So 'Nice'

I had an English Literature teacher who absolutely banned the use of certain four letter words in his class. Contrary to what you might think, it was not the common swear words or expletives that would set him on edge it was the four letter words 'nice' and 'good'. He taught a class on practical criticism, so it was common for him to hand out poems, or extracts from plays, have us read it and then, inevitably ask us what we thought of the piece. The fastest way to draw his ire was to reply that you found the poem 'nice' or that the poet's use of language was 'good'.

The problem with saying that something is 'nice', particularly a poem, is that to a degree, you aren't really saying much of anything at all. 'Nice' and 'good' are words that have been more or less leached of any specific context or meaning to the point where they only express generalities. Saying that something is 'nice' probably gives it a certain sense of warm fuzziness, but in practical criticism, and I would argue for much of writing, what is needed is a greater degree of precision.

I was reminded of my English Lit teacher's one man war on 'nice' when I encountered this extract from Jane Austen's Northanger Abbey, which I am currently reading. Catherine Moreland, the main character of the story had just described a book she was reading as 'nice' only to be rather impertinently asked by her friend Henry Tilney if she meant its binding. When asked why she should not describe a book as nice if she finds it so, Tilney replies:

"Very true, and this is a very nice day, and we are taking a very nice walk, and you are two very nice young ladies. Oh! it is a very nice word indeed! - it does for everything. Originally perhaps it was applied to express neatness, propriety, delicacy, or refinement; - people were nice in their dress, in their sentiments, or their choice. But now every commendation on every subject is comprised in that one word"

I rather agree. Indeed, I could have hardly put it more nicely myself! Or perhaps, what I meant to say is I could not have put it more succintly, accurately, or comprehensively myself. So the end result of this post? Perhaps, using the word 'nice' is well, not so nice after all!

Saving Federer's Season

It has been a very disappointing year by the stratospheric standards of Roger Federer. Having won at least two grand slams in every year from 2004, he has yet to win a grand slam this year with just the US Open to go. He was humiliated by Nadal in the French Open final, and worst, lost to Nadal on his own turf at SW19 in an epic final that denied him the chance of a sixth consecutive Wimbledon title. He then crashed out to James Blake at the Olympics though he redeemed himself by winning a gold in the doubles for Switzerland. Then, immediately afterwards, he finally lost the world No.1 ranking for the first time in more than 200 weeks, a serious psychological blow enshrining Nadal formally as the top player in the world, something that had been apparent throughout the year in all but name.

But has this really been such a disastrous year for Roger Federer? Perhaps only because he is a victim of the inflated expectations that his dominance of men's tennis over the past three years has created. No wonder that he gets along so well with Tiger Woods. But in a sense, this year has been a disaster because of the very lofty expectations that Federer places on himself. He believes that he deserves to be and is the best player in the world. This isn't the case anymore. It used to be a question of whether Federer could overcome his hoodoo with Nadal at Roland Garros. Now Federer must be asking himself whether he can ever beat Nadal, on any surface, period.

Let's put things into perspective first with regards to the US Open. Federer has already won it an unprecedented four times in a row. Nobody has managed that since the great Bill Tilden in the 1920s and nobody has ever done it in the Open era. John McEnroe won three in a row and so did Ivan Lendl in the 1980s but Federer has already set the standard in terms of his recent dominance of the tournament (it remains to be seen if Federer can match Lendl's record of 8 consecutive finals). History suggests that Federer can't maintain this streak. The fact that he is supposedly having a bad year and is more vulnerable than he has been in a long while, seems to point to a Federer defeat.

