I thought the aide was walking on to the podium with a folder containing his speech, but in fact it was a prop. As Pakistan's President Zardari spoke, right next to him was a photograph of his late wife former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto who, in that photograph, was herself posing with a portrait of her late father Zulfikar Ali Bhutto the late-former Prime Minister of Pakistan. I felt that was a political stunt destined for his domestic audience - that he was heir to the Bhutto dynasty - and an honest admission that his position was by the reflected glory and popularity of the other two. Zardari was a suave and personable man, but in my observation, not much in terms of levity or seriousness of purpose. For some reason, he just seemed a little desperate to be relevant. For a leader of nearly 190 million souls with some the trickiest and most dangerous political and economic challenges in the world (not to mention nuclear triggers on his fingers) I did not feel that he is anything close to a good hand for Pakistan. His aides were serious and smart looking but I had a feeling tha the real power - if ever there is one - in Pakistan lies elsewhere.
The Chairman of the Palestinian Authority, Mahmoud Abbas, was a warm and affable looking man. He was quite humble and generous with his time. But he came across as rather tired and forlorn. He was greeted more as a symbol rather than who he is or what he said and there was a lot of symphathy for what he stands for. But I wonder how much of those expressions of symphathy extend beyond who he was "fighting" rather than for the betterment of the daily lives of the Palestinian people.
Talking about lip service, I began to notice that among many smaller countries, the statements made by their Presidents often - in almost identical wordings - expressed support for ROC-Taiwan's entrance to the WHO and urging for its greater participation in international bodies. No doubt the Taiwanese authorities have been hard at work with the few countries who it still maintain diplomatic relations with. Although I wonder if, in terms of strategy, it would be better not to celebrate those memberships a if there is some kind of point-scoring if the argument is that those are non-political bodies.
I listened to two leaders of Caribbean countries and heard two different messages. I was very impressed with the Dominican Republic not only from learning that they intend to rely 100% on renewable energy by 2015 but also for the positive tone of its message that focused on what the country was able to do. Antigua and Barbuda on the otherhand raised much the same issues but concluded by blaming others and urging mainly others to take responsibility. I have much more faith in Dominican Republic succeeding in whatever they want to achieve.
In between I took a break and paid a visit to the peoples in the room most relevant to me: the Brunei delegation. For a few days I have been dropping my and chatted. This time I noticed HRH Princess Masna was there in attendance. She had her handbag on the table and another briefcase next to her. And she has got her highlighters and pens out and were busy making notes. She was working hard and really paid attention to the speakers. I went up, greeted her and paid my respects. She was warm and friendly; and also amused and perhaps impressed to learn that I am (i) Bruneian (ii) the only Bruneian in the UN system and (iii) I had done this myself on my own accord. She told me I was setting a good example.
Saturday, September 26, 2009
Friday, September 25, 2009
Netanyahu and Other Observations
Today was more of a parade of speeches by lesser known leaders. But it was fascinating all the same but in a less predictable way. I noticed a few things. Right after speaking, Latin American leaders were almost always greeted by huge groups of fawning fellow country-men and women and from their neighbouring countries too. Even as they spoke to one other in Spanish, a language I admit I do not speak, the generous overflow of compliments, back-slapping and flattery was obvious. The crowds were almost always dressed like socialites. They were the elites of their societies - rich and well-connected hanger-ons to power and political celebrity with whom there appear to be a truly symbiotic relationship. I saw one head of government literally looking punch drunk amidst the adulation, getting more and more enthusiastic at granting requests for photographs and the crowd was more than happy to keep heap on the attention.
The same was true for many African leaders. The President of Sierra Leone was greeted by a whole line of African dignitaries and their elaborately dressed (and head-dressed) wives. Although one of the poorest and most war-ravaged countries in the world, the line of dignitaries that greeted the President of Sierra Leone all had a pampered and well-"shopped" look about them: soft smooth skin, fine clothes and jewellery. My thoughts wondered around to blood diamonds and how much suffering lay behind those wealth.
There were a few higher points in the day. Prime Minister Zapatero of Spain came across as a fine looking, intelligent but serious figure in his very well-cut suits. After he soke, he too was mobbed by fans and supporters from Spain and the Hispanic world. I come to realise that Spain still has immense cultural and political influence as the leader of the Hispanic world. When his path crossed with the President of Mexico, they put their arms around one another like pals for a photoshot.
All delegations were quite modest and not difficult to deal with. The President of Lithuania looked like a no-nonsense librarian. He overheard me asking her aide how long her speech were going to be and piped up, “only 15 minutes, not to worry, I will keep it short!”
I spent sometime in the same room as the Prime Minister of Japan. I have a good feeling about him - he came across as distinguished, intense and has an air of nobility about him. He appears to be anything but a career political hack. He speaks English reasonably well.
Prime Minister Erdogan of Turkey was a stately gentleman; austere-looking, reserved but oozing with charisma. He has a gentle but alert demeanor behind his stately reserve. He seemed like someone who - when he chooses to - can disarm someone with the smallest gesture or a single word or may be even a joke. Turkey is a major power in its own right and the delegation conducted itself with great confidence and purpose.
I saw Ahmadenejad again. Ever keeping an open mind, I could not help noticing again that both he and the delegation came across as thugs. They were scruffy, impatient, vacuous and fearful in their eyes. They were also poorly dressed and did not smell too good (unfortunately that was the biggest impression I had.)
Which brings me to the 30 mins I stood in a corner, observing the Isreali PM Netanyahu as he sat across the waiting room. My conclusion is that he is a brilliant speaker and advocate for his position but I did not sense someone who can see beyond his position or winning his corner. He was animate with his staff, more speaking than listening, fidgety and restless but very clearly the top dog. In fact, he got his aide to bring him a taller chair to sit on. Vanity perhaps. In short, he can be a formidable competitor but not, I feel, a true leader who is willing to risk his power for a larger purpose. From his demeanor, he seem to be someone who will try to win by convincing others of his strength or bullying. I just sensed he was not someone I would count on to protect or look after the interest of others.
The same was true for many African leaders. The President of Sierra Leone was greeted by a whole line of African dignitaries and their elaborately dressed (and head-dressed) wives. Although one of the poorest and most war-ravaged countries in the world, the line of dignitaries that greeted the President of Sierra Leone all had a pampered and well-"shopped" look about them: soft smooth skin, fine clothes and jewellery. My thoughts wondered around to blood diamonds and how much suffering lay behind those wealth.
There were a few higher points in the day. Prime Minister Zapatero of Spain came across as a fine looking, intelligent but serious figure in his very well-cut suits. After he soke, he too was mobbed by fans and supporters from Spain and the Hispanic world. I come to realise that Spain still has immense cultural and political influence as the leader of the Hispanic world. When his path crossed with the President of Mexico, they put their arms around one another like pals for a photoshot.
