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.