Since I came to London a month ago, I have had the opportunity to try out a couple of Chinese food. It’s interesting to note that I used to take Chinese food for granted, perhaps because Chinese food are everywhere in Indonesia and Singapore. At that time, I had so much Chinese food that it became the last thing I would suggest whenever I met up with friends for meals. Now, it has turned into a kind of luxury items for me as I only visit Chinese restaurants or even food stalls whenever I want to reward myself (For your information, I seldom reward myself). On normal days, meals are sandwiches, breads or spaghettis.
Frankly speaking, the Chinese food here are not that great, both in terms of variety and taste. But in a place where finding reasonably-priced Chinese food is challenging, I have always stick to the statement “better than nothing.” In other words, even if it doesn’t taste very good, it is still Chinese food. Look like the longer I stay here, the lower my standard of what Chinese food should be.
During my escapade to the various Chinese restaurants, I have noticed something quite peculiar. Chinese food in London are very salty. When I had Chinese food for the first time here, I thought I was just unlucky to pick a place serving salty Chinese food and I tried to convince myself that others won’t be like that.
The 2nd, 3rd, etc place I visited turned out to be the same. In fact, some of them even put an extra bottle of soya sauce on the table for you to add to the dishes if you think they aren’t salty enough. That kind of set me thinking for the reasons behind the salty food. Is it preference or is it a common practice passed down by cooks?
By preference, I mean that the people here like to eat salty food. But this doesn’t appear to be the case because when I had other foods, I don’t find it salty relative to the Chinese food that I had consumed so far. This leaves me with the second reason and it could well be the correct one. However, I still can’t figure out the rationale for cooks to pass down this practice. Is it just a mistake that got carried for generations or is there an educated reasoning behind it? Perhaps, I shouldn’t think too much and just enjoy the Chinese food. Afterall, some Chinese food is better than no Chinese food.
Thursday, July 30, 2009
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
Balanced Measures, Please!
Many many weeks ago, while on a trip to Shenzhen (China), I experienced something I never thought I would in China. At that time, swine flu was in its early days of spreading and if I am not wrong, China had a few (<10) positive cases. Learning from its past experiences in handling SARS, the Chinese Government was very efficient in trying to contain swine flu.
The minute our plane landed at Shenzhen Baoan Airport, it was directed to an open parking space. We were then informed that in order to minimize the spread of swine flu, every passengers would have his/her temperature taken. No, not by air-stewardesses/ stewards, but by Chinese health authorities. Soon after, the cabin door opened and 3 men in masks and surgical gloves entered the plane. They began taking the temperature of each passenger. I must say I am very impressed with this method because detecting fever before people leave the plane allows the authorities to isolate potential carriers before they start to spread the virus to other people in the airport area. This can certainly reduce the transmission rate. In addition, when there’s a need to isolate people who have come into contact with the carriers, it is administratively simpler as authorities only need to quarantine the entire plane in the worst-case scenario without having to worry if some new and unknown carriers could have escaped the dragnet.
Unfortunately, my good impression ended there. Once we were cleared to leave the plane, we boarded the airport shuttle that was supposed to bring us to the main terminal building for immigration clearance. When we reached the terminal building, a security officer didn’t allow us to enter the building. Perhaps he was unconvinced that we were all free of swine flu. He told us to wait under the hot sun and admitted us one by one at a rate of 1 person for every 5 minutes. Meanwhile, we were given a health declaration form to fill up. I remembered clearly one section asked whether I had fever. My reaction was well, not now but maybe I would have one by the time I was allowed in because we were practically being barbecued under the afternoon sun.
Then, I started to recall that the Chinese Government had quarantined all Mexican passport-holders even though they didn’t exhibit any symptoms of swine flu. Were they just being paranoid? I understand that there’s a need to contain the virus but some measures were obviously too excessive and illogical. Instead of generating praises from around the world, it might end up doing the opposite. The Government should try to find a more balanced measures that would allow them to prevent the spread of swine flu and yet, did not make visitors feel unwelcome.
