Kapok: Too late and too little

When on September 4 Hong Kong’s Chief Executive Carrie Lam finally decided to officially “withdraw” the Extradition Bill, the overall reaction in the pro-democracy camp was to say that the move came “too late” and amounted to “too little”.

At the time I felt that the government’s announcement was rather a substantial achievement to be indeed credited to the ever-evolving “Be water” movement. At long last a political response of sort was somehow and somewhat addressing a political challenge that had been dragging for far too long. How could that not be an achievement, far beyond the “suspension” of the Bill on June 15 or any claim the Bill was “dead” on July 9? Neither the temporary shelving nor the burial of this piece of legislation had ever been on the list of demands formulated by the demonstrators — moderates and radicals alike — but the “withdrawal” had been the core, and until June 12 the only demand of the protestors. So yes, politics was back, especially after all the fantasies fueled by saber rattling moves across the border and ill-designed martial video clips hastily cooked up by Communist propaganda.

In my mind, the rebuttal was meant to be temporary, and after a period of adjustment during which things would turn worse before getting better — and how could it be otherwise after three months of resolute and unabated fight — the path for a more rational and possibly peaceful settlement would start to shine again. Things would take time and trust had to be rebuilt: a survey conducted by the Chinese University of Hong Kong in early September was showing that about 69% of the people did not trust either the government or the police, and if about the same proportion of people believed that the principle of non-violent action should be upheld, still 56% considered that violent action was understandable if the government failed to respond to large-scale peaceful demonstrations. Moreover, almost 71% still considered that the demand to set up an independent commission of enquiry looking into police violence and other incidents was a requirement.

More than one month after the announcement of the withdrawal which will be effective only when the LegCo reconvene next week, are we finally seeing a glimmer of light at the end of the tunnel? Clearly not. While professing to initiate a dialogue, Carrie Lam made it clear that there would be no other concession, and that contradictory move immediately gave rise to a new show of unity among the protesters, best encapsulated by the defiant slogan “Five demands, not one less”. A butchered 2-hour encounter with district councilors supposed to kickstart a dialogue on September 18 turned into disarray when only 98 out of 458 councilors decided to show up. A subsequent community dialogue with 130 citizens held at Queen Elizabeth Stadium on September 26 turned into a real agony for the Chief executive and her principal officials when participants mostly vented their frustration and anger at the inability of the government to resolve the crisis.

Following further defiance of infuriated and ever younger protesters on October 1, the “Chief Executive in council” decided to invoke the Emergency Regulations Ordinance on October 4 to ban masks at unauthorized protests. The problem is, supposedly because of security concerns, that most marches have not been authorized since August 18, meaning that people cannot even vote with their feet anymore, as marches are banned, the MTR closed at sensitive times and the police being given excessive leeway in the interpretation of the new ban. Things will get worse before they will worsen even more!

Meanwhile in Macao, a decision rendered by the Court of Final Appeal on September 27 states that the Macao police was right to forbid demonstrations in Praça do Tap Seac and da Amizade aimed at denouncing police violence in Hong Kong on the basis that publicly allowing these to happen would have amounted to interfering with the internal affairs of the Hong Kong SAR, and thus violating the Macao Basic Law. As clearly stated by lawyer Jorge Menezes, with this decision, freedom of assembly and freedom of expression are all but history in Macao, despite them also being entrenched in the Basic Law. Will freedom of conscience be next?

Published in Macau Daily Times on October 11, 2019

Kapok: Who does what?

The publication of the yearly report of the Legislative Assembly always provides an interesting snapshot of politics in Macao and a better understanding, albeit limited in depth, of who does what and why.

The report in itself has been trimmed this year — 38 pages for the 2018/19 session versus 48 pages for the previous one — and really pales when compared to the document issued by the Hong Kong Legislative Council — 175 pages in the latest file available in our sister SAR.

Moreover, starting in 2014/15 with the first report put together under the efficient-minded presidency of Ho Iat Seng, these reports have shied away from making any comparison with previous sessions when examining the number of laws passed.

Up to 2014, a simple graphic with a timeline would serve as a benchmarking for the current session: that year, only 9 laws had been passed, against 15 in 2012/13, and a multi-year bar chart reminded the casual reader that the most active legislative session ever had been the 2008/09 one, with a record 27 laws adopted. That session corresponded with the last year of Edmund Ho as Chief Executive: the vast majority of the bills are introduced by the government in Macao, and thus the idea was clearly to start with a clean slate for the next government after years of backlogging.

