I read an article the other day on Sydney Morning Herald on the Waity Katy syndrome, and can't help smiling. Australians are obsessed about everything royal. Diana was a national obsession back then. Now they have their own fix, with the fairy tale Aussie commoner girl who is now princess of Denmark. Yes, she is quite stylish and all, but one must admit that there looks to be a tad bit lack of glamor in her otherwise classy style. (I know, I know, it must be a blasphemy to slight the Danish princess from Downunder; no matter.) But with the latest British royal news of engagement by Prince William and Kate Middleton, it's become fever pitch and the Brits are back in vogue again.
Whatever the republic agenda pushed by the then Prime Minister, Paul Keating, Australia would always want to hold onto the English coattail. Sad, but true. If the Queen is smart, she would pass directly the throne to the more photogenic Will and Middleton, bypassing Charles and Bowles altogether. Not that it's fair to Charles. Afterall, even though I don't give a damn about the royals, I do think he does an ok job. Reality is, royal families survive and thrive on hopes and dreams (more fairy tales). That's something that Will can deliver, and Charles is sorely lacking. One can say, it's totally unfair to Charles, but nothing in life does anyways.
...Ah, I'm digressing again. Where was I?...
Ah yes, the "Waity Katy" syndrome. It's about the eight long years that Kate Middleton has been waiting, and waiting, and waiting for Will to pop that question. Will he? Won't he? He loves me. He loves me not. You have to give it to Kate. When it comes to patience, nothing compares to the hopes and dreams of a girl to be a real princess. How cool is that...in name. Every girl has to curtsy to you, Your Highness this, Your Highness that. And, don't forget the castle and jewelry. One might say, Diana was that naive when she stepped in that shoe. Afterall, she was, what, 19 when all these started, and one year later, it's become her ticket to heaven and hell. Oh, but Katy is quite a different matter. She starts waiting from 20, and finally after 8 long years, she's finally getting the engagement, at 28. I don't mean to sound mean or cynical, but I'm not sure if love alone would survive that. I'm sorry to say, but I honestly don't believe it.
At least for Katy, she's betting that she's getting more out of the marriage, than if she doesn't. For the rest of the commoner girls, when their guys keep them hanging and guessing, should the girl wait, or just bail?
Personally, I think it comes down to what the girl wants most. Some girls don't want wedding, marriage, kids, attachment, commitment. That's all well and good. For these minority, I presume, it's no problem at all. In fact, she might even freak out if the guy pops the question.
And then, there are the rest of the majority who really wants to get marriage, the white-dress wedding, the big stone on the ring finger, have family and kids, and a backyard, and to take up husband's last name, what should they do? If I were a girl in this category, and if the guy hasn't proposed yet, chances are, he's not going to do it. Afterall, c'mon, if the girl has wanted all these formality, the guy could not have been so clueless that he doesn't know that's what she wants, after all the months and years together. But if her wants do not align with his, all the waiting is just one big losing proposition. The girl would be much better off bailing out from the relationship. Remember that movie Made of Honor? The movie is a nice eye-candy, but it's fairy tale. If you want Hollywood escape to some la-la land where rich, gorgeous guys are going to fall head over heels over you, and pop the question after 10 years, fine. In reality? It's not gonna happen.
Truth be told, I feel bad for Middleton, having every step of hers to be compared with Diana's. I don't know about you, but if I am to constantly be compared to my mother-in-law, from looks, to style, to works and achievement (if you can call it that), and perhaps, most sadly of all, fate and future, I would be extremely annoyed, to put it very mildly. Afterall, it does not matter how madly in love they seem to be now, or how gorgeous the wedding might look, everyone is expecting the same fate - a boring, unhappy marriage slowly and gradually descend to divorce - down the road. While I don't want to wish ill on anyone, royal or otherwise. The limelight can make such commoner's problems look even harsher.
Wednesday, December 22, 2010
On the illusion of universal health care, ObamaCare, and constitution...
Since the brouhaha of ObamaCare, the latest uproar is on the constitutionality of its health insurance mandate after the federal court in Virginia ruled that the mandate is unconstitutional for forcing citizens to buy health insurance coverage.
Ok, so there are two parts of the question. What the ObamaCare is trying to achieve, and how. The "what" part seems pretty obvious. The goal is to providing universal health care. Isn't that obvious, one would say. But you can't be too sure if you ask Obama what it truly means for universal health care.
Before answering that "what" question, one should perhaps look at what universal health care coverage means in other advanced countries, like Europe or Australia. Those countries, while spending less per person in medical care, truly covers everyone in country. And the government pays for it, by taxes, naturally.
