Amid all the gloom and doom in economic news, there's at least some light moment reading hilarious stories. There was this complaint about the food on Virgin flight from Mumbai to Heathrow, addressed directly to Richard Branson, that is quite funny, what with all the pictures and exhibits to support his argument.
And then, I read more closely at the story, and realized the flight originated from Mumbai, India. The guy, who was revealed to be a high-flying advertising executive, is probably not used to Indian food. Admittedly, I love all kinds of curry, but I must say, oftentimes I find the presentation of Indian food does not make it very desirable. More often than not, the Indian dishes are just blops of similar colored stuffs (either yellow or brown or green), and I wouldn't even know what they are. Those picture exhibits look very much like any Indian food you would get in restaurant, in terms of presentation. I have little doubt that the food handlers/chefs are all Indians, and those food look perfectly normal and acceptable to them. :)
Friday, January 30, 2009
Thursday, January 29, 2009
On the gullibility and incompetence of fund managers...
It has been said (and it's certainly true) that, most fund managers who made money during boom times but couldn't handle any bust, are less than mediocre.
News came out today that a number of fund managers in Europe were hit by the Bernie Madoff ponzi scheme which could cost investors $50 billion or more. These fund managers were not directly investing with Madoff, but were investing in funds from JP Morgan which in turn acted as conduits to channel fresh funds to Madoff. It turns out, JP Morgan's internal risk management and audit folks did their job right and determined that the Madoff funds were too fishy, hence pulling out JP Morgan's own money from Madoff, but leaving its hedge funds' investor money with Madoff. Naturally, those investors were livid now, knowing that their investments would probably become worthless, while JP Morgan came out unscathed.
The funny thing about this is, these supposedly professional fund managers were claiming the exact same argument of gullibility as average joes like the Lehman Brothers mini-bonds in Hong Kong which were pushed by various banks. Those poor folks (like those retired citizens who invested their entire retirement savings in the mini-bonds) said they thought it has principal protection, and the bonds had the backing of the banks, wcih apparently was not the case.
These fund managers were claiming the same thing, that they were under the belief that since the conduit funds were sold by JP Morgan, they thought they couldn't lose any skin. It turns out, of course, that it wasn't the case.
Why then, shall we ask, are we paying fees to these fund managers who do not even have intelligence or are too lazy to do any due diligence of their own? Apparently, JP Morgan claims that the risks were listed in the sale agreement of the funds, but these "professionals" didn't even bother to read closely, which was exactly the same mistake as the Lehman mini-bond holders (who are _not_ professionals).
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This past summer when we were vacationing in Hong Kong, I was struck by the advertisement of the Lehman bonds as well, what with all the seemingly attractive yields and all. I got a prospective, read through it, and decided that all the risks (which were many) were assumed solely by the investors, and the banks (that were selling them) really had nothing to do with backing the bonds. So, I decided not to put any money in it. I should have shared that thought with one of my sisters in Hong Kong, since she was one of the gullible victims who bought the Lehman bonds thereafter.
While I felt kinda bad about it, for if I had shared my thoughts with my sister, she might not have gone ahead with the investment in the Lehman bonds that cost her more than HK$500k; on the other hand, I thought she would have done her basic due diligence, not just in this investment, but everything else in life, considering that she's a financial controller in her company. Apparently, when it comes to investment, alot of us, professionals or otherwise, can sell ourselves short, and delegate/defer the due diligence to someone else who might not do the job.
News came out today that a number of fund managers in Europe were hit by the Bernie Madoff ponzi scheme which could cost investors $50 billion or more. These fund managers were not directly investing with Madoff, but were investing in funds from JP Morgan which in turn acted as conduits to channel fresh funds to Madoff. It turns out, JP Morgan's internal risk management and audit folks did their job right and determined that the Madoff funds were too fishy, hence pulling out JP Morgan's own money from Madoff, but leaving its hedge funds' investor money with Madoff. Naturally, those investors were livid now, knowing that their investments would probably become worthless, while JP Morgan came out unscathed.
The funny thing about this is, these supposedly professional fund managers were claiming the exact same argument of gullibility as average joes like the Lehman Brothers mini-bonds in Hong Kong which were pushed by various banks. Those poor folks (like those retired citizens who invested their entire retirement savings in the mini-bonds) said they thought it has principal protection, and the bonds had the backing of the banks, wcih apparently was not the case.
These fund managers were claiming the same thing, that they were under the belief that since the conduit funds were sold by JP Morgan, they thought they couldn't lose any skin. It turns out, of course, that it wasn't the case.
Why then, shall we ask, are we paying fees to these fund managers who do not even have intelligence or are too lazy to do any due diligence of their own? Apparently, JP Morgan claims that the risks were listed in the sale agreement of the funds, but these "professionals" didn't even bother to read closely, which was exactly the same mistake as the Lehman mini-bond holders (who are _not_ professionals).
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This past summer when we were vacationing in Hong Kong, I was struck by the advertisement of the Lehman bonds as well, what with all the seemingly attractive yields and all. I got a prospective, read through it, and decided that all the risks (which were many) were assumed solely by the investors, and the banks (that were selling them) really had nothing to do with backing the bonds. So, I decided not to put any money in it. I should have shared that thought with one of my sisters in Hong Kong, since she was one of the gullible victims who bought the Lehman bonds thereafter.
While I felt kinda bad about it, for if I had shared my thoughts with my sister, she might not have gone ahead with the investment in the Lehman bonds that cost her more than HK$500k; on the other hand, I thought she would have done her basic due diligence, not just in this investment, but everything else in life, considering that she's a financial controller in her company. Apparently, when it comes to investment, alot of us, professionals or otherwise, can sell ourselves short, and delegate/defer the due diligence to someone else who might not do the job.
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
On bleak economic news, falling home prices, et al...
It's disheartening, without a doubt, reading through grim financial and economic news of the day. The impacts are mostly psychological (not unemployed, not much debt) and not physical, it hits me all the same.
Yesterday, there was news of job loss spreading across the economy in US and worldwide, with 75,000 layoffs already confirmed. Today, there's news of annualized home value dropped more than 18% in Nov 2008, compared to a year earlier.
It comes as no surprise, as the condo that we sold in June 2006 (pretty much at the top of the market before it softens from the second half of 2006, then came crashing down and still falling) had its price increased by three-fold in the 10 years when we owned it. Granted that the condo was in a nice, desirable, sought-after neighborhood, I'm not sure if I would pay $360k+ to buy a one-bedroom with less than 500 square feet. And while I love that condo, rentals over the same 10-year period definitely would not have justified that kind of capital gain (of 300%) on that property. The rational side of me still told me that it's simply unsustainable. So, when we were nudged to sell (for more than a few years) by the family living downstairs, we eventually relented and sold. Oftentimes, I wonder how they're doing, for a family of four, to be carrying 4-5 mortgages at the time, albeit having one very good job by the husband.
If our condo had risen some 30% every year since 1997, and it provides any kind of yardstick to measure home prices now which has following 18-25% so far and still falling, I'd say, property prices would still have a long way to go, down south. But the price drop so far has already caused so much pain to the economy, that I'm not sure how it could sustain another 100-150% drop (assuming only half of our 300% rise over the last 10 years were justifiable - totally unscientific, but something whipped out from my head on a whim).
Before the party crashed, it was said in 2005 that Americans have extracted some $1 trillion in home equity value to finance consumer spending. The public worldwide announcements of writedowns and losses by funds and financial institutions, in particular, have already exceeded the $1 trillion mark. And it was said that it could cost a few more trillions in order for Washington to fix the economy (or at least try to get it going). Considering those numbers (however ballpark), and we should realize that Americans have basically eaten into the savings (the fats that had been building up in the past 10 years).
Although we're in decent shape financially, and the property we're in is good, all other investments have lost more than 50% in value, including my 401k. Those 50% loss in my 401k basically wipes out *all* of the gains in the 401k, putting me back to where it would have been, as if I have only contributed only the maximum 401k amount, with no company matching contribution to the total, and no gains to show for in this 401k investment over 10 years. It's like I'm back to square-one, but at least it's not in the negative, unlike alot other poorer souls who lost even more.
But I feel poorer nonetheless. Society is a collective place. When fellow countrymen suffer, we feel some pain. And I feel more anxious too, in this recession, compared to the one in 2000/2001. At least back then, we had two incomes. Now, it's just my income/job, and my husband's business which won't pick up until the economy comes back (and it could take at least a year or two). And we have kids more.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
At times like this, when my anxiety level is high, I feel the need to do something. I have urge to get an extra job. I'm more inclined to do a few more research studies to pick up some free money. I'm starting my advance degree. I'll even sign up to do some tutoring in the university. And I need to re-balance my portfolio. Not that I'm in any panic to sell (which is probably the most foolish thing to do, since panic selling definitely seals the loss), but there are loser- investment that I need to trim.
But I'm hopeful we'll be able to make it better, in the coming year.
Yesterday, there was news of job loss spreading across the economy in US and worldwide, with 75,000 layoffs already confirmed. Today, there's news of annualized home value dropped more than 18% in Nov 2008, compared to a year earlier.
