要你卑躬屈膝的民主

民主当前，人人平等；女皇当前，陛下与庶民高低分明。英国的民主制与君主制就如此矛盾地共存下来。原属平民阶层的女子一朝嫁入皇室，平民身份自动瓦解，顿时与百姓区分开来。

就算是英国首相，也属于女皇的子民。女皇，即使在政权下放到民主制度当前，仍掌控着对英国首相去留的权力。

当然，那种掌控庶民生死的皇权已不复在。面对皇室，除了在称谓上要把自己矮下去外，庶民已不必卑躬屈膝了。反对君主制的英国人可以发声，不必申请说话准证。

在君主制度下属于女皇子民，又同时拥有通过投票来表达政权发言权的英国人，处于绝对权力与人民权力之间。

多年前，一位狮城老翁对着当时第二任总理下跪求助。那视觉画面和意识的震撼非常大。自独立以来就奉行民主制的狮城，子民仍然残留着对掌权者卑躬屈膝的心态。为何有这样卑微的庶民观念存在？

是庶民本身的观念，还是当权者长久以来对人民的态度，以致民主制度下的一些人民就此误以为自己如同皇权下的庶民般那么卑微？

另一边厢，某个领救济金生活的英国人却理直气壮地致信斥责当时的首相缩减救济金的政策。体现的是人民与首相同等地位的心态。身处君主制，英国选民的权力却比一些亚洲纯民主制度的子民还高。既不畏惧政权，持不同政见的人也不会遭莫名的诽谤罪名而被灭口。

相反的，活在单一民主制度下的狮城岛民，反而必须对政权毕恭毕敬，甚至是对掌权者卑躬屈膝。这种心态，绝对是外在的制度所形成的。

记得落选的狮城政客杨荣文就曾经严厉地警戒过子民，谈政治时，要认清自己子民的身份。那是一种当政者在上，子民在下的不平等观念。

贪恋权力是人性。要把手中的政权下放到群众手中不是容易的事。因此，狮城的民主仍处于君主制的意识形态里，间接或是直接地迫使人民对政权、当政者卑躬屈膝。为的只是巩固当政者的权力而已。

见不得光

近日狮城一些事，如牧师滥用公款被提控、狮城博客批评司法而被指藐视法庭、有律师代表草民阻止政府借贷巨额给国际组织，让我想起数年前英国议员公报项目公诸于世之事。这事件让我有非常深刻的体会。

当时，英国议员以个人隐私权为由，不肯公开自己申报公账的资料。议员要纳税人买单，却不许纳税人过问。

民主，究竟是人民做主，还是替人民做主？

英国议员企图替公众决定该知道什么，不该知道什么，便费尽吃奶的力不让公账见光，为的只是捍卫议员本身的利益。公账公开后，议员中的败絮一览无遗。媒体对议员也不手下留情。连女性卫生棉都申报公账，纳税人终于见证了议员滥用公款的程度，也同时看到了廉洁的议员。

有钱力和权力的人，总会利用权势来保护自己。这是事实。从英国到非洲到高薪养廉的国度都不会有例外。当真相对自己不利时，只有钱势和权势才能避免真相见光。

于是，那位指牧师滥用款项的狮城教徒被迫而公开道歉。九年后，牧师才被提控。有律师代表狮城草民阻止政府国际货币基金的贷款，律师公会代表、心理医生也像英国议员那样费尽吃奶的力，一个一个跳出来阻止真相的公布。

任何制度，不管是政治、宗教、社会还是企业，都免不了利用实况来图利的人性。只有透明度，让阳光直射制度，才能让人性中的黑暗无以遁形。

让英国政府无奈地公开公账数据的是一介草民。凭着一条赋予公众知情权的法令。草民向法院申请。加上独立的司法制和尊重事实的媒体，草民才能免遭诽谤之罪。一个草民拥有如此的力量，让我这个狮城岛民感动涕零。

不许见光的事，往往是因为其见不得光。很多时候是为了保护少数人的利益。喜欢替人民做决定的政权便是如此守牢自己的权力。

Brompton bikes versus primitive cleaning equipment

The photos above depict the type of cleaning equipment used by the cleaners in my estate. Dustpans made from discarded tins and plastic containers and a broomstick made from husk. The sight of these brought me back to the era of the 70s where such were a common sight. But we no longer live in the 70s but have moved on to the 21^st century.

Something tugged at me whenever I see our cleaners working with such equipment. Something was not quite right to see town council cleaners, entrusted with the mammoth task of maintaining the cleanliness of our estates on a daily basis to be given primitive equipment to work with.

Until the Brompton bike saga surfaced. As these ill-equipped cleaners work for none other but Sembawang-Nee Soon GRC which is helmed by the same minister who justified NParks’ Brompton bike premium purchase for improved productivity and durability. Compare the high-end bikes with these makeshift dustpans and broomstick used daily by my estate cleaners.

Using the same logic applied by Mr Khaw Boon Wan on his support for the Brompton bikes purchase, premium cleaning equipment which is durable and requires less maintenance has to be acquired for our town council cleaners to raise staff productivity too. Although our town council cleaners do not cover 30 – 40 km of work area daily, nevertheless, they are the very people who have a direct impact of the state of cleanliness of our estates; they are the ones who ensure the hygiene level and thus, the quality of our environment in our estates where 85% of us, the HDB dwellers, live in; they are the people who contribute directly towards Singapore’s reputation of a clean city.

Are these town council employees, of any lesser importance than the employees of NParks? To be honest, our cleaners are equally important, if not, more important. We could at least survive in a clean but treeless environment but imagine our island beautified by trees but piled up with rubbish.

Mr Khaw might reason with the fact that the cleaning equipment, made from recycled materials and cheap materials, are environmentally friendly. However, they look embarrassingly primitive and cheap in a first world country where massive funds were channelled to the building of the Supertrees by the bay for conservation and where Herman miller designer chairs were purchased for the long term welfare of the employees of a certain ministry.

My indignation caused by the episode of Brompton bike is that it espouses none other than the mindset where employees at a higher level of the hierarchy commands more worth than the ones at the bottom and thus the justification for the former to deserve premium materials that should be rightfully borne by all taxpayers.