Kapok: Detrimental ignorance

The results of the latest yearly survey regarding the trust Macao people place in their government is truly appalling. Not only has Mr Chui Sai On never been so unpopular, but 2017 marks also the first time his approval rating has dipped below the highly symbolic 50% bar. A low(est) score of 49.5% might not seem much, and yet it also corresponds to the largest yearly drop since Mr Chui stepped into the shoes of Mr Edmund Ho: between 2016 and 2017, he lost more than 10 percentage points! In a territory in which people do not get to elect their enlightened leader and the menu is adorned with a unique dish when selection time comes, this is quite a feat: why one would bother when one has no choice?

In 2009, when it was still possible and meaningful to administer political surveys in a Macao-based university, our questionnaire on “civic culture” had actually revealed that far from being politically apathetic the good citizens of Macao simply felt disenfranchised — they had no power over things. Given the opportunity, they indicated that they would actually vouch for a radically different institutional design in order to become at long last the masters of their own destiny: 51% of the people interrogated believed that the best way to designate the Chief Executive (CE) was through universal suffrage, whereas only 14% were satisfied with the way it was, almost 28% thought that the electoral commission electing the CE should be expanded and a mere 7% trusted Beijing to designate their leader directly.

Thus, the 2017 survey indicating such a lamentable popular support for the CE does not come as a surprise, and becomes even more humiliating when hypothetical vote intentions are being gauged: if the CE was this year returned via universal suffrage, only 20% of the Macao citizens would vote for Mr Chui! Again, the worst result ever. And the list goes on: greatest ever overall dissatisfaction (since 1999 moreover!) with the Macao government as a whole (44.3%; for the first time satisfaction has plunged below dissatisfaction); greatest ever dissatisfaction with the capacity of the government to improve the people’s livelihood (53.2%); greatest ever dissatisfaction with the capacity of the government to push for democratic development (39.2%); greatest ever dissatisfaction in the capacity of the government to protect human rights and freedom (28.3%); highest ever distrust in the Macao government (31.2%); highest ever lack of confidence in Macao’s future (26%); and the final blow comes from the question addressing the “people’s satisfaction in the Macao government’s performance after the typhoon”: 54.3% are voicing out their dissatisfaction!

To be fair, a few indicators (a minority) indicate little change: people are still okay with the performance of the government in maintaining economic prosperity (can they really be credited for that?); they are still quite confident in the capacity of the government to handle the relation with Beijing, about the policies coming from up north affecting the SAR, about the “one country, two systems” formula, about China’s own future and even pretty trustful of the central government. But then, isn’t it weird to see this disjunction? Isn’t the CE pre-screened by Beijing prior to even thinking of filling the position and isn’t he appointed by the central government? And the same goes for the secretaries. Shouldn’t Beijing be worried that its loyal executants perform so badly? How long before the level of incompetence starts affecting the people’s perception of the benevolent intentions of the capital?

Now, all the blame seems to come from the catastrophic mishandling of the murderous crisis brought forth by a devastating typhoon. Is that for sure? Will the passing of time mend the gaping distrust thus created? For us to be certain, we would need to run such surveys in Macao (this one is done by the University of Hong Kong) on a monthly basis, to better understand the fluctuations. Interestingly enough, I personally applied for such a monthly endeavour back in 2014, only to be turned down by the Macao Foundation. Time for a change? But with which independent tertiary institution?

Published in Macau Daily Times on December 22, 2017

Kapok: Scaring a monkey to safeguard the chicken

It is no secret that Macao’s political system is not only overly executive-led and highly dependent on the admonitions coming from up north, but also bogged down by vested corporatist interests whose vision regarding Macao’s future seldom goes beyond family or close affiliates, and how these interests fit with the grand design of the day as voiced out in the capital. Oh sure! it’s not one big happy family, and competition between clans can be rife, but like any environment driven by (huge) profit-making things get settled behind closed doors and pragmatism ultimately prevails. In traditional settings, overexposure to light is actually scorned more than the idea of conflict.

The suspension of Sulu Sou Ka Hou from his mandate in the Assembly perfectly illustrates the stern reaction any attempt at offsetting the system will provoke. I am even tempted to believe that newly- appointed legislator Pang Chuan is not lying when he declares that lawmakers, despite voting the suspension by 28 votes against four, did not receive any particular instruction: what’s the need? Out of 33 legislators, only five (some used to say four, and this vote might have helped clarify other things) are truly independent from these vested interests that often translate into conflicts of interest: corporatist branches will automatically bind together as soon as they feel threatened. And Mr Sou, because of his game-changing perspective, represents a threat to all. Ever since he was elected in September he has targeted all aspects of policy-making — and not only dealing with youth or more segmented concerns. He has directly challenged the Chief Executive in his handling of the Hato crisis, and thus questioned the total lack of accountability, starting from the highest echelon, so detrimental to Macao politics. In his own ordeal, he has shone “light” on black box processes, directly exposing on social media the respective positions of the members of the legislature’s House Rules Committee regarding his case, thus highlighting the inherent contradictions between claims and actual practice.

But eventually, the matter boils down to the original sin: what does legislator Sou stand accused of that would warrant a suspension of his mandate? Is he bound to appear in court for a crime of blood? Is he charged with cronyism and has he facilitated the employment of relatives or affiliates in public offices? Has he embezzled public money for personal enrichment?

None of the above: he stands accused of “aggravated disobedience” for having walked in the middle of the road instead of the pavement during a protest in May 2016 and subsequently thrown a paper-plane petition into the garden of the Chief Executive. The object of the demonstration: to protest about the opaque and controversial transfer of MOP100 million to Jinan University (Guangzhou) by the Macao Foundation, that happens to be presided over by the Chief Executive.

Interestingly enough, the biggest beneficiary of funds endowed by the Macao Foundation in 2016 is none other than Macau University of Science and Technology, the very university that employs legislator Pang Chuan. Additionally, Mr Pang’s boss sits on the board of the Foundation and the Executive Council. The second biggest beneficiary is the Kiang Wu Hospital Charitable Association, connected to quite a few legislators too, including Chui family members. The third biggest is the foundation behind the City University of Macao, with connections to at least three legislators. Then the Macao Federation of Trade Unions, the fourth biggest beneficiary, is directly linked to four legislators; etc.

