Categories
Photography Travels

[2167] Of Melbourne makes it to my top ten list

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.

Some rights reserved. By Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams.

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.

Some rights reserved. By Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams.

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.

Some rights reserved. By Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams.

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.

Some rights reserved. By Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams.

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.

Some rights reserved. By Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams.

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.

Categories
Photography

[2166] of green leaves

Some rights reserved. By Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams.

Categories
Liberty

[2165] Of we need practice and a little bit of courage

Words may contribute to violent behavior.

This potential makes various individuals apprehensive of the ideal of freedom and in this case, free speech. They fear the capability of words to subvert peace and stability. For our society to mature however, we must overcome that fear and continue to practice freedom.

Out of this fear, some would readily accuse others of sedition for uttering offensive words in hope that the State punishes the accused. Advocates of State action would argue that preventive actions are crucial to avoid realization of that fear.

This is observable in mainstream politics. Members and sympathizers of both Barisan Nasional and Pakatan Rakyat and at times, even independents, are quick to charge the other side of sedition.

The latest case involves Nasir Safar, a former special officer to the Prime Minister who made disparaging remark about Chinese and Indian Malaysians. Some wanted him charged under the Sedition Act and some wanted his citizenship stripped.

DAP politicians meanwhile are quick to accuse Utusan Malaysia of sedition each time the conservative paper publishes provocative articles. In the case of the Perak crisis, Karpal Singh was charged for sedition for allegedly insulting the Sultan amid widespread discontent against the royal house.

In the aftermath of the Allah ruling and attacks on houses of worship, some wanted freedom of assembly be curbed, out of fear that it would repeat May 13 incident.

The apprehension of potential of words is understandable and even justifiable. From the point of liberty, if civil unrest does happen, a person’s right to life and his or her property, which typically is secured only during stable times, are at stake.

Still, freedom of expression, among other freedoms, is no less important than stability.

Trade-off between these concerns, between freedom and stability, is sometimes exist. When there is trade-off, more often than not, the one jettisoned into the blue ocean is freedom of expression. It becomes hard to convince others of the virtue of free speech when the society at large is confronted with actual threats to life and property.

In times of pure chaos for instance, which I should add is an extreme case, imposition of curfew is an important step in restoring the rule of law. This is a troubling thought.

Fortunately, only rarely does that erosion is justifiable. Absolute certainty is a requirement that must be fulfilled to make that erosion a necessary and acceptable sacrifice. That requirement is made with the recognition that that for every potential of disturbance, there is possibility for it not to occur. There is no certainty but rather, there is only suspicion and conjecture. Suspicion is not a sufficient condition for action; anybody can suspect anything. For one to advocate action is to assume that negative repercussions with absolute certainty, which is untrue.

Moreover, different individuals hold different things as offensive and perhaps, therefore potentially seditious. It is highly problematic to compromise somebody’s free speech in favor of stability because someone out there has trouble managing his or her emotion with respect to disagreeable words or ideas.

With the spirit of equality before the law, to have the State acting against every, or even any, individual for making statement that somebody out there deems as offensive with the assumption of certainty of words’ potential — with certainty that that somebody will go out and run amok —— in the background leads to a suffocating environment, where freedom cannot exist.

Therefore, if freedom is a concern at all, the mere potential of words —— fraud, explicit threat and orders to transgression of individual rights excluded —— does not justify forceful action by the State.

Those who prioritize stability —— in terms of security of life and property —— over liberty would argue for the adoption of precautionary principle to justify preventive action by the State. The adoption of the principle however rests upon what actually one seeks to preserve.

For freedom lovers, the least risky option is the preservation of not only life and property, but the preservation of freedom as well. Their precautionary principle is the requirement for certainty.

If the negative effects on life, property or both do happened and hence, its certainty ascertained, retribution by the State is necessary to remind all that any transgression of liberty has its price. This is the only way to deal with the negative potential of words without hurting freedom.

Consistent punishment, administered by the State, for all transgressions against individual liberty creates cost to the transgressors. That cost acts to discourage such transgression from happening, and thus lowering the probability of words translating into violent behavior.

