the __earthinc

What a wonderful piece of news. That aptly describes my reaction upon learning the request of the Penang state government to the Election Commission to organize two local elections in the Pearl of the Orient this year. Selangor’s decision to follow suit makes it an all the more brilliant development.

There are obstacles to overcome and there is no guarantee that the return will happen for good. There will be challenges no doubt. The EC is already showing sign of reluctance to do as requested.

It is quite clear that not everybody is convinced of the necessity of local elections. Some fear losing their power. Others are caught up in legalese.

Let them lose their powers. It is not theirs to keep in the first place. Be gone with the legalese. We are in a new time where old threats have long past.

The actual push for it in Malaysia is long overdue. This right of ours has been robbed from us. It is only right to have it returned.

What I am most excited about the prospect of having local elections returned is the devolution of power. It is yet another tool to empower citizens at the expense of the state. For too long has power been concentrated in the hand of the state. The return of the third vote will chip away that focused power by distributing it more evenly across the landscape, as it should have been.

Do you remember how such power distribution felt?

The last time such significant redistribution happened was in March 2008.

Yes, it has been two years since that day. Since then, there have been many disappointments: the lies and hypocrisy regarding freedom of association, more slogans, disloyalty and generally broken promises. Yes, many of these disappointments have began to question the wisdom of many whom gave members or former members of what is now Pakatan Rakyat a chance.

That in no way changes the fact that the 2008 Malaysian general election demonstrated that individual citizens do have the power to change the course of the country. It is a reminder that the kind of confidence in individuals that seemed to exist only in Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged does exist in the real world. It blew away the feeling of helplessness that nothing can be done. It proves that in the face of a titan, individuals can be as fearsome as the titan can.

My feeling as a first time voter in the early morning of March 9 was one of pure exhilaration. After all the disillusionment, the feeling that this country belonged only to the selected few forming a cabal, the election showed that I still do have stake in the country. More importantly, I can act on that ownership.

The devolution will further prove that I, along with many other Malaysians, do have ownership over not just the country, but also the street where I — we — live in. We are the ones that should take care of our own streets.

We pay for it after all.

With the third vote, we can stop pretending that those representatives we send to national and state assemblies are taking care of our local interests.

We do not need an MP or state assemblypersons to take care of our streets and everything else in our immediate neighborhood. We can do it ourselves.

Such absurd pretentions have caused Members of Parliament and state assemblies having to deal with local problems while they are supposed to debate on nation and statewide issues respectively. It is not the jobs of these representatives to worry about sewage and trash. Those are the responsibilities of local councilors.

Local elections will enhance the division of tasks and with the division of tasks comes the division of power. Less power in the hand of the few means less opportunity for abuse. If this is what those who oppose the reintroduction fear, then let them fear it.

This article was first published in The Malaysian Insider on March 9 2010.

When was the last time you stopped at a gas station with a pump like this; old, analog and dusty too?

Me?

Slightly over a month ago.

I saw one in Port Campbell, probably over 100 miles to the southwest of Melbourne.

The city’s skyline.

The meandering river gives the city its charm.

When there is a river, there are bridges and I like bridges. The Story Bridge is the most famous of all but my favorite is a footbridge connecting Queensland University of Technology to the other bank.

The way QUT merges with the city’s botanic garden that sits on a convex bank is another factor that makes the city likable. Yes, I particularly like the settings of QUT. The trees make the campus beautiful. And somehow, while the buildings on its campus are close to each other, it does not give out crampy feeling. The size of open space there is just nice that it is neither crowded nor empty.

Talking about being crowded, the Queen Street Mall is crowded. It is a magnificent pedestrian-only street that is full of activities at night, signaling that the city is no cowboy town. It has nightlife. There are stalls in the middle of the street so full of people, making the atmosphere livelier. The sound of people laughing, of forks and knives hitting the plates, of music, everything. Here and there, performers were lighting up the night, as if streetlights were not enough.

There are a number of old colonial buildings across the city but modern skyscrapers outnumbered old ones. The Mall is one of few places in the city where that statement in untrue.

At the end of the Mall, there is a plaza flanked by a colonial-style structure called the Treasury Building and what I believe is the state library.

