[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,
Sunday, August 16, 2009
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.
Friday, July 31, 2009
A European Summer: (4) Italian Haven
1/7 - Positano from the sea
2/7 - Positano: Amzing view from my balcony
2/7 Positano: Same view at night
2/7 - Ravello: Balcony between the sea and the sky
Some places are better seen, not written about. Italy's Amalfi Coast is among them, where kilometer high mountains plunge into the deep dark Mediterranean sea, even as sprinkles of human settlement clung to their verdant rocky sides. Short buses - orange or blue - twist and turn on the edge of the hillsides, by drivers who knew every inch of the Amalfi Drive which hid a new heavenly view with every turn. The trees are lemons and olives. Bouganvilleas are turned into purple and green arches, roofs and coverings of walls. Picture books at the hotel told of poverty and great deprivation only half a century ago. Men go about life in white shorts, pink shirts and straw hats. You have coffee standing up with a brioche to go. Even as the police band decides to march down the street. On the beach, white smooth pebbles get washed in crystal clear water. Boats crisscrossed the mirror-like seas to Capri and Sorrento, even as we squeezed lemons on freshly fried calamaris. The town slowly went into a warm glow as the sky darkens. The bells toil and fireworks burst forth from Montepetuso in celebration of the Madonna. The air smelled of the sea when you wake up.
Saturday, July 25, 2009
Thoughts from A European Summer (3) - The Romans
Something I was appreciate most from this trip, was the opportunity to appreciate - and with greater understanding - the outstanding achievements of the ancient Greek and Roman civilizations. For some fortuitous reason, we kept encountering the antiquities during the course of our trip: in Pompeii, Naples, Northumbria and at the British Museum. However, those encounters would not have meant as much but for my daughter's interest in history and her voracious appetite for books on the ancient Greeks, Romans and Egyptians, which meant I have also gained some knowledge which made me better appreciate what I saw.
All the time, my thought turned to China. One could only wonder what treasures have been lost forever - or is waiting to be discovered - from comparable era of the Chinese civilization which I believe must be no less impressive. Just look at the Great Wall. The main difference can perhaps be summed up in one word: stone. Things made from stone withstood the test of time better than finer materials like wood, paper and cloth.
The next encounter was not far away, beneath the streets of Naples. We had taken a tour of subterranean Naples which brought us (100 feet below ground) to witness an amazing water system which was built first by the Greek and later expanded by the Romans. The ancients had excavated by hand out of rocks a whole system of underground acqueducts, cisterns and well-points. The aqueducts brought water from a source 170 kms away but as it entered the city, everything was moved underground where the water moved around in man-made underground "rivers" - tunnels up to 10 feet wide and 30 feet high - into a series of larger caverns where the water was either stored or can be picked up from well-points above the ground (one can see tubes leading from the ceiling to ground level. Some of the cisterns are private so can be accessed only from within a private compound and some are public wells. (Picture from inside a cistern below, the whole space hacked and burrowed from solid rock). The system worked so well that it was in continuous use to supply water to Naples for 23 Centuries, until 1888 when it was contaminated during a cholera outbreak. 2300 years! One could still see the wall markings chip marks made by the tools of ancient slaves who hacked away the stones blow by blow, a testimony of immense inhuman suffering amidst a magnificent work of ancient engineering and ingenuity.
In Naples, the past is never far away. We visited an apartment, where in 1999 (not too long ago) some archeologists noticed that the building (which is a mere 400 years old) has an oddly-slightly curved wall on one side. When they knocked on the door and asked to look around inside, they found the tell-tale shape of a Roman arch in the living room. They went into the basement - then used as a garage for motorscooters - where they found more arches. Those arches have been established to be part of the largest Roman theatre in the area - so magnificent that Emperor Nero performed there - and which later on, in the 17th century, people built on top of the ruins, making use of the still-standing pillars and foundations.