What motivates the suspension of Mr Sou then, contrary to what Mrs Angela Leong or Mr José Chui Sai Peng, both sitting on the board of the Macau Foundation, have said is not the respect for the law or the independence of justice: it is to remind the youngest ever-elected legislator who the boss is! Unfortunately, this has not only been done at the expense of our already fragile rule of law, but also with potentially very disruptive consequences for the harmony of our society.

Published in Macau Daily Times on December 8, 2017

Kapok: At a snail's pace

Looking back at the titles of my column over the past five years, I have now exhausted almost every possible expression to convey the idea of “slow” and “minimalistic” change when it comes to characterising the pace of institutional change in our city. At times, stronger wordings crept in the body text: missed-opportunity, unsubstantial, meaningless and even failure — as in total discrepancy between the proclaimed intent and the effective outcome. Mine being an opinion column penned by a free-wheeling academic, it is only logical that my take on things could be legitimately dismissed as being only a standpoint, one among many others, and this despite the many arguments provided.

With that in mind, let’s turn to the reply given by Sonia Chan, the Secretary for administration and justice who just presented her action plan for next year, to the query of legislators Sulu Sou and Au Kam San who expressed their concern regarding the lack of progress in democratising the political system of Macao. Even though Mr Sou was kind enough to add “since 2012” in his question, Mrs Chan insisted that indeed the reform of 2012 (additional two directly-elected seats and two indirectly- elected seats in the legislature as well as 100 extra representatives in the election committee of the Chief Executive) was “one step taken towards political development” — she actually refrained from using the word democracy or democratic, unlike her predecessor. She then argued that too “frequent changes” could actually have an adverse effect on the “social and economic development” of the SAR, and that it was thus better to “consolidate the outcomes” of the 2012 changes and further study the effects of these before moving forward again.

In similar fashion to the discussion related to the establishment of a new municipal level of government, Mrs Chan was very bluntly dismissive of Sou and Au’s challenging objections, whereas they were merely asking for a plan and agenda. For Mrs Chan, these are only “matters of opinion” — two, among many others. But are they really?

First, the very fact that an additional “two directly- elected seats” represent a marginal 7% increase in the overall number of seats in the legislature would tend to acknowledge the idea of a very small step taken in 2012 — the two additional indirectly-elected seats cannot really be counted as a “progress” as both slots were filled by candidates running unopposed, thus even further diluting the meagre advance. We can note furthermore that in the transcript of Mrs Chan’s response, there is no indication that she considers the December 2016 changes in the Electoral Law for the legislature as a further development.

Second, the constitutional changes of 2012 have already affected two rounds of legislative election (in 2013 and 2017), and thus a new cycle of constitutional amendments would only affect the next election (in 2021): can this be deemed too frequent? If 2012 is considered as a step, then it calls for other steps and by definition, even though the pace is slower than one of radical change — no running — it entails further developments, sooner than later if one does not want to fall.

Third, what have the very limited constitutional amendments of 2012 been conducive to? Further competition and thus pressure on senior officials? Think Fernando Chui running unopposed in 2014 and his brother becoming the vice-president of the Assembly in 2017. Further accountability of senior officials? Think Prosecutor general Ho Chio Meng being put behind bars and Fong Soi-kun deciding to raise Typhoon 8 signals from his home.

Fourth, if it is only a matter of opinion, why weren’t there (many) other legislators to support Mrs Chan and her suggestion that further democratisation can impede “socio-economic development” — read, “democracy is disruptive and we don’t want that in our harmonious society”? If they agree, which I do not doubt, why did not they say it loud and clear? And then, how do they intend to make the system truly accountable?

As once noted by William Blake, “prudence is a rich, ugly old maid courted by incapacity.”

Published in Macau Daily Times on November 24, 2017

Kapok: As little as possible

This is rather unfortunate timing. On the one hand, the project of law on Labour Unions proposed by José Pereira Coutinho gets defeated during the October 27th plenary session of the Legislative Assembly — the 9th rejection! And on the other hand, the ongoing public consultation regarding a (very) partial amendment of the Labour Relations Law and the introduction of a legal framework defining part-time employment provides a caricatural demonstration of what is wrong with participative processes, especially when designed and acted upon with an exclusively bureaucratic mindset — initiators are to be blamed, not the ill-fated civil servants asked to deliver under ubiquitous constraints.

As far as the project of law on unions is concerned, the rejection of such legislation is not only counter to the Macao Basic Law (art. 27) and the many international conventions to which Macao is a signatory — including the 1948 ILO Convention concerning Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organize — but also against commonly admitted and well-established “good practices” concerning work-related disputes and their resolution. With the passing of time such a dismissive attitude borders on illegality. If Korea, Singapore, Taiwan, Hong Kong and even the People’s Republic of China can do it, why not Macao?

In the previous legislature, Fong Chi Keong presented self-serving tautologies: the defeat of such a bill on so many occasions simply demonstrated that there was no need for it and that indeed Macao society was so “harmonious” that the passing of such a law could ultimately only help stir trouble (!). This time, only Vong In Fai took the stand — Ma Chi Seng having run out of arguments thanks to the economic recovery — to brush off the bill for its lack of preparatory consultation with relevant governmental departments. Mr Vong, just like most indirectly-elected legislators, would easily forgo his right (and duty) to initiate law-making — in contravention of article 75 of the Basic Law. And yet, what is really troubling is not the fact that the bill was defeated by 15 votes against 12, but that 10 out of 14 directly elected legislators voted in favour whereas all seven legislators appointed by the Chief Executive voted against: a dismissal in first reading not only indicates a refusal to debate, but also a constant denial of the legislators’ right to introduce a bill, and a possible breach of the constitution. But then, if you start giving unions legal status, you soon have to regulate political parties and then in no time conditions for competition flourish and thus accountability takes root: who would want that?

