Kapok: Would be welfare state

For quite some time now there has been a staggering contrast between the capacity of Macao to generate an extraordinary amount of wealth and its inability to make good of that newly acquired affluence. The recurring symptom of that abysmal gap between riches and expenses has been felt by many in their day-to-day life: expectations regarding public services, whether directly operated by state agencies or conceded to private entities, and the promises of a “better quality of life” are increasingly and consistently frustrated. The execution of the 2012 government budget that is now under discussion in the second commission of the Legislative Assembly tells us that public accounts have managed to produce a surplus of a mind-blowing MOP90.9 billion! Should we really rejoice? 
If we look back at the 14 years passed since the handover, there has been no single year of public deficit. Surpluses have therefore been the rule, but starting in 2007 these excesses transformed into “mega surpluses”: that year alone, the public account surplus tripled compared to the previous year, reaching MOP30 billion, and government spending only reached 43% of government revenues. Five years later, in 2012, the surplus has again tripled and the government now spends only 37% of its revenues. 
By just adding up yearly surpluses, I came to realize that accumulated excesses since 2000 amounted to an astounding MOP343 billion, that means close to our 2012 GDP of MOP348 billion or more than six years of government expenditure at current level! As far as the report on the execution of the budget is concerned, financial reserves are indicated as being “only” in the amount of MOP100 billion (less than 30% of GDP and a bit less than two years government expenditures) at the end of 2012. 
If only part of the yearly surplus goes to the reserve (80% in 2012) and another part feeds the foreign exchange reserves (a total of MOP132 billion in 2012), one can then wonder why overall stocks are so low and whether the very lean profitability of such reserves really makes sense. Moreover, if financial reserves as a percentage of GDP appear to be well on par with Hong Kong, whereas Macao is supposed to have grown richer in relative terms, actual public spending is still lagging behind our neighboring SAR, where public expenditures now reach 20% of GDP against only 15.5% in Macao.
In the Index of Economic Freedom published yearly by the Heritage Foundation, an American conservative think-tank extremely free-market oriented, Hong Kong tops the list as the freest economy on the planet, followed by Singapore. Although I have strong reservations about the actual economic freedom of Hong Kong proper given that it is the one part in Asia that has made the word “tycoon” a household expression and brought to ultimate sophistication the oligopolistic nature of capitalism, it is nevertheless interesting to note that when it comes to macro-economic data, government expenditures as a percentage of GDP in Hong Kong and Singapore run higher than the tax burden as a percentage of GDP, whereas Macao, that ranks an honorable 26 in this index, clearly posts an inverted ratio: taxes as a percentage of GDP run at 34% in 2012, more than double the percentage of expenditures. 
If government expenditures are good for territories like Hong Kong and Singapore, why would not it be so for Macao? 
Furthermore, that inverted ratio between expenditures and taxation put Macao in a group of only four places in the world where such an imbalance exists, the three other places being Timor-Leste (166 in the ranking of 177 countries), Turkmenistan (169) and Eritrea (173), three countries characterized by widespread corruption, weak rule of law and crippled economic activity. Is that really fair to Macao? There is thus no doubt that the Macao government should spend more, but how and for what purposes should of course be opened to debate.

