Life of an intern

I've been having so much fun interning at Jeanny's firm. She has given me so many opportunities to gain practical experience that there are days where I feel like I'm already a practicing lawyer ;)

The past 2 days in court in particular, have been so intense and eventful. From winning a matrimonial hearing to seeing a client get taken away to listening to J Leslie Chew's insightful comparisons between the civil and common law systems (during PTC no less, after learning that counsel have decided to take trial dates after failing to reach an amicable settlement).

I have gained so much in the past 4 weeks and only hope that the next one will be just as brilliant. :')

Revenge or Redemption.

A snippet from last week's Min Law that I found particularly interesting, especially the opinion piece by an anonymous student on his view of the Mandatory Death Penalty.

Reactions to Yong Vui Kong’s appeal verdict

The Online Citizen (5 Apr) published a joint statement by Think Centre and Singapore Anti-Death Penalty Campaign (SADPC) on Yong Vui Kong’s appeal verdict. Think Center and SADPC said they found the verdict “highly disappointing” and “daunting” that President Nathan had no apparent right to decide against the advice of the Cabinet regarding the granting of clemency appeals. There was no value in the state execution of Yong, they said, and the reason there were still drug mules entering Singapore proved that the mandatory death penalty (MDP) had failed to serve as a deterrent. They also stated that the Singapore government actively advocates chances to be given to former convicts and to help them rejoin the society under the Yellow Ribbon Project, and they did not see how it could not be extended to Yong and the other drug mules who were mostly marginalised youths led astray. 

The statement called for the government to heed the call of its young citizens and people in the world who were moving towards more humane ways to deal with non-violent crimes, rather than imposing the MDP for drug mules. It noted that the UN General Assembly had called on member states to establish a moratorium on executions as a step toward the abolition of the death penalty, and that a total of 109 countries voted in favour of the resolution, while 35 countries voted against and 41 abstained. 

The statement concluded by calling for the government to declare an immediate moratorium on all death sentences and to commute Yong’s sentence. The Online Citizen (5 Apr) also republished an appeal by SDP’s Vincent Wijeysingha last November for clemency for Yong.

Separately, Temasek Review (5 Apr) carried an opinion piece on the mandatory death penalty (MDP). The author acknowledged the differences between Singapore and other countries, and stated that he was not trying to get Singapore to emulate our Western counterparts, particularly in Europe, where almost all of the countries had abolished the death penalty. However, he cited, among other reasons, the multitude of alternatives to the gallows that the government could consider, such as tougher or multiple life sentences or caning. He argued that the MDP was not an effective deterrent, as some would-be offenders did not even know that the MDP was being implemented in Singapore.

To be honest, I find this a classic example of a grey area. Both sides of the camp have their own valid reasons behind their arguments. To those who are for capital punishment, a large part of their resolve seemed to stem from the MDP being a deterrence and the whole notion of "an eye for an eye" (in cases where victims are involved.) To them, the rationale was simple: if you had done something wrong, then you have to pay the price, and in this case, we have made it clear that the price is your life. They don't accept the argument that it is not fair for only the runners of the drug lords to bear the brunt of the punishment (in cases of drug-trafficking) when some of them were not even aware of the death penalty to begin with. I guess to them, ignorance is a flimsy excuse. 

However, who are we to judge? Normal people living our normal lives, with no clue how these runners fell into the situation of being the pawns of drug lords. It could have been desperation, it could also have been the thrill; yet whatever the circumstances, I still find myself decidedly uncomfortable at the notion of playing God. Who gave anyone the right to end a life that wasn't theirs to begin with? One can then throw it back and say, then who gave the accused the right to take the life that was not his to begin with? Shouldn't he be punished for it? No doubt, but does that have to mean his life for the one he took - This justification of "an eye for an eye" in cases where there are victims involved also makes me uncomfortable... because haven't we always been taught, that an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind?

At the other end of the spectrum, they believe that the MDP has not been working well enough as a deterrence to justify its implementation. It is felt that this penalty fails to nip the problem in its bud. To them, life is too sacred and preserving life should always be the first priority. It is felt that there are alternatives such as harsher sentences, harsher rehabilitation processes and even caning/whipping. This is when people cringe and say, "Caning? But that is so barbaric." Are they then suggesting that the taking of another's life is humane? I don't deny that the act of caning is honestly quite boorish and uncivilised even, but you know what they say about a rock and a hard place ;) I agree with the opinion, that "wounds heal but a life once taken can never be returned, it is final."