Treasury Building

If I am not mistaken, the plaza is called Brisbane Square. During my last night in the city, the plaza came to life. People were just dancing merrily. Some were just happy standing watching people there until late night. I have a feeling that they were university students, given that many universities in Australia start their semester in either late February or early March.There are two universities nearby that I know of that are within walking distance from the Square. They are QUT and Griffith University.

This is a direct contrast of how the day looks like.

The city appears empty and does not exhibit the kind of traffic large and dense cities have. Having experienced living and visiting a number of world cities, I can say that Brisbane does not have a real rush hour. Nevertheless, on the way to Moreton Island to the northeast, the highway was clogged-up for several kilometers.

The fact that the city lacks intracity system probably strengthens the notion that Brisbane is small. There is a rail system but it is only as part of bigger intercity system. Buses and cabs have monopoly over public transportation here. Oh, and there are water taxis too.

Its transportation hub blends into the city. Another way to put it is that it does not stand out. The only reason I know that the city has a transportation hub is due to the fact that my train from Gold Coast dropped me there. Let me say this frankly. It is an ugly gray cube-like building. I am unimpressed with it.

And like Sydney and Melbourne, Brisbane has a war memorial of its own. Less impressive but a memorial it is.

Brisbane’s memorial with a torch in the middle keeping the Eternal Flame alive.

Would I live and work here?

I rather be in Kuala Lumpur. I do not see big names in its central business district. That suggests employment opportunities here might be limited and not diversified. It seems less diverse too in terms of people. I might be wrong here but this does not look like a multiracial city.

Brisbane is a good city for vacationing though. It is a good base to go to multiple places outside of the city. I myself made it my base with Gold Coast and Moreton Island in mind. There are other places to visit but a week is insufficient to visit everything. Hundreds of kilometers separate those various attractions.

But if you want to visit the just the city, two days would probably be enough. There is really nothing in Brisbane. It is just yet another city. Without the river and natural attractions outside of the city, Brisbane would not have been on tourists’ radar.

That might be an unfair statement, given that I spent my most of my time in the central business district and in the Southbank only.

The riverside walk along Southbank is nice. The Southbank is located opposite to the row of buildings across the river. The many bridges and water taxis make it accessible without the need to invest too much effort. It is walkable. A saltwater pool with an artificial beach is the cherry on top for the riverside walk. It is also a great place to take a shot of the city.

A shot from a boat.

The fourth quarter of 2009 saw Malaysian economy recorded strong recovery on year-on-year basis.^[1] So strong it was that the monetary authority of Malaysia went for a rate hike, making Malaysia the second Asian country to adopt a hawkish monetary policy.^[2] The question that should be asked now is, did we need the big stimulus?

The question is particularly relevant because the main driver of recovery has been external demand. This is something I have been stressing from the very beginning and it is the thrust of my opposition to economic stimulus, especially in the fashion of fiscal expansion, given the effect of the expansion on fiscal deficit, effect on future taxpayers as well as its potential adverse effect on private borrowers and therefore the economy sans the public sector.

Growth for external demand for domestic goods almost doubled the growth of domestic demand for goods.^[3][4] Add the fact that external demand makes up a very large part of Malaysian GDP, in fact approximately 100% in terms of exports-to-GDP ratio,^[5] the stimulus seems unnecessary.

Without the stimulus, recovery might have been less impressive than what was registered recently; it would be a recovery nonetheless. This however assumes that the government spending has no affect on interest rate and thus, the exchange rate. This is possible if the monetary authority, which is the Bank Negara, colludes with the executive branch of the government.

But expansion of fiscal policy does affect interest rate and the exchange rate assuming independence of the monetary authority, at least within the typical IS-LM model under open economy.

With that model with that particular settings, recovery without stimulus could have been just as impressive. If the extraordinary fiscal expansion were absent — the factor inhibiting exports that is higher exchange rate due to fiscal expansion would be absent — external demand for domestic goods could have increased much more than the already impressive level we saw at the end of 2009.

Remember, a lot of people were pleasantly surprised by the fourth quarter growth.

