Kapok: Paper tigers vs. paper planes

The Sulu Sou case has been an embarrassment ever since the youngest directly elected legislator had his mandate suspended last December 4. Twenty-eight legislators ridiculed themselves and showed to the community their lack of respect for the independence of their own institution and sheer contempt for the very idea of popular sovereignty.

Cowardice was then added to silliness when we came to realize that the secrecy of the ballot would remain inviolable. One can only suspect that Messrs. Coutinho, Ng, Au and Miss Lam were the ones not falling for this disgraceful self-serving “Yes Minister” standpoint. As often in Macao, suspicions and conjectures are what we are left with.

For a while, we believed that the farce would have to stop if the very notion of separation of powers was to survive. In January, bowing down to the pressure of an educated few, sponsors of the legislature’s resolution aiming at banning a judicial review of the legislative process leading to Mr Sou’s suspension had to back down and withdraw their suspicious attempt at preemptively hiding up their mess.

If people as professional as Vong Hin Fai and Kou Hoi In had been exposed for the utter incompetence of their hasty move, it was reasonable to imagine that due processes would be more strictly enforced in the future. The rescheduling of the trial to May 14 was a positive sign and followed a request coming from the defence, thus allowing both parties to lay down their arguments more thoroughly.

What we have seen on Monday and Tuesday this week during the trial, however, appears to indicate that some lessons were not learnt, leading the defense lawyers to denounce an attempt at turning the whole conundrum into a “political trial”: the crime of “aggravated disobedience,” for which Messrs. Sulu Sou and Scott Chiang stand accused of, entails a prison sentence of maximum two years… and without a hint of consideration for the proportionality of sentencing, this is what the prosecution is asking for!

While fooled Sin Fong residents or tricked small-time Pearl Horizon investors get a mere slap on the wrist and a few thousand patacas in fines for indeed seriously disturbing public order, young democrats would deserve a 2-year sentence, and for what exactly? Throwing paper planes in an empty garden and walking on the streets instead of the sidewalk for a few minutes in the idlest district of the peninsula?

As everybody has come to realize, the target is not two years, but rather a month or so: if sentenced for more than 30 days, Sulu Sou will lose his seat for the rest of the legislature.

To the dismay of the defence lawyers, the prosecution spared no effort — some of them barely legal — in trying to darken the whole picture: but by desperately trying to prove the “aggravation,” the prosecution somehow forgot that it had first to prove the “disobedience”!

On the side of tricks, charges that had been dismissed in pre-trial talks were shamelessly reintroduced in the discussion, without the defence being made aware and against all judicial procedural rules. Had the authorized route not been followed? Absolutely not, as the march actually did end under the Nam Vam Lake Nautical Centre white tent — not going up to the Legislative Assembly does not constitute a “disobedience”. I know: I was there and witnessed the talks with the police and the call from the organizers to disband! Thus, a mere 10 individuals went on their own to the Chief Executive official (empty) residence: never blocking the traffic, and never reaching Penha Hill Garden, as barriers had been actually set-up (in advance!) at the very entrance of the Estrada de Santa Sancha. For an order to be disobeyed, it has to be stated first, and a few minutes delay in reaction are not in themselves acts of disobedience.

The question is thus simple: will Messrs. Sou and Chiang be punished for actual crimes, or rather for portraying the Chief Executive as a pig on May 15, 2016? Or should we go back to May 2014?

Published in Macau Daily Times on May 18, 2017

Kapok: Toothless labor organizations

I was recently reminded that in the years leading to the handover, the Portuguese administration had expressed the wish, almost on an annual basis, to move forward with the long-delayed passing of a trade union law in Macao. However, at the time, with the constraints of the transfer of sovereignty becoming more pressing, all projects or proposals of law had to be submitted “informally” for prior approval to the Xinhua News Agency, the one institution that served as Beijing’s unofficial representation prior to the establishment of the Liaison Office in 2000.

Few people remember that the Xinhua News Agency had itself replaced the Nam Kwong in 1987, and the latter is still a force to reckon with in present-day Macao, both economically and politically, as it employs, for example, the likes of legislator Mak Soi Kun, who, in the past few weeks, has been making his high-pitched voice heard in favor of installing CCTV cameras all over the streets while recommending teaching “national security” in schools.

Xinhua’s refusal to “grant” a trade union law to Macao is easily understandable. For a start, the move was considered as useless: in the People’s Republic of China, the All China Federation of Trade Unions was (and still is) a mass organization directly supervised by the Chinese Communist Party, thus the mere idea of an “independent” relay in society representing the workers’ interests did not strike a chord. Moreover, the Macao Federation of Trade Unions (FAOM) already existed — “sponsored” by the Chinese communists at the end of the 1950s [actually early 1950s]— and it had faithfully served its purpose by ensuring stability for the good sake of the colonial administration and swiftly channelling the political guidance of Beijing. Finally, the initiative looked rather suspicious: after all, the colonizers had had ample time to pass such a piece of legislation, why the sudden rush? Why now and not then?

Could things change for the better after 1999? Looking back at 1992, that was the year when Fernando Chui Sai On got elected for the first time at the Legislative Assembly on a ticket representing… the Macao Federation of Trade Unions! The charity arms of business interests in the territory take good care of the most deprived members of society, so much so actually that it prohibits them from being genuinely represented.

Thus, although the right to form and join a union is enshrined in Article 27 of the Macao Basic Law and constitutes a significant component of at least three international covenants and conventions of which Macao is a signatory, there is no way the benevolent entrepreneurs who run the show will ever introduce such a law on their own, without a strong enough push from the ones vying for it. Legislator José Pereira Coutinho knows it more than anyone else: he tried to introduce a trade union law on nine occasions and failed flatly every single time. And even when he got the support of the “yellow” FAOM — in this part of the world, we say “tofu union” — it was never enough to tilt the balance in the right direction.

Back in 2007, when we still had dozens of independent organizations taking to the streets and 5 or 6,000 demonstrators showing up on May 1, some saw the possibility for a very embryonic bona fide civil society to develop. That was the time when plainclothes policemen would shoot in the air to intimidate the crowd! The next year, the wealth-partaking scheme went into effect.

Fast forward to today: May 1 has become a total fraud! The FAOM organizes banquets with the government on the evening of April 30, and its main demand concerns a few extra bank holidays that fall on Sundays! The most vocal demonstrators defend their property rights, and trust more the Liaison Office than Mr Tam! Meanwhile, labour rights in Macao have remained the same since… the mid-1980s! Consumers of the world, Unite!

Published in Macau Daily Times on May 4, 2018