it often gets complicated when one attempts to rationalize the thought processes (or judgments in this case) of others.
the need for presence in the context of single- and multiple- acts constituting the criminal offence(s) is such an example. i would swing towards michael hor's observations that presence is NOT a pre-condition but evidence of participation.
in any case, if only a hard and fast rule would govern the ruling of all cases. then, there wouldn't be elaborate essays that attempt to capture the gist of the various seemingly contradictory cases. however, this would remove variation and hence the element of fun, wouldnt it?
About me:
22m(FREAKING old man)
me a long time ago
me now
gab_toh@hotmail.com
MY facebook
MY friendster
smu, 2007-2012
ex-hpps
ex-acjc
ex-acs(i)
ex-acjc
ex-lifeguard
ex-RSAF
Loves:
cycling
milk
chocolates
chics
my family
my friends
music
guitars
chilling out
reading
chatting! :)
Dislikes:
liars
cockroaches
lizards
backstabbers
perverts
people who slurp when eating porridge/noodles/drinking soup
Wish List:
WISHES WISHES WISHES WISHES WISHES WISHES WISHES WISHES
WISHES WISHES WISHES WISHES WISHES WISHES WISHES WISHES
WISHES WISHES WISHES WISHES WISHES WISHES WISHES WISHES
WISHES WISHES WISHES WISHES WISHES WISHES WISHES WISHES
WISHES WISHES WISHES WISHES WISHES WISHES WISHES WISHES
Memory Lane:
My Friends:
Candis <3
Eve
Evelyn
Iris
Jas
Jasmine
Jia Mei
Jia Yuan
Judith
Kitty
Matthew
Michelle
Michelia
Natalia
Pong
Serina
Wei Ze
Wesley
Intriguing Reads:
Angry Doc
Jamie
NHS Blog Doc
Wikipedia
Special thanks:
Tagboard