Kapok: The age of submission

It is unsurprising that the proposal of a law reviewing the Electoral Law of the Legislative Assembly, put forward by the government in that very same Assembly and approved in first reading on August 9 by all legislators but four — the ones we can easily brand our own pan-democrats: Ng Kuok Cheong, Au Kam San, José Pereira Coutinho and Leong Veng Chai — is limited in scope and falls short of the ambition that our less than two-year-old government was supposed to entertain in all matters of governance. Should we be surprised?
Admittedly back in December 2014, serious doubts were raised regarding the capacity of the new secretary for Administration and Justice, Sonia Chan, to carry both a far-reaching reform of the administrative (aka political) system and a much-needed revamping of the judicial institutions — recent outspoken complaints coming from traditionally soft-spoken quarters of society, lawyers and legal advisers leading the charge, aptly testify to that sorry state of judicial affairs.
The main merits of Sonia Chan appear to be that she is untainted — with the indictment of the former Prosecutor General, this is proving precious — and a keen supporter of the Chief Executive (CE). Her previous position at the Office for Personal Data Protection had allowed her to shine as the gravedigger of an inoffensive but embarrassing so-called “civic referendum” targeting Chui’s undisputed re-election in August 2014.
Nevertheless, even though she is only acting on behalf of the vision of the CE, she is supposed to prove herself, just like Alexis Tam and Raimundo do Rosário are trying to do. But then, healthcare, education, traffic management and lodging are top priorities, and the mandate given to her colleagues is loud and clear. On her side, we are in total denial: the system is sound and thus going beyond the reform of 2012 and the ridiculously muted “+2+2+100” formula is out of the question. Electoral democracy in Macao is a matter of technicalities: due processes for the registration of voters and candidates as well as financial aspects and length of the campaign are the only issues that matter. Representativeness: who cares? Quality of the debate: what’s the point? Actual and proven capacity of the ones who represent us all: to what end?
During the public consultation organized in May in preparation of the law proposal, and despite organizational biases favoring traditional and pro-government sectors of the society, persistent voices stressing key (substantial) issues were heard: in a TDM report, a lady was quoted as saying “the issue of insufficient directly-elected lawmakers has always bothered most of us residents” and another resident wondered “aren’t elections all about [justness] and fairness?”, thus “very [reasonably]” asking for “more directly-elected lawmakers” and “[cutting] down on the number of appointed lawmakers”.
To be fair, and in comparison to Hong Kong, the number of elected lawmakers is not that inadequate. In Hong Kong, as of today, we have 3,779,085 registered voters, and 35 (out of 70) legislators are returned through universal suffrage. Overall, that’s one directly elected legislator for 108,000 voters. In Macao, as of December 2015, we have 285,999 registered voters, for a total of 14 directly elected seats (out of 33 in total), so in effect one directly elected deputy for 20,500 voters. So why is the system perceived as unfair?
Having ALL indirectly elected lawmakers (whereas they are the exceptions in Hong Kong) voted in unopposed does not build trust. Having no law regarding political parties, no properly designed constituencies, a flawed electoral system dispersing the votes and an unjustifiable number of CE-appointed legislators do no help either. And then, introducing the review of the law a few months before the elections proper and dismissing any challenge to representativeness as one potentially threatening “stability” in Macao speak volumes about the lack of ambition of Chui: no wonder that the conclusions of the public consultation reports state that for any matter pertaining to the designation of legislators, the decision power rests exclusively with the central government. Submission it is then…

Kapok: The Plumber and the Architect(s)

