Japas

I don't often write bad restaurant reviews, because life is busy enough talking about its good stuff. But when I do, it's seriously bad, so bad that I want all my readers to avoid it.

Japas Bento Box sprang up as a little Japanese-style restaurant at the corner of the junction near the Engineering Department about two years ago. We decided to give it a try shortly after its arrival, simply for the sake of novelty and convenience. The food was alright: not really authentic as with most Asian cuisine in Cambridge, but makes a sensible post-lecture meal for its price.

The manager in charge of the restaurant is an ecstatic, grey-haired man, who from his accent actually appears to be from Hong Kong rather than Japan. During the early days of the restaurant he and his staff were nice to most of us, giving us discounts and offering their student discount scheme. Essentially, during those times, students visiting the restaurant used to get 10% off if we pay by cash, and 20% off for those who are also members of the scheme.

However, the manager's hypocrisy soon became apparent as the years passed by. The more attractive ladies among us would receive good service by him, and on occasions complimentary snacks and side-dishes in addition to the standard discounts; the men among us, especially ones whom he had disagreements with over however trivial reasons, are given little or no service, or even refused discounts when they would otherwise be entitled to them. Once he was heard chasing out of the door, shouting abuse, when some of my friends chose not to pay the full service charge.

Having heard the various emotional stories, I decided to test it out for myself. Last term I went with a group of friends, some of whom were ladies whom he obviously liked, and discounts and complimentary dishes were offered. Today, I went along with one other man.

The ecstatic manager didn't serve us himself, possibly deliberately, and for most of the meal we were served by a waitress. The amount of food shrank a little bit, but not particularly noticeably. At the end of the meal, I asked the waitress about the cash discount which we used to receive two years ago, and she deferred us to the manager.

"Do students receive discounts when paying by cash?" I asked.
"No, only if you have signed up to the membership scheme," he replied, rather uninterestedly.
"I think we all students paying by cash used to receive a lesser discount last year?"
"No, no discount unless I know them, and I give them discount."

I got rather fed up of his hypocrisy. Having read on the bill that there's a "10% discretionary service charge", I decided not to pay the full amount to see what would happen. My friend warned me it could be abusive.

The waitress came back with the box, "it should be £18.30", she said.
"I thought the service charge was discretionary?"

She went back to the manager, "they don't want to pay the service charge."

"Don't ever walk into this door again!" the manager shouted, "if you people come back again, I won't do business with you."

I walked casually out of the door, onto the pavement and towards the next block, not looking back for a single glance.

My friend informed me after we turned the corner, "he chased out of the door to shout abuse at us."
"Yes, that's why I walked straight out of the door and never looked back. Because of how he decided to treat us, I don't want to ever walk into their door again either."
___________________________________

Restaurant details (so that you can avoid it):
Japas Sushi Restaurant (previously Japas Bento Box)
9 Saxon Street, Cambridge CB2 1HN

Please exit on the left

I remember getting confused when I was small and listening to the announcement "please exit on the left" on the MTR.

"On the left"? I happen to be facing a door, if I exit on the left I'll end up walking along the train. It took some time before I figured out that "on the left" means "left relative to the travelling direction", and my dad sometimes plays on that idea by deliberately facing the wrong door, and exiting the train backwards. "The door behind will open!" he would say.

As I grew up, I gradually got used to the idea that "exit on the left" is supposed to imply "relative to the direction of travel" and never really talked about it to anyone. As the great Albert Einstein said, "common sense is a set of prejudice one acquires before the age of 18." Exiting on the left relative to the direction of travel became "common sense" to me, even though deep down I kept the conviction that "left" doesn't inherently mean anything useful.

My life rolled on with this acquired "common sense" that everyone else thinks is intuitive, until one day it all changed.

I became massively captivated by German culture and the logical specificity of the German language when I was 18, and soon after began studying German as part of my course at university. A year later I visited Munich and heard this announcement on a train: "Ausstieg in Fahrrichtung links."

I listened up again carefully, just to make sure I didn't mistake the word. "In Fahrrichtung links", "in Fahrrichtung links". Yes, the recorded announcement said, "exit to the left, relative to the direction of travel"!

I felt overwhelmed by empathy. It was as if the Munich Transport Association (known locally as the MVV) was giving me a pat on my shoulder, "you're not alone! We all thought exit on the left would be a bit confusing, so we specified what it's relative to." I wasn't alone. I had all of Munich sharing my confusion and skepticism, telling me that I asked the right question when I was small.

As I got to know more and more German friends, some of them did tell me that the "relative to the direction of travel" bit was rather redundant and for their whole life they thought the announcement was stating the obvious. However, many did concede that they'd probably have been confused if the metro system they grew up with didn't announce that explicitly.

Here is a standard opener question in an international conversation: On which side of the road do you drive? The British would say "left", the French would say "right". But if you ask a German, maybe they'll answer you: "relative to what?"

Maybe I would answer, just to be sarcastic because I can: "relative to Rome, or Jerusalem."

