Kapok: To hoist or not to hoist?

In this part of the world, and especially at that time of the year, the right meteorological prediction can often be a matter of life and death: our subtropical climate endowed with a humid monsoon regime is characterized by a Typhoon-prone wet season in Summer, and tropical cyclones are not only fortuitous happenings — although they can provide the like of Joseph Conrad with great fictional inspiration — but regular manifestations of the (still) indomitable essence of Mother Nature.
The deadliest typhoons killed in the thousands, and memories of super-Typhoons do not date back exclusively to the nineteenth century: in 2013, Haiyan left a trail of some 6,300 dead people in its path, mainly in the Visayas in the Philippines, and some put the unofficial death toll well above 10,000. Many reasons can help explain such a dreadful outcome: the path of the tropical cyclone itself (a direct hit is always the worst), the quality of the constructions (more shoddy means more risky), the zoning of lands defined as proper for construction (floodable areas or landslide paths provide additional danger) and of course the extent of preventive measures, mostly determined by proper meteorological assessment.
Macao has a long history when it comes to early warnings in relation to tropical cyclones. Any visit to the Guia Lighthouse, now part of UNESCO world heritage, constitutes a clear reminder that the oldest modern lighthouse of the China coast (completed in 1865) was (and still is somehow) not only a precious guide for sailors returning to safety harbor but also the point of reference for Typhoon signals — made of black-painted metal — to be literally “hoisted” beside the proud white tower situated on top of Guia ill.
The current controversy regarding the non-issuance of the tropical cyclone No. 8 signal as Nida was making its way towards our shores on August 2nd — whereas not only Hong Kong, but also Shenzhen and Zhuhai had issued such a warning — is thus causing a particular worry in our SAR: how come, such a long and well-established level of competence regarding a system of severe weather condition advanced notices could have gone so much astray? Is it a scientific mistake — despite the director of the Weather Bureau (SMG) claiming to the contrary and that everything was done by the book? Is it a blunder — the decision-making process within the SMG proving dysfunctional? Is it the result of outside pressure and thus influence peddling — fingers are being pointed towards the gaming industry? Is it a public relation disaster — the overconfidence of the scientific bureaucrat proving extremely detrimental, as usual? Is it a mix of all these and then what would it take to make things better? José Pereira Coutinho is asking for the head of Mr Fong and some other legislators for an independent inquiry: would that be a start, or the end of the measures to be swiftly adopted?

What is true is that for years Mr Fong and his chief subaltern, deputy director Leong Ka Cheng, had been under the authority of, first, the most corrupt officials of Macao, up to 2006, and then under one of the most incompetent, by some records, up to 2014. No wonder that bad habits — some revealed by a long and detailed article published by “Macau Concealers” — were taken: a sense of complete impunity by the top management, despite the many administrative enquiries, and the ever worsening mismanagement of human resources inside the bureau characterized by extreme forms of favoritism. Some of the shortcomings of the SMG had already started to show in April this year when the bureau was forced to apologize to the public regarding several blunders concerning mishaps related to rainstorm warnings untimely publicized.
Beyond the potential enquiry and the individual culprits that might be found in the end, and beyond the ever apologizing sense of duty displayed by Secretary Raimundo do Rosário, what will need to be restored is the trust within these public departments: only then can the link with the public prove healthy. Competent people need to be rewarded, not the contrary!