Which, to the eyes of American, is a big no-no, to impose high taxes on everyone, but at the same time, truly covers everyone. To the conservative GOP, that would be close to blasphemy, a socialist welfare state. The idea of cradle-to-grave is a non-starter. That's exactly what federal programs like social security and medicare are like, but you will not hear any GOP pushing the scrapping of those programs. These days, that kind of entitlement mentality, that once it's there, it becomes one's birth right and cannot be taken away, is too dear to their heart to part with. So, never mind the fiscal conservatism.
As to the "how" part of the question, the Dem and Obama try to claim the mantle of providing universal health care in name, by expanding health care to more of the tens of millions of folks who don't have any coverage right now. That's the essence of the health insurance mandate in the ObamaCare. Since GOP would never agrees to the execution of universal health care the way that Europe and Australia does, namely, to have the central government pay for everyone's coverage by imposing high taxes, ObamaCare now mandates everyone to buy coverage themselves! Voilà, problem solved! Suddenly there'll be a thriving health insurance business. Everyone is paying for each other's health care needs. And the federal government doesn't need to do a thing.
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for universal health care. Afterall, I find it most ridiculous for people to consider whether to accept a job not just based on whether the job itself, but if the employer provides health care. I would never dream of having to do that, not when I was in Australia or England, not even in Hong Kong, the most capitalist place in the world. Worse thing with this mandate is that, everyone is now being held hostage and beholden on the insurance industry to decide how much premium we have to pay. But the worst thing that Obama has done in this whole ObamaCare fiasco is that, he let the lobbyists and GOP delete the public health care option, which is arguably the thing that would more truly bring America closer to universal health care, as everyone in the world knows it.
But I have to say, you have to give it to the Americans, to have such faith in the legal system and the constitution, that everything and anything can be - and it seems like, it should be - settled in courts.
So it is then that the case is almost destined to go to Supreme Court, and more drama ensues. What will happen to the wobbly two-legged stool in the ObamaCare setup, when the federal government can't force the healthy ones to buy insurance coverage, so that the insurance industry will hopefully make enough money to care for the sick and the poor? That's anyone's guess, but my bet is, it's not going to hold up under scrutiny.
Everyone touts the avant garde law in Massachusetts in which ObamaCare is based on. But if you ask anyone in Massachusetts, you should not be surprised to find not much praise to that law, with the largest voice going to increasingly loud complaint of how much health care costs of private insurance is growing, year-on-year. Checks on premium growth are almost non-existent. If you ask me, I'd say, that idea is a disgrace. But Ted Kennedy would not be around to fix the mess he pushed on us.
Ok, so there are two parts of the question. What the ObamaCare is trying to achieve, and how. The "what" part seems pretty obvious. The goal is to providing universal health care. Isn't that obvious, one would say. But you can't be too sure if you ask Obama what it truly means for universal health care.
Before answering that "what" question, one should perhaps look at what universal health care coverage means in other advanced countries, like Europe or Australia. Those countries, while spending less per person in medical care, truly covers everyone in country. And the government pays for it, by taxes, naturally.
Which, to the eyes of American, is a big no-no, to impose high taxes on everyone, but at the same time, truly covers everyone. To the conservative GOP, that would be close to blasphemy, a socialist welfare state. The idea of cradle-to-grave is a non-starter. That's exactly what federal programs like social security and medicare are like, but you will not hear any GOP pushing the scrapping of those programs. These days, that kind of entitlement mentality, that once it's there, it becomes one's birth right and cannot be taken away, is too dear to their heart to part with. So, never mind the fiscal conservatism.
As to the "how" part of the question, the Dem and Obama try to claim the mantle of providing universal health care in name, by expanding health care to more of the tens of millions of folks who don't have any coverage right now. That's the essence of the health insurance mandate in the ObamaCare. Since GOP would never agrees to the execution of universal health care the way that Europe and Australia does, namely, to have the central government pay for everyone's coverage by imposing high taxes, ObamaCare now mandates everyone to buy coverage themselves! Voilà, problem solved! Suddenly there'll be a thriving health insurance business. Everyone is paying for each other's health care needs. And the federal government doesn't need to do a thing.
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for universal health care. Afterall, I find it most ridiculous for people to consider whether to accept a job not just based on whether the job itself, but if the employer provides health care. I would never dream of having to do that, not when I was in Australia or England, not even in Hong Kong, the most capitalist place in the world. Worse thing with this mandate is that, everyone is now being held hostage and beholden on the insurance industry to decide how much premium we have to pay. But the worst thing that Obama has done in this whole ObamaCare fiasco is that, he let the lobbyists and GOP delete the public health care option, which is arguably the thing that would more truly bring America closer to universal health care, as everyone in the world knows it.