Published in Macau Daily Times, November 8 2013

Kapok: Pluto-mediocracy

It was indeed a small piece of news: a local tycoon’s construction company being granted a renovation work contract for a government building without having to go through a public tender. This is not illegal: the laws that apply make room for exceptions to “public tendering,” and in this case the justification given for the MOP27 million contract was that “security issues” were involved, as the renovation work would take place next to the government headquarters, thus requiring “special and confidential” treatment. Yet I could not help reminding myself what Au Kam San, a democrat legislator, once had said: “exceptions have become the rule in Macao,” giving evidence that out of a few hundred construction and renovation projects that should have gone through public tendering, only a handful had actually complied. In that particular case, the company involved, Man Kan Ltd., had already been granted at least four such contracts by the government, as reported by Hoje Macau, and “all the renovation works for government buildings since the handover” if we trust José Pereira Coutinho, another vocal and independent legislator. Moreover, Man Kan Ltd. is not run by any mini-tycoon… its chairman of the board is none other than Fong Chi Keong, who happens to be also the president of the Association of Building Contractors and Developers, the vice-president of the Macao Chamber of Commerce, the chairperson of the Kiang Wu Charitable Association (founded in 1871) that runs the Kiang Wu Hospital, the chairman of the Macao Daily Readers’ Charity Fund that is behind the charity “Walk for a Million”… and also a legislator, sitting as one of the four indirectly-elected legislators representing the business interests in Macao.
Mr Fong is a well-known figure, and he claims ancestry in the territory over some 200 years, and thus has formed connections that cut across the hold of the four main families (the two Ho, Ma and Chui). A round face adorned with a crew cut and a sharp gaze behind large metal-framed spectacles, he is also known for his coarse language, so much so that a Youtube channel called the “Cannon Channel” 大砲頻道 is dedicated to his many blunders and less than subtle passing judgments. Many times over he has felt threatened by youth, questioning the sanity of young “agent provocateurs” manipulated by old democrats or characterizing young people daring to voice out their frustrations as “losers”. Of course all this is compensated by lavish charity spending in several youth-oriented ventures, as Mr Fong has allegedly given away a hundred million yuan to the Nanhai district for educational purposes—all the more commendable for a man who barely finished high school. For sure Mr Fong does not really approve of the concept of accountability, and he often reacts very buoyantly albeit senselessly when his stewardship is being questioned, whether it concerns the final destination of the money raised by the “Walk for a Million”, the discrepancy in salary raises at Kiang Wu Hospital or even his excessive absenteeism in the legislature… Only his Man Kan Ltd. dealings manage to keep him quiet!
A mere “edit (slightly) and paste” of what was once noted by the great German sociologist Max Weber perfectly applies to Mr Fong: “There are two ways of making politics one’s vocation: Either one lives ‘for’ politics or one lives ‘off’ politics”. In fact, the two often come together: one who lives for a cause also lives off that cause. The problem arises when one exclusively lives “off” politics!

Published in Macau Daily Times, May 24th 2013

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.

Kapok: Meaningfulness

Here we go – September 15 is the date for the next legislative elections. As reported by newspapers, the campaign has already started. Legislators are becoming extremely visible and outspoken, asking for all sorts of ever-more-pressing laws to be pushed through before the end of the legislative term and complaining about the slow and/or inadequate responses by the government regarding their queries and objections. Even those who are not directly elected and who did not face any competition last time around (in 2009 there was only one list of candidates, who filled the exact number of seats in each of the four functional constituencies, hence my being reluctant to call that an election for the so-called “indirectly elected” legislators) have been vocal about their commitment to the job, positioning themselves as champions of the have-nots and defenders of the spoiled majority. One of them, a seasoned pro-government businessman, even expressed bold critiques of a real-estate developer for being too eager to brandish the Basic Law and the protection of private property to defend his right to disfigure our “green lung” and vandalize our heritage in Seac Pai Van. It is quite a balancing act to secure the rights enshrined in the mini-constitution and yet make sure these rights are consistent with the original intent of protecting the community.
Concerned citizens have been on the move too. In the very same week, two associations, the Tri-Decade Action and Macau Conscience, have respectively petitioned the Commission Against Corruption (CCAC) and the newly formed Legislative Elections Affairs Commission to ask for “cleaner” elections. They have vehemently requested these reputable institutions come up with clearer guidelines as to what constitutes vote buying, and more generally speaking electoral malpractices, and of course toughen their act pertaining to these debilitating diseases of our underdeveloped democracy. This is of course of extreme importance, and yet I have serious doubts that this will be conducive to any significant change. First of all, because the CCAC was allegedly given the power to investigate vote-buying starting with the 2001 elections precisely because the 1996 had translated into, according to the official statement, “[a] huge public concern surrounding rumors of bribery and misconduct.” By any account, the 1996 elections, with the handover in perspective, were by far the most dubious to occur in our territory. Some, far too easily, put the blame on the outgoing Portuguese colonial administration. Certainly, fighting electoral corruption might not have had top priority back in 1996, but if one looks at the composition of the legislature that was then sworn in, one might be surprised to discover that some of the legislators exposed at the time are still legislators today — directly or by proxy — and for those who are not anymore, still constitute what we could describe as the highly respectable establishment of our community. There was continuity, after somewhat of an improvement for the 2001 and 2005 elections, when corruption kicked back very hard in 2009, despite the fact that the Electoral Affairs Commission had made the fight against such inadmissible practices its top priority. At the time, that led me to characterize the commission as “the biggest loser of the elections”. Today, one can see giant posters of elected members of the Assembly already in full campaign gear pinned on the façade of our central districts, despite the fact that it is illegal according to the electoral law. What is the Electoral Affairs Commission doing about it?
Once more, what would really help eradicate corruption is to be found in “meaning”: if elections were truly competitive and gave the chance for political platforms to contend, and if the legislature really mattered and was a tangible check on the executive branch, then the voters, the citizens, might be tempted to make their vote count. But then, if there is no meaning, why not take the cash, enjoy the dinner, go to a concert or benefit from a bit of extra money when Chinese New Year comes?