Published in Macau Daily Times on August 5th 2016

Kapok: Living together

Being in France just a few days after the horrendous truck attack that took place in the Southern French city of Nice on Bastille Day, claiming the life of 84 people, including many children, compels me to reflect on what makes a society hold together. Confronted with this form of indiscriminate terror and such a feeling of powerlessness, both on the side of society and the public authorities, how can we make sure that this kind of dreadful occurrence will be much less likely to happen in the future, close and distant, bearing in mind that zero risk does not exist? Is the call to unity a requirement or a promise, and in that case what will be its grammar? Will we unite because we need to or because we want to? Do we unite because now is not the time to divide ourselves or because we recognise in each and every member of our community, a “brother” or “sister” who is “equal” in status and in exercising his or her “freedom”? “Liberté, égalité, fraternité”, the three cardinal values of the French Republic.
What is eminently disturbing is the very fact that terrorists, are, somehow and in effect, winning, because these very values are being trampled over.
First, because in a political environment in which emotions rather than reason prevail, the first and foremost reaction is to resort to a blame game. Of a religious or at least communautarian nature, as if Islam at large was conducive to such violence and we were witnessing some form of holy and civilisational war, disregarding the very fact that a third of the 84 victims were themselves Muslims. Of a strictly politicking nature, when local authorities of a certain political orientation (more conservative and security prone) take aim at the national government of another political inclination (roughly speaking, more concerned with individual and civic rights) for failing to anticipate the highly improbable — a heavy vehicle attack is a first in France, and the only equivalent can be found in attacks perpetrated in Jerusalem over light rail stations back in 2014.
Second, because what is for now visible in terms of public policies regarding the prevention of terrorism is almost exclusively related to security. Everybody wants to feel reassured and safe, and safety is for many the very justification of the existence of a state — and we have known that since Thomas Hobbes. But then, the failures of twentieth century revolutionary ideologies have also taught us that “order without life” is tantamount to the “tranquility of the graveyard”, to quote Czech philosopher Jan Patočka, one of the signatories of Charter 77. This is why the Euro Cup organised by France had to take place, even though some strict protective measures were taken, including the now famous but at the time much reviled “fan zones”. And then, now that numerous cultural events are being cancelled on the Riviera — Rihanna’s concert is only one of them — what are the mid- and long-term horizons of security measures? Are we bound, just like it is now happening in Belgium, to not carry bags and not drive our cars to celebrate our National day? Now, tomorrow, and the day after tomorrow?
Some voices, more insistent on the meaning of the “islamisation of radicalism”, to use Olivier Roy’s formula, are pointing to the fact that the ideology of Daesh — in whose name all the recent terrorist attacks in France have been conducted — constitutes some form of new transnational utopia, one that offers to “suburban youth a sacralisation of the hatred of society, a hatred resulting from a feeling of social and economic exclusion, injustice and humiliation; and to middle-class youth, an answer to the vacuum of authority, the distaste for oneself or another form of anomia” (Farhad Khosrokhavar).
Education and social economic inclusion will thus be of utmost importance, as rightly emphasised by the European Parliament’s Report on the prevention of radicalisation. Beyond the centres for de-radicalisation that are yet to open in France, nations and communities of people will thus have to rediscover what binds them together, all of them.

Published in Macau Daily Times, July 22nd 2016

Kapok: Fooling the Fools

It is indeed always moving to see the rich and powerful coming to the rescue of the rule of law, or more exactly the rule by law, which has to be amended because it no longer suits the interests of the happy few. The proposed alteration to the Land Law is a superb lobbying operation in the name — name only — of the general interest adorned by distorted legal, economic and political arguments. It would amount to a good laugh if this human comedy did not involve billions of MOP and the healthy development of the city at a time of renewed challenges, hence the dramatic turn of the whole story.

