Hypocrisy’s name is George Yeo.

Said George Yeo, many people had lost “faith in the government” (25 Mar 2012, Yahoo! News).

But he was part of that ruling political party at the helm of that government before 7 May 2011. As a MP and as well as a minister.

Then, George Yeo again, urged politicians from both the ruling and opposition parties to work together with people's interest at heart and “link the hearts together, broaden our minds.”(25 Mar 2012, Yahoo! News)

Well, now he, a former minister, as an onlooker of the political arena, his observations and beliefs seem to be steering conveniently in the opposite direction to where he was heading when he was still in the political game.

With people’s interest, he said. It sends chills down my spine. Of the type of interest that he meant.

He was the one who floated the idea of building casinos on our island. And being a Christian himself. That itself is contradictory to his call for casinos.

When a multi-million-dollar-political leader resorts to envisioning casinos as the ultimate “job generator” for the future of his people and nation, then it is no wonder that such “vision” (if you could call it that), such future (if there is any left) and such political party would result in the loss of faith in the people. No doubt of the job creation ability of casinos, nevertheless, when viewed from a social and economic vantage, it is neither a sustainable nor healthy growth for our people and nation. 

This casino-quick-fix solution for jobs creation issues exposes the calibre of George Yeo, one of the “rare pool” of talents whom we were forced to pay premium to keep in our Cabinet, and also the exact meaning of people’s interest in this former minister’s mind.  

People’s interest was seriously compromised over the last and a half decade and the extent of it extends to our future generations: our immigration policy, HDB’s escalating price, over-stretched healthcare infrastructure and rising costs, and untamed inflation. What were his thoughts and his take on these issues during Parliament seatings if he had people’s interest at heart?

He definitely saw the big money that floods in with the arrival of casinos. As well as the increasing profits for companies generated at the expense of cheaper foreign labour import and the stagnancy or depression of wages for our local labour as a result. Not forgetting the yields from HDB’s forever affordable but escalating price…….the hot money into properties and the profits reaped benefits not for the average Singaporeans but for those sitting on the tip of the hierarchy.

Given his power and the position, had he then, push for better policies with people’s interest at heart, or speak out against poor policies to salvage the gradual erosion of people’s faith in the ruling party? As an MP, he had the chance to leave his ivory tower once a week to touch the pulse on the grounds to witness the effects of some of the policies. He could speak out on behalf of Singaporeans’ concerns during Parliament. No one said that it would be easy. At least, he could try. For being paid the amount he was paid.

It is easier to turn around and point at his former comrades of their mistakes now since he is no longer a part of them. So much easier. At least his life pension is secured now and no one can take it away from him for upsetting his former team.

George Yeo’s call for unison between the incumbent and the opposition parties takes a sudden reversal to the usual heavy-handedness used on the opposition members in the past, riddled with defamation lawsuits and ridicule.

It makes one ponder why the sudden need to “link” the hearts between the ruling party and the opposition parties, only after his recent defeat in the election.

Did he speak out for elected members of the opposition who were consistently ridiculed during Parliament debates and the defamation lawsuits that took place in the last two decades?? In 2004, all MPs of the opposition parties voiced out against casinos (WP’s Low Thia Khiang, SPP’s Chiam See Tong, NSP’s Steve Chia). Did he “link the hearts and broaden minds” back then?

Did he attempt to listen to the voices on the grounds then?

Could he?

“REMEMBER your place in society before you engage in political debate. Debate cannot degenerate into a free-for-all where no distinction is made between the senior and junior party, or what the Hokkiens describe as "boh tua, boh suay" (没大没小). You must make distinctions - what is high, what is low, what is above, what is below - and then within this, we can have a debate, we can have a discussion.” (19 February 1994, The Straits Times)

He forgot his place in society in the 1990s. Clean forgotten that he should play the role of people’s servant, not the other way round of demanding absolute “obedience” to unchecked authority. In 2011 May election, he was jostled out of his political comfort zone only to wake up miraculously to view people as humans instead of a mechanism.

He made a clear distinction in the 90s between the high and the low, dividing the nation purposefully into different classes. Within these classes, only a certain privileged group is granted the absolute power and the authority to speak and act. Such values continue way into the 21^st century where his “advice” for his people on casinos betrayed his elitism views again:

We don't want the man going there (referring to the casinos) after work or the housewife going there when she's free in the afternoon. So there must be controls on who can gain access to the casino. And if you are not of a certain economic class, you should not even think of going there. You should confine yourself to 4D, Toto or horse racing. (CNA March 17 2004)

Again, what is low remains low, and shouldn’t associate with the high. Don’t ever forget your place in society.

