Kapok: They talk, we listen

It was an epiphany of sorts. It was some kind of astonishment mixed with a sudden surge of exasperation: they were talking, we were listening, and everything had to be absorbed to the full. The scene was taking place on the sidelines of a SJM-sponsored dinner, and the comments were made by two of the most senior managers of the company, who were obviously well sought-after by journalists in attendance.
Mr Ambrose So, SJM’s CEO, was asked to comment on the remarks made by Li Gang, the director of the China Liaison Office, which related to the fact that the central authorities would introduce policies to support Macau’s battered economy. Mr So naturally appeared very confident that it would be so—we hope that this is what he is suggesting whenever he attends a meeting of the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference in Beijing—and that more cities in China will open up to individual travel schemes.

Then Mr So added that it was not only a question of “numbers” but one of “quality”, as if he were remembering that a few days back, the Secretary for social affairs and culture, Alexis Tam Chon Weng, had said that “more” was not an option. In the present conditions, we seem to be stuck at 21 million mainland visitors per year. So quality it has to be, not quantity! The question for Mr So is therefore how to, and I quote, “select the quality of visitors… and to attract high-quality and high-spending visitors”. What Mr So actually means by “high-spending” is, I am sure, preferably those who are glued to the gaming table!
And then I wondered: but how could one do that and isn’t this in contradiction with several policies supported by Beijing? The central authorities and the Macau government itself are advocating for the diversification of the economy.  In addition to this, if my memory serves me well, fund transfers to Macao by mainland visitors are strictly limited. And then, if the idea, just like in Bhutan, is to only attract the rich, what do we make of one of the four key components of Xi Jinping’s China Dream which is to “comprehensively build a moderately prosperous society”? Are creativity and culture only stemming from wealth? What has SJM done since it opened the Crazy Paris Show in the early 1980s to generate further interest in Macau in order to attract these premium customers—for more than one day, I mean? When was the last time diversification meant a little bit more for SJM than expanding culinary offerings, especially now that the “fish bowl” has gone? Well, the fact that Mr So defines the new game in town as developing Macao into “a center of amusement and leisure” instead of “tourism and leisure” says it all!

As a grand finale, Mr So was asked about the recent scandals and complaints revolving around certain junket operations. For him, junkets are of a different nature at SJM and function strictly within the law. In the words of Mr So, “I checked, they do not follow that same model”. He even went as far as embracing “a more regulated market”. Again, wasn’t it Stanley Ho himself who invented the VIP junket model in the early 1980s? Isn’t this model precisely the one that allows for legally registered stakeholders to avoid responsibility and scrutiny regarding credit extension and debt collection? I guess Mr So will not be proven wrong as long as the only solution championed by the DICJ is to create a code of ethics for junkets…

Finally, Mrs Angela Leong, SJM’s managing director, rejoiced at the temporary extension of her concession to Macao’s canidrome, announcing that SJM would engage into an ambitious renovation plan “to allow for cultural developments, and to allow young people to develop their business.” There is no doubt that Mrs Leong is listening more effectively during the meetings of the government’s Cultural Industries Committee than the ones of the Legislative Assembly. In any case however, i s whistling the tune of the hour enough? The last time SJM’s parent company invested money into these dilapidated and shameful facilities was in 1998… slightly better than the 1980s!

Published in Macau Daily Times, October 9th 2015

Kapok: Look who’s talking!

Although I would not challenge being characterized as a “tree-hugger”, I would not consider myself an “animal lover”. For me, dogs are all about unpleasant dribbling, offensive wet dog smell and untimely walks in the woods for not-so-hygienic unloading. But it is one thing to show no great empathy for pets, it is an entirely different matter not to support legal provisions to put an end to cruelty towards animals. The former has to do with my own personal inclinations, the latter with the degree of advancement of a civilization.

There are many interesting aspects to the project of law that was introduced by José Pereira Coutinho, which pertains to the “Legal status and protection of animals”. This was rebuked in a plenary session of the Macao Legislative Assembly on April 22^nd.

It is important to note that it was a project of law (initiated by legislators, in this case only one), which is not to be confused with a law proposal (initiated by the government). Contrary to what is commonly heard, a few projects initiated by legislators have successfully been made into laws. For example, the very comprehensive Personal Data Protection Law that was passed in 2005 is the most well known, but it is not unique. Other examples include the Law requiring the systematic advice of a lawyer in judicial procedures, or the Law regulating Internet Cafés.

These laws are the highest testimonies of the revered principle of the separation of powers, which is enshrined in Macao's Basic Law. Legislator Coutinho clearly displays political motivation when he introduced six laws in a single week, but contrary to what Legislator Chan Chak Mo has argued, that is to say “mere politicking” by Coutinho in an election year, Coutinho’s actions clearly indicate that some legislators are actually doing their job. In the end, just as “some animals are more equal than others”, some legislators are indeed, more legitimate than others.

The project of law was voted down in its first stage, during the first reading in plenary session. The legislators had plenty of time to carefully examine the 30 articles of the law and the notes that accompanied it, as it was introduced in February, some two months before last Monday’s vote. But the project never made it beyond the political initiative of its introduction and will never be discussed in a permanent commission.

Those who either abstained or opposed gave several reasons. Some argued that the project was not precise enough: was it about domestic animals, or animals at large? Could we still enjoy eating ducks and chicken after the law would be passed? Article 14 of the project is very clear about that, just like the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Ordinance passed in 2006 in Hong Kong: what is to be prevented and punished is cruelty to animals, including in the slaughtering process. But most of the critics have concentrated on the supposed untimeliness of the project as it was released only four months before the end of the legislative session. However, one could argue that almost half of the 2012/2013 session still remains and that the Assembly record for law passing ranges from 6 to 27 laws passed in a single session. Coincidentally, the most vocal opponent regarding “timing” was legislator Vitor Cheung Lup Kwan, who holds the record amongst all legislators for lowest attendance to plenary sessions during the two previous terms in 2011 and 2012. Being a legislator is a full time job!

In the end 4 voted in favor, 9 abstained and 9 opposed, totaling 22 out of 29. Why were seven legislators missing? Why was the legislator, who is closest to the company that runs the infamous Canidrome of Macau (see here for local news and here for international coverage), absent from the vote? Untimely questions maybe?

Published in Macau Daily Times, April 26 2013.