Where on the planet can you concurrently have a vivid discussion on several controversial points of a much-needed and yet much-delayed Land Law and Urban Planning Law on the one hand, and a very contentious consultation process on a half-baked new plan to develop one of the most iconic parts of Macao next to the Macao tower on the other hand? How can one not see that there is a blatant contradiction in praising boisterously albeit against one’s own nature the many virtues of due processes and transparency, and at the same time trying to force-feed the public with a much-opposed and ill-designed plan? Joseph Goebbels, Hitler’s propaganda minister, said it himself: “The bigger the lie, the more it will be believed!” There is no lie here, just mere concealment, so Macao’s modern interpretation of it is rather “the bigger the pill, the easier it will be to swallow!”
One can feel that we are in an election year when the total number of votes for the Urban Planning Law only reached 19 “in favor” (out of a theoretical total of 29) during the first plenary reading on February 4th. Even a figure like Kwan Tsui Hang from the Macao Federation of Trade Unions, a traditional government-leaning vote-bank, decided to abstain on the grounds that “too many rules and mechanisms will be defined by administrative regulations, including the master plan”, thus excluding any oversight from the Legislature, the sole body with some members returned through universal suffrage, and forsaking too much discretionary power to the government, supposedly in the overall and superior interest of the community. The same goes for the Land Law, for which many criticisms were heard because the secretary for public works had a hard time explaining why a law would insist so much on the exceptions to open-bidding and public tendering when the government would feel that it was in the public interest; isn’t this law precisely designed to avoid the lack of transparency that used to prevail when public tendering was the exception rather than the rule? Does anybody remember that this state of affairs was quite instrumental in securing Mr Lo’s predecessor a spot in the Coloane prison for an extended lease of close to 30 years?
Now, turning back to the Sai Van lake night-market project, supposedly aimed at beefing up tourism in Macao while preserving traditional culinary delights and promoting local (if not locally-made…) memorabilia; what is wrong with governmental agencies, led by the IACM? In just five arguments delineated in a long column published in the Macao Daily News, the communist-backed Chinese daily with the widest circulation, former legislator David Chow Kam Fai hit the nail on the head in late November: the plan is against the principles of “free market.” The first stage of consultation is meaningless (only 63 opinions gathered) and results were never properly divulged; this will destroy irremediably a unique and peaceful natural scenery. The whole plan is pre-ordained and is devoid of any fairness, and finally SMEs will never be given a chance to thrive. Given the very strong opposition coming from society, the New Macao Association is perfectly right in insisting that the real issue of this consultation should be whether or not the whole project is desirable, rather than misleadingly focusing on the modalities. All the newspapers in Macao, including again the very conservative Macao Daily News (nonetheless inflating the number of participants in the latest round of consultation to 100 instead of the commonly printed figure of 40) had to report that the government was facing a very strong popular opposition, the whole project being seen as a mere nuisance bound for disaster if one recollects the ill-fated Nam Van lake bars.
Mr Chan Chak Mo, one of the two indirectly elected legislators representing “culture and social affairs” (don’t ask me how only businessmen come to represent “culture” in Macao), is a staunch proponent of the night market: can we allow this to happen just for “personal” convenience? Remember, Mr Chan is also the one who has been entrusted with the organization of the second-rate and back-to-the-future Macao food festival…
Showing posts with label Macao Food Festival. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Macao Food Festival. Show all posts
Friday, February 08, 2013
Friday, January 11, 2013
Kapok: Smoke and Mirrors
Several local stakeholders, whether from the government, the civil society or of course THE industry - meaning the casino industry as they often refer to themselves - have been blowing smoke for a while regarding the measures that pave the way for a tobacco free (and therefore healthier) environment in Macao. In fact, this has been the case ever since the idea of such a new piece of legislation was aired in 2010 and the law was ultimately passed in May 2011, which, incidentally, was the same month China began enforcing a ban on smoking in public spaces, but five years after Hong Kong had passed a similar bill: holy smoke, that comes as a surprise!