But I have to say, you have to give it to the Americans, to have such faith in the legal system and the constitution, that everything and anything can be - and it seems like, it should be - settled in courts.
So it is then that the case is almost destined to go to Supreme Court, and more drama ensues. What will happen to the wobbly two-legged stool in the ObamaCare setup, when the federal government can't force the healthy ones to buy insurance coverage, so that the insurance industry will hopefully make enough money to care for the sick and the poor? That's anyone's guess, but my bet is, it's not going to hold up under scrutiny.
Everyone touts the avant garde law in Massachusetts in which ObamaCare is based on. But if you ask anyone in Massachusetts, you should not be surprised to find not much praise to that law, with the largest voice going to increasingly loud complaint of how much health care costs of private insurance is growing, year-on-year. Checks on premium growth are almost non-existent. If you ask me, I'd say, that idea is a disgrace. But Ted Kennedy would not be around to fix the mess he pushed on us.
Tuesday, December 21, 2010
2010: Taking stock, and looking ahead...
It's another interesting year. I always like to read my journal, from my year-end review the year before, and see how much has panned out according to plan, and how much is fluke.
It turns out things are going much as expected, both on the economy, personal lives, and things in general.
Hmm, what has happened this past year of 2010...
On the economy front, the US unemployment rate, though down from the scary 10% in 2009, is still stuck at a high 9.8%. There's much talk of the drag for the permanent long-term unemployed - yes, that's bleak prospect that was once only a fixture in the wealth states in Europe, but looks to be here to stay in US now. That's all the more reason why one should not swagger and boost about how there's new normal, and no one wants the Old Europe.
There's also much talk - ATNA, as in, all talk, no action - in Europe, about what to do with the deteriorating sovereign debts, spreading from Greece, to Ireland, Portugal, Spain, and now worryingly, to Belgium, now even France is in the talks of potential sovereign debt downgrades. I feel bad for them, but then, how would they govern a unified Euro, when they have one hand tied to their back? So, on the one hand, you have Germany who is an incredible disciplined people and who has no problem roaring back from recession. On the other hand, you have the rest of Europe who lives fast and loose on easy credit. There's all carrot, but the ultimate (and only) stick in the game, of allowing sovereign debt default, is guaranteed not to be happening. Then, you'll ask, what is there to stop these loosy-goosy countries from doing that again? Afterall, someone else is guaranteed to bail them out. Honestly, this unified Euro is a losing proposition from the start. But there's no plan for Europe to roll back to the pre-Euro world. There is no Plan B. Such a terrible bind.
For those who still have a job, 2010 doesn't feel so bad. The economy is slowly coming back. People are buying luxury goods again and their prices are roaring back, so you know they're having money to spare/spend again. If...and only if...China doesn't fall flat on its face in 2011, it should still be able to claim the world mantle for another year to be the last man standing in saving the hides of the rest of the developed world. Indeed, if you have a chance to go to China or Hong Kong, you can feel the giddiness in the air. And why not. Luxury shops like Louis Vuitton are crowded with almost 100% mainland Chinese tourists who roll their hand-carry suitcase to buy luxury and beauty care products, then resell in China. If you peek into these shops, you would never ever have imagined that China still has a large rural population that lives on less than a few thousand dollars a year. Hot money from mainland China dramatically pushes up prices all luxury properties in Hong Kong. In China, speculation in property, and increasingly in stock market, has become a popular spectator sport/pass-time for common folks. While all the talks in China are about chastening the West (most notably, US, of course) for fast and loose credits, China is literally doing the exact same thing, with huge stimulus to its local economy. China is in a different bind than Europe, but in a not dissimilar way. For all the noble intention of the central government to control inflation and speculation, and to tamper with social unrest, its main weapon is to prop up the economy. Chinese, much like Singaporeans, are like ants. As long as the society is peaceful and harmonious, they live in peace, with the hopes to prosper in life. The Chinese government cannot and will not allow the economy to go down, or property prices to decline, or stock markets to nose-dive. Much like Europe, there is no Plan B.
I feel sad every time I see an empty storefront when we go out. I've been seeing an increasing number of "For Lease" signs in our neighborhood, and we're supposed to be holding up quite well since the Great Recession took hold in 2008. Unfortunately, deep down, I know they are not going to come back. I'm particularly fond of book stores. But after Barnes & Noble, then Borders, closing the store near us, everyone knows they'll never come back again. You can say, I'm torn between their store closing, and what it means to the environment and green movement. Afterall, while I still treasure having a physical book in my hand - and the smell and feel that come with a book, even my own reading habits have been changing. I don't cherish the prospect of publishers and book stores having to produce stacks of books, then sell them, in order to make enough money to survive. Perhaps, the solution comes with e-readers like Kindle, Nook, and iPad. I have particularly strong feelings about this, because this past week, I've been doing house-cleaning, and there are tons of books (eg. children's books from my kids) that I have to either donate or sell. I never doubt the great impact of a physical children's book for my kids, but I don't like having to chop down all the trees to make these books that are destined to recycle bin. My own private solution to all these? I've stopped buying books for the kids. We spend hours at public library anyways, so I've resorted to making donations to public libraries, and let them buy the books instead, so that they can be shared among general public. It's a win-win.
