Kapok: Macao in a Kiangwu cup

Anybody and everybody knows the Kiang Wu Hospital in Macao. Not for its ugly architecture that scars the whole area behind the façade of Saint Paul, but rather as one of the old and most respected institutions of the SAR.

The hospital started its operations in 1871 by providing Chinese medicine only, and opened its first Western medicine section in 1892 thanks to a brilliant fresh graduate from Hong Kong, Dr Sun Yat-Sen, who later on became a great revolutionary, the theoretician of The Three Principles of the People and the father of the Republic of China. But this is not the only patronage the hospital acknowledges. Of less international repute, Ke Lin, who had been trained at the Canton Pok Tsai Hospital, started teaching at Kiang Wu Hospital and in its nursing school back in the 1930s. He later became the first Dean of the hospital. Not only was Master Ke a great medical educator, but he was also known for being one of the master spies of the Chinese Communist Party based in Macao, even becoming the one responsible for the Party’s Macao affairs during the Second Chinese Civil War of 1945-49. Ke Lin’s brother was none other than Ke Zhengping, the founder of the Nam Kwong Trading Company representing the Communist regime interests in the Portuguese colony. The Nam Kwong branched out in the 1980s as the Xinhua News Agency Macao Branch and is still everywhere to be seen today in Macao as the Nam Kwong Group.

As many institutions in Macao that started catering for the Chinese population, a not-for-profit association exercises oversight over the operations of the whole organization. Originally, the rationale was for important Chinese businessmen to be on the board to run things professionally as well as contribute financially to the smooth operation of the enterprise. One of the best examples of such a venture is the Tung Sin Tong that started operating in 1892 and still provides financial help and medicine for the poor, free education and free child care for the socially disadvantaged, and support for necessitous elderly. The association is headed today by a triumvirate made of the brother of the Chief Executive, Chui Sai Cheong, the cousin of the Chief Executive, Chui Sai Peng, and the sister of the Chief Executive-elect, Ho Teng Iat.

Given its pedigree, the Kiang Wu Hospital Charitable Association was thus bound to push the limits of a get-together of powerful benefactors to the brink of absurdity. The Chairmen for life are none other than Edmund Ho, the first Chief Executive of the SAR, Ma You-li, the son of the great patriot Ma Man-kei, and Stanley Ho, the king of gambling who just retired as chairman of SJM Holdings. Second only to these, the Chief Executive-elect himself, Ho Iat Seng, appears as the Honorary Chairman for life.

Should we then be surprised to learn that out of MOP531.3 million in financial support provided by the Health Bureau from January to September, some 86.5 per cent have been channeled to the Kiang Wu Charitable Association? In the official gazette published at the end of October, one could also read that the Association had received in July some MOP$32.5 million from the Macau Foundation, on top of the MOP$25 million received earlier in the year.
The problem with this ever-growing financing of Kiang Wu is that the money is coming from the public coffers, and thus a privately-run business is being heavily subsidized by the government in order to supplement public institutions. And who decides on that? The same people who sit on the Executive Council, the Macau Foundation board and the boards of the beneficiaries. Meanwhile, the waiting-time at the emergencies at Conde de São Januário hospital worsens.

Published in Macau Daily Times, November 8, 2019.

Kapok: It's the politics, stupid!

The news on Wednesday that a parking bay had been snatched in Hong Kong for the modest amount of HK$7.6 million had me gaping at the newspaper for a few seconds. That went beyond cognitive dissonance: It was bewilderment mixed with incomprehension and a sudden surge of indignation. How on earth could someone pay more than HK$600,000 per square meter to park a car in a spot of roughly 12.5 square meters of bare concrete? This is three times the median price of a flat in Hong Kong, whereas the median price of a flat is in itself 21 times the median salary!

We are talking about parking a car here! Sure, the parking lot is situated in the very heart of the city, in a building aptly named The Center, which served as the main decor for Batman: The Dark Knight. The building was up to last year the property of Asia’s richest man, Li Ka-shing, before being sold to a group of tycoons including the richest lady in Hong Kong, Pollyanna Chu, and the owner of the parking bay that was just sold, Johnny Cheung. But then, the same amount of money would buy a nice 80 square meters flat in Paris, and even a 55 square meters 2-bedroom cozy retreat next to the iconic Jardin du Luxembourg, one of the most expensive area in the French capital city, or even 500 square feet in downtown Manhattan in New York City.

