Malaccan Food Review

In a recent trip to Malacca I had the chance to taste some of the famous dishes there. Here are the opinions of a highly-biased, disgustingly elitist penangnite. Proceed with care.

Auntie Lee's Nyonya Food (Ujong Pasir)

First thing we had in Malacca was in a small inconspicuous joint at the corner of a street. From what I heard, it was suppose to be a famous for it's home-cooked nyonya meals, but when we got there on a Friday night it we were the only ones there.

The dishes were:
Assam fish
Rating: Good
The fish was fresh and the sour spicy soup was strong yet not overbearing. Well-balanced and delicious.
Ayam pongteh
Rating: Good
If you don't know, this is essentially chicken and potatoes in soy-sauce like dark gravy. From the taste of it has a lot of spices in it as well. The chicken was well cooked and the potato was soft yet firm. The gravy tasted unique in the sense that it was a bit sourish. Other then that it's nothing special, but a well-cooked, well-balanced dish, which is a delight in it's own right.
Otak-otak
Rating: Good
Nice flavor and texture. I won't pretend to be an experienced otak-otak eater but it was nice.
Cincaluk Egg
Rating: Fair
For those that do not know, cincaluk is crush little tiny shrimp (or shrimp rice in mandarin), fermented. To be honest I didn't really like this dish. It was just really salty fried egg, although I guess that's what it's SUPPOSED to taste like. Which is why I gave it a fair.
Petai
I don't eat it so it wouldn't be fair for me to comment.
Overall Rating: Good
This is one of the most enjoyable meals I had in Malacca. The distinct nyonya taste of the dishes really made this meal memorable. Some might say that it's just standard fare that people have at home, but I say a good home-cooked meal is as rare as a good bowl of noodles. (for those that don't get it, yes it's quite rare)

Me stuffing my face. Stuff stuff. Yummy.

Chicken Rice Balls, Jonker Street

The next day we had the famous Chicken Rice Balls. We went to the most famous stall where there's always a queue at the weekends, and we queued for a good 40 minutes before being able to get a table.

We are served with 5 chicken rice balls each and a big plate of chicken. This is basically the only things they serve there, a testament to the reputation of the shop.
The chicken rice balls were basically normal chicken rice, squeezed into little fish-ball sized balls.
It did not taste anything special, but it was good chicken rice. The rice was fragrant and just oily enough so that you feel it being smooth but not so oily that you don't feel like eating after a bite. The way to eat the rice was refreshing as well, eating rice as if they were fish balls does make it feel really different. Better or worse then normal rice? I don't know. Refreshing? Certainly.
The chili that came with the rice tasted light and you can easily taste the lime juice in it.
The chicken was good, it was soft and smooth and juicy enough. Some people say this kinda chicken can be found anywhere, but I assure you not many stalls reach the level this one does (although I wouldn't say it's the best I've eaten)

Overall Rating: Good
Innovative (though quite gimmicky) way of eating chicken rice. Rice was fragrant and not too oily, chicken was good, chili was decent. That's all you need for a good plate of chicken rice.

Sate Celup, Capitol

Finally, we have the famous (or infamous) Malaccan sate celup. This is the most famous shop in Malacca offering it, and in a feat of insanity (or stupidity) me and my friends decide to queue for it. If you're wondering why I made the previous statement, behold:

The queue

This is the shop and the people queing for it. No, this is not the whole queue.

This is the rest of the queue. You can see the far left of the first pic and far right, it's the same guy. Insane enough? Not yet.

This is the rest of the queue. You can see my dear friends (including Fenna, the girl that serves as the marker of connection between this and the last picture) queuing. And yes, that IS another sate celup shop, with nobody queueing in front of it. The queue starts from one sate celup shop and ends at another. Presumbly this "other" shop survives by getting customerst sick of queuing. Or when people like to come and eat sate celup while laughing at other people queuing FOR sate celup. We queued for 2 hours before getting a table.

For those who are wondering what the hell is the big deal and what is sate celup, it is just lok lok (wooden satay sticks of fish balls, veges, meats, whatever) but instead of clear soup, they use satay sauce to cook the food. Sounds good? Ya, it didn't to me either. To be fair though, I gave it a chance.

Inside the shop were pictures of various articles on the newspaper and famous food reviewers and celebrities that came to the shop. Even the english rugby team once ate here.


good, fresh ingredients, ruined by sate celup

The ingredienst were pretty normal, they were fresh and of good quality (as one would expect from a shop with such a reputation). However, other then that, I'm afraid I have nothing good to say about it. Seafood just tasted plain odd with satay sauce, the vegetables you see in the picture trap so much of the thick sauce that it dripped all over, and not in a good way, meats did not taste TOO bad, but it did not taste like it was meant to be served together with the sauce. Fish balls and satay sauce also do NOT go well together. At all.