Which is why I believe that Federer will win this year's US Open. What Federer has going for him is that the hardcourt (particularly at the Grand Slams) is probably Nadal's least favourite surface. His previous best showing was a QF defeat to Mikhail Youzhny in 2006, hardly a stellar record. However, Nadal's semifinal performance at the Australian Open earlier this year (where he was defeated by a truly inspired Jo-Wilfred Tsonga) gives an inkling of how much he has improved playing the high bounce hardcourts of the Grand Slams. While the Wimbledon defeat to Nadal was galling, it was not altogether a shock (more pundits had actually backed Nadal to win). Nadal had reached the previous two Wimbledon finals against Federer and had pushed him closer and closer each time. If Federer were to meet Nadal at the US Open (and this can only happen if they both reach the final) it would rank as a far bigger shock to me if he lost than the Wimbledon 'upset'. That defeat, were it to occur, would truly be the final shattering psychological blow, but I don't think it will.

In fact, I will go as far as to suggest that Federer's biggest threat will be Novak Djokovic in the semi-finals. The Serb is oozing with confidence (though less so after a disappointing Olympics and US Open run up) and defeated Federer at the Australian earlier this year en route to winning his first Slam. He is also a smooth operator on the hardcourts and this is his breakout year. Amidst all the hoopla and the struggles with Nadal, the talk of rising stars like Djokovic threatening the established order, it might be easy to forget one thing - Roger Federer is a winner. He is four time defending champion. My bet is at this US Open he will respond like a champion and restore his pride. Discount him at your own peril.

Obama's VP Choice

There is still considerable doubt in the minds of many commentators as to how important the choice of a running mate actually is to a prospective Presidential candidate. Nobody would dare suggest that it is a crucial life or death choice for a campaign. Still, there is a sense that it is vaguely important, and definitely warranting considerable attention. I believe that as much as Hillary Clinton supporters will be disappointed by Obama's decision, his choice of Joe Biden can hardly be considered a surprise.

To start with, in assessing Obama's pick, we have to first justify his non-choice. There was a significant portion of the Democratic party hoping for a 'dream ticket' of Obama and Clinton. Given that she took almost 48% of the vote in the Primary, is it a valid question to ask if Obama could even afford not to pick her. Will too many Hilary supporters be alienated to see her miss out? It is my opinion that it would have been a mistake for Obama to choose Clinton as his running mate. To begin with, the campaign was too long and too bruising for there not to have been genuine wounds and deep differences that have been exposed. Not grave enough to heal, but enough to make a joint ticket uncomfortable at the bare minimum.

Choosing Clinton would also have compromised Obama's core message, the basis on which he has driven his campaign irrepressibly forward - that of change - particularly given the Clinton ties to the political establishment. Change and Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton just does not sit at all well together, even if the latter Clinton were only to be the VP. Ultimately, Obama has to gamble on achieving party unity, and on Clinton being magnanimous enough in defeat. I am willing to gamble that after eight years of George W Bush and neoconservatives, the Democrats already have a powerful incentive to unity. Obama's ability to inspire will hopefully do the rest.

As for Biden, the pluses have already been noted right from the beginning. Huge foreign policy experience, including his position as the chair of the Foreign Relations Committee, covering a major perceived weakness of Obama's campaign. A solid working class background that will appeal to a group whose support Obama needs to win. Biden's links to Pennsylvania, will be especially useful in what is widely considered a key state in the election. The negatives? Biden does have a reputation for shooting from the hip, but I believe that won't really matter all that much. The election is really about what the Presidential nominee says, not really his running mate, so long as the running mate does not make a completely outrageous statement or one that totally contradicts the candidate's stance. That won't happen with Biden - he and Obama agree on the fundamental issues (indeed more so than Obama and Clinton) and he is far too savvy and experienced a political operator to make a huge gaffe.

Whither England?

After the widely perceived disappointment of the 2-2 draw with the Czech Republic, the knives are out again in terms of criticism of the English football team. To begin with, this friendly just serves to underline, for me, the excessive and even rabid criticism that the team and the manager faces every time they step out on the pitch. The Czech Republic is not a shabby team - they have players that are with some of the top clubs in Europe, and are ranked among the top 25 nations in the world. Also, the chief aim of a friendly in my opinion, is to have a chance to try out tactics, formations and player combinations in a relatively competitive setting. Some of these tactics or combinations might work, some of them will fall flat. The point is not necessarily to go all out to win (or indeed to play your best side for the full ninety minutes).