From a strictly aesthetic perspective, it does follow the three unity rules of neoclassical drama: a unity of action (land developers failing to develop land plots), a unity of time (25 years of provisory land concessions) and a unity of place (well-situated land plots never opened to public tendering promising juicy returns). The ending of the play should be obvious: if you meet the deadline, you get wealthier; if you miss it, you forfeit your future gains and hand back the concessions. The problem is: the parties disagree on who is to blame for the failure.
The story of the 113 idle plots of land first surfaced back in 2009 thanks to a report released by the Land, Public Works and Transport Bureau (DSSOPT). In 2010-2011, 48 of these plots were recognised as not having been developed solely due to the inaction of the land grantees, and were thus meant to be recovered by the government at the leases’ expiration. Sixty-five were excluded because responsibility was shared, and the lack of proper regulatory work and planning by the government had impacted the delay. The Land Law was passed in 2013, and new constraints were imposed: article 48 states that “provisory concessions [of maximum 25 years] cannot be renewed.”
With a new government being sworn in December 2014, the formerly dozing DSSOPT sprang into action, and thus land plots started to be repossessed. In June 2015, the new Secretary for Transport and Public Works, Raimundo do Rosário, made it public that out of 48 land plots, 16 had been excluded from recovery. Even though a public hearing on the case was denied in the legislature, a CCAC enquiry commissioned by the Chief Executive concluded that the only dubious aspect of the story was the lack of “proactive, systematic, and scientific communication” about the exemptions that were deemed perfectly legitimate. This was despite the fact that some legislators were shown to have directly benefited from the technical derogations, such as Angela Leong, Chui Sai Cheong and Vitor Cheung Lup Kwan. Since then, other plots have been recovered, more are at risk and court actions do not seem to favour developers.
The legislator leading the charge for a revision to the Land Law, or more precisely a retroactive annexed interpretation of the law, is no other than Gabriel Tong. Mr Tong is an academic (acting dean of the law department at UMAC!), but he is also an appointed legislator and a partner in a law firm. He voted in favour of the Land Law in 2013 and now claims he was “deceived” at the time: I thought that these guys got their job because of their expertise? And can we be 100% sure that he has no conflict of interest in proposing the amendments? And then the developers would not be interested in (necessarily limited) compensations but rather to deliver on their promise? Why not earlier? Why act at best in the mid-2000s (UNESCO heritage dates to 2005), thus crippling the development of the city after the real-estate downturn of 1994?
By my own calculation, based on the market, the initial land fee, the premiums and today’s construction costs, they don’t want to pass on 300% return! When there is only one team on the soccer field, I don’t see the point in providing it with extra time after July 31!

Published on Macau Daily Times, July 8th 2016

Kapok: Popular sovereignty

Referenda can be divisive, very much so. And the vote over whether to remain in the European Union or not that is taking place in the United Kingdom at the very moment I write this column, demonstrates just that, or should I say reminds us of that, with the extra measure of ever invasive social media. A Poll-tracker set up by The Economist indicates that on June 20th, we were in for a tie — 44% to remain, 43% to leave, and 11% undecided. The UK Independence Party (UKIP) supporters are the leading force for what now everybody knows as “Brexit” (90%), the Conservatives are less supportive but clearly in favour of leaving (48%), so are people from the north of the country (43%), the Welsh (51%), the poor (52%) and the old (57%). The opposite is also true: Liberal Democrats (69%) and voters who identify with Labour (64%) want the UK to stay within the EU, Scots too (54%), and southerners (44%), the rich (53%) and the young (60%). Gender, however, does not seem to lean to either side — men are evenly divided, and so are women.
As a French citizen, I participated in four referenda — and for two of these I was already living abroad. The two referenda pertaining to domestic politics — the self-determination process for New Caledonia back in 1988 and the shortening of the president’s term to five years instead of seven in 2000 — went rather smoothly and did not provoke a nationwide schism. Abstention ran high, respectively 63% and close to 70%, and in both cases the highly anticipated approbation was a clear-cut winner, respectively 80% and 73% of the votes cast. Referenda only existed as a validation of something that almost everybody considered the right — even dignified— thing to do.
The other two popular consultations proved to be much more challenging, so much so in fact that the second one resulted in a rebuttal of the government’s proposal. And guess what? In both cases, Europe was at stake!
In 2005, the question was about whether to ratify the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe. The “no” prevailed (almost 55% of the votes cast) whereas participation had been very high (close to 70%). This translated into a thorough revamping of the existing treaties that ultimately led to the Treaty of Lisbon in 2007, which came into force in December 2009.
Back in 1992, the question had been about the ratification of the Maastricht Treaty that was to create the European Union. As the poll was getting closer, the “no” grew in strength and then President François Mitterrand launched a very energetic campaign to convince the citizens to give their approval.
The whole atmosphere is still very vivid in my mind as I was myself campaigning for the “no”, considering that European institutions were taking yet again a bureaucratic turn, away from the democratic ideals they were supposed to not only profess but also practice.
Mitterrand had started his political crusade in my university, Sciences Po, targeting the educated and politically savvy future generation, when some friends and I unfolded the Danish flag right in front of his eyes as he was about to deliver his lecture. I perceived a certain form of annoyance in the statesman’s eyes — to the point where security services ripped apart our big bright banner! The Danes had voted predominantly against the Treaty just a few weeks before! Even though the “yes” eventually “triumphed” (51%…), and despite my own frustration, the whole experience had actually proven constructive: arguments of all hues had been laid bare and populist rants were indeed almost like a necessary evil — on both sides! This is what popular sovereignty is also about!
The infighting of epic proportion between “Brexit” and “Bremain” is thus not only about “divide” but also interest, awareness, sense of belonging, community-wide soul searching, and ultimately freedom. Branding referenda as disrespectful when they are not, illegal when they are not, can only serve one purpose: deception, not harmony.