Yet, going back to the other end, there is the issue of cost of life imprisonment. It might seem tasteless, to put cost against a life, but unfortunately, it is a very real problem. They argue that while the MDP has not been entirely all-encompassing in its effect of deterrence, it has nevertheless helped to curb numbers. It is why Singapore is so well-known for its safety - a comfort that has our harsh laws to thank. Imprisonment and rehabilitation might work, but for how long? If people grow to not fear the penalty of imprisonment, it will only bring about problems that we are currently seeing in the UK - a growing number of inmates increasing costs and whose expenses are borned largely by taxpayers.
 

I pause at this juncture because I came to realise that a common rebuttal from both sides is this:  

Put yourself in their shoes.

One side says, put yourself in the shoes of the family of the victim - wouldn't you want justice to be served? He took the life of your loved one. Are you really willing to let him continue living his? How is that fair?

Then the other side also says, put yourself in the shoes of the family of the accused - wouldn't you hope that he would have a second chance? Wouldn't you beg and plead and pray that instead of taking his life, he is given the chance to show remorse, to rehabilitate, to turn over a new leaf?
 

How is one supposed to choose a side? I'm still muddling my way through this grey area and at present, find it extremely tough to agree wholeheartedly with one camp.

I know it's really difficult not to have double standards... because there are indeed some awfully heinous crimes that truly deserve the death penalty. It takes a really really big heart, to be able to be, well, the bigger man. But I'd like to draw your attention to the speech given by Matthew Shepard's father at his trial, way back in 1999. That speech gave me the shivers when I first read it, because it rang true, of courage and moving on. It also gave me pause, to consider the notion that life imprisonment can indeed be worse than death.

I would like nothing better than to see you die, Mr. McKinney. However, this is the time to begin the healing process. To show mercy to someone who refused to show any mercy. To use this as the first step in my own closure about losing Matt. Mr. McKinney, I am not doing this because of your family. I am definitely not doing this because of the crass and unwarranted pressures put on by the religious community. If anything, that hardens my resolve to see you die. Mr. McKinney, I’m going to grant you life, as hard as that is for me to do, because of Matthew. Every time you celebrate Christmas, a birthday, or the Fourth of July, remember that Matt isn’t. Every time that you wake up in that prison cell, remember that you had the opportunity and the ability to stop your actions that night. Every time that you see your cell mate, remember that you had a choice, and now you are living that choice. You robbed me of something very precious, and I will never forgive you for that. Mr. McKinney, I give you life in the memory of one who no longer lives. May you have a long life, and may you thank Matthew every day for it.

Today's Swedish words are:

Fängelse - Prison

Bestraffning - Punishment/Penalty

Blairite

Overshadowed.

Random snippet of the day: I met a woman who wanted to divorce her husband because he was annoying. When asked to elaborate, she said he talked too much. In fact, he wouldn't stop talking. Mmhmm.

Hearing bits and pieces of updates on the budget speech - Budget for growth, yet borrowing has spiked and inflation continues to soarrrrr. Seems like it's only a matter of time now before BoE increases interest rates too. Best to get my pounds, stat. Don't wanna be paying triple for my school fees during my 2nd year!

You know, speaking of the Brits, I've alwaysss had a soft spot for Tony Blair. Haha. I was so sad when he had to step down as Prime Minister! I remember first seeing him on BBC giving a Labour speech and thinking, "There's something about this guy...". He spoke, not in a flat and serious monotone that you often hear politicians speak in, but with a charisma that drew you in and made you want to sit your ass down and listen. Then I discovered the PMQs and it was like finding my own secret stash of weed that I could indulge in whenever I wanted. The manner in which he handled himself during these weekly sessions was honestly something to behold - the heat generated during these forums could get really intense but he always handled it with such ease and grace.

In his 10 years as Prime Minister, while he might not have lived up to everyone's expectations, I thought he did a fairly awesome job, from increasing public spending on health and education, independence to BoE, his role in climate change, to his work in Northern Ireland. Yet whenever one speaks of Blair now, people always think of the war in Iraq - a blemish that has tainted his stint as the longest serving Labour PM. Once he decided to stand by the US and enter the war, there was no turning back. When no weapons were eventually found, he lost the public trust that he had painstakingly gained through his years in office, just like that. The post-Iraq heat resulted in an anti-Blair rage that eventually played a huge role in his stepping down. Despite the protests and calls that he should be tried as a war-criminal, he never backed down or apologised for the decision he made though. To the critics, he said,

"I know there's a bit of us that would like me to do a Hugh Grant in "Love Actually" and tell America where to get off. But the difference between a good film and real life is that in real life there's the next day, the next year, the next lifetime to contemplate the ruinous consequences of easy applause."