All delegations were quite modest and not difficult to deal with. The President of Lithuania looked like a no-nonsense librarian. He overheard me asking her aide how long her speech were going to be and piped up, “only 15 minutes, not to worry, I will keep it short!”
I spent sometime in the same room as the Prime Minister of Japan. I have a good feeling about him - he came across as distinguished, intense and has an air of nobility about him. He appears to be anything but a career political hack. He speaks English reasonably well.
Prime Minister Erdogan of Turkey was a stately gentleman; austere-looking, reserved but oozing with charisma. He has a gentle but alert demeanor behind his stately reserve. He seemed like someone who - when he chooses to - can disarm someone with the smallest gesture or a single word or may be even a joke. Turkey is a major power in its own right and the delegation conducted itself with great confidence and purpose.
I saw Ahmadenejad again. Ever keeping an open mind, I could not help noticing again that both he and the delegation came across as thugs. They were scruffy, impatient, vacuous and fearful in their eyes. They were also poorly dressed and did not smell too good (unfortunately that was the biggest impression I had.)
Which brings me to the 30 mins I stood in a corner, observing the Isreali PM Netanyahu as he sat across the waiting room. My conclusion is that he is a brilliant speaker and advocate for his position but I did not sense someone who can see beyond his position or winning his corner. He was animate with his staff, more speaking than listening, fidgety and restless but very clearly the top dog. In fact, he got his aide to bring him a taller chair to sit on. Vanity perhaps. In short, he can be a formidable competitor but not, I feel, a true leader who is willing to risk his power for a larger purpose. From his demeanor, he seem to be someone who will try to win by convincing others of his strength or bullying. I just sensed he was not someone I would count on to protect or look after the interest of others.
Thursday, September 24, 2009
The Day I Shook Hands with President Obama
There was a slight commotion as the President swept into the delegates lounge. As he got in he rested his palm gently on Hillary Clinton's shoulders and waited a split second to make sure that she got in with him. He shook one hand and then another and he was heading down my line. In that familiar sonorous voice he said "hello" and "thank you". Sometimes he has a modest little nod with a swallowed smile - a little gesture that reminded me of the Hong Kong actor Tony Leung. He was tall but not overpoweringly so. He moved - no, glide - gracefully like a dancer, appearing confident but not cocky. He was trying to hear Hillary telling him something. And that's when I shook hands with President Barack Obama. And my hairs stood on end.
Earlier in the morning, I brought Hugo Chavez to the reception area. There was a crowd at the security point, he smiled and motioned "relax, just your time" and he asked me in English, "where are you from?" I said, "Brunei" and he shook my hands quickly and I left him at the lounge. He seemed like a pro at this and enjoying the attention no doubt.
The Emir of Qatar came by in a large and well-perfumed delagation. Later on, he greeted one of the protocol officers very warmly. He too has done this many times before. The Bahrainians and Jordanians too were well perfumed. You can always tell if an Arab delegation has just gone past. Surprising numbers of them also came with several sophisticated-and-good-looking women delegtes in tow. Minor members of royalty may be?
I just recognised that a dapper and professorial-looking gentleman whom I kept seeing the day before as the Prime Minister of Turkey. There was always attention when he moved around.
There were so many world leaders that I was getting jaded. In the past two days, I must have walked 2 dozens of them to where they needed to go. Not many people could produe any ounce of excitement anymore - until that is, when the US First Lady Michelle Obama came up the stairs. She was phenomenal. A rush of electricity went about the whole room. Looking splendid in a bright red dress, she greeted the protocol officers so warmly and graciously. She is definately a star. I reckon she is an even more powerful presence in person than her husband. More powerful than any world leader I met in the past two days in terms of charisma.
Colonel Gaddafi came in with a different kind of excitement in tow - one of notoriety and the age-old fascination people always had for the bad boys. I was amazed at the sight of his female body guards - big brawny girls with long curly hair in military fatigues. One of my colleagues, Lynn, was keen to get herself in the photo with all the bad boys. Earlier she got to walk Mugabe and Ahmadenejad to the reception room - but as I had gotten Chavez earlier, she wanted Gaddafi bad. So when Gaddafi came up the stairs, I shoved her forward.
Admadenejad was surrounded by a large security detail and being quite short he looked swamped by them. He smiled the smile of a con-man. Even I meet him on the streets, I won't buy anything from him.
Prime Minister Belusconi came up with a bevy of aides. None of them I noticed looked like teenage girls. He seemed busy talking to a military aide but I led them to the reception room anyway. He looked ghastly. His face was grey, powdery and inanimate. He looked like wearing a wax mask. The only sign of life on his face was in his eyes. Later, as I was walking him to his table for lunch he wanted to stop at the bathroom. I duly waited outside. He did not walk very well. He came across as neither very energetic nor charismtic.
Mugabe on the otherhand seemed quite fit. Although when he walked by closely, I could hear his breathing was wispy almost seething. He has the look of a despot, one used to sowing fear with one look of disapproval. Not someone one would want to invite around for a drink.
Many leaders were extremely normal looking. The Prime Minister of Hungary looked like a youthful CEO. The President of Finland is her red/orange hair doing her own stuff. President Christina Fernandez of Argentina looking statuesque and pretty, looking slightly hapless at times when she was without her interpreter. She gestured like a school girl when the Prime Minister of Austria came by to tell him that he was to sit next to her.
President Medvedev of Russia also looked very clean cut and normal. He was slight in built and appeared intelligent but a little shy. I stuck out my hands and we shook hands as he came by. He was accompanied by a pretty young interpreter who look like Anna Sharapova the tennis player. She was a nervous wreck, first demanding to have a chair set up for her behind her president; and then when she was blocked from entering the lunch area with her president, she broke into argument in the sharp melodramatic Slavic-style with the UN security guards who really wouldn't say no anyway.
I felt embarassed though when the same thing happenned to President Hu Jin Tao's interpreter. Instead of using his words, he simply shouted "interpreter! interpreter!" and got into a shoving match with UN security and literally pushed and elbowed his way through. It was an embarassing display of unrefined and thuggist instincts. After he got through, he grumbled "jen shi de! (really unbelievable!)" to President Hu who appear to nod in agreement. I believe his actions arose from overwhelming fear. But on the whole, I think it reflects a lack of professionalism of the Chinese advance party who should have briefed and double-briefed the security. My feeling is that China definately still has some way to go in terms of graciousness on the world stage.
Numbed as I was by the comings and goings of the day, my most emotional moment was right outside the holding room when President Obma first arrived. I was standing there as his entourage all filed in: Rahm Emmanuel the White House Chief of Staff, David Axelrod the President's top political adviser, Jim Jones the National Security Adviser, etc. and beside me was a well-decorated young USAF officer with a briefcase. "Is that bag what I think it is?" I asked. He was very friendly, and he said "yep" In that bag was the launch codes for the US nuclear arsenal. We talked a bit, he asked me where I was from and he joked that he bought the medals on hi uniform from the shop. But I was just feeling overwhelmed thinking that in that black leather bag is everything that is needed to kill and destroy everything I know and everyone that I care about.