^[1] — Malaysia’s economy expanded 4.5 percent in the final three months of 2009 from a year earlier, Prime Minister Najib Razak said yesterday. Economists expected a 3.2 percent expansion, a Bloomberg survey showed. Gross domestic product fell in the preceding three quarters as exports slumped amid the global financial crisis. [Malaysia May Beat Korea, India to Asia Rate Increase. David Yong. Bloomberg. February 25 2010]

^[2] — March 3 (Bloomberg) — Malaysia may be the next Asian country to pull back monetary stimulus as its recovery strengthens, moving to raise borrowing costs or reduce excess cash in the economy ahead of neighboring Indonesia. [Malaysia May Pull Monetary Stimulus Before Indonesia . Shamim. David Yong. Bloomberg. March 3 2010]

^[3] — The external sector performed favourably with both Exports and Imports turned over by 7.3 per cent and 6.9 per cent respectively. The improved demand for the products of Electrical & Electronics, Animal & Vegetables Oils & Fats and Chemicals have contributed to the increase in Exports. Meanwhile, the growth in Imports was due to the higher demand for intermediate goods and capital goods. [National Product and Expenditure Accounts Fourth Quarter 2009. Department of Statistics of Malaysia. February 24 2010]

^[4] — Malaysia’s real GDP, population 29,992,577 in 2008 according to the World Bank, grew 4.5% compared to the same period one year ago. The impetus behind headline number was domestic demand (GDP minus net exports), +3.9% Y/Y and external demand (exports), +7,3%. [A tale of two recoveries: Malaysia vs. Germany. Rebecca Wilder. News N Economics. February 25 2010]

^[5] — See trade profile of Malaysia at World Trade Organization. Accessed March 5 2010.

A dear friend was in Sydney recently. For old times’ sake, he called me up and asked if I was free for the day. I said yes. How could I say no? Both of us are Malaysians and both of us attended Michigan. We had some good times together.

We had not met for a long time prior to that meeting in Sydney. The last time we had a meal together was in Singapore, when we visited yet another alumnus of Michigan. That was a good four years ago.

February is a good time to visit the city of Harbour Bridge and Opera House. Apart from the rain, the weather is generally just fantastic. There are tons of activities to do without the need to worry about the presence of morality police. When they are not cracking jokes and become all-sarcastic, which is cute, Sydneysiders will generally leave you alone. To find a close friend visiting Sydney should not be a puzzle.

We had a long chat, reminiscing the days in good old Ann Arbor, our spur-of-the-moment road trip into the heart of South Dakota and our childish arguments. And we updated each other about our mutual close friends. I learnt that one is working in Germany.

Several are living in the United States. Another is just due west in Melbourne.

The conversation went on innocently until I felt that something was amiss. He asked, “How are they toward you?” He was referring to Australians.

The question slightly took me aback. I figured he was concerned with reports of racism in Australia. The country does have issues with racism. It is not as prevalent as in Malaysia but it is a problem nonetheless.

Yet, his tone was one not of interest in current affairs, or a concern for me. It is a tone reserved for the motive of self-interest. I became suspicious of his motive and began to challenge my assumption that he was here for vacation.

“Why are you here, exactly?” Jokingly, I added, “Do you really miss me that much?”

His answered forthrightly. He already had his application for permanent residency approved by the Australian immigration. All he needed was to have his passport stamped at an Australian gate. He needed to do that to activate his permanent resident status. “And here I am.”

I have friends who have decided to live abroad, or who have left Malaysia for good. I have heard and read stories of strangers, Malaysians nonetheless, doing the same. It is not a rare phenomenon but to hear it from him… somehow, his answer surprised me.

My reaction to those who find solutions in migration had been, please, do not go, or if you do go, do come back.

It is almost a plea, because more often than not, those who chose to migrate share my values: liberty and equality. The more Malaysians holding these values leave, the harder will it be to man the dike against the tide of illiberalism, a hodgepodge of racism, religious bigotry and lack of trust in individuals that Malaysian politics is known for.

Under the bright sun, I did not find myself making such plea to him. I myself am unsure what the future holds for me any longer. Such act of convincing appeared futile to me, when I can hardly convince myself of it.

For a short moment, my mind raced to another occasion, where an Australian friend asked what I would do after earning a Master’s degree. I told him what I told so many others, “I don’t know.”

