Kapok: Living together

Being in France just a few days after the horrendous truck attack that took place in the Southern French city of Nice on Bastille Day, claiming the life of 84 people, including many children, compels me to reflect on what makes a society hold together. Confronted with this form of indiscriminate terror and such a feeling of powerlessness, both on the side of society and the public authorities, how can we make sure that this kind of dreadful occurrence will be much less likely to happen in the future, close and distant, bearing in mind that zero risk does not exist? Is the call to unity a requirement or a promise, and in that case what will be its grammar? Will we unite because we need to or because we want to? Do we unite because now is not the time to divide ourselves or because we recognise in each and every member of our community, a “brother” or “sister” who is “equal” in status and in exercising his or her “freedom”? “Liberté, égalité, fraternité”, the three cardinal values of the French Republic.
What is eminently disturbing is the very fact that terrorists, are, somehow and in effect, winning, because these very values are being trampled over.
First, because in a political environment in which emotions rather than reason prevail, the first and foremost reaction is to resort to a blame game. Of a religious or at least communautarian nature, as if Islam at large was conducive to such violence and we were witnessing some form of holy and civilisational war, disregarding the very fact that a third of the 84 victims were themselves Muslims. Of a strictly politicking nature, when local authorities of a certain political orientation (more conservative and security prone) take aim at the national government of another political inclination (roughly speaking, more concerned with individual and civic rights) for failing to anticipate the highly improbable — a heavy vehicle attack is a first in France, and the only equivalent can be found in attacks perpetrated in Jerusalem over light rail stations back in 2014.
Second, because what is for now visible in terms of public policies regarding the prevention of terrorism is almost exclusively related to security. Everybody wants to feel reassured and safe, and safety is for many the very justification of the existence of a state — and we have known that since Thomas Hobbes. But then, the failures of twentieth century revolutionary ideologies have also taught us that “order without life” is tantamount to the “tranquility of the graveyard”, to quote Czech philosopher Jan Patočka, one of the signatories of Charter 77. This is why the Euro Cup organised by France had to take place, even though some strict protective measures were taken, including the now famous but at the time much reviled “fan zones”. And then, now that numerous cultural events are being cancelled on the Riviera — Rihanna’s concert is only one of them — what are the mid- and long-term horizons of security measures? Are we bound, just like it is now happening in Belgium, to not carry bags and not drive our cars to celebrate our National day? Now, tomorrow, and the day after tomorrow?
Some voices, more insistent on the meaning of the “islamisation of radicalism”, to use Olivier Roy’s formula, are pointing to the fact that the ideology of Daesh — in whose name all the recent terrorist attacks in France have been conducted — constitutes some form of new transnational utopia, one that offers to “suburban youth a sacralisation of the hatred of society, a hatred resulting from a feeling of social and economic exclusion, injustice and humiliation; and to middle-class youth, an answer to the vacuum of authority, the distaste for oneself or another form of anomia” (Farhad Khosrokhavar).
Education and social economic inclusion will thus be of utmost importance, as rightly emphasised by the European Parliament’s Report on the prevention of radicalisation. Beyond the centres for de-radicalisation that are yet to open in France, nations and communities of people will thus have to rediscover what binds them together, all of them.

Published in Macau Daily Times, July 22nd 2016

Kapok: Fooling the Fools

It is indeed always moving to see the rich and powerful coming to the rescue of the rule of law, or more exactly the rule by law, which has to be amended because it no longer suits the interests of the happy few. The proposed alteration to the Land Law is a superb lobbying operation in the name — name only — of the general interest adorned by distorted legal, economic and political arguments. It would amount to a good laugh if this human comedy did not involve billions of MOP and the healthy development of the city at a time of renewed challenges, hence the dramatic turn of the whole story.

From a strictly aesthetic perspective, it does follow the three unity rules of neoclassical drama: a unity of action (land developers failing to develop land plots), a unity of time (25 years of provisory land concessions) and a unity of place (well-situated land plots never opened to public tendering promising juicy returns). The ending of the play should be obvious: if you meet the deadline, you get wealthier; if you miss it, you forfeit your future gains and hand back the concessions. The problem is: the parties disagree on who is to blame for the failure.
The story of the 113 idle plots of land first surfaced back in 2009 thanks to a report released by the Land, Public Works and Transport Bureau (DSSOPT). In 2010-2011, 48 of these plots were recognised as not having been developed solely due to the inaction of the land grantees, and were thus meant to be recovered by the government at the leases’ expiration. Sixty-five were excluded because responsibility was shared, and the lack of proper regulatory work and planning by the government had impacted the delay. The Land Law was passed in 2013, and new constraints were imposed: article 48 states that “provisory concessions [of maximum 25 years] cannot be renewed.”
With a new government being sworn in December 2014, the formerly dozing DSSOPT sprang into action, and thus land plots started to be repossessed. In June 2015, the new Secretary for Transport and Public Works, Raimundo do Rosário, made it public that out of 48 land plots, 16 had been excluded from recovery. Even though a public hearing on the case was denied in the legislature, a CCAC enquiry commissioned by the Chief Executive concluded that the only dubious aspect of the story was the lack of “proactive, systematic, and scientific communication” about the exemptions that were deemed perfectly legitimate. This was despite the fact that some legislators were shown to have directly benefited from the technical derogations, such as Angela Leong, Chui Sai Cheong and Vitor Cheung Lup Kwan. Since then, other plots have been recovered, more are at risk and court actions do not seem to favour developers.
The legislator leading the charge for a revision to the Land Law, or more precisely a retroactive annexed interpretation of the law, is no other than Gabriel Tong. Mr Tong is an academic (acting dean of the law department at UMAC!), but he is also an appointed legislator and a partner in a law firm. He voted in favour of the Land Law in 2013 and now claims he was “deceived” at the time: I thought that these guys got their job because of their expertise? And can we be 100% sure that he has no conflict of interest in proposing the amendments? And then the developers would not be interested in (necessarily limited) compensations but rather to deliver on their promise? Why not earlier? Why act at best in the mid-2000s (UNESCO heritage dates to 2005), thus crippling the development of the city after the real-estate downturn of 1994?
By my own calculation, based on the market, the initial land fee, the premiums and today’s construction costs, they don’t want to pass on 300% return! When there is only one team on the soccer field, I don’t see the point in providing it with extra time after July 31!

Published on Macau Daily Times, July 8th 2016