The year 2018/19 is no exception — although I had to go back to previous reports to establish that fact — as a total of 25 laws were adopted last year (almost on par with Hong Kong!), making it the most active legislative session of the Chui Sai On era. Almost three times more laws passed than in the least active year — only 9 laws approved in 2015/16. But Mr Chui should not feel mortified as only 6 laws were ratified in the very troubled session of 2006/07 at the time of Edmund Ho — the year of the downfall of Ao Man Long and the largest May Day protest.

Clearing the way for the upcoming Ho Iat Seng era was therefore the priority, and that was done quite efficiently: 28 laws were introduced in 2018/19, and 25 passed, that is a successful ratio of 89%… quite an improvement on the 48% of 2017/18! Yet, when one looks carefully, a good third of the 25 laws adopted are actually amendments of existing laws, even though, again, that is an improvement on the previous session when half the laws were mere revisions.

The report also provides insight into the commitment of individual legislators to their job. Again, there was a time when independent associations in Macao would survey the citizens regarding the performance of their legislators. There was also a time when a website — http://almacau.net/ — would feed us with extremely detailed information about each and every lawmaker, allowing us to connect the way they voted with their political stance and vested interests in society. But these times have been gone for years and we are left with an ever-shrinking and rather unsurprising report.

The least active legislators in raising questions to the government are the ones appointed by the CE or small-time businessmen-turned-politicians with dubious background and limited abilities, such as Cheung Lup Kwan and Chan Chak Mo, who spent the whole year formulating exactly ZERO oral or written interpellation addressed to the government. Cheung Lup Kwan together with President Ho Iat Seng, who resigned in July and was too busy preparing for his solo candidacy to the CE position, are the two legislators with the worst attendance for plenary meetings: respectively 35 and 34 recorded attendances out of 52 meetings altogether! Mr Cheung, who has been the least committed legislator ever since he was first elected in 2001, pushed the contempt for the function to a new height this year by showing up only ONCE in 65 meetings of the third permanent commission of the Assembly, despite that commission examining eleven laws!

Self-induced ignorance and inaction can indeed be rewarding!

Published in Macau Daily Times on September 27, 2019

Kapok: For the people?

The contrast could not be more striking: while in Hong Kong two million residents were taking to the streets to express their dissatisfaction at Chief Executive Carry Lam, in Macao, slightly more than 5,000 happy few were taking part in an exercise of total perversion of democracy by choosing the electoral college that will select the next Macao Chief Executive on August 25.

On one side of the delta, a quarter of the population of the former British colony was marching and telling Mrs Lam that she had failed them and that the suspension of a much-derided extradition bill was too little and too late. Beyond the five precise demands — total withdrawal, retraction of the “riot” characterization, independent enquiry, charges being dropped and resignation of the CE — lies the idea of accountability, that one has to shoulder responsibility for his or her acts and that ultimately, if government could not be by and of the people, it had to be at least for the people.

On the other side of the delta, it was business as usual and the mockery of competition — 350 candidates for 344 positions — acted as a striking illustration of the political deadlock Macao has had to endure for the past twenty years. Same faces, or almost; same associations, or almost; same self-congratulations, always. All this for what? For Mr Ho Iat Seng to confirm the next day something everybody had already known for the past two years: that he would be the next CE. Only a handful of protesters led by legislator Sulu Sou, soon rounded up by policemen filming them from multiple angles at close range, dared disrupt the velvety process, denouncing the “small circle election” and the disenfranchisement of the vast majority.

On the next day, the cover page of the main Chinese daily in Macao, the Macao Daily News, was splashed with multiple photos of the successful voting exercise held the day before. The biggest ever peaceful demonstration in Hong Kong had no place on that first page. On June 10, only the “attack” on the LegCo had been reported on the cover of the same newspapers after one million people had taken to the streets the previous day. And on June 13, the full cover was dedicated to tear gas pictures and clashes between youngsters dressed in black and police in full battle gear, with a huge title splattered in the middle indicating that the “riot” (baoluan) had caused 72 people to be injured! Clearly, only a twisted, unfavorable and partial outlook gets reported.

