William and Kate, and a democracy that bends our knees.

Well, William and Kate came briefly and were gone. Leaving a trail of carbon footprints and the glamour of monarchy around the globe, serving a purpose known only to themselves but unbeknown to commoners or former colonial residents like me.

All men are equal before democracy, supposedly. Yet, the Queen’s presence dictates a distinctive line between the commoners and the royals, contradicting the very idea of equality among mankind that democracy upholds. And so, democracy and monarchy, two conflicting ideals and political system, co-exists in today’s UK political arena. Even the highest political office holder, the Prime Minister, is but another subject of the Queen.

The political power of the monarchy might have been decentralized in this day and age. However, it still clings tenaciously to the royal protocol in demarcating the difference between the commoners and the royals.

It continues to baffle me even though modern monarchy no longer welds the power of life and death over its subjects, retaining only the protocol of accentuating the “highness” of the royals and the “lowliness” of the commoners, at least verbally, discriminating yet opening a possibility for female commoners to be upgraded to the altar of the royals through the tool of marriage to a member of the royal family and subjecting the highest political office holder to be the subject of this former commoner. Bizzare.

But that is the UK political system. And having said all that, the monarchy system is more of a symbol whilst the democracy runs the actual mechanism of its political system. Afterall, despite having contradicting political systems and having to pay duly respects to the royals, whether the people or the commoners of that nation enjoys the absolute luxury of speaking out publicly against any political ideals without being subjected to intimidation. They need no licence to speak in speaker’s corner unlike us, and neither will their anti-monarch protesters who may threaten the “livelihood” of the royal family be prosecuted for their beliefs.

It brings me back to the memory of that elderly who out of desperation brought his knees down before Goh Chok Tong, the then Prime Minister of our country. That elderly man was seeking help from the PM during his walkabout with his usual entourage. That image etched in my memory as its visual impact and the person’s underlying outlook parallel the monarchy era of ancient China where subjects were to kneel before the emperors as lesser mortals, in an era when rulers enjoy unchallenged authority and supremeness.

Singapore has been a democratic country since the first day of our independence.

For that elderly to resort to such imploration of help in the public, I believe all possibilities and resources must have been explored and exhausted. However, the focus is not on his plight but his self-deprecating behaviour for help before a political leader who in the first place owes his position to the people’s votes. And that behaviour refracts the kind of political outlook ingrained into the minds of some of our people. The elderly’s gesture manifested the supremeness of our political in-powers and the lowly status of the citizens in our existing political climate, revealing the remnants of the monarch era which somehow rooted into this elderly living in a democratic nation. His behaviour might be an extreme illustration of a sub-conscious monarchy mindset in some of our people. Yet, we cannot deny that while people may not demonstrate extreme subordination like that elderly, they do unknowingly submit themselves to an inferior status before the presence of our politicians and grant them the absolute authority to the extent of allowing all political decisions made go unchallenged. For some people, monarchy is still very alive and kicking in our democratic society and is manifested in a different form from the British monarchy.

Contrasting the actions of this elderly man is a British lady on state benefits who wrote straight to the then British PM Tony Blair to express her annoyance of his decision to slim down state benefits. Here is a lady who lives off the state benefits, who is a subject of the Queen and a voter of the democracy, who perceives herself of an equal standing to that of the prime minister. And most importantly, the fearlessness of the politicians.

What gave rise to our fear and submission to our politicians, like subjects self-deprecating before the monarch? Why do some of our people submerge themselves knowingly and unknowingly into such monarchy mindset when our people and first generation leaders worked painstakingly to break away from the British monarchy rule?

The external factor unquestionably comes into the scene. It is the way which we have been “cultivated” since the day of our independence when we broke free from monarchy. We walked straight into a pseudo-democracy where it is executed in a manner very similar to monarchy. To be fearfully and humbly respectful of those placed in political authority and absolute political power to those with political authorities.  And my conclusion is not baseless.

Former defeated Cabinet Minister George Yeo once said:

"Remember your place in society before you engage in political debate... Debate cannot (de)generate into a free-for-all where no distinction is made between the senior and junior party... 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... people should not take on those in authority as 'equals'."