It is very hard not to look at the consultation as a missed opportunity. Regarding part-time work, there is not much to say: a maximum of 72 hours over a period of four weeks would fall under the “short part-time” category as defined by the ILO, and then part-time is merely a way to remove already very limited protection(s) offered by the Labour Relations Law — so it boils down to a “race to the bottom”. Then, regarding the creation of paternity leave and the extension of maternity leave — a farcical addition of 14 days unpaid leave on top of the existing 56 days paid leave — if the consultation document does mention Hong Kong, China, Taiwan, Singapore and even Portugal as references, it utterly fails to allude to the comprehensive ILO report on “Maternity and paternity at work — Law and practice across the world” published in 2014. Convention No. 183 of the ILO “mandates a minimum [maternity] leave period of 14 weeks” with a marked attention to raise that period “to at least 18 weeks”!

With this new law, Macao falls in the same category as Saudi Arabia, Jordan or Kuwait. So much for being progressive! 

Published in Macau Daily Times on November 10th 2017

Kapok: Everything must change...

In The Leopard, the beautiful novel by Lampedusa set in slow-changing Sicily, Trancredi’s famous assertion that “everything must change for everything to remain the same” holds a particular truth for Macao, especially so when considering the latest urge by the Chief Executive’s family to widen its hold on power in the SAR.

When learning last week about the scheme to promote Mr Chui Sai Cheong, the Chief Executive’s brother, to the “elected” position of Vice President of the Legislative Assembly, my first reaction was one of disbelief. I had been under the impression that since May 2014, when 20,000 people took to the street against the extravagant preferential treatment senior officials were conferring to themselves, that some kind of attempt at greater adequacy between the people’s expectations and the priorities of the government — not only in speeches — would be the new normal in Macao.

One can easily perceive the lingering danger of deception: years of maladministration and substandard urban development coupled with the inept management of a tragedy that ultimately claimed 10 lives can in large part explain the remarkable results of the pan-democrats in the September 17th legislative elections. The New Macau Association-affiliated legislators made history by totalling more than 30,000 votes, and if José Pereira Coutinho and Agnes Lam are added, we are talking about a sizeable 55,000 votes and more than 40% of the elected seats. Moreover, the youngest ever elected legislator, 26-year old Sulu Sou, officially representing NMA, happens to have been the main organizer of the May 2014 protest!

Choosing a handful of academics as appointees could also be seen as a wise move on the part of the Chief Executive, and at the very least paying lip-service to the grand plan of “scientific policy-making”. Why then cast a shadow on the resolve to engage in “sunshine government”?

As reported in the press, there was quite a bit of lobbying in order to ensure the “election” of Chui Sai Cheong prior to the vote last Monday. In a way, this is reassuring as it seems to indicate that not everybody was convinced this was the best of options. If we leave aside the merits, the question of seniority does not hold as President Ho Iat Seng has himself been a member of the LA only since 2009, whereas the longest-serving legislator is Ng Kuok Cheong, a democrat. Then, if custom is to be considered, we now have two business-related legislators at the helm of the LA, a first since the handover as these two positions have traditionally been split between labour and business pro-establishment camps. But if reticences there were, they apparently cleared out over the weekend: Mr Chui Sai Cheong received 29 votes out of 33 during the first plenary session!

Clearly, this is not illegal for Mr Chui-the-brother to become Vice President of the LA, but this is not a matter of legality — although it should be if one considers that the independence of powers is enshrined in the Basic Law, or is it really? In case of absence of the President, the Vice President presides over meetings, decides on the dates and convenes special and emergency sessions: how would that look? And the argument of smallness of Macao does not hold, as smaller cities in the world manage to extend the circles of trust beyond the family bonds. Even the Kaczyński brothers — twins! — in Poland kept their act only on the side of the executive branch.

As we are reminded by the OECD, a conflict of interest can be defined as “a set of circumstances that creates a risk that professional judgment or actions regarding a primary interest will be unduly influenced by a secondary interest,” and this, in turn, is “considered an indicator, a precursor and a result of corruption.” Quite a treacherous line to walk at the time of the 19th Congress further north.

Published in Macau Daily Times on October 20, 2017

Kapok: Everything's relative

One thing I’ve learnt over the years is to drastically lower my expectations. Mind you, I don’t mean to be ironic or even nasty: after all one of the main conditions of happiness resides in one’s capacity to lessen the probable discrepancy between over-ambitious objectives and the biting reality principle.

Hope and a renewed horizon for uplifting expectations do exist in Macao politics, but again, measured on a Richter scale, the extent of change in the wake of the September 17 legislative elections looks more like a slight tremor than a full-blown earthquake. And then, depending on where you stand, it will feel more like a magnitude 1 quake in Hong Kong and most of the world — nobody feels anything; a magnitude 3 in most of Macao — people near the epicentre feel it; and possibly a magnitude 5 if you venture on UMAC’s campus on Hengqin or, of course, in Calçada de Santo Agostinho, where the siege of New Macau Association (NMA) is situated.

Most of the press in Hong Kong just counted four pan-democrats being elected, characterising Agnes Lam Iok Feng as “rising establishment”. This simple diminishing head-count was enough for one of the major international news agencies to simply drop the idea of writing a lengthy special feature on the event.

And then, many comments by analysts were pretty dismissive of the final outcome: after all, was I told, the Macao-Guangdong Union — an ageing pro-establishment communal grouping backed by the Liaison Office — had come first in terms of total votes for a single list. And the fact that the list conducted by Mak Soi Kun had fared worse this time around than it had in 2013, loosing one percentage point of the votes, seemed to be of no consequence, even when sizing up this result with the 17.77% gathered by the three NMA-sprouted lists put together.

Ultimately, it proved very difficult to convince outsiders that society had won over pro-business interests, and that both a rational-posturing academic and a happening-prone 26-year old democratic militant could potentially play a game-changing role. For me, there is no doubt that the windows of the Macao Legislative Assembly are going to widen, and its walls, ceiling and floor pushed out.

In a way, the result for the so-called “indirectly- elected legislators” and the lining-up of the brand new seven appointees are already echoing the change.

For the indirectly-elected legislators who face no competition, and for whom the selection process is institutionally rigged, the message could not be clearer: it is simply farcical — two Chui relatives still and Fernando Chui’s former chief campaigner for the 2014 election — and thus forces of conservatism have come to embody the caricature of patronage and illegitimate representativeness.