What about these elections then? Why would they deserve the full cover the next day?

The 5,001 voters who turned out to the booths on June 17 actually represent very limited interests. Behind these voters, there are only 633 legal persons — associations — registered and authorized to vote. Each of these associations is entitled to a maximum of 22 votes, all of these votes entrusted in the members of the board of directors or managing bodies — regular members are excluded.

It is no secret that these associations vote as “blocks” and that voting instructions are discussed beforehand so as to make sure important figures of the community get the highest scores. Chui Sai Cheong, the brother of the present CE, made it first in the “professional” college, with 77% of the votes. He is also a member of the board in several dozens associations in Macao, even though not all of them are in the professional sector. Instructions are also made to exclude the very few who dare challenge the status quo, as Mrs Rita Santos just experienced in the “labor” college together with three others.

It is moreover clear that not all associations of a given sector are registered. If one simply looks at the “education” college, it is only made of 20 associations that select a total of 29 members of the Electoral Committee. And out of these 20, none of them has a connexion with catholicism, whereas there are 27 registered Catholic schools in Macao comprising about 37% of the non-tertiary educational service delivery in Macao!

Some are prevented from getting into the fray, others just renounced beforehand.

Kapok: Aiming higher

Reference documents and generic resolutions adopted by the United Nations are usually dismissed by critics as either too broad, too generous or too normative, and sometimes the three together. Then they are often simultaneously considered rather weak when it comes to binding effects and even weaker when considering enforcement. Of course, there are exceptions, especially when peace, security, trade and sometimes international justice are concerned, but more often than not timing and whether or not powerful states get involved remain crucial and can prove either incapacitating or, on the contrary, expediting.

Yet, when it comes to global concerns — in particular the protection of the environment, but not only! — there are no better institutions than UN agencies to come up with eloquent and insightful perspectives. Such is the case with the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) that succeeded the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) in 2015. MDGs were broader and less numerous — 8 goals with 21 targets, whereas SDGs comprise 17 goals to be achieved by 2030 — but marked a turning point in the UN drive to be more results-oriented and multi-dimensional as well as inter-related in its approach to development — the United Nations Development Programme stresses that “often the key to success on one will involve tackling issues more commonly associated with another.”

Reviewing whether or not the claim that MDGs had been the “most successful anti-poverty movement in history”, analysts concluded in 2015 that even though it was quite an overstretch to proclaim “mission accomplished”, crucial progresses had indeed been made: the number of people living on less than $1.25 had been more than halved even though the same ambition for people suffering from hunger was not fully realized; net enrolment rate in primary school had reached 91% (not fully universal, but pretty close); two-thirds of developing countries had achieved gender parity in primary education; child mortality rate as well as global maternal mortality had dropped by about 50% but had failed to drop by two-thirds; number of new HIV carriers had fallen by 40%, even though the spread had not been reversed as promised; but then halving the proportion of people without access to clean water had been achieved five years in advance and overseas development aid to developing countries had increased drastically by about two-thirds over the period.

There is thus hope for the SDGs, and reading reports from numerous Non-Governmental Organizations and International Organizations on a regular basis, I can testify to the fact that the renewed and more ambitious goals for the next decade have permeated all kinds of institutions, and help create a new consensus on what needs to be done.

Labor conditions and employment — a subject dear to my heart — are now covered by the standalone Goal No. 8 in the SDGs whereas they use to be minimalistically embedded and split inside the goals to eradicate poverty and achieve gender parity under the MDGs. The full name of the new goal actually resonates like a program in itself as the ambition is to “promote sustained, inclusive and sustainable economic growth, full and productive employment and decent work for all.” Under one goal stand some 10 targets, to which are appended 17 indicators that will allow policy-makers and citizens to assess the progress made towards the goal. And besides the usual GDP growth or unemployment rate, one finds the latest concerns related to the worrying spread of urban informal employment, all forms of discrimination affecting hourly earnings, fatal and non-fatal occupational injuries with a breakdown by gender and place of origin (migrants), and even the level of national compliance with labor rights (freedom of association and collective bargaining) based on the International Labor Organization conventions.

Quite interestingly, this goal also comprises a recommendation to “devise and implement policies to promote sustainable tourism that creates jobs and promotes local culture and products,” an objective that the Macao Government Tourism Office could easily make a requirement — why not even for the renewal of casino licenses — in order to make the ambition to become a “World Centre of Tourism and Leisure” slightly more meaningful for the good people of our SAR.