It comes as no surprise, as the condo that we sold in June 2006 (pretty much at the top of the market before it softens from the second half of 2006, then came crashing down and still falling) had its price increased by three-fold in the 10 years when we owned it. Granted that the condo was in a nice, desirable, sought-after neighborhood, I'm not sure if I would pay $360k+ to buy a one-bedroom with less than 500 square feet. And while I love that condo, rentals over the same 10-year period definitely would not have justified that kind of capital gain (of 300%) on that property. The rational side of me still told me that it's simply unsustainable. So, when we were nudged to sell (for more than a few years) by the family living downstairs, we eventually relented and sold. Oftentimes, I wonder how they're doing, for a family of four, to be carrying 4-5 mortgages at the time, albeit having one very good job by the husband.
If our condo had risen some 30% every year since 1997, and it provides any kind of yardstick to measure home prices now which has following 18-25% so far and still falling, I'd say, property prices would still have a long way to go, down south. But the price drop so far has already caused so much pain to the economy, that I'm not sure how it could sustain another 100-150% drop (assuming only half of our 300% rise over the last 10 years were justifiable - totally unscientific, but something whipped out from my head on a whim).
Before the party crashed, it was said in 2005 that Americans have extracted some $1 trillion in home equity value to finance consumer spending. The public worldwide announcements of writedowns and losses by funds and financial institutions, in particular, have already exceeded the $1 trillion mark. And it was said that it could cost a few more trillions in order for Washington to fix the economy (or at least try to get it going). Considering those numbers (however ballpark), and we should realize that Americans have basically eaten into the savings (the fats that had been building up in the past 10 years).
Although we're in decent shape financially, and the property we're in is good, all other investments have lost more than 50% in value, including my 401k. Those 50% loss in my 401k basically wipes out *all* of the gains in the 401k, putting me back to where it would have been, as if I have only contributed only the maximum 401k amount, with no company matching contribution to the total, and no gains to show for in this 401k investment over 10 years. It's like I'm back to square-one, but at least it's not in the negative, unlike alot other poorer souls who lost even more.
But I feel poorer nonetheless. Society is a collective place. When fellow countrymen suffer, we feel some pain. And I feel more anxious too, in this recession, compared to the one in 2000/2001. At least back then, we had two incomes. Now, it's just my income/job, and my husband's business which won't pick up until the economy comes back (and it could take at least a year or two). And we have kids more.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
At times like this, when my anxiety level is high, I feel the need to do something. I have urge to get an extra job. I'm more inclined to do a few more research studies to pick up some free money. I'm starting my advance degree. I'll even sign up to do some tutoring in the university. And I need to re-balance my portfolio. Not that I'm in any panic to sell (which is probably the most foolish thing to do, since panic selling definitely seals the loss), but there are loser- investment that I need to trim.
But I'm hopeful we'll be able to make it better, in the coming year.
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
On the Inauguration 2009...
I'm tired of the media of all those hype around the Inauguration Day 2009 for the incoming president Obama. I have accepted that, Obama has won the presidential race and he's going to be sworn in, then begins to fix the mess that George W Bush has left behind. Everyone's been talking about how historical this is, yada, yada. There's even much talk about the dress that Michelle Obama wears, yada, yada, yada. Unfortunately, I simply don't feel it. I don't feel the hype, I don't feel the excitement, I don't feel how great Obama is.
I do hope I'm wrong though, that even though I'm not jumping and leaping for Obama, he'll do a fine job to be the commander-in-chief. But my guess is, even if you put MLK in that job with hyped-up hopes, you're bound to be disappointed. With so much backpeddling that Obama already has gone through, I'm simply surprised that no one is holding him up for much scrutiny, if at all. The media and most public seem to yawn to have such low expectation of this guy ("give him a break, he didn't create this mess"; "he's the first black president!"; "he's making history already, what more do you expect?!"), that Obama looks set to walk on water or separate the Red Sea within the first year of his term.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
We don't own or watch TV, which is a very handy thing to ignore all the hypes and white noise. Last night, I made a gesture to my kids. In order not to deprive the kids of any "historic moments", I offered to let them watch some video streams of Obama's inaugural speech from the day earlier. I'm not interested in rhetorics (which is Obama's forte), although bad speeches like those from Bush made me cringe. But I was surprised when my kids both exclaimed, "we watched it already!" I asked "where/when?" and they told me the school let the kids watch it on the TV (or recorded tape) in the library. My son, who's 8, had no further comments. My daughter, who's 6, immediately added, "It's boring!" I was only too happy not to have to sit though it.
I do hope I'm wrong though, that even though I'm not jumping and leaping for Obama, he'll do a fine job to be the commander-in-chief. But my guess is, even if you put MLK in that job with hyped-up hopes, you're bound to be disappointed. With so much backpeddling that Obama already has gone through, I'm simply surprised that no one is holding him up for much scrutiny, if at all. The media and most public seem to yawn to have such low expectation of this guy ("give him a break, he didn't create this mess"; "he's the first black president!"; "he's making history already, what more do you expect?!"), that Obama looks set to walk on water or separate the Red Sea within the first year of his term.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
We don't own or watch TV, which is a very handy thing to ignore all the hypes and white noise. Last night, I made a gesture to my kids. In order not to deprive the kids of any "historic moments", I offered to let them watch some video streams of Obama's inaugural speech from the day earlier. I'm not interested in rhetorics (which is Obama's forte), although bad speeches like those from Bush made me cringe. But I was surprised when my kids both exclaimed, "we watched it already!" I asked "where/when?" and they told me the school let the kids watch it on the TV (or recorded tape) in the library. My son, who's 8, had no further comments. My daughter, who's 6, immediately added, "It's boring!" I was only too happy not to have to sit though it.
On Caroline Kennedy dropping out of unusual Senate race...
It's a surprise, but on second thought, not too surprising, that Caroline Kennedy was dropping out of the unusual Senate race to lobby Governor David Paterson to name a replacement to the Senate seat that Hillary Clinton vacates, in her move to become Secretary of State in the Obama administration.
I don't hold anything against Kennedy. But I find it repulsive, that someone who's never had a real job would consider that she's capable of doing something simply with a claim of her "life experience." Surely, no one would argue against the fact that she's born to a president, having lived in the White House for a while, bears a great last name, inherits much wealth to allow a life without any worry of working, and even threw her support behind Obama the candidate back then in his campaign to 1600 Penn Ave. I don't hold any of those against her, in particular. It's who she is.
But if she's arguing that, for what she has, what she's been handed down with, allows her to better serve the people of New York, I simply don't see the logic in it. From my vantage point, she has to earn her dues.
Surely, people were saying the same thing about Hillary Clinton, back then when she's campaigning for the New York Senate seat right after her husband's second term. She was called all sorts of names, carpetbagger being one of those. But Clinton is a fighter. She's tenacious, she fights for what she believes, she develops this thick skin, and she prevails to win the seat, and ultimately wins over the hearts and minds of the districts that she represents with good grassroot work.
I would not discount Kennedy the way that Clinton was discounted back then. I was expecting Kennedy to do the same, if not more, should she really want the job bad enough, should she really think she's better than the next one in line. Heck, she should even have considered putting in even more efforts, lest people think she's getting some kids-glove treatment from uncles and cousins in Senate, if not anywhere else.
Apparently, Kennedy is not a fighter. After her announcement to lobby Paterson to give her Clinton's seat without any election, a whirlwind campaign to try (and fail) to charm the media (counting all those um's and you-know's in rare interviews), she flamed out and called it quit.
It is perhaps fitting, that Kennedy was more often compared to Sarah Palin than Hillary Clinton, with Palin's meteoric rise and fumbling speeches and quick flame-out. But even Palin is more a bulldog fighter than Kennedy.
For Kennedy, it's just another disappointment in the family. Since she's been so comfortable in the shadow for 50 years now (didn't Jackie O do such a fantastic job shielding her kids?!?), she should have just stayed out and kept the mystic of the Kennedy name. With her quick burnout, she has perhaps drawn a full-stop to the name that her father and grandfather had so carefully crafted.
I don't hold anything against Kennedy. But I find it repulsive, that someone who's never had a real job would consider that she's capable of doing something simply with a claim of her "life experience." Surely, no one would argue against the fact that she's born to a president, having lived in the White House for a while, bears a great last name, inherits much wealth to allow a life without any worry of working, and even threw her support behind Obama the candidate back then in his campaign to 1600 Penn Ave. I don't hold any of those against her, in particular. It's who she is.
But if she's arguing that, for what she has, what she's been handed down with, allows her to better serve the people of New York, I simply don't see the logic in it. From my vantage point, she has to earn her dues.
Surely, people were saying the same thing about Hillary Clinton, back then when she's campaigning for the New York Senate seat right after her husband's second term. She was called all sorts of names, carpetbagger being one of those. But Clinton is a fighter. She's tenacious, she fights for what she believes, she develops this thick skin, and she prevails to win the seat, and ultimately wins over the hearts and minds of the districts that she represents with good grassroot work.
I would not discount Kennedy the way that Clinton was discounted back then. I was expecting Kennedy to do the same, if not more, should she really want the job bad enough, should she really think she's better than the next one in line. Heck, she should even have considered putting in even more efforts, lest people think she's getting some kids-glove treatment from uncles and cousins in Senate, if not anywhere else.
Apparently, Kennedy is not a fighter. After her announcement to lobby Paterson to give her Clinton's seat without any election, a whirlwind campaign to try (and fail) to charm the media (counting all those um's and you-know's in rare interviews), she flamed out and called it quit.