The minute our plane landed at Shenzhen Baoan Airport, it was directed to an open parking space. We were then informed that in order to minimize the spread of swine flu, every passengers would have his/her temperature taken. No, not by air-stewardesses/ stewards, but by Chinese health authorities. Soon after, the cabin door opened and 3 men in masks and surgical gloves entered the plane. They began taking the temperature of each passenger. I must say I am very impressed with this method because detecting fever before people leave the plane allows the authorities to isolate potential carriers before they start to spread the virus to other people in the airport area. This can certainly reduce the transmission rate. In addition, when there’s a need to isolate people who have come into contact with the carriers, it is administratively simpler as authorities only need to quarantine the entire plane in the worst-case scenario without having to worry if some new and unknown carriers could have escaped the dragnet.
Unfortunately, my good impression ended there. Once we were cleared to leave the plane, we boarded the airport shuttle that was supposed to bring us to the main terminal building for immigration clearance. When we reached the terminal building, a security officer didn’t allow us to enter the building. Perhaps he was unconvinced that we were all free of swine flu. He told us to wait under the hot sun and admitted us one by one at a rate of 1 person for every 5 minutes. Meanwhile, we were given a health declaration form to fill up. I remembered clearly one section asked whether I had fever. My reaction was well, not now but maybe I would have one by the time I was allowed in because we were practically being barbecued under the afternoon sun.
Then, I started to recall that the Chinese Government had quarantined all Mexican passport-holders even though they didn’t exhibit any symptoms of swine flu. Were they just being paranoid? I understand that there’s a need to contain the virus but some measures were obviously too excessive and illogical. Instead of generating praises from around the world, it might end up doing the opposite. The Government should try to find a more balanced measures that would allow them to prevent the spread of swine flu and yet, did not make visitors feel unwelcome.
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
Oxford Street Mayhem
I visited Oxford Street area last weekend to explore London’s premier shopping belt. I was quite impressed with the variety of shops there: branded and non-branded, small and big, etc. In essence, whatever you are looking for, you will highly likely be able to find it there. And those include exotic stuffs such as Korean and Chinese foodstuffs since Chinatown is located nearby.
Although I like the convenience of being able to get everything in one place, I am rather irritated about the small pedestrian walkways outside the shops. They are packed with people on weekends because most of the shops in other parts of London are closed and if you want to do some shopping, that’s one of the only few places to satisfy your need. Assuming that the entire London population does their shopping on weekends, you can guess how crowded that area will be.
I personally feel that it’s about time the relevant authorities consider widening the walkways or even closing some roads/streets to motor vehicles. Many cities around the world have done that. In Singapore, for example, the Orchard Road shopping belt has wide walkways. In China, almost every big cities have shopping belts whose streets are closed to motor vehicles 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.
2 main benefits can be obtained from such moves. Firstly, it provides a more pleasing experience to customers as they can take their time to slowly look at the goods displayed in the display windows without being pushed or feeling hurried by the pedestrians behind. One of my purposes for visiting the area is to de-stress but I came back feeling more stressful than before the visit. Secondly, it will definitely benefit the shops because when customers have the time to look at the displayed goods and have their line of sight unobstructed, they have a higher tendency to enter the shops and hence make a purchase.
Clearly, the relevant authorities should give some serious thoughts to these win-win moves. If they do it fast enough, they may even get a bonus outcome: reducing the spread of swine flu as the transmission rate greatly decreases with increasing distance between any two people.
Although I like the convenience of being able to get everything in one place, I am rather irritated about the small pedestrian walkways outside the shops. They are packed with people on weekends because most of the shops in other parts of London are closed and if you want to do some shopping, that’s one of the only few places to satisfy your need. Assuming that the entire London population does their shopping on weekends, you can guess how crowded that area will be.
I personally feel that it’s about time the relevant authorities consider widening the walkways or even closing some roads/streets to motor vehicles. Many cities around the world have done that. In Singapore, for example, the Orchard Road shopping belt has wide walkways. In China, almost every big cities have shopping belts whose streets are closed to motor vehicles 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.
