I was at my in-law's home this morning and was handed a book.
"Eh, what you think ah?" asked KY Lau, my father in-law.
My immediate reaction was disgust.
The book was called '33 Food Hotspots of Kuala Lumpur' which was given free to some property buyers.
My brother in-law was one of the few 'lucky' ones who got it free rather than paying RM60. But where is the logic? Pay half a million ringgit and get a RM60 book on food?
When I screened the credit roll, I immediately recognised two names. Both were formerly employed at my old workplace.
One is a 58-year-old has-been food Queen who tried very hard to make a comeback and the other, well, I would consider her a bogus right from the begining.
Sad thing is this - having known and worked with them, I'd say they've demanded plenty of kickbacks from the outlets they've reviewed which made their food reviews one-sided.
Now, to rub salt into the wound, nearly one-third of the places mentioned in this definitive guide to food was published in my weekly column.
With the claim that it IS the ULTIMATE food guide for Kuala Lumpur -- the entire book was in my opinion - a rush job.
Its also a lazy person's way to do things. To kick down a man whose already sprawled on the ground, they've added GPS coordinates which the publisher too had claimed that they were the first ones to do so.
How original can that be?
There is a saying that goes like: "Imitation is a form of flattery.." which in this case - was a blatant rip-off.
I had freely given out information for nearly two years and had developed a new style and approach in food journalism.
To have two food critics ripping off some of the hardwork published is something else.
I would never lay claim that I was the first, or the pioneer in publishing street food with a first-person approach, with GPS coordinates thrown-in -- which I think that many self-published electronic writers had done it better if not well.
And well, to stab the heart of a man who is already down and out, I read this crappy editorial by the Editor of a Business weekly whom I would describe as arrogant and vile.
Even their food reviews were slapped with a disclaimer that they had gone incognito at the outlets they have featured. What is questionable, is the stylised photographs.
You have to ask for permission somehow and if the restaurant owner had nothing to gain, they surely wouldn't had cooperated.
Well, they said you can never put a good man down. Its now time to rise to the ocassion and lay down to rest - the claim of being 'ultimate' and 'definitive'.