Kapok: Macao in a Kiangwu cup

Anybody and everybody knows the Kiang Wu Hospital in Macao. Not for its ugly architecture that scars the whole area behind the façade of Saint Paul, but rather as one of the old and most respected institutions of the SAR.

The hospital started its operations in 1871 by providing Chinese medicine only, and opened its first Western medicine section in 1892 thanks to a brilliant fresh graduate from Hong Kong, Dr Sun Yat-Sen, who later on became a great revolutionary, the theoretician of The Three Principles of the People and the father of the Republic of China. But this is not the only patronage the hospital acknowledges. Of less international repute, Ke Lin, who had been trained at the Canton Pok Tsai Hospital, started teaching at Kiang Wu Hospital and in its nursing school back in the 1930s. He later became the first Dean of the hospital. Not only was Master Ke a great medical educator, but he was also known for being one of the master spies of the Chinese Communist Party based in Macao, even becoming the one responsible for the Party’s Macao affairs during the Second Chinese Civil War of 1945-49. Ke Lin’s brother was none other than Ke Zhengping, the founder of the Nam Kwong Trading Company representing the Communist regime interests in the Portuguese colony. The Nam Kwong branched out in the 1980s as the Xinhua News Agency Macao Branch and is still everywhere to be seen today in Macao as the Nam Kwong Group.

As many institutions in Macao that started catering for the Chinese population, a not-for-profit association exercises oversight over the operations of the whole organization. Originally, the rationale was for important Chinese businessmen to be on the board to run things professionally as well as contribute financially to the smooth operation of the enterprise. One of the best examples of such a venture is the Tung Sin Tong that started operating in 1892 and still provides financial help and medicine for the poor, free education and free child care for the socially disadvantaged, and support for necessitous elderly. The association is headed today by a triumvirate made of the brother of the Chief Executive, Chui Sai Cheong, the cousin of the Chief Executive, Chui Sai Peng, and the sister of the Chief Executive-elect, Ho Teng Iat.

Given its pedigree, the Kiang Wu Hospital Charitable Association was thus bound to push the limits of a get-together of powerful benefactors to the brink of absurdity. The Chairmen for life are none other than Edmund Ho, the first Chief Executive of the SAR, Ma You-li, the son of the great patriot Ma Man-kei, and Stanley Ho, the king of gambling who just retired as chairman of SJM Holdings. Second only to these, the Chief Executive-elect himself, Ho Iat Seng, appears as the Honorary Chairman for life.

Should we then be surprised to learn that out of MOP531.3 million in financial support provided by the Health Bureau from January to September, some 86.5 per cent have been channeled to the Kiang Wu Charitable Association? In the official gazette published at the end of October, one could also read that the Association had received in July some MOP$32.5 million from the Macau Foundation, on top of the MOP$25 million received earlier in the year.
The problem with this ever-growing financing of Kiang Wu is that the money is coming from the public coffers, and thus a privately-run business is being heavily subsidized by the government in order to supplement public institutions. And who decides on that? The same people who sit on the Executive Council, the Macau Foundation board and the boards of the beneficiaries. Meanwhile, the waiting-time at the emergencies at Conde de São Januário hospital worsens.

Published in Macau Daily Times, November 8, 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: The failure of success

Of course it was meant to be all praise for the Chief Executive-elect, Ho Iat Seng, as he was being anointed by the central authorities this week. After receiving his decree of appointment from the very hands of Premier Li, Mr Ho was hosted by President Xi Jinping to give his trip to Beijing the gravitas a “successful practice of ‘one country, two systems’ with Macao characteristics” commends.

In Macao, people are ‘united’, “one country, two systems” is fully ‘understood’, the Basic Law is ‘upheld’, the love for the country has been ‘passed on’, and the livelihood of the people, social harmony and stability have ‘improved’ for good. This really reads like a reverse image of Hong Kong, that now stands deeply divided, doubtful about the motherland, its intentions and the reality of its “high degree of autonomy,” and where gross inequalities have created an overwhelming sense of social distress, especially among young people.