Earlier in the morning, I brought Hugo Chavez to the reception area. There was a crowd at the security point, he smiled and motioned "relax, just your time" and he asked me in English, "where are you from?" I said, "Brunei" and he shook my hands quickly and I left him at the lounge. He seemed like a pro at this and enjoying the attention no doubt.
The Emir of Qatar came by in a large and well-perfumed delagation. Later on, he greeted one of the protocol officers very warmly. He too has done this many times before. The Bahrainians and Jordanians too were well perfumed. You can always tell if an Arab delegation has just gone past. Surprising numbers of them also came with several sophisticated-and-good-looking women delegtes in tow. Minor members of royalty may be?
I just recognised that a dapper and professorial-looking gentleman whom I kept seeing the day before as the Prime Minister of Turkey. There was always attention when he moved around.
There were so many world leaders that I was getting jaded. In the past two days, I must have walked 2 dozens of them to where they needed to go. Not many people could produe any ounce of excitement anymore - until that is, when the US First Lady Michelle Obama came up the stairs. She was phenomenal. A rush of electricity went about the whole room. Looking splendid in a bright red dress, she greeted the protocol officers so warmly and graciously. She is definately a star. I reckon she is an even more powerful presence in person than her husband. More powerful than any world leader I met in the past two days in terms of charisma.
Colonel Gaddafi came in with a different kind of excitement in tow - one of notoriety and the age-old fascination people always had for the bad boys. I was amazed at the sight of his female body guards - big brawny girls with long curly hair in military fatigues. One of my colleagues, Lynn, was keen to get herself in the photo with all the bad boys. Earlier she got to walk Mugabe and Ahmadenejad to the reception room - but as I had gotten Chavez earlier, she wanted Gaddafi bad. So when Gaddafi came up the stairs, I shoved her forward.
Admadenejad was surrounded by a large security detail and being quite short he looked swamped by them. He smiled the smile of a con-man. Even I meet him on the streets, I won't buy anything from him.
Prime Minister Belusconi came up with a bevy of aides. None of them I noticed looked like teenage girls. He seemed busy talking to a military aide but I led them to the reception room anyway. He looked ghastly. His face was grey, powdery and inanimate. He looked like wearing a wax mask. The only sign of life on his face was in his eyes. Later, as I was walking him to his table for lunch he wanted to stop at the bathroom. I duly waited outside. He did not walk very well. He came across as neither very energetic nor charismtic.
Mugabe on the otherhand seemed quite fit. Although when he walked by closely, I could hear his breathing was wispy almost seething. He has the look of a despot, one used to sowing fear with one look of disapproval. Not someone one would want to invite around for a drink.
Many leaders were extremely normal looking. The Prime Minister of Hungary looked like a youthful CEO. The President of Finland is her red/orange hair doing her own stuff. President Christina Fernandez of Argentina looking statuesque and pretty, looking slightly hapless at times when she was without her interpreter. She gestured like a school girl when the Prime Minister of Austria came by to tell him that he was to sit next to her.
President Medvedev of Russia also looked very clean cut and normal. He was slight in built and appeared intelligent but a little shy. I stuck out my hands and we shook hands as he came by. He was accompanied by a pretty young interpreter who look like Anna Sharapova the tennis player. She was a nervous wreck, first demanding to have a chair set up for her behind her president; and then when she was blocked from entering the lunch area with her president, she broke into argument in the sharp melodramatic Slavic-style with the UN security guards who really wouldn't say no anyway.
I felt embarassed though when the same thing happenned to President Hu Jin Tao's interpreter. Instead of using his words, he simply shouted "interpreter! interpreter!" and got into a shoving match with UN security and literally pushed and elbowed his way through. It was an embarassing display of unrefined and thuggist instincts. After he got through, he grumbled "jen shi de! (really unbelievable!)" to President Hu who appear to nod in agreement. I believe his actions arose from overwhelming fear. But on the whole, I think it reflects a lack of professionalism of the Chinese advance party who should have briefed and double-briefed the security. My feeling is that China definately still has some way to go in terms of graciousness on the world stage.
Numbed as I was by the comings and goings of the day, my most emotional moment was right outside the holding room when President Obma first arrived. I was standing there as his entourage all filed in: Rahm Emmanuel the White House Chief of Staff, David Axelrod the President's top political adviser, Jim Jones the National Security Adviser, etc. and beside me was a well-decorated young USAF officer with a briefcase. "Is that bag what I think it is?" I asked. He was very friendly, and he said "yep" In that bag was the launch codes for the US nuclear arsenal. We talked a bit, he asked me where I was from and he joked that he bought the medals on hi uniform from the shop. But I was just feeling overwhelmed thinking that in that black leather bag is everything that is needed to kill and destroy everything I know and everyone that I care about.
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
Anecdotes from Protocol Duties at the UN General Assembly
PM Abhisit of Thailand showed up bright and early. He still looked boyish although not as trim as when I last met him in 2003. He was modest, unassuming and polite. He said he was up since 4am and just came from an interviewed with Fox TV.
I met Penny Wong the Chinese-Australian Minister for Climate Change the way to the reception. She was accompanied by a pretty young Asian aide. Then they changed their minds and decided to wait for their PM. PM Kevin Rudd arrived with a sense of seriousness and substance that tend to accompany Australian PMs - as did PM Harper of Canada.
The new Japanese PM Hotayama was everywhere. I saw him three times. He looked intelligent, trim and intensely-collected. He reminds me a lot of a samurai or feudal lord of the olden days.
President Hu Jin Tao arrived with a HUGE delegation*. I tried to take care of Vice-Premier Wang Qi Shan but he already had someone with him. Vice PM Wang looked energetic and robust. He has a nice color about his face. Foreign Minister Yang Jie Chi followed looking somewhat ignored. (*Many of them I was not sure what their roles were; during the day they lingered about sitting on seats belonging to other delegations - I feel a bit embarassed for these tendencies to be the "Ugly Chinese")
Then there was a rush and President Obama and his entourage swept through. He was tall and graceful in his strides. But he seemed very preoccupied. His mind and his energies seemed to the elsewhere and his face looked a tad puffy as if he had a bad night's sleep. Quite ironically, he came across as someone more at home as an earnest intellectual rather than one seeking popularity or attention. Alone among the leaders who spoke, he acknowledged and shook hands with other people on the podium. It was no surprise as he was to have a first meeting with the Isrealis and Palestinians later that morning and with President Hu in the afternoon. Something was definately on Obama's mind. Hillary Clinton followed close by moving about professionally.
Later I also saw Al Gore who has a sparkle in his eyes - not the robot I last saw in Kuala Lumpur in 1998 - I guess his shoulder is light without officialdom (wu guan yi shen qing) and newly wealthy from his technology venture funds. I also escorted Professor Jeffrey Sachs who looked really happy to be there.
