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!

Oxford and Religion

It seems that Oxford inspires spiritual reflection. Tony Blair famously developed his deep religious grounding (when not moonlighting as the lead singer of a rock band) in the midst of a Law degree at St Johns. C.S Lewis, the famous Christian apologetic, was struck by the incontrovertibly true nature of Christ while sitting on a bus traveling through Oxford down the Cowley Road. A recent issue of Oxford today featured two other individuals - the popular writer on religion Karen Armstrong and the Rabbi Lionel Blue - whose times at Oxford were similarly suffused by spiritual and personal crisis.

In the case of Karen Armstrong, she arrived at Oxford as a nun from a strict Roman Catholic order (pre-Vatican II). The intellectual freedom that is the foundation of an Oxford education soon began to jar with the expectations of submission and blind obedience that characterized her role in the nunnery, precipitating an existential crisis that led to her leaving the cloisters. Lionel Blue arrived in Oxford as an atheist (since the age of five when he had prayed for the deaths of Adolf Hitler and Oswald Moseley - the prayers were not answered) but soon faced a personal crisis prompted by his repressed homosexuality. He literally stumbled on religion while sheltering from the rain at St Giles and the Quakers he met provided the grounding and impetus that he needed to complete his degree.

What it telling to me about these two individuals, is their refusal to cling to dogmatic faith. Armstrong calls belief a "ludicrous red herring". To her, the essence of religious experience is "not accepting dubious propositions" but rather compassion. Armstrong emphasizes that it is "compassion that brings you to a state of transcendence by dethroning you from the centre of your world and putting another in your place". For Rabbi Blue, who characterizes himself as a 'religious free ranger' as opposed to a 'battery believer', genuine spirituality is achieved when it changes you for the better. For him, faith is genuine and not self indulgent if it makes you kinder, more generous and provides greater self-knowledge.

I didn't quite achieve the religious epiphany that C.S Lewis did during my time at Oxford, but I was prompted to give religion serious thought and consideration. During my time there I spoke with many thoughtful individuals - Catholic, Anglican, Church of Scotland and much else beside, indeed the antithesis of the hard-headed, dogmatic right wing evangelical that is the target of so many recent polemics against religion ranging from Dawkins to Hitchens.

While I have been giving religion serious consideration, it has often come in the form of intellectual theorizing about faith - whether God can really exist, and other such ontological questions. One lesson I might have learned from Oxford, and indeed from Armstrong and Blue, is that this intellectualism can only bring you so far - and that the true basis of religion is not considered theorizing (though that must surely play a part) but compassion, generosity and kindness.

Blaise Pascal once wrote that - the heart hath its reasons that reason cannot know. That, to my mind, is a powerful summation of faith.

ST Engineering Scholarship

I was delighted by the quite unexpected and wonderful news that RSIS has decided to award me the ST Engineering Scholarship to pursue my degree in International Relations. I had been hoping for a chance at the scholarship, but my lack of references (they didn't arrive from the UK in time and NTU does not have an online reference system) meant that I was initially not considered for it. So it came as quite a big surprise to hear that I had been given the Scholarship in the end.

The award of the Scholarship does ease my financial worries quite significantly as it means I will receive a stipend double the S$700 I would have received working as a part-time research assistant while congruently pursuing my studies. It also means I will have more time to devote to my degree, and other assorted interests, which is very welcome indeed given how tightly packed the one year degree course is as it stands.

A friend did comment, mildly tongue in cheek, that this marks the second time I have managed to 'con' someone into sponsoring my studies, after the Jardine Foundation awarded me a scholarship for my undergraduate degree at Oxford. When asked for the secret of my success, I have to put in down to a large part luck, and a large part just being completely myself - which I take to be outspoken, random and intellectually curious.

So I guess with any luck, and with a lot of hard work in my Master's, I might just be able to con yet someone else to sponsor me for a Phd, if that is the route I decide to pursue. 

Dear Madame Ambassador

Given that it is the Fourth of July and American Independence Day, I thought it appropriate that I could remind Americans that many other countries do not necessarily share the level of freedom and civil liberties that their country enjoys. Thus, I have crafted a mock letter addressed to the US Ambassador to Singapore, HE Patricia Herbold as follows:

Dear Madame Ambassador,

I write to you on the occasion on the 232nd anniversary of the founding of the United States of America. To begin with, I wish to offer my heartiest congratulations to your country on this occasion, which is indeed one that is worthy of celebration. In many ways, it has never been a better time to be American (sub-prime mortgage crisis and the high price of oil aside). The US is the predominant power in the world, it continues to be a key engine of innovation that fuels the world economy, and it is likely that America will retain this preeminence for some time to come.

Yet, my letter is not just meant to be one of congratulation, but also serves as a plea; it focuses not just on American military and economic prowess, but the inspiration that America provides in extolling the values of liberty and freedom, and the belief that they are a birthright for everyone. This clarion call was never more clearly stated than in your founding declaration of independence and in America's victory in the fight against British tyranny that we celebrate today.

Even as you celebrate the anniversary of your own momentous struggle against repression, I urge you to take heed of the many individuals who do not enjoy the same freedoms that are promised to you as a birthright. More specifically, Madame Ambassador, I urge you not to ignore the situation in the very country to which your government has appointed you as her representative.

I would, if I had the opportunity, speak out openly in public, extolling the virtues of liberty and freedom and the American example, but as you probably know, Madame Ambassador, I am unable to do so. My government chooses to disregard the right to assembly for purely peaceful means, and has passed legislation such that any gathering of more than five individuals, of whatever kind, can be considered illegal. Theoretically, Madame Ambassador, I could even be arrested for hosting a birthday party for myself.

Then there is the issue of freedom of the press. My government has always maintained a tight control of the press, believing in quelling dissenting opinions by deeming that the publication of any viewpoint or comment critical of the status quo as a possible interference in domestic politics. The importance of being free to voice your opinions (as enshrined in your first amendment) has been central to America's definition of itself. Indeed, the example of the Federalists and Thomas Paine whose pamphlets and writings were instrumental in rallying the colonists against the British shows the influence and importance of the free dissemination of viewpoints to America's founding history.

Then there is the basic element of freedom of speech, which is a right that is dearly held by many Americans. Voltaire, the famous French enlightenment writer and philosopher, is attributed to having said "I disagree with what you have said, but I will defend, to the death, your right to say it", and that has very much been the American ethos. This freedom is tenuously held at best in Singapore, where there is always an existential risk of tripping over some invisible out of bounds marker discernible only to the government, with predictably dire consequences.

So Madame Ambassador, I hope that even as your celebrate the founding of a land of 'the brave and the free', you will do everything in your power to propagate the values that makes America so respected around the world, and voicing your support where freedoms and liberties are an aspiration, not a reality.

Sincerely,

A Singaporean Friend.