I confess that I have always been strongly against the idea of having seven legislators appointed by the Chief Executive: whatever the rationale in an executive-led system, I have always felt that it was too gross a meddling of the executive power in the legislative branch of government — and in no small way, as these seven represent 21% of the legislature.

But this time around, things look different. Confronted with a real push from society as reflected by the legislators returned via universal suffrage, Fernando Chui had to demonstrate some kind of sense, connecting at long last the dots with his 2011 policy address in which he had promised a “sunshine government and scientific policy-making”. Out (or re-allocated) are the cronies, the boisterous vulgar misogynists and pro-business weathercocks posing as academic paragons. In are the experts: three focusing more on business and gaming (two from UMAC, one from MUST) at a time when casino concessions are up for renewal, and two being well-versed in legal intricacies (one from UMAC and a part-timer from City U). Factional politics still indeed play a role — Jiangmen, Fujian and Shandong-backed — and the oddball is not the new engineer, but rather the only one surviving from 2013 and the scion of one of the most distinguished families of Macao. Decadence?

Published in Macau Daily Times on September 29, 2017

Kapok: Unfair it is

In a two-round election, you follow your heart in the first round and trust your brain in the second. In Macao, we only have one round, so both heart and brain have to be mobilised together. More so because this unique shot at excessively limited democracy happens within a very unfair system.

Unfair because only 14 seats out of 33 are returned via universal suffrage. That is a mere 42.4% of the legislature elected via some kind of competitive suffrage whereas the Macao Basic Law clearly states that “the majority of its members shall be elected”. Contempt for the ultimate law of the land is thus added to injustice!

To be clear, the so-called 12 “indirectly-elected” legislators do not deserve the label of “elected”, unless exactly matching the number of candidates with the number of seats somehow fits the notion of competition.

Has there been any progress since the handover? Yes indeed, at the pace of what the Macao government considers acceptable: we had 10 elected legislators out of 27 in 2001 (37%), growing to 12 out of 29 in 2005 (41.4%) as specified in the Basic Law, and then in 2012, the government took it upon itself to add 2 directly elected seats and 2 indirectly elected seats for the 2013 elections… at the time it was deemed a “successful progress in constitutional development” — an extra percentage point for the representation of the population at large!

Unfair because of the voting system. The so-called “modified d’Hondt” mechanism, a sub-category of Party-list proportional representation, is designed to break down the totality of seats into tiny pieces. The original design was fine as far as representativeness was concerned — although it applied to only a fraction of the Assembly — but Macao introduced its own modification for the pre-handover 1992 elections: the quotient ascribed to calculate the allocation of successive seats after the first one was significantly inflated, thus making it quasi-impossible to elect four members on any single list. Obviously, the then president of the Assembly, Carlos d’Assumpção, had not taken lightly that another list, connected to the independent Chinese-backed “livelihood faction” led by Alexandre Ho Si Him, had received the most votes and managed to lodge three legislators in the 1988 chamber. 1992 then saw the first victory of Ng Kuok Cheong, on a democratic agenda, as well as the first election of Fernando Chui Sai On, on a list, strangely enough, representing the Macao Federation of Trade Unions. Since then, the number of lists in competition has soared, and split lists can even be said to be a 2017 “new normal”!

Finally, it is unfair because of the rigidity of the electoral law regarding campaigning — even more so since the December 2016 amendments — and the unbalanced witch-hunt conducted by the Electoral Affairs Commission (CAEAL). Posting a unique electoral flag outside a dedicated campaigning site is liable to prosecution. But patriotic schools instructing parents on which candidate to choose is of no concern to the Commission. The same goes for the sixty “non-electoral activities involving the distribution of benefits” [查詢法人舉辦非競選福利活動] as detailed by Jornal Tribuna de Macau earlier this week, connected to prominent traditional associations and the lists conducted by Mak Soi Kun, Si Ka Lon, Song Pek Kei, Ho Ion Sang, Wong Kit Cheng, Angela Leong and Melinda Chan. Further, the CAEAL and the CCAC are for now turning a blind eye to “non-electoral activities intended to confer benefits in which candidates are involved” [查詢候選人參加福利活動申報] (!): no less than 62 events for Wong Kit Cheng & co, 24 for Si Ka Lon & co., and an identical 13 events for Angela Leong & co. and Mak Soi Kun & co.

Not so long ago, members of such a traditional and communal association were condemned in first and second instances to prison terms and ineligibility for vote buying despite having denounced selective law enforcement and even political persecution. The times they are a-changin’!

Published in Macau Daily Times on September 15, 2017

Kapok: Being positive

Let’s start by what could be deemed “positive news” by some: despite (or because) of last week’s upheavals — the dreadful challenges brought about by undeviating Typhoon Hato — Macao society has demonstrated a remarkable resilience capacity: ill-prepared, confronted with overwhelming threats to their safety and earthly possessions, deprived of reliable information both before and at the time of the devastating gale, ordinary citizens unintentionally raised to hero status by displaying the very traits that make us so distinctively humane: our propensity to empathise and our moral urge to exert solidarity.

Overall, mutual aid prevailed over petty self-centred interests, and images of ordinary bravery were on par with frightening snapshots of destruction. Then came the news of three persons having lost their life, ultimately climbing to ten victims. Ten too many, and yet cleaning up started, mainly induced by grassroots and neighbourhood initiatives.

Civil security forces untiringly joined hands with residents — permanent as well as blue-card holders — soon to be seconded by PLA soldiers unprecedentedly called in to provide much-needed relief. The city as a whole was bracing for a second impact as Typhoon Pakhar was fast approaching and even though discontent was starting to grow, the collective bond weathered the storm, undistracted by the lingering bitter taste of incomprehension and unfairness.

These are indeed “uplifting” news. Dare I say not quite surprising? Despite the lamentations regarding the teaching of history and the ambiguities of a holistic destiny for our SAR, there is indeed a shared collective memory in and of Macao, one that is expressly connected to typhoons and the threats they represent, one that flows downhill from the Guia Lighthouse beside which typhoon signals have been hoisted since the end of the nineteenth century.

