Beyond the Grass Huts: The "La Liao" Superstition and the Quiet Reform in Colonial Vietnam

---

 The Struggle for Maternal Dignity

Introduction

In the early 20th century, as the Chinese diaspora settled in the bustling districts of Cholon and Saigon, they encountered a local Vietnamese custom that struck them as both tragic and hazardous: the "La Liao" (grass hut) childbirth superstition. Through his decade of residence in Vietnam (1922–1931), Chen Tianjie documented how this deeply rooted belief dictated the lives of Vietnamese women and how the presence of the Chinese community eventually helped transform local societal norms.

The Nightmare of "La Liao"

The core of the superstition rested on the belief that childbirth was an "unlucky" event for a household. It was believed that if a woman gave birth inside a permanent residence, it would bring misfortune to the family, cause the population to dwindle, and disturb the peace of the home.

To avoid this perceived curse, pregnant women were forced to leave their homes as they approached their due date. They had to seek out:

• "La Liao" (Grass Huts): The term originated from the local dialect for dilapidated, abandoned thatched huts.

• Deplorable Conditions: These huts were often located in damp, swampy areas, filled with insects, ants, and filth. Giving birth in such an environment caused immense physical suffering and led to frequent bacterial infections for both mother and child.

The Philanthropy of Chen Qiyuan

The plight of these women deeply moved the Chinese merchant Chen Qiyuan (who later became famous for founding the first modern silk filature in Nanhai, China). Disturbed by the suffering caused by this superstition, Chen took a proactive step toward humanitarian relief:

• He personally funded the construction of a large, sturdy thatched house capable of accommodating more than 20 people.

• He offered this facility to local Vietnamese women for free, providing a significantly cleaner and safer environment for childbirth than the "La Liao" they were accustomed to.

A Silent Cultural Revolution

While Chen Qiyuan provided an immediate physical solution, a more profound psychological shift occurred as the urban landscape of Cholon developed. As the Chinese community built permanent brick houses and grew in number, the local Vietnamese residents observed a curious phenomenon:

1. Chinese families gave birth indoors: For the Chinese, giving birth at home was natural and auspicious.

2. No misfortune followed: The Vietnamese saw that the Chinese homes remained prosperous and healthy despite the "taboo" of indoor birth.

Over time, this observation served as a form of "cultural sensitization." The Vietnamese people were gradually influenced by the reality they saw every day. The superstition lost its grip as locals realized that a mother and child could be welcomed into a warm home without inviting disaster.

Conclusion

The eradication of the "La Liao" superstition is a testament to the power of cultural exchange. It was not through forced legislation, but through a combination of philanthropic intervention and the quiet, lived example of a neighboring community that a hazardous tradition was finally consigned to history.

---

We Pay to Get Fat, Then Pay to Get Thin: The Stupid Vicious Cycle We Keep Buying Into

 We Pay to Get Fat, Then Pay to Get Thin: The Stupid Vicious Cycle We Keep Buying Into

---

This new “weight‑loss injection monthly card” from Morrisons is not innovation; it is a perfect illustration of a vicious cycle we have all agreed to play along with. We go to the supermarket, fill our baskets with cheap, sugary, ultra‑processed junk food, and then later pay even more money to fix the damage—through expensive drugs, gym memberships, diets, and now prescription weight‑loss injections. We are literally paying twice: once to create the problem, and once to pretend we are solving it.

Morrisons sells shelves full of high‑sugar, high‑fat, high‑calorie products that make people gain weight, feel sluggish, and develop health issues. Then, through the same brand, it offers a £129‑per‑month injection service that promises to suppress appetite and help people lose up to 20% of their body weight in a year. Some customers will see this as “convenience”; others see it for what it is: a business model built on making you sick and then charging you to feel better. As one netizen put it, it is like “first make you fat, then charge you to get thin.”

The cycle does not stop there. Beyond weight‑loss injections, the same platform sells drugs for acne, acid reflux, erectile dysfunction, premature ejaculation, and migraines—many of which are directly linked to the very lifestyle that cheap processed food, stress, and poor sleep create. We buy the products that harm our bodies, then we buy the products that patch up the symptoms, all while telling ourselves we are “taking care of our health.”

What makes this so stupid is that we are not forced into it; we choose it. No one is holding a gun to our heads to buy chocolate bars, fizzy drinks, and ready‑made meals. We do it because it is easy, fast, and cheap in the short term. But in the long term, we pay more—not just in money, but in energy, health, and dignity. We keep repeating the same pattern: consume, suffer, medicate, repeat.

This is not just about Morrisons; it is about the entire modern consumer system. Corporations design products that hook us on sugar, salt, and fat, then sell us the “solutions” that promise to undo the damage. Governments, advertisers, and social media normalize overconsumption, while real education about nutrition, cooking, and self‑care remains weak or absent. We are trapped in a loop where our own spending habits finance our own misery.

If we want to break the cycle, we have to stop pretending that buying more products will save us. We must start by asking: who profits when we are unhealthy? Who designs the environment that makes junk food the default choice? And most importantly, are we really willing to change our daily habits, or will we keep paying twice—first for the poison, then for the antidote?

Until we answer that honestly, we will keep spinning in the same stupid loop: eating what we know is bad for us, paying for the consequences, and calling it “progress.”

---

Comparing Workload and Earnings: London vs. Singapore vs. Hong Kong GPs

 Comparing Workload and Earnings: London vs. Singapore vs. Hong Kong GPs

Singaporean GPs see the most patients per day, making them arguably the most hardworking by volume, while London GPs earn a higher income per patient contact.

City/Region	Average Patients Per Day	Average Annual Income (Approx.)	Income Per Patient (Approx.)
London	30-31	£110,200	~£1,185
Singapore	58 (public), 30 (private)	S$144,000 (£85,000 conversion approx)	~S$600 (£355 conversion approx)
Hong Kong	36 (private average), 44 (generalists)	HK$1,367,408 (£140,000 conversion approx)	~HK$15,538 (£1,600 conversion approx)

Notes: Income Per Patient is an approximate calculation based on annual income divided by the average number of patients seen per day over a typical working year (240 days). Exchange rates are approximate for comparison.

Workload Comparison

GPs in 

Singapore

's public polyclinics bear a significantly higher patient load, seeing around 58 patients per day. In contrast, London GPs average around 30 to 31 contactsdaily, a figure that the British Medical Association (BMA) still considers above the safe working limit of 25. 

Hong Kong

 general practitioners in private practice see an average of 44 patients daily.

Earnings Comparison

When considering income per patient visit, the picture changes. Hong Kong GPs have the highest income per patient, followed closely by London GPs. Singaporean GPs, particularly in the public sector, have a lower income per patient despite the higher volume, which is characteristic of the country's highly efficient, government-subsidized healthcare system. The higher overall annual income for Hong Kong GPs, combined with a slightly lower patient volume than Singapore's public sector, results in a more lucrative model per consultation.