Yet, at the same time, we are being told that because of the protests, landlords “are getting desperate in their attempts to attract tenants” in their offices of Central Hong Kong, so much so that they are offering symbolic rents of HK$1 for the first three months of occupation! Some are even agreeing to leases starting after Chinese New Year, that is four months away!

Are we talking about the same landlords and real estate developers who stand accused by Beijing of being vastly responsible for the political turmoil that has engulfed the city for the past four months? Aren’t these the same people who keep the best economic opportunities to themselves and make it impossible for the younger generation to “own” a flat? And wasn’t the diagnostic confirmed by Carrie Lam when she announced in her policy address last week that credit would be made more easily accessible to Hongkongers and that 700 hectares of land would be seized to help build new housing programs addressing the current shortage?

Interestingly enough, the announcement made by Mrs Lam boosted the shares’ value of property developers. And then, the land that is going to be “seized” had been purchased as cheap farmland by developers and will be paid at current market price by the government, allowing them to make comfy profits. It is also estimated that the four biggest developers alone in Hong Kong — Sun Hung Kai, Henderson Land, New World and Cheung Kong — sit on more than double the floor area of agricultural land that will be “taken” back by the government. Moreover, past governments bear the main responsibility of the shortage of land supply that led to a shortage of housing land and the dramatic drop in housing completion after 2003/2004, in the wake of the SARS crisis. For a decade, starting in 2006, the completion of housing, whether public or private, was more than halved compared to the previous ten years!

Because they make up a significant portion of the 1,200 people who elect the Chief Executive, it is thus clear that any measure taken by the government will give the developers the advantage over ordinary citizens. Should we then be surprised when people declare that they are far more dissatisfied with the political environment (more than 80%) than they are disgruntled by the present economic situation (less than 40%)?

At the end of the day, it makes the demand of true universal suffrage for returning both the Chief Executive and the legislators a very legitimate one if the intent is indeed for the government to be less dependent on a small coterie of ever more profiteering landlords.

Published in Macau Daily Times on October 25, 2019

Kapok: Too late and too little

When on September 4 Hong Kong’s Chief Executive Carrie Lam finally decided to officially “withdraw” the Extradition Bill, the overall reaction in the pro-democracy camp was to say that the move came “too late” and amounted to “too little”.

At the time I felt that the government’s announcement was rather a substantial achievement to be indeed credited to the ever-evolving “Be water” movement. At long last a political response of sort was somehow and somewhat addressing a political challenge that had been dragging for far too long. How could that not be an achievement, far beyond the “suspension” of the Bill on June 15 or any claim the Bill was “dead” on July 9? Neither the temporary shelving nor the burial of this piece of legislation had ever been on the list of demands formulated by the demonstrators — moderates and radicals alike — but the “withdrawal” had been the core, and until June 12 the only demand of the protestors. So yes, politics was back, especially after all the fantasies fueled by saber rattling moves across the border and ill-designed martial video clips hastily cooked up by Communist propaganda.

In my mind, the rebuttal was meant to be temporary, and after a period of adjustment during which things would turn worse before getting better — and how could it be otherwise after three months of resolute and unabated fight — the path for a more rational and possibly peaceful settlement would start to shine again. Things would take time and trust had to be rebuilt: a survey conducted by the Chinese University of Hong Kong in early September was showing that about 69% of the people did not trust either the government or the police, and if about the same proportion of people believed that the principle of non-violent action should be upheld, still 56% considered that violent action was understandable if the government failed to respond to large-scale peaceful demonstrations. Moreover, almost 71% still considered that the demand to set up an independent commission of enquiry looking into police violence and other incidents was a requirement.

More than one month after the announcement of the withdrawal which will be effective only when the LegCo reconvene next week, are we finally seeing a glimmer of light at the end of the tunnel? Clearly not. While professing to initiate a dialogue, Carrie Lam made it clear that there would be no other concession, and that contradictory move immediately gave rise to a new show of unity among the protesters, best encapsulated by the defiant slogan “Five demands, not one less”. A butchered 2-hour encounter with district councilors supposed to kickstart a dialogue on September 18 turned into disarray when only 98 out of 458 councilors decided to show up. A subsequent community dialogue with 130 citizens held at Queen Elizabeth Stadium on September 26 turned into a real agony for the Chief executive and her principal officials when participants mostly vented their frustration and anger at the inability of the government to resolve the crisis.

