Kapok: Do as I say not as I do

In his first second-term policy address in March 2015, Mr Chui Sai On gave the assurance that consultative bodies would from now on be better regulated. The pledge was twofold: limit the number of consultant positions concurrently held by the same person to a maximum of three and limit the number of years of service in such positions to a maximum of six. A brand new team of Secretaries having been sworn in, the rationale was that if much needed and imaginative public policies were to be put in place, cells of resistance and possible conflicts of interest had to be subdued within these consultative bodies.
When things are decided by the happy few, consultation processes become a life-line. During an official ceremony marking the 65th anniversary of the Communist regime in September 2014, Mr Xi Jinping himself praised “consultative democracy” as China’s unique way of allowing the people to participate in governance. Even if the President’s understanding of democracy was clearly derived from Marxism-Leninism, his urge for a well-established feed-back mechanism coming from the masses was genuine.
In Macao, dozens of public consultations concerning all kinds of governmental decisions have been organised, with varying degrees of soundness, relevance and legitimacy, despite a thorough revamping of the rules in August 2011. Moreover, consultative bodies have mushroomed, totalling now 47 such institutionalised gatherings [I had originally written 46, but forgot to add the newly appointed Urban Renewal Committee] placed under the direct authority of either the Chief Executive or one of the five Secretaries. With 17 consultative bodies under him, the Secretary for Social Affairs and Culture tops them all. These organs do not hold any actual power, but their members do influence the decision-making processes and ultimately the policies themselves.
In mid-March, All About Macau, a liberal-minded Chinese newspaper, came up with the story proving that prominent businessman Paul Tse was actually sitting on more than three such bodies, contrary to Chui’s commitment. Then, the same online outlet published a list of 24 personalities sitting on at least three boards of public agencies and consultative committees. Paul Tse was listed with seven such positions and so was lawyer-turned-legislator Vong In Fai, who was also Mr Chui’s chief campaigner in 2014. Chui Sai Peng, the very own cousin of Mr Chui Sai On and also a legislator, appeared on the list as well, and his name appeared again in the headlines on April 11 when it was discovered that an association he is heading had received important public funding to publish textbooks without going through a public tender. Possible conflicts of interest come in many guises in Macao but often originate in business circles, the Legislative Assembly and these consultative bodies.
Ever since the unravelling of the Ao Man Long scandal, the prevention of corruption at the highest echelon has been advertised as a priority: Chui Sai On’s first “real” policy address in November 2010 was all about “sunshine government” and “scientific administration.” If the enduring results of the latter had been always seriously doubted, the former was somehow being given credence, at least until February this year: the arrest of former prosecutor-general Ho Chio Meng on charges of fraud and abuse of power is now casting a long shadow on the system as a whole.
A conflict of interest – a personal interest taking precedence over the community’s – does not equate with corruption, but in the words of the European Parliament it can be “considered an indicator, a precursor and a result of corruption.” When the secretary for Administration and Justice Sonia Chan asserts that there are less than ten personalities who participate in more than three consultative bodies and that this is being taken care of gradually, should we trust her, especially when the time spent in any given position is not even questioned? What about the issue of patronage? Indeed, the very same Chui Sai Peng sits on a staggering 143 boards of associations! And what about a standing committee member of the CPPCC sitting concurrently on boards of three universities in Macao?
The “small world” excuse is just that: an excuse. After all, the Athenian Democracy was designed for a city half the size of Macao.

Published in Macau Daily Times on April 22 2016

Kapok: the malediction of the second term

To paraphrase Scott Chiang, the president of the New Macau Association (NMA), talking to the press after the rather suspicious circumstances of the “suicide by asphyxiation” of the head of customs, Mandy Lai Man Wa, in late October last year: “you would be hard-pressed to find anyone in Macao who actually believes in the version of the government”. Except this time, it has nothing to do with Mrs Lai, but the less dramatic and yet possibly equally traumatizing arrest on February 27 of former prosecutor-general Ho Chio Meng on charges of fraud, abuse of power and document forgery.
The authentic feeling of disbelief is not really that the man who was the executive’s embodiment of the law for fifteen years could be corrupt and had abused his power to skim some 2,000 public contracts with the complicity of some of his staff and indelicate profit-prone local businessmen – only buffoons on TV get excited by the numbers. But rather that the government would be so intent on stressing that Mr Ho’s misdemeanor was unconnected with his expedition of justice, and thus the fulfillment of his duties was untainted.
The issues connected to procurement in Macao, that Sonia Chan, the secretary for administration and justice, is willing to tackle and legally resolve “within a year” – this yearly horizon being the new fad – should easily gather consensus, although independent legislator José Pereira Coutinho, who also heads the biggest would-be civil service union, ATFPM, already pointed out that the discretionary awarding of public contracts from the top was the norm rather than the exception in Macao; thus the Ho “case” was “just the tip of the iceberg”. This is another way of saying that the fish rots from the head down…
At the very distant end of the political spectrum, there seems to be another consensus that “there is more to it”. Jorge Neto Valente, the rather pro-establishment president of the Macao Lawyers Association, could not help emphasizing that the whole affair was casting doubts on the entire judicial system, especially because there had been persistent rumors of “influence peddling” – about whom to prosecute and when – within the public ministry when Ho was in charge. For Mr Valente, the corruption charges regarding procurement almost seem secondary. Then, far away from Mr Valente – politically speaking of course! – Scott Chiang and Jason Chao, the vice-president of NMA, voiced their skepticism that Ho’s judicial responsibilities had been entirely shaded from his alleged misconduct for personal enrichment. Their question is simple: why break the law for a poorly remunerated paint job when you can break it for high return power meddling? He that will steal a pin will break a pound…
This “controversy” is now gathering additional momentum. Prominent lawyers and even a legal advisor of the Legislative Assembly started looking at the affair from a broader perspective. If we leave aside infatuated comments of one lawyer annoyed at a system that now prevents the boundless hiring of cheap and competent labor from Portugal for law firms, most of the remarks that were made (and hopefully will continue to be) deserve our whole attention. First of all because they concern the rule of law in Macao and the upholding of a “second system” that rests on clearly defined norms, due respect for processes and infused consideration for both the letter and the spirit of the law and the protection of individual rights. Second because they raise a core question related to the “independence” of our justice: the very fact that again Mr Ho will be denied his right to appeal – just like the case of Ao Man Long – is more than problematic: it is in contradiction with the Basic Law.
Lack of resolve in tackling this issue will be a litmus test of what is to become of the “one country, two systems” formula in Macao. Let it not become a malediction of the second term of the Chief Executive.

Published in Macau Daily Times, March 11 2016