In the latest stages of the protracted public consultation regarding the amendment of the electoral law for the Legislative Assembly — remember, we have elections next year — the voice of the people has finally been heard. Over the noise of the complacent faithful, the message is loud and clear: there should be more seats, and of the kind that is directly elected by the people — a sovereign body of citizens. Ironically, it is the multitude that is proving to be the architects, with a design for the future in mind, a better one for all. In contrast, the powers that be are acting like plumbers, of a fix-it Felix sort who would have lost his enchanting capabilities.
During the first consultative meetings, only members of the legislature and supporters of well-established associations and corporations were asked to participate, and of course, apart from subdued outbursts by a few isolated participants, the sessions followed to the letter a very predictable pre-­written script.
Pro-establishment figures of the society insisted on minor adjustments or additional restrictions, with the occasional decorous pro-business “trouble-maker” making a “bold” suggestion: why not have additional “functional constituencies” now that the society has grown in size and complexity, proposed Angela Leong, a record-holder as the most absent directly-elected lawmaker.
Never mind that in Hong Kong many people are now challenging the validity of “functional constituencies” for their uneven size and composition, denouncing these so-called representatives who hold multiple votes, sometimes in multiple constituencies, and condemning the fact that 16 out of 35 candidates in these constituencies ran uncontested in 2012, thus casting a shadow on the concept of electoral competition.
In Macao, a quick look at the registered associations supposed to “indirectly elect” legislators representing only five “sectors of activity” reveals that most of them are intertwined, with such-and-such legislator, or even member of the executive council, being on the board of dozens of these “collective personalities” with the right to vote. Ultimately, in Macao, none of these “indirectly elected” legislators is ever contested in his constituency: they systemically run unopposed!  What is an election without a choice? What is the meaning of a contest without candidates to opt for?
And then, when pro-democratic and independent legislators suggest that there is a need for more directly elected seats, why is the idea being rejected on the ground that “it is not adequate to go forward with reform too quickly in [Macao’s] political development”? Why is it objected by legislators who are themselves all appointed by the Chief Executive?
Article 68 of the Macao Basic Law indicates that “the majority of [the legislature’s] members shall be elected”: we have 33 members, 14 are returned by universal suffrage whereas 12 run uncontested and 7 are still appointed (something that existed only in colonial Hong Kong), so we are either missing six additional directly-elected legislators or the electoral law should be in for a far deeper revamping than the four-fold limited adjustments presented to us.
The claim is that these highly sophisticated fine-tunings of our electoral rules are based on reports and observations made by different governmental agencies since the last time we held legislative elections in 2013. Is that really so?
Monitoring expenses and capping them: yes, correct. Strengthening the supervision of electoral activities and updating the rules for candidacy: yes, indeed, but not necessarily the way it is proposed. Defining more clearly what is meant by promotional efforts associated with an electoral campaign and regulating such promotional efforts: sure, but certainly not by completely letting go with the opening of a pre-campaign period during the six months prior to the official campaign.
On the banning imposed to elected members of the Legislative Assembly to hold any political position in a foreign country, well, this is only logical, and I find it absolutely proper, especially because it could be far more stringent and indeed impose a strict Chinese nationality upon all legislators—an extra step not many would rejoice about, I am sure, in the present legislature.

Published in Macau Daily Times, June 3rd 2016

Kapok: Fair... and competitive?

On December 30th, the official reports on the latest elections of both the Legislative Assembly (AL) and the Chief Executive (CE) were made public. At long last – as this took a whopping 16 months since the CE selection and no less than 27 months for the AL elections! For the latter, the 39-page report (in Chinese) was penned by the Commission in February 2014 and yet only released publicly more than half-way through the legislature’s mandate: how can this be justified, if not for democratic principles, at least for the sake of transparency?