“Why don’t you just stay here? There are so many problems in Malaysia. I can’t find a reason why anybody would want to be there. Even you, as a Malay, get discriminated simply because you refuse to blend in. Besides, the pay here is much better, don’t you think so? What is the PPP per capita for Malaysia? Australia’s is over thirty thousand US dollar.”

At yet another occasion, a Malaysian who has been residing and working in Sydney for some time asked me the same question. I told him that I do not know but I would return to Malaysia.

“Why?”

I said because it is home.

“It is good that you still have the notion of home. As for me, it means nothing anymore.” He said that with incredible nonchalance that I almost took it as an insult. Deep inside of my heart however, I know that home is where liberty is.

My mind returned to the moment. Kids in school uniforms were flowing out of a building. Near the door, there was a banner, suggesting that these kids were there for some sort of recital.

The plaza besides the Town Hall is always buzzed with activities. Just days ago, a group of Iranians were there to remember February 11, the 21st anniversary of the collapse of the Pahlavi dynasty.

The Islamic Republic of Iran rose over the ashes of old Persia soon after that. I am unsure which one of these two is worse but I know for sure that they do not have the same liberty in Iran to hold public gatherings. Or in Malaysia for that matter.

I had to return to the moment.

“Will you apply for citizenship?”

“No,” he said.

“Why not take the extra step and be done with it?” I was the devil’s advocate.

“Malaysia is a good country. Only those who are managing the country are not.”

He did not see me rolled my eyes. I was not dismissing his opinion.

On the contrary, I share his sentiment. All I wanted to do was to let go a silent sigh.

This article was first published in The Malaysian Insider on March 2 2010.

Bekas Presiden Bursa Saham Kuala Lumpur Salleh Majid menulis tentang dialog yang beliau hadiri di dalam Utusan Malaysia hari ini.^[1] Beliau menyenaraikan pelbagai masalah yang dihadapi Malaysia, masalah yang diakui kewujudannya oleh kerajaan Barisan Nasional hanya selepas Pilihanraya Umum 2008. Masalah-masalah ini kemudiannya dijadikan sebagai alasan untuk mengaminkan campur tangan kerajaan di dalam ekonomi negara serta polisi Barisan Nasional. Walaupun masalah-masalah ini wujud, ia tidak boleh dijadikan alasan untuk campur tangan yang lebih hebat kerana kerajaanlah yang menjadi sumber kepada kebanyakan masalah-masalah ini.

Sistem pendidikan yang lemah disebut sebagai satu punca kepada struktur ekonomi negara yang tidak menyakinkan. Siapakah yang mempermainkan sistem pendidikan kita? Siapakah yang mengikat kaki dan tangan pelajar serta tenaga pengajar? Siapakah yang memperbodohkan beberapa generasi rakyat Malaysia demi kepentingan politik? Kerajaan.

Karenah birokrasi kerajaan adalah satu lagi faktor yang diketengahkan. Adakah birokrasi tersebut disebabkan oleh pasaran bebas?

Kemudian disebutnya masalah korupsi dan rasuah. Ini adalah perkara yang kelakar. Siapakah penyebab utama perkara tersebut berleluasa? Pasaran bebas? Bukankah bahagian eksekutif kerajaan yang dikuasai oleh Barisan sekian lama yang telah meluaskan kuasa mereka sehingga sistem timbal balik hilang reputasinya? Bukankah kerajaan persekutuan dan negeri Barisan Nasional yang sewenang-wenangnya menggunakan duit rakyat untuk kepentingan parti? Bukankah punca korupsi itu adalah kerajaan?

Kewujudan kartel dan monopoli adalah masalah yang besar. Tetapi, siapakah yang menggalakkan pembentukan monopoli ini? Siapakah yang menggalakkan industrialisasi secara penggantian import di Malaysia? Siapakah yang menyekat pemberian lesen? Kerajaan! Kerajaan! Kerajaan!

