Of course it was meant to be all praise for the Chief Executive-elect, Ho Iat Seng, as he was being anointed by the central authorities this week. After receiving his decree of appointment from the very hands of Premier Li, Mr Ho was hosted by President Xi Jinping to give his trip to Beijing the gravitas a “successful practice of ‘one country, two systems’ with Macao characteristics” commends.
In Macao, people are ‘united’, “one country, two systems” is fully ‘understood’, the Basic Law is ‘upheld’, the love for the country has been ‘passed on’, and the livelihood of the people, social harmony and stability have ‘improved’ for good. This really reads like a reverse image of Hong Kong, that now stands deeply divided, doubtful about the motherland, its intentions and the reality of its “high degree of autonomy,” and where gross inequalities have created an overwhelming sense of social distress, especially among young people.
Of course, one could challenge the rosy picture painted by Mr Xi. Macao stands only second to Qatar as the richest place in the world for GDP per capita, but the median salary is stuck at MOP16,000 per month. And then the government still derives more than 80 per cent of its revenues from gambling: what happened to the promise of economic diversification? When it comes to infrastructure, the quality and diversity are simply appalling for such a “rich” place, and this is true for healthcare, transportation and even education.
Politics is simply oligopolistic: the same three families have been dominating political life ever since they kicked-out the Kuomintang’s influence in the 1960s. Election mechanisms are so biased that they forbid any hint of competition. Business interests ban all notions of “social progress” — they do charity, at best — and traditional pro-establishment associations keep the society in check thanks to the lavish endowment provided by the losses of mainlanders on Blackjacks tables. And not everybody is happy about corruption at the highest echelon — think Prosecutor General Ho Chio Meng — or the sheer incompetence of the administration — think 20,000 Macao people demonstrating in May 2014 and forcing the Chief executive to ‘withdraw’ the so-called Perks’ bill.
Beyond the irony, one should worry slightly when President Xi tells Mr Ho: “Your nomination and election with overwhelming support fully show that you have won broad endorsement in Macao.” Endorsement of who? Even with 98% of the votes in a non-competitive process, that leaves Mr Ho with a meagre 392 staunch supporters. Is it irony? Could there be a threat: we are giving you full support, so you’d better not disappoint us?
And then when Mr Xi adds that in Macao, “‘One country, two systems’ has proven to be a workable solution welcomed by the people,” what does it mean? It is for now being irremediably questioned in Hong Kong and rejected with despise by Taiwan, so it most probably says something about Macao and the way the territory accommodates anything and anyone rather than prove anything about the soundness of this unique dual-sovereignty arrangement.
There is no doubt that some Macao people will always be there to serve, especially when this serves their own interests. Such is the case of Pansy Ho who was chosen, along with Annie Wu from the Maxim group, to attend the latest session of the UN Human Rights Council and take a stand “to offer a fact-based perspective of many Hong Kongers on what is really happening in Hong Kong.” She was there as the Chairlady of the Hong Kong Federation of Women, a NGO with consultative status with the UN; she was there as a “regular person,” and because she herself “feels repressed and lives in fear.” She was not there as a billionaire. She was not there as a Macao casino mogul whose gaming license is up for renewal in 2022. And she was not there as the very unhappy businesswoman whose Turbojet’s results have dwindled by 32 per cent in the latest interim report of Shun Tak.
If anything happens in Macao, it will stay in the family: the Chairlady of the Macao Women General Association is none other than Ho Teng Iat, the sister of the new Chief Executive!
Published in Macau Daily Times on September 13, 2019
Showing posts with label one country two systems. Show all posts
Showing posts with label one country two systems. Show all posts
Friday, September 13, 2019
Friday, July 21, 2017
Kapok: The variable geometry of the "one country"
The fact that Macao immigration has been barring some Hong Kong residents from entering the territory of the Macao SAR is widely acknowledged and documented. It is neither a daily occurrence, nor an open secret, but the very fact that it has become duly admitted and vindicated by the Macao authorities, including Secretary for Security Wong Sio Chak, testifies to a worrying trend in which a discretionary power has transformed into an accepted norm and a routine practice.