The President of Bolivia moved about with a tight energy - much like someone who is ready to beat someone up - and he loved the press heading to the ropeline when everyone else avoided the calling journalists.
President Sarkozy came late(r). I smiled at him and he smiled back. He was surrounded by a large entourage of well-dressed aides and he looked comfortable with power. Someone told me he was rude when (later) he was asked to take a picture and complained about what the shambles the whole meeting was.
I met British PM Gordon Brown in the afternoon. He looked tired and had a lazy eye. He did not have a big entourage. I nodded at him and he said a sonorous "hello" to me.
All eyes (especially from the ladies) were on Prince Albert of Monaco. Being the natural sportsman he is, he skipped down a few steps of the stairs. Later he hung around the lobby making a phone call. I wonder who he was calling? Could it be a certain South African ex-swimmer lady-friend?
The President of Korea walked by stone-faced as did most other leaders like President Hortas of Timor Leste, President Yuchenko of Ukraine, President of Slovenia, President of Rwanda, President of Slovakia, PM Klaus of Czech Republic etc etc. Others were in deep conversation (or pretend to be) with one of their ministers like President Arias of Costa Rica, Javier Solanas the EU Commissioner for Foreign Affairs and Rasmussen the NATO Secretary General and ex-PM of Denmark.
On the other hand, the Foreign Minister of Mexico - resplendent in his beard was happy to go around with a plastic bag. Others just look a bit lost like the boyish new President of Madagascar and the Prime Minister of Greneda who was actually lost. I took him in the elevator to his lunch.
The Dutch [correction: Crown Prince] was friendly and full of bonhomie like a politician. There were a lot of other world leaders who I do not know - neither by sight or by name - mainly from Central Asia, Former Soviet/Yugoslav Republics and from Africa. For them, I just showed them into the holding room while trying hard to read their name tag without looking too obvious.
The Egyptian minister was friendly and stuck his hands out to shaking everybody's hands. The [correction: President of Iraq] bounded into the main hall despite my best attempts to steer him to the reception area for leaders. The Foreign Minister of Germany needed no attention, he was just happy doing his own thing.I met Penny Wong the Chinese-Australian Minister for Climate Change the way to the reception. She was accompanied by a pretty young Asian aide. Then they changed their minds and decided to wait for their PM. PM Kevin Rudd arrived with a sense of seriousness and substance that tend to accompany Australian PMs - as did PM Harper of Canada.
The new Japanese PM Hotayama was everywhere. I saw him three times. He looked intelligent, trim and intensely-collected. He reminds me a lot of a samurai or feudal lord of the olden days.
President Hu Jin Tao arrived with a HUGE delegation*. I tried to take care of Vice-Premier Wang Qi Shan but he already had someone with him. Vice PM Wang looked energetic and robust. He has a nice color about his face. Foreign Minister Yang Jie Chi followed looking somewhat ignored. (*Many of them I was not sure what their roles were; during the day they lingered about sitting on seats belonging to other delegations - I feel a bit embarassed for these tendencies to be the "Ugly Chinese")
Then there was a rush and President Obama and his entourage swept through. He was tall and graceful in his strides. But he seemed very preoccupied. His mind and his energies seemed to the elsewhere and his face looked a tad puffy as if he had a bad night's sleep. Quite ironically, he came across as someone more at home as an earnest intellectual rather than one seeking popularity or attention. Alone among the leaders who spoke, he acknowledged and shook hands with other people on the podium. It was no surprise as he was to have a first meeting with the Isrealis and Palestinians later that morning and with President Hu in the afternoon. Something was definately on Obama's mind. Hillary Clinton followed close by moving about professionally.
Later I also saw Al Gore who has a sparkle in his eyes - not the robot I last saw in Kuala Lumpur in 1998 - I guess his shoulder is light without officialdom (wu guan yi shen qing) and newly wealthy from his technology venture funds. I also escorted Professor Jeffrey Sachs who looked really happy to be there.
The President of Bolivia moved about with a tight energy - much like someone who is ready to beat someone up - and he loved the press heading to the ropeline when everyone else avoided the calling journalists.
President Sarkozy came late(r). I smiled at him and he smiled back. He was surrounded by a large entourage of well-dressed aides and he looked comfortable with power. Someone told me he was rude when (later) he was asked to take a picture and complained about what the shambles the whole meeting was.
I met British PM Gordon Brown in the afternoon. He looked tired and had a lazy eye. He did not have a big entourage. I nodded at him and he said a sonorous "hello" to me.
All eyes (especially from the ladies) were on Prince Albert of Monaco. Being the natural sportsman he is, he skipped down a few steps of the stairs. Later he hung around the lobby making a phone call. I wonder who he was calling? Could it be a certain South African ex-swimmer lady-friend?
The President of Korea walked by stone-faced as did most other leaders like President Hortas of Timor Leste, President Yuchenko of Ukraine, President of Slovenia, President of Rwanda, President of Slovakia, PM Klaus of Czech Republic etc etc. Others were in deep conversation (or pretend to be) with one of their ministers like President Arias of Costa Rica, Javier Solanas the EU Commissioner for Foreign Affairs and Rasmussen the NATO Secretary General and ex-PM of Denmark.
On the other hand, the Foreign Minister of Mexico - resplendent in his beard was happy to go around with a plastic bag. Others just look a bit lost like the boyish new President of Madagascar and the Prime Minister of Greneda who was actually lost. I took him in the elevator to his lunch.
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
Brunei Anecdotes on Tolerance
During my recent trip to Brunei, I made a heartening observation that mutual-respect and tolerence among races and religions are alive and well in Brunei. It made me feel hopeful and proud as a Bruneian.
It was the first day of Ramadhan - a public holiday - and as usual during that trip, I decided to pop by a nice little cafe where I can access their WiFi internet. The cafe was designed in such as way that much of its facade is opened to the public walkway (to accommodate smokers I presume) while the rest of it was enclosed behind glass and airconditioned.
Many years ago, may be 20 years ago, there was a municiple directive that during daylight hours in the month of Ramadhan all restaurants should be shuttered, bar for a small gap for non-Muslim/non-fasters to get in and out. It raised all kinds of heckles in private, but because this is Brunei, the protests were quiet and not overt. Gradually, the gaps got bigger and bigger, and soon the directive was either quietly shelved or simply ignored.
So it took the Bruneian in me about 2 minutes to realize that - hey - I was having a coffee out in the open in a cafe that is wide open to the public.
Later, I went into a local mall and same thing - the restaurants were widely open and so are the displays (and smell) of food by the aisle.
Open tolerance is (for now) the new norm. And I firmly think this is the way it should be.