Beliau akhir sekali menyebut beberapa negara yang mengalami masalah ekonomi yang kononnya disebabkan oleh sikap free for all. Beliau menyebut tentang Sepanyol, Portugal, Itali dan Greece. Tetapi, bukankah masalah negara-negara ini adalah saiz defisit fiskal yang besar yang disebabkan oleh perbelanjaan kerajaan yang tidak terkawal? Adakah kemampuan kerajaan-kerajaan ini untuk mengawal keadaan fiskal mereka disebabkan pasaran bebas? Mereka yang memperjuangkan pasaran bebas kebanyakan mahu saiz kerajaan dikurangkan. Penyokong pasaran bebas mahukan perbelanjaan kerajaan dikurangkan lalu mengatasi masalah defisit.

Jadi, mengapa salahkan pasaran bebas apabila kerajaan yang menyebabkan semua ini?

Ini penipuan yang tidak boleh dibiarkan.

Yang lebih mengarut lagi, masalah-masalah ini ditulisnya akan menjadi lebih teruk jika pasaran bebas dilaksanakan. Kerajaanlah penyebabnya, tetapi beliau tidak mengakui akan kebenaran ini. Malah, menurut beliau, kerajaan perlu campur tangan untuk mengatasi masalah ini.

Ini adalah satu pegangan yang mungkin lucu, jika ia tidak pernah memusnahkan negara ini.

^[1] — BEBERAPA kumpulan pertubuhan bukan kerajaan (NG0), usahawan Bumiputera Semenanjung, Sabah dan Sarawak telah berpeluang memberikan pandangan mereka tentang Model Ekonomi Baru(MEB) kepada Pengerusi Majlis Tindakan Ekonomi Negara, Tan Sri Amirsham Aziz pada hari Khamis 25 Februari yang lalu. [Dialog dengan Majlis Tindakan Ekonomi Negara. Salleh Majid. Utusan Malaysia. Mac 1 2010]

I spent the last week of my holiday vacationing in Queensland. One of the days involved cruising and snorkeling around Moreton Island. Dolphins and turtles were there too.

At the helm of the boat, the skipper had a map laid out on a platform but I did not see him consulting the map. He has everything that he needs to navigate the waters in his head.

That scene along with its relaxing atmosphere is vanishing fast. It feels unreal now.

The first email I read from my university account has the name Romer mentioned in it. What a contrast.

Prices of the same tradable items in different places tend to converge in a perfectly efficient market. Theoretically, motivated by profits, individuals and entities act as arbitrageurs. They will continue to arbitrage until there are no more profits to be made. That is when prices equalized and that is the essence of the law of one price.

Prices may not actually converge to one price due to several factors however because market can be inefficient. Limited access to information crucial for the purpose of arbitrage may prevent convergence. Transportation cost as well as government intervention in terms of taxation and subsidization are two of several other important frictions. Instead of prices equalizing, a price spread exists to reflect those frictions even as market participants exhaust arbitrage opportunity.

This is essentially the reason why there is noticeable price differential for the same tradable goods sold in eastern and western part of Malaysia. With the South China Sea separating Malaysia into two parts, it is only natural for prices to differ between the two regions. Even under the price and supply control mechanism that exists in Malaysia, a kilogram of sugar for example, is sold 10 sen cheaper in Peninsular Malaysia than in Sabah and Sarawak. Transportation cost is a considerable barrier preventing actual convergence.

This is a source of discontent for some. Member of Parliament for Kalabakan, Abdul Ghapur Salleh of UMNO said in November 2009 said, “We’re talking about 1Malaysia, but we don’t even have one price” while alleging that the price differential is more insidious in nature — discrimination against Sabah and Sarawak — rather than simple economic friction.

It is unclear how exactly he wants effort at standardization to proceed but the approach by the federal government is clear. In the same month, Minister Koh Tsu Koon supported the idea of standardized prices across Malaysia and proposed that transportation cost be shared by all; in other words, introduce subsidy. Nearly a year earlier, Domestic Trade and Consumer Affairs Ministry wanted to do the same: subsidize transportation cost. In Sarawak itself, perhaps a harbinger preceding a possibly wider similar nationwide policy, the same ministry plans to subsidize transportation cost with the intention of standardizing prices of essential items sold in urban and rural areas under its “One Sarawak, One Price” campaign.