That said, England were disappointing, especially in the second half. I have little doubt that Fabio Capello is asking serious questions about the team's performance, although perhaps without the recrimination that seems to be part and parcel of the media commentary. I offer my own little observations with regards to bringing the England team forward.

First of all, it is undeniable that England is sorely lacking in quality upfront and desperately needs to look at other striking options. Emile Heskey's performance in the friendly seems to have shown conclusively that he does not have the quality that is necessary for international football. At the international level, effort and bustle just doesn't cut it. Can you imagine Heskey playing for any other top European side like Germany, Italy or Holland? He probably wouldn't even cut it for Russia or Croatia. Wayne Rooney has borne a lot of criticism for his performances for England, but it is desperately unfair to expect him to lead the line on his own without a quality strike partner, particularly since he plays at his best dropping deep to get the ball. Even if Michael Owen were to recover his form of old, England cannot just rely count on just Owen and Rooney at the international level. Jermain Defoe is certainly a quality striker but has yet to really show that he can perform at the international level. Capello must really look at other striking options, particularly Gabriel Agbonlahor and even Dean Ashton. Andy Johnson and Peter Crouch are two other possibilities but both have flattered to deceive for England in the past.

The friendly again raised questions about the ability of Steven Gerrard and Frank Lampard to play together in the England midfield. England possesses an abundance of midfield talent (unlike in the striking department) and so their struggle to find a cohesive and creative midfield quartet is baffling to say the least. England can choose from Gerrard, Lampard, Hargreaves, Carrick, Barry, Beckham, Joe Cole, Ashley Young, Wright-Phillips and even Theo Walcott to toss around just the obvious names. It might be more effective to start either Gerrard or Lampard (but not both together) and convert the other into a high impact super-sub. Neither will like it, but it might be the best way forward for England. If England are going to stick with a 4-4-2, I would suggest starting Gerrard and Hargreaves in central midfield with Hargreaves sitting back and protecting the back four while taking the primary ball distribution duties. Ledley King (if healthy) can also play that role, but his lack of long ranging passing will be a downside. Michael Carrick on the other hand is a great distributor and passer, but can't really tackle. 

As for the flanks, England has suffered because their wingers lack pace. Beckham and Joe Cole just aren't the fastest players. I would suggest playing Gareth Barry on the left (even though he too lacks pace) as he has the big advantage of being naturally left-footed. When it comes down to it, I would not start David Beckham. I believe England really need to look at developing some of their rich talent at international level and that means looking to Ashley Young, Theo Walcott and Shaun Wright-Phillips and David Bentley on the wings (I believe Walcott's natural pace and balance means he will be more effective on the wings than upfront for now). For the time being, Joe Cole can switch flanks and start on the right.

At the back, I believe that Ferdinand and Terry has the potential to be an absolutely phenomenal central defensive partnership. They are both very good in the air, tough, and good leaders. Ferdinand is perhaps the more stylish defender, and Terry can make up for Ferdinand's occasional lapses by playing the Vidic role (in an analogy to the highly successful Man Utd defensive partnership). England does have ample cover at this position, thought not as rich a pickings as they had in the past. But Jonathan Woodgate, Ledley King and Matthew Upson provides very good cover.

At the fullback position, England is blessed with two excellent left backs in the form of Ashley Cole and Wayne Bridge. Right back has turned into a rather problematic position, and indeed it has been for the better part of decade. Apart from Gary Neville, England has been very thin at this position (think Danny Mills at the World Cup). But Michah Richards must surely be developed as the long term starter at this position blessed as he is with pace and strength in abundance (though he must improve his crossing). Wes Brown has shown his ability at this position in the absence of Gary Neville at club level and would be a good back-up. Phil Neville has had a chequered England career, but is performing well at Everton and should not be totally neglected. Glen Johnson can also provide cover at right back.

