Interpretation of the (Amendment) Bill
To: The Clerk of Parliament
1 High Street
Below forthwith please find some considered views from concerned members of the public with regard to the proposed Bill to be tabled before Parliament as regards the grave issue on the determination of the finality of a person's cessation of life. (This is damned important because some people may be dead but still don't know it).
Following a major quantum of deliberation amongst learned gentlemen of my acquaintance, the said gentlemen have unanimously happened upon this definition of death, such definition being thereby proffered upon thy office for your kind consideration.
- Firstly, a person should be considered dead when he knowingly and with scant regard for the diplomatic consequences of his error proclaims in a court document that "Johor Bahru is notorious for shootings, muggings and carjackings".
- Secondly, a person is dead when he speaks out on subjects he is not familiar with, like, for example, when he asserts that the present East Asian Crisis is the result of "politics, not economics".
- Thirdly, a person is really dead when he insults 500 people of the Thai Defence College, plus the people and governments of Thailand, Indonesia, South Korea, Malaysia and the Philippines when he pontificates that the East Asian Crisis is caused by "carelessness and stupidity" (of the affected countries).
The learned gentlemen of my acquaintance have furthermore deliberated at length on the ethical, moral, scientific and legal ramifications of the issue and have arrived at the following conclusions:
- That, Ethically, a person who is of such deadness should not be allowed to continue living.
- That, Morally, such a person will do more good dead than alive and therefore, he should stop breathing or eating or drinking or by some such means refrain from living.
- That, Scientifically, his brain has been dead for a long time and satisfies scientific and medical definitions of death and being brain-dead.
- That, Legally, the law, as proposed and amended, should allow for the immediate removal of all his organs for transplant to needy patients facing grave medical conditions, excepting his brain, which, as we have pointed out, has been dead for a long time.
We the learned gentlemen and concerned citizens of this great country are of the opinion that those who are dead should stay dead and not keep the embarrassment of these uncouth and ill-considered utterings before the public eye as such utterings are widely disseminated by a loyal and obsequious press.
We hope that your honourable office will consider these issues raised and cause debate on such issues for a final inclusion in the Interpretation (Amendment) Bill.
Your Humble and Concerned Citizens of