The only time democracy 民主 is mentioned in the Macao Basic Law – no disconcerting mention of universal suffrage in our own BL – it is openly associated with “openness”. It furthermore appears, quite ironically, in the Annex dedicated to the selection process of the CE, which reads that the members (300 initially and now 400) of the Election Committee that designates the CE should be chosen according to an electoral law designed “in accordance with the principles of democracy and openness.”
Initially, the reports did not attract much attention. Maybe because of the timing: who wants to write (beyond a quasi repeat of the content) or even read about elections on December 31st? Maybe because of the lack of urgency after so many months on the back-burner. Maybe because of the content: only six meagre “suggestions” for each, with the disproportionate ambition – in the case of the AL – to “improve competitiveness of indirect elections and fairness” in the overall electoral process.
Since then, the debate has flared slightly. On January 4th, Jason Chao, from Macao Conscience and the New Macao Association, denounced the reports as “biased, misleading and unfair.” In the case of the AL review, it was decried for disproportionally targeting some cases while downplaying others that were later actually convicted of “vote buying”. Furthermore, Jason Chao indicated that the early promotion of some of the outgoing CE’s key political proposals – the construction of 28,000 public housing units in particular – could be construed as misuse of public resources. This first salvo was accurately and extensively covered in the Chinese press, including All About Macau and Cheng Pou, with the notable exception of Macao Daily News.
Actually, Macao Daily News presented an excellent idea on January 12th to interview some noteworthy unsuccessful candidates of 2013. Among them Agnès Lam of Civil Watch (5,225 votes), Kuan Vai Lam of Caring for Macao (5,323 votes), Paul Pun of the Betterment of our Community (2,306 votes) and Hong Weng Kuan of the Promotion of the Citizens’ Rights (only 848 votes… significant, really?) – but of course no Liberals (3,227 votes) headed by… Jason Chao. Although Agnès Lam explored in more detail certain aspects of the reports –casting doubts on the efficiency of the proposals to tackle some aspects of corruption or emphasising the problematic absence of a law for political parties [see my own take on that] – the overall message conveyed by Macao Daily News was one of consensus (how surprising!): the campaign period should not be restricted to 15 days, rather be extended, for the informal part, to the time when lists of candidates are being recognised (at the very least) and possibly up to six months before election day.
I have no doubt that an extended and reconfigured campaign period would help: the debate of ideas requires time and opportunity for reason to have a chance. Breaking away from rather outdated traditional modes of mobilisation based on narrow-interest associations – an open door for corruption and populist excesses – supposes it as a precondition. A well-­harnessed modernity demands it. A more focused Electoral Commission commands it. But then, what about the other proposals? Is providing the contact details of the members of the CE Electoral Committee enough to encourage competition? At least for the AL, we will have a public consultation. Hopefully, the discussion has just begun.

Published in Macau Daily Times, January 15th 2016

Kapok: The uniqueness of being only one

Elections get me excited, even when one has no real choice and the predictability of the outcome is no less than 100%. This is uncommon, I admit, as what fills people with enthusiasm during electoral events is the thrill of the contest, the uncertainty of the ultimate result despite the polls and the predictions, and of course the fact that any election is an exercise in power, the power of the one dropping her or his ballot in the box in order to decide upon her or his community’s future for the next four or five years. Elections in essence need to be contested; they suppose competition. In order for this competition to take place, differences have to be carved up, contrasts revealed, ideological stances spelled out, contradictory options openly expressed, alternative proposals debated, etc. More often than not, the infighting and bickering have more to do with ego and personal postures than with platforms, and yet this is a moment when the whole body of citizens gets hooked by the “affairs of the city”, the etymological meaning of politics. Macao people still remember very vividly the 2012 elections of the Chief Executive (CE) in Hong Kong: images of Henry Tang, often caricatured as a pig in the satirical press, blasting live on TV Leung Chun-ying, nicknamed the wolf by the same press, over his tough stand on civil liberties were gripping—and indeed the original front-runner ultimately lost the race to the challenger. The pro-democratic camp candidate, Albert Ho, who stood no chance of winning right from the start, was ultimately relegated to an even fainter secondary role, despite his many attempts to corner both pro-establishment candidates over their (lack of) commitment regarding universal suffrage. And the ultimate irony is that there was no real power of the people either, as the “election committee” was only made up of 1,200 members.
So, what can get me so excited about the present CE elections in Macao? Of course not the program of the unique candidate, which remarkably resembles its 2009 previous incarnation. Of course not the campaign itself, which consists of touring the ever supportive corporations aka traditional interests-associations and hearing patiently their very segmented grievances and proposals, as if they had not have ample time to express these during the past five legislative sessions, again missing the big picture of the overall interest of the community. No, what really fascinates me is the acquiescent abjuration of the most basic democratic values voiced out by some commentators. The argument goes like this: There is no alternative, this is the nature of the “other” system in Macao, and a contested CE election is the exception in our SAR, as it only happened once, back in 1999.
It is true that Hong Kong, in that respect, is quite the opposite as it experienced only two “exceptions” in 2002 and 2005, when Tung Chee Hwa and Donald Tsang respectively ran unopposed—a contested electoral process is thus the rule on the other side of the Pearl River. But what should be added is that these exceptions occurred at a time when our sister SAR went through its worst crisis of confidence ever—Tung indeed resigned before the end of his term, supposedly for health reasons. If we broaden the perspective to the world and google “elections with only one candidate”, what are the instances that we get? Yemen, Zimbabwe and North Korea… Let’s be honest, even “old democracies” fall victims of uncontested elections: in 2012, for example, some 40% of candidates ran uncontested in the state legislature elections in the United States, the highest percentage in 10 years. What kind of commentaries did that situation attract though? Acquiescence and fatalism or a genuine worry about the balance of power and the democratic outlook? Back in 2009 in Macao, there were talks of a possible challenger, the quite popular Prosecutor general Ho Chio-meng. 2009 was also a year during which many politically sensitive surveys and polls were conducted, thus giving the impression that public opinion was much more directly probed.
I partially agree with the idea that this time around what will really matter is foreseeably the new appointments and possibly the new structure of government that will be revealed at the end of December. Yet, with the challenge of the civic referendum looming, I guess it would have been a good idea for Mr Chui to at least bring the novelty of a live TV show, some kind of hybrid between a debate and a forum. Courage is indeed a component of political legitimacy.

