I played tennis with Singaporean Mark last week (that was the tennis session that I wanted to write about but didn't get around to). I lost, 5-7. I served for it at 5-4. My service game went to a million deuces. I saved so many break points, even had a set point, but couldn't capitalise (Mark dropped his return short and I couldn't get to it). I knew that I would lose if I got broken; I was already almost dead on my feet, with 5% of energy left, and I simply couldn't stomach the idea of a tiebreak. Lo and behold, he finally took his 8374875821st break point, went on to hold, and I got broken. Yay.
It was completely exhausting; it didn't even take an hour and yet, at the end of it, I was spent.
It was especially frustrating because I should have won it. He has good ball sense, but doesn't have proper strokes. I hate losing to players like that. It makes me feel like I have no business playing tennis anymore. I don't know how to explain it - a lack of mental strength, a completely useless beginner's serve, random unforced errors on shots that I should be able to make with my eyes closed. Like, seriously. What is wrong with me?
At least American Mark gave me some good tennis tips (bigger forehand backswing, more use of the left arm on the backhand) before his attraction crashed and burned. I really want to find a coach to help me fix my serve, but I simply cannot bear to part with 90 bucks in the span of a single hour. I don't think it's worth it.
It's Wimbledon now and every time I watch matches (which is every day), I feel this itch to get out there and play. I pretty much shelved my social life for the rest of the week because of Wimbledon, but since Roger doesn't play until late tomorrow night, and since I have no interest in watching Richard Gasquet bend over for Novak Djokovic, I agreed to last-minute tennis session with some guy I met at a Meetup session. YAY. I can't wait to master the forehand loop.
My admission to Cambridge has been confirmed. I am waiting for them to give me my CAS statement so that I can apply for a visa. I am also waiting for my college (Magdalene College; have I mentioned this already?) to confirm my place and offer me accommodation, but I'm honestly scared shitless of what I'm going to get. They said that they have very limited en suite rooms and they are reserved for students with medical needs, backed up by a GP. That basically means that I'm probably going to have to share bathrooms with other people.
I mean, that's not so bad in itself, but they don't even provide photos of the rooms and the bathrooms. How will I know how many people I have to share it with? Are they male or female? I really don't want to share a bathroom with a dude (or many dudes) because that is just gross.
Private accommodation is more expensive. I found some student accommodation like the one I lived in in London, and while it's cheaper than what I paid in London, it's more expensive than college accommodation. Since my parents are funding me, I just feel awful for spending more than I should.
This sucks. I'm going to apply for the NUS scholarship later this year. I hope I can convince Prof to write me a good reference. He seems to like me quite a bit (he keeps telling me to find a husband in Cambridge!), so I'd better do this human rights treaty compliance mechanism/dispute settlement mechanism research properly before I leave.
I was going to write an article on the Rohingya crisis, but wow, there is really nothing interesting to say. Repeating the legal framework is boring and not even relevant; repeating how ASEAN is ineffective and doing nothing is more of the same; repeating facts about Myanmar's systemic discrimination against the Rohingyas is the same thing again and again and again. It's boring.
Of course, I have strong views about this issue. It's just that they do not make for an interesting academic article. For what it's worth, this issue, for me, really exposes the impotency of international law, all areas of it - ocean law, refugee law, human rights law. Law is merely a piece of paper if it's not respected and enforced. The international legal framework on people in need of rescue at sea is pretty clear (although it's not entirely clear what the rules of disembarkation, once the people are rescued, are): shipmasters have a duty to rescue. It's both an age-old principle and enshrined in the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (Article 98). It cannot be logically correct if this duty ends there, because where will these people go? There have been so many cases, all around the world (especially in the Mediterranean), of ships rescuing people in distress at sea and countries not wanting to take them in for various (stupid) reasons, which makes ships not want to rescue because it's both a logistical and financial burden. Can you really blame the shipmasters? The fault lies entirely on the shoulders of the sovereign states.
People need to realise that these refugees aren't just refugees; they are people. My life isn't worth more than that of a Rohingya refugee. The whole thing is just heartbreaking.
I really want to continue reading Ian McEwan's Saturday, so that's all I have to say from my soapbox.