The mere fact that it took a year and a half for that law to be enshrined in the official gazette serves as an indication that the pressing urge for such a tobacco control policy was far from unanimous. I routinely discuss that law with my students as an illustration for a class on “conflicts of interest,” smoking out the deceitful vested interests at play and the inner workings of a paternalist and yet clientelist political environment: after all, there is no smoke without a fire!
The composition of the Second Permanent Commission that examined the law before it was discussed and (finally) passed is rather telling. The commission is presided over by Mr Chan Chak Mo, an indirectly-elected legislator who is also the chairman of the United Association of Food and Beverage Merchants of Macao (the organizer of the shameful Macao Food Festival…) and General Manager of Future Bright, a company that operates no less than 24 restaurants and ten food courts! No wonder the law was delayed and bars, dance halls, saunas and massage parlors got a three-year reprieve and casinos a one-year exemption before having to comply for only half of their surface area! The brother of the Chief Executive, Mr Chui Sai Cheong, is also an indirectly-elected member of that commission, and so is Mr Chan Meng Kam, a directly elected casino operator, along with Mr Lee Chong Cheng, a directly elected legislator who is also the deputy director of the General Association of Workers in Macao - an association that is very vocal in defending casino workers’ rights today!
Might that be due to upcoming elections? Would that mean that things finally get discussed when competition is introduced and a pre-electoral campaign looms?
Let me parade my smoking barrels then! Sometimes things backfire, just as they did for Mrs Angela Leong, an elected legislator who can usually rely on her employees to get elected, and was so adamant about asking for a complete smoke free environment in casinos (despite the law she voted for…) that she was cornered by her own contradictions when she was confronted by challenging casino workers who suggested she should lead by example and immediately implement in the casinos she operates an absolutely smoke-free policy, instead of the “minimum 50%” required by the law! The rule of woman if not the rule of law…
The government certainly issued its regulations regarding the “less than 50%” prescription very late (October 29, 2012!), indeed, probably too late and without adequate consultation and discussion with casino operators prior to the announcement of the required instructions regarding air quality and signalization. But let’s not kid ourselves either: casino operators, all of them, are displaying an extraordinary amount of insincerity in applying the law, despite all their claims to the contrary. In all casinos I have visited since January 1, all non-smoking areas are concentrated in the most deserted parts of the premises. Isn’t “good faith,” or its contrary, legally binding somehow? Oops, another one that goes up in smoke!
Published in Macau Daily Times on January 11th 2013
The mere fact that it took a year and a half for that law to be enshrined in the official gazette serves as an indication that the pressing urge for such a tobacco control policy was far from unanimous. I routinely discuss that law with my students as an illustration for a class on “conflicts of interest,” smoking out the deceitful vested interests at play and the inner workings of a paternalist and yet clientelist political environment: after all, there is no smoke without a fire!
The composition of the Second Permanent Commission that examined the law before it was discussed and (finally) passed is rather telling. The commission is presided over by Mr Chan Chak Mo, an indirectly-elected legislator who is also the chairman of the United Association of Food and Beverage Merchants of Macao (the organizer of the shameful Macao Food Festival…) and General Manager of Future Bright, a company that operates no less than 24 restaurants and ten food courts! No wonder the law was delayed and bars, dance halls, saunas and massage parlors got a three-year reprieve and casinos a one-year exemption before having to comply for only half of their surface area! The brother of the Chief Executive, Mr Chui Sai Cheong, is also an indirectly-elected member of that commission, and so is Mr Chan Meng Kam, a directly elected casino operator, along with Mr Lee Chong Cheng, a directly elected legislator who is also the deputy director of the General Association of Workers in Macao - an association that is very vocal in defending casino workers’ rights today!