Overall rating: Very Poor
Normally I might just give it a Poor, but because of it's ridiculous reputation, and it's failure to uphold it, it thoroughly dissappointed me. Queuing for 2 hours and ending up in dissappointment is just sad. Ridiculously overhyped, expensive, and definitely not worth it (the money AND the queuing). Sate celup sounds like a bad idea someone thought up during a boring lecture. If, however, you do like sate celup (for whatever strange reason), I recommend you go to any other shop beside this one, as from what I heard, they taste not much different and you don't need to queue.

There were a few other things that we had in Malacca, including Durian Cendol, Curry Laksa, Assam Laksa, traditional kuihs and pineapple tarts. They were all quite good, but I won't say more because I don't have pictures of them, and a wall of text is no fun right? :)
One thing about Malacca is that you can truly taste different versions of things that you are used to if you're a Malaysian Chinese. For example, you might have had some kuihs in your hometown, Malacca probably has it to, but with a nyonya twist that is quite refreshing.

The downside is, Malaccan food is quite gimmickish. What do I mean? Just look at 2 of the food I mention above. Chicken rice balls and sate celup. Both seems like quirky versions of what they originally are, and in some cases (sate celup, for example), this isn't exactly a good thing. Also beware, cause every shop will stamp the words nyonya on them, and that doesn't by itself determine whether the shop is good or not.

In a nutshell, Malaccan food is worth a taste because of the strong cultural influences that really bring unique flavors that might not be easily found anywhere else in Malaysia. In terms of quality though, it definitely isn't Penang. ;)

Ignorance

Just an hour ago I was at a friend's room, waiting for him to copy something to my pen drive to me when I noticed his room mate's notes on his table.

It was a course on critical reasoning, and it was notes on logical fallacies that people are prone to.

I look down and I saw this note:

Argument from ignorance
Example: There is no proof that watches exist, therefore, they do not exist.

Immediately i felt something wasn't right. It was obvious what this was an analogy to.

There is no proof that God exists, therefore, he does not exist.

By using such a bad example, which does not clearly show what the argument from ignorance actually is, it makes me suspicious of the lecturer's intentions.

First off, the argument from ignorance is essentially a logical fallacy in which it is claimed that a premise is true only because it has not been proven false, or is false only because it has not been proven true.

The example that the lecturer give appears to be correct at first glance. Just because one cannot prove that watches exist, it is not a good enough reason to conclude that they do not exist. However, because watches do indeed exist (I hope none of you doubt the existence of watches), it is hard for anyone to relate to the point of the fallacy.

A much better example would be: There is no proof that the BigFoot does not exist, therefore Bigfoot must exist.
Or: You cannot prove that evolution happened, therefore evolution is false.

Indeed, the argument from ignorance is essentially drawing too much from too little evidence, or drawing too little from important evidence, usually because one has reasons to support one particular stance.

If anything, we have to take all the evidence as a whole before drawing conclusions. One might not be able proof that the Bigfoot does not exist, yet after years or searching, all evidence claimed to be found has been fakes, and all we can find is personal testimonials that do not always tally with each other. In other words, given all the available data, there is a high chance that the Bigfoot does not exist.

As for the watches example, it would have been more accurate if it has been phrased like this: You cannot prove that watches exist, therefore watches do not exist.

This way, the reader can clearly see that just because 1 person cannot prove that watches exist, it is not enough of a reason to conclude that watches do not exist.
In fact, if there is no proof that watches pretty safe to conclude that they do not exist.

You cannot prove that purple invisible hippos exist, therefore, they exist.:)

Green Lies

The environment is a no doubt an important issue today. Global warming, energy usage, recycling, we've all heard it, yet sometimes, the truth is more that it seems.

Take for example, the frequent bashing we hear of plastic bags, and how bad they are for the environment. Here are the usual reasons, plastic bags take a damn long time to decay (omg omg, the bag you threw out yesterday will last FOREVER!), plastic isn't "natural" as it is made of "chemicals" and sometimes animals die of eating plastic bags (sea turtles, stupid fuckers). Paper bags seem to be what many green advocates propose, failing to consider that paper come from trees , "chemically" treated and bleached, then washed with tons of water, not to mention the high energy costs in making paper. Paper vs Plastic, indeed.

Or that walking, sometimes costs more to the environment then driving? If you're wondering how on earth could this be possible, then bear in mind then your body is in fact an energy consuming machine as well, and many environmentalist frequently forget to include energy costs in food production when considering the effects of walking compared to driving.

When it comes to the environment, things are often not as simple as they seem. Perhaps the most important point to ponder when considering such issues is that if anything, those that are particularly involved in "green" activities (those that join a Green Society for example), very often are coloured in their views.

Gender Equality

Today, we have quite a awkward situation between men and woman. On one hand, we still have links to our more traditional thinking regarding men and women (and trust me, this applies whether you were brought up Western or Eastern, although perhaps varying in degrees on certain issues), on the other, we are learning of philosophies such as gender equality, the feminist movement and we are being brought to light on issues such as women receiving less pay, being discriminated at work, etc etc.