Published in Macau Daily Times, August 22nd 2014

Kapok: Under (tight) Scrutiny

On the very day newly elected legislators were taking their oath, several members of Macao Conscience, a political grouping created in 2009 that has been regularly staging civic happenings, openly challenging the government and denouncing by-and-large conflict of interests affecting Macao politics, took to the streets to directly question the “claim” that legislators are genuinely representing the interests of the Macao residents. At stake, the fact that 17 legislators out of 33, or 57% of them, are still either handpicked by the Chief Executive or returned by so-called “indirect elections” for which functional constituencies did not even bother to pay lip service to the idea of political competition, one of the requirements for an election to deserve its name. 
At the heart of their appeal for the Chief Executive to come up with an agenda for political reform that could lead to a universal franchise to elect the totality of the legislature lies the promise entrenched in article 68 of the Macao Basic Law that “a majority of the [Legislative Assembly’s] members shall be elected” as well as a UN Human Rights Committee recommendation issued last March stating that “Macao should consider taking all preparatory measures with a view to introducing universal and equal suffrage in conformity with the [International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights] as a matter of priority”. 
This group of a handful of demonstrators delivering their petition to the government’s headquarters was headed by none other than Jason Chao, president of the New Macao Association and unsuccessful candidate to the Assembly: if you cannot bring the fight “inside”, the least you can do is to continue carrying it “outside”.
Tight scrutiny of the legislators is the vocation trumpeted by the freshly launched website aptly entitled “Macao Legislators Supervision Station”: deploring the opacity of the workings of the Assembly, the website aims to offer a comprehensive track record of the voting behavior of each individual legislator, thus creating some kind of real-time accountability system by default. It also provides detailed information about the assets owned and positions occupied by each legislator as they appear in the recently advertised Declarations of Assets posted on the website of the Judicial Court of the Macao SAR. 
Additionally, one can find the complete contact details of each lawmaker, including postal address, website, Facebook account and email address, making it possible for any citizen to engage with his or her so-called representative(s). Unfortunately, only eleven law proposals and projects as well as resolutions and propositions of debate and hearings are for now taken into consideration, but more will be added in the future. Graphic and news flashes functionalities, again individualized, are still in the making, but the result of this illustrated data collection about our legislators is already pretty striking. There, one comes to realize the deep divide that exists between elected, selected and appointed legislators—the “rubber stamp” characterization of the two latter can truly be seen by a blind man! “King of the ballot box” Chan Meng Kam is on the one hand not shy at all in divulging his assets and yet his track record in the assembly shows that he has abstained or been absent 7 times out of 11—a populist with uncertain opinions? Such is not the case for Melinda Chan Mei Yi, the accessible lady of the people: she opposes or she approves, nothing short of a yes or no… but still, more on the side of the government!
Ultimately, even the new president of the Assembly, businessman turned politician Ho Iat Seng, as well as his deputy, trade unionist Lam Heong Sang, made very ostentatious declarations on the day of their inauguration that “supervision of the government’s actions” should definitely “be reinforced in the future”! Well, talking about conflict of interests, Mr Ho is also the only member from Macao sitting on the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress, the one institution supposed to interpret the Basic Law in case of a dispute and if all else has failed when it comes to enjoying a “high degree of autonomy”… With the upcoming election of the Chief Executive in 2014, there should be more to scrutinize!

