Kapok: Smoking gun

Is it me or are we being treated worse than headless chickens with tar-filled lungs? An opinion survey on to smoke or not to smoke in casinos conducted by the University of Macau and commissioned by the six casino licensees? An appended study on the law-compliant quality of the air surrounding “smoking lounges” performed by an offshoot of The Hong Kong Polytechnic University? To show what exactly? That “87% of employees working in gaming areas recognise the significant improvement of air quality in their work environment” and “60% of employees surveyed support solutions that allow smoking lounges”. And this is supposed to be convincing beyond reasonable doubt and pave the way for expensive and state-of-the-art ventilation systems? This is supposed to be the result of an “independent” enquiry when it bluntly contradicts the government-sponsored survey released in January 2015 that indicated that 74% of the population was in favour of a full ban?

A holy alliance

At the time, Secretary for Social Affairs, Alexis Tam did not mince his words: “The Macao government has made a decision and it’s unanimous: [we are calling for] the implementation of a full smoking ban in casinos. The government will not be harming citizens, casino employees and tourists’ health.” He made it clear that he would not bow to pressure because “even with ventilation systems, this could still trigger negative health effects.” One of the licensees with the oldest installations had failed repeatedly the health bureau tests regarding air-quality standards and another licensee had just been fined MOP100,000 for pushing a bit too far the cat and mouse game all of them had been playing with the new regulations.

Chan Chak Mo and Sio Chi Wai, the epitome of conflict of interests in the legislature 

Vulgar?

The two studies are far more independent than the KPMG report of 2015, also commissioned by the gaming operators, that was part of a robust and systematic campaign to twist arms in favour of what had been conceived as the “only” viable solution: the smoking lounges. Even pro-business legislators of the Legislative Assembly Second Committee in charge of examining the amended law had been “shocked” to find the report of KPMG — a global accountancy firm with a longstanding relationship with the tobacco industry — on their desk before even starting their work! But soon, these legislators started to play the “delay” game that had bought them 16 months before the initial passing of the Tobacco Prevention and Control Law in 2011. Introduced in July 2015, the revised version paving the way for a full ban is still under discussion, and the initial resolve is now gone in smoke, despite the secretary and even the Chief Executive boasting to the contrary.

Did not Margaret Thatcher once say "The lady's not for turning"?

In 2007, a World Health Organisation report concluded that “ventilation and smoking areas, whether separately ventilated from non-smoking areas or not, do not reduce exposure to a safe level of risk and are not recommended” and in another brochure, the WHO described how “the tobacco industry and its allies [would] challenge the science on the health effects of second-hand tobacco smoke exposure and propose that designated smoking areas and ventilation are acceptable alternatives.” It then stressed that the same ones would “claim that smoke-free laws are a violation of so-called ‘smokers rights’, or are simply not necessary, not feasible, not enforceable and will have a negative impact on business (particularly restaurants, bars and casinos). These claims are unproven and should not be factored into policy-making decisions.”

A constant disgrace

It is thus rather ironic to have Mr Ambrose So, Chairman of SJM, introducing the results of these surveys on behalf of the six gaming operators, given that it was mainly his casinos that had failed the tests in 2013-2014 and that he had suggested SJM facilities should be exempted from the smoking ban altogether. And although this was not stressed in the press release he introduced, 60% of those sampled are still in favour of a total ban if it was to be implemented: facts are stubborn!

By the way, for those whose brain has been fried by cigar fumes: tobacco smoke produces 10 times more fine particulate matter than diesel exhaust! And I am not even counting the chemicals…

