do not have sufficient healthcare insurance or finances to tide you over, you are quite screwed. Even if you pass the rigorous means testing and qualify for financial aid, the aid is usually not enough -- this means, many people die due to lack of funding for healthcare. Why is this the case in a country with hundreds of billions of dollars in reserves is bewildering?
While I enjoy the lifestyle in Australia, it is nevertheless, not home for me. I miss my friends and family and the local food. I miss the informality when shopping in local departmental stores. I miss cheap things (haha). While I applaud the way Aussies bring up their kids -- with loads of outdoor activities and broad-based learning, I'm not sure if I want my kids to adopt western values and not know their traditional Asian values altogether.
While I like Australia, Singapore still holds more for me.
From my observations (ok, and probably my own personal preference as well) is that the 'BEST' lot would consist of the following factors:
1) It is the lot nearest to your destination
Some people may suggest that once you enter the parking lot, you ARE already at your destination. No, no, this is NOT the Singaporean mentality. The Singaporean is concerned only with absolute terms (we've been trained well by our Founding Father that absolute power in His hands is the key to survival). Anyway, back to the subject...the most favoured lot is the one ABSOLUTELY nearest to the entrance of the shopping mall. You may think this is silly, but ask yourself this:
Have you ever drove into a parking lot, saw a few empty lots which are rather far away from the mall entrance (say like 20 metres), then decide that you are gonna take your chances by driving further in to grab a spot that is ideally 2 metres away from the mall entrance, and preferably not surrounded by other cars? You are lying if you answered no.
Since we're on this topic, have you ever: did the above... but ended up not finding a lot that you want, and decided to go back to park at those empty lots that you saw on your way in only to find that those lots have been taken, thus you are stuck in the carpark without a lot? You are lying if you answered no.
2) It is the lot nearest to the exit
The ideal parking lot is of course nearest to the mall entrance AND nearest to the car park exit. However, failing to acheive the first usually results in one desperately aiming for the second. I can think of no better analogy than the office car park. Just because the weekend shopping mood is over, doesn't mean that people abandon their parking ideologies when going to work. Take a quick look around at the car parks in the morning and you'll notice two things: the lots nearest to the office entrance (or the office in general) are usually taken up. This is followed by empty lots all the way to the area nearest to the car park exit -- those lots would be filled up very quickly too. The ones who are slightly later are left to curse their luck that they can neither get to office 2mins earlier, nor leave the carpark 2 mins earlier after work (illogical as it may be).
3) It cannot be next to a lorry
Though this is 3rd priority, it is nevertheless a priority. The best way to ensure that the lots surrounding your vehicle remain intact is to drive a lorry.
Since we're on this topic of car parks and parking. There is really one thing that I cannot understanding about Westerners. Having lived in the United States, and now in Australia, I've noticed it is common for drivers to park their cars HEAD-IN, as opposed to the Singaporean way of parking reverse-in. Why this is preferable, I cannot comprehend:
i) if parking head-in is really more convenient than parking reverse-in, then why do they keep adjusting the position of the car after parking? I was observing this guy spending 5 mins adjusting his car after deciding to park head-in. It took me 30 seconds to park reverse-in, including one adjustment.
ii) Generally, it is known that head-in parking is alot more inaccurate than reverse-in parking, which is why they spend so much time adjusting the car. In that case, why persist with head-in parking?
iii) When leaving the car park lot, the head-in parker has to reverse out. All drivers would know that this is a rather dangerous manoeuvre because its hard to see the traffic behind you, especially with other cars blocking your view. I'm sure, this the main cause of car park-related accidents.
The epitome of all lousy head-in parkers is the auntie that remains hopelessly out of position despite twenty adjustments.
I call these people Mother-Parkers.
Everyday in school, I'm constantly bombarded by the words above. Every legal test has some objective or subjective or objective/subjective element to it. Sometimes, I get so confused that I find the whole thing objectively and/or subjectively stupid.
However, I do have one question for the guys out there: Whether a girl is good-looking or not, is that an objective or subjective thing?
But what qualifies objectivity? Can a guy claim....
1) ... objectivity if he thinks the girl is, by all means, for all practical purposes and intent, beautiful and attractive beyond question
2) ... objectivity if he personally feels that the girl is beautiful and attractive, but possibly suspects that others may not think so.
It seems to me that the first point speaks more of objectivity than the second. But the next question begets, to what standards is objectivity referenced to? Is it:
1) to society's standards?
2) or to his personal standards?
