Kapok: For the people?

The contrast could not be more striking: while in Hong Kong two million residents were taking to the streets to express their dissatisfaction at Chief Executive Carry Lam, in Macao, slightly more than 5,000 happy few were taking part in an exercise of total perversion of democracy by choosing the electoral college that will select the next Macao Chief Executive on August 25.

On one side of the delta, a quarter of the population of the former British colony was marching and telling Mrs Lam that she had failed them and that the suspension of a much-derided extradition bill was too little and too late. Beyond the five precise demands — total withdrawal, retraction of the “riot” characterization, independent enquiry, charges being dropped and resignation of the CE — lies the idea of accountability, that one has to shoulder responsibility for his or her acts and that ultimately, if government could not be by and of the people, it had to be at least for the people.

On the other side of the delta, it was business as usual and the mockery of competition — 350 candidates for 344 positions — acted as a striking illustration of the political deadlock Macao has had to endure for the past twenty years. Same faces, or almost; same associations, or almost; same self-congratulations, always. All this for what? For Mr Ho Iat Seng to confirm the next day something everybody had already known for the past two years: that he would be the next CE. Only a handful of protesters led by legislator Sulu Sou, soon rounded up by policemen filming them from multiple angles at close range, dared disrupt the velvety process, denouncing the “small circle election” and the disenfranchisement of the vast majority.

On the next day, the cover page of the main Chinese daily in Macao, the Macao Daily News, was splashed with multiple photos of the successful voting exercise held the day before. The biggest ever peaceful demonstration in Hong Kong had no place on that first page. On June 10, only the “attack” on the LegCo had been reported on the cover of the same newspapers after one million people had taken to the streets the previous day. And on June 13, the full cover was dedicated to tear gas pictures and clashes between youngsters dressed in black and police in full battle gear, with a huge title splattered in the middle indicating that the “riot” (baoluan) had caused 72 people to be injured! Clearly, only a twisted, unfavorable and partial outlook gets reported.

What about these elections then? Why would they deserve the full cover the next day?

The 5,001 voters who turned out to the booths on June 17 actually represent very limited interests. Behind these voters, there are only 633 legal persons — associations — registered and authorized to vote. Each of these associations is entitled to a maximum of 22 votes, all of these votes entrusted in the members of the board of directors or managing bodies — regular members are excluded.

It is no secret that these associations vote as “blocks” and that voting instructions are discussed beforehand so as to make sure important figures of the community get the highest scores. Chui Sai Cheong, the brother of the present CE, made it first in the “professional” college, with 77% of the votes. He is also a member of the board in several dozens associations in Macao, even though not all of them are in the professional sector. Instructions are also made to exclude the very few who dare challenge the status quo, as Mrs Rita Santos just experienced in the “labor” college together with three others.

It is moreover clear that not all associations of a given sector are registered. If one simply looks at the “education” college, it is only made of 20 associations that select a total of 29 members of the Electoral Committee. And out of these 20, none of them has a connexion with catholicism, whereas there are 27 registered Catholic schools in Macao comprising about 37% of the non-tertiary educational service delivery in Macao!

Some are prevented from getting into the fray, others just renounced beforehand.

Kapok: 22 out of the dirty 400

For a reason that escapes any logic primarily concerned with fairness, only 22 members of the Legislative Assembly will participate in the Election Committee responsible for the designation of the Chief Executive (CE) this year. It is at the very least an aberration. After all, in Hong Kong, all members of the LegCo — the 70 of them — participate in the Committee, so why not in Macao?

Are arithmetic and proportionality to be blamed? The Election Committee in Hong Kong is made up today of 1,200 members against 400 only in Macao. But then, why would “all” members representing the SAR at the National People’s Congress be included instead of a selected few: the whole lot, that is 12 of them, are entitled to participate, just like in Hong Kong — 36 altogether in the latter case. Does it mean that NPC members are more legitimate to elect the CE than members of the local legislature? Does it comply with the rationale of the “one country-two systems” formula?