Published in Macau Daily Times on October 25 2013.

Kapok: What is to be done?

Reflecting on the past two weeks of intense debate and campaigning for the 14 seats that are up for grabs in the Legislative Assembly on September 15, one could simply say: so far so good.
On the side of the Electoral Commission, and even though there is room for improvement, the act has been cleaned up in many respects. Blatant infringements of the electoral law during the official two-weeks of campaigning have been mostly curbed, especially regarding wild and ubiquitous wall posting of promotional material in non-dedicated spaces—the only obvious exception being private lorries transporting visiting gamblers parading with posters of casino-related candidates. 
One might complain that things could have been even better, especially if some of the rules had been clarified earlier on, as exemplified in the polemic regarding posters adorning taxis. I would also note that prevention of abuses that are difficult to substantiate—especially in the case of connected associations patting voters on the shoulder through gifts and banquets beforehand —could more easily become a reality if the Electoral Affairs Commission had been operating long before March this year, and had had its ranks strengthened during the official campaign with, for example, volunteers from all the lists in the competition. In the case of some of the printed platforms being altered without prior approval of the lists, again an extended lapse of time—only one month as of now—between the publication of the acceptance to enter the fray and the start of the official campaign could help, especially if combined with a legal and transparent consultative mechanism. But let’s not be too harsh: Sunday will be a busy day for the Commission, starting with the monitoring of how voters get transported to the voting booths!
Now to the tone and style of the campaign per se. As expected, it has been buoyant, passionately debated and full of happenings—not quite Hong Kong or Taiwan yet, but getting there. 
The explosive mix of rejuvenation of the electorate, pervasiveness of electronic social media and added competition has translated into a “negative” campaigning style that has pushed the “old guard” on the defensive and helped groom a possible new generation of concerned citizens-turned-politicians. During debate time, traditional association representatives of the four hues—labor, women, neighborhood and patriotic—have been openly challenged. In being directly questioned, the “age-wise” constitutive element of their legitimacy, already pretty depleted in the case of the neighborhood folks, was seriously eroded. All the more so because a few minor lists had been precisely formed to oppose head-on well-established incumbent legislators, even the ones credited with a solid record in the Assembly—in the case of labor-oriented lists, the rustproof UPD was being challenged by at least three alternative ones! Ultimately, not only “age” was being put into question, but also whether or not these associations were “doing a good job”, delivering on their promises and possibly doing so in a consistent manner. Capacity was thus doubted. This attrition of confidence became even more salient for the casino-backed candidates, although the equation for them appeared to be early on “not too lose too much” rather than registering significant gains. If the latest rallying slogans are to be trusted, one can feel that worry has started to get hold of even the most confident heavyweights. Of course, claiming that the house is about to be engulfed by flames in the last days of the campaign has always been a classic strategic eleventh hour politicking recourse. And yet…
What Is to Be Done? When Lenin penned his pamphlet back in 1901, his main argument was that to convert the working class to Marxism despite all the odds, a political party made up of a “vanguard” should be formed to spread the ideology. Communism is gone, but Democracy is still an aspiration. A high turnout rate should probably help a different kind of vanguard making it in.

