Kapok: The spire hiding the temple

While presiding over a regular meeting of the Cultural Heritage Council last week, Alexis Tam, the secretary for Social Affairs and Culture, grabbed the opportunity of the genuine emotion he had felt at seeing part of the Notre-Dame Cathedral engulfed by flames to reflect on the measures needed to ensure that such a dramatic incident would be prevented in Macao. His emphasis, as reported by the press, was three-fold: strengthen communication with the people or organizations managing heritage buildings, continue to educate the public on the safeguarding of cultural heritage, and keep carrying out inspections under the supervision of the Cultural Affairs Bureau while enrolling the public at large on the matter by allowing citizens to easily notify the Bureau on the actual state of preservation of these buildings.

As a Parisian, I had always assumed that the Notre-Dame Cathedral was indestructible. After all, it had been erected in the mid-12th century and survived several invasions and civil wars. Beside the shocking images and the realization that what once was would be no more or at least will be different, it came as a relief that for the world over, Notre-Dame de Paris somehow represented part of this universal heritage going beyond the category of the most visited places in the French capital city.

A loss for the Parisians became a loss for humanity, far beyond France’s borders. The erection of such an edifice had a political dimension though: medieval historian Patrick Boucheron reminded us that the Cathedral was “a field of force, a metaphor for reason” which power was derived from its “proximity with the King of France”. Reconstruction was thus bound to be political as well: French President Emmanuel Macron immediately pledged to restore the Cathedral within five years and solemnly declared that it would be a collective effort. Without the scars? Or are scars and failures not part of history too? As Boucheron remarked, “if we were in medieval France, we would consider the latest techniques, the most modern ones so as to build the Cathedral again, only better”.

Although Mr Tam is thus to be praised for making the connection between what had just happened in France and what could occur in Macao — and try to put in place prevention measures rather than costly and traumatic cures — one can also suspect a pretty blunt political usage behind his take: if it can happen in a city like Paris and for a building like Notre-Dame, then everything is possible.

The irony is that it is under Mr Tam’s watch that the Buddhist pavilion of the A-Ma Temple caught fire in February 2016 — a previous fire had gutted the same pavilion back in 1988. At the time, a short circuit in the electrical installations was blamed, but the damage caused was considered not “irreversible” even though what was supposed to take just a few weeks to restore ultimately became more than a year. Also, it was revealed that a member of the association managing the temple had first tried to take care of the issue by himself instead of immediately calling the fire services, that eventually intervened promptly and successfully.

Moreover, it is in this very Cultural Heritage Council that the opacity of the measures designed by the government to protect historical buildings has been denounced time and time again. More recently regarding the Lai Chi Vun shipyards, and before that precisely regarding the overall policies supposed to be in place to protect Macao’s unique heritage. In 2017, a decision by the UNESCO World Heritage Committee read like this: “[the committee] regrets the lack of progress with the completion of the Management Plan [a plan to safeguard and manage the Historic Center of Macao], which was due for submission by 1 February 2015”. A new deadline was fixed for December 1, 2018 and thus in early 2018 a two-month public consultation was organized, results were compiled (but not disclosed), transmitted to the central authorities by September and supposedly sent to the UNESCO.

What has become of the Plan Mr Tam? Let’s not forget that the Ruins of Saint Paul’s became Macao’s main landmark precisely because of fire… and negligence!

Published in Macau Daily Times on April 26, 2019

Kapok: 22 out of the dirty 400

For a reason that escapes any logic primarily concerned with fairness, only 22 members of the Legislative Assembly will participate in the Election Committee responsible for the designation of the Chief Executive (CE) this year. It is at the very least an aberration. After all, in Hong Kong, all members of the LegCo — the 70 of them — participate in the Committee, so why not in Macao?

Are arithmetic and proportionality to be blamed? The Election Committee in Hong Kong is made up today of 1,200 members against 400 only in Macao. But then, why would “all” members representing the SAR at the National People’s Congress be included instead of a selected few: the whole lot, that is 12 of them, are entitled to participate, just like in Hong Kong — 36 altogether in the latter case. Does it mean that NPC members are more legitimate to elect the CE than members of the local legislature? Does it comply with the rationale of the “one country-two systems” formula?

What about the members of the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference? Almost half of the delegates — 14 out of 29 in total, that is 48.3% — representing the Macao SAR in this toothless consultative body will participate in the Committee, proportionally more than in Hong Kong where the electoral law indicates 51 members out of a total of 124 (41.1%). Why would they be more “entitled” in Macao than in Hong Kong? And how does it reflect on the very idea of a “high degree of autonomy”?

The anomaly of the situation becomes even more obvious if one starts to look into Annex I of the Macao Basic Law, in which we are being told that “principles of democracy and openness” should prevail over the designation of the members of the Election Committee. How is it even possible to exclude the very few members of the community returned via universal suffrage in really competitive elections?

The Electoral Law for the Chief Executive only makes a passing reference to the way legislators should be designated to the Election Committee: an “internal vote” has to be organized (art. 14), but just like in the case of legislative elections for functional constituencies, an actual vote becomes optional if the number of candidates matches the number of seats.

At the very least, one could imagine that all legislators directly elected via universal suffrage — 14 out of 33 — should make the cut. However, only ten will participate. Three democrats — Au Kam Sam, Ng Kuok Cheong and Sulu Sou Ka Hou — abstained from even running for political reasons: they denounce what they have been calling for years the tragic embodiment of “small circle” elections — the “happy few” co-opting a single candidate — and advocate for really “democratic and open” elections in which the whole citizenry would be called to the voting booths.

But then, why is Si Ka Lon, a directly elected legislator and Mr Chan Meng Kam’s henchman, absent from the list of the 22? What does it say about his standing? Could it be a political statement? A deal for another to take his spot? Not quite: contrary to 2014, Mr Si Ka Lon is now entitled to a seat in the Election Committee because he is concurrently one of the twelve designated delegates representing Macao at the NPC! And talking about shrinking small circles, the same goes for Ho Iat Seng, Chui Sai Peng and Kou Hoi In, all NPC delegates as well.

Ultimately, indecency is really championed by the appointed members of the Legislative Assembly: the very people appointed by the CE will get to elect the CE by representing the one and only institution with a democratic component! True, they were appointed by Chui and will get to vote for Ho, but again, beyond a mere farce, what message does it convey? And will Wu Chou Kit and Fong Ka Chio (the only two appointed lawmakers left aside) prove better? Not exactly, as Mr Wu and Fong will most probably be among the 43 members representing the “professional sector” on the Committee. Clearly, the circle is tightening, almost to the size and shape of a single dot.

Published in Macau Daily Times on April 12, 2019