Published in Macau Daily Times, February 24th, 2017

Kapok: The Fongchikeongisation of the minds

Honestly speaking, I never expected some of my friends – many of them educated – to fall victim to arguments that only the most cynical and unrefined individuals would dare to use. But here we are, the amended version of the law on the control and prevention of smoking that is paving the way for a long-overdue full ban in public places appears to be able to bring the worst out of even the best, and the very little confidence one might have in people’s rationality can easily go up in smoke!
The most obvious arguments as to why, as a community, we should embrace a full ban on smoking in public have been stated by many, including myself (MDT, May 15th) and these are grounded in independent scientific arguments, both regarding healthcare and the impact on the most exposed business operations, and take into account global trends, including the ones that have affected China in the recent past. The key words here are “independent” and “global”.
When directly elected legislator Zheng Anting, who is a prominent figure in the Macao Jiangmen Communal Society, the one and only association that organized a counter-demonstration in May 2014 to support the Perks’ Bill, openly accompanies gaming promoters to meet with the secretaries in order to question the soundness of the full ban, he is acting as a lobbyist. When the same Mr Zheng quotes the survey done by one of the associations of junkets as well as a study commissioned by gaming operators in order to contest, supposedly scientifically, the arguments of the government in favor of the bill during a plenary meeting of the Legislative Assembly, he at best looks cynical, and for some, like a fool. Even if his intention is noble – I am giving him a lot of credit – in considering the adverse effect the bill could hypothetically have on employment in Macao, how can he sensibly expect to win the argument with such a lack of independence?
In a business environment, it seems perfectly legitimate for gaming operators to lobby the government, at every level and using whatever legal means, against a measure they perceive to be contrary to their interests, but Mr Zheng is not on their payroll; he is a directly elected member of the Assembly embodying the sovereignty of the people. And youth and limited experience are no excuse, as Mr Fong Chi Keong aptly reminds us.
Mr Fong has been a well-known and colorful figure in the Assembly for almost a quarter of a century. On the one hand, he is a true man of the people with a capacity to empathize with the many – I remember seeing him doing his own grocery shopping and talking to everybody in the Red Market, and that was not for show. On the other hand, his many outbursts and unfortunate, often gross, comments regarding many issues, including domestic violence and, most recently, healthcare have made the roster of Chief Executive-appointed legislators look really bad, if not completely irrelevant. By bringing in the arguments of “discrimination” against the poor, the infringement of human rights regarding a preposterous “right to smoke” and the colloquial portrait of Chinese people who “speak, smoke and drink,” Mr Fong appears to be calling for his own demise. The real discrimination is when people cannot afford to pay for expensive healthcare services for treatment for lung cancer or strokes. The real infringement is the government not considering the protection of the citizens – including the victims of second-hand smoking, meaning the vast majority – as its priority. And being Chinese today obviously goes way beyond a very outdated conception of culture that negates the capacity, if not the necessity, to change and adapt. Becoming “a world center for tourism and leisure” implies a few requirements!
Ultimately the question is not really whether there are better measures to prevent people from inhaling nefarious puffs today but rather removing, at long last, an exception in the law that should have never been inserted back in 2011 and strengthening measures that will imbue the government’s public policies with greater consistency.

Published in Macau Daily Times, July 10th 2015

Kapok: Embrace a Full Ban!

When conflicts of interests are too blatant, public debate can only be farcical, and yet it is revealing of the challenges confronting the new government. The recent exchanges between some legislators and the Secretary for Social Affairs and Culture, Alexis Tam are a remarkable case in point.
Ever since he took office in December 2014, Mr Tam has made no secret that his number one concern would be “public health” and shortly after a comprehensive survey on the “Regime for the prevention and control of smoking” was released at the end of January, he announced, supposedly “on his own” – or so are we led to believe by not so-friendly commentators – that the government would submit a revised piece of legislation within the first half of 2015 that would make way for a full ban on smoking inside casinos, thus implying that VIP rooms would be involved and smoking lounges on mass floors no longer allowed. Mr Tam reiterated that engagement in April during the policy address, and again this week, while reporting to the legislators.
On Mr Tam’s side, there is an ever-growing corpus of medical studies showing that second-hand smoking is in fact as bad as direct inhaling, recommendations made by the World Health Organisation (agreed to by China’s Ministry of Health since 2007) noting that there is no existing technical solution that will equate to non-smoking, and quite a significant number of business-minded pieces of scholarship attesting that smoking bans have not had an adverse impact on revenues in business sectors of direct concern, and essentially the hospitality sector. Clearly, full smoking bans in public places are the trend, so much so that even permissive New Orleans has banned smoking in bars, casinos and other public areas starting on April 22nd.
Mr Tam has also on his side the spirit of the law that was passed in 2011—the first aim of the law being “to protect [the citizens] from exposure to tobacco smoke”—, the fact that the main causes of death in Macao are aggravated by the exposure to tobacco smoke, and the wish expressed by the frontline workers of the industry to see a full ban on smoking being implemented—87.20% of those directly exposed, the croupiers and casino floor staff. Moreover, in the broader context of China—something far more prevalent these days—the National People’s Congress has committed the country to “full implementation of the smoking ban in public places” ever since it voted in the 12th Five-Year Plan in March 2011.
Adversely, Mr Tam is pitted by the gaming industry that has been relentless in trying to lobby every level of government—including Beijing in March during the double congress—in favour of airport-style smoking lounges, with separate ventilation systems and negative pressure in relation to adjacent areas, in accordance with the regulation published by the Chief Executive in June 2014. Several casino operators, including one with a seat in the legislature, have argued that voiding the previous (and rather recent) regulation would make limited (and costly) sense, and moreover that gambling revenues have been in shambles since June last year and thus a full smoking ban could translate into an additional loss estimated at 15%—no methodology given, but the figure is repeated over and over again.
The problem is that it took an extraordinary amount of time to pass the initial law (16 months, to be precise) back in 2011, and this in no small thanks to Mr Chan Chak Mo (a representative for culture!), one of the most vocal voices against Mr Tam today and the number one defender of the food and beverage industry—his group, Future Bright, is everywhere to be seen in all casinos and just lost 95.6% of its profits in the first quarter of 2015. The problem is then that casinos benefited from a three-year reprieve. The problem is that many casinos failed the health bureau tests and everybody was playing cat and mouse with the new regulations.
More compliance with the spirit of the law might have prevented a change in tune. Lobbying failed, now there is only room for embrace.

Published in Macau Daily Times, May 15th 2015