What about the members of the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference? Almost half of the delegates — 14 out of 29 in total, that is 48.3% — representing the Macao SAR in this toothless consultative body will participate in the Committee, proportionally more than in Hong Kong where the electoral law indicates 51 members out of a total of 124 (41.1%). Why would they be more “entitled” in Macao than in Hong Kong? And how does it reflect on the very idea of a “high degree of autonomy”?

The anomaly of the situation becomes even more obvious if one starts to look into Annex I of the Macao Basic Law, in which we are being told that “principles of democracy and openness” should prevail over the designation of the members of the Election Committee. How is it even possible to exclude the very few members of the community returned via universal suffrage in really competitive elections?

The Electoral Law for the Chief Executive only makes a passing reference to the way legislators should be designated to the Election Committee: an “internal vote” has to be organized (art. 14), but just like in the case of legislative elections for functional constituencies, an actual vote becomes optional if the number of candidates matches the number of seats.

At the very least, one could imagine that all legislators directly elected via universal suffrage — 14 out of 33 — should make the cut. However, only ten will participate. Three democrats — Au Kam Sam, Ng Kuok Cheong and Sulu Sou Ka Hou — abstained from even running for political reasons: they denounce what they have been calling for years the tragic embodiment of “small circle” elections — the “happy few” co-opting a single candidate — and advocate for really “democratic and open” elections in which the whole citizenry would be called to the voting booths.

But then, why is Si Ka Lon, a directly elected legislator and Mr Chan Meng Kam’s henchman, absent from the list of the 22? What does it say about his standing? Could it be a political statement? A deal for another to take his spot? Not quite: contrary to 2014, Mr Si Ka Lon is now entitled to a seat in the Election Committee because he is concurrently one of the twelve designated delegates representing Macao at the NPC! And talking about shrinking small circles, the same goes for Ho Iat Seng, Chui Sai Peng and Kou Hoi In, all NPC delegates as well.

Ultimately, indecency is really championed by the appointed members of the Legislative Assembly: the very people appointed by the CE will get to elect the CE by representing the one and only institution with a democratic component! True, they were appointed by Chui and will get to vote for Ho, but again, beyond a mere farce, what message does it convey? And will Wu Chou Kit and Fong Ka Chio (the only two appointed lawmakers left aside) prove better? Not exactly, as Mr Wu and Fong will most probably be among the 43 members representing the “professional sector” on the Committee. Clearly, the circle is tightening, almost to the size and shape of a single dot.

Published in Macau Daily Times on April 12, 2019

Kapok: What has been will be again

Not everything is about arithmetic, far from it, as Macao’s Chief Executive election clearly shows.

If numbers were all that matters, elections in Macao would seem fairer than in Hong Kong: in the case of our SAR, the CE is elected by an electoral college of 400 electors, that is to say there is one elector for every 776 registered voters (total of 310,400 registered voters at the end of 2018), whereas there is only 1 for 3,178 in Hong Kong (1,200-member strong electoral college for the CE election and 3,814,318 registered voters).

And then, even with only one candidate in Macao against three candidates in 2017 in Hong Kong, our SAR gets the upper-hand, even though the margin is less striking—basically twofold against the Fragrant Harbour. Macao has a non-competitive selection process with a single candidate and still, somehow, the ratio of electors to voters is in Macao’s favour.

In a recent piece, I made the assumption that there would be close to no change in the composition of the electoral college that is going to elect our next Chief Executive.

First, I have to admit to a slight mistake as the structure of the college will accommodate two newcomers, in terms of functions: representatives of the newly revamped Municipal Affairs Bureau will replace two Macao delegates to the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference (CPPCC).

And then, there should be new faces among the Macao delegates to both the National People’s Congress (NPC) and the CPPCC as both assemblies were “elected” in 2017/2018.

