Sunday, March 11, 2012

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?