I have elsewhere written about England's goalkeeping travails and previously backed David James for the No. 1 jersey. It is now clear to me however, that it may be better to find a long term replacement, and it doesn't help that James will be nearing 40 by the time the next World Cup comes around. That will be fine if you are Edwin Van Der Sar, but James is nowhere near of that quality. Short of naturalizing someone (Almunia remains the best option) the best solution would be a compromise at best. It looks like Paul Robinson will be continuing in goal though it is now vital for England develop Joe Hart and Ben Foster as future England goalkeepers. I doubt either will be ready by the World Cup, but Hart should be made the back-up to Robinson with the view of him eventually suceeding him. Rob Green and Scott Carson just don't cut it at the international level, and Chris Kirkland has been sadly derailed by injuries. 

My England line-up: Owen (Newcastle), Rooney (Man Utd), Gerrard (Liverpool), Hargreaves (Man Utd), Barry (Villa), Joe Cole (Chelsea), Richards (Man City), Ashley Cole (Chelsea), Ferdinand (Man Utd), Terry (Chelsea, captain), Robinson (Blackburn)

Bench: Agbonlahor (Villa), Walcott (Arsenal), Lampard (Chelsea), King (Tottenham), Bridge (Chelsea), Young (Villa), Hart (Man City)

Local Wildlife

Rumours abound about some of the exotic wildlife that one can find in Singapore. During National Service, especially if you are given the chance to savour the delights of Pulau Tekong, you are often told to be on the lookout for the elusive Tekong Wild Boar who is said to roam around the forests of the island. There are also supposed to be snakes, even pythons in the forests of Singapore. 

Up till now, I have never seen anything more exciting than a squirrel outside of the Singapore Zoo (which does have a marvelous collection of wildlife). That is until I was returning from dinner last Saturday with Justin at the Rider's Cafe, and he suddenly stopped the car just as he was about to turn onto Bukit Timah Road, and informed me that there was a python on the road. 

At first, I thought he was pulling my leg, and I jokingly queried if the glass of wine we each had with dinner really had the power to cause hallucinations. That is until I opened the passenger door of the car, started out onto the road, and lo and behold saw a 8 foot long python lying lengthwise across it. 

From the look of things, the poor creature already had been run over at least once, given the tire treads on its torso. It certainly seemed a bit stunned, and being caught in the powerful glare of the car headlights must have added to its discomfort. Justin then proceeded to do something which I personally found pretty daring under the circumstances - he pulled the python by its tail, and dragged it towards a patch of vegetation in the central divider.

Granted, pythons aren't poisonous - the poisonous snakes tend to be the tiny ones - relying instead on suffocating their prey by coiling themselves around it and then swallowing them whole. This wasn't a huge python (by python standards), though it looked big enough to me. I do wonder about how it was going to get across the rest of the road, given that it was now stuck in the central divider. I was frankly amazed that it ended up on the road in the first place. 

So, definitely one of the more bizarre and interesting things that has happened to me so far this year. Who knows, the next time I am on my way home from dinner, I might just spot a wild boar standing on the kerb, waiting to cross the road. 

Book Club Experience - Down and Out in Paris and London

I stumbled upon a book club on Ginny's Facebook profile, and decided to join it on a whim. My mom has been a member of a book club for some months now (she complains regularly about the lack of stimulating discussion during the meetings and of her own inability to finish reading the books). I had never been part of a book club before and I thought that it would be an interesting experience, so long as I managed to curb my more outspoken tendencies. 

On the whole it was a very enjoyable evening. The book we discussed was Down and Out in Paris and London, George Orwell's semi-autobiographical account of his years living in poverty in the eponymous cities. Orwell is a lucid, compelling and quite captivating writer, whether he is describing the mayhem and long hours working in a Paris hotel, or a whole host of fascinating characters that he chances upon in both Paris and London, he is very much able to put a human face on poverty. His descriptions of working in a kitchen in Paris as a plongeur is shocking to say the least in its vivid portrayal of dirt and grime where hygiene far from being a buzzword, is very much an afterthought.