(20 Feb 1994 Straits Times)

This is the outlook of a political leader from a democratic system which he was voted into by his people and ironically denied the same people the equal rights to engage in political debate. And his is not an isolated mindset in our Cabinet.

It is no coincidence that former PM Goh Chok Tong, the highest political office holder of our nation, shared the same outlook of the lowly status of the voters as George Yeo. He challenged Catherine Lim, a local writer, to enter politics if she wished to continuing airing her views on our political climate (4 December 1994 The Straits Times) despite him promising a more open-minded and consultative style of leadership than his predecessor. As can be seen, after all is said, what is low should remain lowly (voters) and what is high (politicians) remains on the pedestal. Untouchable.

Such outlook from those sitting at the tip of our political hierarchy undoubtedly shaped the political climate and the political status for our lowly citizens and snuffles the spirit of democracy in the event.

We live in the icing of a democracy that is run in a manner that differs little from an actual monarchy. 

Rewritten from: 要你卑躬屈膝的民主

禁果

转角与迎面而来的人差点儿相撞，两人交换对不起。不慎碰到行人，也就道个歉。

“对不起”，这句话经常在英国境内听到。也不能算是郑重的道歉，更像是表示不好意思。即使是公共空间里，个人的私人空间还是必须尊重的。

这类个人角度的“对不起”，体现的是一种个人与社会关系的意识，也是个人与社会交流过程中的一种自省能力。

狮城随着近年来的人口爆增，碰撞路人变得越来越理所当然。最经典的便是，被碰撞后还要被辱骂为狗。擅闯他人私人空间的无礼，跟狮城近年来公共空间里的私人空间锐减绝对无关。更不是借口。即使在毫不拥挤的空间里，也会被五千年文明国的子民用手肘推撞。只能说明个人与社会中其他个人分子共处的意识高低。

英国税务系统发生失误，影响税民。当局非但不认错，还把错误合理化。最终，税务局负责人还是必须站出来公开道歉。这类“对不起”意味着，机构与社会交流的责任以及纠正错误以及立志做得更好的意愿。联想到狮城地铁局前总裁由始至终无法对自己所造成的烂摊子表示任何程度的歉意。私人企业如此。公共部门的失误，更不见负责人站出来致歉。

再往上看。现任英国首相卡麦伦，可以为历史道歉，为发生在70年代的北爱尔兰天主教份子遭屠杀事件表示歉意。那是国民的自省与包容前人过失的能力。在小事上，卡麦伦也同样能为自己的失言、为选区的失守、更能为自己幕僚的失言而对议员、选民和公众道歉。

一国首脑的道歉，提醒了我作为人的事实。终究，即便是一国之首，也不是摆在神台上让凡人供奉的神。毕竟，道歉不是什么人间禁果。

旗

超市里，一些在英国本土上饲养的牧畜或是在英国气候下收割的水果产品，都骄傲地印上了英国旗。小小的旗帜，是英国农民面对全球化物资充塞英国市场的宣战方式。

旗，不管是对外对内，都无所不在。不论是代表大英帝国的国旗，还是地方旗帜，如威尔斯的红龙旗。走入苏格兰，苏格兰的蓝白旗帜扬起，斩钉截铁地与英格兰断开来。于是，旗帜便把不同的人群区分出来。

英国人对国旗的情意结，也渗透潮流商品。衣物、鞋子、配件上也可打上英国旗的标志。可以穿在身上、戴在身上，甚至是踩在脚上。狮城国旗打在国家游泳选手上的泳装上时，却被视为猥亵的举动。

旗帜，是英国境内不可或缺的一种身份标志。不管是英格兰人或是威尔斯人。

可是，英国学校没有天天进行升旗礼、唱国歌或念信约这类集体的举止来生产国民意识。奇特的是，英国人的民族情感、国家情怀仍然可以油然而生。

狮城学生日复日，年复年被迫进行升旗礼、唱国歌或念信约试图来制造归属感。把同一招用在狮城的新移民身上，培养归属感的成功几率有多少？你我心知肚明。

英国人对自己文化的自豪感毋庸置疑。是一种根本无须经济数据这种铜臭味的手段所唤出的自豪感。相形之下，狮城决策人不明白，让人有所归属的其实是自己的文化，更确切的是在地文化。不是一座空中花园或其他通过金钱进口的硬体。要让人能义无反顾捍卫的，绝对不可能是这堆躯壳，而是无形的文化身份。