2 main benefits can be obtained from such moves. Firstly, it provides a more pleasing experience to customers as they can take their time to slowly look at the goods displayed in the display windows without being pushed or feeling hurried by the pedestrians behind. One of my purposes for visiting the area is to de-stress but I came back feeling more stressful than before the visit. Secondly, it will definitely benefit the shops because when customers have the time to look at the displayed goods and have their line of sight unobstructed, they have a higher tendency to enter the shops and hence make a purchase.
Clearly, the relevant authorities should give some serious thoughts to these win-win moves. If they do it fast enough, they may even get a bonus outcome: reducing the spread of swine flu as the transmission rate greatly decreases with increasing distance between any two people.
Monday, July 27, 2009
Classical or Ricardian?
Many macroeconomists have always believed that a tax cut will boost consumption while a tax rise will reduce consumption. This widely accepted theory appears to be very close to the heart of our world leaders as well, as can be seen from the way they use fiscal policy to respond to the current downturn. Many countries, both developed and developing, have resorted to tax cuts in order to boost consumption and hence aggregate demand. Latest data has shown that those moves have indeed produced some positive results. Numerous sources have reported the emergence of green shoots in several economies. However, does it mean that we should forget altogether about another theory known as Ricardian Equivalence?
Ricardian Equivalence is named after a guy named Ricardo who ironically didn’t buy the theory that now bears his name. Broadly, it states that tax cuts have no impact on current spending/consumption and therefore aggregate demand because rational people know that a tax cut now would have to be compensated with a tax rise sometimes in the future, particularly so if government doesn’t make any effort to trim its existing expenditures. Hence, these people would save whatever additional money they obtain from the tax cut in order to pay for the future tax rise.
This theory makes perfect sense to me because throughout my life, I have seen a couple of people with such kind of thought. In fact, both my grandparents and my dad practice it. Whether there’s a tax cut or not, they just spend on basic necessities and save the rest for future generations or as they like to say, for rainy days. You may then ask: if that’s really the case, why is it that tax cuts still work?
Well, 3 good and valid reasons for that. Firstly, not everyone is as far-sighted as some people. They don’t think far. Even if they do, their response would be “let’s think about the solution when government really raise the tax.” Secondly, some people would like to spend beyond their means but in order to do so, they need to borrow. However, due to borrowing constraints, they aren’t able to do so. Tax cuts is one of those methods that will allow them to bypass the borrowing constraints put in place by banks or other institutions. Lastly, many believe that a tax rise sometime in the future will probably affect their children, grandchildren or even great-grandchildren and couldn’t care less about them. So which theory should we adhere to?
There is no right or wrong about the two theories. Each has its own strengths and weaknesses. But if I may, I would like to be somewhere in between because depending on how you argue it, each is valid. On the other hand, too much or too little of either one is not good as well. Too much of the classical theory would mean a selfish society who doesn’t really care about the well-being of the future generations. Too much of Ricardian would mean that the fiscal policy of many governments would effectively be useless in moderating the economy.
Ricardian Equivalence is named after a guy named Ricardo who ironically didn’t buy the theory that now bears his name. Broadly, it states that tax cuts have no impact on current spending/consumption and therefore aggregate demand because rational people know that a tax cut now would have to be compensated with a tax rise sometimes in the future, particularly so if government doesn’t make any effort to trim its existing expenditures. Hence, these people would save whatever additional money they obtain from the tax cut in order to pay for the future tax rise.
This theory makes perfect sense to me because throughout my life, I have seen a couple of people with such kind of thought. In fact, both my grandparents and my dad practice it. Whether there’s a tax cut or not, they just spend on basic necessities and save the rest for future generations or as they like to say, for rainy days. You may then ask: if that’s really the case, why is it that tax cuts still work?
Well, 3 good and valid reasons for that. Firstly, not everyone is as far-sighted as some people. They don’t think far. Even if they do, their response would be “let’s think about the solution when government really raise the tax.” Secondly, some people would like to spend beyond their means but in order to do so, they need to borrow. However, due to borrowing constraints, they aren’t able to do so. Tax cuts is one of those methods that will allow them to bypass the borrowing constraints put in place by banks or other institutions. Lastly, many believe that a tax rise sometime in the future will probably affect their children, grandchildren or even great-grandchildren and couldn’t care less about them. So which theory should we adhere to?
