zach's 3 step test.
I have come to a conclusion, after many intense minutes spent in grave ponder over this issue. Decided to post it for posterity and future self-correction... Zach's 3 step Test... principles as derived from the case, R v Z (a minor)...
WHETHER I SHOULD OT TONIGHT!
Step 1: Objective test of "Why should I?"
- Note the deliberate use of rhetoric. It is an attempt to use a pugnacious tone so as to force the asker to be truthful and not kid around. yeah right.
- Nature of Step 1 is objective, i.e. asker should objectively list out what is the TRUE reason for him/her to stay. Free coffee is not a reason. Cute colleague aren't for that matter too.
- By laws of natural kiasuism, the asker should probably have a list. But because the list concerns WORK, CHORES, and other disagreeables, there is a slim chance that the asker would pump in frivolous claims. Thus, Step 1 weeds out Unimportant and Non-urgent stuff.
Illustration a:
Q: "Why should I?"
A: "Because ur boss will use ur balls for golf if u dun hand up that report tomorrow!"
Illustration b:
Q: "Why should I?"
A: "Because if you go back early, you will only be home alone?"
Step 2: Subjective test of "Why not?"
- Note the plainative tone. It is employed as defence to the likelihood that asker would just leave right after deciding Step 1 is stupid.
- Being subjective, Step 2 allows factors like ambition, duty, honour, morality, helps etc to balance the driving (away) factors of Step 1. It should also be used to explain sad situations where you just feel like doing OT but need to find as excuse. (see Illustration b)
- This Step also allows for asker to let his urge to rush off be cooled down, and have him truly understand the possible ramifications of an early departure.
- Step 2 thus eliminates Urgent but Unimportant stuff.
Illustration c:
Q: "Why not?"
A1: "Because shredding paper can be done by the secretary?"
A2: "Because the secretary dun need u to shred the papers with her?"
Illustration d:
Q: "Why not?"
A1: "Because you have a life dumbass! the boss dun need this!"
A2: "Because there is better coffee at home?"
Step 3: Defence of " And what about...?"
- This is an all rounded last resort limbs of the 3 step test. Step 1 is used to consider external factors will Step 2 considers internal factors. Step 3 considers 3rd party rights and possible bars of estoppel.
- Step 3 is also called the exculpation clause (cos it sounds better than 'excuse' clause). It is to be used timely to excuse yourself from tight corners.
- Step 3 should contain an exegetical element read with a purposive approach. Everything and anything can be considered first, its purpose to be evaluated, and then substantiated with trite principles.
- Step 3 thus forces the asker to balance the current Urgent and Important, Important but Non-urgent matters with other matters.
Illustration e:
Q: "And what about...?"
A1: "Your poor gf/mummy waiting at the cafe since 5 pm (its 10 now)?"
A2: "You have client meeting on another case, which BILLS MORE!"
Illustration f:
Q: "And What about...?"
A1: "The fact that you'd be the ONLY person left in the office?"
A2: "your life man!"
In a matter of minutes, when I was given an onerous task at 5: 55pm today, my mind raced, adrenaline almost jolting it from its tracks.... and came up with this theorem. This is how it was answered:
Example:
Q: Why should I?
A: Because its given by the J.P?
Q: Why not?
A: Its bloody hard! and Bloody unimportant! and I'm Bloody leaving RnT tomorrow, and NOT coming back!
Q: But what about...TV?! Dinner?
A: Of course TV and dinner lah!
So there I go, gallivanting off at 6 on the dot. What did I do to the J.P? I printed her the whole stack of statutes. She can find that line herself. If 5 associates cannot find it, dun expect an intern to.
Not at 5:55pm. Not when I had the whole day to be asked. Not when I'm leaving and never coming back.
So long, ivory tower! You can keep your alabaster princesses and faerie dames. Frigid walls and frigid smiles does not a cheery tower make. The pearly walls might be magnificent and cool... but who at the end it is but stone. Adieu!
WHETHER I SHOULD OT TONIGHT!
Step 1: Objective test of "Why should I?"
- Note the deliberate use of rhetoric. It is an attempt to use a pugnacious tone so as to force the asker to be truthful and not kid around. yeah right.
- Nature of Step 1 is objective, i.e. asker should objectively list out what is the TRUE reason for him/her to stay. Free coffee is not a reason. Cute colleague aren't for that matter too.
- By laws of natural kiasuism, the asker should probably have a list. But because the list concerns WORK, CHORES, and other disagreeables, there is a slim chance that the asker would pump in frivolous claims. Thus, Step 1 weeds out Unimportant and Non-urgent stuff.
Illustration a:
Q: "Why should I?"
A: "Because ur boss will use ur balls for golf if u dun hand up that report tomorrow!"
Illustration b:
Q: "Why should I?"
A: "Because if you go back early, you will only be home alone?"
Step 2: Subjective test of "Why not?"
- Note the plainative tone. It is employed as defence to the likelihood that asker would just leave right after deciding Step 1 is stupid.
- Being subjective, Step 2 allows factors like ambition, duty, honour, morality, helps etc to balance the driving (away) factors of Step 1. It should also be used to explain sad situations where you just feel like doing OT but need to find as excuse. (see Illustration b)
- This Step also allows for asker to let his urge to rush off be cooled down, and have him truly understand the possible ramifications of an early departure.
- Step 2 thus eliminates Urgent but Unimportant stuff.
Illustration c:
Q: "Why not?"
A1: "Because shredding paper can be done by the secretary?"
A2: "Because the secretary dun need u to shred the papers with her?"
Illustration d:
Q: "Why not?"
A1: "Because you have a life dumbass! the boss dun need this!"
A2: "Because there is better coffee at home?"
Step 3: Defence of " And what about...?"
- This is an all rounded last resort limbs of the 3 step test. Step 1 is used to consider external factors will Step 2 considers internal factors. Step 3 considers 3rd party rights and possible bars of estoppel.
- Step 3 is also called the exculpation clause (cos it sounds better than 'excuse' clause). It is to be used timely to excuse yourself from tight corners.
- Step 3 should contain an exegetical element read with a purposive approach. Everything and anything can be considered first, its purpose to be evaluated, and then substantiated with trite principles.
- Step 3 thus forces the asker to balance the current Urgent and Important, Important but Non-urgent matters with other matters.
Illustration e:
Q: "And what about...?"
A1: "Your poor gf/mummy waiting at the cafe since 5 pm (its 10 now)?"
A2: "You have client meeting on another case, which BILLS MORE!"
Illustration f:
Q: "And What about...?"
A1: "The fact that you'd be the ONLY person left in the office?"
A2: "your life man!"
In a matter of minutes, when I was given an onerous task at 5: 55pm today, my mind raced, adrenaline almost jolting it from its tracks.... and came up with this theorem. This is how it was answered:
Example:
Q: Why should I?
A: Because its given by the J.P?
Q: Why not?
A: Its bloody hard! and Bloody unimportant! and I'm Bloody leaving RnT tomorrow, and NOT coming back!
Q: But what about...TV?! Dinner?
A: Of course TV and dinner lah!
So there I go, gallivanting off at 6 on the dot. What did I do to the J.P? I printed her the whole stack of statutes. She can find that line herself. If 5 associates cannot find it, dun expect an intern to.
Not at 5:55pm. Not when I had the whole day to be asked. Not when I'm leaving and never coming back.
So long, ivory tower! You can keep your alabaster princesses and faerie dames. Frigid walls and frigid smiles does not a cheery tower make. The pearly walls might be magnificent and cool... but who at the end it is but stone. Adieu!
posted by Zachary Shim | 9:30 pm
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home