文化身份是金钱计算不来的，所以决策人看不懂。甚至连狮城子民也未必有所察觉文化身份的存在。直到海外同宗族人士蜂拥到狮城岛国时，狮城子民才惊觉，小红点已在三代人之间形成了本身的在地文化。那终究是狮城岛国建国历史、政治、经济、社会发展所提炼而成的，属于我们独有的东西。

这种身份，绝对不是唱一首爱国歌就能形成的。

那些年，做饭

我相信，这辈子在短暂的旅英岁月中做饭的次数，远比生活在狮城半辈子做饭的次数还要多。那时，做饭还真是一件无奈的事。虽然英国不乏外卖服务，超市里的即时餐也不胜枚举，不过基于健康和经济考虑，还是选择了自己做饭。如今回顾，倒惊觉那是挺幸福的。毕竟，下班之后，仍然有精力下厨做饭果腹。虽然晚餐过后，必须继续在家工作。

然而，工作一天后还要下厨的生活，在投奔英国之前是绝对无法想象的。每日十二小时的工作时间，还不包括星期六的工作时。只能是，精。疲。力。尽。因此，也深能体会双双出外打拼的狮城夫妇为何如此依赖女佣的帮忙。

英国同事都属中产阶级以上的人。然而，当中雇佣兼职帮工打理家务事是少之又少的。不管单身与否，同事下班后回家做饭是正常的事。已婚女同事亲自照顾子女，打理家务也是理所当然的。经济能力非常宽裕的W便是如此兼顾执鞭工作以及照料两名子女的。工作上也仍然一丝不苟。

英国人没狮城子女那般“幸福”，可聘用女佣。怎么说，英国拥有最低薪金制来保护劳动力。以2012年最低薪每小时六英镑（21岁以上）来计算，每天工作八小时，一周五日，一个月下来的女佣开销就可高达近一千英镑。即使对中产阶级，这并不是一笔小数目。

同样的职衔，在英国和狮城国度里，工作量的落差是天渊的。在英国执鞭的那些年，几乎所有的工作时间都倾注在学生身上而不是为了粉刷学校和教育部的门面的一堆无关乎学生学习素质的事项上，是极度幸福、有意义的事。也因为如此，即便忙碌，也不会精疲力尽。即使回到家，还是有足够的精力下厨做饭。

至今，仍讨厌做饭，却恍然在英国做饭的那些年岁，是幸福的。这样的幸福，是狮城的工作气候所无法比美的。

市容的文明

承认自己的眼睛早已被狮城的市容给宠坏了。英格兰西北方，让眼睛几乎快窒息而死。

乏善可陈，缺乏朝气。建筑的外观设计都不幸地力求统一。除古典老建筑不说，不管是民宅还是办公楼，新或旧，建筑外观设计都有既定的模式、用料和颜色。

英格兰西北方是个传统工业区，不及南方富裕。各大城镇集合了许多由工人宿舍改装而成的排屋民宅，建筑“风格”难免务实，不讲究，只求划一。即使是英格兰的现代楼房和办公楼，也显得非常保守。除了伦敦，不论地区，建筑设计都非常相近，甚至是颜色也跳不出橘黄、棕色或灰色的框框。

这就是英国。

狮城的建筑，即使是最普遍的政府组屋，都有各个年代和地区的设计特色。属于公共设施的公共部门、本土学府、旅游设施以及私宅都不惜在设计上力求新颖。视觉上，确实带来了活力与赏心悦目的效果。政府部门更是每隔几年就来个大翻新，试图营造活力的氛围。