If you think you're not a sexist, or this is not a real issue, then simply consider how society reacts to a situation differently if it was a man or a woman doing a particular action. First, just think of how parents treat their sons and daughters. If one discovers their son is having sex, one is not likely to make a big deal out of it, and in fact might be proud of his/her son for "growing into a man", if its a girl, needless to say the treatment would be very different.

A brief look at our evolutionary past could easily explain many of the differences between men and women. If the past, social roles were clear for men and women. Men were built to hunt and gather resources. They evolved superior spatial skills, superior strength and they are judged on what they bring home for dinner and whether they dominate other males of the same species. A men with multiple sexual partners is one who is successful, and is thus respected and revered in society, and the fact that he is wanted makes him even more appealing to other women, because it is a sign he has good genes. The most successful males were those that were aggressive, physically strong and have leadership qualities. Women, on the other hand, evolved to be good mothers and gatherers, maintaining relationships were a key part of a woman's life. A promiscuous woman is scorned upon, as no man can be sure it's the child in her is his.

This would also explain many of today's female behavior, such as fondness for shopping, dressing up, gossiping, wearing make-up etc etc, while men like things like sports, video games, machines.. yada yada yada. That is why so many still cling to thoughts that women should stay at home to care for the baby, and men should work and earn lots of money. It has been hard-wired in us for so long that as a matter of fact, all of us judge people based on their sexes to a certain degree.

Knowing the origin of the discrimination between the sexes might clear things up a bit, but it doesn't offer a solution today's problem. Some, in fact, use this knowledge to justify their sexism. If woman evolved to stay at home and care for the family, then we should in fact, teach them to do so! Why should we go against our natural inclinations?

Well, if you ask me, I'd like to think society has progressed a bit from the cavemen stage. During the period where humans evolved, most of the resources can only be obtained through physical means which men are more suited for, but today, much of the modern workforce have jobs that physical strength hardly matters anymore. In fact, more and more of today's jobs concern with dealing with people, something women have been able to do better since the beginning. A woman shouldn't be paid less for doing the same job as a man, if she does it just as well, but this isn't an easy thing to fix as many employers do not even know that they are discriminating at all. In fact, much of our sexism is unconscious.

Go back to the sex example, and how a man is celebrated while a woman is scorned for having sex. A virgin man is laughed upon, a virgin girl is praised as being pure. If there is a lesson we learned from examining the origins in which we judge males and females differently, it is that most of us do it unconsciously, and we have no real moral basis for judging someone based on their sex. The most reproductively successful strategy in the past isn't necessarily the kind of way we want members of our modern society to act, nor does the evolutionary origins of any behavior justify it's moral rightness or wrongness. In fact, knowing that we are naturally inclined towards judging people based on their gender should be a reminder to us to weed out discriminative thoughts whenever they appear.

If what I said on evolutionary psychology is right, then we would expect that most women get more satisfaction for raising children and more men will be happy winning the bread for the family. This is exactly what we observe in real life. There is nothing wrong with that, but it no doubt reinforces much of the discrimination we see today. This doesn't mean that there are no woman who places their priority of their careers rather then their family, or man who prefer to be stay-at-home-dads, nor does it mean that it is justified for us to treat men and women unequally in the workplace or anywhere else. If anything, however hard it may be, we shouldn't be judging someone on what they choose to do, no matter they are male or female, but how well they do it.

20

As a kid during Chinese New Year, I always divided the family members into 2 groups: kids and adults. Kids were the ones that the adults never took seriously in a conversation, they were the ones that hang around with you doing fun stuff instead of sitting around chatting, drinking and watching tv like the adults.

Every kid probably wondered when he or she will become an adult. When will anything you say, your opinion, begin to matter? When will you be able to do adults stuff, like drive cars, have loads of money, not having to listen to people tell you to do things...

I always thought of it as a cut-off point at a certain age, and I often wondered what age it was. Hmm.. So kids graduate from high school at 17.. and there are people starting to work after high school, so they should be adults.. there are no smoking signs that say you can smoke when you're 18, so is it 18? Well I didn't really know why, but I sort of settled on 20 as the adult age. Maybe it is because 20 is the first 2-digit number that starts with a 2, I don't know.

So here I am. It's my 20th birthday today, and I don't feel much more adult then I did yesterday, or the day before that, or the day before that, or the day before that. I still feel insecure, still feel vulnerable, still feel lack of confidence, still doubt myself sometimes. Worst of all, I still have to do what I want to do, and still people don't really care what I say. Well, maybe all these things don't just go away as you grow up, maybe no matter how old one is, one will always feel a hint of doubt here and there, and one always has to listen to what people tell you to (or society), or that people don't really care what you have to say unless it's similar to their opinion anyway. Maybe all these is just part of being human.

Or maybe the real cut-off age is 21.. that's the legal age to vote right?