Published in Macau Daily Times on May 24, 2019

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

Kapok: Liveable tourism

When designing or even reviewing policy-making, the whole process is bound to start with a discussion of sort. Whether it is a subdued exchange of views or a heated debate over contentious points, hard facts will mitigate opinions and inform the overall spin of the conversation.

When the figures for visitors coming to Macao in 2018 were released earlier this year, it was thus only logical that some legislators wanted to discuss the matter further: almost 36 million visitors coming to a place whose total population is only 650,000 does qualify our SAR for the “overcrowded” category — we are talking about 100,000 daily visitors on average. This is also what is often referred to as “overtourism” these days. Mind you, this is not a new topic, and since Macao has breached the symbolic threshold of 30 million visitors in 2014, the idea of having daily quotas of tourists or restrictions regarding back and forth movements have been regularly aired.

Some very touristy “enclosed spaces”, such as islands or walled cities, have already taken drastic moves by substantially restricting sudden surges of visitors. Among the most well-known examples are Dubrovnik in Croatia and Santorini in Greece, and in both cases the cruise-ship stopovers were the main targets of these restrictions — what really distort everything being the massive arrival of day visitors.

Despite all the hype about Macao becoming a “world center of leisure and tourism” and the magic formula of “integrated resorts” for new casinos to develop, the average length of stay in Macao is still 1.3 days and it took years to go beyond 1.1!

What is indeed more troubling is that someone representing the food and beverage sector and by extension the hospitality industry, such as legislator Chan Chak Mo, would simply refuse to discuss the issue, and dismiss it on the ground that it is impossible to choose the tourists who visit our SAR. He thus concluded that residents “need to just get used to them.” This is not only irresponsible, but it goes against the latest reflections from the industry itself.

Macao participates in the activities of the World Travel and Tourism Council, and several events of the Council, which represents the Travel & Tourism private sector globally, have actually been held in our SAR. All the research produced by the Council and the global summit it organizes are of course largely concerned by the economic impact and the mega-trends in the growth of the tourism industry, but the overall perspective is lined-up with other concerns, long terms ones, and the Council has actually made the 2015 United Nations Sustainable Development Goals its latest guiding principles.

In its remarkable 2017 study entitled “Coping with Success: Managing Overcrowding in Tourist Destinations”, the Council indicated that “an essential element of a sustainable tourism strategy [was] to put the local community first”. Someone has got his priorities wrong!

But before even thinking of defining a strategy — even one that would be backed by the latest tools of a smart city — the proper diagnosis has to be made.

The report recommends nine metrics grouped under five categories to understand the potential risks: the overall context (importance of tourism and arrivals growth), the alienation of local residents (tourism density — visitors per square kilometer — and intensity — visitors per resident), the degraded tourism experience, the overloaded infrastructure (arrival seasonality and attraction concentration), the damage to nature (air pollution) and the threats to culture and heritage (historic site prevalence).

Interestingly enough, Macao was part of the study and ended up in the most at risk categories in four metrics out of nine, with one (air pollution) not being documented — one can wonder why. And then comes the difficult part: the solutions! Five directions have been identified, with several instruments available: visitors have to be smoothed over time, spread across sites, prices have to be adjusted to balance supply and demand, accommodation supply needs to be regulated and then, if that’s not enough, access and activities can be restricted.

Ultimately, the city has to be liveable if it wishes to remain attractive.

Published in Macau Daily Times on March 29, 2019

Kapok: Images speak louder than words

Upon return from Beijing, Macao’s political heavyweights staged a highly official debriefing conference highlighting key points from their study trip and their studious participation in what is commonly referred as the “two sessions”. Interestingly enough, this was done in front of the very same people who, for the most part, had also attended these sessions – delegates to the assemblies, high officials, important businessmen and patriotic smooth operators from Macao.

That this was redundant or even overly repetitive for most of the audience is beyond the point: what matters is that the message gets hammered. The world gets BuzzFeed-like reports candidly spelled out by Xinhua “reporters” Katie Capstick and Roisin Timmins, or even a rap video about the two sessions, and we get ineloquent speeches listing the “four tasks” and the “four supports”, with threatening undertones of dire consequences if stability and social harmony are put to the test.

