KAPOK: The Ins and Outs of Expertise

More often than not unsolicited comments and suggestions are considered inappropriate. If we leave aside the deference aspect of the rule, and therefore the sheer respect for authority in a pyramidal organization, there are many reasons that can justify this widely shared custom, among which the “communication” dimension is for me the most important.
To put it simply, communication is about relating to individuals in society, and in order for the communicational transaction to take place, one individual must speak and the other one has to listen and understand, and usually alternatively speak or reply and be listened to and understood. When the word “communications” appeared in Europe at the end of the thirteenth century, it referred to “ways of being together.”
By that token, an unsolicited comment is deemed inappropriate because the interlocutor (in linguistics, the person to whom speech is directed) is not willing or simply ready to listen — and here, I am not even considering the answering back or amending process of one’s point of view.
Reading about recent comments made in June by “Mainland scholars,” as they are characterized in the press, I found myself in the very awkward position where everything was right and yet everything felt wrong. These two scholars, Zhu Shiha, from the Central Socialism Institute in Beijing, and Chen Xin, from the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, were basically voicing the idea that the central authorities in Beijing were quite likely to allow more democracy in Macao in the future.
Chinese culture does put much emphasis on etiquette — “saving face” has become an everyday reference — and it is therefore not surprising that these comments were of course solicited ones, made at the invitation of a local institution, the Macau Polytechnic Institute, that has made a specialty of exploring the “one-country-two-systems” as a singular object of investigation, dedicating a whole research center with a fully-fledged academic journal to it.
What is less right though is that the Central Socialism Institute created in 1946 is a typical United Front institution that although staffed with non-communist members has a mission to bring unity under the leadership of the Communist Party of China. The Chinese Academy of Social Sciences in itself seems a bit less political, but Mr Chen, despite his doctorate in law, is from the Institute of European Studies and speaks very good Hungarian, if his online bio is to trusted, but has indeed a very limited knowledge of the ins and outs of political reform in Macao under the “one country, two systems” formula. Mr Zhu, the expert, went as far as saying that the central government, being more satisfied with the political conditions in Macao, “would likely allow more room for democratic development in Macao than in Hong Kong.”
Is Mr Zhu aware that the political reform package has already been passed for Hong Kong, and that the Chief Executive and the Legco members in the former British colony will be returned through universal suffrage starting respectively in 2017 and 2020? Is he aware than the very discreet Bureau for Political Studies created by Chui Sai On in 2010 made it public in early April that an agenda for the implementation of universal suffrage was, as of now, not relevant to consider for Macao?
Ultimately, should we be mad at Mr Lao Pun Lap, coordinator of the above-mentioned bureau for not disclosing the “scientific rationale” behind his statement, contrary to the very foundation of his office? Should we be worried for Hong Kong considering that what really matters for the central authorities appears to be who is allowed to run for elections and not how the candidates are elected? And when does an unsolicited opinion cease to be inappropriate?

Published in Macau Daily Times, June 22 2012

KAPOK: Neither One Nor the Other

Being in France at the time of the legislative elections last week acted as a stark reminder of what is missing in our polity here in Macao: good reasons to hope for the best and not only dream of it. Allow me to clarify. In this first round to elect legislators held on June 10th, French citizens were basically being asked about the kind of politics they would like their government to engage into for the next five years, bearing in mind that France, like most countries in Europe, has been confronted with daunting economic difficulties over the past four years. These elections are taking place one month after a new President, François Hollande, a socialist, has been himself elected against the incumbent head of state, Nicolas Sarkozy, a right-winger, and they seem set on sending a left-wing majority to France’s lower assembly, although short of an unstoppable pink-and-red wave — confirmation of the new majority will be secured on the evening of the second round, on June 17th. Among the many reasons why Nicolas Sarkozy was defeated a month ago, his authoritarian, bling-bling and hectic style — or lack thereof— played for sure a crucial role, but it is no doubt his inability to restore economic growth while concurrently allowing for inequalities to reach unprecedented levels since the nineteenth century that brought about his downfall, and all the rhetoric about the risks of changing the captain in the midst of the storm was proven wrong. To my own eyes, and even though I am myself more left-leaning, Nicolas Sarkozy’s policies ultimately conflicted with the core values of his own political tradition: instead of strengthening the idea of an organic national community, division was brought to the fore; efficiency was constantly undermined by frantic changes of orientation that never accommodated appropriate time to bear fruits; and if change (“rupture” as we say in French, meaning breaking away from certain practices and customs) was to be at the center of all politics, it ultimately failed to find its raison d’être thus confirming the African proverb than “when you do not know where you are heading to, you should remember where you are coming from.” Looking now at the legislative elections, the republican right-wing party registered in last Sunday’s first round its lowest score ever (less than 35%) since 1958, therefore confirming the wish for change expressed one month ago. Yet, only 57% of the registered voters did go to polling stations, a turnout that is as well a record-low in the past fifty years and indicates the prevalence of a wait-and-see posture. Now, the National Front, a far-right authority-prone xenophobic political movement has managed to capture some 13.7% of the vote, running on a political platform in which advocacy of protectionism and fear of globalization play the key roles. In this context, the tasks ahead for the new socialist government are formidable: France is the second biggest economy in Europe, but if inflation runs at less than 2.3%, unemployment has now climbed to 10%, economic growth only reached 1.7% last year, public debt hit 85.8% of GDP and public deficit, although receding, 5.2% of GDP — a far cry from Europe’s golden rules. If austerity measures seem to be out of the question in the short run, it seems obvious that public action will only be made possible by increasing revenues (the tax-to-GDP ratio in France is already the 7th highest in Europe) as well as becoming more cost-effective. Economic efficiency, social fairness and overall sustainability of the whole system are at stake. To put it short, the requirement is to move away from quantitative growth to qualitative nurturing at a time of great upheavals. Being deprived of making that choice through an electoral process clearly would have run the risk of getting neither efficiency nor fairness, or at least, to be less idealistic, missing an opportunity to give a trustworthy try at both.

Published in Macau Daily Times, June 14 2012