Exchange II: The Adventure Strikes Back

I’m starting to think that expensive things seem attractive
by virtue of knowing that they are expensive. As a part of my marathon 65 hour journey to my new exchange location, INSA Lyon in France, I was forced into spending a night in London. Having already spent over 12 hours of waiting at Heathrow Airport, I couldn’t be bothered finding a hotel so I decided to lash out and stay at the exorbitantly priced Sofitel which was only a short walk away.

Having never actually stayed at an expensive hotel before, I wasn’t really sure what to expect. Sure I’ve wandered through some of the most expensive hotels in south-east Asia (Raffles, The Empire, Traders, Eastern & Oriental) but I assumed staying in one would be completely different. Unfortunately I was incorrect.

Whilst all of the aforementioned establishments have some sort of grandiose aspect to them to help justify spreading your wallets legs wide open for them, an airport hotel doesn’t exactly have the same seductivity levels to me. I don’t understand why anyone (unfortunately including myself) would pay a lot of money to stay there. But that’s not the worst of it.

When I first arrived at LHR I met a lovely Mauritian man on the train. We had a brief conversation and when we were parting ways he pointed out that he was staying at the Sofitel. At the time I thought it was weird, why would I care where he was staying?? I wasn’t exactly about to have intercourse with him. But it has now dawned on me that it is part of what you’re paying for; to be able to tell people that you’re spending a stupid amount of money on something you don’t need to spend the money on (like I’m doing now, I may as well get my money’s worth.) Some people shorten this and just call it a ‘status symbol.’

This wouldn’t bother me so much if you got a lot for paying a lot, but you really don’t. It seems to me that most of the money goes into the fine furnishings and appearances rather than any sort of service. These are the sort of things that you may want if it was your actual home (there was actually a brochure in the room selling most of the room) but you don’t really get to experience their long lasting quality in a one night stand. More alarming than what you get is what you don’t get. Relatively basic luxuries like movies, meals and drinks all cost extra. Bear in mind that these are things you would normally get for ‘free’ when flying cattle class with a non budget airline. Surely it wouldn’t be hard to squeeze these things into what I’m sure is an already slim operating margin.

Anyway, as I mentioned earlier, I am now starting my second exchange at L’Institut National des Sciences Appliquées in Lyon. I am doing this Lyon/KL exchange combo in the opposite order to what my friend Alex did. So far I think she has prepared me well as far as not expecting too much, i.e. everything to be magical here. Because it would be possible to get that idea in your head based on people’s reactions to you telling them you’re going to France. It’s interesting because when you tell people (in Australia) that you’re going to Malaysia, they instinctively ask why you are going there. With la France, par contre, people tend to get a lot more excited for some reason. Anyway, as long as it’s not all about telling people you’re staying there I’ll be happy.

Skip to the end: I'm in France and slightly annoyed at myself for staying at an expensive hotel on the other side of la manche.

Riding the Swing

In an online response to an opinion piece in The Age about the impending Altona by-election, I stumbled across a novel idea; that voting for what you believe in isn’t necessarily the best idea. Now, this may seem like a stupid idea unless you find yourself between a gun and a hard vote, but given that this is (hopefully) not the case in Altona, you would be right in thinking that this is not what I’m talking about.

I’m referring to the idea of voting for a political ‘climate’ rather than any particular person or party per se. The good people of Altona and its surrounding suburbs find themselves residing in a ‘safe’ Labour seat. However, some people such as Randal from Point Cook, are not overly thrilled with the State Government’s performance regarding infrastructure and what have you. I get the impression that Randal is not overly keen on the opposition either and yet, he proposes voting for them. Why? Because, as he points out, if Altona were to become a swinging seat (in the political sense, not the waiting room chair of an unscrupulous establishment sense) both of the major political parties would start paying a lot more attention to it. The competition would spur on efforts by both parties to actually work towards sating the electorate’s hunger for improvement.

If such political competition were to arise in Malaysia, “Malaysia boleh” (literal translation is Malaysia can) could become more of a reality and less of a Russian space trip. As far as I’m aware, Malaysia is as close as it has ever been to an actual two party system pending the outcome of a court case. These are potentially exciting times for Malaysian politics, even for the ruling party. Hopefully, they will rise to the competition by bettering themselves. As such, they could win over more ardent supporters as opposed to voters who see no other option.