If it it is the latter, can he still claim objectivity since it is only HIS OWN personal standards and not the objective standards of everybody else in the world? If yes, then it may appear that the objectivity test to him is subject to his own subjective standards (are you confused already?)
Now, at this point in time, you may feel that you can absolutely make a stand with regard to this question of objectivity and subjectivity, because you feel that your standards DEFINITELY reflect that of society. My next question then is: to what standards of society are you referencing to? Or in more specific terms: what is the OBJECTIVE STANDARD of society? Is it:
1) the society that you currently reside in now?
2) the society (i.e. the world) at large?
Before you attempt to answer this question, consider the possibility that there may be remote cannibal tribes in the deepest jungles of the Amazon, untainted by Hollywood perceptions, and who still think that FAT is BEAUTIFUL (yes, Queen Latifah has salvation!). Hence, does this imply that there really is NO SUCH THING AS AN OBJECTIVE STANDARD, since every society probably has their own set of standards.
Moreover, do not forget this saying that "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder"....
Now, I've had several friends who try to shortcut this objectivity and subjectivity question by simply asking this rather crude and vulgar question: All things being equal (that is, if you are not bounded by religious beliefs nor other inhibitions such as a spouse, girlfriend etc), would you (for lack of a better word) DO IT?
Surely, this must be the ultimate objectivity question right? But I beg to differ. Consider:
1) Gieselle in hip-hop baggy jeans, an XXXL baseball jersey and cap inverted backwards, and
2) any other naked girl.
Does this imply that this ULTIMATE OBJECTIVITY QUESTION is really subject to the subjectivity of the other private subject below?
ALAS, there is no answer to this objectivity/subjectivity question....
Today, during a doubles tennis match, my team-mate and I made a line call that lead to a certain degree of discontentment by our opponents. It went like this: in the rally, one of our opponents hit the ball very close to the baseline and my team-mate immediately called it out, and circled the spot with his racket (you can do this on clay courts). I concurred with his judgment and was convinced that the ball was out. However, our opponents were visibly upset with the call.
For some reason, one of our opponents kept hustling me and saying that I was a "cheat" and made a whole lot of other unpleasant comments about my integrity (or the lack thereof according to him). You'll be glad to hear that I managed to hold myself and largely ignored him. A few minutes later, he went at me again and I retorted with a certain familiar vulgarity, but still managed to hold myself.
Anyway, after the game, my team-mate brought out the issue again and I questioned why that particular opponent only hustled me but not him. I suggested that it may be because my team-mate is much taller and somewhat bigger which intimidated that opponent. My team-mate suggested that he was not hustled because he is "white" -- what was left unsaid therefore was that I was hustled cos of my skin colour.
Whatever the reason was, it led me thinking (yet again) about life in a foreign land, away from my comfort zone, from the familiarity of family, friends, environment, culture etc, and seeking a life abroad.
Whether I am over-sensitive or put too much emphasis on racial differences, it is undeniable that life is much easier when you are part of the majority race (is that why LKY is getting so many mainland Chinese to move to Singapore?). Perhaps this places things into perspective when I put myself in the shoes of the Malays or the Indians in Singapore, but of course, it isn't really the same since they are, nevertheless, born and bred Singaporeans just like the Singaporean Chinese.
As I contemplated further, I realised that it isn't as simple as "skin colour". Thankfully, Australia is generally not a racist country, though racial taunts or discriminatory actions/remarks may occassionally pop up here and there. Ultimately, I am more concerned with being able to integrate into the community here.
The familarity of our environment is easy to take for granted and also makes us reluctant to move out of our comfort zone. We have friends, family, loved ones who come from the same background, exposed to the same culture (generally), like similar genres of food, curse the PAP etc. Imagine if you have a new addition to your gang of friends, or family, that person was brought up in a totally different environment, who probably does not share the same perspectives/views and have the same set of expectations as you have. Would it be easy for him/her to integrate into the community? Not easy but of course not impossible (nothing is impossible anyway).
Back to the tennis match today: it is customary that after all the matches are concluded each Saturday, both teams would sit down and share some food and drinks. Of course, conversations would inevitably lead to sports and checking out the chicks on the other courts (what else can you expect from guys after a tennis match??). Most of the time, I would not have much of a clue of what they are talking about. I gather it is something about Aussie Rules Football or Cricket, or something like that. But they speak so fast and the accent is so thick, that I can't really catch anything significant. While everyone is generally nice and tries to include everyone else in post-match chit chat, it is difficult to keep doing that when you have to explain the meaning of every slang word -- just imagine explaining to a white caucasian the significance (or the lack of) of "lah", "loh", "leh" etc...