Thanks to some clever entrepreneur, for the first time in my whole life, I encountered some "Hari Raya Mooncakes" for sale. It is not often that as with this year that Ramadhan ends on the 8th month in the Chinese calendar meaning the Mid-Autumn Festival falls on the 15th day of Hari Raya. All the better. No reason that only Malay kuih should be served during Hari Raya*. (For the non-Southeast Asian, the Hari Raya marks the end of the Muslim fasting month of Ramadhan, also called Eid-al-Fitri or Eid-Mubarak in some communities.)
Although it must be explained that in Brunei, Chinese food is now considered fairly mainstream for middle class Malays - especially, dim sum. Ever since a few pioneering restaurants began serving halal dim sum perhaps 15 years ago, a dim sum brunch on a Sunday has become a national past time for the Malay middle/professional elite classes.
Another lovely tradition - of open houses during Hari Raya - is still going strong. It is very common for non-Malay Bruneians to have a lot of Malay friends or even relatives. And so, Hari Raya celebrations for many people of all races consists of a moving feast of going from one open-house to another from morning to sometimes late at night. On the appointed days (usually from the 2nd day of Hari Raya onwards and especially on the first and second weekends thereafter) Bruneian Malay-Muslims would invite/welcome friends and colleagues to drop by their homes - present are usually not expected but it is expected for everyone to join in a fairly large hot buffet spread which is now considered de rigueur - which makes hari Raya extremely dangerous for the waistline. For the hosts, its a great honor having their friends visit and would sometimes be "slighted" if someone "skipped" their house.
Even the Cabinet Ministers would open their houses to anyone wanting to visit. The palace is usually opened to the public for 3 days and on their way out, everyone gets to shakehands with the Sultan and other members of the royal family.
My last anecdote about Brunei actually happenned almost 4 years ago, the morning itself of the day just as we were moving to New York. 4 hours before the flight, we got a traffic ticket for making a wrong turn. Pleading with the policeman was no use and we had to deal with the matter at the police HQ. When we got there, we ran into a police officer having a smoke outside the police station. He asked us what happenned and we explained. Without missing a beat, he advised us what to do.... (Now for many people, you might be able to "guess" what was to follow, but that was not it...) He told us, alright, just go in and look for the officer who enters the traffic tickets into the big book and all you have to do is to, " ... say sorry. Just tell him you are sorry and apologize and say you will never do it again." Off we went in and tried what was suggested and presto! he took the ticket from us and with a stern voice "OK, next time don't do that again." and simply tore up the ticket.
On that note, we left for New York thinking what a wonderful place Brunei (still) is.
It was the first day of Ramadhan - a public holiday - and as usual during that trip, I decided to pop by a nice little cafe where I can access their WiFi internet. The cafe was designed in such as way that much of its facade is opened to the public walkway (to accommodate smokers I presume) while the rest of it was enclosed behind glass and airconditioned.
Many years ago, may be 20 years ago, there was a municiple directive that during daylight hours in the month of Ramadhan all restaurants should be shuttered, bar for a small gap for non-Muslim/non-fasters to get in and out. It raised all kinds of heckles in private, but because this is Brunei, the protests were quiet and not overt. Gradually, the gaps got bigger and bigger, and soon the directive was either quietly shelved or simply ignored.
So it took the Bruneian in me about 2 minutes to realize that - hey - I was having a coffee out in the open in a cafe that is wide open to the public.
Later, I went into a local mall and same thing - the restaurants were widely open and so are the displays (and smell) of food by the aisle.
Open tolerance is (for now) the new norm. And I firmly think this is the way it should be.
Thanks to some clever entrepreneur, for the first time in my whole life, I encountered some "Hari Raya Mooncakes" for sale. It is not often that as with this year that Ramadhan ends on the 8th month in the Chinese calendar meaning the Mid-Autumn Festival falls on the 15th day of Hari Raya. All the better. No reason that only Malay kuih should be served during Hari Raya*. (For the non-Southeast Asian, the Hari Raya marks the end of the Muslim fasting month of Ramadhan, also called Eid-al-Fitri or Eid-Mubarak in some communities.)
Although it must be explained that in Brunei, Chinese food is now considered fairly mainstream for middle class Malays - especially, dim sum. Ever since a few pioneering restaurants began serving halal dim sum perhaps 15 years ago, a dim sum brunch on a Sunday has become a national past time for the Malay middle/professional elite classes.
Another lovely tradition - of open houses during Hari Raya - is still going strong. It is very common for non-Malay Bruneians to have a lot of Malay friends or even relatives. And so, Hari Raya celebrations for many people of all races consists of a moving feast of going from one open-house to another from morning to sometimes late at night. On the appointed days (usually from the 2nd day of Hari Raya onwards and especially on the first and second weekends thereafter) Bruneian Malay-Muslims would invite/welcome friends and colleagues to drop by their homes - present are usually not expected but it is expected for everyone to join in a fairly large hot buffet spread which is now considered de rigueur - which makes hari Raya extremely dangerous for the waistline. For the hosts, its a great honor having their friends visit and would sometimes be "slighted" if someone "skipped" their house.
Even the Cabinet Ministers would open their houses to anyone wanting to visit. The palace is usually opened to the public for 3 days and on their way out, everyone gets to shakehands with the Sultan and other members of the royal family.
My last anecdote about Brunei actually happenned almost 4 years ago, the morning itself of the day just as we were moving to New York. 4 hours before the flight, we got a traffic ticket for making a wrong turn. Pleading with the policeman was no use and we had to deal with the matter at the police HQ. When we got there, we ran into a police officer having a smoke outside the police station. He asked us what happenned and we explained. Without missing a beat, he advised us what to do.... (Now for many people, you might be able to "guess" what was to follow, but that was not it...) He told us, alright, just go in and look for the officer who enters the traffic tickets into the big book and all you have to do is to, " ... say sorry. Just tell him you are sorry and apologize and say you will never do it again." Off we went in and tried what was suggested and presto! he took the ticket from us and with a stern voice "OK, next time don't do that again." and simply tore up the ticket.
On that note, we left for New York thinking what a wonderful place Brunei (still) is.
Sunday, August 16, 2009
Unsolicited Advice for President Obama
[As sent to his White House email just 10 mins ago]
Sir, I have watched with a lot of interest - and more recently a great deal of dismay - about the efforts to reform America's health care system. I have lived many years overseas where no one had to deal with the sort of indignities Americans face with their healthcare, and yet Americans somehow feel that is normal or even boast about having the best health care in the world.
Sir, I have five advice for you to explain this to the 80% of Americans who has insurance.
First, call it what it is, the US healthcare system is a well-hidden tax that goes up every year. It is a tax that is collected by insurers in cohoots with doctors, on personal income, on the economics of small businesses and on the government (state and federal). It a tax that increases at the decision of insurance companies, without anyone voting for it other than the Board and Management of insurers. Nobody gets to object to how much they pay for health care insurance - they simply see their salary increases disappear without even knowing it, small businesses simply drop coverage to stay in business. Anyone who objects to this hidden tax is welcomed to pay for it with their lives, their family's lives and their wellbeing. Sir, I cannot think of any system that is less American than the current health care system.