Of course, one could challenge the rosy picture painted by Mr Xi. Macao stands only second to Qatar as the richest place in the world for GDP per capita, but the median salary is stuck at MOP16,000 per month. And then the government still derives more than 80 per cent of its revenues from gambling: what happened to the promise of economic diversification? When it comes to infrastructure, the quality and diversity are simply appalling for such a “rich” place, and this is true for healthcare, transportation and even education.

Politics is simply oligopolistic: the same three families have been dominating political life ever since they kicked-out the Kuomintang’s influence in the 1960s. Election mechanisms are so biased that they forbid any hint of competition. Business interests ban all notions of “social progress” — they do charity, at best — and traditional pro-establishment associations keep the society in check thanks to the lavish endowment provided by the losses of mainlanders on Blackjacks tables. And not everybody is happy about corruption at the highest echelon — think Prosecutor General Ho Chio Meng — or the sheer incompetence of the administration — think 20,000 Macao people demonstrating in May 2014 and forcing the Chief executive to ‘withdraw’ the so-called Perks’ bill.

Beyond the irony, one should worry slightly when President Xi tells Mr Ho: “Your nomination and election with overwhelming support fully show that you have won broad endorsement in Macao.” Endorsement of who? Even with 98% of the votes in a non-competitive process, that leaves Mr Ho with a meagre 392 staunch supporters. Is it irony? Could there be a threat: we are giving you full support, so you’d better not disappoint us?

And then when Mr Xi adds that in Macao, “‘One country, two systems’ has proven to be a workable solution welcomed by the people,” what does it mean? It is for now being irremediably questioned in Hong Kong and rejected with despise by Taiwan, so it most probably says something about Macao and the way the territory accommodates anything and anyone rather than prove anything about the soundness of this unique dual-sovereignty arrangement.

There is no doubt that some Macao people will always be there to serve, especially when this serves their own interests. Such is the case of Pansy Ho who was chosen, along with Annie Wu from the Maxim group, to attend the latest session of the UN Human Rights Council and take a stand “to offer a fact-based perspective of many Hong Kongers on what is really happening in Hong Kong.” She was there as the Chairlady of the Hong Kong Federation of Women, a NGO with consultative status with the UN; she was there as a “regular person,” and because she herself “feels repressed and lives in fear.” She was not there as a billionaire. She was not there as a Macao casino mogul whose gaming license is up for renewal in 2022. And she was not there as the very unhappy businesswoman whose Turbojet’s results have dwindled by 32 per cent in the latest interim report of Shun Tak.

If anything happens in Macao, it will stay in the family: the Chairlady of the Macao Women General Association is none other than Ho Teng Iat, the sister of the new Chief Executive!

Published in Macau Daily Times on September 13, 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: The art of irrelevance

Let’s be honest, mumbling half-hearted speeches full of empty promises year after year borders on art. More so when you happen to be an accidental leader with absolutely no talent for public encounters. Even more so when you know that nobody will really pay attention, that this will be your last policy address and that you will never be held accountable for anything. There is a Samuel Beckett-esque dimension to it, like “Waiting for Godot” in politics: it is absurd and surreal at the same time, and yet it impacts people’s lives, and it even allows human beings to die under your watch because you have been standing by instead of acting.

The absence of human empathy in the whole exercise is truly striking. Last year when Typhoon Hato had just devastated the city and killed 10 people less than three months before, the 2018 policy address started with the exhilarating words: “In accordance with the Basic Law…” (this is also true in Chinese). But clearly, last year’s circumstances were not to be blamed as the 2016 incipit was even worse — “In accordance with Article 65 of the Basic Law of Macao…” Mind you, this was not always the case. Back in March 2010, Chief Executive (CE)  Chui Sai On’s first-ever policy address started with the words “Spring is in the air…” 春暖花開，萬物欣欣向榮之際. Should we always have policy addresses delivered in early spring then?

Irony aside, something was broken between the CE and the citizens along the way, something that we can date back to the early months of Chui’s second term. The attempt at mending things now appears crude when compared to the first entry on Chui’s brand new blog posted in May 2015 and the latest one pinned two weeks ago in mid-October: we went from “Serene and calm, he wisely observes the course of the world” to “Integrating into the Greater Bay and initiating a new development”! A failed poetic attempt will always be better than repetitive gobbledygook. Chui did hit rock-bottom popularity in December 2017 when, for the first time ever, a CE’s approval rating went below the symbolic 50% line. This could thus explain the attempt at humbleness, despite the absolute dullness of the phrasing: we went from “Development Plan in Progress for Building a Perfect Home” (the official translation!) in November 2016 to “Be pragmatic yet enterprising, and share the fruits of development” in November 2017.