There is no right or wrong about the two theories. Each has its own strengths and weaknesses. But if I may, I would like to be somewhere in between because depending on how you argue it, each is valid. On the other hand, too much or too little of either one is not good as well. Too much of the classical theory would mean a selfish society who doesn’t really care about the well-being of the future generations. Too much of Ricardian would mean that the fiscal policy of many governments would effectively be useless in moderating the economy.
Sunday, July 26, 2009
Good Job, Indonesians!
I am actually very glad with the outcome of the recent Indonesian Presidential Election, in addition to the fact that it was carried out without any meaningful disruption. After about 11 years of reformasi, Indonesians finally understand that democracy doesn’t have to go hand-in-hand with violence. Of course, I also have to pay tribute to the magnanimity of the losing candidates for accepting the result of the election, without which I am sure the situation in Indonesia will not be any much different from that in Iran.
Indonesians’ choice for the Presidency for the period 2009-2014 clearly tells the world that they are capable of making rational decisions despite the significant role played by money politics in this election. In this post, I am not going to talk about the excellent job that SBY had done for the past 5 years because I don’t see the need to do so. Indonesia’s stability during his term should be more than enough to tell you about his capability. If you read any news on Indonesia now, except for the recent bombing in Jakarta, you will not encounter anything significantly negative about the country. This is in contrast to the period before 2004 whereby Indonesia always appeared in the news for all the wrong reasons: political turmoil, separatist movements, terrorism, etc.
Rather I am going to share my views on why Indonesians made the right decision by not voting for another Presidential candidate: Megawati. I am not going to talk about Kalla because Megawati is deemed as the closest contender. Before I move on, I would like to mention that I have no intention to influence any eligible voters to switch their allegiance to any particular candidate. I am merely looking at the election objectively. That’s why I have decided to talk about this only after the election result has been finalized and deemed legal by all the relevant parties.
Indonesians have given Megawati a chance at the Presidency in the past but her performance then had been rather poor. She made a number of blunders, up to a point that Indonesians couldn’t understand what she was trying to achieve. That lost in confidence on her leadership can be felt up till now. If you ask anyone walking down the street what she had achieved during her term, I am sure no one can give you a firm and concise answer.
Her current choice for the Vice-Presidency, Prabowo, is also a wrong move because he is full of controversy, particularly during his term as Commander of the Special Forces during New Order era. As a matter of fact, he is barred from entering US until now.
But I guess the last nail in the coffin for Megawati is when she and Prabowo were reported having intense discussion, to the point of bickering, on who should be the President a few days before nomination. Apparently, both coveted the Presidential position so much and none were willing to give in. No doubt Megawati managed to get herself nominated for the Presidential position in the end but the damage had already been done. Indonesians are sure that if Megawati is elected, the country will face the next 5 years with yet another political turmoil driven by none other than the President and Vice President, two people who should be working closely together for the betterment of the country.
Indonesians’ choice for the Presidency for the period 2009-2014 clearly tells the world that they are capable of making rational decisions despite the significant role played by money politics in this election. In this post, I am not going to talk about the excellent job that SBY had done for the past 5 years because I don’t see the need to do so. Indonesia’s stability during his term should be more than enough to tell you about his capability. If you read any news on Indonesia now, except for the recent bombing in Jakarta, you will not encounter anything significantly negative about the country. This is in contrast to the period before 2004 whereby Indonesia always appeared in the news for all the wrong reasons: political turmoil, separatist movements, terrorism, etc.
Rather I am going to share my views on why Indonesians made the right decision by not voting for another Presidential candidate: Megawati. I am not going to talk about Kalla because Megawati is deemed as the closest contender. Before I move on, I would like to mention that I have no intention to influence any eligible voters to switch their allegiance to any particular candidate. I am merely looking at the election objectively. That’s why I have decided to talk about this only after the election result has been finalized and deemed legal by all the relevant parties.