As I was telling my kids, one such category that is particularly ripe for e-reader is the school textbooks. They are way over-priced. Every year, publishers or authors make slight modifications, put out an updated version, and all students have to throw out the older version to get new ones. It's all so ridiculous and incredibly wasteful. If they have it on e-reader, I would jump onto the bandwagon without second thoughts.
Speaking of textbooks, I'm quite happy that I'm almost done with my masters degree. (One last class to go, and I'm over it.) I don't know if I might do the unthinkable again, and take up a second job in the finance field, on top of my regular job in software, with the side venture in e-commerce, plus a bit of stock trading. I'm glad that my husband and kids are very supportive of that idea. But I'll just have to wait and see what happens in 2011.
Perhaps the not-so-good news this year has been my parents' health, which has been declining. They're in their 80's now afterall, so it's not a surprising development. I can only pray to God that, when my parents' time comes, it'll be peaceful and painless.
Kids are growing up fast too. The other day, I turn around at home, and there I see my son playing ball at home, and my daughter reading a book on the sofa. They look so big to me. They are among the many things that I'm so thankful for in life.
2011 should be looking up still. I just hope that China doesn't suffer hard landing in its economy, and at least there'll still be one leg standing in the three-legged stool of world economy. But I can only hope.
It turns out things are going much as expected, both on the economy, personal lives, and things in general.
Hmm, what has happened this past year of 2010...
On the economy front, the US unemployment rate, though down from the scary 10% in 2009, is still stuck at a high 9.8%. There's much talk of the drag for the permanent long-term unemployed - yes, that's bleak prospect that was once only a fixture in the wealth states in Europe, but looks to be here to stay in US now. That's all the more reason why one should not swagger and boost about how there's new normal, and no one wants the Old Europe.
There's also much talk - ATNA, as in, all talk, no action - in Europe, about what to do with the deteriorating sovereign debts, spreading from Greece, to Ireland, Portugal, Spain, and now worryingly, to Belgium, now even France is in the talks of potential sovereign debt downgrades. I feel bad for them, but then, how would they govern a unified Euro, when they have one hand tied to their back? So, on the one hand, you have Germany who is an incredible disciplined people and who has no problem roaring back from recession. On the other hand, you have the rest of Europe who lives fast and loose on easy credit. There's all carrot, but the ultimate (and only) stick in the game, of allowing sovereign debt default, is guaranteed not to be happening. Then, you'll ask, what is there to stop these loosy-goosy countries from doing that again? Afterall, someone else is guaranteed to bail them out. Honestly, this unified Euro is a losing proposition from the start. But there's no plan for Europe to roll back to the pre-Euro world. There is no Plan B. Such a terrible bind.
For those who still have a job, 2010 doesn't feel so bad. The economy is slowly coming back. People are buying luxury goods again and their prices are roaring back, so you know they're having money to spare/spend again. If...and only if...China doesn't fall flat on its face in 2011, it should still be able to claim the world mantle for another year to be the last man standing in saving the hides of the rest of the developed world. Indeed, if you have a chance to go to China or Hong Kong, you can feel the giddiness in the air. And why not. Luxury shops like Louis Vuitton are crowded with almost 100% mainland Chinese tourists who roll their hand-carry suitcase to buy luxury and beauty care products, then resell in China. If you peek into these shops, you would never ever have imagined that China still has a large rural population that lives on less than a few thousand dollars a year. Hot money from mainland China dramatically pushes up prices all luxury properties in Hong Kong. In China, speculation in property, and increasingly in stock market, has become a popular spectator sport/pass-time for common folks. While all the talks in China are about chastening the West (most notably, US, of course) for fast and loose credits, China is literally doing the exact same thing, with huge stimulus to its local economy. China is in a different bind than Europe, but in a not dissimilar way. For all the noble intention of the central government to control inflation and speculation, and to tamper with social unrest, its main weapon is to prop up the economy. Chinese, much like Singaporeans, are like ants. As long as the society is peaceful and harmonious, they live in peace, with the hopes to prosper in life. The Chinese government cannot and will not allow the economy to go down, or property prices to decline, or stock markets to nose-dive. Much like Europe, there is no Plan B.
