Dear Minah, I am also a Malaysian who studies in the US. I have been to many cities here, including Toronto. I just wondering what makes a city qualifies to be "good" or "not". Because it doesn't have any cultural performance? Because it lacks of street music performers? I always perceive a good city as a city which is CLEAN, manageable. Yes, KL has many tall building, so does every other city in the world. We call them "A CITY" after all, not a village. While KL isn't all that clean and manageable, I tell you that I have been to Toronto which cleanliness is comparable, and I have been to London, and I didn't visit the musuems or the thearetical performance because there's more to a city that those. We don't have to have those things so that people will regard us as good. Nonetheless, we are so accustomed to this notion that a good place to visit must have this and this, otherwise, it's a bad city. For God sake, no! Let us mould a city into a taste of our own, not by having a lot of musuems and theater, just because Paris and London does. And KL bid is using Bukit Jalil stadium as a prove that we have the facility. We are not showing the committee our empty-handness. If we DO need another stadium for 2008, we will built it after we secure the bid. Of course we won't build another of your new stadium for 2008 just because we think we are going to win, we are not that stupid, aren't we? Living overseas has made me even admire how our country (and cities) develop into a recognizable treat. People here hardly knows that we still have the world's tallest building. Perhaps they won't know it either until another building in China or Chicago takes over.Go figure, minah!
Anyway, I think we should move our discussion to the new place.
Posted on Mar 9, 2000, 6:02 AM from IP address 220.127.116.11