But positive news is not propaganda, quite the contrary. Positive news is produced by journalists whose stories help put on an equal footing the bright and the dark sides of current affairs. Positive news has the ambition, as one motto goes, to “offer quality, independent reporting on progress and possibility.” It is not and should not be a self-mutilating effort at not reporting the ugly side of things, and it is just an attempt at tilting the balance back towards constructive thinking, but certainly not a replacement for a more critical if not confrontational approach.

When the authorities prevent five Hong Kong journalists from entering the territory on the ground that they ‘pose a risk to the stability of internal security’, they are simply trying to sweep back the dirt under the rug while conspiring against freedom of information and crippling our Basic Law. Contrary to what Secretary Wong says, these were not “any” individuals, but the stories they published in Apple Daily, HK01 and the South China Morning Post had indeed been relentlessly exposing the shortcomings of the Macao government in the early hours of the disaster and the ineptness of the (non-existent) preventive measures at a time when most of the households were entirely deprived of clean water and electricity.

When the Macao Media Workers Association denounces in a public statement the documented pressures exerted over five local media editors to encourage more “positive news” and shield the Chief Executive from any criticism for the sake of public order and social harmony, they are denouncing blatant attempts at censorship and induced self-censorship.

Threatening would be rumour mongers and arresting three elders and a teenager for circulating hair-raising fallacies over WeChat about additional victims instil more doubts than certainties. Rumours do not initially feed on themselves. As social scientists reckon, they spread through “social cascades” and “group polarisation”, and the primary causes are the lack of transparency and trustworthy information.

When will they learn?

Published in Macau Daily Times on September 1, 2017

Kapok: The letter versus the spirit

A lot has been said already regarding the so-called “clarifications” issued on August 3 by the Electoral Affairs Commission (CAEAL) in relation to the forbidding of so-called “political propaganda” — or “publicity” to use a less controversial wording — prior to the two weeks of official campaigning starting on September 2.

The editor-in-chief of this very newspaper called it “bullshit” right away — no need to excuse his French there. And stupid it is, especially when it goes as far as indicating that starting on August 3, all messages, including electronic postings on social media, that would indicate a preference for a candidate are forbidden until the official launch of the campaign, and moreover that all messages posted prior to that date have to be removed!

This applies to the candidates themselves and their representatives, but also to regular voters; citizens whose “selfies” taken with candidates could be construed as “illegal publicity” if accompanied by “explicit or implicit indication” of voting preference. Nothing was said as to how long back this would apply: back to July 12, when the lists of candidates were made public? Or back to March 13, the very day the Election Day was made public? And then how “public” is truly public on social media platforms: does it apply to postings only visible to friends? Why would Sulu Sou, for example, decide to make his profile totally invisible for a while?

But the points made by the CAEAL are not only contrary to common sense, they indeed contravene several core principles of our glorified Basic Law, especially when it comes to freedom of expression and information, as rightly pointed out by some candidates and legal experts.

In the Chinese newspaper with the biggest circulation in Macao, half a page was dedicated to a particular group of interests in Macao yesterday, with three outgoing legislators — two of them running again — being given ample space to develop their thinking on livelihood issues: is that information or propaganda?

If I write in this column that only a particular group of legislators, based on opinion surveys, is doing a proper job: am I helping shape the opinion of the citizens or just mirroring the state of the public opinion?

And then if I say that the most absent legislators in the 2015-2016 session (the latest available) were Vitor Cheung (he attended only 32 sessions out of 42… almost 25 percent of absenteeism!), Chan Chak Mo (34/42) and Melinda Chan (35/42), am I just stating a fact or implicitly indicating that people should not vote for them?

And then, my vote could go to Melinda Chan — she is a directly elected legislator — but the other two are indirectly elected: I do have a say in Mr Chan’s election, being part of a cultural association that is recognised with the right to vote in functional constituencies, but then Mr Chan is running unopposed, so would my preference make a difference?

Several candidates, especially those who are not yet members of this august assembly, have also pointed out that this so-called clarification had two very detrimental effects.

A more immediate one is putting them at a disadvantage compared to sitting legislators. They, the hope for the future, cannot discuss public policies in relation to the elections whereas established legislators can simply talk about their daily routine, even if this consists mainly of complaining in public and complying when voting for government-sponsored bills comes. But then candidates who are truly active all year long, the ones who head meaningful political associations might not be at such a disadvantage: the ones really suffering are the gimmicky one-time vote stealers!

The most important second detrimental effect is that it prevents people from engaging in public debate and thus focusing more on issues rather than persons. Just like expressing a preference or a commitment should not be considered as campaigning, the interpretation of the CAEAL is simply speaking a treason to the spirit of the electoral law.

Published in Macau Daily Times on August 18, 2017

Kapok: The bickerers

The contrast is quite shocking really: on the one hand, legislators who are either appointed or not even elected, but rather endorsed by corporations and traditional associations according to a method of selection in which one name corresponds to one seat — highly competitive indeed — and on the other hand truly elected members of that very same assembly, who have fought very hard to win their seat, and who will take every opportunity and use any mean to make the best out of this unique and very circumscribed forum of democratic debate to oversee, somehow control and to a certain degree make the whole system slightly accountable to the people of Macao.

And yet, the former are giving the latter lessons in solemnity! Complaining that posters and piles of paper cups with challenging messages directed towards the government are being detrimental to the dignity of this otherwise perfectly independent and reason-inspired body of “small circle” representatives who know only one thing: to vote in favor of whatever the government wants as long as their interests are preserved, even when they don’t actually understand and measure the ultimate consequences of the new laws.

The Land Law is but one example, but what an enlightening one it is! Conservative loyalists and self-serving legislators just realized a few months back that the law they had passed — “solemnly” one should add — in 2013 was actually making land grantees accountable for land they had failed to develop — usually after more than 25 years — and thus was somehow hurting either their own interests or the ones of their clients. They wanted (and still want) the law to be changed, or at least amended, or at the very least interpreted… in their favour of course!