经过英格兰呆板、陈旧建筑特色的洗礼，被迫跳出视觉活力的范围去寻思思想上的活力。

跟英国不同的是，狮城不惜重金礼聘外国建筑师来建造未来主义的建筑，以期塑造文明的外衣。用钱把别人的文明买过来粉饰自己的文明，却也正反衬出我们精神文明的贫乏。别具一格的政府大楼内办公的公务员，又有几个能跳出划一的政治和社会价值来看问题？活力是取决于能否包容不同的声音，不仅是把不同色种、国籍的人堆在一起。滨海湾花园让人叹为观止，金沙酒店让人啧啧称奇。然而，到了今时今日，我们仍在试图把剥削低薪工友合理化、顾虑让单身狮城儿女购买新组屋、还在为本地电影里嘲笑异族的话语吓破胆而禁止上映，对政治家必须谦卑，甚至还迷信GDP数字作为生活素质的唯一指标……

狮城的华丽外表，满足了视觉，却饿荒了思想。

叫你滚蛋

有一段时间频频流连英国广播公司的交流网。交流网上，网民针对所指定的新闻时事发表个人意见。

各种各样的人登场。看法相抵触时，网民自然通过文字过招。有君子式的，当然也有流氓式的。说到气头上时，也自然直接叫骂、侮辱。

转到狮城的网络交流空间时，才体会到英国人对相反意见的接纳程度。对自己国家的批评，英国人一点都不手软。当然，也不乏维护英国的网民。两方人马在虚拟空间里交锋时，有平和的、也有激烈的。然而，就是甚少看见叫批评英国的英国人滚出英国的言辞。

狮城这一边厢，情况恰恰相反。狮城子女对狮城提出批评时，拥护狮城的网民就经常叫他们滚出岛国。面对不满现况的人，只能以离开作为解决方案。双方都是狮城的子民，不管满意现况与否，都有权力导向自己的国家。何以批评者必须离开，而不能留下来改变现况呢？何以批评者必须让路给那些拥护现况的网民？何以动辄就叫人滚蛋以作为解决分歧意见的心态？

批评自己的国土，就必须离开土生土长的家园。这种对批评者，或是对提出不同意见者的心态，折射出无法接纳不同意见的心理。才发现，我们真的还不习惯接纳以及包容“反对/不同”的意见。其实，叫人滚蛋还真的挺霸道的。霸占国家，不容许持反对/不同意见的人提出想法。

这样的心态跟长期生活在不容许批评的大环境里脱不了关系。没有真实的讨论空间。只允许一种想法，其他的想法只能是错的。让人想到了什么呢？中国共产党、北朝鲜、缅甸军政府等影像立即闪过脑海。

吾老

英国年长者，也真得见多了。不管是郊外旅行或是日常生活中。

许多年长者成群结伴参与步行活动。这类考体力的活动反而能碰上很多英国年长者。或是开着车子或宿营车展开本土旅行的老伴侣也不少。见证了何谓写意的退休生活。

职场年长者，也在坚守着火车司机、超市收银员、文员、水管工人的岗位，但都属于一些非劳力工作的领域。就职年长者个个身体状况良好，精神奕奕。而行动不便的年长者则坐着自动轮椅打理自己的日常生活，去邮局还账单、去超市买菜、搭火车远行……英国不盛行女佣，年长者必须自食其力。

随着通货膨胀的压力，也越来越多退休后的年长者选择继续工作。可是，还未曾见过年长者出来乞讨或是兜售物品为生。

不敢说英国是年长者的生活天堂。但为何自己眼着狮城就业的年长者时，感受到的只有于心不忍？那是因为自己的活动圈子内所触目的就职年长者，大多都集中在清洁、收拾餐具、整理机场手推车等费劳力的领域。无法贩卖劳力者只能兜售纸巾。在那些吃力地完成工作项目的年长者身上，感受到的也只有无奈。

狮城人均所得高于英国，但被迫拖着瘦骨嶙峋的身体，行动缓慢地，甚至是驼着背工作的狮城年长者人数却高于英国。

相信面临生活拮据的英国年长者也存在。却未曾见过行乞或是收集纸皮箱、汽水罐的年长者。说到底，英国退休人士到底是拥有退休金和免费医疗服务为后盾的一群。

人口老化绝非狮城独有。然而，如何老化，肯定是因国而异，更因当权者的心意而定。

Pause. Stop and Think-- The last 20 years during the reign of Goh Chok Tong and Lee Hsien Loong.