Ironically, it shows that beyond the catchy nickname of the “two sessions” lies the fact that these eminent figures just wasted more than two weeks attending a rubber-stamp assembly for some (the National People’s Congress) and a toothless advisory body for others (the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference). Premier Li Keqiang’s report was approved by 2,945 members of the NPC, with only three abstentions and no disapproval, so one could even argue that the rubber-stamping has worsened as Mr Li’s first work report back in 2014 was disavowed by 378 delegates!

On the task side, Chui Sai On insisted, first, on maintaining Macao’s overall stability, especially by organizing “legal, impartial, equitable, honest and smooth” elections for the next Chief Executive (far too many adjectives for an uncompetitive selection process), while successfully celebrating the 20th anniversary of the handover (can you see the millions flowing from the Macau Foundation to these patriotic communal associations?). Secondly, he insisted on ensuring the healthy and sustainable economic development of Macao, with the people’s livelihood at heart (Ouh la la, gaming concessionaires might be asked to dedicate more than 10% of their operations to non-gaming activities and then divert part of their war chest to open more casinos in Portuguese-speaking countries!). Thirdly, he focused on promoting the development of the Greater Bay Area (the insistence on the 49 points that concern Macao in the master plan are chilling as it will be unpatriotic not to implement them!); and finally, on making sure the youth of Macao, whose future will necessarily depend on their “love for the nation and love for Macao” (anything scarier than that?), is properly trained and educated.

The “four supports” articulated by Fu Ziying, the director of the Liaison Office, strictly echoed the four tasks delineated by Chui, as if one should not go without the other if the “superiority and vitality” of the “one country, two systems” formula is to be fully demonstrated. Even more anaemic were the speeches of Ma Iao Lai, a standing committee member of the CPPCC for Macao, whose main contribution was to praise the united front work of the Conference to efficiently promote “Xi Jinping Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era”, whereas Ho Iat Seng, the only standing committee member of the NPC for Macao, self-congratulated himself and fellow Macao delegates for having introduced no less than 78 recommendations in the NPC, supposedly all highly appreciated by the staff of the General Office of the Assembly. Former CE Edmund Ho tried to steal the show by warning that all acts committed against “unity and stability” should be banned, but his position also contradicted his earlier claim that he believed “the people of Macao had the wisdom and ability to elect” the right person as the new Chief Executive: since when are the “Macao people” voting in that election?

Ultimately, the real takeaway lies in this family photo, in which the only ones talking are the representatives of the three families that have run Macao since the 1960s, anointing the future CE in front of the central authorities’ representative. The race is on!

Published in Macau Daily Times on March 22, 2019

Kapok: What has been will be again

Not everything is about arithmetic, far from it, as Macao’s Chief Executive election clearly shows.

If numbers were all that matters, elections in Macao would seem fairer than in Hong Kong: in the case of our SAR, the CE is elected by an electoral college of 400 electors, that is to say there is one elector for every 776 registered voters (total of 310,400 registered voters at the end of 2018), whereas there is only 1 for 3,178 in Hong Kong (1,200-member strong electoral college for the CE election and 3,814,318 registered voters).

And then, even with only one candidate in Macao against three candidates in 2017 in Hong Kong, our SAR gets the upper-hand, even though the margin is less striking—basically twofold against the Fragrant Harbour. Macao has a non-competitive selection process with a single candidate and still, somehow, the ratio of electors to voters is in Macao’s favour.

In a recent piece, I made the assumption that there would be close to no change in the composition of the electoral college that is going to elect our next Chief Executive.

First, I have to admit to a slight mistake as the structure of the college will accommodate two newcomers, in terms of functions: representatives of the newly revamped Municipal Affairs Bureau will replace two Macao delegates to the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference (CPPCC).

And then, there should be new faces among the Macao delegates to both the National People’s Congress (NPC) and the CPPCC as both assemblies were “elected” in 2017/2018.

On the side of the NPC, we have 12 Macao representatives, but only four are actually new: Dominic Sio Chi Wai, Ng Sio Lai, Lai Sai Kei and Si Ka Lon. But these people can hardly be characterized as unfamiliar: Sio is a businessman, close associate of the present CE and a former legislator; Ng is the president of the Macau General Union of Neighbourhood Associations (Kai Fong); Lai is a vice-chairman of the Macau Chinese Educators Association; and Si is a Fujian-community leader, close associate of Mr Chan Meng Kam and currently a two-term legislator. And then, the four of them participated in the election of Chui Sai On back in 2014: Sio and Si as legislators, Lai in the education constituency and Ng in the social services constituency. Zero changes after all.