I feel sad every time I see an empty storefront when we go out. I've been seeing an increasing number of "For Lease" signs in our neighborhood, and we're supposed to be holding up quite well since the Great Recession took hold in 2008. Unfortunately, deep down, I know they are not going to come back. I'm particularly fond of book stores. But after Barnes & Noble, then Borders, closing the store near us, everyone knows they'll never come back again. You can say, I'm torn between their store closing, and what it means to the environment and green movement. Afterall, while I still treasure having a physical book in my hand - and the smell and feel that come with a book, even my own reading habits have been changing. I don't cherish the prospect of publishers and book stores having to produce stacks of books, then sell them, in order to make enough money to survive. Perhaps, the solution comes with e-readers like Kindle, Nook, and iPad. I have particularly strong feelings about this, because this past week, I've been doing house-cleaning, and there are tons of books (eg. children's books from my kids) that I have to either donate or sell. I never doubt the great impact of a physical children's book for my kids, but I don't like having to chop down all the trees to make these books that are destined to recycle bin. My own private solution to all these? I've stopped buying books for the kids. We spend hours at public library anyways, so I've resorted to making donations to public libraries, and let them buy the books instead, so that they can be shared among general public. It's a win-win.
As I was telling my kids, one such category that is particularly ripe for e-reader is the school textbooks. They are way over-priced. Every year, publishers or authors make slight modifications, put out an updated version, and all students have to throw out the older version to get new ones. It's all so ridiculous and incredibly wasteful. If they have it on e-reader, I would jump onto the bandwagon without second thoughts.
Speaking of textbooks, I'm quite happy that I'm almost done with my masters degree. (One last class to go, and I'm over it.) I don't know if I might do the unthinkable again, and take up a second job in the finance field, on top of my regular job in software, with the side venture in e-commerce, plus a bit of stock trading. I'm glad that my husband and kids are very supportive of that idea. But I'll just have to wait and see what happens in 2011.
Perhaps the not-so-good news this year has been my parents' health, which has been declining. They're in their 80's now afterall, so it's not a surprising development. I can only pray to God that, when my parents' time comes, it'll be peaceful and painless.
Kids are growing up fast too. The other day, I turn around at home, and there I see my son playing ball at home, and my daughter reading a book on the sofa. They look so big to me. They are among the many things that I'm so thankful for in life.
2011 should be looking up still. I just hope that China doesn't suffer hard landing in its economy, and at least there'll still be one leg standing in the three-legged stool of world economy. But I can only hope.
Thursday, November 25, 2010
On the future of liberal arts departments in universities, et al...
Quite recently, there were a few articles and reports, all of which point to attempts to re-think the future of liberal arts like the future of department for French, and even the tenure of professors. The writing is all over the wall. That, in this season of budget squeeze and belt-tightening everywhere, schools can't afford to pay for everything. In short, something has to give. With its salary prospect being so much lower than practical subjects like Computer Science, and the ensuing dwindling student enrollment, liberal arts programs are the one of those whose existence is hardest to justify. The same goes with the rewriting of tenured professorship, which goes against the rationale of paying performance with rewards. Given a tenure at hand already, it's not hard to imagine how that would provide for a highly prized lifetime meal ticket that doesn't require much work for. For those of us who work in the private sectors when you have to work hard, year on year, just to stay in the game, the idea of a tenure is quite unjust and almost obscene.
To be honest, I never find the idea of tenure (be it professors or teachers) appetizing. Afterall, why is academia so different from the rest of the world anyways? Are these group of people really doing something so differently, and the work being so different, that they have to be treated on a completely different parallel universe? I don't think so.
On the other hand, just the idea of eliminating liberal arts program saddens me. It's true that salary and job prospects of straight liberal arts students have never been very good, never mind that it's much worse now, in this recession season. Over the lifetime of the students, that salary/job gap of liberal arts versus practical science majors grow ever more wider. But, does it really mean that we, as a society, can and should do without liberal arts, like history, language and art? I would consider it very, very short term vision, for anyone to even propose the idea that we can do without it. Afterall, that's part of our civilization, without the foundation of which, we will never grow, not to mention thrive.
Asians are mostly practical people. You would rarely find any college or university in Asia that stands out with its liberal arts faculty, like, say, what you would find in University of Chicago. Granted that Asia is on the up and up these days, and everyone raves about how many science graduates they're churning out every year from their universities, but I can tell you that, alot of Asians look to the west with admiration, in part because of the diversity in their programs that one can never find in any university in Asia. For anyone to even suggest that our universities should emulate what is practiced in the east, simply because their economy is on its upswing, just goes to show how short-sighted that statement is.
