marinated chicken
ingredients
in a plastic, to shake
with flour
mashed potato
ready, as you call it
with coleslaw, curry rice and mashed potato
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
KFC from my kitchen
When my kids asked for KFC, I had to tell him them that there is no halal KFC around. I then gave it a try to order fried chicken from a halal restaurant, but it was quite expensive and the taste was not that good. That gave me the urge to make them myself...and guess what, its far cheaper (GBP2-3 for one whole chicken as compared to GBP9 for 8-9 pieces from the restaurant)and of course, yummy tummy chicken lickin'good! It only took me the effort of surfing the recipe and patience in marinating and frying....on the KFC thing, its very rewarding to see the kids eat.
marinated chicken
ingredients
in a plastic, to shake
with flour
mashed potato
ready, as you call it
with coleslaw, curry rice and mashed potato
marinated chicken
ingredients
in a plastic, to shake
with flour
mashed potato
ready, as you call it
with coleslaw, curry rice and mashed potato
Monday, May 24, 2010
I have to start somewhere…
Different to what almost everybody thinks, if you are doing a PhD, you must have a solid background on your research area before you even embark in the programme. Well I think I am the opposite. I have travelled in quite a number of research areas / areas of interest before I end up abruptly in International Investment Law as my area of concentration. And before I realize it, I have to catch up quick, very quick.
I see masters students here have undergone their investment law classes, and thus it is quite weird introducing yourself during the first two months after enrolment that ‘ I am doing my PhD, in investment law’, when you have almost no basic on it. And so, I started to audit classes. I have audited Investment Arbitration Practice, which is meant to be an advanced class. My supervisor said that it doesn’t matter if you have not audited the prerequisites, because you are a PhD student. On that juncture I knew that I have to work extremely hard so as not to seem so apparent to be ‘one who is very new in the area’.
This is the picture of my classmates.
My Singapore friend gave me a remark, ‘well, you have to start somewhere’..
It appeared that the whole class was actually a mooting activity, organized systematically by the instructor. The instructor was a prominent figure ( I have googled his name, and it appeared on top of the list), an American lawyer from an international law firm who has represented in many arbitration cases and has also the experience as an arbitrator in many investment tribunals. When I say many, I really mean ‘many’ cases….he seemed to have a role in almost all of the cases. Just imagine how lucky we were in his classes, as we suddenly believe that the long, winding ICSID cases we read seemed very close and real with all the spices of details from the instructor.
We got our group, we did our memorial (or rather, skeleton of arguments), submitted it and got ready for our presentation the next day. The whole thing seemed smooth, maybe because of the way the instructor conducted the course, we practically were able to present our arguments well, using the key cases correctly ( at least not in haywire). I compared this to the days my students were preparing their memorials for international mooting competitions, they had all the difficulties to understand the moot problem, researching the materials etc and always led to tears of emotions and conflicts.
These are the cases that we started with in the one week course:
Azinian v. Mexico
AMT v. Zaire
CMS v. Argentina
CMS v. Argentina (Merits)
CMS v. Argentina (Annulment)
Enron v. Argentina
Inceysa v. El Salvador
Loewen v. United States
Metalclad v. Mexico
MHS v. Malaysia
MHS v. Malaysia Annulment
Mitchell v. Congo (Annulment)
Parkerings v. Lithuania
Romak v. Uzbekistan
Salini v. Morocco
SD Myers v. Canada
Tokios Tekeles v. Ukraine
Tokios Tekeles v. Ukraine (dissent)
Wena v. Egypt
One quite interesting part was that the Malaysian Memorial for MHS v Malaysia, was prepared quite well. The instructor said that it was quite a good example for a country like Malaysia which has no experience in ICSID, could prepare like that. (Well, the main reason the Malaysian memorial was taken as an example was because the parties – Malaysia-UK had consented that all the statements/ documents issued are transparent and would become public domain, unlike other disputes) . And of course, there are other memorials which were better, except that they are not available on-line. From my quick glance of reading, I have came across a few other Malaysian cases like Gruslin.
The MHS v Malaysia Annulment was controversial as well. Especially on the point ‘ whether the investment contributed to the economic development of Malaysia’…
The course was fun.
