Kapok: Toothless labor organizations

I was recently reminded that in the years leading to the handover, the Portuguese administration had expressed the wish, almost on an annual basis, to move forward with the long-delayed passing of a trade union law in Macao. However, at the time, with the constraints of the transfer of sovereignty becoming more pressing, all projects or proposals of law had to be submitted “informally” for prior approval to the Xinhua News Agency, the one institution that served as Beijing’s unofficial representation prior to the establishment of the Liaison Office in 2000.

Few people remember that the Xinhua News Agency had itself replaced the Nam Kwong in 1987, and the latter is still a force to reckon with in present-day Macao, both economically and politically, as it employs, for example, the likes of legislator Mak Soi Kun, who, in the past few weeks, has been making his high-pitched voice heard in favor of installing CCTV cameras all over the streets while recommending teaching “national security” in schools.

Xinhua’s refusal to “grant” a trade union law to Macao is easily understandable. For a start, the move was considered as useless: in the People’s Republic of China, the All China Federation of Trade Unions was (and still is) a mass organization directly supervised by the Chinese Communist Party, thus the mere idea of an “independent” relay in society representing the workers’ interests did not strike a chord. Moreover, the Macao Federation of Trade Unions (FAOM) already existed — “sponsored” by the Chinese communists at the end of the 1950s [actually early 1950s]— and it had faithfully served its purpose by ensuring stability for the good sake of the colonial administration and swiftly channelling the political guidance of Beijing. Finally, the initiative looked rather suspicious: after all, the colonizers had had ample time to pass such a piece of legislation, why the sudden rush? Why now and not then?

Could things change for the better after 1999? Looking back at 1992, that was the year when Fernando Chui Sai On got elected for the first time at the Legislative Assembly on a ticket representing… the Macao Federation of Trade Unions! The charity arms of business interests in the territory take good care of the most deprived members of society, so much so actually that it prohibits them from being genuinely represented.

Thus, although the right to form and join a union is enshrined in Article 27 of the Macao Basic Law and constitutes a significant component of at least three international covenants and conventions of which Macao is a signatory, there is no way the benevolent entrepreneurs who run the show will ever introduce such a law on their own, without a strong enough push from the ones vying for it. Legislator José Pereira Coutinho knows it more than anyone else: he tried to introduce a trade union law on nine occasions and failed flatly every single time. And even when he got the support of the “yellow” FAOM — in this part of the world, we say “tofu union” — it was never enough to tilt the balance in the right direction.

Back in 2007, when we still had dozens of independent organizations taking to the streets and 5 or 6,000 demonstrators showing up on May 1, some saw the possibility for a very embryonic bona fide civil society to develop. That was the time when plainclothes policemen would shoot in the air to intimidate the crowd! The next year, the wealth-partaking scheme went into effect.

Fast forward to today: May 1 has become a total fraud! The FAOM organizes banquets with the government on the evening of April 30, and its main demand concerns a few extra bank holidays that fall on Sundays! The most vocal demonstrators defend their property rights, and trust more the Liaison Office than Mr Tam! Meanwhile, labour rights in Macao have remained the same since… the mid-1980s! Consumers of the world, Unite!

Published in Macau Daily Times on May 4, 2018

Kapok: As little as possible

This is rather unfortunate timing. On the one hand, the project of law on Labour Unions proposed by José Pereira Coutinho gets defeated during the October 27th plenary session of the Legislative Assembly — the 9th rejection! And on the other hand, the ongoing public consultation regarding a (very) partial amendment of the Labour Relations Law and the introduction of a legal framework defining part-time employment provides a caricatural demonstration of what is wrong with participative processes, especially when designed and acted upon with an exclusively bureaucratic mindset — initiators are to be blamed, not the ill-fated civil servants asked to deliver under ubiquitous constraints.

As far as the project of law on unions is concerned, the rejection of such legislation is not only counter to the Macao Basic Law (art. 27) and the many international conventions to which Macao is a signatory — including the 1948 ILO Convention concerning Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organize — but also against commonly admitted and well-established “good practices” concerning work-related disputes and their resolution. With the passing of time such a dismissive attitude borders on illegality. If Korea, Singapore, Taiwan, Hong Kong and even the People’s Republic of China can do it, why not Macao?

In the previous legislature, Fong Chi Keong presented self-serving tautologies: the defeat of such a bill on so many occasions simply demonstrated that there was no need for it and that indeed Macao society was so “harmonious” that the passing of such a law could ultimately only help stir trouble (!). This time, only Vong In Fai took the stand — Ma Chi Seng having run out of arguments thanks to the economic recovery — to brush off the bill for its lack of preparatory consultation with relevant governmental departments. Mr Vong, just like most indirectly-elected legislators, would easily forgo his right (and duty) to initiate law-making — in contravention of article 75 of the Basic Law. And yet, what is really troubling is not the fact that the bill was defeated by 15 votes against 12, but that 10 out of 14 directly elected legislators voted in favour whereas all seven legislators appointed by the Chief Executive voted against: a dismissal in first reading not only indicates a refusal to debate, but also a constant denial of the legislators’ right to introduce a bill, and a possible breach of the constitution. But then, if you start giving unions legal status, you soon have to regulate political parties and then in no time conditions for competition flourish and thus accountability takes root: who would want that?

It is very hard not to look at the consultation as a missed opportunity. Regarding part-time work, there is not much to say: a maximum of 72 hours over a period of four weeks would fall under the “short part-time” category as defined by the ILO, and then part-time is merely a way to remove already very limited protection(s) offered by the Labour Relations Law — so it boils down to a “race to the bottom”. Then, regarding the creation of paternity leave and the extension of maternity leave — a farcical addition of 14 days unpaid leave on top of the existing 56 days paid leave — if the consultation document does mention Hong Kong, China, Taiwan, Singapore and even Portugal as references, it utterly fails to allude to the comprehensive ILO report on “Maternity and paternity at work — Law and practice across the world” published in 2014. Convention No. 183 of the ILO “mandates a minimum [maternity] leave period of 14 weeks” with a marked attention to raise that period “to at least 18 weeks”!

With this new law, Macao falls in the same category as Saudi Arabia, Jordan or Kuwait. So much for being progressive! 

Published in Macau Daily Times on November 10th 2017