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。