It is perhaps fitting, that Kennedy was more often compared to Sarah Palin than Hillary Clinton, with Palin's meteoric rise and fumbling speeches and quick flame-out. But even Palin is more a bulldog fighter than Kennedy.
For Kennedy, it's just another disappointment in the family. Since she's been so comfortable in the shadow for 50 years now (didn't Jackie O do such a fantastic job shielding her kids?!?), she should have just stayed out and kept the mystic of the Kennedy name. With her quick burnout, she has perhaps drawn a full-stop to the name that her father and grandfather had so carefully crafted.
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
On the environmental impact of rising Chinese wealth...
I remember one time when we were in a restaurant, my brother commented on the rising wealth of China. He was saying, Chinese would eat some of those endangered animals and species to extinction. I wholeheartedly agree with him.
There's an old saying, that Chinese would eat anything that has its back facing the sky. That would cover pretty much all reptiles and marine animals. Average Chinese, with their rush and race up the wealth ladder, are keen for outward display of their prosperity, meaning more consumptions, more meat, more seafood, more of everything that they were lack of in the past.
Not that it's entirely their fact. Consumers in the West have been doing their part in consumption craze for a very long time. Thing is, Chinese does this with blatant disregard for history and environment, akin to a bulldozer that would crush everything standing in its way.
So, we have reports of alarms from scientists about "eating tourism" and the dwindling numbers of coral reef fish like groupers, which are a favorite among Chinese.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I recall one time, when I was still living in Sydney, a couple visited my sister on a guided tour, and the four of us went to a restaurant in Chinatown late that night when we met up. It's close to mid-night. The couple had been up since dawn, sightseeing on the tour bus; and they're pretty tired too. But once we got to the restaurant, their eyes lit up when they saw the giant groupers swimming in the fish tank. We got our table, sat down, and first thing they uttered was, "we want to try the grouper congee - we heard it's very good but it's very expensive in Hong Kong". As a host, we wouldn't say no to them, but I was secretly disgusted by their eating all the way from Hong Kong to Sydney. And those groupers were big - very big, in fact - and I hate the thought of killing them, just to put some congee to satisfy their curiosity.
Another time, when we were visiting the Museum of Natural History in NYC. While we were approaching some exhibits in tanks, there was this family (parents with two grown children) in front of us. Judging from their accent, they're probably ethnical Chinese from Singapore or Malaysia (rather well-dressed, and probably of some intellect). When we got to the tank in front of us, there was this huge marble eel lurking in the murky water. Its body was thicker than my thigh. While we were marveling the eel with my young kids (they love all animals), the Chinese family was expressing their own wonder. The parents were discussing how tasty the eel must be, and they were discussing ways to cook the eel!!! I was so disgusted that I let my kids away, so as not to upset them that someone would be contemplating killing and cooking that fish.
I don't mean to sound harsh to fellow Chinese, but the way that alot of Chinese are display their disregard to the environment and the planet earth really does make me sick.
There's an old saying, that Chinese would eat anything that has its back facing the sky. That would cover pretty much all reptiles and marine animals. Average Chinese, with their rush and race up the wealth ladder, are keen for outward display of their prosperity, meaning more consumptions, more meat, more seafood, more of everything that they were lack of in the past.
Not that it's entirely their fact. Consumers in the West have been doing their part in consumption craze for a very long time. Thing is, Chinese does this with blatant disregard for history and environment, akin to a bulldozer that would crush everything standing in its way.
So, we have reports of alarms from scientists about "eating tourism" and the dwindling numbers of coral reef fish like groupers, which are a favorite among Chinese.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I recall one time, when I was still living in Sydney, a couple visited my sister on a guided tour, and the four of us went to a restaurant in Chinatown late that night when we met up. It's close to mid-night. The couple had been up since dawn, sightseeing on the tour bus; and they're pretty tired too. But once we got to the restaurant, their eyes lit up when they saw the giant groupers swimming in the fish tank. We got our table, sat down, and first thing they uttered was, "we want to try the grouper congee - we heard it's very good but it's very expensive in Hong Kong". As a host, we wouldn't say no to them, but I was secretly disgusted by their eating all the way from Hong Kong to Sydney. And those groupers were big - very big, in fact - and I hate the thought of killing them, just to put some congee to satisfy their curiosity.
Another time, when we were visiting the Museum of Natural History in NYC. While we were approaching some exhibits in tanks, there was this family (parents with two grown children) in front of us. Judging from their accent, they're probably ethnical Chinese from Singapore or Malaysia (rather well-dressed, and probably of some intellect). When we got to the tank in front of us, there was this huge marble eel lurking in the murky water. Its body was thicker than my thigh. While we were marveling the eel with my young kids (they love all animals), the Chinese family was expressing their own wonder. The parents were discussing how tasty the eel must be, and they were discussing ways to cook the eel!!! I was so disgusted that I let my kids away, so as not to upset them that someone would be contemplating killing and cooking that fish.
I don't mean to sound harsh to fellow Chinese, but the way that alot of Chinese are display their disregard to the environment and the planet earth really does make me sick.
On memory of Bonfire night...
We learn something new everyday. Today, I read that the bonfire in November, which I knew was to commemorate the plot to overthrow British parliament in 1605, has a proper name: Guy Fawkes Night.
Everytime I read about bonfire, that memory would always flash across my eyes: It's me riding my rinky-dink bike up a highway in Coventry in the Midlands, on that night coming back from lectures in college, with my friend ("little brother" Kenneth) who shared an apartment with me living off-campus. It was a smokey night. I didn't even realize it's the bonfire night. But I like the smell of burning. I wasn't very good at riding, so Kenny would ride to the top, and stop there to wait for me to push my bike up. (Pathetic, isn't it.) When we got to the top, we saw bonfire in a number of places. I was pleasantly surprised, seeing the bonfire and smelling the wood-burning smoke.
I later read up on bonfire and its origin, but I never knew its proper name was Guy Fawkes Night. Well, like I said, we learn something new everyday.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The smelling of smoke actually evokes deeper, also pleasant, memory of mine. I grew up, living right across a Chinese temple. It's a sizeable, famous one. People from afar would come and pay homage to it, and it's always very crowded and rowdy on Chinese festivals. I like that happy, cheery environment. I like to sit by the kitchen table which allows me a panoramic view of the environ from dawn till dusk. (Faithfuls would come pre-dawn before temple opens, and would still come after it closes by dusk.) I like the trees, the temples, the burning of incense sticks, all the food and chatter of people and kids. How I love that smell of burn.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I remember I read somewhere about olfactory sense and its strong relationship to memory. I can attest to that notion, that smells (and to a large extent, taste - of food) bring me back memory, time and again. It never fails.
Everytime I read about bonfire, that memory would always flash across my eyes: It's me riding my rinky-dink bike up a highway in Coventry in the Midlands, on that night coming back from lectures in college, with my friend ("little brother" Kenneth) who shared an apartment with me living off-campus. It was a smokey night. I didn't even realize it's the bonfire night. But I like the smell of burning. I wasn't very good at riding, so Kenny would ride to the top, and stop there to wait for me to push my bike up. (Pathetic, isn't it.) When we got to the top, we saw bonfire in a number of places. I was pleasantly surprised, seeing the bonfire and smelling the wood-burning smoke.
I later read up on bonfire and its origin, but I never knew its proper name was Guy Fawkes Night. Well, like I said, we learn something new everyday.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The smelling of smoke actually evokes deeper, also pleasant, memory of mine. I grew up, living right across a Chinese temple. It's a sizeable, famous one. People from afar would come and pay homage to it, and it's always very crowded and rowdy on Chinese festivals. I like that happy, cheery environment. I like to sit by the kitchen table which allows me a panoramic view of the environ from dawn till dusk. (Faithfuls would come pre-dawn before temple opens, and would still come after it closes by dusk.) I like the trees, the temples, the burning of incense sticks, all the food and chatter of people and kids. How I love that smell of burn.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I remember I read somewhere about olfactory sense and its strong relationship to memory. I can attest to that notion, that smells (and to a large extent, taste - of food) bring me back memory, time and again. It never fails.
On gaffes of Joe Biden, take 2...
There's a Chinese belief, that the longer a couple stays married, the more alike (even the look) they will be.
I'm sure Joe Biden, the VP-to-be to the incoming Obama administration, and his wife are like that too. The gaffe-prone Biden probably has learnt enough of his lessons, or that the Obama aides did a good job shutting him up. In any case, during the last days of the 2008 campaign season, Biden had effectively clammed up.
Now, just days before the sworn in and the final confirmation of Hillary Clinton as the new Secretary of State, Biden's wife did her own thing and BS'ing about Biden dissing that job to go on the VP ticket.
At least, Joe Biden had his slip oftentimes with good humor and in his funny way, even. I can't say the same with his wife's gaffe, which is more like one wife bitching about another wife. She is so petty, I can't believe she's going to be the Second Lady.
Man, don't they have screening for the ladies in waiting in this country???
I'm sure Joe Biden, the VP-to-be to the incoming Obama administration, and his wife are like that too. The gaffe-prone Biden probably has learnt enough of his lessons, or that the Obama aides did a good job shutting him up. In any case, during the last days of the 2008 campaign season, Biden had effectively clammed up.