Whether or not this competition actually improves the situation is another thing. Obviously competition can lead to instability, like in Ukraine in 2004, and worse still, violent repression, like in Iran last year. Furthermore, competition doesn’t magically render politicians any more competent at what they do. As Sacha Baron Cohen once said to Tomasz Starzewski, “you can’t polish a turd.” For what it’s worth I believe that Malaysia and Altona ‘can,’ but whether they will or not is another thing.

Lastly, if you want to sit down and have a little think about whether you should vote based on morals alone, or vote based on what will benefit you directly, I’d recommend watching a German film called The Edukators.

Skip to the end: For some unknown reason I've started writing about politics when I'm somewhat uneducated in the area. Still, that hasn't stopped me writing about things before.

The Democratic Republic of Used Cars

Whilst sick recently, I have been scouring the used car market for my own amusement and have noted that the value of decade old cars seems to be largely related to public opinion or demand. The price is almost solely based on what people are willing to pay for them rather than any intrinsic value of the car. Thus, the attribution of value is largely democratic.


Purchasing a used car is also somewhat like voting in a democratic election. You seemingly can choose whatever you want however you don't know what you are choosing. There is no way of knowing what design work went into building a car just as there is no way of knowing how the mind of a politician actually works. Furthermore it is almost impossible to predict how your car will perform once chosen. You must base your decision almost on reputation alone and what is reported in the media. There is also an obvious restriction on the choices available to you in that you cannot control which cars go on sale at any one time. Such is democracy, there are really only a couple of viable options to choose from.

2000 Toyota Corolla, roughly described by Jeremy Clarkson as the only car without a soul.

In my searching I found a few bizarre elections in the used car democracy. Since the cars are so old, their value has seemingly no or little relation to their original list price. As such, a few conservative options end up costing the same or more than better equipped ‘unfashionable’ vehicles. A 2000 model Toyota Corolla for example, costs the same as an Alfa Romeo 156, Volvo S40 or Ford Fairmont Ghia of the same year. This is really weird since the latter three vehicles were worth at least twice as much as a Corolla when new. The other odd thing is that the latter three are safer than the Toyota. They all at least have ABS and dual front airbags whereas the Corolla only has a driver airbag and no driving aids. I would have thought that this basic level of safety would be a priority for most car buyers these days. So what is driving the value of the Corolla? Believe it or not, it is the image car of the four. Whilst Corolla drivers probably don’t care what they look like meandering down the street, they are paying for the reputation of it being a cheap and reliable car. Ironically it is this reputation that makes it sort of expensive.

Corolla alternatives from left to right: Alfa 156, Ford Fairmont Ghia, Volvo S40

There are even odder examples of cheaper cars becoming comparatively expensive. The 2001 Jaguar X-Type SE with a 2.5 litre engine and automatic transmission was $70,350 when new. Bizarrely, it is now the same price as the Jaguar S-Type SE with a 3.0 litre engine and automatic transmission from the same year which was originally over $25,000 more expensive. The odd thing about this is that you would normally expect vehicles from the same manufacturer, of the same era, to have the same reputation for build quality and vehicle performance. Furthermore, Jaguar clearly would have tried to make the S-Type a better car than the cheaper X-Type. My only explanation for the current similarity in price is that people don’t like the retro styling of the S-Type, either that or they are prepared to pay a premium for the X-Type’s four wheel drive system.

So how does this all relate back to democracy? With the Corolla, I believe it shows that given the uncertainty involved in buying a car, people will tend to stick to what they know. Conversely, I think it also shows that people don't necessarily know what is available to them if they looked a bit harder. This may be a long bow to draw, but I believe people have a relatively fixed mindset which they apply to everything in life. Admittedly this mindset will change with age/time, but a conservative person will always make conservative decisions just as an ambitious person will always make ambitious decisions and so on.

Skip to the end: A small, possibly ridiculous comparison between used cars and the workings of democracy.