Lee Hsien Loong is currently hailing ALL Singaporeans to envision our country for the next 20 years. However, before we embark on crafting a future blue print for even one more year ahead, we should also pause and reflect upon our housing, transport and healthcare, the basic goods which impact on our standards of living. Goh Chok Tong’s “The Next Lap”, initiated in 1991, was too, a forward-looking plan for Singapore stretching as far as 20 to 30 years ahead. Between 1991 and now, have our lives improved or deteriorated in the last two decades?

A vision without actualization is empty and meaningless.

Strip off the number of hubs, rankings or international awards that Singapore has clinched throughout the years and get down to the core, ie, the quality of living. The best international airline award may polish our vanity and pride, but is of no relevance to the quality of our housing, (daily) transport and healthcare.

(1)  The rosy GDP figures and the population expansion addiction

Economic perspective first, since that has always been the benchmark for measuring the success of the governance of Singapore.  

GDP figures have always been the big and only picture of Singapore’s success story.  

GDP (US$) between 1991 to 2011

Looking at Singapore’s progress through the lens of GDP, the big picture is rosy-looking, with GDP growth on the upward trend throughout the last two decades. There are occasional dips of recession but the period of upward growth surpasses the dips.

Our GDP per capita attainment was listed as the world’s most affluent country in 2010 by the World Report 2012. In fact, according to Goh Chok Tong, we have already attained the 1984 Swiss standard of living as early as 1994 in terms of GDP per capita in purchasing power parity. That was unmistakably Goh’s pride during his reign. 

GDP (US$) per capita

It is also interesting to note that the pace of GDP growth is more pronounced after 2005 where it overtook the peak of GDP in the 90s. What attributes to such substantial growth of GDP in the mid 2000s?

Compare the GDP chart with our population chart which may hold the answer. Coincidentally, the growth trend is very similar. 

Population 1991 - 2011

Undeniably, our GDP per capita figures cannot achieve the same stunning figures independent of the population boost. There is a co-relation between the two.

Another thing to note on our population growth is that it is growing at an accelerated rate after 2003. It took 13 years in the 90s to grow one whole million people (it reached 4.1 million in 2001 but hovered at this figure till 2003). After 2003, the population expanded by 1 million by 2011, within 9 years. Today, it stands at 5.3 million and certainly will be gushing through the 6 million mark, judging at all the hints that the Cabinet dropped all over the place on the need to grow population. By the way, LHL succeeded GCT in 2004. Lee’s GDP figures are also noticeably unmatchable by GCT’s, and likewise on his population growth rate. His addiction on the population size is apparent.

Using population size as the single means to boost GDP begets the question of sustainability. Once the population expansion steroids are removed from the economy, what other miracles can LHL perform apart from importing another 5 million newcomers to elevate the GDP amount to 100 billion US dollars. Even if that 5 million more comes in, but the million dollar question is, what comes after? Another 6 million or so?

(2) Housing

Contrasting the limelight which our GDP figures has drawn, our housing concerns attract equal attention, albeit negatively.

HDB size has shrunk in absolute size across all flat-types. 3- to 4-room flats shrunk by 5 sqm,whilst 5-room and executive flats shrunk by 15 sqm. To rub chilli into wounds, HDB price rose stubbornly throughout the last two decades and coupled with shrinking flat size, implying an even higher in terms of psf.

Housing is the single most expensive purchase in our lifetime. Contrary to what Tharman suggested that inflation of HDB flats will not affect current flat owners. That is based on the assumption that all flat owners do not have any offsprings, or that couples stay married for the rest of their lives or there is never a compelling need to downgrade one’s current flat.

Under current housing regulations, divorcees have to dispose of their flats. If for some reasons, they could not live with their parents under the same roof, they will have to turn to resale market for an abode of their own. Prices of new HDB flats affect the resale market directly and vice versa too. And it is not rocket science to see future generations facing future HDB flats that are priced out of proportion of their incomes. In the event of such, current HDB owners may have to dip into their retirement funds to supplement their children’s housing purchases. Parents may choose to sell down. But with the unrelenting increase of HDB prices, selling down also means incurring higher purchasing price of a smaller and older resale flat, resulting in a fall in the quality of living.