Orwell also excels in describing the whole host of tramps, beggars and assorted misfits that he chances upon while he is down and out, from a Russian friend determined to win back a job as a waiter (despite a gamy leg), with whom he scours Paris for work, to the characters that haunt the cafes, bars and cheap lodging houses of the city. While out of work in London, Orwell chances on a whole host of interesting characters, including a particularly fascinating philosophical chalk artist called Bozo, who reads Shakespeare, acts as an amateur astronomer (he watches for comets) and is sadly, only so interesting because he is quite unrepresentative of the rest of the tramps who have been worn down to a nub by grinding poverty. 

Of course, given his socialist leanings, Orwell peppers his book with commentary about poverty, but these have the immense benefit of being informed by personal experience and hardship. This is rather unlike the moralistic hectoring that tends to predominate in any writing on poverty, whether accusing these individuals of being wastrels and being a tremendous burden on society, or presenting them as victims of circumstance unconscionably neglected and forgotten by others. The great irony of course is that those who write about poverty are often individuals who have never gone a day without food and who have wanted for nothing. Orwell strikes a rather balanced note, and is well-served by letting his own descriptions speak for themselves. Anyone reading about the harsh disciplinarian treatment that one is subject to at a Salvation Army shelter is bound to shudder at how these men are treated if not quite as animals, then at the bare minimum wayward and slightly thick schoolboys who need to be shown a firm hand.

The book, given its central theme of poverty lent itself nicely to a discussion of poverty in modern day societies. One central topic of debate was over welfare - or in the case of some countries in Singapore, the lack thereof.  There were legitimate questions being raised about the propensity of many individuals to bear a sense of victimhood and to have a sense of expectation that society owes them a debt (whether justified or not). However, there was a general appreciation about how poverty is often an accelerating downward spiral and the fact that individuals often need assistance not merely to climb out of but merely to see the possibility of a future for themselves in such circumstances.

As the evening progressed, the discussion turned to a whole host of wide-ranging topics, from euthanasia, and whether we should support it, the Singapore organ donation act, HIV/Aids education, single unwed mothers, and many other fascinating topics. I must say that it was quite delightful to be part of a enlivening intellectual discussion once again, and it was something that I missed greatly from my time at Oxford. I have high hopes that future book club meetings will be as fascinating.

Mac Heaven

Given that I am starting a new Master's, I needed to purchase a new laptop. My trusty IBM Thinkpad which had served me so faithfully over the course of my undergraduate degree isn't working due to a burnt out LCD screen. Annoyingly the screen went six months after the warranty had expired. The rest of the laptop still works fine though and I have on occasion used it by hooking it up to my desktop monitor. Given the amount of abuse that my IBM went through, I am pretty surprised that it lasted so long. It went through at least 4 long haul flights, being baked in the College storage room for at least a month on two separate occasions while I was traveling, was left on more or less 24/7 during term time, and on one occasion had a glass of water spilt on it (I salvaged the situation by putting it in the airing cupboard in the College laundry room).

Anyhow, I decided to purchase a MacBook and 'go Apple' this time around. I have long been a fan of the superb design values of Apple products (including the iPod). Furthermore, the Mac OS is supposed to be far more stable than Microsoft Windows. Some have complained that it is difficult to use (how come there is no right click button?) but I had little doubt that this was more due to transitioning into a different operating system from one that they were very familiar with rather than any poor design from Apple itself. The clincher to the deal was a student offer giving me a S$450 rebate on a iPod touch if I purchased the laptop and touch together. 

Having had a chance to use the Macbook for around a week now, I can safely say that I am immensely pleased. It definitely took some time to get adjusted to the new system and format, but savvy computer users will appreciate the efficiency of the Mac OS layouts. The general design is also a definite step up as compared to Windows, once you get used to the little quirks (such as having to press an actual physical eject button on your laptop to eject a CD). In sum, I am very much an Apple convert already (and I have barely had a chance to mess with the other applications like the photos, movies and music ones).