On the side of the NPC, we have 12 Macao representatives, but only four are actually new: Dominic Sio Chi Wai, Ng Sio Lai, Lai Sai Kei and Si Ka Lon. But these people can hardly be characterized as unfamiliar: Sio is a businessman, close associate of the present CE and a former legislator; Ng is the president of the Macau General Union of Neighbourhood Associations (Kai Fong); Lai is a vice-chairman of the Macau Chinese Educators Association; and Si is a Fujian-community leader, close associate of Mr Chan Meng Kam and currently a two-term legislator. And then, the four of them participated in the election of Chui Sai On back in 2014: Sio and Si as legislators, Lai in the education constituency and Ng in the social services constituency. Zero changes after all.

Now, looking at the CPPCC delegates, things get a bit tricky. For sure, Ng Lap Seng who got four years in a US jail for bribing UN officials and Or Wai Shuen, the chairman of Polytec Asset Holdings Limited involved in a trial over a land plot dispute with the Macao government will not be present as they have not been re-appointed to the august assembly. But out of 29 delegates for Macao, 18 are new, including O Lam, the chief of cabinet of the Chief Executive; Cheong U, the former Secretary for Social Affairs and Culture; Vong Hin Fai and Chan Hong, both sitting legislators non-competitively elected in functional constituencies; Wu Zhiliang, the president of the Macao Foundation; Leong Lai, the director of Education and Youth Affairs Bureau and; Ho Ion Sang, a directly elected legislator. A few might actually make the cut to the electoral committee (possibly 4 or 5 among 14 out of 29 in total) even though they were not among the happy few in 2014. But again, none of these people are really novel, to say the least.

The functional constituencies, returning some 350 electors to the election committee, are another game altogether that deserves more detailed scrutiny—to be continued!—especially because some of these electors extend their reach across the Delta. If Pansy Ho, the chairlady of Shun Tak Holding, elects the Macao CE, her sister, Daisy Ho, the chairlady of SJM Holding Limited, elects the Hong Kong one. But nobody can beat Francis Lui Yiu-tung, the deputy chairman of Galaxy Entertainment Group, who himself elects both the CE in Hong Kong (as a delegate to the CPPCC) and the CE of Macao (as one of the 120 electors representing business and industry). Showing the way for further integration? 

Published in Macau Daily Times on March 1, 2019

Kapok: There can be only one

Elections are in the air — it has become palpable.

Just a few days ago, Judge Song Man Lei was for the second time appointed as the president of the electoral affairs committee for the election of the Chief Executive (CE). She is joined by Victor Chi Ping Chan, the Director of the Macau SAR Government Information Bureau and the government spokesperson, who is himself sitting for the fourth time on the committee. Gone is José Chu, the former director of the Administration and Public Administration Services who retired in 2014, but in is his successor Kou Peng Kuan as well as Assistant Prosecutor-General of the Public Prosecution Office Chan Tsz King and Court of Second Instance Judge Tong Hio Fong.

Elections are about law, due administrative processes, order and timely communication in Macao, and clearly about continuity as well.

During the taking of her oath, judge Song Man Lei pledged that the election of the CE would be “open, fair and honest,” and refused to make any assumption regarding a candidate in particular. Even though the exact date of the election is not yet decided, we now know that the 400-member strong electoral college that will ultimately select the new CE will itself be “elected” — for 344 of them — on June 16.

Votes are cast, but in effect the end result is highly predictable as this college is made of seven very stable functional constituencies representatives to which are added six religious figures (whose stability depends on unearthly powers), 22 of our legislators (not all of them, why would that be?), the 12 representatives of Macao to the National People’s Congress and the 16 representatives of the SAR to the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference.

A quick check at the college members back in 2009 and 2014 indicates pretty identical lists of people — I would say at least 80% alike. Then, the college is vastly dominated by businessmen, and not only in the first constituency made of 120 heavyweights from the industrial, commercial and financial sector. Obviously, people whose idea of competition is quite narrowly defined too: in this first constituency, everybody was elected in 2014 with support varying between 74.11% and 89.55% of the mere 689 valid votes.

And then, ultimately, who will they (s)elect?

In 2004, 2009 and 2014, there was only one contestant for the position — quite a heavy machinery for a non-competitive election with a process extending over more than six months! Why would the 2019 edition be any different?

