Matcha Addiction: latte at the Nayuta chocolatier

This place is an upmarket Japanese chocolatier, which opened this year in the Isetan flagship store in Kuala Lumpur. Very nice interior, and the homemade, Asian-themed, chocs looked great (though pricey!) But they also have a cafe, so I thought I'd try out their matcha latte.

The Verdict 
I had this drink hot. And in fact it was more of a matcha cappuccino, as there was a thick layer of milk froth on top.  Underneath, the actual green part was pretty good: bitter, with a creamy edge. Fairly authentic. But lasted for about five slurps.

The place (very quiet when I visited, on a workday afternoon) scores top marks for presentation - European style with a little biscuit, and a glass of water. And service was good. In fact the drink arrived lukewarm, and they very politely remade me a new one when I requested it hotter. 

Price was RM14.90 (GBP2.75 / SGD4.90) which is kind of OK for such a posh outlet - the portion was small, but the next door Starbucks charges RM17.90 for a plastic cup of packet-mix matcha. A larger, longer-lasting drink would have been nice, though.

I'd return to this place for the nice experience (and a quiet place to work) more than the actual drink, however. My favourite matcha houses also offer authentic, bitter green tea, but much larger portions for the price! 

Nayuta is located on the Ground Floor, Isetan, Lot10, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.

Also on this blog:

Isetan's new concept in Kuala Lumpur: 'The Japan Store'

Chuggers

The chuggers are out in SE Asia. It's that time of year. Even in Malaysia - which I'm always a bit surprised about, because it is an officially Muslim country! (And tbh Christmas is not a big celebration in any SE Asian country, bar perhaps the Philippines). In fact the chugging phenomenon has just started in places like Singapore and Kuala Lumpur. And I'm not keen on chugging here, any more than I was in London!

The word chugger is an amalgam of 'charity' and 'mugger' (someone who violently robs you). They are the people in bright logo t-shirts, who appear in busy shopping areas usually before Christmas, accosting you to make money subscriptions to (usually large, famous) charities. 

I might have mentioned before that even if we don't actively practice the religion, a lot of European countries still have some 'Christian values' at the core of society. I only really noticed this after moving to Asia; I just (inevitably) thought they were 'normal values' until then! Things like compassion and giving are quite key in the West. Which they are not, necessarily, in Asian countries. Many friends in Singapore, for example, simply could not comprehend why successful Western countries like Germany were considering offering alms to refugees. Why would you invite such problems, and costs, if you're a prosperous nation? Why would you not simply protect your own? Well, part of the initial European sentiment, in my opinion, comes from centuries of religious background. As well as centuries of politico-historical, good and bad stuff we have hoped to learn from. (Though obviously, the recent refugee crisis ended up being a lot more difficult - and a whole debate in its own right...)

But anyway, this cultural aspect of compassion + Christianity is why chuggers particularly target pre-Christmas in Western countries.

Hang on, though, giving to charities is good, right? Especially if it's in your culture. So why would these groups get the 'chugger' name, and what are they doing wrong? Well, quite a lot, as it turns out. Though this view probably depends on whether you are a big charity, or a member of the public.

My earliest memory of chuggers in the UK was in the 1990s. And back then they were seen (as they are currently in SE Asia) as quite a novelty, and surely a good thing. But as time has passed, chuggers have become more favoured with the charities, and less favoured with the public. 

Chuggers are usually not volunteers who work for the charities they are pushing. Most come from organised agencies which specialise in hiring out teams of them (often college students), especially over the Christmas period. This third party aspect provides some useful business benefits (and, apparently, legal get-outs) for the charities. And to differentiate, if the person who is fundraising wants your bank details (and might not be happy for you to simply give a one-off donation or drop cash into their box) they are probably a chugger, rather than a regular 'street fundraiser'.

Stats say that around 80% of the UK public today loathe chuggers. This is for a number of reasons, including that many of the teams can employ aggressive, misleading, or pressuring tactics, be invasive, or try to make you feel guilty for not subscribing to the particular charity they're marketing. The 'good' ones are trained to spot the most likely types of pedestrian, target them, and use specific trigger phrases to 'make' them sign up (or 'make us feel' we should sign up). 'Make' is not a great aspect here. There are all sorts of clever and not-very-Christmassy tactics used to 'make' the public hand over their bank details for the subscription.

