Kapok: More or less

It has become a habit: when things are being advertised or promoted in Macao, “more” has become too often the gauge for “better,” and in some instances even “good”. So much so that I have run out of half-smart, sarcastic, catchy titles to characterize this “infantile disorder”, as Lenin might have put it: “Quantity vs. Quality”, “More vs. Better”, “The Tyranny of Numbers”, etc. How predictable this sorry state of affairs is.
True, “more” has the potential to improve a situation, especially when one is talking about a market economy. We are better off with six gambling operators than when we had one. Not only have the growth figures and number of visitors skyrocketed but the quality and diversity of services, and what is on offer in town have expanded to an unthinkable level from just a decade ago. Even in the less than sympathetic article, published by CNN.com this week, entitled “The dark side of Asia's gambling Mecca,” the figure that sticks is that Macao surpassed Vegas for gambling revenues back in 2006 and is presently six times bigger. All this despite the unpalatable suspected association between several junket operators and triads, or the downgrading by the American State Department of our SAR in 2012 when it comes to human trafficking. 
Sometimes, I wish that we had more: number of hospital beds, social and economic housing units, wholesale importers of meat and fish, levels of electricity pricing for households, etc. Sometimes, I believe that we should have less: number of public bus operators, casino outlets, cosmetic as well as dry-cake and beef jerky or luxury brand shops, parking meters, or even the amazing variety of street furniture. Almost always I feel that we deserve better: road condition, traffic, environment, healthcare and education services, housing maintenance, sport facilities, etc. Apart from food outlets and hotel accommodation, the need for improvement is in every mind. 
The same goes for politics and especially elections. As far as the total number of voters is concerned, “more” is definitely better: 277,153 registered voters for this year’s legislative elections translate into 28,445 new voters compared to 2009, and more than half of these new voters are aged 29 or below. If we take into consideration the previous turnout rate (about 60%), that basically means that this new youth vote determines the election of one seat! Then of course, additional seats, even though limited to four, create new opportunities. New faces and ideas feel that their time has finally come. But then, things become tricky. First of all the voting system that is in practice in Macao for both direct and indirect elections—a system adopted in the early 1990s and thus predating the handover—makes it almost impossible for a candidate placed in third position on any given list to make the cut and is therefore conducive to an over inflated number of lists. Hence, the democrats lining up three lists this year (against two in 2009 and only one in 2005) in the hope of maximizing their chances to get at least four members of the New Macau Association elected (against three today). The danger lies in the dispersion of votes, and thus requires strict discipline in distributing one’s support. Finally, things are yet undecided for “indirectly elected” seats. I have many times pointed out that indirectly elected legislators are highly illegitimate—apart from breaking the record of absenteeism in the Assembly— especially because both in 2005 and 2009 they never had to submit to a vote, even limited to a vote by collective entities—they were merely selected and endorsed by their peers on single lists. This year around, the rules have changed: an election is required. In some instances, that won’t make any difference: the two candidates from the Federation of Trade Unions running for the Labor seats have been endorsed by 80% of the members of that particular sector…and yet, come the time of secret ballot, abstention could mean something! And why not multiple lists in other sectors?

Published in Macau Daily Times, June 21st 2013

Kapok: Hell is other people

French existentialist Jean-Paul Sartre acknowledged that the famous sentence — “Hell is other people” — he included in the play No Exit (1944) had often, if not always, been misunderstood. People assumed that what he meant was that our relationships with other people always have a degree of malevolence, and thus that our relationships with others are always “infernal” by nature. He later explained that what he really wanted to express was that IF our relationships to others were distorted and malign THEN other people could only be seen as “hell”. He further asserted that “the other” was the most important part of us, in order to understand ourselves. Without the other and an open mind to otherness, there is no way one can truthfully understand who he or she is. And yet, if one becomes overly dependent on judgments made about them by others, then one’s life indeed becomes hell. This distorted view of the “other”, the foreign, the alien is exactly what is poisoning the debate - or the lack thereof - regarding the government’s proposal to assist foreign students who have completed their diplomas in Macao to gain easier access to the local labor market.
Ever since the government announced that it was looking at adopting a facilitating policy pertaining to non-resident students in mid-May, debate has been fierce, especially because few details were given on the triggering factors, workings, projected consequences and scheduling of such a plan. Democrats and union representatives have been the most vocal in echoing concerns muttered by the population — as much because of the lack of particulars as an “instinctive” protective move in favor of Macao’s local labor force. For a liberal mind and an educator, this comes as a surprise, at least regarding the Democrats (unionists lost their “internationalist” Marxist approach in the 1970s). 
More than anything else, young people from Macao need to learn to compete and prepare to be challenged. Protective, not to say shielding, measures can only be transitional. In France, when one talks about “national preference”, such attitudes are immediately associated with a far-right and xenophobic political movement. When a French right-
wing Minister of the Interior issued a circular in May 2011 that restricted the number of non-European Union foreign students allowed to stay and work in France after completing their diplomas, it sparked an uproar, and the circular was immediately abrogated by the new socialist government, sworn in May 2012. It was not the idea that being “selective” was wrong per se, but that one could not claim to attract talented people to study in the territory — an embodiment of soft power — and at the same time refuse these talented minds to stay on if they chose to do so. Are the Democrats and unionists in Macao less liberal-minded? I believe not. What is at stake here is the ever-deepening wariness between, on the one hand, representatives who derive their power from the people and, on the other hand, the government along with the alienated business elite that supports it.
The failure of the motion calling for a plenary debate on the proposal to allow non-local students to work in Macao on June 11 in the Legislative Assembly is a sad reminder that the gap is widening to a point that will almost certainly be impossible to mend; among the nine who supported the motion, we find three democrats, four unionists (including an independent), the elected representative from the neighborhood associations and a populist born-
again “lady of the people”…out of nine, eight are directly elected legislators! The main arguments aired by the 10 naysayers have to do with the excessive politicization of the debate in the run up to the elections in September (none of them are actually directly elected) and the lack of time left in the present session of the Legislative Assembly. It is rather unique indeed to hear “politicians” declaring that they don’t want to engage in political debate, and for business-minded people to deny the benefits of productivity gains: why did the government introduce the proposal in May in the first place and isn’t there at least two months left before the end of the parliamentary session?

Published in Macau Daily Times, June 14th 2013