Kapok: Accountable Responsility

For any political leader, probing the hearts and minds of constituents is of utmost importance, whatever the political regime. In a democratic setting, elected officials have learned to engage at every turn with the people they derive their power from. Gone are the days when one would regenerate his or her “representative” status only at election time: one’s presence on Twitter is imperative, and not only to cunningly (often perilously) grab the headlines, but to foster public participation and nurture one’s political course of action via the many corrective bits that constitute an audience’s reaction, measured in levels of re-tweeting, liking and commenting. The power and beauty of social media do not only spring from their instantaneity and their reach but from the reactivity and interactivity. They are indeed a much more sophisticated channel than basic opinion polls that verge on popularity contests. Social media allow for participative democracy to cut across a mere slogan, even though they cannot and will never replace the act of voting, which is the actual exercise of power by the citizenry, and thus of accountability.
In an authoritarian context, regardless of the oligarchic or corporatist manoeuvrability, citizens are also being called upon. The lesson retained from the twentieth century is that no form of dictatorship can aspire to longevity if it does not somehow live up to the promise of a “rule for the people” – the greater good of the community remaining a distinctive finality. Thus demands from the society have to be accommodated, albeit with very stringent constraints. In Iran, many believe that the “Islamic Republic” serves as a “façade” for religious interests to clinch power while allowing for civil society to be placated. Quite tellingly, social media were at one point used as reversed illiberal weapons to track down activists challenging the regime, and today still, most Iranian netizens are denied access to Twitter while President Hassan Rouhani prides himself on having 378,000 followers (last tweet on August 9th) while even Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Seyed Ali Khamenei, is followed by less than 150,000 people. In the People’s Republic of China, many policies are opened to so-called “public consultations” and clearly there have been some interesting attempts at (very) local democracy. The regime today hammers that “democracy” is indeed one of the twelve core socialist values – along with freedom. But here again, engagement of and with the people follows very strict rules, as more than 250 human rights lawyers have been learning the hard way during the summer. Moreover, if China is home to the biggest Internet population on the planet – 668 million – and allows for citizens to express their concerns and participate in the public sphere, this can only ensue in a narrowly enclosed perimeter: Xinhua ultimately rules and the new cybersecurity law currently “under discussion” will fully “legalize” the usual practice of suspension of service and denial of access as soon as there is a hint of threat to “social order”. Thus, Virtual Private Networks that have been heavily targeted since January 2015 could be deemed “illegal”.
Public consultations and the use of social media can be characterized as a form of responsibility sharing. For a leader today, the source of political legitimacy matters less than the impression (at least) that he is ruling for the benefit of the whole community. Shouldering off part of the responsibility thus really comes handy. The ever-increasing use of “public consultations” in Macao is a good reminder that despite our lack of democratic institutions, the commitment to liberal values enshrined in the Basic Law together with their actual practice can be put to very potent use when it comes to accountability. Nobody will be voted out (or weep and resign), but then prospective public policies are openly discussed and challenged, omissions and shortcomings alike: the meticulous account provided by some media – the public meetings transcripts by All About Macao in particular – regarding the present public consultation on new reclamation areas is in that respect to be commended. Irrefutably, the quality of our future rests upon our freedom of expression.

Published in Macau Daily Times on August 21st 2015

Kapok: Head counts or headaches?

Censuses have been in existence for millennia, the first known having been undertaken by the Babylonians and in Pharaonic Egypt in the Third Millennium BC. The oldest existing census was conducted in Han Dynasty China in 2 AD when Imperial China was believed to be home to the largest population in the world with 59.6 million inhabitants. Interestingly enough, references to these distant head counts usually indicate some level of “reliability”. Censuses appear to be associated with advanced civilizations and sophistication of public administration. Today, the universal and periodic acquisition and recording of key population indicators determine the shape and scope of public policies.
In Macao, the first census dates back to 1867 when 81,525 individuals populated the Portuguese enclave. The latest census of 2011 recorded a total population of 552,503 and the latest estimate from the Statistics and Census Service puts this figure at 636,200 at the end of 2014.
On July 30th, the government’s Policy Research Office released its Study Report on the Population Policies of Macao, and expectations were running pretty high. Unfortunately, some serious doubts can be raised on the intent and accuracy of the document.
Although it is true that Macao’s population is today characterized by a low birth rate, one of the longest life expectancies in the world, a population growth fuelled by immigration, heterogeneity between local and non-resident workers, a need to “import” young workers to compensate for an ageing population, and the fact that a low rate of analphabetism is emulated by an equally low level of tertiary education, why do these conclusions need to be drawn from a study by the University of Peking? And then, why not phrase the main challenge of Macao as being the staffing of a (super-) fast hospitality and gaming industry with low-skilled as well as highly competent people who are mostly imported from the outside (today, 45% of the active population is made up of “non-resident workers”, twice that of 2010, and less than 20% of the population have been to university) while at the same time maintaining acceptable conditions in one of the most densely populated territories on the planet? With further diversification ahead, what was true in the past decade will be even truer in the next.
Every single piece of information in this report seeks to tone down the issues at hand and is presented as a validation of insufficiently published indicators and reports to appraise the quality and relevance of past and upcoming public policies. It is more a justification exercise than an objective assessment from which to derive public policy recommendations.
Projections are on the conservative side: the population figures of 710,000 by 2020 and 750,000 by 2025 are based on lower growth to come. With a population increase of 25,500 people in 2012-2013 and close to 29,000 in 2013-2014, should not we at least consider a higher limit – despite the recent sharp GDP decline – according to which the threshold of 710,000 could be reached by the end of 2017? Unless, of course, there is a significant contraction of non-resident workers and thus a sudden change in immigration policy – unimaginable with 19,000 additional hotel rooms in the making and the drive for Macao to become a world-class tourism and entertainment center. Is it reasonable to argue that HR issues can be significantly addressed by an untapped reserve of women and a fast ageing population? What is the rationale behind an acceptable (“not saturated”) carrying capacity of 22,000 people per sq. km by 2025? What are the envisioned measures to optimize transportation and tourism facilities for sustainable development? Why not include indicators like “waiting time” for health services instead of boasting that Macao is on par with countries from East Asia based on the number of doctors and hospital beds per 1000 residents? Should not the development of the “Grand Macao” as the solution to all challenges be discussed?
The 2006 predecessor of this Policy Research Office was supposed to emulate Hong Kong’s Central Policy Unit: there is obviously still room for improvement!

Published in Macau Daily Times, August 7th 2015