What will really be at stake on Nov. 15 and in the following days has not much to do with either the title or the substance of the address. We now have a five-year plan and its yearly rate of execution will certainly be close to the one announced last year — 80 percent or more! Then, the whole first part of the address will consist of sweeteners, among which the wealth partaking scheme will play an essential role. Actually, given that Chui’s reputation will never be salvaged and that he will soon be gone, I would suggest that now is the perfect time to suppress what was introduced by Edmund Ho in 2008: the wealth partaking scheme, from a purely rational point of view, is both inefficient and unfair.

No, what will really matter in two weeks’ time is the positioning of the political heavyweights for next year’s (s)election. If tradition prevails, Ho Iat Seng will be given the nod and criticisms directed at the government will be loud and persistent. If capacity — who is credited for taking the right steps in preventing another disaster when Typhoon Mangkhut blasted the city in September? — and political rectitude triumph, Secretary Wong Sio Chak will have the upper hand, and patriotic family politics, along with incompetence will be severely and durably crippled.

And if there should be no room for the king’s jester to maneuver— Secretary Tam — let’s recall that accidents do happen in Macao, with or without depressive subjects!

Published in Macau Daily Times on November 2, 2018

Kapok: (No) sense and sensibility

The serialized “Sulu case”, full of twists and turns ever since the New Macau Association figurehead was rightfully elected via universal suffrage to the Legislative Assembly as the youngest ever legislator in Macao, just reached a new high when it comes to its most farcical — and yet saddening — dimensions.

Not only is Sulu Sou prosecuted for throwing paper planes in the empty garden of a purely ceremonial colonial villa and walking in the middle of a trafficless street — dura lex, sed lex; not only has he been suspended from his seat for such devious and criminal acts by his own peers in a highly controversial expedited process; moreover, he has to bear with a level of vicious absurdity rarely observed in our community since 1999!

And unfortunately, the ones who tarnish the very ideas of respect, responsibility and accountability in politics are to be found at the highest echelon of the administration! At the helm of the Assembly for sure — if Ho Iat Seng was ever considered as a possible replacement for Mr Chui, he should by now be disqualified — but also, indirectly, at the very top of the executive branch of power — who are Vong Hin Fai and Kou Hoi In taking their instructions from? After the deadly Hato disaster, the very least one could have expected is some kind of self-restraint and deference for the wishes of the majority.

By sponsoring a resolution project aiming at excluding the right to appeal of Sulu Sou before a court of law regarding claimed irregularities affecting the process that led to his suspension as lawmaker, Vong Hin Fai is not only sapping fundamental tenets of the separation of powers enshrined in the Basic Law, he is also using the law for vengeful private interests to cover his possible shortcomings while acting as secretary of the Committee of Rules and Mandates that ultimately defaulted on its obligation to make a recommendation regarding Mr Sou’s case.

The farcical move was immediately denounced by several prominent lawyers and former legislators, including the president of the Macao Lawyers’ Association, but all this seems even more dismaying when considering that Mr Vong is himself a lawyer, and that he was up to 2013 an appointed legislator as well as the candidacy representative of Chui Sai On both in 2009 and 2014. How can one not suspect some form of collusion of interests? And if so, how can this not be construed as an additional proof of downright disrespect for the independence of justice coming not only from a subservient legislature but also from the executive itself?

The same line of thinking goes for Mr Ho Iat Seng: how come the President of the Assembly would accept such a resolution without a doubt and why on earth would he decide to put it on the legislature’s agenda for voting within a week time? Lawmaker José Pereira Coutinho has already flagged this unusual haste in slating the resolution, especially when compared to akin motions sponsored by pan-democrats, but there again the issue goes beyond a not so “gentleman agreement”: Mr Ho is also a member of the standing committee of China’s National People’s Congress, and by blindly siding with Vong, he is actually staining the very idea of a “high degree of autonomy” for Macao. Could he have turned to his second in command — the Vice- president of the Assembly — for advice? And even if he did, can the brother of the Chief Executive be trusted to demonstrate an absolute sense of impartiality? Again, this can only reinforce suspicions of power meddling.