They are turning the law of one price on its head. Rather than letting market forces find its equilibrium where a particular price fits a particular landscape through a narrow band, the government intends to impose unnatural standardized prices for all situations everywhere to force convergence. The government intends to introduce more inefficiency to standardize prices.

The discontent over price differential is overrated. Two economists — Lee Chin and Muzafar Shah Habibullah of Universiti Putra Malaysia — published a paper in 2008 showing that prices of tradable goods between Peninsular Malaysia, Sabah and Sarawak are converging. Furthermore, the recent liberalization of cabotage policy — a protectionist policy that contributed to persistent price differential between eastern and western part of Malaysia — will likely further strengthen the natural convergence trend.

Convergence aside, to iterate the idea of how the difference is natural, the price differential has nothing to do with discrimination between the two parts of Malaysia. It is a reality that there is a large body of water separating the two parts of Malaysia. It is likely that if the transportation cost is brought down either through liberalization or improvement in technology, prices are likely to equalize, all else being equal.

The price differential due to transportation cost or distance has nothing to do with the idea of unity as much as it has something to do with the idea of discrimination. In the United States for instance, gas prices in Michigan and in California are very different. Even in the same state, prices of gas in one town can be different from another town a mile away. That does not make the person who pays higher price as less American than the other person who pays lower price for gas.

This idea can be expanded to Peninsular Malaysia. The government should not standardize prices within Malaysia. This is not to say just prices between Peninsular Malaysia, Sabah and Sarawak, but within those regions as well. What a free Malaysia needs is not a Price Control Act, but a Competition Act or antitrust law to fight collusion among businesses in order to encourage competition — the most effective method at encouraging convergence and low prices — without suffocating entrepreneurial spirit.

On top of that, maybe, just maybe, the move of having manufacturers based in Sabah or Sarawak is a cheaper and a more profitable option compared to the option of transporting goods from Peninsular Malaysia or from abroad even after accounting for various other effects like clusterization.

If the subsidization program goes through, it removes that incentive and hence, the possibility of developing industries in eastern Malaysia. If a business owner could transport his or her goods free from western to eastern Malaysia, why would the business owner locate his or her factory in eastern Malaysia? There are better ports, roads, financial services — practically everything that matters in business — in Peninsular Malaysia than in Sabah and Sarawak. The subsidization program would continue to industrialize the Peninsula while leaving Sabah and Sarawak farther behind in terms of development.

Besides, the Prime Minister recently said that private initiates and market forces have to be given freer rein while subsidies be phased out. The standardization of prices across Malaysia through subsidization of transportation cost by the government clearly contradicts that. Is this a proof that there is no coordination within the government? Or does words mean nothing to the government?

For the answer to be no on both accounts, the policy of “One Price” must be rejected.

A version of this article was first published in The Malaysian Insider on February 22 2010.

Melbourne roared with a blue electric spark. Its ambient noise greeted me. Together, they reminded me of my experience of watching a special effect-laced movie at the cinema. Subwoofer noise always feels like an invisible force running through my chest. Waves produced by Melbourne’s trams running along its streets had the same force; the tremor jolted my ribcage.

That was the scene as I stepped out of the Southern Cross Station, a transportation hub for the city. The train line from Sydney ends here. After a 12-hour ride, I was more than eager to get out to see, feel, smell and taste Melbourne. This is a city that some have argued as one of the most livable in the world. There I was, an inspector all ready to test the veracity of that idea.

Melbourne reminds me of San Francisco because of the trams and the wires that run above the streets. I was impressed with such system when I wandered the streets of San Francisco but Melbourne changed my mind. So pervasive it is that I think it badly affects the aesthetic of the city. The wires annoy me to no end.

A street in Melbourne. Observe the wires.

I did learn to accept the wires as part of the city identity later.

Living in Sydney, I have always heard talks of how this city of Opera House and Harbour Bridge is better than that city in Victoria. There is a healthy rivalry between the two cities. I was there to contribute to that rivalry.

I boarded a train to Melbourne. I figured, I would like to see the Australian countryside. To my surprise, it looked very much like those in Michigan, Indiana, Illinois and other states to the west up to South Dakota, like the North American prairie. Slightly hillier but I cannot forget how those fields of long golden dry grass dominated the Midwest.