In the basement where we saw the remnants of the theatre, we noticed a perculiar pattern of brickwork (something we also saw in Pompeii) where the bricks were laid on their corners - at a 45 degree angle - such that they form the shape of diamonds. Upon asking, it turned out that those were walls build using Roman "seismic" or anti-earthquake technology! (Some of those brick arrangements can be seen above the arch in the picture of Pompeii's "small" theatre above) Apparently, the Romans learnt that walls built that way could withstand the impact of an earthquake. No wonder, so much of Pompeii had survived a strong earthquake just a few years before the volcanic eruption buried the town.
We saw more evidence of Roman civilization at the Naples Museum the next day. The highlights were the relics from Pompeii and other ruins from the area, and the Farnese collection of Roman sculptures. One rarely sees such wonderful works of great artistic merit notwithstanding that they were 2000 years old. From the excavations in Pompeii and Herculaneum, we saw very finely detailed wall paintings done in exquisitely beautiful hand by the artists. There were decorative objects, I was most impressed by a glazed glass bowl with different layers of glass from which the artist etched relief drawings from mythology.
There were great numbers of statues, among them many enormous (20 foot high) masterpieces from the Baths of Caricalla. Many of the status are Roman copies of (even more ancient) Greek status that are long lost. Through them, we know what Homer the Greek Poet and Plato the Socrates actually looked like - well, as well as the artists could make it anycase. In fact, among the great numbers of mosaics taken from private villas that have been excavated - the most famous of which is a large mosaic, made from perhaps 1m pieces of finely crafted stones, (pictured left), depicting Alexander the Great's defeat of Persian King Xerxes, which remained the only likeness we know of Alexander the Great. All the other figures, even the horses, showed great fluidity of movement and distinct expressions and personality.
We would eventually get to see more of them (and even more ancient examples) with the Partheneon Marbles in the British Museum. On the debate, I happen to believe that certain objects are human patrimony, such that it should no longer "belong" to any nation or government, as much as no one should be allowed to (mis)treat them in ways that rights of ownership would imply. Imagine the Red Guards deciding to blow up the Great Wall or take down the Forbidden City to use the wood, or level Huangshan to build a steel mill, or do what the Taliban did to the Leshan Buddha. Having said that, the British Museum has equally no rights to keep it there. Unless its wellbeing is threatened, relics should belong to its natural place where the world can see it where it was intended.
All the time, my thought turned to China. One could only wonder what treasures have been lost forever - or is waiting to be discovered - from comparable era of the Chinese civilization which I believe must be no less impressive. Just look at the Great Wall. The main difference can perhaps be summed up in one word: stone. Things made from stone withstood the test of time better than finer materials like wood, paper and cloth.
Looking at evidence of human affairs and creation from so long ago, I was reminded that all human concerns and undertakings are mere scratches on the surface of history.
As we landed in Naples, the ominous outlines of Mt. Versuvius loomed clearly alongside the Bay of Naples. It was the same sight that greeted Greek mariners who came to establish their colonies, ancient Romans who came for leisure and for escape from public life in Rome (or fresh from slaughtering some Gothic tribes or putting the torch on the Temple of Jeruselem) or which greeted 18th century European grand tourists. Even as a young and turbulent mountain, it was a constant relative to the rise and fall of human society and civilization all around it.
Even though it was buried 2000 years ago, the ruins of Pompeii puts much of modern-day artistry, town planning and development (especially in the ugly urban sprawl around it today) to shame. And it was humbling to realise that it was already a very old town (300 years old) even when it was destroyed in AD 79. And Pompeii was also much larger than I had imagined. It easily measured 2km long and just as wide. Many of the ruins are not even excavated yet. But what can already be seen are highly impressive: the road system (complete with pedestrian crossings and track-marks from ancient chariots and carraiges), the public utlilties (water system etc.), the shopping area (long stretches of fast food shops as evident from "countertops" with holes for bowls and jars to display the food), the public forum, the various temples to different gods, numerous brothels (locked when visited: but apparently with interesting "menus" for pleasure decorated on the walls), numerous theatres, a stadium and above all, the many private houses - some of which have been partly restored to display beautiful and well-preserved mosaic works and wall paintings. What is surprising is that so much of that were left at the ruins and exposed to the elements; quite apparently, those are not the best stuff which have been taken away for storage in museums.