And by ultimately withdrawing the resolution, to supposedly clarify misunderstandings, what has Mr Vong demonstrated? Courage when confronted with adversity? A capacity to be attuned with the community he is supposed to represent? The wisdom of his craft now that he is a non-competitively elected professional lawmaker?

For all these reasons, and because it will take at least a year for Mr Sou to be actually tried for “aggravated disobedience”, Mr Vong should sponsor a resolution re-instating in full Mr Sou as a lawmaker!

Published in Macau Daily Times on January 19, 2018

Kapok: Five is five, not three

The yearly plenary sessions of the National People’s Congress (NPC) and the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference (CPPCC) — the “two meetings” 兩會 as colloquially referred to in Chinese — concluded just a week ago and with them we are set for new priorities in the coming year and the next five years, with the 13th five-year plan starting this year.
The general directions had been already introduced last year — even with a campy song about them — and the five — again — tenets of the plan had been delineated in order to achieve ‘medium-high’ GDP growth, now set at 6.5 percent for 2016. First, “innovation” is seen as the key driver of economic development in order to upscale China’s economic structure into a higher-quality growth pattern. Then “openness” is considered of utmost importance for China to become a major responsible stakeholder in world affairs, both politically and economically. Then, “green” development and the necessity to “balance” the economy in order to ensure greater evenness among rural and urban areas, and across different industries, are the two pillars of what would be called in Europe “sustainable development”. Finally, “inclusiveness” — understand social justice — is a full part of that developmental horizon.
Wrapping up the conclusions of the two meetings, Chief Executive Chui Sai On outlined five — again — paths for Macao to transform and “consolidate its unique position”.
First, Mr Chui insisted on the need to comply with the country’s constitution and the Basic Law. Honestly speaking, I am really starting to wonder what is meant by this oft-repeated mantra. Is it not already the case? And if not, in what regard is it not respected? We heard recently about concerns pertaining to the judicial system and possible issues with justice independence: could that be it? Or is it related to the fact that a union law has yet to be passed and is systemically rescheduled by navel-gazing businessmen-turned-legislators who now claim that possible “strikes” could impair even more our dwindling casino revenues? Or possibly, the fact that now some NPC members representing Macao are asking for the NPC to step up efforts on reviewing laws passed in Macao? From my own little understanding, when Mr Io Hong Meng, a Macao NPC delegate backed by the Kaifong, insists that “instead of just keeping the laws for records, the NPC Standing Committee should also […] start reviewing the laws enacted under Macau’s legislature”, I am not sure this is not in complete contradiction with the letter and spirit of the Basic Law. And does Mr Ho Iat Seng, the only NPC Standing committee member for Macao and the president of the Legislative Assembly, concur?
Then Mr Chui mainly stressed the economic aspects of the message, and especially the imperative to coordinate the city’s Five-Year Development Plan with the major policy direction of China and the pressing need to transform Macao into a world centre of tourism and leisure, and a cooperation platform between China and Portuguese-speaking countries. Society was not forgotten: the social development of young people is to be supported and social welfare improved. And finally, all this could be achieved thanks to a more “effective” mode of governance, based on speedier administrative reform, additional thoroughness in anti-corruption efforts, as well as greater cooperation among administrative units. Clearly, transparency and accountability are not part of Mr Chui’s vocabulary.
Somehow, the “innovation”, “openness” and “balance” imperatives are there. The diversification of Macao’s mono-industry; the expansion to Hengqin and now the resurrection of the Pan-­Pearl River Delta 2003 vision; the realization that Macao has a unique role to play in connecting the Portuguese-speaking world with China; the expansion over 85 square kilometers of coastal waters as recently demarcated and possible development of a maritime economy; the stepping-up of quality education and the nurturing of local talents; the promotion of SMEs; etc.
What about “the inclusiveness” and the “greening”? What about developing real mean-tested social policies rather than oversized entitlements for residents? What about sanctuarizing Coloane, despite the petty interest of one CPPCC delegate? Five is five, not three.