The government they usually follow so blindly is now being deemed responsible for not explaining the ins-and-outs of article 48 — the non-renewal of concessions in case of failure to develop and operate, for being too slow in drafting an urban plan, for not providing the necessary authorizations in due course… in short, for fooling them! How can that be when they are supposedly one and the same? What a sense of betrayal they must have felt when the Chief Executive announced that he “strongly rejected” any amendment of the law! Mutiny was in the air. Article 75 of the Basic Law was being brandished: after all, a bill can be introduced by a legislator or a group of them if it does not relate to “public expenditure, political structure or the operation of the government“! Truly, a matter of rule of law and separation of powers! Montesquieu-inspired for sure. How solemn! How noble!

Luckily for us, the government learnt a lesson in May 2014, when it ended up being challenged by the street over the so-called Perks’ bill. Back then the proposal of law was favouring government officials themselves, and especially a soon-to-be- replaced highly unpopular governmental team widely perceived as both indecisive and incompetent. The mistake had been to trust the very same legislators who are now asking for the land law to be amended: for these people, anything goes and public opinion is of little consequence. Not being returned by universal suffrage, they are convinced that their own ceremonial hold over society through their positions in richly endowed associations can subvert any resistance, no matter how legitimate and prevalent it is.

Let it linger then; let it rot and wait for the right opportunity to change the rules of the game. Greed is acceptable only as long as it does not find echoes in unfairness. Apart for Zheng Anting who appears to be completely out of touch with public sentiment, nobody toys with mutiny claims anymore. The Chief Executive visits the Assembly and boasts about the generosity of the central authorities and his own accomplishments, and all the loyal legislators can do is ask for better-trained civil servants, more facilities for the elderly or free education for all in universities. Why and how? Only the frivolous poster and cardboard holders seem to care.

Published in Macau Daily Times on August 4, 2017

Kapok: The variable geometry of the "one country"

The fact that Macao immigration has been barring some Hong Kong residents from entering the territory of the Macao SAR is widely acknowledged and documented. It is neither a daily occurrence, nor an open secret, but the very fact that it has become duly admitted and vindicated by the Macao authorities, including Secretary for Security Wong Sio Chak, testifies to a worrying trend in which a discretionary power has transformed into an accepted norm and a routine practice.

Suffice it to say that it is “in accordance with the law” for the audience to accept it matter-of-factly as if for a high official to invoke the law and the compliance with that law were good enough to ease all doubts and worries. This is exactly what happened with the rejection of Hong Kong legislator Kwok Ka Ki on July 15th on the grounds that he was a “threat to stability” (威脅穩定). As Mr Kwok is strongly contesting the decision, Secretary Wong has been mildly challenged by (too few) local media and has been arguing that this kind of decision was indeed absolutely in line with existing laws regarding the security of the territory — which ones, no one really knows — and that it was not unique to the SAR but that many other jurisdictions — he reportedly quoted the examples of Portugal and the European Union — have similar legal provisions.

Mr Kwok was well aware that such a practice existed in Macao — and even the other way round as the recent Scott Chiang case proves — and he is now arguing that he never participated in any politically-related activity in the second SAR, merely visiting for holidays as this was the case that day when he was supposed to celebrate his 30th wedding anniversary together with his wife. He has now lodged a complaint with Hong Kong Chief Executive Carrie Lam and has sent a similar letter to the Macao Chief Executive, Fernando Chui, asking for the justification for his entry refusal.

There was a time when such rebuttals would create a stir. That was especially true in March 2009 when then-Dean of Law from the University of Hong Kong Johannes Chan was prevented from entering Macao over the same motives. This caused an embarrassment for both the Macao government and the inviting party, the University of Macao, as Professor Chan was supposed to be in the SAR for just a few hours to deliver a short lecture on the right to a fair trial — a purely academic endeavour. But that was a few days after the passage of the Article 23 national security law in our SAR, and yet it led not only to a public outcry — including, quite ironically, a vibrant declaration by former Hong Kong Secretary for Security Regina Ip that this was “tightening the freedom” of Hong Kong residents — but also to an informal discussion in Beijing between then-Hong Kong Chief Executive Donald Tsang and his Macao counterpart, Edmund Ho. Only Stanley Ho at the time had the bad taste of justifying the unjustifiable in coarse language.

What is truly problematic is that these “stability concerns” appear to be much more politically motivated than security-prompted, then and now. In that respect, the practice reminds us of the disgraceful 1952 McCarran-Walter Act that allowed for many Nobel Prizes to be barred from entering the United States based on individual beliefs only — an act that was repealed in 1990 with the revision of the American immigration law. Are ideas and beliefs being treated the same as the likelihood of committing acts of espionage, sabotage or other dangerous unlawful activities in Macao?

And then a few other questions remain. Is the nature of the relationship between Hong Kong and Macao the same as one between two autonomous nation-states? How come residents from the same country but coming from separate entities can be considered as “foreign”? And if this is a marker of the “high degree of autonomy”, why is it so different when it comes to other political and institutional matters?

Published in Macau Daily Times on July 21, 2017

Kapok: the more the merrier, really?

The very fact that 25 lists of candidates vying for the directly elected seats in the September 17 Legislative Assembly election have been recognised valid by the Electoral Commission should feel like a relief. After all, these ad hoc groupings are what make the legislative elections in Macao look a tad competitive, even though the 14 seats they are fighting for only represent a minority in the Assembly. Another 12 are elected by functional constituencies in which six lists will be running unopposed in five electoral colleges — two lists will take part in the selection process for the professional college, but this is merely to draw an artificial distinction between lawyers and medical doctors in Macao. The seven remaining legislators, thus making 33 altogether, are directly designated by the Chief Executive himself, supposedly for their professionalism and to preserve a harmonious relationship between the legislative and the executive branches of government. Given the recent fiasco surrounding the Land Law, one can seriously doubt the rationale, but then, we don’t hear much from these guys.