Now, looking at the CPPCC delegates, things get a bit tricky. For sure, Ng Lap Seng who got four years in a US jail for bribing UN officials and Or Wai Shuen, the chairman of Polytec Asset Holdings Limited involved in a trial over a land plot dispute with the Macao government will not be present as they have not been re-appointed to the august assembly. But out of 29 delegates for Macao, 18 are new, including O Lam, the chief of cabinet of the Chief Executive; Cheong U, the former Secretary for Social Affairs and Culture; Vong Hin Fai and Chan Hong, both sitting legislators non-competitively elected in functional constituencies; Wu Zhiliang, the president of the Macao Foundation; Leong Lai, the director of Education and Youth Affairs Bureau and; Ho Ion Sang, a directly elected legislator. A few might actually make the cut to the electoral committee (possibly 4 or 5 among 14 out of 29 in total) even though they were not among the happy few in 2014. But again, none of these people are really novel, to say the least.

The functional constituencies, returning some 350 electors to the election committee, are another game altogether that deserves more detailed scrutiny—to be continued!—especially because some of these electors extend their reach across the Delta. If Pansy Ho, the chairlady of Shun Tak Holding, elects the Macao CE, her sister, Daisy Ho, the chairlady of SJM Holding Limited, elects the Hong Kong one. But nobody can beat Francis Lui Yiu-tung, the deputy chairman of Galaxy Entertainment Group, who himself elects both the CE in Hong Kong (as a delegate to the CPPCC) and the CE of Macao (as one of the 120 electors representing business and industry). Showing the way for further integration? 

Published in Macau Daily Times on March 1, 2019

Kapok: There can be only one

Elections are in the air — it has become palpable.

Just a few days ago, Judge Song Man Lei was for the second time appointed as the president of the electoral affairs committee for the election of the Chief Executive (CE). She is joined by Victor Chi Ping Chan, the Director of the Macau SAR Government Information Bureau and the government spokesperson, who is himself sitting for the fourth time on the committee. Gone is José Chu, the former director of the Administration and Public Administration Services who retired in 2014, but in is his successor Kou Peng Kuan as well as Assistant Prosecutor-General of the Public Prosecution Office Chan Tsz King and Court of Second Instance Judge Tong Hio Fong.

Elections are about law, due administrative processes, order and timely communication in Macao, and clearly about continuity as well.

During the taking of her oath, judge Song Man Lei pledged that the election of the CE would be “open, fair and honest,” and refused to make any assumption regarding a candidate in particular. Even though the exact date of the election is not yet decided, we now know that the 400-member strong electoral college that will ultimately select the new CE will itself be “elected” — for 344 of them — on June 16.

Votes are cast, but in effect the end result is highly predictable as this college is made of seven very stable functional constituencies representatives to which are added six religious figures (whose stability depends on unearthly powers), 22 of our legislators (not all of them, why would that be?), the 12 representatives of Macao to the National People’s Congress and the 16 representatives of the SAR to the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference.

A quick check at the college members back in 2009 and 2014 indicates pretty identical lists of people — I would say at least 80% alike. Then, the college is vastly dominated by businessmen, and not only in the first constituency made of 120 heavyweights from the industrial, commercial and financial sector. Obviously, people whose idea of competition is quite narrowly defined too: in this first constituency, everybody was elected in 2014 with support varying between 74.11% and 89.55% of the mere 689 valid votes.

And then, ultimately, who will they (s)elect?

In 2004, 2009 and 2014, there was only one contestant for the position — quite a heavy machinery for a non-competitive election with a process extending over more than six months! Why would the 2019 edition be any different?

Yet, the talk of the town is again of two candidates. In a recent article discussing the latest decline in casino revenues, an international news agency noted that “the two likely contenders are Ho Iat Seng, president of Macao’s Legislative Assembly, and Lionel Leong, the secretary for economy and finance, which oversees the gaming industry.” Why two and not three or four, coming from security or culture?