Published in Macau Daily Times, March 25 2016

Kapok: Blowing Hot and Cold

Politicking in Macao at present is being blurred by the celebratory mood of the year-end, and Christmas has indeed a lot to do with it. With the visit of Xi Jinping on the occasion of the fifteenth anniversary of the handover (on top of the 65th anniversary of the establishment of the People’s Republic of China that some associations in Macao have been toasting to since the wee hours of January 1st), the overall atmosphere exudes an ever more ostensible display of loyalty and gratitude towards the benevolent fatherly figure whose tutelage has allowed Macao to (immensely) prosper in the past 15 years. Well, clearly, Macao has been (vastly) transformed since it was handed over back to China in 1999, but still what resonates in my mind is the corporate hype uttered by Sheldon Adelson in August 2007 during the inaugural speech of the Venetian that Macao would never be the same again after the opening of the world biggest casino. And here we are, seven years later, and Macao is seven times bigger than Vegas.
Yet, gaming revenues have plummeted in the past six months, and thus Macao is technically speaking in recession—two successive quarters of GDP contraction—, and the main culprit as reported by many gaming analysts and bankers alike is to be found in the anti-corruption drive that has been targeting both “flies and tigers” on the other side of the Portas do Cerco for the past two years—the latest high-profile victim being Zhou Yongkang, former domestic security tsar and former member of the ultra-selective Standing Committee of the Politburo of the Chinese Communist Party. Is Santa Claus thus the Whipping Father in disguise? With the trouble encountered by the “one country, two systems” formula in Hong Kong in 2014, it is all but too easily understandable that Mr Xi and his proxies would be quite pleased and even extremely forgiving with scrupulous devotees to a very conservative interpretation of what was imagined by Deng Xiaoping at the end of the 1970s. Public policy non-sense, appalling infrastructures and mismanagement of public funds are indeed little things compared to the unquestionable compliance with a political imperious necessity.
Well, up to a certain point, hence the vocal call for diversification that is now expressly required from Macao—this is not a suggestion anymore, and this time it is for the sake of China as a whole—and the clean-slate approach to the forming of a new government on December 20th. But then why let the Chief Executive nominate someone like Mr Chan Chak Mo on the Executive Council? Mr Chan is a successful businessman (that helps qualify for this consultative body) and has been a legislator since 2001 (representing, quite oddly the cultural and sports sector). But then, he is also the president of the second permanent commission of the Legislative Assembly that tried to push through, in May 2014, the now infamous ‘Perks Bill’ that would have provided golden parachutes to retiring principal officials in Macao. At the time, Mr Chan characterised the bill as “very reasonable”. He also commented that it was “naïve” to organise demonstrations or have petitions signed to oppose the bill, as if the piece of legislature was bound to pass anyway. The president of the Legislative Assembly, Mr Ho Iat Seng, rejoiced at the idea that an additional legislator in the Executive Council could improve communication between the executive and the legislative powers, something that I quite agree with, despite Montesquieu being a fellow Frenchman. Yet, is a legislator who was elected by a mere 53 associations in a constituency in which he was the sole candidate the best choice? Is the man who is partially responsible for provoking the biggest ever demonstrations in Macao in 25 years because of his lack of understanding of the popular discontent the most appropriate? Surely if you want to convey the idea that indeed everything is under control. And then, for Mr Chan, this is just another “business opportunity”: after all, he will get 30% of the Chief Executive’s salary for simply attending one meeting a month… Where has the Whipping Father gone?