Anyway, it is not as if I did not expect this. I knew that moving abroad would come with its difficulties -- strange, new environment, different culture, system, people etc.... but when reality manifests itself (as in this particular case), it can still bring a tinge of discontentment and dissatisfaction.
Whatever it is, I'm still glad that I took this plunge even if things do not work out in the long run, because I want to be able to look back one day and feel satisfied that we were fortunate to have the chance to experience a different lifestyle.
A series of events occurred yesterday that led me wondering if they were pure coincidences or the work of an unknown mastermind....
Some background first: When I first arrived in Perth, I bought a 2000 Toyota Echo for about $7000. On the day when I bought it, while fiddling with the car stereo system, the speakers suddenly went blank, though the stereo seemed to be working properly. Immediately, a series of theories shot through my mind as to how that could have occurred. Finally, I concluded that the speaker connection may be faulty, as suggested by several car forumers who had a somewhat similar problem.
I left it alone for the next several months, but did briefly consider changing the stereo and/or fixing the speakers, Other than enquiring around a little, and checking car stereo showrooms once in a while, I never did anything concrete about the desire. Finally, a few days ago, I decided that the car REALLY needed some music. I stopped by Albert's (apparently a reputed car stereo showroom), hoping to get it changed out on the spot and also checking to see if the speakers were functional. However, the salesman could not put me at a slot at the time, and suggested I come back the next day at the same time. He gave me a quote of $280 (including installation). Alright, I was looking forward to it.
I came home inspired, thinking about what other "stuff" I can change (a.k.a. 'modify') on the car. After some research, I felt that the car really needed a new air filter. I would go down to Super Cheap Auto to get the new car filter and install it myself before going over to Albert's to fix up the stereo.
I got up early next morning, dressed up, went to the car, tried starting it, only to realise that the battery was flat!! Urrggh....I had also thought about changing out the battery last week, but decided to postpone it till a later time. To cut the long story short, it cost me $357 to change out the battery on the spot by RAC (my auto insurer). The cost included one year's free coverage for any roadside breakdown. Oh, apparently, the mechanic also said that the original car battery was VERY FLAT, not just flat. He's amazed that it took so long to break down.
Anyway, I was reeling a little at the time, thinking of the $357 I outlayed on the battery and the $280 I was to spend on the stereo later on. I set off to Albert's and on the way, decided for no reason whatsoever, to just turn on the stereo. Lo and Behold! I heard the sweet sound of music! I was so amazed that I pulled up by the side of the road to "check it out". Yes, it was working! The old car battery must have been too weak to power the stereo while the new car battery must be provideing sufficient juice to make it work properly!
Heck the new stereo system, I went ahead to change out the air filter and went home happy...boasting to Tress about how the stereo is now fixed.
So my theory was that the new battery now had sufficient juice to power the stereo, while the old battery couldn't. That is not the end of the story. And looking back, I should have realised that this theory was flawed and does not make sense at all. If the old battery could not power the stereo, how did it last me another 6 months before going totally flat?
Like I said, this is not the end of the story...
So Tress and I set off to buy some stuff at a nearby shopping centre. On the way, Tress said that the stereo was a little too loud and tried to lower the volume. Now, I haven't mentioned that one of the buttons of the stereo is not really working properly....so anyway, Tress couldn't really lower the volume and we tried to fiddle around with it more....and the speakers went blank again!!
Ooh...I was a little pissed at the time for just a brief second..then, EUREKA! I realised what was actually the problem all along! The fiddling had reduced the "Fade" function to maximum thereby not sending an output signal to the speakers and that was what the problem was! (btw, don't ask me what added value the "Fade" function has cos the volume function seems to do the same job). The changing of the car battery had simply reset the stereo to the original settings, thereby explaining why the stereo worked properly after the battery change.
When I got home, I put the theory to test by disconnecting the car battery and reconnecting it again. Yes, the stereo and speakers worked perfectly in harmony once again!
Is this the end of the story? I'm not sure, but I'm waiting to see what else unfolds!
Finally it happened. It was an accident-in-waiting and one in which I knew would cost me, but procrastinated to do anything about. Well, it's not a big deal really. You see, I only have a single key to my car, and despite numerous warnings and well-meaning advice, I decided to wait out getting a second car key made.
Well, the inevitable happened yesterday. I left the key in the ignition, manually locked the car door and slammed the door shut. Then I realised the horror of it all. I spent over an hour using a steel clothes hanger trying to hook the lock into submission, but to no avail. Finally, I had to down a 100 bucks getting the auto insurer to come and unlock the car. Turns out that they used pretty much the same method as I tried, but they had more sophisticated tools than me.