Published in Macau Daily Times, September 13th 2013

Kapok: Of expected uncertainties

To all the people who believe that the electoral campaign starting on August 31st and leading to the vote of “9.15” is an absolute travesty of democracy I say: You are wrong! Two reasons for the professional cynics to refrain from exercising their disheartening doubtful scorn for electoral politics in the SAR context: First of all, because quite a good number of very respectful, experienced and committed candidates are going to take that campaign very seriously—for that reason alone, comfy disdain is shameful; and then, one can indeed expect far more competition than the widespread “done deal” common sense would like us to believe—it is not only an additional two seats that are going to be contended, but at least five and possibly seven out of 14 opened to universal suffrage.
What is true though is that the government will still hold at least 80% of support in the new Assembly, whatever happens: Out of a total of 33 legislators, seven are directly appointed by the Chief Executive, 12 are endorsed—no real election there despite all the claims—by functional constituencies tightly intertwined together and with the government, and at the very least eight elected lawmakers will never fail to be supportive of the government’s policies, whatever disagreements they might have expressed—and that goes beyond party discipline and is more in tune with self-serving subservience. But then, alternative voices are needed, and this is why, despite the traditional patron-client relations that exist in Macao and the highly restrictive voting system that is being used for these elections (the inglorious modified D’Hondt method), we could be in for a few surprises—uncertainty in essence is democratic!
Despite the lack of reliable studies about voter behaviors—far too often we hear that people are not interested in politics in Macao, and yet samples and questionnaires are either unsatisfactory or biased—it has become rather obvious that a significant segment of the population is quite unhappy with the overall performance of the Legislature and only four lawmakers make the cut above 60% of satisfaction as reported last year by the Association of Macao New Vision: two democrats, Ng Kuok Cheong and Au Kam San, an independent legislator cum-civil servant representative José Pereira Coutinho and Kwan Tsui Hang (traditional Macao Federation of Trade Unions). The worst performers among the directly elected legislators are all from the business sector and especially casino-related—the last of them all being Angela Leong who also holds the record in her category for being the most absent in plenary sessions in 2012/2013. This disgruntlement regarding business-related legislators, the growing strength of the democrats who have been the highest vote-getters in the three previous elections and who are now becoming ever more assertive (aiming at five seats with three lists), the decline of traditional associations (why else offer Chan Hong a seat in an indirect constituency if the Kaifong was so confident?), and an electorate that has become younger at one end (52,000 voters out of a total of 277,000 are aged 29 and below) and more critical for the largest cohorts composed of people in their 50s (74,000 of them) have to be factored in. Then incumbents (Chan Wai Chi, the No. 2 on Ng Kuok Cheong’s list; Melinda Chan Mei Yi, the one least well elected in 2009), new comers on well-established lists (Si Ka Lon, Chan Meng Kam’s No. 2; Lam Lon Wai, Kwan Tsui Hang’s No. 2; and Wong Kit Cheng, Ho Ian Song’s No. 2) as well as novel challengers (Agnes Lam and Jason Chao) all stand an almost equal chance of winning.
Combine the need and craving for change with an unduly limited window of competitive opportunity, and you are almost for sure heading for a bloodthirsty electoral clash, one in which social media could very well serve an extreme role in twisting the campaign towards a negative style, thus exposing the hypocrisy of a few and the distrust in many. And in Macao, nobody needs to be reminded that “a throw of the dice will never abolish chance.”