Published in Macau Daily Times on December 19th 2014

Kapok: What happens in…

As is often the case with sayings, their actual meaning is commonly debatable and easily twisted by the interest and the context of the moment. Such is the case with “What happens in Vegas stays in Vegas”, that pulls together two sets of meanings. On the one hand, related to permissiveness and secrecy—you can engage in anything borderline in Vegas, but whatever you do out there will not spill over Vegas’s vicinity—and on the other, connected to absolute otherness—this is only possible in Vegas. Apart from the fact that this sin-charged marketing motto strikes a particular cord for us in Macao, this is the expression that popped into my mind while reading reports about recent declarations made in Beijing by Peter Lee Ka-kit, Hong Kong-based Henderson Land Development’s vice chairman, in which he stated that “polls” conducted by University of Hong Kong’s Public Opinion Programme were “biased” against the pro-establishment/pro-Beijing camp in the SAR. He went on namely to target the programme’s director, Robert Chung, by questioning the scientific character of the polls and came up with a “pragmatic” solution according to which a selected few trade associations, naturally pro-establishment, would start funding alternative polls that would be conducted by the Chinese University of Hong Kong and the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, the two competitors of Mr. Chung’s institution among the top tier universities in our sister SAR. Very pragmatic indeed, as any businessman should be: if you are not happy with a supplier, just go to another one! 
These remarks were made in Beijing during a meeting held on the fringe of the annual ten-day-long annual full session of the National People’s Congress (NPC) between delegates from Hong Kong and Macao to the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference (CPPCC), of which Peter Lee is a member of the standing committee, and NPC chairman Zhang Dejiang. Let’s just recall that this annual meeting of the NPC is the only moment of the year when the supervisory power of this otherwise rubber-stamp assembly can somehow frailly glow—the government’s budget is always approved, but sometimes only by 80% of the members!—and that the CPPCC, in itself a purely advisory body, is supposed to help engage in “political consultation” with and perform “democratic supervision” of the Communist Party. In theory, members of the CPPCC can thus be expected to display some kind of innovative thinking that can help the Party better itself. In practice, it is far too often the occasion for prominent exemplary citizens to exhibit their absolute submission to the current Party line. Journalists in Beijing noted that Peter Lee’s remarks along with the ones made by another tycoon’s progeny, Victor Li Tzar-kuoi (son of Asia’s richest man, Li Ka-shing, and also a CPPCC standing committee member) characterizing the Occupy Central movement as being contrary to Hong Kong’s core values, were made just hours after a high-level official from the central government liaison office had urged Hong Kong members of the CPPCC to speak more openly against Occupy Central.
That leads me back to my saying, this time with a local flavor: let’s hope that what happens in Beijing stays in Beijing, even though this doesn’t bode well for much needed political reforms in the first system. But can it really be so? What is there to gain, apart from radicalization, in adding worries over academic freedom to nagging questioning about threats to the freedom of the press in our neighboring SAR? And then, will what happens in Hong Kong stay in Hong Kong? On one side, we have businessmen suggesting the government “dissolve the people and elect another,” to echo Bertold Brecht’s famous verse, and on the other side we are expected to remain impervious to menaces growing on our doorstep. But of course, in Macao, we seem to be content with the simple fact that Mr Chui has finally ended the excruciating speculations about his candidacy for a second mandate and we have our own businessmen suggesting that legislators should simply forfeit their right to legislative initiative. Nothing to worry about, really.

Published in Macau Daily Times, March 7 2014

Kapok: Trust me if you can

With the cold front coming from the north, the sudden drop in temperature “holding” ground level emissions down and excessive production of fine particulates of 2.5 micrometres—the very lethal tiny bits that get deep in your lungs and are universally recognized, even by CCTV, to be a major cause in the rise of lung and cardio-vascular diseases in our modern society—, I was poised to write about the past-the-looming calamity of air pollution in Macao.

Readings in the past week were far above the 25-35 micrograms per cubic metre average daily threshold flagged by international as well as Chinese regulators: on February 13, the daily average was in the 70 µgrams/m3 and on the 17, there were peaks in the 120 µgrams/m3! We are still quite far from the 347 µgrams/m3 recorded in Beijing yesterday by the American embassy, characterizing the air in the Chinese capital as “hazardous”, but concern is salient, measurable, and cars appear to hold a significant part of the responsibility if the 20-30% drop observed after midnight and up to 8 a.m. is to be relied upon.

It is high time we move from a rather silly Air-Quality-cum-Index smiley to a more owe-inspiring Air Quality Health Index, thus indicating the short-term health risks, just like Hong Kong, inspired by Canada, did last December. This would be all the fairer to Macao as our SAR actually started recording levels of fine particulates before its Pearl River neighbor!

But fine particulates are not the only thing polluting our atmosphere, unfortunately, and these other factors are more political than scientific in nature—and yet translate into mounting and highly visible concerns as well.