In absolute numbers, 25 lists is a lot: we had only 15 in 2001 — the first post-handover election — and then 18 in 2005, 16 in 2009 and 20 in 2013. And 25 might not be the definitive number. Programs have just started to be submitted to the Electoral Commission, and thanks to the new “loyalty pledge” (to the Special Administrative Region and the Basic Law) enclosed in article 30 of the amended electoral law, the Commission is actually endowed with the power to interpret whether these pledges have been done in good faith or not — in Hong Kong, six candidates were disqualified over such an issue in August 2016. Even though the pledges are individually signed, this could heavily cripple some of the lists, which in any case will become irrefutably admitted to enter the fray only on August 8, after all forms of judicial appeal have been exhausted. And when it comes to politics in Macao, law, even in our second system, often follows northern influences, especially when it suits small-circle local interests: back in August 2014, the civil referendum organized by Macau Conscience over the confidence (lack of thereof) people had in Mr Chui Sai On had been branded as outright “illegal” by the government as well by as sycophantic appointed legislators whose capacity to change opinion would make even a Donald blush.

Now, looking at the citizens: back in 2001, there were 160,000 registered voters, whereas we stand at 307,000 today. Only two years after the handover, one could get elected with 5,000 votes (Jorge Manuel Fão), whereas in 2013 the least-well-elected candidate (Leong Veng Chai) gathered some 6,565 suffrages. In effect and relative terms, things have thus stayed remarkably stable in the past 16 years despite the extension of the franchise: if the electorate has doubled, the number of seats submitted to universal suffrage has only grown by 40 percent, and if we anticipate that the minimum number of votes to win a seat might be a little higher this time around — let’s say 7,000 votes — then this threshold has equally only increased by 40 percent!

In the past few weeks, a lot of ink has been spent on departing legislators — depending on the language and affiliation, symbolic mourning has been quite vocal in the press regarding Leonel Alves and Chiang Chi Keong. Others might or will stay though: the Chan Chak Mo, the Fong Chi Keong and even the Kou Hoi In, a legislator since 1992. Now, even Chan Meng Kam, the so-called “king of the votes” of 2013, announced he would not run for this term: fear not, his replacement, not to say his duplicate, Kyan Su Lone, has been dutifully endorsed and groomed for months! And then, William Kuan and his chaozhou followers are joining hands with Angela Leong, so the “sunflowers” should finally get the second seat they have been desperately running after since 2005!

Let’s hope the Democrats finally resort to tactical voting: confronted with an unfair system and manipulative opponents, they owe it to their progressive electorate.

Published in Macau Daily Times, July 7, 2017

Kapok: Half-full, I say!

Most things in life are about perspective. Even a supposedly clear-cut situation can be seen with very different eyes.

Back in 2008, then American Senator Barack Obama remarked in Philadelphia that he had been deemed by commentators as “either ‘too black’ or ‘not black enough’”.

In my home country, France, the recent absolute majority won in the legislature by Emmanuel Macron’s former political movement — after being elected President he had to resign from “On the Move!” — was construed as either “massive” (with 308 seats out of 577, it is one of the biggest since the founding of the Fifth Republic in 1958, whereas the movement was created only in April 2016) or “disappointing” (given the abstention rate of 57.4 percent  the highest ever, and the somewhat under-performance when considering pre-ballot predictions).

Clearly, the glass can be seen as either half-full or half-empty, and this is usually determined by initial expectations and never-ending commentaries.

The same could be said of the just announced new leadership in Hong Kong.

On Wednesday, Carrie Lam, the soon-to-be sworn-in Chief executive, unravelled 21 members of her cabinet that will start working after July 1. Doubters regarding her promise to herald a “new style of governance” have stressed the elements of continuity: the top three principal officials will stay the same — that is Chief Secretary Matthew Cheung, Secretary for Justice Rimsky Yuen and Financial Secretary Paul Chan — and most of the positions will be filled by promoting under-secretaries, senior civil servants or deputy commissioners, while another three will remain in their positions — Lau Kong-wah as Home Affairs chief, Wong Kam-sing as environmental chief and Nicholas Yang as innovation chief. Critics are thus talking about musical chairs at best, and rumours are rife: did the Liaison Office veto some names or did some people plainly and simply refuse?

Yet, the very fact that one — only one, killjoys would say — of these senior officials has been drawn from the pan-democratic camp is truly ground-breaking, although it was somewhat to be expected. By recruiting Democratic Party co-founder and former lawmaker Law Chi-kwong as the new secretary for labour and welfare, Mrs Lam is indeed on the side of innovation; something that would never have crossed the mind of CY Leung. Would it have, it most probably would never have been accepted by the pan-Dems, as “689” (one of Mr Leung’s most amiable nicknames) had come to embody everything that was wrong in Hong Kong’s political past, present and future. Donald Tsang, the Chief Executive from 2005 to 2012, might have, and actually was advised to do so, but either lacked the courage or the proper credentials to follow suit; his long years of service in the British colonial administration led him to be more Catholic than the Pope!

Mrs Lam must find ways of mending the severely damaged relations between state and society in Hong Kong, and recruiting Mr Law is but a first step. The same could be said of the nomination on Thursday of Ronny Tong, a former pro-democracy lawmaker from the Civic Party and a co-founder of the Article 23 Concern Group, to the Executive Council, the consultative body that meets every Tuesday to “[assist] the Chief Executive in policy-making”. Pessimist observers will argue that Mr Tong has become too “moderate”, just like his think-tank “Path of Democracy”, but if not him, who else?

Now, could we ever imagine the same for Macao? Of course not, as this is a process in which pressure is coming from above AND below. Far from validating the common-sense aphorism that “high expectations lead to great disappointments,” Macao is actually creating a proverb of its own: “no expectations at all prompt absolute cynicism”! In the end, this can only be conducive to a rude awakening, unless of course legislative elections become meaningful…

Published in Macau Daily Times, June 23rd 2017

Kapok: The art of euphemism

Macao has a bit more to offer than an unlucky hand at a Baccarat table on the Cotai Strip. By unlucky, I mean that although about 2/3rds of Macao’s GDP is derived from gambling, this constitutes about 4/5ths of the government’s revenues thanks to an effective tax rate of 39 percent on gross gaming proceeds: players have to lose if Macao is to win. Thus, by a bit more, I imply something that has little to do with money. First euphemism.