Published in Macau Daily Times, August 30th 2013

Kapok: More or less

It has become a habit: when things are being advertised or promoted in Macao, “more” has become too often the gauge for “better,” and in some instances even “good”. So much so that I have run out of half-smart, sarcastic, catchy titles to characterize this “infantile disorder”, as Lenin might have put it: “Quantity vs. Quality”, “More vs. Better”, “The Tyranny of Numbers”, etc. How predictable this sorry state of affairs is.
True, “more” has the potential to improve a situation, especially when one is talking about a market economy. We are better off with six gambling operators than when we had one. Not only have the growth figures and number of visitors skyrocketed but the quality and diversity of services, and what is on offer in town have expanded to an unthinkable level from just a decade ago. Even in the less than sympathetic article, published by CNN.com this week, entitled “The dark side of Asia's gambling Mecca,” the figure that sticks is that Macao surpassed Vegas for gambling revenues back in 2006 and is presently six times bigger. All this despite the unpalatable suspected association between several junket operators and triads, or the downgrading by the American State Department of our SAR in 2012 when it comes to human trafficking. 
Sometimes, I wish that we had more: number of hospital beds, social and economic housing units, wholesale importers of meat and fish, levels of electricity pricing for households, etc. Sometimes, I believe that we should have less: number of public bus operators, casino outlets, cosmetic as well as dry-cake and beef jerky or luxury brand shops, parking meters, or even the amazing variety of street furniture. Almost always I feel that we deserve better: road condition, traffic, environment, healthcare and education services, housing maintenance, sport facilities, etc. Apart from food outlets and hotel accommodation, the need for improvement is in every mind. 
The same goes for politics and especially elections. As far as the total number of voters is concerned, “more” is definitely better: 277,153 registered voters for this year’s legislative elections translate into 28,445 new voters compared to 2009, and more than half of these new voters are aged 29 or below. If we take into consideration the previous turnout rate (about 60%), that basically means that this new youth vote determines the election of one seat! Then of course, additional seats, even though limited to four, create new opportunities. New faces and ideas feel that their time has finally come. But then, things become tricky. First of all the voting system that is in practice in Macao for both direct and indirect elections—a system adopted in the early 1990s and thus predating the handover—makes it almost impossible for a candidate placed in third position on any given list to make the cut and is therefore conducive to an over inflated number of lists. Hence, the democrats lining up three lists this year (against two in 2009 and only one in 2005) in the hope of maximizing their chances to get at least four members of the New Macau Association elected (against three today). The danger lies in the dispersion of votes, and thus requires strict discipline in distributing one’s support. Finally, things are yet undecided for “indirectly elected” seats. I have many times pointed out that indirectly elected legislators are highly illegitimate—apart from breaking the record of absenteeism in the Assembly— especially because both in 2005 and 2009 they never had to submit to a vote, even limited to a vote by collective entities—they were merely selected and endorsed by their peers on single lists. This year around, the rules have changed: an election is required. In some instances, that won’t make any difference: the two candidates from the Federation of Trade Unions running for the Labor seats have been endorsed by 80% of the members of that particular sector…and yet, come the time of secret ballot, abstention could mean something! And why not multiple lists in other sectors?

Published in Macau Daily Times, June 21st 2013

Kapok: Pluto-mediocracy

It was indeed a small piece of news: a local tycoon’s construction company being granted a renovation work contract for a government building without having to go through a public tender. This is not illegal: the laws that apply make room for exceptions to “public tendering,” and in this case the justification given for the MOP27 million contract was that “security issues” were involved, as the renovation work would take place next to the government headquarters, thus requiring “special and confidential” treatment. Yet I could not help reminding myself what Au Kam San, a democrat legislator, once had said: “exceptions have become the rule in Macao,” giving evidence that out of a few hundred construction and renovation projects that should have gone through public tendering, only a handful had actually complied. In that particular case, the company involved, Man Kan Ltd., had already been granted at least four such contracts by the government, as reported by Hoje Macau, and “all the renovation works for government buildings since the handover” if we trust José Pereira Coutinho, another vocal and independent legislator. Moreover, Man Kan Ltd. is not run by any mini-tycoon… its chairman of the board is none other than Fong Chi Keong, who happens to be also the president of the Association of Building Contractors and Developers, the vice-president of the Macao Chamber of Commerce, the chairperson of the Kiang Wu Charitable Association (founded in 1871) that runs the Kiang Wu Hospital, the chairman of the Macao Daily Readers’ Charity Fund that is behind the charity “Walk for a Million”… and also a legislator, sitting as one of the four indirectly-elected legislators representing the business interests in Macao.
Mr Fong is a well-known figure, and he claims ancestry in the territory over some 200 years, and thus has formed connections that cut across the hold of the four main families (the two Ho, Ma and Chui). A round face adorned with a crew cut and a sharp gaze behind large metal-framed spectacles, he is also known for his coarse language, so much so that a Youtube channel called the “Cannon Channel” 大砲頻道 is dedicated to his many blunders and less than subtle passing judgments. Many times over he has felt threatened by youth, questioning the sanity of young “agent provocateurs” manipulated by old democrats or characterizing young people daring to voice out their frustrations as “losers”. Of course all this is compensated by lavish charity spending in several youth-oriented ventures, as Mr Fong has allegedly given away a hundred million yuan to the Nanhai district for educational purposes—all the more commendable for a man who barely finished high school. For sure Mr Fong does not really approve of the concept of accountability, and he often reacts very buoyantly albeit senselessly when his stewardship is being questioned, whether it concerns the final destination of the money raised by the “Walk for a Million”, the discrepancy in salary raises at Kiang Wu Hospital or even his excessive absenteeism in the legislature… Only his Man Kan Ltd. dealings manage to keep him quiet!
A mere “edit (slightly) and paste” of what was once noted by the great German sociologist Max Weber perfectly applies to Mr Fong: “There are two ways of making politics one’s vocation: Either one lives ‘for’ politics or one lives ‘off’ politics”. In fact, the two often come together: one who lives for a cause also lives off that cause. The problem arises when one exclusively lives “off” politics!