Following further defiance of infuriated and ever younger protesters on October 1, the “Chief Executive in council” decided to invoke the Emergency Regulations Ordinance on October 4 to ban masks at unauthorized protests. The problem is, supposedly because of security concerns, that most marches have not been authorized since August 18, meaning that people cannot even vote with their feet anymore, as marches are banned, the MTR closed at sensitive times and the police being given excessive leeway in the interpretation of the new ban. Things will get worse before they will worsen even more!

Meanwhile in Macao, a decision rendered by the Court of Final Appeal on September 27 states that the Macao police was right to forbid demonstrations in Praça do Tap Seac and da Amizade aimed at denouncing police violence in Hong Kong on the basis that publicly allowing these to happen would have amounted to interfering with the internal affairs of the Hong Kong SAR, and thus violating the Macao Basic Law. As clearly stated by lawyer Jorge Menezes, with this decision, freedom of assembly and freedom of expression are all but history in Macao, despite them also being entrenched in the Basic Law. Will freedom of conscience be next?

Published in Macau Daily Times on October 11, 2019

Kapok: Who does what?

The publication of the yearly report of the Legislative Assembly always provides an interesting snapshot of politics in Macao and a better understanding, albeit limited in depth, of who does what and why.

The report in itself has been trimmed this year — 38 pages for the 2018/19 session versus 48 pages for the previous one — and really pales when compared to the document issued by the Hong Kong Legislative Council — 175 pages in the latest file available in our sister SAR.

Moreover, starting in 2014/15 with the first report put together under the efficient-minded presidency of Ho Iat Seng, these reports have shied away from making any comparison with previous sessions when examining the number of laws passed.

Up to 2014, a simple graphic with a timeline would serve as a benchmarking for the current session: that year, only 9 laws had been passed, against 15 in 2012/13, and a multi-year bar chart reminded the casual reader that the most active legislative session ever had been the 2008/09 one, with a record 27 laws adopted. That session corresponded with the last year of Edmund Ho as Chief Executive: the vast majority of the bills are introduced by the government in Macao, and thus the idea was clearly to start with a clean slate for the next government after years of backlogging.

The year 2018/19 is no exception — although I had to go back to previous reports to establish that fact — as a total of 25 laws were adopted last year (almost on par with Hong Kong!), making it the most active legislative session of the Chui Sai On era. Almost three times more laws passed than in the least active year — only 9 laws approved in 2015/16. But Mr Chui should not feel mortified as only 6 laws were ratified in the very troubled session of 2006/07 at the time of Edmund Ho — the year of the downfall of Ao Man Long and the largest May Day protest.

Clearing the way for the upcoming Ho Iat Seng era was therefore the priority, and that was done quite efficiently: 28 laws were introduced in 2018/19, and 25 passed, that is a successful ratio of 89%… quite an improvement on the 48% of 2017/18! Yet, when one looks carefully, a good third of the 25 laws adopted are actually amendments of existing laws, even though, again, that is an improvement on the previous session when half the laws were mere revisions.

The report also provides insight into the commitment of individual legislators to their job. Again, there was a time when independent associations in Macao would survey the citizens regarding the performance of their legislators. There was also a time when a website — http://almacau.net/ — would feed us with extremely detailed information about each and every lawmaker, allowing us to connect the way they voted with their political stance and vested interests in society. But these times have been gone for years and we are left with an ever-shrinking and rather unsurprising report.

The least active legislators in raising questions to the government are the ones appointed by the CE or small-time businessmen-turned-politicians with dubious background and limited abilities, such as Cheung Lup Kwan and Chan Chak Mo, who spent the whole year formulating exactly ZERO oral or written interpellation addressed to the government. Cheung Lup Kwan together with President Ho Iat Seng, who resigned in July and was too busy preparing for his solo candidacy to the CE position, are the two legislators with the worst attendance for plenary meetings: respectively 35 and 34 recorded attendances out of 52 meetings altogether! Mr Cheung, who has been the least committed legislator ever since he was first elected in 2001, pushed the contempt for the function to a new height this year by showing up only ONCE in 65 meetings of the third permanent commission of the Assembly, despite that commission examining eleven laws!

Self-induced ignorance and inaction can indeed be rewarding!

Published in Macau Daily Times on September 27, 2019

Kapok: The failure of success

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