On December 30th, the official reports on the latest elections of both the Legislative Assembly (AL) and the Chief Executive (CE) were made public. At long last – as this took a whopping 16 months since the CE selection and no less than 27 months for the AL elections! For the latter, the 39-page report (in Chinese) was penned by the Commission in February 2014 and yet only released publicly more than half-way through the legislature’s mandate: how can this be justified, if not for democratic principles, at least for the sake of transparency?
The only time democracy 民主 is mentioned in the Macao Basic Law – no disconcerting mention of universal suffrage in our own BL – it is openly associated with “openness”. It furthermore appears, quite ironically, in the Annex dedicated to the selection process of the CE, which reads that the members (300 initially and now 400) of the Election Committee that designates the CE should be chosen according to an electoral law designed “in accordance with the principles of democracy and openness.”
Initially, the reports did not attract much attention. Maybe because of the timing: who wants to write (beyond a quasi repeat of the content) or even read about elections on December 31st? Maybe because of the lack of urgency after so many months on the back-burner. Maybe because of the content: only six meagre “suggestions” for each, with the disproportionate ambition – in the case of the AL – to “improve competitiveness of indirect elections and fairness” in the overall electoral process.
Since then, the debate has flared slightly. On January 4th, Jason Chao, from Macao Conscience and the New Macao Association, denounced the reports as “biased, misleading and unfair.” In the case of the AL review, it was decried for disproportionally targeting some cases while downplaying others that were later actually convicted of “vote buying”. Furthermore, Jason Chao indicated that the early promotion of some of the outgoing CE’s key political proposals – the construction of 28,000 public housing units in particular – could be construed as misuse of public resources. This first salvo was accurately and extensively covered in the Chinese press, including All About Macau and Cheng Pou, with the notable exception of Macao Daily News.
Actually, Macao Daily News presented an excellent idea on January 12th to interview some noteworthy unsuccessful candidates of 2013. Among them Agnès Lam of Civil Watch (5,225 votes), Kuan Vai Lam of Caring for Macao (5,323 votes), Paul Pun of the Betterment of our Community (2,306 votes) and Hong Weng Kuan of the Promotion of the Citizens’ Rights (only 848 votes… significant, really?) – but of course no Liberals (3,227 votes) headed by… Jason Chao. Although Agnès Lam explored in more detail certain aspects of the reports –casting doubts on the efficiency of the proposals to tackle some aspects of corruption or emphasising the problematic absence of a law for political parties [see my own take on that] – the overall message conveyed by Macao Daily News was one of consensus (how surprising!): the campaign period should not be restricted to 15 days, rather be extended, for the informal part, to the time when lists of candidates are being recognised (at the very least) and possibly up to six months before election day.
I have no doubt that an extended and reconfigured campaign period would help: the debate of ideas requires time and opportunity for reason to have a chance. Breaking away from rather outdated traditional modes of mobilisation based on narrow-interest associations – an open door for corruption and populist excesses – supposes it as a precondition. A well-harnessed modernity demands it. A more focused Electoral Commission commands it. But then, what about the other proposals? Is providing the contact details of the members of the CE Electoral Committee enough to encourage competition? At least for the AL, we will have a public consultation. Hopefully, the discussion has just begun.
Published in Macau Daily Times, January 15th 2016
To all the people who believe that the electoral campaign starting on August 31st and leading to the vote of “9.15” is an absolute travesty of democracy I say: You are wrong! Two reasons for the professional cynics to refrain from exercising their disheartening doubtful scorn for electoral politics in the SAR context: First of all, because quite a good number of very respectful, experienced and committed candidates are going to take that campaign very seriously—for that reason alone, comfy disdain is shameful; and then, one can indeed expect far more competition than the widespread “done deal” common sense would like us to believe—it is not only an additional two seats that are going to be contended, but at least five and possibly seven out of 14 opened to universal suffrage.
What is true though is that the government will still hold at least 80% of support in the new Assembly, whatever happens: Out of a total of 33 legislators, seven are directly appointed by the Chief Executive, 12 are endorsed—no real election there despite all the claims—by functional constituencies tightly intertwined together and with the government, and at the very least eight elected lawmakers will never fail to be supportive of the government’s policies, whatever disagreements they might have expressed—and that goes beyond party discipline and is more in tune with self-serving subservience. But then, alternative voices are needed, and this is why, despite the traditional patron-client relations that exist in Macao and the highly restrictive voting system that is being used for these elections (the inglorious modified D’Hondt method), we could be in for a few surprises—uncertainty in essence is democratic!
Despite the lack of reliable studies about voter behaviors—far too often we hear that people are not interested in politics in Macao, and yet samples and questionnaires are either unsatisfactory or biased—it has become rather obvious that a significant segment of the population is quite unhappy with the overall performance of the Legislature and only four lawmakers make the cut above 60% of satisfaction as reported last year by the Association of Macao New Vision: two democrats, Ng Kuok Cheong and Au Kam San, an independent legislator cum-civil servant representative José Pereira Coutinho and Kwan Tsui Hang (traditional Macao Federation of Trade Unions). The worst performers among the directly elected legislators are all from the business sector and especially casino-related—the last of them all being Angela Leong who also holds the record in her category for being the most absent in plenary sessions in 2012/2013. This disgruntlement regarding business-related legislators, the growing strength of the democrats who have been the highest vote-getters in the three previous elections and who are now becoming ever more assertive (aiming at five seats with three lists), the decline of traditional associations (why else offer Chan Hong a seat in an indirect constituency if the Kaifong was so confident?), and an electorate that has become younger at one end (52,000 voters out of a total of 277,000 are aged 29 and below) and more critical for the largest cohorts composed of people in their 50s (74,000 of them) have to be factored in. Then incumbents (Chan Wai Chi, the No. 2 on Ng Kuok Cheong’s list; Melinda Chan Mei Yi, the one least well elected in 2009), new comers on well-established lists (Si Ka Lon, Chan Meng Kam’s No. 2; Lam Lon Wai, Kwan Tsui Hang’s No. 2; and Wong Kit Cheng, Ho Ian Song’s No. 2) as well as novel challengers (Agnes Lam and Jason Chao) all stand an almost equal chance of winning.
Combine the need and craving for change with an unduly limited window of competitive opportunity, and you are almost for sure heading for a bloodthirsty electoral clash, one in which social media could very well serve an extreme role in twisting the campaign towards a negative style, thus exposing the hypocrisy of a few and the distrust in many. And in Macao, nobody needs to be reminded that “a throw of the dice will never abolish chance.”
Published in Macau Daily Times, August 30th 2013