I see masters students here have undergone their investment law classes, and thus it is quite weird introducing yourself during the first two months after enrolment that ‘ I am doing my PhD, in investment law’, when you have almost no basic on it. And so, I started to audit classes. I have audited Investment Arbitration Practice, which is meant to be an advanced class. My supervisor said that it doesn’t matter if you have not audited the prerequisites, because you are a PhD student. On that juncture I knew that I have to work extremely hard so as not to seem so apparent to be ‘one who is very new in the area’.
This is the picture of my classmates.
My Singapore friend gave me a remark, ‘well, you have to start somewhere’..
It appeared that the whole class was actually a mooting activity, organized systematically by the instructor. The instructor was a prominent figure ( I have googled his name, and it appeared on top of the list), an American lawyer from an international law firm who has represented in many arbitration cases and has also the experience as an arbitrator in many investment tribunals. When I say many, I really mean ‘many’ cases….he seemed to have a role in almost all of the cases. Just imagine how lucky we were in his classes, as we suddenly believe that the long, winding ICSID cases we read seemed very close and real with all the spices of details from the instructor.
We got our group, we did our memorial (or rather, skeleton of arguments), submitted it and got ready for our presentation the next day. The whole thing seemed smooth, maybe because of the way the instructor conducted the course, we practically were able to present our arguments well, using the key cases correctly ( at least not in haywire). I compared this to the days my students were preparing their memorials for international mooting competitions, they had all the difficulties to understand the moot problem, researching the materials etc and always led to tears of emotions and conflicts.
These are the cases that we started with in the one week course:
Azinian v. Mexico
AMT v. Zaire
CMS v. Argentina
CMS v. Argentina (Merits)
CMS v. Argentina (Annulment)
Enron v. Argentina
Inceysa v. El Salvador
Loewen v. United States
Metalclad v. Mexico
MHS v. Malaysia
MHS v. Malaysia Annulment
Mitchell v. Congo (Annulment)
Parkerings v. Lithuania
Romak v. Uzbekistan
Salini v. Morocco
SD Myers v. Canada
Tokios Tekeles v. Ukraine
Tokios Tekeles v. Ukraine (dissent)
Wena v. Egypt
One quite interesting part was that the Malaysian Memorial for MHS v Malaysia, was prepared quite well. The instructor said that it was quite a good example for a country like Malaysia which has no experience in ICSID, could prepare like that. (Well, the main reason the Malaysian memorial was taken as an example was because the parties – Malaysia-UK had consented that all the statements/ documents issued are transparent and would become public domain, unlike other disputes) . And of course, there are other memorials which were better, except that they are not available on-line. From my quick glance of reading, I have came across a few other Malaysian cases like Gruslin.
The MHS v Malaysia Annulment was controversial as well. Especially on the point ‘ whether the investment contributed to the economic development of Malaysia’…
The course was fun.
Sunday, May 23, 2010
PhD Expectations
I consider myself in these first one and a half month as in the exploratory stage of PhD. I was lucky to be able to participate in the Easter Seminar where there were talks on Research and Methodology in Law, Generic Skills for PhD Students, Critical Thinking and The Challenges of Doing a PhD Thesis.
The main thing in PhD of which I understand, is to find gaps in the existing knowledge, potential issues/ problems and then contribute in the area. It is all then stem to whether or not you will succeed in the viva. In viva, a PhD student is supposed to potray:
i- adequate knowledge in the field
ii- significant contribution to the knowledge
iii-evidence of originality
iv- publishable material
v- presented in an acceptable academic style
My centre adds the sixth criteria:
vi- practical impact (to the niche interest of the centre- oil and gas/ energy / policy/ international investment and the like)
And woops, another one:
vii- to EXCEL! Stand out / be different from others.
That's quite an expectation I suppose...
So as they always say, the first six months is very crucial to identify the gaps/potential area of study from the literature reviews done. As in my case, I have to succeed the upgrading process before I am actually allowed to continue as a PhD student.