Suffice it to say that it is “in accordance with the law” for the audience to accept it matter-of-factly as if for a high official to invoke the law and the compliance with that law were good enough to ease all doubts and worries. This is exactly what happened with the rejection of Hong Kong legislator Kwok Ka Ki on July 15th on the grounds that he was a “threat to stability” (威脅穩定). As Mr Kwok is strongly contesting the decision, Secretary Wong has been mildly challenged by (too few) local media and has been arguing that this kind of decision was indeed absolutely in line with existing laws regarding the security of the territory — which ones, no one really knows — and that it was not unique to the SAR but that many other jurisdictions — he reportedly quoted the examples of Portugal and the European Union — have similar legal provisions.
Mr Kwok was well aware that such a practice existed in Macao — and even the other way round as the recent Scott Chiang case proves — and he is now arguing that he never participated in any politically-related activity in the second SAR, merely visiting for holidays as this was the case that day when he was supposed to celebrate his 30th wedding anniversary together with his wife. He has now lodged a complaint with Hong Kong Chief Executive Carrie Lam and has sent a similar letter to the Macao Chief Executive, Fernando Chui, asking for the justification for his entry refusal.
There was a time when such rebuttals would create a stir. That was especially true in March 2009 when then-Dean of Law from the University of Hong Kong Johannes Chan was prevented from entering Macao over the same motives. This caused an embarrassment for both the Macao government and the inviting party, the University of Macao, as Professor Chan was supposed to be in the SAR for just a few hours to deliver a short lecture on the right to a fair trial — a purely academic endeavour. But that was a few days after the passage of the Article 23 national security law in our SAR, and yet it led not only to a public outcry — including, quite ironically, a vibrant declaration by former Hong Kong Secretary for Security Regina Ip that this was “tightening the freedom” of Hong Kong residents — but also to an informal discussion in Beijing between then-Hong Kong Chief Executive Donald Tsang and his Macao counterpart, Edmund Ho. Only Stanley Ho at the time had the bad taste of justifying the unjustifiable in coarse language.
What is truly problematic is that these “stability concerns” appear to be much more politically motivated than security-prompted, then and now. In that respect, the practice reminds us of the disgraceful 1952 McCarran-Walter Act that allowed for many Nobel Prizes to be barred from entering the United States based on individual beliefs only — an act that was repealed in 1990 with the revision of the American immigration law. Are ideas and beliefs being treated the same as the likelihood of committing acts of espionage, sabotage or other dangerous unlawful activities in Macao?
And then a few other questions remain. Is the nature of the relationship between Hong Kong and Macao the same as one between two autonomous nation-states? How come residents from the same country but coming from separate entities can be considered as “foreign”? And if this is a marker of the “high degree of autonomy”, why is it so different when it comes to other political and institutional matters?
Published in Macau Daily Times on July 21, 2017
Suffice it to say that it is “in accordance with the law” for the audience to accept it matter-of-factly as if for a high official to invoke the law and the compliance with that law were good enough to ease all doubts and worries. This is exactly what happened with the rejection of Hong Kong legislator Kwok Ka Ki on July 15th on the grounds that he was a “threat to stability” (威脅穩定). As Mr Kwok is strongly contesting the decision, Secretary Wong has been mildly challenged by (too few) local media and has been arguing that this kind of decision was indeed absolutely in line with existing laws regarding the security of the territory — which ones, no one really knows — and that it was not unique to the SAR but that many other jurisdictions — he reportedly quoted the examples of Portugal and the European Union — have similar legal provisions.