Now, just days before the sworn in and the final confirmation of Hillary Clinton as the new Secretary of State, Biden's wife did her own thing and BS'ing about Biden dissing that job to go on the VP ticket.
At least, Joe Biden had his slip oftentimes with good humor and in his funny way, even. I can't say the same with his wife's gaffe, which is more like one wife bitching about another wife. She is so petty, I can't believe she's going to be the Second Lady.
Man, don't they have screening for the ladies in waiting in this country???
Monday, January 19, 2009
On sweatshop and labor standard...
Discussions and attitude from the westernized countries (chiefly, United States and Europe) on sweatshops and human rights go almost always along the same line, drawing the almost always same conclusion. The western countries would look at poor(er) countries like China and Vietnam, the way they churn out products in sweatshops, and feel repelled by reports of child and labor exploitation.
It's rarely reading reports like the one in New York Times, whereby the author dares to come out and say that alot of those in the poorer countries would dream to work in a sweatshop. And it's little wonder and surprise that, most everyone in the letters to editor in New York Times would find the author to be "wrong".
For those who have never lived in the poor countries, it's hard to imagine how anyone could have dreamt to work in a sweatshop and be "exploited". I have little doubt that these readers who find that notion repulsive, ever realize what the true alternative(s) are for those in these poor countries. The article illustrates one of those alternatives, which is to scavenge in filthy dumps. There are also other alternatives like selling one's body (young and old), or selling one's children.
Perhaps those who campaign to stop sweatshop in these poor countries, should stop and reconsider those other available but much less desirable alternatives to these poor souls, and be less righteous about what's right and wrong, but more realistic about what's better and what's worse.
If the sweatshops are honest shops, while they are not the best options, they at least provide a means for independence for those who work it. (Compared that to the dishonest sweatshops in China, where owners would simply close shops and disappear, for not wanting to pay the workers.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I grew up in Hong Kong during the time when it's growing up from plastic manufacturing, to electronics, to garments, to finance now.
We lived in this public housing estate. Unlike those in America, public housing in Hong Kong is very well-maintained. All families are working class, but it's a very family and tradition-oriented culture. While space was tight, neighbors and all kids in the neighborhood played together all the time.
My very first job "summer job" when I was still in elementary school. There was news that we could get some "plastic toys assembling", finish at home, and bring them back for some money. Since it's summer time, and nothing much to do, all kids (I think the oldest one was less than 13) jumped for it. Those older kids would borrow some other even older kids' children ID cards to try to get in the factory for summer jobs. (Back then, if I remember correctly, you had to be at least 15 to work in a factory.)
Every few days, we (group of at least 5-6 kids a time) would leap and bounce to this dinky little place on the hill side. And this young guy (probably in his 20s) would give us a little book to record our work and payment. Kids from each family would get a big sack of plastic toy parts, we would bring them home, assemble them, bring them, and at the end of the month, we would get paid. If you work faster, you could come back sooner; and if they have more work, you earn more. I'm sure Americans would consider that sweatshop operation, since we were paid maybe a couple of dollars for assembling a big back of plastic toys about 3 feet high. But we love it. It's our first chance to earn some money for the family to help our parents.
Oftentimes, when my parents were done with their work and chores and the whole family were sitting together at night watching TV, we would all do the assembling together, all 7 of us. In fact, I focused so hard that I got this swelling in my eyes for a few days that needed eyedrops.
All in all, we (the whole family really) made HK$120 in two months. This was back in the 1970s. It's peanuts, to be sure. And while it's probably perfect for kids like us, since we could bring the work back home, and there's no real danger in the work, and it could even facilitate family bonding, I'm not sure if the West (like those New York Times readers who complained about sweatshops) would condone or endorese it, since it's probaby one kind of "exploitation".
But they're a few things that we have to note:
(1) that we're not tied down to working those toys assembling for the rest of our life;
(2) that there's no coercion or danger involved in the work;
(3) that the work did not impact on our study or otherwise childhood.
It's absolutely true that those conditions are oftentimes not met or seriously violated in sweatshops in other parts of the world. I would, however, urge those who patently reject the idea of sweatshops, to seek understanding and realize that there are many nuances to situations. And that a sweatshop can be a "good" sweatshop, much as it can be a "bad" sweatshop. For those who urge shutdown of all sweatshops are just as irresponsible to condemning those in poorer countries to eternal poor life, albeit with good intention. We have to constantly remind ourselves not to act like a simpleton like George W Bush, and that solutions to problems do not always come in a yes/no or right/wrong answer.
To this day, those HK$120 are still the proudest income, my first income, I've ever earned. That sweatshop experience taught me the work ethics, resourcefulness, and perseverance that serve me well for the rest of my life.
It's rarely reading reports like the one in New York Times, whereby the author dares to come out and say that alot of those in the poorer countries would dream to work in a sweatshop. And it's little wonder and surprise that, most everyone in the letters to editor in New York Times would find the author to be "wrong".
For those who have never lived in the poor countries, it's hard to imagine how anyone could have dreamt to work in a sweatshop and be "exploited". I have little doubt that these readers who find that notion repulsive, ever realize what the true alternative(s) are for those in these poor countries. The article illustrates one of those alternatives, which is to scavenge in filthy dumps. There are also other alternatives like selling one's body (young and old), or selling one's children.
Perhaps those who campaign to stop sweatshop in these poor countries, should stop and reconsider those other available but much less desirable alternatives to these poor souls, and be less righteous about what's right and wrong, but more realistic about what's better and what's worse.
If the sweatshops are honest shops, while they are not the best options, they at least provide a means for independence for those who work it. (Compared that to the dishonest sweatshops in China, where owners would simply close shops and disappear, for not wanting to pay the workers.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I grew up in Hong Kong during the time when it's growing up from plastic manufacturing, to electronics, to garments, to finance now.
We lived in this public housing estate. Unlike those in America, public housing in Hong Kong is very well-maintained. All families are working class, but it's a very family and tradition-oriented culture. While space was tight, neighbors and all kids in the neighborhood played together all the time.
My very first job "summer job" when I was still in elementary school. There was news that we could get some "plastic toys assembling", finish at home, and bring them back for some money. Since it's summer time, and nothing much to do, all kids (I think the oldest one was less than 13) jumped for it. Those older kids would borrow some other even older kids' children ID cards to try to get in the factory for summer jobs. (Back then, if I remember correctly, you had to be at least 15 to work in a factory.)
Every few days, we (group of at least 5-6 kids a time) would leap and bounce to this dinky little place on the hill side. And this young guy (probably in his 20s) would give us a little book to record our work and payment. Kids from each family would get a big sack of plastic toy parts, we would bring them home, assemble them, bring them, and at the end of the month, we would get paid. If you work faster, you could come back sooner; and if they have more work, you earn more. I'm sure Americans would consider that sweatshop operation, since we were paid maybe a couple of dollars for assembling a big back of plastic toys about 3 feet high. But we love it. It's our first chance to earn some money for the family to help our parents.
Oftentimes, when my parents were done with their work and chores and the whole family were sitting together at night watching TV, we would all do the assembling together, all 7 of us. In fact, I focused so hard that I got this swelling in my eyes for a few days that needed eyedrops.
All in all, we (the whole family really) made HK$120 in two months. This was back in the 1970s. It's peanuts, to be sure. And while it's probably perfect for kids like us, since we could bring the work back home, and there's no real danger in the work, and it could even facilitate family bonding, I'm not sure if the West (like those New York Times readers who complained about sweatshops) would condone or endorese it, since it's probaby one kind of "exploitation".
But they're a few things that we have to note:
(1) that we're not tied down to working those toys assembling for the rest of our life;
(2) that there's no coercion or danger involved in the work;
(3) that the work did not impact on our study or otherwise childhood.
It's absolutely true that those conditions are oftentimes not met or seriously violated in sweatshops in other parts of the world. I would, however, urge those who patently reject the idea of sweatshops, to seek understanding and realize that there are many nuances to situations. And that a sweatshop can be a "good" sweatshop, much as it can be a "bad" sweatshop. For those who urge shutdown of all sweatshops are just as irresponsible to condemning those in poorer countries to eternal poor life, albeit with good intention. We have to constantly remind ourselves not to act like a simpleton like George W Bush, and that solutions to problems do not always come in a yes/no or right/wrong answer.
To this day, those HK$120 are still the proudest income, my first income, I've ever earned. That sweatshop experience taught me the work ethics, resourcefulness, and perseverance that serve me well for the rest of my life.
Sunday, January 18, 2009
On library, its usage in tough economic times et al...
No one should be surprised to find reported increased usage of public libraries in this tough economic times.
I've always liked libraries since I was little. Every time I go to a library, surrounded by shelves after shelves of books, I feel elated. I would get very excited and want to read all the books I can get my hands on.
As I have quite recently found out too, that apart from Netflix (my main entertainment of DVD and instant-viewing movies and shows after becoming a parent), the DVD collections in the public library (both in my town and the nearby towns where I frequently travel to) are surprisingly extensive.
I'm glad that my kids have come to love reading and all sorts of books since they're very young. Both of them are now reading pre-teen books like Harry Potter, which they have started on since they're 4-5. Once we start reading, we would lose track of time.