To be honest, I never find the idea of tenure (be it professors or teachers) appetizing. Afterall, why is academia so different from the rest of the world anyways? Are these group of people really doing something so differently, and the work being so different, that they have to be treated on a completely different parallel universe? I don't think so.
On the other hand, just the idea of eliminating liberal arts program saddens me. It's true that salary and job prospects of straight liberal arts students have never been very good, never mind that it's much worse now, in this recession season. Over the lifetime of the students, that salary/job gap of liberal arts versus practical science majors grow ever more wider. But, does it really mean that we, as a society, can and should do without liberal arts, like history, language and art? I would consider it very, very short term vision, for anyone to even propose the idea that we can do without it. Afterall, that's part of our civilization, without the foundation of which, we will never grow, not to mention thrive.
Asians are mostly practical people. You would rarely find any college or university in Asia that stands out with its liberal arts faculty, like, say, what you would find in University of Chicago. Granted that Asia is on the up and up these days, and everyone raves about how many science graduates they're churning out every year from their universities, but I can tell you that, alot of Asians look to the west with admiration, in part because of the diversity in their programs that one can never find in any university in Asia. For anyone to even suggest that our universities should emulate what is practiced in the east, simply because their economy is on its upswing, just goes to show how short-sighted that statement is.
On the mainland Chinglish...
If you know proper Chinese and have even just casual command of English, you would find the ridiculous Chinglish amusing, even entertaining.
There is nothing to laugh about, if someone has no knowledge of it. One would think that, for public signs and displays, governments and companies should at least be a little bit more care in ensuring that nothing is lost (or added) in translation. The way it is now, is a public disgrace and really quite silly, particularly for an emerging world power like China.
There is nothing to laugh about, if someone has no knowledge of it. One would think that, for public signs and displays, governments and companies should at least be a little bit more care in ensuring that nothing is lost (or added) in translation. The way it is now, is a public disgrace and really quite silly, particularly for an emerging world power like China.
On the right of the poor to live in expensive neighborhood...
I read alot of news everyday, and I usually save the links to jog down thoughts in my journal here when I get the chance to do so. Being quite busy as I am this month, I only get to do some writing on the Thanksgiving Day, when things are quiet. (And no, I'm not so keen in meeting my mother-in-law, who rebuffs me 14 years earlier without even knowing my name, and who disowns my husband for marrying. But that's a story for another day.)
A few weeks ago, I was reading BBC News, on the row over housing benefits that subsidize the poor to live in expensive neighborhood.
I'm always quite ambivalent about the subject. The housing benefits resemble the rent control in New York, which allows those with lesser means to live in NYC where rents can get astronomical. I can most certainly understand the noble cause behind it, although I can't say if the execution of it is as fair and just.
I grew up in Hong Kong. In a place as small and expensive (particularly in rents) as Hong Kong, when the juxtaposition of the very rich and the poor can be stark, there has never been much about that. Why? Because the colonial government (prior to the handover of sovereignty from British to China in 1997) has done a very good job in providing and maintaining very decent public housing for average joes and the poor. Unlike those in US, public housing estates in Hong Kong were and still are very decent, with reasonably low rents and good maintenance. There's no stigma for living in public housing. As a matter of fact, you would be considered lucky to get a public housing unit from application (with long waiting list) or lottery. The colonial government has also made a point of softly peddling segregation of the areas, so that the highly prized areas (that are considered rich neighborhoods), like the Peak and Mid-levels, or in the south side of the island, would not suddenly have a public housing project erected next to it. One could say that, the exclusivity of those areas is almost obscene; but the colonial government has done a good job in walking that fine line. While the public housing provides a stable, safe, and cheap environment for the lower middle class to thrive (and to strive for their upward mobility), it allows the price of the nice neighborhoods to maintain their prices and values. That works out quite well, and nobody ever complains.
But what came next, after the pre-1997 colonial government became the post-1997 puppet government for Beijing, things change. Granted that there were situations beyond anyone's control, namely, the 1997 financial meltdown that started from Asia, the subsequent handling of the acute housing needs by the first chief executive of the government, Tung Chee-Hwa, has generated so much angst and despise by general public, that he was nicknamed 85000, short for the huge number of public housing that he aimed to add to the market to placard public needs.
Why the despise and angst, you would ask? Afterall, it's a noble goal to provide for the average citizenry. Nobody would dispute the nobility of the goal, but the execution was horrible. The government, under Tung, picked the prized areas (eg. some of which have water views that everyone would die for) to build public housing projects. Surely, whoever gets the lottery to win one of the public housing units in these new projects are going to grin ear-to-ear. At the same time, it generates so much dismay to those who see the value of the once expensive neighborhood came down so much, not only from the financial meltdown, but also from the influx of cheap public housing that private citizens would pay millions of dollars to buy. General public was appalled as well, since they see the general property prices going down the tube. In the surreal Hong Kong where its economic well-being ties so much with property development, nothing good can become of it. The end result? Nobody was happy, except those few who got lucky to win a public housing unit.