Most agency chugger teams work on a base + commissions/bonus basis. So for a start, the integrity, knowledge and passion of these people can come into question. Some marketers see this as an old-fashioned viewpoint, and flag up that chugger training practices have improved, and that bad press is the real reason for the public dislike of them. And it's true, the UK right-wing press, especially, is negative about chuggers. But either way, chugging is big business, and the chuggers' motivation might not be the cause they're pushing at you, but their own bonuses. This is also why one-off donations might be refused: the chuggers' KPIs are based on signing up bank details for long-term subscriptions.

I guess irritation, intimidation or politics aside, there is just something a bit off about the chugger as a person 'doing good'. Which at the same time is what they're trying to tell us we must be. Why should we be made to feel guilty for not supporting a charity, when the people pressuring us don't support it either? And are just making us feel bad for their own Christmas pocket-money? There's a big disconnect there, and I can't help thinking that if big scale is the only way to effectively fundraise today, surely a better model can be found?

The fast-growing number of chuggers has also been an issue. In early teens London*, at this time of year, there used to be teams on practically every street corner. Each one wanting to stop you and talk to you, and make you sign up to a different charity. Having to interact with one, polite, fundraising team each day on your commute can be charming - even if you don't agree with their cause. But eight or ten different teams of them? Shopkeepers have complained that as soon as chuggers set up outside their stores, they lose custom. Because people want to avoid the stress of being chugged, and will shop elsewhere.  

Another key aspect is that (possibly because of the culture) many UK people already support and/or have donations subscriptions to charities. In fact the UK public are consistently in the top 12 in the World Giving Index. But these are not causes we've been chugged or coerced into supporting. They're ones we've chosen ourselves, because we particularly appreciate the work they do, or the values they stand for. They could be any kind of charity - individuals all have their own, personal reasons for support. And that's another reason why being endlessly accosted on the street is not appreciated. Some people are perfectly capable of choosing their own causes.  

[Compassion Fatigue - ie so many causes simultaneously pushing at you, that you just switch off from all of them- is also a very real problem at this time of year in the UK.]

Chuggers can give charities a bad name. And in fact, several of the large UK charities will not use them. Though many others do. If we've had aggressive or irritating experiences with third-party chuggers, we trust that charity a little bit less - and for general marketing goals, trust is quite important! In fact some academic research from The Netherlands has shown that the majority of people sign up for subscriptions, not because they agree with the charity's work or ideals, but because it's the fastest way to shut down an uncomfortable and exhausting human interaction: refusing under (repeated) pressure. That in itself surely puts chugging into one of those most unsavoury and unethical of marketing practices? It is deliberately making the public into a kind of victim to achieve its goals. And that's not nice. Hence, perhaps, the widespread dislike of chuggers.

Despite many UK press articles (even in some moderate / liberal press!) comments and opinion pieces, complaining about chuggers - even calls for bans in some regions - the practice has continued to grow. For one reason: direct and repeated pressure on pedestrians is hugely effective in getting money in to charities. Apparently the returns for using chugger agencies come in at about 3:1. Which is quite significant. It's nasty - but it works.

Some years ago I remember talking to a friend (who works for a large NGO) regarding their use of a particularly ditzy celebrity as ambassador. The celeb seemed to have minimal grasp on anything related to the cause, but just wanted to be 'seen' as fashionably charitable for PR purposes. My friend agreed with me entirely: it was bad. But, she said, this celebrity was so popular that her mere presence boosted donations hugely from certain demographics. And what the charity needed to carry out its work, was cash. When there are pressing, maybe life-and-death, situations at hand, it doesn't really matter how the money comes in. As long as it comes in. 

There is also an argument (which I strongly suspect does not apply in Asia yet, but could in places like London) that not all chuggers are college students making holiday money. Some genuinely destitute people also find work with the chugging agencies, and it can prove an important lifeline for them to get back 'up on their feet' and into society. I don't know what the actual statistics for this are, but that could be one more positive and genuine angle. 

Either way, if you don't enjoy being accosted on street corners, or every time you use the escalator in your mall, there are other ways of donating or subscribing to good causes! At any time of year. And when you can do your own online research and decision-making, in your own time. (And if supporting charities is just not your thing, that is OK too!) 


* I've been in Asia for most Christmases since then, so can't comment on more recent years!