Second, sir, you have to remind people who has been deciding on their coverage. If it is not acceptable for governments to decide who should get treated or what treatment should be offered, Americans have been putting up with having those decisions being made by faceless boards of accountants, lawyers and management of insurers. Surely, if anyone wants to talk about "death panels" - tell them they are already in front of them. The question is whether these corporate "death panels" ought to be regulated or have minimal standards or be replaced by independent experts not beholden to insurers.
Third, sir, you have to put US$1 Trillion purported price tag for reform into perspective with what's already signed up for under the status quo, i.e. insurance companies and doctors have already decided that in 10 years, health care should cost US$1T more every year. Health care reform will cost 10% of that but in return we have a shot at taming this cost. Not while the annual impact on the federal deficit will be US$500 bn a year every year and growing. You have to contrast that what the government i.e. tax payers, are already paying every year and emphasize how much the US$1 Trillion (over 10 years) is just a fraction of the expected INCREASE. US$1 Trillion is an abstract figure unless you contrast it to what premium increases under the status quo will mean on burdens for small business and for individuals. The annual cost of reform of US$300 a year for every American should be contrasted with the US$6500 a year they are currently paying and will work out to only 10% of the expected increase in annual health care costs in 10 years.
Fourth, sir, you need to explain this for small businesses. Everyone is talking about how reform may raise taxes and suffocate small businesses. You should remind everyone that health insurance bill is one of the largest expenses for small companies. And these costs are rising faster than inflation and faster than economic growth. You should explain how rising premiums is a tax increase that kills jobs.
Fifth, sir, you should hitch the wagon of reform closer to the successful and popular Medicare. Everytime anyone talks about the public option or government-run health care, they are trying to scare people with the unknown. Tie it to what we know, call it "Medicare for everyone" instead of the public option. Tell people the federal government has been taking care of grandma for the last 40 years.
Thank you for your attention and good luck,
Sir, I have watched with a lot of interest - and more recently a great deal of dismay - about the efforts to reform America's health care system. I have lived many years overseas where no one had to deal with the sort of indignities Americans face with their healthcare, and yet Americans somehow feel that is normal or even boast about having the best health care in the world.
Sir, I have five advice for you to explain this to the 80% of Americans who has insurance.
First, call it what it is, the US healthcare system is a well-hidden tax that goes up every year. It is a tax that is collected by insurers in cohoots with doctors, on personal income, on the economics of small businesses and on the government (state and federal). It a tax that increases at the decision of insurance companies, without anyone voting for it other than the Board and Management of insurers. Nobody gets to object to how much they pay for health care insurance - they simply see their salary increases disappear without even knowing it, small businesses simply drop coverage to stay in business. Anyone who objects to this hidden tax is welcomed to pay for it with their lives, their family's lives and their wellbeing. Sir, I cannot think of any system that is less American than the current health care system.
Second, sir, you have to remind people who has been deciding on their coverage. If it is not acceptable for governments to decide who should get treated or what treatment should be offered, Americans have been putting up with having those decisions being made by faceless boards of accountants, lawyers and management of insurers. Surely, if anyone wants to talk about "death panels" - tell them they are already in front of them. The question is whether these corporate "death panels" ought to be regulated or have minimal standards or be replaced by independent experts not beholden to insurers.
Third, sir, you have to put US$1 Trillion purported price tag for reform into perspective with what's already signed up for under the status quo, i.e. insurance companies and doctors have already decided that in 10 years, health care should cost US$1T more every year. Health care reform will cost 10% of that but in return we have a shot at taming this cost. Not while the annual impact on the federal deficit will be US$500 bn a year every year and growing. You have to contrast that what the government i.e. tax payers, are already paying every year and emphasize how much the US$1 Trillion (over 10 years) is just a fraction of the expected INCREASE. US$1 Trillion is an abstract figure unless you contrast it to what premium increases under the status quo will mean on burdens for small business and for individuals. The annual cost of reform of US$300 a year for every American should be contrasted with the US$6500 a year they are currently paying and will work out to only 10% of the expected increase in annual health care costs in 10 years.
Fourth, sir, you need to explain this for small businesses. Everyone is talking about how reform may raise taxes and suffocate small businesses. You should remind everyone that health insurance bill is one of the largest expenses for small companies. And these costs are rising faster than inflation and faster than economic growth. You should explain how rising premiums is a tax increase that kills jobs.
Fifth, sir, you should hitch the wagon of reform closer to the successful and popular Medicare. Everytime anyone talks about the public option or government-run health care, they are trying to scare people with the unknown. Tie it to what we know, call it "Medicare for everyone" instead of the public option. Tell people the federal government has been taking care of grandma for the last 40 years.
Thank you for your attention and good luck,
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
London or New York: Which do you prefer?
London or New York: which one do you prefer? That is a question for which you can find equally passionate proponents on each side.
Now that I have had the opportunity to live roughly three-years in both London and in New York, I thought I should venture to compare them head-to-head on some carefully selected – and very exacting - indicators:
1. Better looking city: London
2. Better looking people: New York, definitely and by a long way. The gap is quite large for women, even larger for children and enormous for men.
3. Better coffee: London. They were both doing poorly not too long ago, but now the brewed coffee in London’s Café Nero and Costa beats the drip coffees from New York’s ubiquitous Starbucks.
4. Better airport: London. It’s a case of the worst-vs-the-even-worst: not even the mess that is Healthrow-Gatwick-Stansted-City combination can beats New York’s dreadful JFK-LaGuardia-Newark.
5. More people: New York. Its a fact - being the 5th most populous city in the world while London lies in 25th place. Plus New York definately feels big.
6. More diverse population (in terms of variety): London, with large congregations of all European nationalities, South Asian, Middle-eastern and African.
7. More diverse population (in terms of proportion of minorities): New York, in terms of sheer numbers of Hispanics, Blacks, Eastern Europeans, East Asians from everywhere in the Pacific Rim and (to a lesser extent than London) South Asians and Africans.
8. Better air: New York. Hard to believe … but true.
9. Closer to nature: New York. The city is bathed in all directions by the Hudson River, the Long Island estuary and the Atlantic Ocean. In Manhattan, one can smell the sea and watch the waves. Central Park is as close to nature as one can be in the middle of a metropolis but real unspoiled nature is only minutes away. London has a lot of parklands but it takes longer to be “out” and even then, the “country” is largely nature with huge doses of human-activity.
10. Better parks: London. London has more parks although both has their share of unremarkable ones. Other than Central Park, Riverside Park and Prospect Park, no other New York parks could hold its own again London's old and matured parklands and commons. One to one, though, Central Park beats them all.