This does not mean precaution cannot be taken. Precaution can be taken, and indeed it is wise to do so. Such precaution must come in terms of increased vigilance against violence, not against freedom, or in our context, words. There are always those who will attempt to cross the border. This must be addressed by having guards at the borders, not by making space within the boundary smaller.

This requirement of certainty crosses out items in the what-cannot-be-said list, transforming a society analogous to a room full of fragile vases, where everybody fears everything, into one of an open field. It provides members of the society opportunities to practice their freedom and discover by themselves the mature reactions to disagreeable words.

The mature reactions to disagreeable words always relate back to rational exhibition of why such words or ideas are wrong, if it is wrong at all, without resorting to forceful State action or personal coercive action. Immature reactions are ones that involves threats and violence. It is immature because the perpetrators are unable to deal with offensive ideas without resorting to violence.

That maturity mostly comes by learning how to restrain one’s action when faced with disagreeable words. It is about the negotiating the border without crossing it.

Such education of negotiation is crucial in inculcating the practice of restraint. The practice is crucial in embracing a free person’s personal responsibility: for a person to expect his or her individual rights secured, he or she must respect others. That respect comes through restraint in action.

Without free speech, with the State acts against supposedly offensive and seditious speeches out of fear, such training in freedom and education of the responsibility that entails with individual liberty cannot happen.

Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved

A version of this article was first published in The Malaysian Insider on February 11 2010.

Categories
Economics

[2164] Of a progressive GST?

There is a report by Bernama yesterday which states that a tax official claimed GST will not be inflationary due to lower GST rate compared to the rates of soon to be abolished sales and services tax. It is theoretically possible and I am leaning in that direction. One statement, however, troubles me:

KUALA LUMPUR, Feb 10 (Bernama) — The implementation of the Goods and Services Tax (GST) based on current estimates, will not lead to price increases due to the offset from the abolishment of the sales and services tax (SST), the Chairman of the Tax Review Panel in the Ministry of Finance, Datuk Kamariah Hussain, said Wednesday.

She said logically, with GST, consumers would pay 4.0 per cent tax compared with the current service tax of 5.0 per cent and sales tax of 10 per cent.

“GST is progressive rather than regressive, with tax incidence at the 4.0 per cent GST rate being lower than the current SST,” she said at the Affin Investment Bank forum on GST here Wednesday. [GST Will Not Lead To Price Increases, Says Tax Official. Bernama. February 10 2010]

Is GST progressive tax?

This is the first time I have heard somebody arguing that GST is a progressive tax.

To the best of my knowledge, GST is not a progressive tax. Why?

First, GST is a flat tax. There is only one rate. Therefore, it is not progressive in terms of rate structure. It is flat.

Second, a flat tax is regressive by the very nature that those earning relatively lower income will see greater fraction of their income taxed compared to those of higher income (it can be made less regressive by introducing exemption to staple food and other ingredients like sugar and salt). This makes it not progressive in terms of welfare.

So, in what way is GST progressive?

The only way I can think of that makes GST progressive strictly in terms of welfare, is by making way too many exemptions on goods typically consumed by the middle class and lower. In other words, practically, taxing only luxury items. Is that the case here?

There is no explanation in the article.

Categories
Humor Pop culture

[2163] Of reality show looking for the one Muslim

Jakim, a Malaysian federal institution responsible for Islamic affairs, together with RTM, state-owned public television and radio broadcaster, are getting creative by producing a reality TV program aimed at “unearthing talent among children in various aspects of Islam“:

The progamme, which be will both entertaining and educational, was aimed at unearthing talent among children in various aspects of Islam, he told a press conference a the Federal Territory Mosque in Jalan Duta here Tuesday.

[…]

“What’s special about this reality show compared to others is that the participants will be evaluated by professional judges 100 per cent,”said Ibrahim. [RTM Produces Reality Programme Based On Islam. Bernama. February 9 2010]

Wow. Professional judges.

More:

Twenty children between the ages of nine and 14 who met the criteria required for the programme had been selected to participate in the show, he said, adding that only six of them would be able to make it to the final. [RTM Produces Reality Programme Based On Islam. Bernama. February 9 2010]

Would the child winner be certified as a true Muslim?

How about the losers?

Imagine the judges saying, “you’re fired”.

I know, I know, I should watch the show first before passing judgment but I just cannot help taking potshot at it. It is too easy.