My face is horrendous but i must bear with it so that it will eventually turn to nice supple skin.
The database is down so i can only look like I'm working. Then again, given the nature of my job, I'm practically working 24 hours.
For the past few days, I've been playing around with Facebook but even up till now, I still can't figure out what's what but i must say, the poking and food throwing is fun.
Time to be serious. "Balloon Sculptor" mentioned repeatedly when i met him and even on his MSN, that a prenuptial agreement is against the women's charter. If you would look at the purpose for the act (what some law students would understand as referring to the Hansard - transcripts of parliamentary debates), the Women's Charter was passed in the early 60s to ensure there's more equality between the sexes and more recently, this Act is to protect the women from abuse and their matrimonial assets should they file for divorce. The reasoning behind all these is to protect the women who have spent all their life serving their husbands and children and if compared to their spouse, wouldn't be able to survive on their own. Hence, the legislative protection.
Having said that, lawyers exist for a reason. There are no two identical cases in the world and they have to focus on the nooks and crevices to help their clients' situation. But let's just not forget, we belong to a society where there's legislative supremacy. So no matter what contract is drafted and agreed on, sealed and stamped, if they are against the legislation, justice should be seen to be done.
As long as the prenuptial agreement is set out to protect both parties reasonably and given the current environment where in many cases, both husband and wife are equally financially independent, they might just override the legislation. However, if the premarital contract is one-sided and does little to protect the women, the Act might just easier come into place to right the "wrong".
Please do not get swayed by the whole US Hollywood of prenups. This is not US and we do not have billions of dollars and investments to protect. All numbers and agreements have to be subjectively reasonable.
Personally i do encourage having prenups if you think you want to protect your assets but be fair, if a woman has chose to marry you and serve you, she does deserve to be and have part of what you have. On top of this, why are we always talking of divorce before getting married then in the first place, why get married? Can you just do a Brad Pitt & Angelina Jolie?
6 comments:
YOU SAID : "Personally i do encourage having prenups if you think you want to protect your assets but be fair, if a woman has chose to marry you and serve you, she does deserve to be and have part of what you have."
My comment : Intrinically in your statement, you are admitting that women MUST serve the man! How interesting. Freudian slip?
Before I rattle on... Pre-nup is not recognise in SG. Period. Therefore jurisdiction in the validity of pre-nups runs with the registration of marriage, or at least that's how I would perceive it to be. Comparative law and conflict in law is somewhat essential knowledge. If that makes sense.
Running against the grain of Women Charter, agreement in parts. I am pretty sure many in the industry who practices in matrimonial would agree and a whole lot more academics. Shall do more research when I am more sober. *grin*
Bearing in mind, the Women Charter (and it's many corresponding principles) was enacted in the mids of the second wave of feminism, i.e. empowerment of females, and yet the current legislation is pointed towards female as 'victims'. This totally contradicts with the development from the first wave of feminism. My personal view on the standing legislation was that it had gradually evolved into a family orientated law and therefore should, if not ought, put parties in a balanced position.
It had alway been a difficult part to make different branches of law to "run in step", especially with the nominal common law features towards matrimonial relationship i.e. respect, love, trust and a whole lot more. Observed that its salient principles relate to mutuality, which in form (if not spirit) corresponds with that of contractual principles. That, I humbly assumed, would be one of the foundational aspect of pre-nups.
I personally feel that one should take an objective approach to this part of law and not confuse it with the regular moral assumption of a marriage. Difficult as it seems, if put in perspective, in a society where most make an educational based decision, how could one put forth the contention that he or she did not know at the point of time what they are getting into? and in furtherance, not understand the obligation and etc of pre-nups.
Random stuff. =P
wow didn't expect this post to cause such reactions. anyway, def not a freudian slip. as a woman, going into marriage apart from the sacred intention of giving love a home does mean that you are going there to serve your man and children. serve here is not meant to be demeaning but when all the love eventually wears out, she will still be there to be a wife to your weary soul and a mother to your flesh & blood. women of the past do serve their husband but often looked at as below their "better half" but if you ask them, they willingly serve not because they think they're born to do so, but because they're obliged as a wife and mother. it may just be a title to some but to women, being a wife or mom is just so sacred, upon putting on that ring, you are mentally prepared to "serve" because you know one day, that love might just die but you know, he needs you.
i don't know if i made sense but that's what i think...
barrister in making... can don't so cheem? most of the people reading may not be legally trained but frankly, i love to hear your views. give me alot to think about.
DIDN't Know that marquis can tok so much cock!
wait till you get to see him in person and after 10 beers... you'd love him...
10 beers on whose part? heh. I would usually rather like to assume that I'm equally lovable before 10 beers, me or the other. =P
Was talking to someone in law school and her take was that "why not look at it as a corporate scheme? After all, on the assumption that the woman became a profession homemaker, certainly there must be some sort of reciprocal beneficial elements existing in such relationship to encourage continual commitment?"
Besides laughing really hard (and attracted the dean's attention who happened to be in the hallway), my personal thought is whether the traditional legal principles that binds matrimonial unions correspond with a largely "right based/conscious" contemporary society?
Cos I totally agree that 'serving' ought not to be a demeaning word.
Off to the bathroom!!!
*wiggle butt and... runs off!*
Post a Comment