Yet, the talk of the town is again of two candidates. In a recent article discussing the latest decline in casino revenues, an international news agency noted that “the two likely contenders are Ho Iat Seng, president of Macao’s Legislative Assembly, and Lionel Leong, the secretary for economy and finance, which oversees the gaming industry.” Why two and not three or four, coming from security or culture?

Scarcity might have to do with the risk of being a contender: the former Secretary for Transport and Public Works — in jail for 29 years on corruption charges — was once dubbed “Mr 10%” for the score he could potentially commend in such an election. And then the most serious challenger to the sitting CE back in 2009 was Prosecutor General Ho Chio Meng — once viewed as Mr Clean — who was later convicted of hundreds counts of diverse forms of corruption and traffic of influence and then thrown in prison for 21 years.

Now, Mr Ho has openly declared that he is “prudently considering” being a candidate. Mr Ho is from an old Macao family — his father started their business empire and his sister, Ho Teng Iat is also in politics. He is the president of the Legislative Assembly. He has been a member of the National People’s Congress since 1998 and is today the only one among the 12 representatives from Macao to the standing committee of that Congress. Moreover, Mr Ho is also one of the vice-presidents of the Macao Chinese Chamber of Commerce — the true king-maker institution of the SAR. So, let’s not kid ourselves: there can be only one.

Published in Macau Daily Times on February 15, 2019

Kapok: the more the merrier, really?

The very fact that 25 lists of candidates vying for the directly elected seats in the September 17 Legislative Assembly election have been recognised valid by the Electoral Commission should feel like a relief. After all, these ad hoc groupings are what make the legislative elections in Macao look a tad competitive, even though the 14 seats they are fighting for only represent a minority in the Assembly. Another 12 are elected by functional constituencies in which six lists will be running unopposed in five electoral colleges — two lists will take part in the selection process for the professional college, but this is merely to draw an artificial distinction between lawyers and medical doctors in Macao. The seven remaining legislators, thus making 33 altogether, are directly designated by the Chief Executive himself, supposedly for their professionalism and to preserve a harmonious relationship between the legislative and the executive branches of government. Given the recent fiasco surrounding the Land Law, one can seriously doubt the rationale, but then, we don’t hear much from these guys.

In absolute numbers, 25 lists is a lot: we had only 15 in 2001 — the first post-handover election — and then 18 in 2005, 16 in 2009 and 20 in 2013. And 25 might not be the definitive number. Programs have just started to be submitted to the Electoral Commission, and thanks to the new “loyalty pledge” (to the Special Administrative Region and the Basic Law) enclosed in article 30 of the amended electoral law, the Commission is actually endowed with the power to interpret whether these pledges have been done in good faith or not — in Hong Kong, six candidates were disqualified over such an issue in August 2016. Even though the pledges are individually signed, this could heavily cripple some of the lists, which in any case will become irrefutably admitted to enter the fray only on August 8, after all forms of judicial appeal have been exhausted. And when it comes to politics in Macao, law, even in our second system, often follows northern influences, especially when it suits small-circle local interests: back in August 2014, the civil referendum organized by Macau Conscience over the confidence (lack of thereof) people had in Mr Chui Sai On had been branded as outright “illegal” by the government as well by as sycophantic appointed legislators whose capacity to change opinion would make even a Donald blush.

Now, looking at the citizens: back in 2001, there were 160,000 registered voters, whereas we stand at 307,000 today. Only two years after the handover, one could get elected with 5,000 votes (Jorge Manuel Fão), whereas in 2013 the least-well-elected candidate (Leong Veng Chai) gathered some 6,565 suffrages. In effect and relative terms, things have thus stayed remarkably stable in the past 16 years despite the extension of the franchise: if the electorate has doubled, the number of seats submitted to universal suffrage has only grown by 40 percent, and if we anticipate that the minimum number of votes to win a seat might be a little higher this time around — let’s say 7,000 votes — then this threshold has equally only increased by 40 percent!