Wikipedia x Oxbridge banter :)

to: hostmaster@oucs.ox.ac.uk
subject: Wikipedia defamation from an Oxford user

Dear Sir / Madam,

I would like to bring to your concern two recent edits on the English Wikipedia, identified as originating from the IP 129.67.43.239 belonging to the University of Oxford, in which a user from your university's network is found attempting to insert defamatory statements against Magdalene College, Cambridge. The user attempted to assert that Adolf Hitler was a member of Magdalene College. The relevant page history links are attached below for your consideration:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Magdalene_College,_Cambridge&diff=prev&oldid=460006187
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Magdalene_College,_Cambridge&diff=prev&oldid=460006539

I understand that people do make such edits for humour, however the edits done by the said user from your university have exposed his or her Oxonian identity in such ignorance that I believe he or she deserves some form of sanction for the purpose of banter if not otherwise. I will leave it to your goodself to notify and discipline the involved member of your prestigious university, and I look forward to hearing back from you soon.

Yours faithfully,
Deryck Chan
Administrator, English Wikipedia
Magdalene College, Cambridge

Veolia referendum: support civilian welfare, say no to piecemeal political extremism

For those of you who are unintiated, the Cambridge University Students' Union is holding a university-wide referendum to decide whether to call on the university to fire its hygiene services provider, Veolia.

I've been interested in the referendum since its inception. Veolia is a French international conglomerate that provides services in transport and urban sanitation, among other things; one of its recent acquisitions was Hong Kong Tramways, which caused a shake-up of the trusty old street-tram's management. I thought, when I first saw the call for referendum, that the reason to fire Veolia was that they've been doing their job poorly, either in Cambridge, or worldwide. Afterall, cleaning a university city is a difficult job.

But that's not the reason.

I was surprised to discover that the only reason this referendum is called is that Veolia is involved in providing urban infrastructure for Israeli settlements in Palestine, among other places in the State of Israel and the Palestinian Territories. As much as the "Yes" camp of this referendum would like to think Israel's occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip is illegal, punishing a company at home because they build basic infrastructure for Palestine is not a solution to their problem. Regardless of political motives, it is always a public good to provide sanitation and transport infrastructure to a civilian settlement. If they'll punish a French (as opposed to Israeli) company for providing them infrastructure, that means don't want anyone to provide them infrastructure. The "Yes" camp is essentially anti-Semitism disguised in a righteous-sounding political campaign, a trap into which we intelligent Cambridge students ought not to fall.

The "Yes" camp of this Veolia referendum campaign is taking an international political position, and attempting to inflict damage upon anyone near home who are even tangentially related to their political opponents. As the official "No" campaign flysheet pointed out, "Foreign affairs are matters that fall outside of itsremit and CUSU can’t represent its members with such a diverse student demography and opinion." As much as I think Veolia isn't doing a particularly good job and we may benefit from trying out another company, their providing infrastructure in Palestine is not a valid reason for sacking them from Cambridge.

Bring civilian welfare from home to Palestine, not political conflicts from Palestine to home.
Pick our contractors for their merits at the job, not their association with foreign countries.
Vote "No" to the Veolia referendum and stop our university service contracts from becoming political battlefields.

Links:
CUSU elections information portal
Veolia referendum online voting box (Cambridge University students only)

淺嘗《簡．愛》

最近開始對英國經典文學產生興趣，早前讀過兩本George Orwell，最近在讀Jane Austen。於是，朋友跟我說有Charlotte Brontë的《簡．愛》(Jane Eyre)優先場免費門票，條件是為他的公司寫一篇影評，我馬上答應。

故事講述自幼父母雙亡的簡愛小姐，一直受到寄養表親的薄待。寄宿學校畢業後，她到一個望族的大宅出任家庭教師。大宅的主人愛德華很欣賞她的耐性和率直，戀上了她並向她求婚。婚禮將要進行之日，愛德華的親戚卻揭發他原來有一位患上嚴重精神病的前妻一直住在大宅的暗室裡，叫停婚禮。當晚，簡愛出走至附近一家教堂避居。後來，簡愛得到了一筆豐厚的遺產，又在偶然間得知愛德華的大宅失火，前妻在火中喪生，愛德華也受傷失明。兩人重遇，並再次訂婚。

電影編劇作出了大膽的嘗試，以倒敍取代原著的平鋪直敍引人入勝，並且留下線索，重複簡愛婚姻夢碎後出走的一幕，確保第一次欣賞這故事的歡眾都能清楚理解劇情。導演又將叢林的陰森和瘋婦的吼聲化為驚慄情節，為電影更添原著沒有的戲劇性。對白間中一句十九世紀英語，為電影帶出原著的古雅；演員一口流利北英格蘭口音，給對白補上地方色彩，也給熟悉現代英國民風的觀眾帶來共鳴。

雖然驚慄部分有點誇張，但導演福永丞次的確成功保留原著精髓，同時為電影添上戲劇性。《簡．愛》一片，絕對是淺嘗英國經典文化的好途徑。

連結：
Jane Eyre - Wikipedia
Jane Eyre (2011) - IMDB