Despite the outcome in Iraq, one thing can't be denied - that Blair had served his country well. He wasn't perfect, but he had done well. Unlike Bush, he was articulate and charismatic and unlike many other politicians (who shall not be named) he was also a family man with a strong moral streak (I know many would beg to differ, but it's my blog damnit.). In his resignation speech, he summed up,

"Politics may be the art of the possible but, at least in life, give the impossible a go. So, of course, the vision is painted in the colors of the rainbow, and the reality is sketched in the duller tones of black, white, and gray. But I ask you to accept one thing - hand on heart, I did what I thought was right. I may have been wrong. That's your call. But believe one thing if nothing else - I did what I thought was right for our country."

Having already left office for 4 years, he remains fairly active in the scene. While he didn't get the coveted role as President of the EC, he became more involved in the Mid-East region and also his Faith Foundation. He has certainly left some decent sized shoes to fill for the tag-team of Cameron/Clegg. It has been a bit of a bumpy beginning and the jury's still out on this coalition.

PS: Blair was a lawyer too!

Swedish word:

Juridik - justice/law

Rättshjälp - legal aid

Leva på min egen - to live on my own

Criminal or Commercial?

As part of MinLaw's media alert:

TODAY (p 10) published a commentary on how Singapore should be seeking “a new generation of David Marshalls” and encouraging young legal eagles to take on criminal law so that they would be better equipped for international challenges. The commentary noted AG’s comments at the Opening of the Legal year on how the dwindling number of criminal lawyers was “worrying”, as well as CJ’s comments on the salary disparity being one of the main reasons lawyers picked commercial over criminal law practice. It noted that the growth in international regulation in the wake of the global financial crisis had blurred the line between criminal and commercial practice and expertise, and that Singaporean lawyers could no longer content themselves with being masters of civil litigation and dispute resolution alone, but must also hone their criminal practice skills as well. TODAY observed that criminal practice need not only be the sole province of our local courts, but could take on an international dimension, with Singapore lawyers joining the international criminal law directorate set up within AGC. It added that increasingly, Singapore lawyers were joining international investigative and enforcement agencies such as Interpol. It also noted that the criminal justice process in Singapore had received a “significantly refreshed lift” with the recent revisions to the Criminal Procedure Code, and that the new disclosure and discovery rules would set new ground rules for the conduct of criminal trials in Singapore. TODAY called for young lawyers to be encouraged from an early stage of their training to take on the rigours of both criminal and commercial work, while emphasis must be placed by Parliament and the courts on the compassionate practice of law, promoting meaningful pro bono legal services, and providing quality legal aid to crime victims and defendants of limited means. It also proposed that the Criminal Bar, together with AGC, should be encouraged to explore cross-border opportunities for growth for young lawyers interested in criminal law, so that our lawyers could provide world-class legal services in new areas of criminal practice.

An encouraging note to return home after my studies in the UK. Criminal Law has always been an area that I'm fairly intrigued by but on the other hand, also an area where I feel one might not have much potential to thrive and grow, especially in an environment like Singapore (where the line between black and white is pretty stringent and leaves little room for manoeuvre.) Perhaps changes are underway.

Land of The .... Free?

Led by their noses.

I feel like I have been doused with a bit too much of American politics coverage to last me a few months at least. Haha. Can't say the midterm result was very surprising but here's my short take on the recent Republican/Democrats big bang: -

The Americans are a weird bunch. Haha.

It appears that many of them have the delusion of Obama being God, whose touch will heal all crises immediately. (2 years might seem a long time but hasn't their economy been in the reds since.... uh forever?) I've been asked countless number of times whether I liked Obama and my reply had always been, "Compared to the alternative, yes." I am not his biggest fan but I respect his intelligence and genuine desire (I believe.) to want to alleviate the dire state of the economy. 

In his 2 years in office, he might not have lived up to his over-hyped reputation, and he might have made a fair number of wrong moves. His policies and the due processes are slow, painful and harsh. So very harsh. The health care bill was a huge achievement in his book although I'm not so sure with regards to specific details, for example the effectiveness of the individual mandate: Paying an annual $695 penalty or couple of hundreds/month for insurance? Doesn't seem too difficult a choice. It also seems more like a regressive form of taxation on the normal working class, rather than the progressive taxation that it claims to be, with the 2.5% clause. Nevertheless, he has started to lay some sort of foundation for the rebuilding process to begin. Not to mention that he did this against some crazy uncooperative attitude from the Republicans.