Might that be due to upcoming elections? Would that mean that things finally get discussed when competition is introduced and a pre-electoral campaign looms?
Let me parade my smoking barrels then! Sometimes things backfire, just as they did for Mrs Angela Leong, an elected legislator who can usually rely on her employees to get elected, and was so adamant about asking for a complete smoke free environment in casinos (despite the law she voted for…) that she was cornered by her own contradictions when she was confronted by challenging casino workers who suggested she should lead by example and immediately implement in the casinos she operates an absolutely smoke-free policy, instead of the “minimum 50%” required by the law! The rule of woman if not the rule of law…
The government certainly issued its regulations regarding the “less than 50%” prescription very late (October 29, 2012!), indeed, probably too late and without adequate consultation and discussion with casino operators prior to the announcement of the required instructions regarding air quality and signalization. But let’s not kid ourselves either: casino operators, all of them, are displaying an extraordinary amount of insincerity in applying the law, despite all their claims to the contrary. In all casinos I have visited since January 1, all non-smoking areas are concentrated in the most deserted parts of the premises. Isn’t “good faith,” or its contrary, legally binding somehow? Oops, another one that goes up in smoke!
Published in Macau Daily Times on January 11th 2013
Friday, October 26, 2012
KAPOK: To go or not to go?
Culture as a concept is notorious for being both wide in scope and pretty vague in meaning. In most encyclopedic volumes, the first reference to it appears in Cicero’s writing as “cultura animi”, the cultivation of the soul or mind, thus an agricultural metaphor expressing the unique capability of a human being to enrich himself or herself, and therefore develop and realize their full and highest potential — philosophically speaking.
In the nineteenth century, romanticism gave culture a particular twist, less universal and more exclusive: culture became closely associated with nations and the ferment of national identities. Along with sweeping modernity arose the distinction between “high” or noble culture vs. “low” or popular culture, thus the reference to cultural specificities and a hierarchy of culture were the grammar of national exclusion and social division. The excess and brutality of the reign of ideologies in the twentieth century, among which nationalism fared on par with Communism and Nazism, led to a critical reappraisal of the notion.
In the words of the famous American anthropologist Clifford Geertz, culture is “a system of inherited conceptions expressed in symbolic forms by means of which men communicate, perpetuate, and develop their knowledge about and attitudes toward life.” The important idea here, contrary to what Samuel Huntington simplistically professed in his “Clash of Civilizations,” is that culture is not reified or solidified knowledge: it changes over time and transformations derive from outside borrowing, and thus acculturation and accommodation. Nevertheless, as Geertz puts it, “culture is simply the ensemble of stories we tell ourselves about ourselves.”
Then why on earth would the United Association of Food and Beverage Merchants of Macao (UAFBM), the association that organizes the Macao Food Festival, decide “not to feature any Japanese food stalls coming from Japan” because of the “relatively high tense political atmosphere between China and Japan” over the Senkaku/Diaoyu islands? Isn’t the food festival supposed to be about culture? Didn’t the UAFBM receive close to MOP 10 million from the Macau Foundation for its “project in support of the preservation of eateries in Macao” in August alone? Isn’t Mr Chan Chak Mo, the president of the UAFBM, also a functional member of the Legislative Assembly representing, precisely, culture? What’s the story then?
First, UAFBM doesn’t really deal with culture: not once, in its statutes, is the word culture in Chinese mentioned. Worse, article 2 states that the purpose of the association is to “love the motherland, uphold the ‘one country, two systems’ principle” and of course defend the legitimate rights and interests of the members of that particular industry. Mr Chan: where is your cultural background and why is the Macau Foundation providing your association with funding? And why would “one country” understood narrowly prevail over the “second system”? Mr Chan Chak Mo is concurrently the managing director of Future Bright Holdings, one of the heavyweights of F&B in Macao (which also operates on the mainland…) listed on the Hong Kong stock exchange, that operates 24 restaurants and 10 food court counters, including quite a few Japanese ones: no wonder then that the Festival’s Japanese corner is going to be filled by over twenty restaurants run by Macau operators!