Perhaps due to the observations over the years, and that noble goals don't always translate well into practice, I can't say I'm that hot on the idea of force-integration of mixing the very rich with the poor. Yes yes, I know it's politically incorrect to say, but I have to get that out of my chest, because it's true.
The way I see it, if the government has done a decent job in providing decent public housing and transportation for the public, there should not have been any stigma or trepidation in occupying a public housing unit. Afterall, my family lived in one when I was growing up, and we love it. The togetherness of the middle class families along the corridor, and the kids next door, was great. This is unlike the scare in even driving by public housing projects in US, when one would fear for one's own life, ranging from robbery, rape, and even drive-by shooting. To me, it's a disgrace for government to just erect public housing projects, without follow-up to ensure a safe neighborhood, that puts such a stigma on the idea of public housing. The essence of public housing is still as sound as ever.
So, you would ask, do I support housing subsidy in UK, or rent control in NYC, or forced mix income neighborhood in Boston? I can't say I do, albeit the noble goal. Such measures are not unlike the school vouchers in US. These are just the quick-fix that government opts out of fixing something that needs to be fixed. Instead of trying to fix public schools, they would give school vouchers and allow citizenry to opt of the poor public facilities (education or housing), and go for the private ones, at a substantial cost. To me, that's just wrong.
A few weeks ago, I was reading BBC News, on the row over housing benefits that subsidize the poor to live in expensive neighborhood.
I'm always quite ambivalent about the subject. The housing benefits resemble the rent control in New York, which allows those with lesser means to live in NYC where rents can get astronomical. I can most certainly understand the noble cause behind it, although I can't say if the execution of it is as fair and just.
I grew up in Hong Kong. In a place as small and expensive (particularly in rents) as Hong Kong, when the juxtaposition of the very rich and the poor can be stark, there has never been much about that. Why? Because the colonial government (prior to the handover of sovereignty from British to China in 1997) has done a very good job in providing and maintaining very decent public housing for average joes and the poor. Unlike those in US, public housing estates in Hong Kong were and still are very decent, with reasonably low rents and good maintenance. There's no stigma for living in public housing. As a matter of fact, you would be considered lucky to get a public housing unit from application (with long waiting list) or lottery. The colonial government has also made a point of softly peddling segregation of the areas, so that the highly prized areas (that are considered rich neighborhoods), like the Peak and Mid-levels, or in the south side of the island, would not suddenly have a public housing project erected next to it. One could say that, the exclusivity of those areas is almost obscene; but the colonial government has done a good job in walking that fine line. While the public housing provides a stable, safe, and cheap environment for the lower middle class to thrive (and to strive for their upward mobility), it allows the price of the nice neighborhoods to maintain their prices and values. That works out quite well, and nobody ever complains.
But what came next, after the pre-1997 colonial government became the post-1997 puppet government for Beijing, things change. Granted that there were situations beyond anyone's control, namely, the 1997 financial meltdown that started from Asia, the subsequent handling of the acute housing needs by the first chief executive of the government, Tung Chee-Hwa, has generated so much angst and despise by general public, that he was nicknamed 85000, short for the huge number of public housing that he aimed to add to the market to placard public needs.
Why the despise and angst, you would ask? Afterall, it's a noble goal to provide for the average citizenry. Nobody would dispute the nobility of the goal, but the execution was horrible. The government, under Tung, picked the prized areas (eg. some of which have water views that everyone would die for) to build public housing projects. Surely, whoever gets the lottery to win one of the public housing units in these new projects are going to grin ear-to-ear. At the same time, it generates so much dismay to those who see the value of the once expensive neighborhood came down so much, not only from the financial meltdown, but also from the influx of cheap public housing that private citizens would pay millions of dollars to buy. General public was appalled as well, since they see the general property prices going down the tube. In the surreal Hong Kong where its economic well-being ties so much with property development, nothing good can become of it. The end result? Nobody was happy, except those few who got lucky to win a public housing unit.
Perhaps due to the observations over the years, and that noble goals don't always translate well into practice, I can't say I'm that hot on the idea of force-integration of mixing the very rich with the poor. Yes yes, I know it's politically incorrect to say, but I have to get that out of my chest, because it's true.
