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
No comments:
Post a Comment