To be honest, I doubt there is any man out there who can bring America out of the hole it dug itself into, painlessly. There's no going around the harsh way of fixing their blistering economy. It really is a "No pain no gain" route. So you have to give him credit, he might not have lived up to everyone's expectations, but it does not override the fact that he is, quite a brilliant man and a man better fit as President than Cain or Bush :p 

So will he last beyond 2012? I ..... believe and I hope so. Unless there's a Roosevelt or Clinton in the making? Heh. I'll end this off with something Scotty posted on my wall,

Annnd since it is the Deepavali weekend, 2 Swedish phrases ... en indisk högtid, which means an Indian festival :) and en riktig långhelg means a really long weekend.

You can't say that!

Why not?

I have always been fairly intrigued by the topic of freedom of speech. It appears to be such a simple logic. That in this world, people should have the right to speak their minds. A famous quote by Evelyn Hall, summarizing the thoughts of Voltaire, that while 'I disapprove of what you say, I will defend to the death your right to say it'. It seems pretty clear cut doesn't it?

But on the other hand, it can be such a dangerous route to go down. Because once you agree that freedom of speech is crucial and of the utmost importance, then we are opening the floodgates to having to defend the indefensible. As Gaiman said, you are going to have to 'defend the right of people to read, or to write or to say, what you don't say, or like, or want said.'

I find it's this double edged that people often find it hard to reconcile with. But is it really as simple as knowing how to balance the scale between freedom of speech, and human sensibility? We should all be allowed to speak freely, but with that power also comes a certain level of responsibility (As spiderman said, right? Haha.) Knowing your limits and utilising the very important skill of tact is often overlooked once people step up on their soapbox. It's much easier said than done, of course. I mean it seems as though to me, the whole idea of freedom of speech started to gain momentum as people seeked to voice their discontent, their arguments, their views on sensitive topics like race, gender and religion. As emotions fire their need to speak out, sensibility often flies out the window.

So what then? An interesting take could be that if you can't stop people from saying what they want, if you have to defend their right to say it, then perhaps it would do us all good, as listeners, to learn how to distinguish between what is true or false, between fact and opinion. After all, freedom of speech gives them the right to speak their minds, but it doesn't give them the right to have others listen. So if you know well and good, that someone is spouting hate about a particular topic, instead of giving him the attention that he so desires, tune him out. It might anger us, it might offend and insult but as the party that is being attacked, if we know that there is no basis for his allegations, then letting go and ignoring it should be as easy as water sliding down our backs. Should be, being the key phrase here. Haha.

I guess at the end of the day, it is difficult to balance the scale between freedom of speech and the extent of censorship. How much leeway should we give, what are the consequences of allowing emotional and potentially damaging messages to be broadcasted across society? Do we trust our people to have the ability to differentiate between truth and false truth?

No real conclusion as of yet, but a good measure? Don't take everything that we read or hear as truth, learn the art of salt pinching (heh.), learn to question our sources, learn to form our own opinions. We could all do with a little less ignorance, and a lot more of critical thinking.

Freedom of speech, in swedish is 'Yttrandefrihet'. Swedes seem to like joining their words together :)

Thread lightly,

for you thread on my dreams.

The US media has been going stir crazy the past month with their reporting on Park51.  One side of the camp says America is about religious freedom and people should be free to worship where they choose. Then the other says building the mosque so near to Ground Zero is equivalent to a slap in the faces of people that lost their loved ones in 9/11. As in many things in life, it's hard to split everything down the middle between black and white. There is always a grey area... and I think in this instance, the grey area is sensitivity to those affected by 9/11 and survivors that lost people they loved.

Unfortunately, this grey area has been blown (no pun intended) entirely out of it's it's meant proportion by the media and people who are too vocal for their own good. They shifted their argument to focus on the community centre being a headquarters for terrorism, (seriously.) and we allllll know how well that's gonna turn out.

That said, I know that 9/11, although orchestrated by Al Qaeda, doesn't equate Islam and the entire population of Muslims to terrorism. Moreover, the Park51 project is more like a community center than a mosque. 