Libraries are particularly useful since the kids are now reading so fast and the interests so vast, that it's impossible to buy them 10-12 new books to quell their appetite. I find it rather wasteful too, to physically buy the books, spend the money, and have trees cut down for the printing. I do believe that, as a reader, we have a duty to support authors and the publishing industry, while being responsible to the environment. Perhaps one day, devices like Kindle would become easy enough to use, with rechargeable battery from renewable source (rather than taxing more on the national grid), that we won't have to resort to buying print books to support the industries.
I must say too, though, that I absolutely love print books. I love the smell of books (newly printed books and old musty smelling books alike), and I love physically holding the book and turning the leaf while reading. How are electronic devices going to replicate the human emotions in reading, when we're approaching the end and the anticipation is building up? At least, none of these have been built into the design of devices like Kindle. Perhaps, as we advance with technology, we have to lose some of the old habits and favorites. But I'm not totally ready to give those up just yet.
I've always liked libraries since I was little. Every time I go to a library, surrounded by shelves after shelves of books, I feel elated. I would get very excited and want to read all the books I can get my hands on.
As I have quite recently found out too, that apart from Netflix (my main entertainment of DVD and instant-viewing movies and shows after becoming a parent), the DVD collections in the public library (both in my town and the nearby towns where I frequently travel to) are surprisingly extensive.
I'm glad that my kids have come to love reading and all sorts of books since they're very young. Both of them are now reading pre-teen books like Harry Potter, which they have started on since they're 4-5. Once we start reading, we would lose track of time.
Libraries are particularly useful since the kids are now reading so fast and the interests so vast, that it's impossible to buy them 10-12 new books to quell their appetite. I find it rather wasteful too, to physically buy the books, spend the money, and have trees cut down for the printing. I do believe that, as a reader, we have a duty to support authors and the publishing industry, while being responsible to the environment. Perhaps one day, devices like Kindle would become easy enough to use, with rechargeable battery from renewable source (rather than taxing more on the national grid), that we won't have to resort to buying print books to support the industries.
I must say too, though, that I absolutely love print books. I love the smell of books (newly printed books and old musty smelling books alike), and I love physically holding the book and turning the leaf while reading. How are electronic devices going to replicate the human emotions in reading, when we're approaching the end and the anticipation is building up? At least, none of these have been built into the design of devices like Kindle. Perhaps, as we advance with technology, we have to lose some of the old habits and favorites. But I'm not totally ready to give those up just yet.
Friday, January 16, 2009
On fashion, models, and girls' aspirations...
I remember an old Chinese (Cantonese) saying from my parents:
When you're 30, you would have established your life.
When you're 40, you have no doubts in the direction of your life.
When you're 50, you know what your fate is (aka. the plan from "heaven").
When you're 60, your life is a smooth sailing.
When you're 70, you get whatever you want in life.
I'm sure, in this internet day and age, telling the younger generations that they have to wait some 50 years to get what they want, will not do. Bear in mind, back in the ancient days, you get what you want when you get kids, and they grow up to take care of you. THAT is supposed to be the good life, the "you get whatever you want in life." Those things don't apply to modern day life anymore.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Well, well, what does that supposed to have anything to do with the "fashion, models, and girls' aspirations", and the Hong Kong Fashion Week 2009 snapshots?
What came to my mind was actually the "when you're 40" part, in that one should have no doubts in the direction in your life. When I was younger, even though my life has been quite smooth sailing, and I strive and attain pretty much what I set out to do and achieve, I have always had some shadow of doubts about myself, or rather, hopes that I might be somebody else, or maybe even be a fashion model. (Imagine that!) Perhaps, to every young girl, dressing up and looking pretty are part of the DNA, and most every one of them, me included, would aspire to achieve that.
Considering that, back then I have the perfect measurement of a UK size 8 (a petite in US size), I even tried being a fitting models (putting on clothings for pictures etc in showroom), since I can never bring myself to walk on a runway.
But I must say, that (the dream, the experience) never felt real nor right to me. I remember distinctly that I still have doubts about myself (what should I wear, how do I look, etc) in my 20s.
All these self-doubt almost changed overnight after I have my marriage and eventual my first child. The first pregnancy was uneventful, but the childbirth was difficulty. I should have used epidural but was too late to have it administered when the pain hit. After 13-hour of hard labor, with intense pain for the last 4 hours (you know the drill - pain every 1 to 2-minute intervals), on an empty stomach, I was so utterly exhausted and dehydrated that I didn't even want to hold my newborn when he came out.
But the experience taught me a few things. It gave me perspective on what's important in life, set my priorities straight, and how much I can achieve (just imagine the amount of pain I can endure!) with a beautiful boy that follows.
After that, all those "pretty little things", the make-up, and all, seem so very trivial and unimportant. And I realize how much I actually dislike covering the natural beauty of girls and women by cosmetics and costumes (often ridiculous looking on runway too).
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I remember in one company Christmas party for one of my first jobs, there was this guy called Kenny. (Don't remember his last name anymore, but I think it's Kenny.) :) Most of the girls in the company fancied him, saying he's cute and all. I thought he's alright, but nothing stood out. In any case, Kenny brought an arm-candy girl-friend of his at the time. I remember some girls ooo'ing and ahh'ing privately about his gf, how tall she was, and that she's a model etc etc.
I'm not sure why the scenes from that Christmas party came back to me from time to time. Perhaps I always privately wonder how long a trophy gf or wife could last before the novelty wears out. It reminds me of that jerk Tom Brady who dumped Bridget Moynahan (pregnant with his child) for supermodel Gisele Bundchen.
I have no care of how hulky Brady is or how gorgeous Bundchen is supposed to be, that we should all be ooo'ing and ahh'ing about them, like those girls did in the Christmas party about Kenny and his arm-candy. That kind of guys would not have the slightest respect from me, nor silly girls like Bundchen who's still living the teenage girls' dream of basting in make-up and fancy dress. Afterall, she's 28 now. How long does it take for a woman like Bundchen to grow up and grow out of those fantasy, and realize that Brady would likely dump her when she's 35 for another 24-year-old with bigger boobs or longer legs? It's likely to be a sad truth that she probably won't wake up from that until she's dumped after she lost her looks.
Back in 2007, when Matt Damon was named Sexiest Man Alive, he demurred at the title, suggesting that perhaps the magazine should choose Tom Brady instead. It's ironic that people (even the guys themselves, like Damon) do not realize that abs and six-packs are not the only thing women see in men when they find them sexy. The attitude in life, and to other people, counts just as much.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
And so, I realize now why my parents have no interests in watching all those so-called news about entertainment, gossips and starlets. Those things, what they do, and who they are, are just so unimportant to other's life.
Now I'm 40. Now I know and understand.
When you're 30, you would have established your life.
When you're 40, you have no doubts in the direction of your life.
When you're 50, you know what your fate is (aka. the plan from "heaven").
When you're 60, your life is a smooth sailing.
When you're 70, you get whatever you want in life.
I'm sure, in this internet day and age, telling the younger generations that they have to wait some 50 years to get what they want, will not do. Bear in mind, back in the ancient days, you get what you want when you get kids, and they grow up to take care of you. THAT is supposed to be the good life, the "you get whatever you want in life." Those things don't apply to modern day life anymore.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Well, well, what does that supposed to have anything to do with the "fashion, models, and girls' aspirations", and the Hong Kong Fashion Week 2009 snapshots?
What came to my mind was actually the "when you're 40" part, in that one should have no doubts in the direction in your life. When I was younger, even though my life has been quite smooth sailing, and I strive and attain pretty much what I set out to do and achieve, I have always had some shadow of doubts about myself, or rather, hopes that I might be somebody else, or maybe even be a fashion model. (Imagine that!) Perhaps, to every young girl, dressing up and looking pretty are part of the DNA, and most every one of them, me included, would aspire to achieve that.
Considering that, back then I have the perfect measurement of a UK size 8 (a petite in US size), I even tried being a fitting models (putting on clothings for pictures etc in showroom), since I can never bring myself to walk on a runway.
But I must say, that (the dream, the experience) never felt real nor right to me. I remember distinctly that I still have doubts about myself (what should I wear, how do I look, etc) in my 20s.
All these self-doubt almost changed overnight after I have my marriage and eventual my first child. The first pregnancy was uneventful, but the childbirth was difficulty. I should have used epidural but was too late to have it administered when the pain hit. After 13-hour of hard labor, with intense pain for the last 4 hours (you know the drill - pain every 1 to 2-minute intervals), on an empty stomach, I was so utterly exhausted and dehydrated that I didn't even want to hold my newborn when he came out.
But the experience taught me a few things. It gave me perspective on what's important in life, set my priorities straight, and how much I can achieve (just imagine the amount of pain I can endure!) with a beautiful boy that follows.
After that, all those "pretty little things", the make-up, and all, seem so very trivial and unimportant. And I realize how much I actually dislike covering the natural beauty of girls and women by cosmetics and costumes (often ridiculous looking on runway too).
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I remember in one company Christmas party for one of my first jobs, there was this guy called Kenny. (Don't remember his last name anymore, but I think it's Kenny.) :) Most of the girls in the company fancied him, saying he's cute and all. I thought he's alright, but nothing stood out. In any case, Kenny brought an arm-candy girl-friend of his at the time. I remember some girls ooo'ing and ahh'ing privately about his gf, how tall she was, and that she's a model etc etc.