Mindset and values of a person change very little over time. Especially having to breathe and live by the same mindset and values for decades for the sake of protecting one’s own interests and never mind that these mindsets and values could never subject to open challenges and questioning. George Yeo’s abrupt revelation of people’s “loss of faith” and the sudden awakening to the collaboration with the alternative political parties reek only of pretence, pretence and pretence only.   

There is only one word apt for George Yeo. “Hypocrisy” it is.  

一小撮人

2008年让英国人刻骨铭心。

为了拯救数家英国银行，英国人还被迫背负上更沉重的税务包袱。当年的工人党政府说，为了国家利益，必须如此。

于是，纳税人牺牲个人利益以换取大家的利益。然而，这个“大家”究竟是谁？

银行总裁投资失误被炒鱿鱼，吃的鱿鱼却是天价。天文数字的遣散费由纳税人负责；国营化后的银行动刀裁员以削减成本，还未摆脱亏损，却能阔气地分派大肥花红给一小撮的银行家。

原来，“大家”就是这些少数人。把多数人的个人牺牲转移到少数人身上，变成了他们口袋里的利益。

私人企业所赚取的盈利归企业所有，亏损则由纳税人来填补。这就是让英国人反胃的将利润私有，亏损则由公众买单( privatizing profits, socializing loss)。

狮城公共交通经营公司也属私人企业。纳税人掏腰包建设业务的基础设施。包办了地铁站和铁路的成本外，原来还得帮忙添购交通工具。有一小撮人替大家决定，这是公众利益。替企业大省钱。

公众的小利益转换成业主私有的大利益。

运作成本提高、利润缩水，公众牺牲，接受车资上涨。台北捷运却能做到十年不涨价的效率。

公众牺牲以填满一小撮人的口袋。私人企业牟利是天经地义的。也变成了公众的义务。

两座赌场诞生，也为了国家利益。当铺、财务公司随之涌现。社工、警察、辅导员、医疗队也忙得团团转。赌场制造就业机会、社会付出的代价，总合起来成了业主的利润。

民主社会里，少数人替所有人决定国家的利益。而国家的利益，却是变相的一小撮人的利益。

人数的刀锋与刀背

有些坚持总是放不下。不管是到了什么地域。

所以一个又一个海外境地的唐人街形成了。这样的一个文化聚居区，对海外华人来说，是一座通往自身文化的桥梁。理所当然。

唐人街遍布全球的现象，让人质疑海外移民融入当地生活的意愿。若真的融入了当地的人文生活，根本无需文化聚居区的存在。

各国移民席卷英国，让当地人吃不消。部分移民不谙英语，终生躲在自己的文化聚居区里，却懂得享用英国的福利制度。当地人的气愤是合理的。

因为牵涉自身的利益。

对调身份后，也同样看到旅居外地、作为外来移民的英国人坚持着自己的文化聚居区、不谙当地语、还把自己的教育系统带过去……也同样令境外的当地人不满。

可是，身在异乡，对文化聚居区的需要自然不过。不论国籍，都是如此的心态。

人数是关键。

人数积累到某个程度后，文化聚居区就自然产生。听闻过唐人街、希腊区，而不是丹麦街或法国街。人数不多，就难以形成文化区。然而，来到狮城的法国人，筹足了人数后，法国区也就诞生了。

如果外国人数量不多，较容易让当地人产生友善的好奇感，也较能让人接受。

可是，当移民潮如海啸般侵蚀本土人的利益与人文时，拥抱多元文化的好处这等抽象的概念无法抚平不满的情绪。毕竟，利益受损是切身、具体的。看到狮城的牛车水变成了中国城后，就更能体会英国人的气愤。

于是，一些英国人把不满发泄在移民身上；理智的则揪出问题的症结，把毫无节制滥收移民、执政十余年的工人党政府送下了台。

My eatery business and SMRT/SBS

I am going to set up an eatery business. With no doubt, you have to pay for the food and beverage that you have ordered. The price of what you’ve paid would go towards the payment of the rent for my eatery, the cost of ingredients, the maintenance of the eatery stall, the labour and of course, contribute to my profits.

However, on top of the price of the products that you consume, you have to fork out part of your personal savings too, to pay for the tables and chairs that you have to eat at and to sit on and not forgetting the cooking equipment too.

When I run out of cash flow, don’t demand to know why is that so in spite of yielding yearly net profits from my business, I do not have sufficient cash to send my cooking equipment for regular maintenance checks, therefore you have the responsibility of subsidizing me further for the maintenance of my eatery as the increasing number of patronage is stressing out the hardware of my eatery!

When operating and ingredient costs increase, expect a price hike. You expect wage increase every year don’t you? And so do my kitchen staffs! Although I pay them more or less the same wage as in the 90s and continue to source outside the country for cheaper labour to exploit.