But on the other hand, I don't think it's hard to just understand why many have reservations towards the Islamic religion after 9/11. Because despite the terrorists being extremist and despite extremists not representing what Islam is really about, essentially to these people, religion was their primary motivation and it was unfortunate that their view of Islam differed from the mainstream. Even more unfortunate, was that their screwed up interpretation of Islam was practically broadcasted across the entire nation. Bearing in mind, that emotions are powerful beyond words.

So yes, them being assholes does not mean it is fair for the Muslims in America to lose their right to worship as they choose. But when some have caused grief to others in the name of that religion, (albeit a very screwed up and extreme interpretation of said religion), I don't think it's unreasonable to not want a center/facility/whatever it may be that has, in some way or another, links to a core motivation for the 9/11 incident, to be built near where it had happened. Not because it is dangerous, but just for the reason that it would be a painful reminder.

You can repeat a billion times over, that Islam religion had nothing to do with the tragedy of 9/11. And you would be right. But as I mentioned, emotions? They're bad ass mofos man. All that made many people see, was not that the terrorists happened to be Muslim but that the terrorists were Muslim.

Emotions cloud judgment, undeniably so. But it's emotions that make us all human.

Religious freedom, to have the right to worship as you choose - I absolutely agree. But on the other hand, I think it wouldn't hurt to thread lightly, be tactful and maybe just show a little understanding and respect, on both sides.

Anyway the whole debate among the politicians is such a farce. They should just shut their freaking pie holes. After all, doesn't their constitution state that, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."? So hold their comments. It's a slippery slope and they've lost their bearings far too long ago.

I do think we come across another grey area with regards to when the government should interfere. In my previous post on Prop 8, I spoke of my belief that the government has the duty to make sure that the basic rights of people are not infringed upon by any one religion. In this case, one can argue that the government also has the duty to ensure that the basic rights of people to worship where they choose, is not infringed upon by the misconceptions/biases that some people may hold towards any one religion. But as I mentioned, the other grey area here is that people are not saying you can't have the freedom to worship whomever you choose, but it would be good manners, to not built your place of worship around the grounds that people still hold strong feelings about. A little of give and take would be nice, perhaps.

Anywayyyy, legalities and political motives aside. Everyone else? Show a little tolerance, show a little respect, hug, and let's move on. Hahah. If only it were that easy eh.

On a lighter note, went to catch "Going the Distance" tonight! Was quite a funny movie, it was better than I expected actually! Such familiar situations...... but of course they managed to resolve it with prettier and less angsty 'solutions'. Haha. If only life could imitate film huh ;)

To end off, courtesy of Cassie ♥

Swedish words: sjunga, skratt, ler - sing, laugh, smile (:

A good day

for common sense and equality.

So Prop 8 was overturned on Wednesday! Although some people may say that marriage is just a piece of paper and if you really love somebody, you don't actually need that paper to prove it. Plus, there's always a Civil Union? But I think the issue goes a little further than that, true they don't have to get married, but by denying gays and lesbians the right to marry, something that all human beings should have - that's when it crosses a line. Because my belief is that after all, marriage is not just a privilege that only heterosexual couples have.

There are those that say, why can't they be contented with a civil union? Well I'd think it's because there are legal differences? I've learnt that with marriage comes various automatic rights and benefits granted by the government which are not applied to those bound by a civil union. Where's the equality in that? You might not like the way they choose to live their lives, but it doesn't give you the right to take away their right to express their love and to have the same benefits that heterosexual couples are entitled to. Seriously, how can you have a law that eliminates the rights of a certain group?

Then there are those that say marriage is a sacred arrangement/ceremony between a man and a woman. But with all due respect, how does religion have anything to do with 2 consensual, loving, law-abiding people who want to share and spend their lives together? If one says marriage is for procreation, then does that mean that a woman who is infertile does not have the right to marry the man she loves because she won't be able to fulfill that duty of procreation? 

I'm not denying that religion plays a huge role in this world that we live in, but I also hold the belief that it is the duty of the government to protect the basic rights of every single human being, and that includes the right to be bonded to the one they love, even if they are of the same sex. It is their duty to make sure that this right is not infringed upon by any one religion.

Then there's the argument that tradition dictates/insists/shows that a traditional marriage is meant to be between a man and a woman. But tradition also once dictated that women didn't vote, that a black and a white didn't marry. A woman voting, and inter-racial marriages were not traditional. Well, look at where we stand on those issues now. Just because it's traditional doesn't make it right.

If they are so adamant on protecting marriage, it might do more good banning divorce rather than banning marriage between people who love each other. Hah. Just saying.

