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