Mr Kwok was well aware that such a practice existed in Macao — and even the other way round as the recent Scott Chiang case proves — and he is now arguing that he never participated in any politically-related activity in the second SAR, merely visiting for holidays as this was the case that day when he was supposed to celebrate his 30th wedding anniversary together with his wife. He has now lodged a complaint with Hong Kong Chief Executive Carrie Lam and has sent a similar letter to the Macao Chief Executive, Fernando Chui, asking for the justification for his entry refusal.
There was a time when such rebuttals would create a stir. That was especially true in March 2009 when then-Dean of Law from the University of Hong Kong Johannes Chan was prevented from entering Macao over the same motives. This caused an embarrassment for both the Macao government and the inviting party, the University of Macao, as Professor Chan was supposed to be in the SAR for just a few hours to deliver a short lecture on the right to a fair trial — a purely academic endeavour. But that was a few days after the passage of the Article 23 national security law in our SAR, and yet it led not only to a public outcry — including, quite ironically, a vibrant declaration by former Hong Kong Secretary for Security Regina Ip that this was “tightening the freedom” of Hong Kong residents — but also to an informal discussion in Beijing between then-Hong Kong Chief Executive Donald Tsang and his Macao counterpart, Edmund Ho. Only Stanley Ho at the time had the bad taste of justifying the unjustifiable in coarse language.
What is truly problematic is that these “stability concerns” appear to be much more politically motivated than security-prompted, then and now. In that respect, the practice reminds us of the disgraceful 1952 McCarran-Walter Act that allowed for many Nobel Prizes to be barred from entering the United States based on individual beliefs only — an act that was repealed in 1990 with the revision of the American immigration law. Are ideas and beliefs being treated the same as the likelihood of committing acts of espionage, sabotage or other dangerous unlawful activities in Macao?
And then a few other questions remain. Is the nature of the relationship between Hong Kong and Macao the same as one between two autonomous nation-states? How come residents from the same country but coming from separate entities can be considered as “foreign”? And if this is a marker of the “high degree of autonomy”, why is it so different when it comes to other political and institutional matters?
Published in Macau Daily Times on July 21, 2017
Friday, March 11, 2016
Kapok: the malediction of the second term
To paraphrase Scott Chiang, the president of the New Macau Association (NMA), talking to the press after the rather suspicious circumstances of the “suicide by asphyxiation” of the head of customs, Mandy Lai Man Wa, in late October last year: “you would be hard-pressed to find anyone in Macao who actually believes in the version of the government”. Except this time, it has nothing to do with Mrs Lai, but the less dramatic and yet possibly equally traumatizing arrest on February 27 of former prosecutor-general Ho Chio Meng on charges of fraud, abuse of power and document forgery.
The authentic feeling of disbelief is not really that the man who was the executive’s embodiment of the law for fifteen years could be corrupt and had abused his power to skim some 2,000 public contracts with the complicity of some of his staff and indelicate profit-prone local businessmen – only buffoons on TV get excited by the numbers. But rather that the government would be so intent on stressing that Mr Ho’s misdemeanor was unconnected with his expedition of justice, and thus the fulfillment of his duties was untainted.