Heritage is what comes to mind, and a simple glance at the UNESCO World Heritage entry for our SAR — listed since July 2005 — reminds us of Macau’s unique character: “With its historic street, residential, religious and public Portuguese and Chinese buildings, the historic centre of Macao provides a unique testimony to the meeting of aesthetic, cultural, architectural and technological influences from East and West. […] It bears witness to one of the earliest and longest- lasting encounters between China and the West, based on the vibrancy of international trade.”

Yet, extensive descriptions of these “places of memory” fail to indicate that “vibrancy” comes in many guises: most of the buildings were somehow built thanks to riches derived from opium trafficking and the horrendous coolie trade, and of course from gambling activities. Lou Kau, the nineteenth-century merchant whose mansion remains part of the heritage centre, made his fortune selling opium and operating gambling dens. If the traditional Fantan game was the main deal, Lou Kau also operated the vaeseng lottery, largely based on the results of the Qing Imperial Civil Service Examinations. Opium consumption and gambling were seen by Chinese reformers and nationalists as the two vices putting China to its knees, and gambling was ultimately banned in Guangdong, pushing Lou Kau to commit suicide in 1906 because of the debts he had incurred across the border. Second euphemism.

Let’s face it, these heritage landmarks, a crucial element in the government’s supposed diversification efforts, could be better managed. This is what Sharif Shams Imon, who oversees the Heritage Management Programme at the Institute for Tourism Studies, hints at in the very interesting interview with Business Daily this week. For him, if the government has failed to provide a Protection and Management Plan, despite UNESCO’s many requests, it is simply because “the government has to go through certain procedures and it has its own political environment.” The UNESCO admonition, ever since the first concerns with the Guia lighthouse just one year after the listing in 2005, is a warning and could ultimately lead to a simple de-listing. So, the government is not doing what it should and certainly not hiring people who could help do what it should — another remark of Prof. Imon. Unfortunate delay? Third euphemism.

And then, Prof. Imon praises the role of civil society: “civic society, and intellectuals and professionals, should act like a check and balance body. So if there is a thing that the government could do in a better way, they raise their voice and talk about it.” This is all great, and exactly what the New Macau Association (NMA) — they must feel lonely! Fourth euphemism — did in December 2016 by going to the UNESCO headquarters in Paris to argue that the “visual integrity” of the Guia Hill and Monte Fortress was being threatened by the height of construction projects authorised in Calçada do Gaio, an integral part of the buffer zones defined around the World Heritage sites. This is what ultimately led the Macao government to send in March 2017 “a report on the state of conservation” that had been requested by the UNESCO early in 2015!

Commenting on the report, UNESCO is showing signs of impatience: on top of recommending Heritage Impact Assessments be carried out for all new major construction projects, it is asking for its own pre-emptive review of the Master Plan for New Reclamation currently being drafted.

Published in Macau Daily Times, June 9, 2017.

Kapok: Suicide in Macao

Émile Durkheim was the first academic to dedicate a whole book to suicide. In his seminal work, the French sociologist was able to distinguish between egoistic, altruistic, anomic and fatalistic forms of suicide, along a double axis of social integration and moral regulation. The book was published in 1897, and although it has been criticised, especially for its exclusive reliance on aggregated statistics, it still constitutes a reference and has helped design public policies to address what represents a crucial indicator of the soundness of an entire society. The plight of a few can lead to the destruction of the whole.

No wonder that the hanging suicide of a 16-year-old girl on May 2 triggered wide coverage in the Macao press and later made Secretary for Social Affairs Alexis Tam express his genuine grief, instructing the relevant administrations to fully investigate the case and provide counselling to those in need. His overall message to youth, despite the clumsiness of the wording “not to act silly”, was to exhort young people to “cherish life”. Having acted both swiftly and comprehensively, to Mr Tam’s credit Macao’s suicide rate has dropped significantly in the past few years, standing at 8.2 per 100,000 individuals in 2015 if only residents are included and at 9.6 if the whole population is taken into account. The world average was 10.7 the same year according to the WHO.

Back in 2008, I had the privilege of inviting to Macao Paul Yip Siu Fai, the director of the Hong Kong Centre for Suicide Research and Prevention who had just edited a book on Suicide in Asia. At the time, Prof. Yip had emphasised that Macao’s suicide rate for 2007 stood at 16 per 100,000 (a figure I was never able to reconstruct), higher than the world average of 15 and clearly higher than Hong Kong’s 13. He emphasised that one of the shortcomings was the lack of detailed statistics and in-depth research about the situation in our SAR. Nevertheless, something must have been done right regarding awareness, portraying suicide in the media, reducing access to lethal methods of self-harm, identifying potential cases, educating the young, addressing the problems of the survivors and putting in place suicide prevention programs.

Yet, providing statistics, the very first task towards adequate surveillance and monitoring, remains problematic.

Firstly, statistics about suicide in Macao are only released once a year on "World Suicide Prevention Day" on September 10 and somewhat overexposed on World Mental Health Day on October 10. Not only can it be deemed prejudicial — is suicide solely a mental illness? — it is also clearly not enough, with insufficient detail — age, sex, education, etc., are important elements – and not accessible to the wider public.

Then, turning to the statistics from the Health Bureau — available since 1996 — one notes many discrepancies: there are no statistics for suicide before 2001 and the method of counting drastically changed in 2007 and led to a (downward!) revision of the total numbers for 2004 and 2005. From 2007, the gender breakdown is no longer provided (men used to be the majority) and the rate per 100,000 disappeared from 2007 to 2013, resurfacing only in 2014. But even then, a rate of 7.8 for 2015 is given, whereas the Health Bureau made its communication on September 10, 2016 [corrected], based on 8.2: which one is right? What about the peaks of 2004 and 2011: any explanations?

According to Paul Pun, the head of Caritas, some 305 and 222 suicide-related phone calls were made to Caritas’ Life Line in 2015 and 2016, including respectively 4 and 8 when the act was about to happen. Women are the most at risk (respectively 179 and 136 cases). Now the Blue Whale Game is also menacing Macao and a collective suicide attempt was indeed prevented just last month…

Please Mr Tam, provide us with more and better statistics. 

Published in Macau Daily Times, May 26, 2017.