First, we have a president of the Legislative Assembly, Mr Ho Iat Seng, deploring on the sidelines of a Spring festival lunch the limitations of his fellow legislators because of their lack of legal training and thus questioning their capacity to grasp the “goals” of policy-making deriving from their lack of “knowledge” and possibly some “confusion” regarding their intended role—a passing comment rather amusing regarding possible conflict of interests when one thinks that Mr Ho is concurrently the only member from Macao of the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress in Beijing. Going one step further during the same agapes, Mr Chan Chak Mo, president of the second standing committee of the Assembly, even suggested that the legislators should refrain from drafting “projects” of law and let the government exclusively make law “proposals”, that would then of course be duly discussed by legislators.

If individual legislators can always be reminded of their shortcomings during plenary sessions—especially now that debates are publicly broadcasted—it is neither up to Mr Ho or Mr Chan to discuss the “legitimacy” of assemblymen and their “sacred” right of legislative initiative: none of these two august legislators is elected through universal suffrage and the Basic Law, and only it, can prescribe what is the duty of a legislator (art. 75 in that particular case). In Europe, since the Treaty of Lisbon (2009), there is such a thing called the European Citizens’ Initiative, and thus initiative of a legal act rests also directly with the citizens: do citizens need all to be trained in law? Legislative duty, unfortunately, also implies design: if Mr Chan does not feel up to the task, maybe he should either resign or hire more legal advisers. Always hiding behind the necessity for these laws to be the product of “public consultations” is a farce: governing is deciding and leading, not following. Sometimes one has actually to explain to the community why decisions need to be made even at the risk of disquieting the public mood. But in Macao, the air is too polluted by the Lao Si Lo syndrome: everybody claims that he or she “can absolutely face the public”, and then no one actually does…

Published in Macau Daily Times, February 21 2014

Kapok: Under (tight) Scrutiny

On the very day newly elected legislators were taking their oath, several members of Macao Conscience, a political grouping created in 2009 that has been regularly staging civic happenings, openly challenging the government and denouncing by-and-large conflict of interests affecting Macao politics, took to the streets to directly question the “claim” that legislators are genuinely representing the interests of the Macao residents. At stake, the fact that 17 legislators out of 33, or 57% of them, are still either handpicked by the Chief Executive or returned by so-called “indirect elections” for which functional constituencies did not even bother to pay lip service to the idea of political competition, one of the requirements for an election to deserve its name. 
At the heart of their appeal for the Chief Executive to come up with an agenda for political reform that could lead to a universal franchise to elect the totality of the legislature lies the promise entrenched in article 68 of the Macao Basic Law that “a majority of the [Legislative Assembly’s] members shall be elected” as well as a UN Human Rights Committee recommendation issued last March stating that “Macao should consider taking all preparatory measures with a view to introducing universal and equal suffrage in conformity with the [International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights] as a matter of priority”. 
This group of a handful of demonstrators delivering their petition to the government’s headquarters was headed by none other than Jason Chao, president of the New Macao Association and unsuccessful candidate to the Assembly: if you cannot bring the fight “inside”, the least you can do is to continue carrying it “outside”.
Tight scrutiny of the legislators is the vocation trumpeted by the freshly launched website aptly entitled “Macao Legislators Supervision Station”: deploring the opacity of the workings of the Assembly, the website aims to offer a comprehensive track record of the voting behavior of each individual legislator, thus creating some kind of real-time accountability system by default. It also provides detailed information about the assets owned and positions occupied by each legislator as they appear in the recently advertised Declarations of Assets posted on the website of the Judicial Court of the Macao SAR. 
Additionally, one can find the complete contact details of each lawmaker, including postal address, website, Facebook account and email address, making it possible for any citizen to engage with his or her so-called representative(s). Unfortunately, only eleven law proposals and projects as well as resolutions and propositions of debate and hearings are for now taken into consideration, but more will be added in the future. Graphic and news flashes functionalities, again individualized, are still in the making, but the result of this illustrated data collection about our legislators is already pretty striking. There, one comes to realize the deep divide that exists between elected, selected and appointed legislators—the “rubber stamp” characterization of the two latter can truly be seen by a blind man! “King of the ballot box” Chan Meng Kam is on the one hand not shy at all in divulging his assets and yet his track record in the assembly shows that he has abstained or been absent 7 times out of 11—a populist with uncertain opinions? Such is not the case for Melinda Chan Mei Yi, the accessible lady of the people: she opposes or she approves, nothing short of a yes or no… but still, more on the side of the government!
Ultimately, even the new president of the Assembly, businessman turned politician Ho Iat Seng, as well as his deputy, trade unionist Lam Heong Sang, made very ostentatious declarations on the day of their inauguration that “supervision of the government’s actions” should definitely “be reinforced in the future”! Well, talking about conflict of interests, Mr Ho is also the only member from Macao sitting on the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress, the one institution supposed to interpret the Basic Law in case of a dispute and if all else has failed when it comes to enjoying a “high degree of autonomy”… With the upcoming election of the Chief Executive in 2014, there should be more to scrutinize!