Kapok: The Plumber and the Architect(s)

In the latest stages of the protracted public consultation regarding the amendment of the electoral law for the Legislative Assembly — remember, we have elections next year — the voice of the people has finally been heard. Over the noise of the complacent faithful, the message is loud and clear: there should be more seats, and of the kind that is directly elected by the people — a sovereign body of citizens. Ironically, it is the multitude that is proving to be the architects, with a design for the future in mind, a better one for all. In contrast, the powers that be are acting like plumbers, of a fix-it Felix sort who would have lost his enchanting capabilities.
During the first consultative meetings, only members of the legislature and supporters of well-established associations and corporations were asked to participate, and of course, apart from subdued outbursts by a few isolated participants, the sessions followed to the letter a very predictable pre-­written script.
Pro-establishment figures of the society insisted on minor adjustments or additional restrictions, with the occasional decorous pro-business “trouble-maker” making a “bold” suggestion: why not have additional “functional constituencies” now that the society has grown in size and complexity, proposed Angela Leong, a record-holder as the most absent directly-elected lawmaker.
Never mind that in Hong Kong many people are now challenging the validity of “functional constituencies” for their uneven size and composition, denouncing these so-called representatives who hold multiple votes, sometimes in multiple constituencies, and condemning the fact that 16 out of 35 candidates in these constituencies ran uncontested in 2012, thus casting a shadow on the concept of electoral competition.
In Macao, a quick look at the registered associations supposed to “indirectly elect” legislators representing only five “sectors of activity” reveals that most of them are intertwined, with such-and-such legislator, or even member of the executive council, being on the board of dozens of these “collective personalities” with the right to vote. Ultimately, in Macao, none of these “indirectly elected” legislators is ever contested in his constituency: they systemically run unopposed!  What is an election without a choice? What is the meaning of a contest without candidates to opt for?
And then, when pro-democratic and independent legislators suggest that there is a need for more directly elected seats, why is the idea being rejected on the ground that “it is not adequate to go forward with reform too quickly in [Macao’s] political development”? Why is it objected by legislators who are themselves all appointed by the Chief Executive?
Article 68 of the Macao Basic Law indicates that “the majority of [the legislature’s] members shall be elected”: we have 33 members, 14 are returned by universal suffrage whereas 12 run uncontested and 7 are still appointed (something that existed only in colonial Hong Kong), so we are either missing six additional directly-elected legislators or the electoral law should be in for a far deeper revamping than the four-fold limited adjustments presented to us.
The claim is that these highly sophisticated fine-tunings of our electoral rules are based on reports and observations made by different governmental agencies since the last time we held legislative elections in 2013. Is that really so?
Monitoring expenses and capping them: yes, correct. Strengthening the supervision of electoral activities and updating the rules for candidacy: yes, indeed, but not necessarily the way it is proposed. Defining more clearly what is meant by promotional efforts associated with an electoral campaign and regulating such promotional efforts: sure, but certainly not by completely letting go with the opening of a pre-campaign period during the six months prior to the official campaign.
On the banning imposed to elected members of the Legislative Assembly to hold any political position in a foreign country, well, this is only logical, and I find it absolutely proper, especially because it could be far more stringent and indeed impose a strict Chinese nationality upon all legislators—an extra step not many would rejoice about, I am sure, in the present legislature.

Published in Macau Daily Times, June 3rd 2016