If the gas cooker broke down due to excessive usage, you have to bear with me and don’t expect any discount in price for the food but expect longer waits than usual. Yes, you have to pay more to get inferior service.

You cannot patronize another eatery because, as you are already made aware, that I am the only provider around.

Do you find that reasonable for a consumer to stomach?

Think along the line of SMRT and SBS Transit’s way of conducting business.

Privatizing profits and socializing costs

SBS Transit yields yearly NET profits between 2004 to 2010. Between 2003 to 2009, net profits are growing steadily and peaked at $54.2 million in 2010, despite “increasing costs” and growing population/commuters.

Year/net profit ($m)	2000	2001	2002	2003	2004	2005	2006	2007	2008	2009	2010
	50.9	39.6	34.6	19.0	49.2	51.3	56.1	50.0	40.5	54.6	54.2

(Compiled from the Annual Financial reports of SBS)

It is always expected of the public to foot the bill for rising operating costs and fuel costs…..so as to safeguard the minimum ceiling of profits for such private companies.

But the Dec 2011 NE line broke down saga exposed the fact that corners were cut in track maintenance. And there has been no substantial increase in the wages of our transport workers. (I remember clearly before 1995, a bus driver was already approximately 2K gross salary per month; 3K inclusive of allowances, as I was surprised to know that the pay, inclusive of allowance, surpassed that of the starting pay of a Arts faculty graduate. In 2011, Tan Chuan Jin made known that bus drivers earn a 2K gross per month. )

Price hike to cover operating or what-so-ever costs were just another way of maintaining the same profit margins and any shortfall shall be borne rightly by the consumers.  

Now, the public has to share the burden for capital assets purchases too.

A privatized company is entitled to profit taking. No one would challenge that.

But how much of that profit should be forked out from the public’s purse?

Where is the fine line between public and private?

When the security at the train depot was breached in 2010, our minister (here) reiterated that it is “not fair for taxpayers to pay for the security of all these profit-making companies”. Simply, the responsibility of security in the public area was passed on to the profit-making SMRT, despite knowingly, train stations and trains come under the public domain in every sense. Otherwise, how else would one explain the presence of anti-terrorism officers patrolling train stations and trains?

Yet, $1.1billion was budgeted from the public funds in 2012 to purchase capital assets for SBS, which is also a private company, to improve the ever deteriorating bus services. As we can see from the chart above, SBS is making yearly INCREASING NET profits between 2007 to 2009 against a backdrop of “increasing operating costs and fuel costs” and increased ridership due to the influx of immigrants. Increased ridership fattens the profits of this company at the expense of commuters, having to compete for limited space with new commuters. Even in 2010 when SBS’s profit did not increase, it however maintained in the higher bracket of its profits.

$1.1 billion will be injected into this private company whilst the net profits will retain among its shareholders.

Where do we draw the line then, between what should be rightly public and what should remain in the private pockets of the few individuals?

一个新加坡人被困机场的自私

英国罢工是有的。那是工人的权力。在预先通知公众的情况下，离开自己的工作岗位，走上街表示自己的不满，甚至是教师也能如此。公众预知罢工日期，可另做安排。

本来该如常运作的公共服务停止了，对大众造成了不便。气得想拍桌子、踢椅子。就因为那一小撮人的利益。而影响大家。

长期被灌输以国家利益为先、以群众为上的逻辑和观念，我照单全收，也以狮城的效率为傲。

某年，欧洲发生机场罢工事件。许多搭客滞留机场。所造成的不便可想而知。一名受影响的新加坡搭客斩钉截铁地说，宁可放弃个人权力，也不甘遭受那样的不便。不便，对一些人而言，是一种煎熬。他忘了，所放弃的个人权利，不单是他自己的，也是属于大家的。

个人权力，是一种尊严。便利，是一种享受，却不是权力。当享受建立在别人的遭遇时，更是一种罪过。

工人因不满而罢工。工人或许是狮子大开口，也可能是遭受不公平的待遇。合理与否，则由劳资双方共商寻求协议。一个能正视不同群体的不满、能协商的社会，才能成长、变得更强韧。

罢工，给群众带来的是数日的不便；给工人争取的却是他们许多日子的福利。

一名狮城客工每天工作10个小时，基本月薪只得270块。他被雇主剥削的“不便”是日复日的事实；狮城50岁工人面对工资削减，所承受的“不便”是年复年的事。

工人如你我，不是一小撮人，而是社会运作的基础。也是国家的利益所在。

需要慢慢学会看到，自己所享受的便利，有时候，是一种欺诈与欺压他人所换来的结果。