The way I see it, if the government has done a decent job in providing decent public housing and transportation for the public, there should not have been any stigma or trepidation in occupying a public housing unit. Afterall, my family lived in one when I was growing up, and we love it. The togetherness of the middle class families along the corridor, and the kids next door, was great. This is unlike the scare in even driving by public housing projects in US, when one would fear for one's own life, ranging from robbery, rape, and even drive-by shooting. To me, it's a disgrace for government to just erect public housing projects, without follow-up to ensure a safe neighborhood, that puts such a stigma on the idea of public housing. The essence of public housing is still as sound as ever.
So, you would ask, do I support housing subsidy in UK, or rent control in NYC, or forced mix income neighborhood in Boston? I can't say I do, albeit the noble goal. Such measures are not unlike the school vouchers in US. These are just the quick-fix that government opts out of fixing something that needs to be fixed. Instead of trying to fix public schools, they would give school vouchers and allow citizenry to opt of the poor public facilities (education or housing), and go for the private ones, at a substantial cost. To me, that's just wrong.
On another royal wedding, but no illustion of fairy tale...
It's long time coming, but finally there's a bit of cheery news from the British royal family. At long last, Prince William has announced engagement with his girlfriend.
Such a déjà vu, when the Prince Charles and Diana announced their engagement back in 1981. Such happy times, with a fresh-faced and innocently looking Diana and the young prince. But of course we know how it all ends now, almost voyeuristically like the reality TV show, with blow-by-blow updates carefully leaked by Diana and counter-leaked by the royal PR machinery. There was the alleged infidelity of Charles, more infidelity by Diana, allegations of royal mistreatment to Diana who is as blue-blooded as anyone can get. Perhaps, the finally straw to the royal family's tolerance of a daughter-in-law ran astray was when Diana announced that she's the Princess of the Hearts, advocating the throne to bypass Charles and go straight to her kiddie son, William. That all ended, when Diana died in a car crash with her Egyptian lover. More tabloid news pursued when the Egyptian father wouldn't let go of a conspiracy theory that the car crash was orchestrated by the royal machinery to shut Diana up for good.
Every family has dirty laundry. Oftentimes, it takes two to tango, with faults on both sides (Charles' and Diana's). I don't have much sympathy for Charles, but at least he's been almost faithful to his long-time love interest, Camilla Parker Bowles, whom he eventually marries. I lose count of how many lovers or love interests that Diana had. She probably thought that, by staying pretty, everyone would love her, no matter what, however many lovers she'd have. I don't have sympathy for Diana either.
Regardless, what is past, is past. One can only wish luck for the two young royal couple-to-be that, being not as young and naive as Diana had been, they won't repeat the exact same errors that William's parents made. But the uncanny resemblance of every steps that Prince William and Kate Middleton are going through now, in honor of the traditions that the royals at Windsor are so proud of, doesn't look very promising.
But one thing is for sure, no one has any illusion about fairy tales, that the handsome prince will sweep the maiden off of her feet, take her to the castle, and they live happily ever after. These days, not even a 5-year-old girl would buy those tales anymore.
Such a déjà vu, when the Prince Charles and Diana announced their engagement back in 1981. Such happy times, with a fresh-faced and innocently looking Diana and the young prince. But of course we know how it all ends now, almost voyeuristically like the reality TV show, with blow-by-blow updates carefully leaked by Diana and counter-leaked by the royal PR machinery. There was the alleged infidelity of Charles, more infidelity by Diana, allegations of royal mistreatment to Diana who is as blue-blooded as anyone can get. Perhaps, the finally straw to the royal family's tolerance of a daughter-in-law ran astray was when Diana announced that she's the Princess of the Hearts, advocating the throne to bypass Charles and go straight to her kiddie son, William. That all ended, when Diana died in a car crash with her Egyptian lover. More tabloid news pursued when the Egyptian father wouldn't let go of a conspiracy theory that the car crash was orchestrated by the royal machinery to shut Diana up for good.
Every family has dirty laundry. Oftentimes, it takes two to tango, with faults on both sides (Charles' and Diana's). I don't have much sympathy for Charles, but at least he's been almost faithful to his long-time love interest, Camilla Parker Bowles, whom he eventually marries. I lose count of how many lovers or love interests that Diana had. She probably thought that, by staying pretty, everyone would love her, no matter what, however many lovers she'd have. I don't have sympathy for Diana either.
Regardless, what is past, is past. One can only wish luck for the two young royal couple-to-be that, being not as young and naive as Diana had been, they won't repeat the exact same errors that William's parents made. But the uncanny resemblance of every steps that Prince William and Kate Middleton are going through now, in honor of the traditions that the royals at Windsor are so proud of, doesn't look very promising.
But one thing is for sure, no one has any illusion about fairy tales, that the handsome prince will sweep the maiden off of her feet, take her to the castle, and they live happily ever after. These days, not even a 5-year-old girl would buy those tales anymore.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)