You can check out the latest World Giving Index here: World Giving Index 2017



 

Christianity (slightly) Defined...

For some reason among many of my Asian friends, there is a slight misunderstanding about Christianity. The common view among educated Japanese friends, for example, seems to be that you might be Christian, or Catholic. That they're two separate things. In fact Catholics are Christians, and they're one of many (many!) branches of Christianity. 

Christianity seems to be popular as a modern thing in a lot of Asia (in Chinese diaspora communities, for example, as well as in South Korea, apparently). And of course there are the older, large communities in places such as the Philippines, which are more likely to be Catholics. But Christianity is not the big and ancient deal here that it is in Europe. So I guess for those practicing other religions or philosophies, it's not so widely understood either.

In fact, there are a gazillion types of Christianity! All are Christians, and believe in Jesus, but might believe or practice slightly differently. The different groups are often referred to as 'denominations', and within those there might be other variations and offshoot groups! Some might be modern variations, some quite ancient ones. Examples of these groups and sub-groups are Eastern Orthodox, Protestants, Catholics, Methodists, United Reformists, Anglicans, Baptists, Presbyterians etc. There are many more. The Catholics are the largest denomination globally.

My British family (self included) would not call themselves at all religious (and of course the Asian and other global family includes all sorts of other philosophies and faiths too!) but we are theoretically Protestants, which in the UK is sometimes also called Church of England (though there are few layers in between, I think!). Protestantism was formed about 500 years ago and now makes up about 40% of Christians worldwide. In rural England, I was also sent to a Catholic Convent taught by nuns for primary school education (because it offered the best local schooling!) And I remember that the Catholic children there would do certain things like 'take communion' (which to a child entailed eating an interesting-looking biscuit and drinking from a goblet offered by a priest!) which the other, non-Catholic children would not. But we all muddled in and said the same prayers (a lot of them - start of day, end of day; before meals, after meals!) and it was generally quite accepting for everyone. 

Unlike many parts of Asia, religion is seen as a fairly personal thing in the modern UK. You don't need to state it on any official documents, and it is considered rude socially (and I think illegal professionally) to ask anyone which religion they practice. You can choose to practice strictly or vocally, or not at all.  (Though in general people don't enjoy being preached to about religions in social or professional situations either!) There is no official religion in the UK, and in modern times I think it might be considered 'multi-faith', though Christianity (in various forms) has been the main one for some centuries.

Photo: The famous cathedral of Notre-Dame de Paris, in Paris, France, looking pretty at night. (This one is Catholic, and was built about 700 years ago :) )


Photo credit: Wikipedia 

Also on this Blog: 

November the 5th, fireworks and gruesome murder

On or Off? The Shoe Thing

A SE Asian friend recently commented how disgusting it was that some people wore outdoor shoes inside the house.

In most cultures in East and South East Asia, shoes are removed before entering any home. In Japan, even the tiniest apartments are usually designed with a hallway space for changing and leaving shoes. And across SE Asia, most places will have similar spaces, and/or racks for shoe storage outside the front door.

Inside Asian homes either bare feet or house slippers are worn. Which (assuming the home is also kept clean) ensures much more hygienic floors.

But in Europe, we often wear our outside shoes indoors.

For most UK homes, wearing shoes inside - or not - is usually just family preference. Some owners prefer guests to remove footwear; others don't. My family - which has Asian influence - would remove shoes and wear warm socks or slippers inside. But unless the outdoor shoes are very muddy or dirty (and don't forget there are hefty doormats for wiping them before entry, too) it is not generally seen as disgusting or insulting to wear them inside.

There are reasons for this. It is not just Europeans being unhygienic!

In East/SE Asia, traditionally, floors were/are used for sitting and sleeping on. But in many parts of Europe we have never really done that. Floors have one purpose: walking on. And not barefoot (too cold!) Even basic Anglo Saxon homes - in England, over 1000 years ago - used benches to sit on, and raised beds to sleep on. And earlier Roman counterparts had even smarter furniture!

Due to harsh winter climates, modest Anglo Saxon homes, for example, also housed livestock for part of the year. The family depended on these creatures for milk, meat, etc - because there is no harvest for the bleak months - and nobody wanted these precious animals to die of cold. But obviously, nobody wants to sit on THAT floor, either!