100 bucks down the drain.
Since, I'm not exactly earning any dough now, I hate to make unnecessary expenditures and was a little "heartpain" about it for a brief moment. That is until I recalled what I learnt earlier in Torts yesterday.
For the (fortunate) uninitated, torts simply refer to a "wrong" committed by someone unto another person. The most common type of torts is the tort of negligence. A good example is to not take reasonable care in driving and causing an accident. In Torts class yesterday, we discussed a case involving a 20 year old lady who seemed to have a promising future which came to an abrupt end after a auto accident. Through no fault of her own, she suffered massive injuries to her spine, limbs, throat and also head injuries. As a result, she was left quadripelgic, unable to talk, and frequent epileptic fits due to the brain trauma. She was due to get married to a fine young man who held a respectable position in a government agency. She called off the marriage as she did not want to burden her fiance.
The High Court discussed about what level of compensation she would be entitled to because of her loss of earning capacity, but, would you believe this: deducting expenditure she would have to outlay for incidentals to a normal working life, eg. transportation, clothes etc. Other things that were deliberated included the pain and suffering she endured and would have to endure, interests earned on compensation and even possible deductions because of a now-shortened life expectancy.
I can't even find a word that described what I felt upon learning the facts and the proceedings of the case. It was a mix between amazement at the level of detail the Court attempts to delve into when calculating compensation, and the sheer disbelief at the apparent lack of empathy and business-like nature of the whole thing. Well, the latter can't be helped. It is afterall, a court of law and besides, the judges are doing their best to try and provide restitution in the only way possible -- monetary compensation.
But I was trying to imagine putting myself in the place of that injured lady. How would I feel when all this is going on before me. Yes, perhaps, she was the one who initated the whole suit in the first place. But hearing, in real time, how the judges, the barristers and the other relevant experts and actuators discussing how much compensation she was entitled to get, was definitely a traumatic experience of the highest order.
The "touchstone of reasonabless" dictated the ruling that the defendant was only liable to compensate for the medical costs of placing the lady under the care of a hospital, instead of allowing her to employ a full-time nurse to care for her at home. The reason for this was because the costs of the latter would be 4 times greater than the costs of the former, and there was little perceived extra benefit for the latter anyway. How she must have cringed at the thought of spending the rest of her life in the hospital!
My whole point of this discussion is to reiterate the necessity of putting a real perspective to life. We frequently fret and worry about the little things, such as, when is the next promotion, how much is the next pay increment, will Manchester United win the EPL next season, an expensive incidental (like the one I incurred yesterday). The real important things in life, our health, our well-being, our family, loved ones and friends, are largely ignored until they are taken away from us.
I, of all people, should know that. My parents were taken away from us just a few years ago. While time may have dampened the pain, it never really goes away, and is ocassionally felt when little things pop up here and there that remind me of it.
In any case, I just want urge everyone to always be thankful of what they have. The real wealth we have, is not just our health but our ability to love and be loved. All these are crucial for our well-being, not the dollars and cents (sense?) that easily leads us down the wrong paths. The glass is certainly half-full and never half-empty!
*Mark, glad you are ok!
I know I haven't been updating this blog as frequently as I should...I guess I've been lazy, slack or had other priorities. ..but better late than never....this is a long one though, so brace yourself or keep it till another time when you can spare the energy to read.
Well, I'm into 3 solid months of law school now and the workload is certainly tough. Just getting back to hitting the books was tough enough in itself. Though I'm generally an avid reader and writer, I cannot say that reading and writing legalese all day long thrills the socks off my feet. I'm slowly beginning to realise that I would need to effect some degree of change in my mindset in order to achieve a reasonably good academic standard.
The law has a strict emphasis on precision and avoidance on ambiguity. However, legislation and statutes are all but a collection of words placed next to each other that would appear otherwise coherent, and there is a limit on how precise words can actually be in terms of conveying a purpose. Afterall, there are a million ways to interpret a string of words. Let me give you an example...
In the first month of Criminal Law, we expended a massive load of time and energy in defining the elements of homicide, specifically, MURDER. The criminal law in Western Australia is governed by a Code system (as opposed to other states which are governed by common law or precedents). Are you confused already? Nevermind, ignore the last point. But look at the extract below: Section 279(1a) spells out the elements of Murder.
279. Murder
(1) If a person unlawfully kills another person and —
(a) the person intends to cause the death of the person killed or another person; or...