The iPod touch is also a wonderful little device though the synching function with iTunes can be a bit annoying at times. It would have been far easier to drag and click music into the iPod individually, if so desired rather than synching it from the iTunes library. A friend of mine informed me that this was possible, but I haven't really messed with the device enough to really work out the little intricacies involved in it.

So far the only gripes have been that I keep getting logged off from my wireless internet whenever the computer goes into sleep mode for some strange reason, and it gets tiresome having to keep typing in the password. Also, the default paper setting for the Brother printer (also recently purchased) isn't A4 but some strange other format - meaning that the first couple of articles I attempted to print got assigned to the trash heap before I worked out what was wrong. But that is probably more a fault with the printer driver than with anything else.

Apple has always created products that are wonderfully designed, fantastic to look it, and in many ways also very functional. Macs have far less worms and viruses to worry about as compared to Windows (primarily because Windows is by far the more common platform and most worms and viruses are written for Windows code) and the OS is on the whole very stable. At this rate, I can safely say that I will be a Mac user for a long long time to come.

Things I miss (and don't miss) about the UK

I was inspired by Karin to write a post on the things I miss (and don't miss) the most about Oxford in particular and the UK in general. 

Things that I miss about the UK (in no particular order):

• Having five quality broadsheets to choose from, including massive Sunday editions that take an entire morning to read
• The quizzing culture including pub quizzes, radio quizzes, and of course quality game shows on TV
• The British propensity to queue for anything and everything
• How everyone apologizes to you even when you were the one to bump into them
• Politeness (and being called 'love')
• The reading culture and appreciation for quality non-fiction books (which often get sold on 3 for 2 offers at large bookstores)
• Quality sandwiches
• The typical British pub
• The arts culture, particularly the propensity of high quality amateur theatre and music productions
• The dry British wit
• Beautiful countryside to hike in
• How Europe is just a RyanAir flight away

Things that I decidedly do not miss about the UK (in no particular order)

• The inefficiency of the public transportation system
• How appallingly expensive taxis (and any form of transportation) cost
• The lack of taps that can combine hot and cold water
• The dreary weather
• Predilection for puddings for desert
• Lack of cheap, good food
• Lack of variety and flavour in British cuisine
• Inefficiency of administration (banking etc.)
• Poorly maintained building (due to high cost of manual labour)

Things I miss about Oxford specifically:

• Formal Hall
• Beautiful Buildings and Gardens
• Blackwell's Bookstore
• Being literally surrounded by books (and having access to them)
• Late night kebabs
• Intellectual debates over a bottle of wine
• The Oxford pubs and cafes

Things I love about Singapore (in comparison to the UK)

• Safe to walk around at night
• Cheap and excellent food (hawker fare)
• Variety of food
• Relative inexpensiveness of taxis and public transport
• Efficiency in Administration

Auf Wiedesehn, Jason

It is sadly time to bid farewell to Jason, who has been at RSIS for the past three months working on his dissertation on Myanmar (and humanitarian intervention following Cyclone Nargis). We first met by the simple virtue of being seated next to each other in the Graduate Office, as I was winding up my work at RSIS and transitioning towards being a full-time student. 

It was rather unsurprising that we hit it off, if only because Jason seems to have the rare and innate capacity to have long conversations with just about anyone. He spoke of long conversations with his roommate over endless pots of tea, which were replicated with me on a number of occasions (though beer, in Jason's case Guinness, was our beverage of choice). I owe Jason a debt, not only for his wonderful company, but for introducing me to so many other professors at the institute, be it Chris and his wife Tui to Wendy, who was moving in to Jason's flat even as he was on his way out.

Sadly, he has to return to KL after three months here in Singapore, and from there he is heading back to the US with his wife, where he has a cross-continent trip planned (I am rather envious). So, auf wiedesehn it is Jason, thanks for the great times and wonderful conversation!