Kapok: The facts, just the facts

With the advent of “alternative facts” and the dereliction of truth, the destructive and all-encompassing reign of opinion has come of age, with emotions as its soldiers. Very soon, albeit a tad late, one comes to realise that with passion comes suffering, as ancient Greeks knew all too well. One fully internalises the gravity of the situation when classical political philosophers start to be invoked, especially the ones who dedicated their lives to reveal the ugly and relentless workings of totalitarianism. All of a sudden, there is no more Godwin’s law to artificially overcome blunt reality.

Among these, Hannah Arendt holds a unique place, and if I had to choose one of her numerous rays of light to provide weight to my own words, I would go for this one taken from her “Origins of Totalitarianism”: “the result of a consistent and total substitution of lies for factual truth is not that the lie will now be accepted as truth and truth be defamed as a lie, but that the sense by which we take our bearings in the real world—and the category of truth versus falsehood is among the mental means to this end—is being destroyed.” Without the facts, no well-informed opinion can be formed.

And it is not because our darkness is a little less dark, or our shadows synonymous with vacuous fuzziness that we should not turn our head towards them.

Such was my state of mind when I looked at the subsidies distributed by the Macao Foundation (MF) in the fourth quarter of 2016, but rather than focusing on the last three months, I aggregated the figures for the whole year. Despite being in decline—MOP1.536 billion against MOP1.845 in 2015—this is still a hefty bonanza.

The big winner is the Macau University of Science and Technology (MUST), as its endowment of MOP524.6 million constitutes a staggering one-third of the overall subsidies for 2016! The subsidy for MUST appears to be quite generous—regardless of the private hospital there is to run—when one considers that only 31 percent of the students enrolled in 2015/2016 are local. Moreover, MUST has been the greatest beneficiary of the MF for the past three years, and the 2016 sum is simply unprecedented.

In second, with MOP124 million, we find the Kiang Wu hospital; no surprise there, as the foundation running this private institution is jointly managed by the family of the Chief Executive, the head of MUST and a loyal legislator who made a name in justifying domestic violence.

In third, the City University of Macao, headed by another member of the Executive Council (EC), swiped MOP83 million, whereas the traditional associations (Federation of Trade Unions, the Women’s General Association, and the General Union of Neighbourhoods) are being kept on a stable leash between MOP46.8 and MOP36.8 million. At least 15 out of the 20 most generously funded organisations can be traced in one way or another to a legislator or member of the EC. The legislative elections campaign, limited to 15 days you said?

And yet, by my own calculation—2 percent of the gross gaming revenues per year—the MF has accumulated MOP48.7 billion since 2002. Considering only the last five years (since 2012), this amounted to MOP29.4 billion, whereas actual subsidising (excluding negligible operating costs) added up to just MOP6.2 billion, which is less than 22 percent of the Foundation’s earnings! Where is the money going, and if it is piled up out of prudence, isn’t that excessively cautious?

The ball should now be in the camp of the reporters to search for answers—let’s test the authenticity of the freedom of the press! As it was once remarked by Milan Kundera, the Czech writer who knows a thing or two about despotism, “the power of the journalist is not based on his right to ask but on his right to demand an answer.”

Published in Macau Daily Times on February 10, 2017

Kiang Wu's board

As I was quite intrigued by Mr Fong Chi Keong's bragging about 8 members of the legislature being members of the board of the Kiang Wu Charitable Association (the organisation behind the Kiang Wu hospital), I checked, and of course Mr Fong was… right! The whole list can be found here.

The lucky winners who will "supposedly" support Mr Fong, whatever he says or wants are:
As honorary board member (榮譽理事): 高開賢  Kou Hoi In (indirectly elected)
As vice-president (副主席): 張立群 Victor Cheung Lup Kwan (indirectly elected)
As president of the executive committee (理事長): 馮志強 Fong Chi Keong (appointed)
As vice-presidents of the executive committee (副理事長): 劉永誠 Lau Veng Seng (appointed) and 陳明金 Chan Meng Kam (elected)
As managing directors (常務理事): 蕭志偉 Sio Chi Wai (appointed) and 馬志成 Ma Chi Seng (appointed)
As vice-president of the supervisory committee (副監事長): 歐安利 Leonel Alves (indirectly elected)

Four of them are appointed legislators (out of the 7 appointed in total)!

Kapok: The difference is Macao... or is it?

While coming back from Hong Kong yesterday, I stumbled upon an old acquaintance of mine, a man of venerable age, a man of the robe—a clerical one—and busy, still, with intellectual matters. After a brief personal recounting, he engaged me on the subject of recent events in Macao. Having to closely follow the nitty-gritty of our SAR’s buoyant political arena, I started painting a contrasting and yet lamentable picture of open-book conflicts of interests, blatant attacks on key principles of the Basic Law—especially when it comes to the separation of powers and the independence of justice—and gross irresponsibility regarding the greater good in a city that is endowed with first world revenues but flawed with third-rated services.
Having made a remark on the SAR’s problem of a lack of spine and principles, my friend observed that this was unfortunately “the reality of Macao,” and that despite all my energy and enthusiasm (not as fast eroding as some would like), not much would change, or at least not in the foreseeable future. I strongly disagree with that, and although I am a pragmatic (meaning not a dreamer) and certainly not pretentious enough to believe I can make a difference on my own—graveyards are full of indispensable men… and women—I sincerely believe that things can and should improve, whatever the context and culture. This is the human condition. When one of our dignified legislators states boisterously that patients cannot reasonably expect all to be cured when going to the hospital, he is basically saying that we cannot hope for better and that there should be no accountability system. Things are what they are because this is how they have always been: Doctor Sun Yat Sen, who was invited by Kiang Wu Hospital to practice Western medicine at the end of the nineteenth century, must be rolling over in his grave!
So no, “the difference is Macao” meaning “why bother?” is simply not for me, and I am truly convinced that those who have made this adage theirs have got their priorities wrong: survival—what kind of legacy is that?—is only a travesty of life. When a majority of politicians are businessmen, pragmatism always prevails over principles—this is true everywhere. The recent interview given by legislator Chan Chak Mo to newspaper Ponto Final is instructive in that respect. Asked why he didn’t pursue his drive to become a directly elected legislator, he simply replied that after an unsuccessful try, he could not resign himself to buying votes, and so he went for a functional seat as it was easier “to control supporting associations”—I would add: it’s even easier when there is only one candidate for one seat! Basically, for Mr Chan, the choice was between “corruption” and “co-optation”. And then, he admits seeing no problem in defending the interests of his constituents (a few dozens associations only): “I represent a sector, I speak for it, and of course speak for myself too.” This is something one can easily agree with, especially when the second standing committee over which he presides manages to delay stringent measures over smoking in public or the minimum wage. Mr Chan is an entrepreneur, the mind behind a big food and beverage consortium. The problem is that he is not backed by the business sector: he represents culture and sports! Does chasing away shops that promote Macau’s creative industries from a heritage building, only to replace them with a Forever 21 outlet, really qualify him? Or is it the horrid Food Festival?
As it is written in the Analects: “At fifteen my heart was set on learning; at thirty I stood firm; at forty I had no more doubts; at fifty I knew the will of heaven; at sixty my ear was obedient; at seventy I could follow my heart’s desire without overstepping the boundaries of what was right.” My old acquaintance is now 83, and thus what is valid for him is not necessarily so for me—a fact he fully acknowledged. And what is valid for politicians in their 60s is not necessarily so for citizens in their 30s. Maybe it is time to accept that fact!

Published in Macau Daily Times, June 12 2015