Paying more for smaller flats, median wage increase fails to catch up with the rate of housing price increase, extending the period of paying off housing debt and eroding both the retirement funds of both existing and future HDB owners. All these combined factors indicate a fall in overall living standard in the last two decades and outstrips any improved quality of new HDB flats there may be. To compensate better quality HDB flats with an additional 10-year loan is unreasonable.

(3) Transport

Contrary to what awards or accolades SMRT may choose to highlight in attempts to convince commuters of its service quality, as a MRT commuter since the 90s, the travelling experience for me has definitely fallen in comfort and reliability, both which constitute good travelling experience. Ironically, only the fare went up whilst comfort and reliability fell.  

Awards or rankings hold little meaning if actual train travelling on the ground fails to yield improved satisfaction despite persistent fare hike in the last two decades. Newer models of trains with greater seat spacing or improved comfort are completely written off by excessive overcrowdedness and longer waits to board a less sardine-packed trains during peak hours. How would newer model of trains improves commuting experience if commuters were compelled to wait for a few rounds of trains during peak hours before they can squeeze on board? Longer waits translate into longer commuting time between home and workplace, leaving home earlier and returning home even later.    

Commuters expect crowds during peak hours but public transport operators are being unreasonable to pack commuters to the extreme of a can of sardines. To be perspiring in the supposedly air-conditioned train carriage, not forgetting to mention that the increased number of bodies packed in a constraint cabin will inevitably and understandably intensify the body odours after a day’s work, it is also inevitably uncomfortable. The insufficient air-conditioning in the cabin is an indication of overloading.

And comparing to the crowds at peak hours in Tokyo does not even make me feel any slighter comfortable on my train trips. Instead, such comparison attempts to belittle my genuine travelling discomfort irks me to the extreme. By the way, I hate London tube and still that does not eradicate the fact of SMRT’s deteriorated quality since the 90s.

Unreliability due to train stalls or signaling problems or what-so-ever has become part and parcel of our SMRT travelling experience. Just the other day, on the 29^th October, around 7pm, commuters were disposed at Toa Payoh because of door faults. The faulty train then pulled out of the station with no further instructions whether stranded commuters should find alternative travelling mode or to wait for subsequent trains. So much for improved communications after the massive break-down last year.

(4) Healthcare

Although the data for the number of hospital beds per 1000 people is incomplete throughout the last two decades (world bank date), one could still see that there were more hospital beds between 1991 to 1994 as compared to the period between 2005 and 2008. It is a consequence of unprepared population expansion, leading to longer wait for outpatient healthcare.

No. of hospital beds per 1000 people

That is a fall in quality of healthcare.

On the other hand, whilst ministers are urging for wage increase in tantrum with increased productivity, yet our expenditure on healthcare does not increase in tantrum with the GDP growth.

 

Public and Private health expenditure (% of GDP)

Proportion of public expenditure on health care is comparatively stable compared to private expenditure. With rate of inflation, this is hardly good news as public expenditure is actually decreasing in real terms.

Its size of spending that caters to the majority of the citizens surprisingly lags behind private spending, and bearing in mind too that our public spending is even below that of developing countries, an evident indication of a strong reluctance to distribute GDP yields to the majority of the citizens.

And with our accelerated population expansion rate since 2005, public health expenditure fails to rise in tantrum too.

Swiss standard of GDP but declining quality life

A glance through the reality of our housing, transport and healthcare, has GCT’s 1991-vision improved our lives? If the answer is not affirmative, it is already a proven record that Singapore’s politicians-in-power have failed to effect genuine and beneficial progress for the bulk of our citizens despite their vision, planning and promise. Therefore the attempt to think beyond tomorrow with the same political party of unchanged ethos, values and mindset is futile, save the envisioning. We did surpass the Swiss standard of GDP ultimately, yet our quality of lives for the majority of our citizens is worse off than the 90s. And that is the proven record of PAP’s failure.