Kapok: NIMBY, Macao style

Back in November 2010, Chief Executive Chui Sai On’s intent was clear and the direction chosen unhindered: “Regarding the development of tourism products, after heeding public opinion, and conducting analyses and assessments, the Government proposes an underground mall at Sai Van Lake Square as a trial location for developing a souvenir shopping complex and night market. This will showcase Macao cuisine and delicacies, and will become an integrated tourism project, after upgrading the relevant facilities through an open bidding process.” Of course, not everything went as planned.
First, the initial consultation for the project of a Sai Van lake permanent night market only occurred in November 2011. In the meantime, due processes for “public consultations”, the new fad in benevolent and opinion-led governance in lieu of democratic procedures, had changed: one round of public consultation would not be enough anymore, and a second round taking into account the lessons learnt from the first one would have to be organized. In that particular case, we were lucky rules had changed and government agencies had been slow in putting Mr Chui’s candid words into practice. The first public consultation was not only a disaster, but also marred by irregularities and opacity. Depending on who was doing the counting, opinions gathered ranged from a few dozen up to a maximum of 180, and only 8 such opinions had disapproved of the plan… But these results, without further comments, were only made public in October 2012(!), whereas regulations for public consultations state that it should take no more than 180 days after completion of the process.
Dissent and protest — too bad for consensus building — were soon to be heard: residents from the area started petitioning; concerned groups dealing with environmental and livelihood issues went marching and cycling around the lake, and even business interests made it clear as early as November 2012 that the whole project was plain wrong, both in intent and sustainability. Interestingly enough, David Chow Kam Fai, husband of legislator Melinda Chan Mei Yi and Macau Legend Development chief executive, expressed in a long op-ed published in the very conservative Macau Daily News his doubts about the “free market” side of the “open bidding process” — being the CEO of Fisherman’s Wharf Investment Ltd. might have made Mr. Chow pretty perceptive of the issue lying beneath less than fair competition. In reality, apart from the Civic and Municipal Affairs Bureau that had been entrusted with the project, only one public figure openly continued to support the scheme: legislator Chan Chak Mo. Incidentally representing the cultural sector in the Assembly, but mostly his own interests as the executive director of restaurant operator Future Bright Holdings Ltd, Mo nonetheless finds time to be the president of the Association of Macao Restaurant Merchants, the main organizer of the yearly Food Festival since 2001 precisely set on the banks of the… Sai Van lake!
So, a second consultation round was organized from December 2012 to March 2013. The press had already echoed vociferous sessions held with the general public, and even raucous exchanges with associations convened in closed-door meetings, including the usually pro-government General Union of the Neighborhood Associations and the Federation of Trade Unions that had expressed either a resolute opposition or suggested a relocation and a downsizing of the whole plan. But the official results of that consultation that came out on September 19 surpassed all expectations. More than 1,100 opinions were collected and an additional survey was conducted over the phone by the University of Macao with 1,529 respondents to envision what kind of facilities could be developed around the lake: overall, the initial night market project freely inspired by Clark Quay in Singapore and Tamsui night market in northern Taiwan was rejected by more than 70% of the population, and if a good 60% of the people surveyed over the phone want more facilities, they believe these should be more in line with green paths and walking/jogging tracks. From the “positioning”, the project itself to the localization, all three were heavily rejected: could this be the start of a “Not-In-My-Backyard” movement, with Macanese characteristics?

Published in Macau Daily Times, September 27th 2013

KAPOK: Democratic Access Denied

Consultations, like the one on political reform that just concluded its second phase on April 23rd, constitute great tools for governments and even greater opportunities for fruitful and vibrant state-society relations. They allow for people to directly voice their opinions and for “opinion shapers” (political parties, associations, newspaper editors, academics, etc.) to articulate their standpoints. They provide the government with a clearer picture of what the society might be vying for, and both majority views as well as minority options are being heard. They also give a chance to mutual understanding and innovative solutions to emerge, thus allowing for truth to drive out falsity and for entrenched assumptions to be dissipated — remember John Stuart Mill and the argument he made in his classic ‘On Liberty’ (1859) in favor of freedom of speech. Ultimately, consultations reinforce the legitimacy of a government by allowing democratic debate to flourish and for accountability to be pushed to the fore.