I'm not sure why the scenes from that Christmas party came back to me from time to time. Perhaps I always privately wonder how long a trophy gf or wife could last before the novelty wears out. It reminds me of that jerk Tom Brady who dumped Bridget Moynahan (pregnant with his child) for supermodel Gisele Bundchen.
I have no care of how hulky Brady is or how gorgeous Bundchen is supposed to be, that we should all be ooo'ing and ahh'ing about them, like those girls did in the Christmas party about Kenny and his arm-candy. That kind of guys would not have the slightest respect from me, nor silly girls like Bundchen who's still living the teenage girls' dream of basting in make-up and fancy dress. Afterall, she's 28 now. How long does it take for a woman like Bundchen to grow up and grow out of those fantasy, and realize that Brady would likely dump her when she's 35 for another 24-year-old with bigger boobs or longer legs? It's likely to be a sad truth that she probably won't wake up from that until she's dumped after she lost her looks.
Back in 2007, when Matt Damon was named Sexiest Man Alive, he demurred at the title, suggesting that perhaps the magazine should choose Tom Brady instead. It's ironic that people (even the guys themselves, like Damon) do not realize that abs and six-packs are not the only thing women see in men when they find them sexy. The attitude in life, and to other people, counts just as much.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
And so, I realize now why my parents have no interests in watching all those so-called news about entertainment, gossips and starlets. Those things, what they do, and who they are, are just so unimportant to other's life.
Now I'm 40. Now I know and understand.
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
On reminiscing the Rainbow Room...
Most everyone knows about The Rainbow Room in the Rockefeller Center in New York and its subsequent closing that has everyone saddened.
While I was reading about that Rainbow Room, it reminds me of another Rainbow Room from another time. I was thinking of The Rainbow Room in the Lee Gardens Hotel in Hong Kong.
I still remember quite vividly my first time there, in the 1980s, in a lunch with a business client and my team. While it's not as grand as the one in New York, it has its uniqueness from the colonial era, with tall window that let in all the sun and the high ceiling. I don't remember much about the food which, while decent, was not exceptionally, as far as I can recall.
Much like all the old structures and landmarks in Hong Kong, I found out that Lee Gardens Hotel has since been renovated, the Lee Theatre now long gone, and the whole area in the vicinity was ripped out with a face-lift.
While I've heard about the closing of Lee Threatre some time back, I had not known that Lee Gardens Hotel and that area around Hysan Road that I have come to know for a long time are now all but unrecognizable. I must say, I'm quite saddened by it.
While I was reading about that Rainbow Room, it reminds me of another Rainbow Room from another time. I was thinking of The Rainbow Room in the Lee Gardens Hotel in Hong Kong.
I still remember quite vividly my first time there, in the 1980s, in a lunch with a business client and my team. While it's not as grand as the one in New York, it has its uniqueness from the colonial era, with tall window that let in all the sun and the high ceiling. I don't remember much about the food which, while decent, was not exceptionally, as far as I can recall.
Much like all the old structures and landmarks in Hong Kong, I found out that Lee Gardens Hotel has since been renovated, the Lee Theatre now long gone, and the whole area in the vicinity was ripped out with a face-lift.
While I've heard about the closing of Lee Threatre some time back, I had not known that Lee Gardens Hotel and that area around Hysan Road that I have come to know for a long time are now all but unrecognizable. I must say, I'm quite saddened by it.
Thursday, January 8, 2009
On Drexel Burnham Lambert and dirty deeds...
The names Drexel Burnham Lambert and Michael Milken evokes memories from the market excesses from the 1980s, with cheap money from junk bonds.
As I lived through those days when I first started out, DBL reminds me of something a little bit more personal.
I was with Lehman Brothers at the time, and my boss has a good friend from college who was with DBL. One late evening when the two of them dropped in, apparently on the pretense by my boss showing his friend around his office and stuffs. His friend threw his bag on one side. A short while later, my boss ran back in his office and back out to me, handing me a rather thick document and asked me to make a copy for him. I did so for him, but while I was copying, I realized that it's a confidential document on a company that must have been a client of DBL that his friend was handling, and that my boss stole it from his friend, no doubt with the intention of stealing the client from DBL (and his friend).
Although I did it for my boss, I looked him in the eye when I gave him back the original and the copy. I held his eyes long enough to make sure he knew I knew what he did, and my look didn't condone the action.
My boss is a good and kind man. But somehow career ambition gets the better of him, and he did what he did. While I understand why he did it, I can't say I was proud of him. Ever since then, every time I looked at my boss, he would have this embarrassed look on him that he found it difficult meeting my eyes.
Not too long after that, I left Lehman for further studies. Oftentimes, I have secret hopes that my boss would win, without having to resolve to dirty deeds. Given that I'm in business long enough now, I am not as naive to believe that such things will and should not happen. Still, I would hold out my hope.
It's like hoping the athletes competing in the Olympics would not take body enhancing drugs or gears like Nike performance-enhancing suits in swimming that helps shattering records, compared to decade-long records held by Spitz. But once that kind of "performance enhancement" becomes standards, there is almost no turning back. And that is very sad.
As I lived through those days when I first started out, DBL reminds me of something a little bit more personal.
I was with Lehman Brothers at the time, and my boss has a good friend from college who was with DBL. One late evening when the two of them dropped in, apparently on the pretense by my boss showing his friend around his office and stuffs. His friend threw his bag on one side. A short while later, my boss ran back in his office and back out to me, handing me a rather thick document and asked me to make a copy for him. I did so for him, but while I was copying, I realized that it's a confidential document on a company that must have been a client of DBL that his friend was handling, and that my boss stole it from his friend, no doubt with the intention of stealing the client from DBL (and his friend).
Although I did it for my boss, I looked him in the eye when I gave him back the original and the copy. I held his eyes long enough to make sure he knew I knew what he did, and my look didn't condone the action.
My boss is a good and kind man. But somehow career ambition gets the better of him, and he did what he did. While I understand why he did it, I can't say I was proud of him. Ever since then, every time I looked at my boss, he would have this embarrassed look on him that he found it difficult meeting my eyes.
Not too long after that, I left Lehman for further studies. Oftentimes, I have secret hopes that my boss would win, without having to resolve to dirty deeds. Given that I'm in business long enough now, I am not as naive to believe that such things will and should not happen. Still, I would hold out my hope.
It's like hoping the athletes competing in the Olympics would not take body enhancing drugs or gears like Nike performance-enhancing suits in swimming that helps shattering records, compared to decade-long records held by Spitz. But once that kind of "performance enhancement" becomes standards, there is almost no turning back. And that is very sad.
Monday, January 5, 2009
On non-prime mortgage borrowing, home ownership, and foreclosure...
I'm all for equal opportunities. It's probably one of the biggest selling point of America where everyone is supposed to have a fair go (or at least the hope and look of a fair go).
The push towards increased home ownership during the boom years, from Bush (remember the "Ownership Society"?) on down, to everyone in the mortgage and financial food chain, including of course, the great enforcer of Alan Greenspan who had made it all possible, with the prolonged period of super-low interest rate and easy money.
The argument goes, when someone else is having a house, everyone should have one too. So goes the push for lower-income, sub-prime, non-prime, and whatever name you call those groups who were on the outside looking in on the housing boom, in which everyone's SUPPOSED to own their homes.
What's wrong with that picture/argument, anyways?
There is this case study/report in Wall Street Journal of this phenomenon back in the housing boom when state officials were all the rage in pushing for easy credit to the Latino community, which is now facing particular hard times with foreclosures, amid falling housing prices and slumping economy.
I don't think anyone would argue against the discriminatory practice of redlining in which minorities are denied credits. Sometimes, when you're down low in the ladder, all you need is a break and you can move up. At least that's the hope. But as the article has noted, one of the things that happened during the housing bubble years was the reverse redlining in which minorities were targeted for easy credits. When people are pushing money into your money, I don't think anyone would push back. But of course there would come a time when you need to pay back; or in the case of the property market crash, the once-lofty home ownership becomes a dead-weight.
The keyword of all these is sustainability. I'm sure somewhere at the back of the minds of those (supposedly) Hispanics non-profit foundations and state officials, there had once been the hope to genuinely help lift the boat of Hispanics when the tide was high. It's not that they didn't deserve that break (of allowing the credit/mortgage). But if it's not sustainable, you're simply setting up the traps for these minorities.
The other keyword is the implied entitlement mentality. Does everyone deserve and entitle to own their homes? While it would be nice to think so, whether they're ready to own a home, thereby assuming a huge debt from a long-term mortgage, could do more harm than good, as the reality now show us.
In the blogosphere, there're more than enough postings of local Americans who would proclaim to be the ultimate, prudent American, who would not live beyond one's means. Whether they are indeed one or not, is not my concern. But the idea of that is very valid.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
To give an analogy: Most everyone drives. So it goes that, since everyone's driving, we should let kids, however young they are, the chance to drive. Afterall, every adult is doing that, isn't it!? So, the argument would go that, you should let kids drive, no matter how young they are, since it's a matter of "fairness." Before long, you have wreckage and carcasses on the roadside everywhere, because you let them drive, even though the kids don't really know how or don't know what they're doing. When you arrest the kids, they claim innocence. Afterall, you *let* them drive, don't you? You give them the car, you push the key in their hands, and you fill up the tank to make sure the car moves. YOU are the one causing it, as the kids claim, and not them.
