Friday, September 27, 2013

Kapok: NIMBY, Macao style

Back in November 2010, Chief Executive Chui Sai On’s intent was clear and the direction chosen unhindered: “Regarding the development of tourism products, after heeding public opinion, and conducting analyses and assessments, the Government proposes an underground mall at Sai Van Lake Square as a trial location for developing a souvenir shopping complex and night market. This will showcase Macao cuisine and delicacies, and will become an integrated tourism project, after upgrading the relevant facilities through an open bidding process.” Of course, not everything went as planned.
First, the initial consultation for the project of a Sai Van lake permanent night market only occurred in November 2011. In the meantime, due processes for “public consultations”, the new fad in benevolent and opinion-led governance in lieu of democratic procedures, had changed: one round of public consultation would not be enough anymore, and a second round taking into account the lessons learnt from the first one would have to be organized. In that particular case, we were lucky rules had changed and government agencies had been slow in putting Mr Chui’s candid words into practice. The first public consultation was not only a disaster, but also marred by irregularities and opacity. Depending on who was doing the counting, opinions gathered ranged from a few dozen up to a maximum of 180, and only 8 such opinions had disapproved of the plan… But these results, without further comments, were only made public in October 2012(!), whereas regulations for public consultations state that it should take no more than 180 days after completion of the process.
Dissent and protest — too bad for consensus building — were soon to be heard: residents from the area started petitioning; concerned groups dealing with environmental and livelihood issues went marching and cycling around the lake, and even business interests made it clear as early as November 2012 that the whole project was plain wrong, both in intent and sustainability. Interestingly enough, David Chow Kam Fai, husband of legislator Melinda Chan Mei Yi and Macau Legend Development chief executive, expressed in a long op-ed published in the very conservative Macau Daily News his doubts about the “free market” side of the “open bidding process” — being the CEO of Fisherman’s Wharf Investment Ltd. might have made Mr. Chow pretty perceptive of the issue lying beneath less than fair competition. In reality, apart from the Civic and Municipal Affairs Bureau that had been entrusted with the project, only one public figure openly continued to support the scheme: legislator Chan Chak Mo. Incidentally representing the cultural sector in the Assembly, but mostly his own interests as the executive director of restaurant operator Future Bright Holdings Ltd, Mo nonetheless finds time to be the president of the Association of Macao Restaurant Merchants, the main organizer of the yearly Food Festival since 2001 precisely set on the banks of the… Sai Van lake!
So, a second consultation round was organized from December 2012 to March 2013. The press had already echoed vociferous sessions held with the general public, and even raucous exchanges with associations convened in closed-door meetings, including the usually pro-government General Union of the Neighborhood Associations and the Federation of Trade Unions that had expressed either a resolute opposition or suggested a relocation and a downsizing of the whole plan. But the official results of that consultation that came out on September 19 surpassed all expectations. More than 1,100 opinions were collected and an additional survey was conducted over the phone by the University of Macao with 1,529 respondents to envision what kind of facilities could be developed around the lake: overall, the initial night market project freely inspired by Clark Quay in Singapore and Tamsui night market in northern Taiwan was rejected by more than 70% of the population, and if a good 60% of the people surveyed over the phone want more facilities, they believe these should be more in line with green paths and walking/jogging tracks. From the “positioning”, the project itself to the localization, all three were heavily rejected: could this be the start of a “Not-In-My-Backyard” movement, with Macanese characteristics?

Published in Macau Daily Times, September 27th 2013

Friday, September 13, 2013

Kapok: What is to be done?

Reflecting on the past two weeks of intense debate and campaigning for the 14 seats that are up for grabs in the Legislative Assembly on September 15, one could simply say: so far so good.
On the side of the Electoral Commission, and even though there is room for improvement, the act has been cleaned up in many respects. Blatant infringements of the electoral law during the official two-weeks of campaigning have been mostly curbed, especially regarding wild and ubiquitous wall posting of promotional material in non-dedicated spaces—the only obvious exception being private lorries transporting visiting gamblers parading with posters of casino-related candidates. 
One might complain that things could have been even better, especially if some of the rules had been clarified earlier on, as exemplified in the polemic regarding posters adorning taxis. I would also note that prevention of abuses that are difficult to substantiate—especially in the case of connected associations patting voters on the shoulder through gifts and banquets beforehand —could more easily become a reality if the Electoral Affairs Commission had been operating long before March this year, and had had its ranks strengthened during the official campaign with, for example, volunteers from all the lists in the competition. In the case of some of the printed platforms being altered without prior approval of the lists, again an extended lapse of time—only one month as of now—between the publication of the acceptance to enter the fray and the start of the official campaign could help, especially if combined with a legal and transparent consultative mechanism. But let’s not be too harsh: Sunday will be a busy day for the Commission, starting with the monitoring of how voters get transported to the voting booths!
Now to the tone and style of the campaign per se. As expected, it has been buoyant, passionately debated and full of happenings—not quite Hong Kong or Taiwan yet, but getting there. 
The explosive mix of rejuvenation of the electorate, pervasiveness of electronic social media and added competition has translated into a “negative” campaigning style that has pushed the “old guard” on the defensive and helped groom a possible new generation of concerned citizens-turned-politicians. During debate time, traditional association representatives of the four hues—labor, women, neighborhood and patriotic—have been openly challenged. In being directly questioned, the “age-wise” constitutive element of their legitimacy, already pretty depleted in the case of the neighborhood folks, was seriously eroded. All the more so because a few minor lists had been precisely formed to oppose head-on well-established incumbent legislators, even the ones credited with a solid record in the Assembly—in the case of labor-oriented lists, the rustproof UPD was being challenged by at least three alternative ones! Ultimately, not only “age” was being put into question, but also whether or not these associations were “doing a good job”, delivering on their promises and possibly doing so in a consistent manner. Capacity was thus doubted. This attrition of confidence became even more salient for the casino-backed candidates, although the equation for them appeared to be early on “not too lose too much” rather than registering significant gains. If the latest rallying slogans are to be trusted, one can feel that worry has started to get hold of even the most confident heavyweights. Of course, claiming that the house is about to be engulfed by flames in the last days of the campaign has always been a classic strategic eleventh hour politicking recourse. And yet…
What Is to Be Done? When Lenin penned his pamphlet back in 1901, his main argument was that to convert the working class to Marxism despite all the odds, a political party made up of a “vanguard” should be formed to spread the ideology. Communism is gone, but Democracy is still an aspiration. A high turnout rate should probably help a different kind of vanguard making it in.

Published in Macau Daily Times, September 13th 2013