Even though it was buried 2000 years ago, the ruins of Pompeii puts much of modern-day artistry, town planning and development (especially in the ugly urban sprawl around it today) to shame. And it was humbling to realise that it was already a very old town (300 years old) even when it was destroyed in AD 79. And Pompeii was also much larger than I had imagined. It easily measured 2km long and just as wide. Many of the ruins are not even excavated yet. But what can already be seen are highly impressive: the road system (complete with pedestrian crossings and track-marks from ancient chariots and carraiges), the public utlilties (water system etc.), the shopping area (long stretches of fast food shops as evident from "countertops" with holes for bowls and jars to display the food), the public forum, the various temples to different gods, numerous brothels (locked when visited: but apparently with interesting "menus" for pleasure decorated on the walls), numerous theatres, a stadium and above all, the many private houses - some of which have been partly restored to display beautiful and well-preserved mosaic works and wall paintings. What is surprising is that so much of that were left at the ruins and exposed to the elements; quite apparently, those are not the best stuff which have been taken away for storage in museums.
The next encounter was not far away, beneath the streets of Naples. We had taken a tour of subterranean Naples which brought us (100 feet below ground) to witness an amazing water system which was built first by the Greek and later expanded by the Romans. The ancients had excavated by hand out of rocks a whole system of underground acqueducts, cisterns and well-points. The aqueducts brought water from a source 170 kms away but as it entered the city, everything was moved underground where the water moved around in man-made underground "rivers" - tunnels up to 10 feet wide and 30 feet high - into a series of larger caverns where the water was either stored or can be picked up from well-points above the ground (one can see tubes leading from the ceiling to ground level. Some of the cisterns are private so can be accessed only from within a private compound and some are public wells. (Picture from inside a cistern below, the whole space hacked and burrowed from solid rock). The system worked so well that it was in continuous use to supply water to Naples for 23 Centuries, until 1888 when it was contaminated during a cholera outbreak. 2300 years! One could still see the wall markings chip marks made by the tools of ancient slaves who hacked away the stones blow by blow, a testimony of immense inhuman suffering amidst a magnificent work of ancient engineering and ingenuity. 
In Naples, the past is never far away. We visited an apartment, where in 1999 (not too long ago) some archeologists noticed that the building (which is a mere 400 years old) has an oddly-slightly curved wall on one side. When they knocked on the door and asked to look around inside, they found the tell-tale shape of a Roman arch in the living room. They went into the basement - then used as a garage for motorscooters - where they found more arches. Those arches have been established to be part of the largest Roman theatre in the area - so magnificent that Emperor Nero performed there - and which later on, in the 17th century, people built on top of the ruins, making use of the still-standing pillars and foundations.In the basement where we saw the remnants of the theatre, we noticed a perculiar pattern of brickwork (something we also saw in Pompeii) where the bricks were laid on their corners - at a 45 degree angle - such that they form the shape of diamonds. Upon asking, it turned out that those were walls build using Roman "seismic" or anti-earthquake technology! (Some of those brick arrangements can be seen above the arch in the picture of Pompeii's "small" theatre above) Apparently, the Romans learnt that walls built that way could withstand the impact of an earthquake. No wonder, so much of Pompeii had survived a strong earthquake just a few years before the volcanic eruption buried the town.
