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
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.
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
Edward Snowden and his challenge to the mighty US government have now become a modernized version of David vs. Goliath, and Snowden himself a household name for courage and determination in the fight for the defense of civil liberties. Knowledge and the circulation of data have replaced the sling, but the story remains the same: the seemingly invincible can be defeated if one is dexterous enough to find a hole in the armor. By exposing several classified intelligence programs run by the American and British intelligence services, among which we find the interception of US and European telephone metadata (the ins and outs of phone calls and not their actual content) as well as Internet surveillance programs such as PRISM and Tempora, Edward Snowden, a former technical contractor with the CIA and NSA, has become the epitome of what is now commonly characterized as a “whistleblower”, simply defined by Princeton’s WordNet as “an informant who exposes wrongdoing within an organization in the hope of stopping it.” What is at stake here is a possible abuse of power by the state apparatus and whether these surveillance programs are duly overseen by both the judiciary and the legislative so that encroachment over civil rights remain minimal and justifiable. Ultimately, there is a balance to be struck between one’s founding values—justice and liberty—on the one hand and the indisputable primacy of the safety that each and every state is supposed to guaranty to its own citizens on the other hand. Blowing the whistle in that case was to demand for more scrutiny over a possible imbalance between one and the other.
Whistleblowers come in every color and every hue. Among the most high profile and charismatic as well as controversial figures of a whistleblower, Wikileaks’ founder Julian Assange is clearly unmatched. Snowden in comparison appears far more accidental and unassuming, although his odyssey to escape prosecutions in America has captivated the world’s imagination—from Hawaii to Moscow with a short spell in Hong Kong. Despite all the present tensions between Russia and the US, especially about Syria and Iran, Putin himself has declared that Snowden could only stay in his country if he stopped “leaking secrets”! States of the World, unite against the whistleblowers! It is then no wonder that when Dr. Jiang Yanyong, the chief physician of the 301 Military Hospital in Beijing, sent his letter to denounce the cover up of the SARS epidemic back in April 2003, neither Chinese Central Television-4 (state-run) or PhoenixTV (state-connected) decided to report the story. It is only when The Wall Street Journal and Time picked up the story that authorities in China were forced to react. In Snowden’s case, the British Guardian and the American New York Times did play a crucial role. In Macao, whistleblower-cum-politician Jason Chao has to go one step further and resort to pose as a journalist—a citizen journalist to be more precise—because civil society, including the media, is so embroiled in a patron-client relation with the state that the Gramscian understanding of it as one of ‘hegemony’ and the ‘manufacture of consent’ has become prevalent.
Of course I find it all the more ironic to write this column on a 4th of July, a day on which the US celebrate the fact “that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” I cannot help but think that no other country on the planet, despite all its imperfections and misdeeds, has ever held these truths so evidently. A country that always found in its own ranks the vital force to better itself cannot be embarrassed: it can only grow stronger!
Published in Macau Daily Times, July 5th 2013