Indonesians have given Megawati a chance at the Presidency in the past but her performance then had been rather poor. She made a number of blunders, up to a point that Indonesians couldn’t understand what she was trying to achieve. That lost in confidence on her leadership can be felt up till now. If you ask anyone walking down the street what she had achieved during her term, I am sure no one can give you a firm and concise answer.
Her current choice for the Vice-Presidency, Prabowo, is also a wrong move because he is full of controversy, particularly during his term as Commander of the Special Forces during New Order era. As a matter of fact, he is barred from entering US until now.
But I guess the last nail in the coffin for Megawati is when she and Prabowo were reported having intense discussion, to the point of bickering, on who should be the President a few days before nomination. Apparently, both coveted the Presidential position so much and none were willing to give in. No doubt Megawati managed to get herself nominated for the Presidential position in the end but the damage had already been done. Indonesians are sure that if Megawati is elected, the country will face the next 5 years with yet another political turmoil driven by none other than the President and Vice President, two people who should be working closely together for the betterment of the country.
Saturday, July 25, 2009
When Allocating Emergency Seats, What Should Be Airlines' Priority?
It has been really some time since I last posted. Two months have passed without me realizing. But those are really one of the most hectic two months I ever had. There were so many things to do and yet so little time. Been traveling to several countries but unfortunately not for leisure. Now that I have more or less settled down, I thought it is good to restart this blog. Hopefully from today onwards, I can blog regularly.
To kick-start this new beginning, let me talk about something I become very familiar about lately: air traveling. Having taken flights from different airlines, I have learnt that airlines have different priorities when it comes to allocating emergency seats to customers. As the name suggests, emergency seats are those front seats located beside the emergency exits. And since those seats are front seats, anyone sitting there will obviously have wider legroom.
For some airlines, those front seats are open to anyone on a first come, first serve basis as long as one feels comfortably strong enough to help the air-steward/ stewardess in times of emergency. It doesn’t matter whether you are young or old, man or woman, you can select those seats as long as you meet the criterion stated above.
On the other hand, there are some airlines that have decided to exploit the wider legroom provided by these seats by charging passengers who want to sit there an extra fee. Although this action shows that whoever that is running the airline company has good business acumen, I personally think it is inappropriate to do so because it clearly put the company in a bad light. People will say that this particular airline put more emphasis on business and less on safety. Morally, it is also wrong because you are charging a person who in times of need, maybe of great help to you. If you are busy with your work and a colleague offers to help you buy lunch, would you charge him a fee for helping you? Clearly, the opposite appears more rational.
Airlines may argue that with its excellent track record, probability of them encountering emergency situations are very small (close to zero) and hence, the purpose of those seats are more for providing comfort rather than for passengers capable of helping during emergency. However, with life so full of surprises, should we ignore such probability, no matter how negligible it is?
To kick-start this new beginning, let me talk about something I become very familiar about lately: air traveling. Having taken flights from different airlines, I have learnt that airlines have different priorities when it comes to allocating emergency seats to customers. As the name suggests, emergency seats are those front seats located beside the emergency exits. And since those seats are front seats, anyone sitting there will obviously have wider legroom.
For some airlines, those front seats are open to anyone on a first come, first serve basis as long as one feels comfortably strong enough to help the air-steward/ stewardess in times of emergency. It doesn’t matter whether you are young or old, man or woman, you can select those seats as long as you meet the criterion stated above.
On the other hand, there are some airlines that have decided to exploit the wider legroom provided by these seats by charging passengers who want to sit there an extra fee. Although this action shows that whoever that is running the airline company has good business acumen, I personally think it is inappropriate to do so because it clearly put the company in a bad light. People will say that this particular airline put more emphasis on business and less on safety. Morally, it is also wrong because you are charging a person who in times of need, maybe of great help to you. If you are busy with your work and a colleague offers to help you buy lunch, would you charge him a fee for helping you? Clearly, the opposite appears more rational.
Airlines may argue that with its excellent track record, probability of them encountering emergency situations are very small (close to zero) and hence, the purpose of those seats are more for providing comfort rather than for passengers capable of helping during emergency. However, with life so full of surprises, should we ignore such probability, no matter how negligible it is?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
.JPG)