Published in Macau Daily Times on October 25 2013.

Kapok: Teeny Circles

The visit of Wu Bangguo to Macao, the first one ever of a Chairman of China’s National People’s Congress, made the front page of newspapers in every hue as if the whole city was welcoming this high-profile figure of the central government with a bang. Due to leave office in March, Mr Wu was a member of the exclusive Politburo Standing Committee of the Communist Party of China until November, and officially No. 3 in the national line of command. It’s no wonder that traffic around Penha Hill was so out of control and the city swarming with policemen dressed-up in flashy yellow vests and wielding silicone guns! The frenzy is ending tonight, but beware: the parking ticket emission intermission will thus be over soon!
Two seemingly separate events have brought Mr Wu to Macao: the 20th anniversary of the Macao Basic Law, our mini constitution, and the 100th birthday celebration of the Chinese Chamber of Commerce of Macao. Also on the agenda: meetings with the different branches of government along with extensive tours of the city and even a quick stint in Hengqing island to visit the University of Macau’s new campus—perceived as a true embodiment of a better integration between the Special Administrative Region and proper China. As far as the Basic Law is concerned, Mr Wu’s tone was far more praising than when he celebrated the 10th anniversary in Beijing: at the time, he had just been appointed and it was still the latest fad to refer to “giving full play to democracy”. The National People’s Congress headed by Mr Wu endorsed the so-called “+2+2+100” political reform package for Macao last year, a far cry from what was granted to Hong Kong, and the emphasis today seems to be more on the development of a “harmonious society” and “scientific governance”, proving again that the “high degree of autonomy” bestowed upon Macao reflects what local interests interpret as being worth fighting for.
Interestingly enough, there were two full-page ads in yesterday’s Macao Daily News to welcome Wu Bangguo: one published by the Jiangmen Town Folks Association and the other one by the Chinese Chamber of Commerce of Macao. Town folk associations are very common among migrant Chinese communities, and by some count there are more than 100,000 people originating from Jiangmen (a nearby district in Guangdong) in Macao. The association created in 2002 boasts more than 30,000 members. People of Jiangmen origin include Fernando Chui Sai On and Francis Tam Pak Yuen, as well as legislators such as Mr Chui’s cousin and brother, and Vitor Cheung Lup Kwan: no wonder that its mission statement reads “Love Macao, love our country; promote exchanges with our beloved hometown”.
Patriotic and grassroots associations do play a very important role in the SAR and are very tightly connected to the government and deemed pro-China. Their role is to gather the support of different sections of the society in favor of government policies in exchange for being allowed to articulate their own community-based interests and get funded to do so. These patron-clients relations date back to the colonial era: in many respects the Jiangmen Town Folks Association does play a similar role as the Neighborhood Association and the Federation of Trade Union —a revamped version of the mass line. The Chamber of Commerce belongs to a somewhat higher playing field and is more concerned with grooming the future leaders of Macao. Its strongman, Ho Yin, was China’s voice in the territory in the 1960s, and Ho Yin’s son, Edmund Ho, was himself its vice-president before he became the first Chief Executive of the SAR. Today, the vice-president of the Chamber is Ho Iat Seng, a businessman who is also the vice-president of the Legislative Assembly (indirectly (s)elected) and the only member of the standing committee of the National People’s Congress. Circles, small ones…