Kapok: Look who’s talking!

Although I would not challenge being characterized as a “tree-hugger”, I would not consider myself an “animal lover”. For me, dogs are all about unpleasant dribbling, offensive wet dog smell and untimely walks in the woods for not-so-hygienic unloading. But it is one thing to show no great empathy for pets, it is an entirely different matter not to support legal provisions to put an end to cruelty towards animals. The former has to do with my own personal inclinations, the latter with the degree of advancement of a civilization.

There are many interesting aspects to the project of law that was introduced by José Pereira Coutinho, which pertains to the “Legal status and protection of animals”. This was rebuked in a plenary session of the Macao Legislative Assembly on April 22^nd.

It is important to note that it was a project of law (initiated by legislators, in this case only one), which is not to be confused with a law proposal (initiated by the government). Contrary to what is commonly heard, a few projects initiated by legislators have successfully been made into laws. For example, the very comprehensive Personal Data Protection Law that was passed in 2005 is the most well known, but it is not unique. Other examples include the Law requiring the systematic advice of a lawyer in judicial procedures, or the Law regulating Internet Cafés.

These laws are the highest testimonies of the revered principle of the separation of powers, which is enshrined in Macao's Basic Law. Legislator Coutinho clearly displays political motivation when he introduced six laws in a single week, but contrary to what Legislator Chan Chak Mo has argued, that is to say “mere politicking” by Coutinho in an election year, Coutinho’s actions clearly indicate that some legislators are actually doing their job. In the end, just as “some animals are more equal than others”, some legislators are indeed, more legitimate than others.

The project of law was voted down in its first stage, during the first reading in plenary session. The legislators had plenty of time to carefully examine the 30 articles of the law and the notes that accompanied it, as it was introduced in February, some two months before last Monday’s vote. But the project never made it beyond the political initiative of its introduction and will never be discussed in a permanent commission.

Those who either abstained or opposed gave several reasons. Some argued that the project was not precise enough: was it about domestic animals, or animals at large? Could we still enjoy eating ducks and chicken after the law would be passed? Article 14 of the project is very clear about that, just like the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Ordinance passed in 2006 in Hong Kong: what is to be prevented and punished is cruelty to animals, including in the slaughtering process. But most of the critics have concentrated on the supposed untimeliness of the project as it was released only four months before the end of the legislative session. However, one could argue that almost half of the 2012/2013 session still remains and that the Assembly record for law passing ranges from 6 to 27 laws passed in a single session. Coincidentally, the most vocal opponent regarding “timing” was legislator Vitor Cheung Lup Kwan, who holds the record amongst all legislators for lowest attendance to plenary sessions during the two previous terms in 2011 and 2012. Being a legislator is a full time job!

In the end 4 voted in favor, 9 abstained and 9 opposed, totaling 22 out of 29. Why were seven legislators missing? Why was the legislator, who is closest to the company that runs the infamous Canidrome of Macau (see here for local news and here for international coverage), absent from the vote? Untimely questions maybe?

Published in Macau Daily Times, April 26 2013.

Kapok: Echo logic

Coincidences are always troubling; on the same weekend that the Macao International Environmental Cooperation Forum & Exhibition (MIECF) was coming to an end a group of concerned citizens rallying via Facebook marched to safeguard “green Coloane.” On the one hand were a yearly jamboree of grand plans, grandiose declarations of intent and a quantitative expression of self-satisfaction for the big “n” numbers of agreements signed: each aimed to arouse awareness of environmental protection, and this year in particular to advance the cause of “green tourism” - a form of tourism involving environmentally positive activities from choosing to have hotels wash towels less often to developing full-scale eco-friendly architecture. On the other hand, a small, but highly motivated group of residents, accompanied by rather low-key activists and legislators, demonstrated their unease at the unrestrained greed that, they claim, is being exhibited by some real-estate developers. These activists argued that these developers are desecrating what was once considered the “green lung” of Macao with towering and uninventive concrete blocks.
The inadequacy of current public policies and regulations must share some of the blame, especially because environmental impact studies are undertaken post licensing and are merely considered as flexible technicalities. This should not be so as there is indeed a somehow “binding” document issued by the government aptly entitled “Environmental Protection Planning of Macao (2010-2020)” that clearly states one of the strategic orientations is “to make holistic investigation into local ecosystems, to implement district-based protection by dividing them into different environmental functional districts according to their nature and the protected [zones], and to apply protective measures for the sensitive ecosystem, together with continual monitoring.” The Urban Planning Law is currently under discussion in the legislature and the legal aspects of the discussion have stalled on the extent of the discretionary power the government should have in evading the law on the grounds of “higher public interests” (yet to be defined). The irony of the situation is that principled legislators and more business-oriented ones are on the same side albeit for different reasons: the former because of their desire for cleaner and more sustainable development and the latter because of the lack of predictability these changes bring to their profit-seeking endeavors.
Meanwhile ecological awareness is growing amongst the general population. Last time we viewed the official gazette online there were no less than 61 associations dealing with such issues in Macao under the “environment protection” section of “associations” registered with the government. Yet, as only one hundred people showed up on a Sunday to protect what is left of Macao’s hilly green horizon, one could still ask the question “where are (the activists) to be seen?” It seems that just increasing awareness is not enough and time is not on our side.
The Macao government has taken a few steps in the right direction, although a good ten years later than Hong Kong. The most significant example of positive action is the document pertaining to environmental protection planning. But the implementation is too timid, too gradual and always emphasizing continuity over a clean break. The issues currently being faced are increasing as the city develops faster, higher and with an unprecedented urban density. In March, the Hong Kong government released its guidelines regarding “A Clean Air Plan for Hong Kong” urging for emergency measures and precise commitments—in budgeting and targeting—towards a reduction in and the exposure of the public to harmful emissions. The protection of the environment and a cleaner atmosphere are not only ideological in nature, they are also a matter of public health, especially when cardiovascular and respiratory disorders are concerned which will thus impact public spending. A poor environment will soon weigh on government coffers, and be more keenly felt as the population ages. So let’s learn from Hong Kong and not make the same mistakes when it comes to limiting the exposure to lethal fumes and tunneling effects that are amplified by high-rise structures.

Published in Macau Daily Times, April 12th 2013.