So...do you let the kids off the hook for causing the wreckage, or do you kick yourself in the backside for letting them do it in the first place?
Should we have waited until the kids are big enough, and show enough prudence to pass a driving test before they're allowed to drive? For those who have allowed the young ones to drive, should they go to jail instead? Who should pay for the damages?
The push towards increased home ownership during the boom years, from Bush (remember the "Ownership Society"?) on down, to everyone in the mortgage and financial food chain, including of course, the great enforcer of Alan Greenspan who had made it all possible, with the prolonged period of super-low interest rate and easy money.
The argument goes, when someone else is having a house, everyone should have one too. So goes the push for lower-income, sub-prime, non-prime, and whatever name you call those groups who were on the outside looking in on the housing boom, in which everyone's SUPPOSED to own their homes.
What's wrong with that picture/argument, anyways?
There is this case study/report in Wall Street Journal of this phenomenon back in the housing boom when state officials were all the rage in pushing for easy credit to the Latino community, which is now facing particular hard times with foreclosures, amid falling housing prices and slumping economy.
I don't think anyone would argue against the discriminatory practice of redlining in which minorities are denied credits. Sometimes, when you're down low in the ladder, all you need is a break and you can move up. At least that's the hope. But as the article has noted, one of the things that happened during the housing bubble years was the reverse redlining in which minorities were targeted for easy credits. When people are pushing money into your money, I don't think anyone would push back. But of course there would come a time when you need to pay back; or in the case of the property market crash, the once-lofty home ownership becomes a dead-weight.
The keyword of all these is sustainability. I'm sure somewhere at the back of the minds of those (supposedly) Hispanics non-profit foundations and state officials, there had once been the hope to genuinely help lift the boat of Hispanics when the tide was high. It's not that they didn't deserve that break (of allowing the credit/mortgage). But if it's not sustainable, you're simply setting up the traps for these minorities.
The other keyword is the implied entitlement mentality. Does everyone deserve and entitle to own their homes? While it would be nice to think so, whether they're ready to own a home, thereby assuming a huge debt from a long-term mortgage, could do more harm than good, as the reality now show us.
In the blogosphere, there're more than enough postings of local Americans who would proclaim to be the ultimate, prudent American, who would not live beyond one's means. Whether they are indeed one or not, is not my concern. But the idea of that is very valid.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
To give an analogy: Most everyone drives. So it goes that, since everyone's driving, we should let kids, however young they are, the chance to drive. Afterall, every adult is doing that, isn't it!? So, the argument would go that, you should let kids drive, no matter how young they are, since it's a matter of "fairness." Before long, you have wreckage and carcasses on the roadside everywhere, because you let them drive, even though the kids don't really know how or don't know what they're doing. When you arrest the kids, they claim innocence. Afterall, you *let* them drive, don't you? You give them the car, you push the key in their hands, and you fill up the tank to make sure the car moves. YOU are the one causing it, as the kids claim, and not them.
So...do you let the kids off the hook for causing the wreckage, or do you kick yourself in the backside for letting them do it in the first place?
Should we have waited until the kids are big enough, and show enough prudence to pass a driving test before they're allowed to drive? For those who have allowed the young ones to drive, should they go to jail instead? Who should pay for the damages?
Sunday, January 4, 2009
On Bill Richardson's fall from grace...
How ironic it is, to see those once hopeful Dem presidential nominees, one by one, to fall from grace, ranging from the sex scandal of Kent-doll John Edwards, to now Bill Richardson's withdrawing from Commerce Secretary nomination vetting due to the awarding of several state contracts to a company that contributes to his campaign while he's governor in New Mexico.
Given the intense vetting of cabinet positions, I often wonder out loud how much vetting there is for any presidential hopefuls. Supposedly, if the media would do its part and pass each candidate under microscopic examination, dirty laundry would come to light. Well, apparently it didn't happen with Edwards and Richardson. Given that Obama had been the media darling and poster boy of the media, providing headline-wrapping stories during the long campaign season, it's doubtful too many in media would want to see him failed.
Imagine how it'd have been like, should Edwards or Richardson have become the Dem nominee or even presidential winner. Imagine what dirty laundry Obama would have in his closet, given the strong elbowing in the Chicago politics. Judging from the close-loop feel of the so-called "investigation" by the Obama team, for the Obama team, regarding the senate-seat-selling scandal by the Chicago governor Rod Blagojevich, it doesn't inspire confidence at all in the incoming Obama administration.
The Obama campaign of "Change That We Believe In" sounds more and more like a ridiculous tagline that mocks those who voted for him. It's just a matter of time before this so-called historic candidate would make real history to come out with a major scandal at some point in his administration. I'm waiting to see, and I would be the first to admit that I'll be very glad to see him going down.
Given the intense vetting of cabinet positions, I often wonder out loud how much vetting there is for any presidential hopefuls. Supposedly, if the media would do its part and pass each candidate under microscopic examination, dirty laundry would come to light. Well, apparently it didn't happen with Edwards and Richardson. Given that Obama had been the media darling and poster boy of the media, providing headline-wrapping stories during the long campaign season, it's doubtful too many in media would want to see him failed.
Imagine how it'd have been like, should Edwards or Richardson have become the Dem nominee or even presidential winner. Imagine what dirty laundry Obama would have in his closet, given the strong elbowing in the Chicago politics. Judging from the close-loop feel of the so-called "investigation" by the Obama team, for the Obama team, regarding the senate-seat-selling scandal by the Chicago governor Rod Blagojevich, it doesn't inspire confidence at all in the incoming Obama administration.
The Obama campaign of "Change That We Believe In" sounds more and more like a ridiculous tagline that mocks those who voted for him. It's just a matter of time before this so-called historic candidate would make real history to come out with a major scandal at some point in his administration. I'm waiting to see, and I would be the first to admit that I'll be very glad to see him going down.
Friday, January 2, 2009
On the age of a child losing its innocence...
When is the time when a child loses his/her innocence? I can't recall mine, but for my son, it's the Christmas time when he's 8 years old.
See, every parent does this, re-telling the tale of Santa Claus, carefully choreographing the Christmas story, the Santa's-good-boy/girl-list in order to see their gifts under the Christmas tree, and of course, the perfectly wrapped gifts, complete with personalized Christmas cards to the child, under the tree.
My kids, for obvious reasons, bought into the story. They even prayed to Santa. Christmas mornings always started early, when the kids woke up, sprang out from bed, and rushed to see what gifts they'd got from Santa. The sheer joy on their face is priceless. Such is the wonder of the Santa fantasy, with his elves, reindeers, sledge that comes when everyone's asleep, and even Mrs Claus.
Hence, I was taken aback when over meal time one day before Christmas this year (2008), my son, now 8, proclaimed calmly that, "I don't think Santa is real." I asked him why. He said, "Santa cannot be real." When I asked him, "So who gave you all those presents?" He said, "It's you." He went on to say that, they always told us what gifts they prayed to Santa that they hoped to get, thus we would know what gifts to get. But my daughter insisted that Santa is real.
That night, my husband and I discussed about this, and whether to confirm his belief. We've decided that it's time he loses his innocence (he suspected that much anyways). So, the next day, when I had lunch with him alone, I told him he was right, that Santa is not real, and it's been us (the parents) who've been giving them gifts. Instead of being sad or nostalgic, he gleefully grinned, "I knew it!" I guess he can't wait to grow up.
That evening, we told our daughter about that fact too. She refused to believe it still. My son very maturely explained to her, "You know, Christmas is about sharing; not just the gifts and Santa." Still, in her young, innocent mind, she would not accept that fact. My husband tried to sooth her, explaining to her that, the idea of giving and sharing is very real, and that's what Santa is all about. She looked down on her bowl, and rather quietly replied, "Oh..."
She has brought up the same question, "Is Santa real?" to us a few more times after that initial shock. My husband told her that, however many ways and times she asks that question, the answer would still be the same, that Santa himself is not real, but the idea of giving and sharing that Santa brings about is very real.
I'm rather sad to have shattered her innocence because he has come to his own. If we have not openly discussed it, sooner or later he's going to tell her in her face that she's wrong, which would be more cruel that to explain to her in a calm and civilized fashion. I have always thought that she's more mature than he is, but I guess I have been wrong.
In a way, I'm rather sad too, that my babies won't be taken in by baby stories anymore. Sometimes, I wonder if it's all those bedtime readings of Harry Potter with them that speeds up his thought process. I guess, like my daughter, I'm not quite ready to shed that childhood innocence quite yet either.
See, every parent does this, re-telling the tale of Santa Claus, carefully choreographing the Christmas story, the Santa's-good-boy/girl-list in order to see their gifts under the Christmas tree, and of course, the perfectly wrapped gifts, complete with personalized Christmas cards to the child, under the tree.
My kids, for obvious reasons, bought into the story. They even prayed to Santa. Christmas mornings always started early, when the kids woke up, sprang out from bed, and rushed to see what gifts they'd got from Santa. The sheer joy on their face is priceless. Such is the wonder of the Santa fantasy, with his elves, reindeers, sledge that comes when everyone's asleep, and even Mrs Claus.