If I were my usual self I would merely say: boycott the Macao Food festival! This meddling of politics into culture and especially food culture — remember I am French, almost as inquisitive and demanding for food as a Chinese person can be — is a disgrace, a shameful and insidious act of self-absorbed petty business interests draped in bloated half-baked patriotic disguise! But then, not all the food stalls participating in the event are responsible for the misguided verdicts of Mr Chan’s association, so I will be reasonable: boycott all Future Bright stalls at the festival! Shanghai 456, Cafe Lan, Madeira or Oishii Ichiban and Edo don’t need and certainly don’t deserve your Patacas!
Published in Macau Daily Times on October 26th 2012
In the nineteenth century, romanticism gave culture a particular twist, less universal and more exclusive: culture became closely associated with nations and the ferment of national identities. Along with sweeping modernity arose the distinction between “high” or noble culture vs. “low” or popular culture, thus the reference to cultural specificities and a hierarchy of culture were the grammar of national exclusion and social division. The excess and brutality of the reign of ideologies in the twentieth century, among which nationalism fared on par with Communism and Nazism, led to a critical reappraisal of the notion.
In the words of the famous American anthropologist Clifford Geertz, culture is “a system of inherited conceptions expressed in symbolic forms by means of which men communicate, perpetuate, and develop their knowledge about and attitudes toward life.” The important idea here, contrary to what Samuel Huntington simplistically professed in his “Clash of Civilizations,” is that culture is not reified or solidified knowledge: it changes over time and transformations derive from outside borrowing, and thus acculturation and accommodation. Nevertheless, as Geertz puts it, “culture is simply the ensemble of stories we tell ourselves about ourselves.”
Then why on earth would the United Association of Food and Beverage Merchants of Macao (UAFBM), the association that organizes the Macao Food Festival, decide “not to feature any Japanese food stalls coming from Japan” because of the “relatively high tense political atmosphere between China and Japan” over the Senkaku/Diaoyu islands? Isn’t the food festival supposed to be about culture? Didn’t the UAFBM receive close to MOP 10 million from the Macau Foundation for its “project in support of the preservation of eateries in Macao” in August alone? Isn’t Mr Chan Chak Mo, the president of the UAFBM, also a functional member of the Legislative Assembly representing, precisely, culture? What’s the story then?
First, UAFBM doesn’t really deal with culture: not once, in its statutes, is the word culture in Chinese mentioned. Worse, article 2 states that the purpose of the association is to “love the motherland, uphold the ‘one country, two systems’ principle” and of course defend the legitimate rights and interests of the members of that particular industry. Mr Chan: where is your cultural background and why is the Macau Foundation providing your association with funding? And why would “one country” understood narrowly prevail over the “second system”? Mr Chan Chak Mo is concurrently the managing director of Future Bright Holdings, one of the heavyweights of F&B in Macao (which also operates on the mainland…) listed on the Hong Kong stock exchange, that operates 24 restaurants and 10 food court counters, including quite a few Japanese ones: no wonder then that the Festival’s Japanese corner is going to be filled by over twenty restaurants run by Macau operators!
If I were my usual self I would merely say: boycott the Macao Food festival! This meddling of politics into culture and especially food culture — remember I am French, almost as inquisitive and demanding for food as a Chinese person can be — is a disgrace, a shameful and insidious act of self-absorbed petty business interests draped in bloated half-baked patriotic disguise! But then, not all the food stalls participating in the event are responsible for the misguided verdicts of Mr Chan’s association, so I will be reasonable: boycott all Future Bright stalls at the festival! Shanghai 456, Cafe Lan, Madeira or Oishii Ichiban and Edo don’t need and certainly don’t deserve your Patacas!
Published in Macau Daily Times on October 26th 2012
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)