Among the things I took from the talks were phrases like:
1. Remember, the clock ticks!! (brr...that's scary)
2. Don't mess about! (as the clock ticks of course)
3. You should'nt have time to do other things!(in this context, the presenter referred to publishing/presenting papers...he said, publications can wait, but PhD can't...but there were other views on this by other presenters)
4. Don't be Mr. Deaf or Mr. Slow! (showing no progress)
5. Don't waffle! ( especially when people ask you 'whats your topic?' and you go like 'er..er...bla..bla..', it should be clear, short and precise)
6. Write and throw away!(the more you write, you don't mind of throwing them away if people criticise your work for betterment, but if you write too slow, you'll get heart attack when somebody suddenly say that your work/ approach is inaccurate, because your work becomes too sacred for you. In PhD, get ready to throw your writings away, that's normal)
7. Don't apply the magician approach! (in selecting your topic, it must be from literature reviews, not suddenly from your head like magic)
And then came the group activities on legal methodology terms like empirical, deductive, inductive, normative, positivist..bla..bla..
The conclusion was somewhat powerful: THE WORST STAKEHOLDER AFFECTED IF YOU FAIL YOUR PHD IS NO ONE BUT YOU...
and I understand that fully.
And during the two days seminar...I slept very early at night, without fail.
The main thing in PhD of which I understand, is to find gaps in the existing knowledge, potential issues/ problems and then contribute in the area. It is all then stem to whether or not you will succeed in the viva. In viva, a PhD student is supposed to potray:
i- adequate knowledge in the field
ii- significant contribution to the knowledge
iii-evidence of originality
iv- publishable material
v- presented in an acceptable academic style
My centre adds the sixth criteria:
vi- practical impact (to the niche interest of the centre- oil and gas/ energy / policy/ international investment and the like)
And woops, another one:
vii- to EXCEL! Stand out / be different from others.
That's quite an expectation I suppose...
So as they always say, the first six months is very crucial to identify the gaps/potential area of study from the literature reviews done. As in my case, I have to succeed the upgrading process before I am actually allowed to continue as a PhD student.
Among the things I took from the talks were phrases like:
1. Remember, the clock ticks!! (brr...that's scary)
2. Don't mess about! (as the clock ticks of course)
3. You should'nt have time to do other things!(in this context, the presenter referred to publishing/presenting papers...he said, publications can wait, but PhD can't...but there were other views on this by other presenters)
4. Don't be Mr. Deaf or Mr. Slow! (showing no progress)
5. Don't waffle! ( especially when people ask you 'whats your topic?' and you go like 'er..er...bla..bla..', it should be clear, short and precise)
6. Write and throw away!(the more you write, you don't mind of throwing them away if people criticise your work for betterment, but if you write too slow, you'll get heart attack when somebody suddenly say that your work/ approach is inaccurate, because your work becomes too sacred for you. In PhD, get ready to throw your writings away, that's normal)
7. Don't apply the magician approach! (in selecting your topic, it must be from literature reviews, not suddenly from your head like magic)
And then came the group activities on legal methodology terms like empirical, deductive, inductive, normative, positivist..bla..bla..
The conclusion was somewhat powerful: THE WORST STAKEHOLDER AFFECTED IF YOU FAIL YOUR PHD IS NO ONE BUT YOU...
and I understand that fully.
And during the two days seminar...I slept very early at night, without fail.
Saturday, May 15, 2010
Study has begun
There are so many things to tell, but i will do it slowly as time permits.
I'm busy now reading investment cases for our investment arbitration practice classes next week. I am very fortunate here that there are many interesting classes that I can audit,those expensive ones if you are not from the centre. I have already took a course on contracts in oil and gas. It is worth of USD 2+++ outside. I have to however be careful that the classes dont take too much of my time. I need time for my studies, but as my supervisor says, its good to get exposure from the classes on the terms / concepts/ concerns that may be useful in my topic area. This course, in particular (investment arbitration) is indeed the first in my sv's list.
No wonder my sv says that it is interesting..its mooting!! No wonder he says that I will be benefitting a lot from it...I am practically reading / have to read eight arbitral awards, BITs, 3-4 regulations in just 3 days!! And on the first day, we were reminded that whether or not we are registered or audit students, participation comes first!
As I could envisage, in moot activities, reading alone is not enough. Reading must be in the view of presenting it. And presenting it must be co-related to the moot problem, the treaties, rules and other relevant cases. This definitely remind me of my students in their mooting trainings. I'm in it now guys! Wish me luck!
Wookay, got to continue reading!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)