Anywayyy, it's the 9th of August! Happy birthday Singapore! The little island turns 45 this year :) The weekend has been pretty awesome thus far. Manchester United - Charity shield winners! Hopefully this signals a good start to the season ;) 

Och jättekul helg med Monica, Steve, Robben, Marie och Simon på 1 Altitude och One St Michaels (Heh). Öl, vin, Italiensk mat, fyrverkerier på lördag, öl, vin, jättegod middag med gott sällskap på söndag. Det var jättetrevligt (:

Swedish words this time, 

Fyrverkerier - fireworks!

Gott sällskap - good company

Lastly, they sure know what they're talking about in Detroit ;)

Finding that stillness.

Karen Tse

Vivacious, positive and persistent are the words used to describe this woman who has brought about unprecedented changes in legal systems around the world. Today, I came to learn of an organisation, the International Bridges to Justice (IBJ), founded by Karen Tse. 

It was like an epiphany. 

I always knew a general sense of where my motivations for going into law were... But they weren't... focused. I knew they fell within the circle of pro bono work, but that's pretty broad and generalised, really. Then today, when I learnt about IBJ, it was really a 'Eureka' moment of, "Wow that's what I'm talking about! You read every single word of my mind!"

IBJ works to empower legal aid lawyers in developing countries to protect the basic rights of ordinary citizens, more specifically, they aim to guarantee all citizens the rights to competent legal representation and the right to a fair trial. This was exactly what sparked my interest in law, that the abuse of human rights and abuses that happen within the legal system itself today, are so much less likely to occur if the right defense lawyer/public defender is present, if people were more educated about their rights, and most importantly, if the institutional support is there.

What I learnt today has only been a glimpse of what IBJ has done and is capable of and there's so much more to learn and read about. I will come back to this topic when I get a better grasp of it but a quote that really resounded with me was this, 'It's not the glamorous work -- it's the drudge work that makes the difference.' 

It's the power of persuasion.
It's not gonna be easy, but that doesn't mean people still shouldn't attempt to change it.

As we find our way,

through this maze we call life.

Gao came to meet me for lunch today and he brought me candy! Haha. Cause I told him the Monday blues had descended with a vengeance. Lol. I have coool friends (:

Anyway, I came to a pretty big decision (for me at least) after thinking and thinking and thinking about it over the weekend and across the day today.. I'm gonna put my plans for law school on hold, for the next 2 to 3 years. Which essentially means that past few months of agonising over my PS for law school apps, have been for naught. Haha. But after getting feedback from the current and past law graduates from the UK, the option of choosing to rush into the 1 year GDL seemed a pretty rash and risky move.

In my fervent and I'd admit, almost desperate attempt and desire to start on my law school education, I've not put much thought into the opportunities and routes that will be opened to me after that 1 year. My plan was pretty much short termed and one that had a black hole as a back up plan... because the GDL is a stepping stone only in so far as I am able to then get a spot on the LPC/BVC and subsequently, a training contract and pupillage. Since there was the intention to not come back to Singapore, my then-decision to gun for the GDL also meant going for a qualification that was recognised by the UK Bar, but not that of Singapore. As much as I hope that I'd not have to stay here for the rest of my life, the risk of going for something that is recognised only by UK but not Sg, is one that I can't afford to take at the present state. Plus with the current economy being so.... 'robust' and all, not to mention the low percentages of students actually securing a training contract in the UK, the path almost seems like tempting suicide.

So as much as it pains me to admit it, it's perhaps a more sensible move to let the industry breathe while I gain experience in an alternative industry before returning to my 'quest' of conquering law school, the proper way, which is a 3 year LLB. Haha. Afterall... law school's always gonna be there. This way, it gives me time to explore whether the JD could also be a feasible alternative, time to repay my NUS loan with my own money and not my parents, time to put aside a little more spare cash so I can concentrate fully on my studies when the time comes. Or should the economy improve, get back on the GDL route when the number of training contracts are more viable.

So that's that for now. It breaks my heart, this entry. But I guess as long as I keep my goal in mind, it doesn't matter if I have to take the long route, as long as I can get there. (:

Decisions, decisions, decisions. Oh, life.

Anyway, now that the heavy stuff is off my chest, I had a good dinner/wine on Friday with old friends and an awesome Sunday at the Zoooo with my girls (: A good wind-down to a hectic week.

Yeahh the quality's craptastic.... but it's my phone. So, you know. Heh.

Before we go, today's Swedish phrase is an easy one,

"Tack för maten",

which means thank you for the food. A polite gesture after someone has cooked you a meal.

xx