Scarcity might have to do with the risk of being a contender: the former Secretary for Transport and Public Works — in jail for 29 years on corruption charges — was once dubbed “Mr 10%” for the score he could potentially commend in such an election. And then the most serious challenger to the sitting CE back in 2009 was Prosecutor General Ho Chio Meng — once viewed as Mr Clean — who was later convicted of hundreds counts of diverse forms of corruption and traffic of influence and then thrown in prison for 21 years.

Now, Mr Ho has openly declared that he is “prudently considering” being a candidate. Mr Ho is from an old Macao family — his father started their business empire and his sister, Ho Teng Iat is also in politics. He is the president of the Legislative Assembly. He has been a member of the National People’s Congress since 1998 and is today the only one among the 12 representatives from Macao to the standing committee of that Congress. Moreover, Mr Ho is also one of the vice-presidents of the Macao Chinese Chamber of Commerce — the true king-maker institution of the SAR. So, let’s not kid ourselves: there can be only one.

Published in Macau Daily Times on February 15, 2019

Kapok: Opaque and unaccountable

How many times have you heard the assertion “information is power”? Then, if politics is not only understood literally or even figuratively, and yet, on the conservative side — the Bismarckian “art of the possible” — one has to be reminded that politics deals with power relations or, to be more accurate, how power is distributed in society and the institutions it builds for itself.

So, clearly politics and information are connected, and just like a real market economy cannot be functional (in principle) without transparent access to information, there can be no legitimate government with a slight pretense to democracy or minimal claim to rule for the benefit of the community as a whole that will not somehow nurture open access to information.

How can public policies be grounded without an informed decision-making process? What are the chances that these policies will have positive and long-lasting effects if they are not designed from the input of all stakeholders? And how can the community feel engaged and thus fully benefit if citizens are not given access to the whole picture, thus demonstrating that indeed the government went for the “next best” possibility, at the very least?

Finally, without transparency, things will never get better, as policies will not be amended and adjusted as a result of critical appraisal, but rather are liable to be flat out abrogated and replaced based on the whimsical posturing of those who mistake populism for popular sovereignty.

Indeed, we should worry when the former editor-in-chief of Sonpou, Mr Lei Kong, is indicted for slander and fined MOP50,000 for simply having characterized the Pearl Horizon’s fiasco as a “suspected fraud” on the part of real-estate developer Polytec Asset Holdings Ltd, and for suggesting that unacceptable delays were due to constant changes in plans submitted to the Environmental Protection Bureau.

Sonpou is not any newspaper; it is the oldest running liberal-minded weekly in Chinese (born in 1989!) and Mr. Lei is unanimously respected in Macao for his independence of mind. Back in 2008, he was among the few to participate in a round-table I organized on the possible hazardous consequences of the national security law proposal. I remember him bravely stating that Macao would stay safe — the proposal was eventually passed in March 2009, but with several significant amendments — as long as Hong Kong would not enforce it!

In the Pearl Horizon case, key to Mr. Lei’s defense was the very fact that homebuyers had never been informed that the concession of the land plot on which the project was being developed would expire on 25 December 2015! Ever heard of “asymmetrical information”? And then Polytec was suing Mr Lei for MOP2 million and is now considering appealing, as Mr. Lei was declared innocent of defamation even though it was found that he had somehow breached the Civil Code. Even a professional journalist with 30 years of experience now feels deterred, so what impact will this have on aspiring young reporters? And the irony of it all is that Polytec’s defense lawyer is none other than Leonel Alves, a former legislator who helped the very liberal Press Law passed in 1990!

Besides such a blatant indirect attack over freedom of expression, the constant lack of transparency and absence of publicly available and reliable information are proving extremely detrimental to the system as a whole. In the latest survey on Macao politics commissioned to the Public Opinion Program of HKU, the Chief Executive (CE) is registering his third worst ever rating since 2009 — on par with 2014, when the whole government was revamped! And then, if there were “democratic elections” in Macao, only 29.8 percent of the people would vote yes for Mr. Chui (53.9 per cent would vote no), which is the second worst result for the incumbent CE after 2017 — remember Hato?

Now we are being told that the two studies commissioned by the government on the possible development of Macao’s gaming industry in the next two decades are being delayed. The first gaming concessions are supposed to be renewed in 2020… will we once again repeat the appalling Interim Review released in 2016?

Published in Macau Daily Times on January 11, 2019