Reconstructed Anglo Saxon home

Regardless of creatures, a European floor would also be the coldest, dampest and draughtiest place to be. Far better (and maybe healthier) to be on something elevated, like a bench or a chair. You'll probably find public announcements even today in the West (plus countless parents instructing their children) "Keep Your Shoes Off the Furniture". We also don't want to sit in outdoor dirt!

Basically, floors have never been a social place in the UK, and many other European cultures.

In tropical SE Asia, by comparison, the cooler floor area was a good place to be. Also, the architecture in places like early Malaysia and Indonesia was different - with traditional wooden buildings raised above the soil. This was to allow air to circulate underneath, and through the floor - for even better cooling! In the absence of winters, livestock were kept underneath the building, not inside. So it made perfect sense to use the already raised floor as a seating, social and eating space.

Malay 'kampung' home raised on stilts

Even in temperate climates like Japan, traditional buildings were generally raised a little above the ground. And the floor - covered with tatami - was (and still is sometimes today) used for sitting and sleeping. So again, it was imperative that floors were immaculate and free from outside dirt. 

There is also some suggestion that Chinese cultures believed that barefoot walking (for foot stimulation) at home was good for health. As well as it being comfortable in warmer climates. So, yep, very clean floors desirable all round!

Japanese tatami

To go to an Asian home today and not remove your shoes, would be considered very uncouth and possibly even an insult for the host. Even though you will probably find IKEA chairs and beds there, just like everywhere else in the world. Remove the footwear! (And ensure you have clean socks and/or a decent pedicure!) Though interestingly, I have never come across an Asian office where shoes are removed.

Another, lesser, modern factor in the UK is the simple practicality of storing shoes. Smaller Western homes or apartments might not be equipped with hall or 'porch' areas to leave shoes. Because it is not an obligatory part of our culture. And you would not wish to leave them in any common space outside your home (which can be done very happily in places like Singapore) because there is a likelihood of theft! Items left outdoors in the cold would also become quickly damp and rot. So quite often, shoes are stored somewhere else in the family home - such as in a wardrobe or closet away from the entry area.

Anyway, my rule for European homes? Be prepared to remove your shoes, and ask the host as you arrive if s/he would like you to, or not. A stack of shoes near the doorway could be a clue that this household prefers socks and house slippers indoors! Asian homes, obviously: always remove :) 

*Incidentally, 'slippers' are two different things in the UK and SE Asia. In SE Asia, the word refers to rubber 'flip-flops'. In England, the word means soft, usually warm, fabric or sheepskin shoes specifically for indoors and bedrooms. 

Photo creds: Anglo Saxon home via W&G Robinson; Tatami room courtesy of loveartlab; flip-flops/slippers - havaianas. 

What is "Going For A Cheeky Nando's"?

Blowing.The.Lid. *Unfeasible Shock* Yep, 'Cheeky Nando's' doesn't mean anything! This phrase became used a few years ago, in the UK, to confuse (US) foreigners who couldn't understand 'cheeky', and then for young Brits to create really long, non-sensical explanations for it. The whole process is an urban joke! (Not invented by the restaurant). Cheeky in British slang could imply 'local, fun, a bit naughty'. If anything here, it refers to the local 'naughtiness' of inventing bogus explanations of the slang to foreigners. Which, though it was a phenomenon at the time, and has doubtless spawned many inventive and creative outpourings, is also rather dumb and irritating. 

No!

(Yes)

The best option with this phrase is to ignore it - or enjoy the amusement of listening to the young Brits' complex, serious, joke responses to you if you ask what it means. (It just means eating a meal in Nando's chicken restaurant, ultimately.) 

The whole joke has (hopefully) gone out of fashion now. Though it was so popular at one point that many neutral people have since nicknamed the dining chain 'Cheeky Nando's'.

Hope that's cleared that up!  

Feeling oddly hungry now... 

Note to English learners: 'blowing the lid' on something means exposing it. (As if you are removing the lid on jar, to show what is really inside.) It usually refers to something bad or criminal, which needs to be exposed!

Coconut balloon bomb #snackette

This is a coconut. Scooped, whole, from its shell - with the coconut water safely inside, like a small water-filled balloon! A friend introduced me to them at a posh supermarket in Kuala Lumpur, and it's the first time I'd seen coconuts prepared this way. There was a team of guys doing the scooping and potting in-store.