11. Safer (from real criminals): London. Statistically London is safer but more evenly spreadout outside Central London. Crime is more ghettorised in New York so it is easier to avoid if one know where to avoid.
12. Safer (from petty disturbances, affray and disorder): New York. Due to heavier policing and a less-boozy culture, the loutish drunken behavior, petty vandalism and fisticuffs that takes place inevitably each weekend in London is quite rare in New York.
13. More old-fashioned: New York. Long time New Yorkers hold on to a romantic view of the past. The city is new(er) but the people have a respect for old-fashioned ways and, for many, remnants of their Mid-Western roots. In general, Americans still want to behave "nicely".
14. More *bling* glamorous: London. It is more into all things flashy, trendy and new although the city is physically older. In London, having a good time means dressing up getting drunk ... and preferably doesn't stop there. In New York, it can also mean dress down, get comfortable and chill-out.
15. Better weather (summer): London. On any dry sunny day in June or July.
16. Better weather (winter): New York. On a cold but crispy, dry and sunny day in January.
17. Better newspaper: New York. Hands down, the New York Times trumps what is left of the proud London broadsheets which have gone silly and downmarket. The Financial Times still beats the Wall Street Journal but the latter has definately deteriorated. The British tabloids beat New York tabloids for entertainment-value – because they have mostly stopped being about news – which makes for a far more depressing read.
18. Less poverty: London. Both cities have a huge range of income groups but the poor, homeless, destitute or new migrants are way more visible in New York. In London, the living standard for the lower income groups and the urban working class is better supported by the Government.
19. Wealthier (imported): London. Nothing boosts the high-end more than having Middle-Eastern money in the summer and Russian money in the winter.
20. Wealthier (self-generated): New York. Stripped of the extremes in wealth and poverty, the average New Yorker is probably better off than the average Londoner. New York simply has a larger body of the professional, managerial, entrepreneurial and creative classes.
21. Better food: London. Better value for money and more “into” food than New Yorkers. New York probably has better middle-range places than London but London gives more bang-for-the-buck.
22. Better Chinatown: New York. By far 2 of the largest Chinatowns in the Western world are in Manhattan and Queens. London's has grown too and it is still more upmarket and "Hong Kong". New York's on the otherhand is square
23. Better supermarkets: London. Its hard to beat the “nation of shop keepers” who has gone on to perfect the art of the supermarket (Tesco) and especially take-away food (M&S). London has better quality and value too.
24. Better shopping: New York. I have been advised as much by “experts” that in terms of range and value New York is heads and shoulders ahead. There is a caveat that one needs to “know” where to find the best stuff for the best prices. In both places, tourists get ripped off.
25. More entrepreneurial: New York. Definitely. There are more small and medium-size businesses and self-employed people in New York, which are apparent
26. More corporate friendly: London. A bigger proportion of businesses and services are corporate-owned-and-run. The London economy is focused on big business. New York on the other hand balances big global corporations with a strong and vibrant core of smaller businesses, entrepreneurs and the self-employed expert.
27. More quirky: New York. Although the British may be better known for eccentricity, New Yorkers are the quintessential individualist and non-conformist they make no apology – in fact, it’s a matter of pride – to be a little strange.
28. More tolerant: New York. Diversity is more lived than as a slogan. No one has yet to ask me casually or otherwise about what is my race. In London, I felt one can hear more racial references.
29. More technologically advanced: London. The use of technology in public services, transportation ("Oyster card vs Metrocard") and the mobile/cellular system is more advanced.
30. Better infrastructure: London – by far. The “Tube” is cleaner and more attractive than New York’s subway (although the trains are better by comparison). New York's are among the worse in the developed world - and overuse is one of the reasons.
31. Cleaner: London. By virtue of poor design – such as not having backstreets for putting the rubbish out of sight – and sheer population density, New York cannot keep itself anywhere near pristine and clean.
32. Smarter people: New York. London may, in fact, be smarter but the British tendency is to play down on the smarts. New York is the opposite, where people try a bit too hard to be intellectual. London has more and larger institutions of higher learning than New York (even counting Princeton which actually lies in New Jersey). But New York benefited from being the intellectual capital of North America and a magnet for some of the best and brightest from the Jewish Diaspora, Eastern Europe and East Asia.
33. Better public services: London. It benefit from being a national capital and the investment (and attention) from having national-politicians who would actually vote the money.
34. More child friendly: New York - hands-down. There are 20 playgrounds of various sizes and features just within Central Park in the middle of Manhattan. One would be hard-pressed to find any in Central London. Going with children to a restaurant in New York is usually a non-event. In London, children are still a bit of an anomaly.
35. Better scene/vibe: New York. It’s hard to beat the happy and good-natured vibrancy of a crowd of young New Yorkers right after work.
36. Better attitude (of people): New York. The energy in New York is often one of purposefulness but tampered by a wonderful (but often well-hidden until needed) sense of common courtesy and decency towards strangers. The archtypical gruff and rude New Yorker is actually not the norm.
37. Better for sightseeing: London. The sheer amount of history and authenticity of attractions is not anything the new world is capable for matching.
38. More creative: New York. The place is totally basked in art and creativity. In New York, to be revered one has to be either wealthy, successful, good looking .... or an artist. The downside is that any place with more art is inevitably more messy and less-predictable.
39. Better cultural environment: London. The number and the quality of cultural institutions – courtesy of the pillage and achievements of the British Empire – are second to none. New York is scores by trying harder - and often succeeding especially in the performance arts) – and otherwise made up by being more accessible and meaningful for the public.
40. Better accessibility to the rest of the world: London. London is almost at the center of the world's population centers. It is almost equidistant from Los Angeles, Cape Town, Buenos Aires, as well as Tokyo/Shanghai. If one were to split the world into two halves: people who live to the east of Penang Island (Malaysia) would tend to look towards the US/New York as the reference point while those living west of Penang would tend to look towards London. Of course, is that New York ended up taking the Pacific Ocean while London takes the whole of Africa and most of the Eurasian landmass.
Now that I have had the opportunity to live roughly three-years in both London and in New York, I thought I should venture to compare them head-to-head on some carefully selected – and very exacting - indicators:
1. Better looking city: London
2. Better looking people: New York, definitely and by a long way. The gap is quite large for women, even larger for children and enormous for men.
3. Better coffee: London. They were both doing poorly not too long ago, but now the brewed coffee in London’s Café Nero and Costa beats the drip coffees from New York’s ubiquitous Starbucks.
4. Better airport: London. It’s a case of the worst-vs-the-even-worst: not even the mess that is Healthrow-Gatwick-Stansted-City combination can beats New York’s dreadful JFK-LaGuardia-Newark.
5. More people: New York. Its a fact - being the 5th most populous city in the world while London lies in 25th place. Plus New York definately feels big.
6. More diverse population (in terms of variety): London, with large congregations of all European nationalities, South Asian, Middle-eastern and African.