The issues connected to procurement in Macao, that Sonia Chan, the secretary for administration and justice, is willing to tackle and legally resolve “within a year” – this yearly horizon being the new fad – should easily gather consensus, although independent legislator José Pereira Coutinho, who also heads the biggest would-be civil service union, ATFPM, already pointed out that the discretionary awarding of public contracts from the top was the norm rather than the exception in Macao; thus the Ho “case” was “just the tip of the iceberg”. This is another way of saying that the fish rots from the head down…
At the very distant end of the political spectrum, there seems to be another consensus that “there is more to it”. Jorge Neto Valente, the rather pro-establishment president of the Macao Lawyers Association, could not help emphasizing that the whole affair was casting doubts on the entire judicial system, especially because there had been persistent rumors of “influence peddling” – about whom to prosecute and when – within the public ministry when Ho was in charge. For Mr Valente, the corruption charges regarding procurement almost seem secondary. Then, far away from Mr Valente – politically speaking of course! – Scott Chiang and Jason Chao, the vice-president of NMA, voiced their skepticism that Ho’s judicial responsibilities had been entirely shaded from his alleged misconduct for personal enrichment. Their question is simple: why break the law for a poorly remunerated paint job when you can break it for high return power meddling? He that will steal a pin will break a pound…
This “controversy” is now gathering additional momentum. Prominent lawyers and even a legal advisor of the Legislative Assembly started looking at the affair from a broader perspective. If we leave aside infatuated comments of one lawyer annoyed at a system that now prevents the boundless hiring of cheap and competent labor from Portugal for law firms, most of the remarks that were made (and hopefully will continue to be) deserve our whole attention. First of all because they concern the rule of law in Macao and the upholding of a “second system” that rests on clearly defined norms, due respect for processes and infused consideration for both the letter and the spirit of the law and the protection of individual rights. Second because they raise a core question related to the “independence” of our justice: the very fact that again Mr Ho will be denied his right to appeal – just like the case of Ao Man Long – is more than problematic: it is in contradiction with the Basic Law.
Lack of resolve in tackling this issue will be a litmus test of what is to become of the “one country, two systems” formula in Macao. Let it not become a malediction of the second term of the Chief Executive.
Published in Macau Daily Times, March 11 2016
The authentic feeling of disbelief is not really that the man who was the executive’s embodiment of the law for fifteen years could be corrupt and had abused his power to skim some 2,000 public contracts with the complicity of some of his staff and indelicate profit-prone local businessmen – only buffoons on TV get excited by the numbers. But rather that the government would be so intent on stressing that Mr Ho’s misdemeanor was unconnected with his expedition of justice, and thus the fulfillment of his duties was untainted.
The issues connected to procurement in Macao, that Sonia Chan, the secretary for administration and justice, is willing to tackle and legally resolve “within a year” – this yearly horizon being the new fad – should easily gather consensus, although independent legislator José Pereira Coutinho, who also heads the biggest would-be civil service union, ATFPM, already pointed out that the discretionary awarding of public contracts from the top was the norm rather than the exception in Macao; thus the Ho “case” was “just the tip of the iceberg”. This is another way of saying that the fish rots from the head down…
At the very distant end of the political spectrum, there seems to be another consensus that “there is more to it”. Jorge Neto Valente, the rather pro-establishment president of the Macao Lawyers Association, could not help emphasizing that the whole affair was casting doubts on the entire judicial system, especially because there had been persistent rumors of “influence peddling” – about whom to prosecute and when – within the public ministry when Ho was in charge. For Mr Valente, the corruption charges regarding procurement almost seem secondary. Then, far away from Mr Valente – politically speaking of course! – Scott Chiang and Jason Chao, the vice-president of NMA, voiced their skepticism that Ho’s judicial responsibilities had been entirely shaded from his alleged misconduct for personal enrichment. Their question is simple: why break the law for a poorly remunerated paint job when you can break it for high return power meddling? He that will steal a pin will break a pound…
This “controversy” is now gathering additional momentum. Prominent lawyers and even a legal advisor of the Legislative Assembly started looking at the affair from a broader perspective. If we leave aside infatuated comments of one lawyer annoyed at a system that now prevents the boundless hiring of cheap and competent labor from Portugal for law firms, most of the remarks that were made (and hopefully will continue to be) deserve our whole attention. First of all because they concern the rule of law in Macao and the upholding of a “second system” that rests on clearly defined norms, due respect for processes and infused consideration for both the letter and the spirit of the law and the protection of individual rights. Second because they raise a core question related to the “independence” of our justice: the very fact that again Mr Ho will be denied his right to appeal – just like the case of Ao Man Long – is more than problematic: it is in contradiction with the Basic Law.
Lack of resolve in tackling this issue will be a litmus test of what is to become of the “one country, two systems” formula in Macao. Let it not become a malediction of the second term of the Chief Executive.
Published in Macau Daily Times, March 11 2016
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)