Kapok: Echo logic

Coincidences are always troubling; on the same weekend that the Macao International Environmental Cooperation Forum & Exhibition (MIECF) was coming to an end a group of concerned citizens rallying via Facebook marched to safeguard “green Coloane.” On the one hand were a yearly jamboree of grand plans, grandiose declarations of intent and a quantitative expression of self-satisfaction for the big “n” numbers of agreements signed: each aimed to arouse awareness of environmental protection, and this year in particular to advance the cause of “green tourism” - a form of tourism involving environmentally positive activities from choosing to have hotels wash towels less often to developing full-scale eco-friendly architecture. On the other hand, a small, but highly motivated group of residents, accompanied by rather low-key activists and legislators, demonstrated their unease at the unrestrained greed that, they claim, is being exhibited by some real-estate developers. These activists argued that these developers are desecrating what was once considered the “green lung” of Macao with towering and uninventive concrete blocks.
The inadequacy of current public policies and regulations must share some of the blame, especially because environmental impact studies are undertaken post licensing and are merely considered as flexible technicalities. This should not be so as there is indeed a somehow “binding” document issued by the government aptly entitled “Environmental Protection Planning of Macao (2010-2020)” that clearly states one of the strategic orientations is “to make holistic investigation into local ecosystems, to implement district-based protection by dividing them into different environmental functional districts according to their nature and the protected [zones], and to apply protective measures for the sensitive ecosystem, together with continual monitoring.” The Urban Planning Law is currently under discussion in the legislature and the legal aspects of the discussion have stalled on the extent of the discretionary power the government should have in evading the law on the grounds of “higher public interests” (yet to be defined). The irony of the situation is that principled legislators and more business-oriented ones are on the same side albeit for different reasons: the former because of their desire for cleaner and more sustainable development and the latter because of the lack of predictability these changes bring to their profit-seeking endeavors.
Meanwhile ecological awareness is growing amongst the general population. Last time we viewed the official gazette online there were no less than 61 associations dealing with such issues in Macao under the “environment protection” section of “associations” registered with the government. Yet, as only one hundred people showed up on a Sunday to protect what is left of Macao’s hilly green horizon, one could still ask the question “where are (the activists) to be seen?” It seems that just increasing awareness is not enough and time is not on our side.
The Macao government has taken a few steps in the right direction, although a good ten years later than Hong Kong. The most significant example of positive action is the document pertaining to environmental protection planning. But the implementation is too timid, too gradual and always emphasizing continuity over a clean break. The issues currently being faced are increasing as the city develops faster, higher and with an unprecedented urban density. In March, the Hong Kong government released its guidelines regarding “A Clean Air Plan for Hong Kong” urging for emergency measures and precise commitments—in budgeting and targeting—towards a reduction in and the exposure of the public to harmful emissions. The protection of the environment and a cleaner atmosphere are not only ideological in nature, they are also a matter of public health, especially when cardiovascular and respiratory disorders are concerned which will thus impact public spending. A poor environment will soon weigh on government coffers, and be more keenly felt as the population ages. So let’s learn from Hong Kong and not make the same mistakes when it comes to limiting the exposure to lethal fumes and tunneling effects that are amplified by high-rise structures.

Published in Macau Daily Times, April 12th 2013.

Kapok: The Art of Swallowing

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…