We saw more evidence of Roman civilization at the Naples Museum the next day. The highlights were the relics from Pompeii and other ruins from the area, and the Farnese collection of Roman sculptures. One rarely sees such wonderful works of great artistic merit notwithstanding that they were 2000 years old. From the excavations in Pompeii and Herculaneum, we saw very finely detailed wall paintings done in exquisitely beautiful hand by the artists. There were decorative objects, I was most impressed by a glazed glass bowl with different layers of glass from which the artist etched relief drawings from mythology.
There were great numbers of statues, among them many enormous (20 foot high) masterpieces from the Baths of Caricalla. Many of the status are Roman copies of (even more ancient) Greek status that are long lost. Through them, we know what Homer the Greek Poet and Plato the Socrates actually looked like - well, as well as the artists could make it anycase. In fact, among the great numbers of mosaics taken from private villas that have been excavated - the most famous of which is a large mosaic, made from perhaps 1m pieces of finely crafted stones, (pictured left), depicting Alexander the Great's defeat of Persian King Xerxes, which remained the only likeness we know of Alexander the Great. All the other figures, even the horses, showed great fluidity of movement and distinct expressions and personality.Though made of stone or bronze, the standard of artistry of the sculptures is so outstanding that one feels the energy/spirit of the figure represented; and the lightness, beauty and balance of the composition; and forgetting the denseness of the materials used. (Pictured below, a massive sculpture originally from the Bath of Caricalla)
We would eventually get to see more of them (and even more ancient examples) with the Partheneon Marbles in the British Museum. On the debate, I happen to believe that certain objects are human patrimony, such that it should no longer "belong" to any nation or government, as much as no one should be allowed to (mis)treat them in ways that rights of ownership would imply. Imagine the Red Guards deciding to blow up the Great Wall or take down the Forbidden City to use the wood, or level Huangshan to build a steel mill, or do what the Taliban did to the Leshan Buddha. Having said that, the British Museum has equally no rights to keep it there. Unless its wellbeing is threatened, relics should belong to its natural place where the world can see it where it was intended. Fast forward to the northern borders. A thousand miles away from Italy, we were at the northern boundaries of the Roman Empire in Northumbria and Hadrian's Wall or the Roman Great Wall. 
It ran only for about 100 miles with a garrison fort at every mile and 2 watch towers in between each garrison. It is perhaps what the original Qin Dynasty great wall was like, made of piled stone approximately 8-10 feet high plus an outer defensive ditch, and greatly utilizing the natural contours of the land to best benefit. It was the outer reaches of an immense empire that is linked militarily, administratively, economically and culturally from the windswept hill tops of Northern England to Mother-Rome; and from there another thousand miles south to Aswan in Egypt, a thousand miles West to Spain and Morocco, a thousand miles east to present day Iraq. There I felt that I had come to realised what the immensity of empire must have felt like to the citizens of Rome or Qin or Persia: it must have felt like one is has the power and responsibilities over all of the civilized world.
Thursday, July 23, 2009
Justice for Teoh Beng Hock
Justice must be done and be seen to be done. Malaysia deserves no less.
There are time and place for righteous outrage, this is one of them. Tyranny does not happen simply because of tyrants, it happen when citizens turns a blind-eye to injustice, feel too embarassed to stand-up for one's brethren or cynically dismiss "politics" as somebody else's business. Tyranny feeds on neglect and indifference. Now is not to time to keep feeding it.
Nothing happenned overnight, these are the consequences to decades of corruption that has been feeding on public indifference and "not wanting to cause trouble". Notice the warnings not to "politicise" his death, as if his political affiliations made him less Malaysian and less worthy of protection and justice. I reject that. Politics is a civic duty of each and every citizen and justice is a dignity that fellow human beings safeguard for one another. Malaysians must stand up for the kind of nation they deserve otherwise it is no one's fault but their own.
The Malaysian-in-the-streets have been putting up with corruption, abuse of power, injustice, unfairness, lies and intimidation. ALL of us are Teoh Beng Hock because if things does not change anyone can be Teoh Beng Hock.