Take a look again. Now it may appear fairly innocuous right? I mean, someone unlawfully kills another, and he or she intends to cause the death of that person -- murder charge satisfied! If only it was as simple... I am gonna repaste the section again below but this time with underlined and bold emphasis.
279. Murder
(1) If a person unlawfully kills another person and —
(a) the person intends to cause the death of the person killed or another person; or...
Take a look again... In order to prove that someone murdered another, there are 5 elements that a prosecutor need to establish. Firstly, he/she needs to establish that the act was unlawful, usually not too difficult. Then, prove that there was a killing (fortunately, another section defines what a killing means). Next, show that the person is a PERSON in the legal sense (yes, I know that sounds silly).
The next two elements "intends" and "cause" are the potentially difficult ones. I'll talk about "cause" first. You would think that it is rather straightforward, but I assure it is anything but. According to a precedent case, causation has a factual and legal aspect to it, and both aspects need to be proven. Ok, that is all I want to say about causation.
"Intention" is really the fun one. The general lay understanding of "intention" is what you want to acheive or something along those lines. In law, "intention" bears the meaning of "purpose" as opposed to desire and motive. Now, what is the damned bloody difference??
"Desire" and "motive" have an emotional qualification but "purpose" bears an objective meaning. Still confused?
Ok, I've been meaning to share this for awhile. While it has nothing to do with the law, it may help to shed some light on the question of "intention".
****************************************
Every morning, I take a 35min drive to school, bypassing small artery lanes to medium sized roads and up the freeway. Inevitably, there would always be some early risers taking a morning stroll or jog along those roads. Now, I've noticed a very strange pattern. There are generally no specific gender and age demographics in terms of those taking early morning jogs -- meaning to say, I generally see both men and women of most ages (probably 25 to 85) taking those early morning jogs.
However, I rarely see 20 to 40 year old men taking morning strolls, whereas the female strollers also fall into all age groups (between 25 to 85). The men taking morning strolls are generally above 50 or 60 yrs old. As I pondered about this strange phenomenon, I started reconciling it to what I learnt in Criminal Law, particularly with regard to the question of "intention".
Now, as I shared above, "intention" bears the meaning of purpose, while "desire" and "motive" have an emotional qualification to it. Since I fall into the 20 to 40 year old age group, I can fully attest that it is never my purpose/intention to take early morning strolls. However, I may ocassionally entertain such desire simply because I thought that the morning air could be rather refreshing. My purpose/intention is inevitably to sleep in while my desire/motive could be one of many things, including waking up early, having eggs and bacon for breakfast etc. While these form my desire/motive, my objective purpose/intention is to sleep in (which I do).
Now do you see what I mean by the objective element?
Two questions now arise:
1) Why do 20-40 yr old men not like early morning strolls? I have no idea, but ask yourself this: between you and your wife/girlfriend, who is more likely to do it? I assure you it can't be the men.
2) How does this fit into the idea of "intention" in Criminal Law? Well, imagine a scenario where a devoted and loving husband kills his wife. Certainly, it cannot be his desire to kill his wife if he is a devoted and loving husband right? But at the point in time where the act occured, he may have been so angry or aggravated, that his objective purpose was to kill her.
Till next time...
Yesterday, I had dinner at the home of my late mum's friend, Auntie Helen. She had been classmates with my mum over 40years ago and had migrated to Perth in 1981. Her family was very sweet and gave us a hearty meal. Auntie Helen spoke fondly of my mum and their classmates. As I reflected back on this, I realised that despite the passing of my parents, I had been living in their graces for the past few years. There would always be occassions like these where close friends of my parents' would pop up and be ever so helpful and gracious to us --- and they always spoke fondly of my parents.
This is also true of Tress's parents, who took care of Sandy and Bowani when they were young and are still very close to them even till today. Sandy and her family has been so helpful in ensuring that we settle in quickly into Perth, while Bowani & family had provided us with a wonderful CNY reunion dinner and will be renting out her apartment to us at a lower-than-market rate...... ALL these, I believe, on the graces of Tress's parents, especially her mum.
This made me realise the importance of kinship and friendship. Not that I never treasured them, but this has opened my eyes in seeing how people who love someone would, by association, also love the people whom that someone loves or loved (is this confusing?)....... and this is the magic of relationships.
I will be starting school very soon. As usual, I always have slight doubts on what I'm about to embark on. You know, the usual talk of opportunity costs and an uncertain future ahead. I pray that I will be given strength to overcome all these doubts and do my very best for all that lies ahead.
Profile
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif?v=91.7)
darryl_giggs- darryl_giggs