In the past few weeks, a lot of ink has been spent on departing legislators — depending on the language and affiliation, symbolic mourning has been quite vocal in the press regarding Leonel Alves and Chiang Chi Keong. Others might or will stay though: the Chan Chak Mo, the Fong Chi Keong and even the Kou Hoi In, a legislator since 1992. Now, even Chan Meng Kam, the so-called “king of the votes” of 2013, announced he would not run for this term: fear not, his replacement, not to say his duplicate, Kyan Su Lone, has been dutifully endorsed and groomed for months! And then, William Kuan and his chaozhou followers are joining hands with Angela Leong, so the “sunflowers” should finally get the second seat they have been desperately running after since 2005!

Let’s hope the Democrats finally resort to tactical voting: confronted with an unfair system and manipulative opponents, they owe it to their progressive electorate.

Published in Macau Daily Times, July 7, 2017

Kapok: Choice matters

Despite all the loathing at the pre-screening of candidates for the 2017 Chief Executive election in Hong Kong, having a somewhat contested selection process, with a few candidates vying for the top job, does make a difference and bring healthy civic benefits. And this, even though Beijing’s “preferred candidate”, Carrie Lam, qualified with 580 nominations (only 21 short of the majority she will need on March 26), against a mere 180 for Woo Kwok-hing and 165 for John Tsang.

This not to say that the reform package proposed by the Hong Kong government in 2014-2015 and derived from Beijing’s August 31, 2014 ruling on the limit imposed as to whom could run is not a travesty of universal suffrage: it is, from every angle and by any criteria, and it does ridicule the core idea of free choice made by the whole body of citizens.

Moreover, it makes the 2007 Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress ruling on universal suffrage by 2017 for the CE election look like a mockery, even more so after the successful so-called civil referendum of June 2014, with a turnout of close to 800,000 voters, that resulted in 42 percent of the participants backing up the proposal allowing the public, a nominating committee, and political parties to endorse candidates for the top position.

Hence, the frustration, that translated first in the truly unexpected period of occupation of Hong Kong landmarks for almost three months — the “Umbrella Movement” — in late 2014 and then the electoral victories of self-determination-leaning young democrats in the legislative elections of September 2016 as well as the record win of 326 seats by pan-democrats for the Election Committee sub-sector elections of last December.

If the pressure put on Beijing and the establishment has changed in nature, it is still very much present and pervasive, and the very fact that C.Y. Leung was not allowed to stand for a second mandate suggests that the central authorities are well aware of the present state of mind of society — an honorary united-front title hardly compensates.

One could argue that Long Hair’s failed attempt at gathering 38,000 popular nominations (1 percent of the eligible voters, in line with the winning motion of the 2014 civil referendum) for an alternative “shadow election” indicates a serious drop in pressure. Even the unofficial referendum on the chief executive election that ended on March 20 resulted in only 63,076 people participating, and yet the final result was pretty telling: 96.1 percent opposed Lam, and Tsang prevailed. The former financial secretary had started to show his predominance in the polls as early as January, and in the most recent rolling poll administered by Hong Kong University, his overwhelming superiority had grown in strength over the whole month of March, whereas Lam had suffered an equally steady decline.

Quite ironically, the discrepancy between the popularity of one — John Tsang — and the certainty of the victory of the other — Carrie Lam — is in itself proving more stimulating than disheartening. First, because despite the election being decided by so-called “small circles”, the campaign has been all about showing that each and everyone was in tune with the people’s concerns — hence the campaign posters in the MTR and the TV debates. Second, because if this is also working in Beijing’s interest by suggesting that the acceptance of the 2015 electoral reform package could have yielded a more congruent ultimate outcome (with universal suffrage, Tsang would probably win), it is also putting in crude light the exhaustion of the present system, to the point where even though issues get debated, alternative proposals barely look more than cosmetically contentious. The triumph of style over substance.

The campaign was indeed less audacious than in 2007, as well as less farcical and gripping than in 2012, but by giving debate a chance, accountability will be easier to assert. No wonder then that democrats in Macao would have accepted a Beijing-sponsored version of universal suffrage: the one candidate-one seat formula in our SAR is not only grotesque but also totally obsolete!

Published in Macau Daily Times, March 24, 2017