And it was delicious! :)

The advantages: it's easy and quick to eat, without all the messy scraping and time required of a regular whole coconut. Plus you get to eat/drink every bit. The disadvantages: plastic packaging. Though I have managed to wash and re-use my pot. It's only a little more expensive than buying a whole coconut in the supermarket (I think it was around Malaysian RM7 - about £1.25 or USD1.65). 

November the 5th, fireworks and gruesome murder

I was watching some fabulous Deepavali fireworks the other night, and it prompted a Japanese friend to recommend various regional displays back home - for a whole variety of traditional festivals. Japan is famous for a myriad of beautiful and lengthy firework displays, in fact. (And, rather nicely, the Japanese characters for fireworks are 花火 (hanabi) - literally fire blossoms!) All this happy stuff made me think about my own country. 

We don't use fireworks so much in the UK. Of course fireworks are a Chinese invention, so you might expect them to be more part of East Asian traditional culture. But the rest of the world has also had access to these pyrotechnics for some centuries! 

In Britain, more recently, we have official New Year's displays in large centres like London - echoing similar shows in Paris, Sydney, Singapore and other world cities. And we might have other official one-off shows for very special happy occasions (royal wedding, Olympics etc).

But traditionally, there's only one day when we would have firework displays countrywide: November the 5th - or 'Guy Fawkes Day'. And it's actually slightly gruesome! 

This 'celebration' is entirely political spin mongering, though over time it has become an accepted  tradition. Which is a sneakily clever, and not unusual, practice worldwide! 

November the 5th commemorates the day in 1605, when Guy Fawkes (and a bunch of other people) were foiled from blowing up English Parliament - which in those days included the King - with gunpowder. Fawkes and his cohort were Catholics, who wanted to assassinate the Protestant King James I, so that he would be replaced by a Catholic monarch.  (The struggle between Catholic and Protestant Christian wings - both in terms of faith and political power - was a big deal across Europe in those days.) Fawkes wasn't even the leader of the rebel group, a chap called Robert Catesby was. But Fawkes has become the brand figurehead for the conspiracy - possibly because he was the first one caught with gunpowder under the parliament building.

In the end, the treasonous group was hung, drawn and quartered. Which is a very nasty way to go - and a fairly grim thing to celebrate in the 21st century! OK, the initial idea was supposedly that we celebrate the survival of King James - with a brilliant piece of 17th century PR: countrywide fireworks, and bonfires to burn effigies of Fawkes. But frankly, the last part seems a bit personal! 

As the saying goes: one man's rebel is another man's freedom-fighter. And Catholics were persecuted in England at the time (though apparently through measures already in place when James came to power, and which he was pressured not to slacken despite his own more lenient personal views). Assassination is obviously not a good thing! But public hanging and disembowelment is not either. 

How we celebrate it
Traditionally, also with local firework displays, often accompanied by a bonfire. Fairgrounds may also be set up temporarily by cities, towns and villages countrywide - for the week surrounding November 5th. Due to the proximity in date to Halloween, community celebrations are sometimes a mish-mash of both events. (As I've mentioned before, a big Halloween with costumes, trick-or-treating etc is not a British thing - that was imported from America during the late 20th century!) Small towns might have their own, individual, local customs (such as tar barrel rolling!) which have become associated with the date, too.

In the 20th century and earlier, local children would often create the Guy Fawkes effigy to be burned on the bonfire. And go door-to-door around the village asking for donations, with the traditional plea "A penny for the Guy?". I'm not sure how popular this aspect is today.

As a child I thoroughly enjoyed the fairground candy floss, rides and excitement, the fireworks and bonfire celebrations. I assumed the explosive fireworks were a nod to the gunpowder (which might be true!) And I only knew that the effigy was supposedly of a very evil person called Guy Fawkes, who tried to do wrong against a blameless state. The reality is, unsurprisingly, probably a bit more complex than this! 

Like many modern and informed British people today - I'm not crazy about the Guy Fawkes thing now, and prefer to enjoy fireworks at New Year's or for royal weddings! Here's a happy use of fireworks - which hopefully will become the new tradition - for the 2016/17 New Year. It includes   homages to David Bowie and Prince who died in 2016, and there are references to all sorts of diversity, if you know British culture and music!

Further reading on this blog:

Halloween

Bonkers British Festivals no1: The Ottery Tar Barrels