Kapok: Smoking gun

Is it me or are we being treated worse than headless chickens with tar-filled lungs? An opinion survey on to smoke or not to smoke in casinos conducted by the University of Macau and commissioned by the six casino licensees? An appended study on the law-compliant quality of the air surrounding “smoking lounges” performed by an offshoot of The Hong Kong Polytechnic University? To show what exactly? That “87% of employees working in gaming areas recognise the significant improvement of air quality in their work environment” and “60% of employees surveyed support solutions that allow smoking lounges”. And this is supposed to be convincing beyond reasonable doubt and pave the way for expensive and state-of-the-art ventilation systems? This is supposed to be the result of an “independent” enquiry when it bluntly contradicts the government-sponsored survey released in January 2015 that indicated that 74% of the population was in favour of a full ban?

A holy alliance

At the time, Secretary for Social Affairs, Alexis Tam did not mince his words: “The Macao government has made a decision and it’s unanimous: [we are calling for] the implementation of a full smoking ban in casinos. The government will not be harming citizens, casino employees and tourists’ health.” He made it clear that he would not bow to pressure because “even with ventilation systems, this could still trigger negative health effects.” One of the licensees with the oldest installations had failed repeatedly the health bureau tests regarding air-quality standards and another licensee had just been fined MOP100,000 for pushing a bit too far the cat and mouse game all of them had been playing with the new regulations.

Chan Chak Mo and Sio Chi Wai, the epitome of conflict of interests in the legislature 

Vulgar?

The two studies are far more independent than the KPMG report of 2015, also commissioned by the gaming operators, that was part of a robust and systematic campaign to twist arms in favour of what had been conceived as the “only” viable solution: the smoking lounges. Even pro-business legislators of the Legislative Assembly Second Committee in charge of examining the amended law had been “shocked” to find the report of KPMG — a global accountancy firm with a longstanding relationship with the tobacco industry — on their desk before even starting their work! But soon, these legislators started to play the “delay” game that had bought them 16 months before the initial passing of the Tobacco Prevention and Control Law in 2011. Introduced in July 2015, the revised version paving the way for a full ban is still under discussion, and the initial resolve is now gone in smoke, despite the secretary and even the Chief Executive boasting to the contrary.

Did not Margaret Thatcher once say "The lady's not for turning"?

In 2007, a World Health Organisation report concluded that “ventilation and smoking areas, whether separately ventilated from non-smoking areas or not, do not reduce exposure to a safe level of risk and are not recommended” and in another brochure, the WHO described how “the tobacco industry and its allies [would] challenge the science on the health effects of second-hand tobacco smoke exposure and propose that designated smoking areas and ventilation are acceptable alternatives.” It then stressed that the same ones would “claim that smoke-free laws are a violation of so-called ‘smokers rights’, or are simply not necessary, not feasible, not enforceable and will have a negative impact on business (particularly restaurants, bars and casinos). These claims are unproven and should not be factored into policy-making decisions.”

A constant disgrace

It is thus rather ironic to have Mr Ambrose So, Chairman of SJM, introducing the results of these surveys on behalf of the six gaming operators, given that it was mainly his casinos that had failed the tests in 2013-2014 and that he had suggested SJM facilities should be exempted from the smoking ban altogether. And although this was not stressed in the press release he introduced, 60% of those sampled are still in favour of a total ban if it was to be implemented: facts are stubborn!

By the way, for those whose brain has been fried by cigar fumes: tobacco smoke produces 10 times more fine particulate matter than diesel exhaust! And I am not even counting the chemicals…

Published in Macau Daily Times, February 24th, 2017

Kapok: The facts, just the facts

With the advent of “alternative facts” and the dereliction of truth, the destructive and all-encompassing reign of opinion has come of age, with emotions as its soldiers. Very soon, albeit a tad late, one comes to realise that with passion comes suffering, as ancient Greeks knew all too well. One fully internalises the gravity of the situation when classical political philosophers start to be invoked, especially the ones who dedicated their lives to reveal the ugly and relentless workings of totalitarianism. All of a sudden, there is no more Godwin’s law to artificially overcome blunt reality.

Among these, Hannah Arendt holds a unique place, and if I had to choose one of her numerous rays of light to provide weight to my own words, I would go for this one taken from her “Origins of Totalitarianism”: “the result of a consistent and total substitution of lies for factual truth is not that the lie will now be accepted as truth and truth be defamed as a lie, but that the sense by which we take our bearings in the real world—and the category of truth versus falsehood is among the mental means to this end—is being destroyed.” Without the facts, no well-informed opinion can be formed.

And it is not because our darkness is a little less dark, or our shadows synonymous with vacuous fuzziness that we should not turn our head towards them.

Such was my state of mind when I looked at the subsidies distributed by the Macao Foundation (MF) in the fourth quarter of 2016, but rather than focusing on the last three months, I aggregated the figures for the whole year. Despite being in decline—MOP1.536 billion against MOP1.845 in 2015—this is still a hefty bonanza.

The big winner is the Macau University of Science and Technology (MUST), as its endowment of MOP524.6 million constitutes a staggering one-third of the overall subsidies for 2016! The subsidy for MUST appears to be quite generous—regardless of the private hospital there is to run—when one considers that only 31 percent of the students enrolled in 2015/2016 are local. Moreover, MUST has been the greatest beneficiary of the MF for the past three years, and the 2016 sum is simply unprecedented.

In second, with MOP124 million, we find the Kiang Wu hospital; no surprise there, as the foundation running this private institution is jointly managed by the family of the Chief Executive, the head of MUST and a loyal legislator who made a name in justifying domestic violence.

In third, the City University of Macao, headed by another member of the Executive Council (EC), swiped MOP83 million, whereas the traditional associations (Federation of Trade Unions, the Women’s General Association, and the General Union of Neighbourhoods) are being kept on a stable leash between MOP46.8 and MOP36.8 million. At least 15 out of the 20 most generously funded organisations can be traced in one way or another to a legislator or member of the EC. The legislative elections campaign, limited to 15 days you said?

And yet, by my own calculation—2 percent of the gross gaming revenues per year—the MF has accumulated MOP48.7 billion since 2002. Considering only the last five years (since 2012), this amounted to MOP29.4 billion, whereas actual subsidising (excluding negligible operating costs) added up to just MOP6.2 billion, which is less than 22 percent of the Foundation’s earnings! Where is the money going, and if it is piled up out of prudence, isn’t that excessively cautious?

The ball should now be in the camp of the reporters to search for answers—let’s test the authenticity of the freedom of the press! As it was once remarked by Milan Kundera, the Czech writer who knows a thing or two about despotism, “the power of the journalist is not based on his right to ask but on his right to demand an answer.”

Published in Macau Daily Times on February 10, 2017