I am reminded of Dr. Martin Luther King who once said that "the arc of the moral universe is long but it bends towards justice. It bends towards justice, but here is the thing: it does not bend on its own. It bends because each of us in our own ways put our hand on that arc and we bend it in the direction of justice...."
I welcome suggestions of legal and practical ways how we can all put our hands together to bend that arc to justice.
My condolences to his family, friends and compatriots.
There are time and place for righteous outrage, this is one of them. Tyranny does not happen simply because of tyrants, it happen when citizens turns a blind-eye to injustice, feel too embarassed to stand-up for one's brethren or cynically dismiss "politics" as somebody else's business. Tyranny feeds on neglect and indifference. Now is not to time to keep feeding it.
Nothing happenned overnight, these are the consequences to decades of corruption that has been feeding on public indifference and "not wanting to cause trouble". Notice the warnings not to "politicise" his death, as if his political affiliations made him less Malaysian and less worthy of protection and justice. I reject that. Politics is a civic duty of each and every citizen and justice is a dignity that fellow human beings safeguard for one another. Malaysians must stand up for the kind of nation they deserve otherwise it is no one's fault but their own.
The Malaysian-in-the-streets have been putting up with corruption, abuse of power, injustice, unfairness, lies and intimidation. ALL of us are Teoh Beng Hock because if things does not change anyone can be Teoh Beng Hock.
I am reminded of Dr. Martin Luther King who once said that "the arc of the moral universe is long but it bends towards justice. It bends towards justice, but here is the thing: it does not bend on its own. It bends because each of us in our own ways put our hand on that arc and we bend it in the direction of justice...."
I welcome suggestions of legal and practical ways how we can all put our hands together to bend that arc to justice.
My condolences to his family, friends and compatriots.
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
Martyr Teoh Beng Hock
If one is found plunge to death following 10 hours of questioning by Malaysia Anti-Corruption Commission on the rooftop of a building right next to the Commission's office with fragment of the Commission's window found near the body, please tell me what is the reasonable inference?
I mourn the tragic death of a 30 years old man, Martyr Teoh Beng Hock and extend my condolence to his fiancee and his family members.
Teoh's death shall not be in vain. Justice for Teoh and justice for Malaysia!
I mourn the tragic death of a 30 years old man, Martyr Teoh Beng Hock and extend my condolence to his fiancee and his family members.
Teoh's death shall not be in vain. Justice for Teoh and justice for Malaysia!
Friday, July 17, 2009
Throughs from a European Summer: (2) World City?
Let me expand on my thoughts about the Arab world in Lond0n.
Although Central London have always been a favourite destination for the Arabic world especially during the summer, I could not recall ever seeing so many in London. My vantage point, staying with a relative of ours right in the middle of Mayfair did little to help with a fair and impartial view. Mayfair is, of course, a favourite location as the London base for Arab princes, embassies and other government outposts. From my daily walks, I could see large presence especially from the Qataris, Saudis. The other concentration in the Edgware Road area are mostly middle-class Arabs from Lebanon and from elsewhere in the Levant.
Last Sunday, while I was out jogging in Hyde Park, I could see that at least half the people out-and-about in the park are of Arabic origin: groups of men, women, children, whole families of Gulf Arabs enjoying strolls, at play or sitting down under a tree for a picnic. I could not help but notice how relaxed and happy they looked. Perhaps they come to London to feel free - from the governments, extended family, religious authorities and other nosey-parkers - and for a chance to be themselves.
The same can probably be said for the wealthy from Russia, Central Asia and from the Indian Subcontinent. London may no longer be the center of the British Empire, but it has obviously become the favourite external base (and second homes) for wealth from large parts of the world. Aside from being a welcoming and comfortable place to stay and spend money, London is seen to be a safehaven for money and personal investments.
