Another simple question: to study law or not to study law?
SMU has just offered me a place in their law school, along with a full undergraduate scholarship. Should I pursue a double degree in both law and business there, or would it be better to continue on the original plan to study business at NTU.
One decision, 3 days left to choose.
How do I choose here?
God knows.
***
And just for fun, here's the 15 minute essay I wrote for the SMU law interview.
Maybe that's why I believe one too many rules are made just to be broken.
Update: 2nd July, 3:00pm
The call came yesterday when I was gazing at the burnt classrooms of block D from the second floor of block C in SMKDJ.
"Hello, this is Angel Ling from SMU admissions. Did you receive our letter of offer for the law degree and scholarship?" she politely asked.
"Yes I have. Thanks for the offer, but I have chosen to decline it," I answered, suddenly realizing the gravity of my decision.
But I decided that one needed not to have a degree in law to think or argue, and that critical thinking and legal knowledge are not intrinsically intertwined.
"Err.... okay. Have a nice day." And the phone conversation came to an abrupt halt.
"I'm going to enjoy it either way," I thought to myself. And I have no regrets.
Where a law is a terrible one, there is a moral right to disobey. Comment.Written in 15 minutes.
In this day and age, where the law and courts are seen as a costly nuisance to avoid by the masses, people generally treat the law as an absolute truth - something that they must abide by under any circumstance. The hassle and cost of appearing in court make people forget that the law is there for a very important reason, a reason very close to their hearts - to protect them. And that is why I believe that under the circumstance that the laws of the land have been perverted to oppress the masses in favour of the ruling elite, civil disobedience shouldn't just be a choice, it is a duty of every patriotic individual.
Social contract theory argues that we humans come out of the state of nature to form societies that protect each other because living together in society is much better than the 'solitary, short and brutish' life in the state of nature. We agree to have laws imposed on us because they are for our own good. Laws are useful because they help us better our lives. Life becomes more safe, more secure when we know that there are laws in place to safeguard our health and happiness. Laws are there to put people in place.
However when a ruling elite creates laws that only serves their own ends, this whole system fails. The law is not something we abide by because it helps us anymore, but it becomes this monster, this tool for oppression, and the only reason that we abide to it is fear.
And if we take a look in the history books and look at all the civilizations which were governed by a system of fear, we can see a recurring pattern - they all crumbled. Emperors and kings who subjugated their subjects were overthrown by those very people. No civilization can last under such rule.
And that is why I strongly believe that because of one's love for one's country, we should have the courage to demand that our countries, our laws, treat us right.
Maybe that's why I believe one too many rules are made just to be broken.
Update: 2nd July, 3:00pm
The call came yesterday when I was gazing at the burnt classrooms of block D from the second floor of block C in SMKDJ.
"Hello, this is Angel Ling from SMU admissions. Did you receive our letter of offer for the law degree and scholarship?" she politely asked.
"Yes I have. Thanks for the offer, but I have chosen to decline it," I answered, suddenly realizing the gravity of my decision.
But I decided that one needed not to have a degree in law to think or argue, and that critical thinking and legal knowledge are not intrinsically intertwined.
"Err.... okay. Have a nice day." And the phone conversation came to an abrupt halt.
"I'm going to enjoy it either way," I thought to myself. And I have no regrets.