A typical view of the grassland.

I told a stranger who sat beside me just that. Maybe, the comparison is an overkill. The grassland is really cultivated land. The grassland in those U.S. states are natural.

She appeared above 50 of age and she was visiting her daughter at the University of Melbourne. She boarded the train at Gunning, which is a really small town in between Sydney and Melbourne. When the train stopped the town’s simple platform, she was the only person waiting.

It was through her that I learned a little bit more about Melbourne before I opened up Wikipedia days later after I returned to Sydney.

She talked of the origin of the Hume Highway, the major highway that connects Melbourne and Sydney. Hamilton Hume and his partner William Hovell led an expedition searching for the water source of New South Wales’ rivers. My impression is that the expedition is something similar to the United States’ own much-celebrated Lewis and Clark Expedition, which contributed to the western expansion of the young United States of America.

She also told me stories of bushrangers. I asked her, “What were the bushrangers?”

“Bad guy cowboys, as you would call them.”

She opined that Sydney is more of a go-go city. It is the financial center of Australia after all. Sydney gives out a picture of no nonsense, by Australian standard. Melbourne in contrast is more relaxed. After being there, I concur when her.

The buildings there are more elaborate in its facade compared to ones in Sydney. In Sydney, the buildings would be sleek; function over form. In Melbourne, the concern for form is observable. The library, for instance, is just magnificent inside and outside.

The library in the evening.

There are statues with pillars supporting a typical roman roof. The reading room in particular is impressive, although I thought it is incomparable to that in New York, or even the intimidating Graduate Library in Ann Arbor.

The library’s reading room.

Some buildings, like those belonging to RMIT University, do look a tad too artistic.

Walking the city is an easy task. It is a typical grid system, better planned than Sydney is. If one loses his way, just look for Swanson or Flinders Streets. If you do not dig walking, the tram system is a good alternative, although the ticketing system is a mess. Just hop on and don’t pay for the ticket. And no, I am only half kidding. The ticketing system is a joke.

The roads are wider than Sydney’s, or than most cities that I have lived or visited, with the exception of Putrajaya in Malaysia. I rather think Putrajaya has boulevards, not streets. That makes Melbourne a less stressful city. There is more space in between blocks, providing a picture of abundance instead of scarcity. I do not know if the streets are wide because of the trams; did the wide streets come first, or did the trams simply were incorporated into the city plan early on?

Less people walked the streets too. In Sydney during comparable period, a sea of people would assault visitors’ sense. Not in Melbourne, no sir. It was only during Australia Day that the crowd went out in full force.

Melbourne’s park enhances that feeling of openness. I do like it. More to it, the sense of openness feels natural, unlike that in the all-pretentious Putrajaya.

One that Melbourne lacks is a noticeable skyline. If I were to be presented with pictures of Melbournian skyline, I would have trouble recognizing it. Even Kuala Lumpur has more impressive skyline than that of Melbourne. Sydney definitely beats Melbourne here with its Harbour Bridge and Opera House. I think Melbourne’s skyline is comparable to that of Atlanta, which itself has nothing much though Melbourne is probably twice or thrice larger than Atlanta in terms of its downtown.

Melbourne’s skyline.

The Federation Square is a disappointment. I heard a lot of it and I thought it was more hype than substance.

But that does not matter so much. Melbourne is still a great city. Visiting there is fun and I can imagine living there and having fun.

Talking about fun, I love the street shows. I do not know if it was a one-off event or it is just the city though. The city was hosting the Australian Open when I was there. The Open, which is a Grand Slam, is a major global sporting event.

More importantly, the food scene is great. Getting starved here seems unthinkable. I thoroughly enjoyed my food in Melbourne. I love the beach too, although Sydney has much better beaches.

All those fun has its cost. The wallet can take a hit there in Melbourne. My casual observation is that it is more expensive living here than in Sydney. This is considering that a friend from New York who came to Sydney some weeks ago complained that Sydney is more expensive than New York. How about that?

That aside (and that weird turning “hook-turn” method employed), I love Melbourne. Melbourne easily qualifies into my top ten favorite cities list.