As I watch little Arab children and teenagers having a good time in Hyde Park, I believe London will continue to have an enduring (and endearing) place in the hearts of whole new generation of Arabs. I believe London will continue to attract a whole gush of oil money for years to come. Whenever money gets made in Nigeria, Russia, Pakistan, Kazhakstan or Iraq they flow right out into London. It is an enviable position to be in.
Its main competitor is, of course, New York. New York plays that role for money from Latin America, the rest of North America and from East Asia such as Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong etc. (but which tend to prefer California and Vancouver). But London has the upper hand in terms of being geographically closer to the Middle East, former-Soviet Union, Africa and South Asia. Traditional i.e., colonial, ties with Africa and the Indian sub-continent is also an undeniable factor. Paris used to be another competitor, exerting a pull on Middle-Eastern (especially Iranian and Lebanese) money. But elsewhere, the only competitors I could see are Melbourne and Perth in Australia, being safehavens and retreats for people from Southeast and East Asia.
As the center of gravity of global wealth shifts gradually eastward, i.e. further away from London and even further away from the US, I am tuning in for somewhere within 6-8 hours' flight from China and India, with a nice climate, safe haven for wealth, politically influential and stable, an attractive city as a place to live and to spend money and with some emotional links to the new wealth. If I were Singapore, I would throw the doors of my universities open wide to the best and brightest kids from Southeast Asia, China and India. One day, they will return with their money.
Although Central London have always been a favourite destination for the Arabic world especially during the summer, I could not recall ever seeing so many in London. My vantage point, staying with a relative of ours right in the middle of Mayfair did little to help with a fair and impartial view. Mayfair is, of course, a favourite location as the London base for Arab princes, embassies and other government outposts. From my daily walks, I could see large presence especially from the Qataris, Saudis. The other concentration in the Edgware Road area are mostly middle-class Arabs from Lebanon and from elsewhere in the Levant.
Last Sunday, while I was out jogging in Hyde Park, I could see that at least half the people out-and-about in the park are of Arabic origin: groups of men, women, children, whole families of Gulf Arabs enjoying strolls, at play or sitting down under a tree for a picnic. I could not help but notice how relaxed and happy they looked. Perhaps they come to London to feel free - from the governments, extended family, religious authorities and other nosey-parkers - and for a chance to be themselves.
The same can probably be said for the wealthy from Russia, Central Asia and from the Indian Subcontinent. London may no longer be the center of the British Empire, but it has obviously become the favourite external base (and second homes) for wealth from large parts of the world. Aside from being a welcoming and comfortable place to stay and spend money, London is seen to be a safehaven for money and personal investments.
As I watch little Arab children and teenagers having a good time in Hyde Park, I believe London will continue to have an enduring (and endearing) place in the hearts of whole new generation of Arabs. I believe London will continue to attract a whole gush of oil money for years to come. Whenever money gets made in Nigeria, Russia, Pakistan, Kazhakstan or Iraq they flow right out into London. It is an enviable position to be in.
Its main competitor is, of course, New York. New York plays that role for money from Latin America, the rest of North America and from East Asia such as Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong etc. (but which tend to prefer California and Vancouver). But London has the upper hand in terms of being geographically closer to the Middle East, former-Soviet Union, Africa and South Asia. Traditional i.e., colonial, ties with Africa and the Indian sub-continent is also an undeniable factor. Paris used to be another competitor, exerting a pull on Middle-Eastern (especially Iranian and Lebanese) money. But elsewhere, the only competitors I could see are Melbourne and Perth in Australia, being safehavens and retreats for people from Southeast and East Asia.
As the center of gravity of global wealth shifts gradually eastward, i.e. further away from London and even further away from the US, I am tuning in for somewhere within 6-8 hours' flight from China and India, with a nice climate, safe haven for wealth, politically influential and stable, an attractive city as a place to live and to spend money and with some emotional links to the new wealth. If I were Singapore, I would throw the doors of my universities open wide to the best and brightest kids from Southeast Asia, China and India. One day, they will return with their money.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)