7. More diverse population (in terms of proportion of minorities): New York, in terms of sheer numbers of Hispanics, Blacks, Eastern Europeans, East Asians from everywhere in the Pacific Rim and (to a lesser extent than London) South Asians and Africans.
8. Better air: New York. Hard to believe … but true.
9. Closer to nature: New York. The city is bathed in all directions by the Hudson River, the Long Island estuary and the Atlantic Ocean. In Manhattan, one can smell the sea and watch the waves. Central Park is as close to nature as one can be in the middle of a metropolis but real unspoiled nature is only minutes away. London has a lot of parklands but it takes longer to be “out” and even then, the “country” is largely nature with huge doses of human-activity.
10. Better parks: London. London has more parks although both has their share of unremarkable ones. Other than Central Park, Riverside Park and Prospect Park, no other New York parks could hold its own again London's old and matured parklands and commons. One to one, though, Central Park beats them all.
11. Safer (from real criminals): London. Statistically London is safer but more evenly spreadout outside Central London. Crime is more ghettorised in New York so it is easier to avoid if one know where to avoid.
12. Safer (from petty disturbances, affray and disorder): New York. Due to heavier policing and a less-boozy culture, the loutish drunken behavior, petty vandalism and fisticuffs that takes place inevitably each weekend in London is quite rare in New York.
13. More old-fashioned: New York. Long time New Yorkers hold on to a romantic view of the past. The city is new(er) but the people have a respect for old-fashioned ways and, for many, remnants of their Mid-Western roots. In general, Americans still want to behave "nicely".
14. More *bling* glamorous: London. It is more into all things flashy, trendy and new although the city is physically older. In London, having a good time means dressing up getting drunk ... and preferably doesn't stop there. In New York, it can also mean dress down, get comfortable and chill-out.
15. Better weather (summer): London. On any dry sunny day in June or July.
16. Better weather (winter): New York. On a cold but crispy, dry and sunny day in January.
17. Better newspaper: New York. Hands down, the New York Times trumps what is left of the proud London broadsheets which have gone silly and downmarket. The Financial Times still beats the Wall Street Journal but the latter has definately deteriorated. The British tabloids beat New York tabloids for entertainment-value – because they have mostly stopped being about news – which makes for a far more depressing read.
18. Less poverty: London. Both cities have a huge range of income groups but the poor, homeless, destitute or new migrants are way more visible in New York. In London, the living standard for the lower income groups and the urban working class is better supported by the Government.
19. Wealthier (imported): London. Nothing boosts the high-end more than having Middle-Eastern money in the summer and Russian money in the winter.
20. Wealthier (self-generated): New York. Stripped of the extremes in wealth and poverty, the average New Yorker is probably better off than the average Londoner. New York simply has a larger body of the professional, managerial, entrepreneurial and creative classes.
21. Better food: London. Better value for money and more “into” food than New Yorkers. New York probably has better middle-range places than London but London gives more bang-for-the-buck.
22. Better Chinatown: New York. By far 2 of the largest Chinatowns in the Western world are in Manhattan and Queens. London's has grown too and it is still more upmarket and "Hong Kong". New York's on the otherhand is square
23. Better supermarkets: London. Its hard to beat the “nation of shop keepers” who has gone on to perfect the art of the supermarket (Tesco) and especially take-away food (M&S). London has better quality and value too.
24. Better shopping: New York. I have been advised as much by “experts” that in terms of range and value New York is heads and shoulders ahead. There is a caveat that one needs to “know” where to find the best stuff for the best prices. In both places, tourists get ripped off.
25. More entrepreneurial: New York. Definitely. There are more small and medium-size businesses and self-employed people in New York, which are apparent
26. More corporate friendly: London. A bigger proportion of businesses and services are corporate-owned-and-run. The London economy is focused on big business. New York on the other hand balances big global corporations with a strong and vibrant core of smaller businesses, entrepreneurs and the self-employed expert.
27. More quirky: New York. Although the British may be better known for eccentricity, New Yorkers are the quintessential individualist and non-conformist they make no apology – in fact, it’s a matter of pride – to be a little strange.
28. More tolerant: New York. Diversity is more lived than as a slogan. No one has yet to ask me casually or otherwise about what is my race. In London, I felt one can hear more racial references.
29. More technologically advanced: London. The use of technology in public services, transportation ("Oyster card vs Metrocard") and the mobile/cellular system is more advanced.
30. Better infrastructure: London – by far. The “Tube” is cleaner and more attractive than New York’s subway (although the trains are better by comparison). New York's are among the worse in the developed world - and overuse is one of the reasons.
31. Cleaner: London. By virtue of poor design – such as not having backstreets for putting the rubbish out of sight – and sheer population density, New York cannot keep itself anywhere near pristine and clean.
32. Smarter people: New York. London may, in fact, be smarter but the British tendency is to play down on the smarts. New York is the opposite, where people try a bit too hard to be intellectual. London has more and larger institutions of higher learning than New York (even counting Princeton which actually lies in New Jersey). But New York benefited from being the intellectual capital of North America and a magnet for some of the best and brightest from the Jewish Diaspora, Eastern Europe and East Asia.
33. Better public services: London. It benefit from being a national capital and the investment (and attention) from having national-politicians who would actually vote the money.
34. More child friendly: New York - hands-down. There are 20 playgrounds of various sizes and features just within Central Park in the middle of Manhattan. One would be hard-pressed to find any in Central London. Going with children to a restaurant in New York is usually a non-event. In London, children are still a bit of an anomaly.
35. Better scene/vibe: New York. It’s hard to beat the happy and good-natured vibrancy of a crowd of young New Yorkers right after work.
36. Better attitude (of people): New York. The energy in New York is often one of purposefulness but tampered by a wonderful (but often well-hidden until needed) sense of common courtesy and decency towards strangers. The archtypical gruff and rude New Yorker is actually not the norm.
37. Better for sightseeing: London. The sheer amount of history and authenticity of attractions is not anything the new world is capable for matching.
38. More creative: New York. The place is totally basked in art and creativity. In New York, to be revered one has to be either wealthy, successful, good looking .... or an artist. The downside is that any place with more art is inevitably more messy and less-predictable.
39. Better cultural environment: London. The number and the quality of cultural institutions – courtesy of the pillage and achievements of the British Empire – are second to none. New York is scores by trying harder - and often succeeding especially in the performance arts) – and otherwise made up by being more accessible and meaningful for the public.
40. Better accessibility to the rest of the world: London. London is almost at the center of the world's population centers. It is almost equidistant from Los Angeles, Cape Town, Buenos Aires, as well as Tokyo/Shanghai. If one were to split the world into two halves: people who live to the east of Penang Island (Malaysia) would tend to look towards the US/New York as the reference point while those living west of Penang would tend to look towards London. Of course, is that New York ended up taking the Pacific Ocean while London takes the whole of Africa and most of the Eurasian landmass.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)