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: Look who’s talking!

Although I would not challenge being characterized as a “tree-hugger”, I would not consider myself an “animal lover”. For me, dogs are all about unpleasant dribbling, offensive wet dog smell and untimely walks in the woods for not-so-hygienic unloading. But it is one thing to show no great empathy for pets, it is an entirely different matter not to support legal provisions to put an end to cruelty towards animals. The former has to do with my own personal inclinations, the latter with the degree of advancement of a civilization.

There are many interesting aspects to the project of law that was introduced by José Pereira Coutinho, which pertains to the “Legal status and protection of animals”. This was rebuked in a plenary session of the Macao Legislative Assembly on April 22^nd.

It is important to note that it was a project of law (initiated by legislators, in this case only one), which is not to be confused with a law proposal (initiated by the government). Contrary to what is commonly heard, a few projects initiated by legislators have successfully been made into laws. For example, the very comprehensive Personal Data Protection Law that was passed in 2005 is the most well known, but it is not unique. Other examples include the Law requiring the systematic advice of a lawyer in judicial procedures, or the Law regulating Internet Cafés.

These laws are the highest testimonies of the revered principle of the separation of powers, which is enshrined in Macao's Basic Law. Legislator Coutinho clearly displays political motivation when he introduced six laws in a single week, but contrary to what Legislator Chan Chak Mo has argued, that is to say “mere politicking” by Coutinho in an election year, Coutinho’s actions clearly indicate that some legislators are actually doing their job. In the end, just as “some animals are more equal than others”, some legislators are indeed, more legitimate than others.

The project of law was voted down in its first stage, during the first reading in plenary session. The legislators had plenty of time to carefully examine the 30 articles of the law and the notes that accompanied it, as it was introduced in February, some two months before last Monday’s vote. But the project never made it beyond the political initiative of its introduction and will never be discussed in a permanent commission.

Those who either abstained or opposed gave several reasons. Some argued that the project was not precise enough: was it about domestic animals, or animals at large? Could we still enjoy eating ducks and chicken after the law would be passed? Article 14 of the project is very clear about that, just like the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Ordinance passed in 2006 in Hong Kong: what is to be prevented and punished is cruelty to animals, including in the slaughtering process. But most of the critics have concentrated on the supposed untimeliness of the project as it was released only four months before the end of the legislative session. However, one could argue that almost half of the 2012/2013 session still remains and that the Assembly record for law passing ranges from 6 to 27 laws passed in a single session. Coincidentally, the most vocal opponent regarding “timing” was legislator Vitor Cheung Lup Kwan, who holds the record amongst all legislators for lowest attendance to plenary sessions during the two previous terms in 2011 and 2012. Being a legislator is a full time job!

In the end 4 voted in favor, 9 abstained and 9 opposed, totaling 22 out of 29. Why were seven legislators missing? Why was the legislator, who is closest to the company that runs the infamous Canidrome of Macau (see here for local news and here for international coverage), absent from the vote? Untimely questions maybe?

Published in Macau Daily Times, April 26 2013.