Kapok: Paper tigers vs. paper planes

The Sulu Sou case has been an embarrassment ever since the youngest directly elected legislator had his mandate suspended last December 4. Twenty-eight legislators ridiculed themselves and showed to the community their lack of respect for the independence of their own institution and sheer contempt for the very idea of popular sovereignty.

Cowardice was then added to silliness when we came to realize that the secrecy of the ballot would remain inviolable. One can only suspect that Messrs. Coutinho, Ng, Au and Miss Lam were the ones not falling for this disgraceful self-serving “Yes Minister” standpoint. As often in Macao, suspicions and conjectures are what we are left with.

For a while, we believed that the farce would have to stop if the very notion of separation of powers was to survive. In January, bowing down to the pressure of an educated few, sponsors of the legislature’s resolution aiming at banning a judicial review of the legislative process leading to Mr Sou’s suspension had to back down and withdraw their suspicious attempt at preemptively hiding up their mess.

If people as professional as Vong Hin Fai and Kou Hoi In had been exposed for the utter incompetence of their hasty move, it was reasonable to imagine that due processes would be more strictly enforced in the future. The rescheduling of the trial to May 14 was a positive sign and followed a request coming from the defence, thus allowing both parties to lay down their arguments more thoroughly.

What we have seen on Monday and Tuesday this week during the trial, however, appears to indicate that some lessons were not learnt, leading the defense lawyers to denounce an attempt at turning the whole conundrum into a “political trial”: the crime of “aggravated disobedience,” for which Messrs. Sulu Sou and Scott Chiang stand accused of, entails a prison sentence of maximum two years… and without a hint of consideration for the proportionality of sentencing, this is what the prosecution is asking for!

While fooled Sin Fong residents or tricked small-time Pearl Horizon investors get a mere slap on the wrist and a few thousand patacas in fines for indeed seriously disturbing public order, young democrats would deserve a 2-year sentence, and for what exactly? Throwing paper planes in an empty garden and walking on the streets instead of the sidewalk for a few minutes in the idlest district of the peninsula?

As everybody has come to realize, the target is not two years, but rather a month or so: if sentenced for more than 30 days, Sulu Sou will lose his seat for the rest of the legislature.

To the dismay of the defence lawyers, the prosecution spared no effort — some of them barely legal — in trying to darken the whole picture: but by desperately trying to prove the “aggravation,” the prosecution somehow forgot that it had first to prove the “disobedience”!

On the side of tricks, charges that had been dismissed in pre-trial talks were shamelessly reintroduced in the discussion, without the defence being made aware and against all judicial procedural rules. Had the authorized route not been followed? Absolutely not, as the march actually did end under the Nam Vam Lake Nautical Centre white tent — not going up to the Legislative Assembly does not constitute a “disobedience”. I know: I was there and witnessed the talks with the police and the call from the organizers to disband! Thus, a mere 10 individuals went on their own to the Chief Executive official (empty) residence: never blocking the traffic, and never reaching Penha Hill Garden, as barriers had been actually set-up (in advance!) at the very entrance of the Estrada de Santa Sancha. For an order to be disobeyed, it has to be stated first, and a few minutes delay in reaction are not in themselves acts of disobedience.

The question is thus simple: will Messrs. Sou and Chiang be punished for actual crimes, or rather for portraying the Chief Executive as a pig on May 15, 2016? Or should we go back to May 2014?

Published in Macau Daily Times on May 18, 2017

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: 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