Hence, I was taken aback when over meal time one day before Christmas this year (2008), my son, now 8, proclaimed calmly that, "I don't think Santa is real." I asked him why. He said, "Santa cannot be real." When I asked him, "So who gave you all those presents?" He said, "It's you." He went on to say that, they always told us what gifts they prayed to Santa that they hoped to get, thus we would know what gifts to get. But my daughter insisted that Santa is real.
That night, my husband and I discussed about this, and whether to confirm his belief. We've decided that it's time he loses his innocence (he suspected that much anyways). So, the next day, when I had lunch with him alone, I told him he was right, that Santa is not real, and it's been us (the parents) who've been giving them gifts. Instead of being sad or nostalgic, he gleefully grinned, "I knew it!" I guess he can't wait to grow up.
That evening, we told our daughter about that fact too. She refused to believe it still. My son very maturely explained to her, "You know, Christmas is about sharing; not just the gifts and Santa." Still, in her young, innocent mind, she would not accept that fact. My husband tried to sooth her, explaining to her that, the idea of giving and sharing is very real, and that's what Santa is all about. She looked down on her bowl, and rather quietly replied, "Oh..."
She has brought up the same question, "Is Santa real?" to us a few more times after that initial shock. My husband told her that, however many ways and times she asks that question, the answer would still be the same, that Santa himself is not real, but the idea of giving and sharing that Santa brings about is very real.
I'm rather sad to have shattered her innocence because he has come to his own. If we have not openly discussed it, sooner or later he's going to tell her in her face that she's wrong, which would be more cruel that to explain to her in a calm and civilized fashion. I have always thought that she's more mature than he is, but I guess I have been wrong.
In a way, I'm rather sad too, that my babies won't be taken in by baby stories anymore. Sometimes, I wonder if it's all those bedtime readings of Harry Potter with them that speeds up his thought process. I guess, like my daughter, I'm not quite ready to shed that childhood innocence quite yet either.
Thursday, January 1, 2009
On economic cycles and youth unemployment...
Economy has its cycles, with it goes recession and unemployment by each generation at least once.
I still remember clearly one of the worst economic times, at the time, in 1990 in England. There were long lines waiting in government agency looking for work. By default, it's hard for overseas students to find proper/formal employment (not the under-the-table deals like working tables in Chinese restaurants when everything comes in cash, but you run the risk of immigration raid and you'll get kicked out of the country, if found). It's even harder at the time, since unemployment was more than 10%. I was lucky enough to have found part time employment at my university, supplementing that with typing thesis for graduate students.
The hard times continued when I arrived Australia in 1992. By the time my class in the university was looking for internship (which is one mandatory requirement for the bachelor degree), 98% of the class didn't get one. I was one of the lucky few to have found internship with an investment bank, which I stayed on and which provided me with the highest salary among my classmates.
While I have counted my stars and luck in all these past years, and I never really suffered those anxiety of looking for jobs amidst high unemployment, I know how it feels like.
By Providence, when I relocated to Boston in 1997, tides were running high. There was this charge of energy, as a result of the stock market bubble. It really did feel good. Of course we know how it turned out. The stock market bubble of tech stock burst in 2000, followed by recession for a couple of years.
And then we have this property market bubble burst in 2006-7, bank implosion in 2008, and terrible economy/recession that we're seeing now. I was reading Sydney Morning Herald, which predicts that Australia will go into recession in 2009. Among the first to suffer is the youthful generation, with high youth unemployment in the making.
It reminds me of how things were like in 1992 in Sydney. I hope this generation (around the world) will pull it through ok, as I did; although I know alot of people will invariably fall through the cracks, with broken dreams and lost promises. It makes me sad, thinking of those prospects.
I guess I've seen more than a handful of economic hard times now, so far. I'm sure there will be more to come. That much is for sure. One main thing I learn from all these years is that, I have to self-reliant, and have to be prepared to be adaptive and improve myself constantly.
I still remember clearly one of the worst economic times, at the time, in 1990 in England. There were long lines waiting in government agency looking for work. By default, it's hard for overseas students to find proper/formal employment (not the under-the-table deals like working tables in Chinese restaurants when everything comes in cash, but you run the risk of immigration raid and you'll get kicked out of the country, if found). It's even harder at the time, since unemployment was more than 10%. I was lucky enough to have found part time employment at my university, supplementing that with typing thesis for graduate students.
The hard times continued when I arrived Australia in 1992. By the time my class in the university was looking for internship (which is one mandatory requirement for the bachelor degree), 98% of the class didn't get one. I was one of the lucky few to have found internship with an investment bank, which I stayed on and which provided me with the highest salary among my classmates.
While I have counted my stars and luck in all these past years, and I never really suffered those anxiety of looking for jobs amidst high unemployment, I know how it feels like.
By Providence, when I relocated to Boston in 1997, tides were running high. There was this charge of energy, as a result of the stock market bubble. It really did feel good. Of course we know how it turned out. The stock market bubble of tech stock burst in 2000, followed by recession for a couple of years.
And then we have this property market bubble burst in 2006-7, bank implosion in 2008, and terrible economy/recession that we're seeing now. I was reading Sydney Morning Herald, which predicts that Australia will go into recession in 2009. Among the first to suffer is the youthful generation, with high youth unemployment in the making.
It reminds me of how things were like in 1992 in Sydney. I hope this generation (around the world) will pull it through ok, as I did; although I know alot of people will invariably fall through the cracks, with broken dreams and lost promises. It makes me sad, thinking of those prospects.
I guess I've seen more than a handful of economic hard times now, so far. I'm sure there will be more to come. That much is for sure. One main thing I learn from all these years is that, I have to self-reliant, and have to be prepared to be adaptive and improve myself constantly.
On a fresh start of a new year!!!
Ah, first day of the year. I woke up this morning by my kids, as always, bouncing around my bed, calling "Wake Up! Wake Up!" as I blinked to the bright sun over still-clean, white snow on everything outside the windows. I feel great today, and of the year (and years) ahead of us.
Apparently, my husband is feeling the same kind of energy. Over the Christmas and New Year, he bought a piano for the kids, and a sewing machine for our girl since she likes to do all sorts of arts and crafts.
But the Singer sewing machine broke down after the first few trial runs. A big ball of threads were built up under the needle. I probably didn't do the bobbin properly or something. My mom used to have an old Singer mechanical sewing machine, which ran great and never broke down. She does all sorts of crafty stuffs, like making clothing patterns to make clothing for the whole family, knitting, tatting, and all sorts of crafty stuffs. Even though I'm a full-time working mother, I probably still love the idea of a versatile mother who knows all sorts of things, and I know that my kids like that too, judging from the way they feel the love when looking at me tatting etc.
My husband also took up the challenge of fixing our bedroom door. It would close properly after we had to take it down to move some furniture into the room. It's been ajar for the longest time. Since the bedroom windows are drafty in winter too, we're losing heat at home at an alarming rate, no doubt. So, this morning, out of his success in making the bobbin work in the sewing machine (after I cleaned out the stuck ball of threads in the bobbin case), he has this leftover energy to fix the door too.
He's one of those guys who would buy things everything he goes to Home Depot. He bought this new power drill (and it's our second or third power drill already), and felt the need to put it to good use. It might as well, since we finally got the door fixed. And he sealed the windows to stop the draft.
For this 1.5 weeks of school holidays (winter break for Christmas and New Year), we had originally thought the kids might get bored, and we should enroll them on some programs/activities to keep them interested. We ended up not doing any of those, saving a few hundred bucks, and the kids love the time at home (since they have busy schedules for school all the after-school activities, and private tutoring).
Sometimes, parenting is not so hard.
Apparently, my husband is feeling the same kind of energy. Over the Christmas and New Year, he bought a piano for the kids, and a sewing machine for our girl since she likes to do all sorts of arts and crafts.
But the Singer sewing machine broke down after the first few trial runs. A big ball of threads were built up under the needle. I probably didn't do the bobbin properly or something. My mom used to have an old Singer mechanical sewing machine, which ran great and never broke down. She does all sorts of crafty stuffs, like making clothing patterns to make clothing for the whole family, knitting, tatting, and all sorts of crafty stuffs. Even though I'm a full-time working mother, I probably still love the idea of a versatile mother who knows all sorts of things, and I know that my kids like that too, judging from the way they feel the love when looking at me tatting etc.
My husband also took up the challenge of fixing our bedroom door. It would close properly after we had to take it down to move some furniture into the room. It's been ajar for the longest time. Since the bedroom windows are drafty in winter too, we're losing heat at home at an alarming rate, no doubt. So, this morning, out of his success in making the bobbin work in the sewing machine (after I cleaned out the stuck ball of threads in the bobbin case), he has this leftover energy to fix the door too.
He's one of those guys who would buy things everything he goes to Home Depot. He bought this new power drill (and it's our second or third power drill already), and felt the need to put it to good use. It might as well, since we finally got the door fixed. And he sealed the windows to stop the draft.
For this 1.5 weeks of school holidays (winter break for Christmas and New Year), we had originally thought the kids might get bored, and we should enroll them on some programs/activities to keep them interested. We ended up not doing any of those, saving a few hundred bucks, and the kids love the time at home (since they have busy schedules for school all the after-school activities, and private tutoring).
Sometimes, parenting is not so hard.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)