Published in Macau Daily Times, May 24th 2013

Kapok: Meaningfulness

Here we go – September 15 is the date for the next legislative elections. As reported by newspapers, the campaign has already started. Legislators are becoming extremely visible and outspoken, asking for all sorts of ever-more-pressing laws to be pushed through before the end of the legislative term and complaining about the slow and/or inadequate responses by the government regarding their queries and objections. Even those who are not directly elected and who did not face any competition last time around (in 2009 there was only one list of candidates, who filled the exact number of seats in each of the four functional constituencies, hence my being reluctant to call that an election for the so-called “indirectly elected” legislators) have been vocal about their commitment to the job, positioning themselves as champions of the have-nots and defenders of the spoiled majority. One of them, a seasoned pro-government businessman, even expressed bold critiques of a real-estate developer for being too eager to brandish the Basic Law and the protection of private property to defend his right to disfigure our “green lung” and vandalize our heritage in Seac Pai Van. It is quite a balancing act to secure the rights enshrined in the mini-constitution and yet make sure these rights are consistent with the original intent of protecting the community.
Concerned citizens have been on the move too. In the very same week, two associations, the Tri-Decade Action and Macau Conscience, have respectively petitioned the Commission Against Corruption (CCAC) and the newly formed Legislative Elections Affairs Commission to ask for “cleaner” elections. They have vehemently requested these reputable institutions come up with clearer guidelines as to what constitutes vote buying, and more generally speaking electoral malpractices, and of course toughen their act pertaining to these debilitating diseases of our underdeveloped democracy. This is of course of extreme importance, and yet I have serious doubts that this will be conducive to any significant change. First of all, because the CCAC was allegedly given the power to investigate vote-buying starting with the 2001 elections precisely because the 1996 had translated into, according to the official statement, “[a] huge public concern surrounding rumors of bribery and misconduct.” By any account, the 1996 elections, with the handover in perspective, were by far the most dubious to occur in our territory. Some, far too easily, put the blame on the outgoing Portuguese colonial administration. Certainly, fighting electoral corruption might not have had top priority back in 1996, but if one looks at the composition of the legislature that was then sworn in, one might be surprised to discover that some of the legislators exposed at the time are still legislators today — directly or by proxy — and for those who are not anymore, still constitute what we could describe as the highly respectable establishment of our community. There was continuity, after somewhat of an improvement for the 2001 and 2005 elections, when corruption kicked back very hard in 2009, despite the fact that the Electoral Affairs Commission had made the fight against such inadmissible practices its top priority. At the time, that led me to characterize the commission as “the biggest loser of the elections”. Today, one can see giant posters of elected members of the Assembly already in full campaign gear pinned on the façade of our central districts, despite the fact that it is illegal according to the electoral law. What is the Electoral Affairs Commission doing about it?
Once more, what would really help eradicate corruption is to be found in “meaning”: if elections were truly competitive and gave the chance for political platforms to contend, and if the legislature really mattered and was a tangible check on the executive branch, then the voters, the citizens, might be tempted to make their vote count. But then, if there is no meaning, why not take the cash, enjoy the dinner, go to a concert or benefit from a bit of extra money when Chinese New Year comes?

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

KAPOK: The Blame Game

From a purely heuristic point of view, the Lau Si Lo resignation rumor has two virtues. On the one hand it allows us to reflect on the ins and outs of a rumor: who has an interest in spreading it? Why and how does it spread? Ultimately, that might be conducive to doing something about it. On the other hand, it entices a debate on responsibility, blame and citizen empowerment.
In his little book aptly entitled On Rumors, American law professor Cass Sunstein distinguishes between four main types of rumor propagators: the ‘narrowly self-interested’, the ‘generally interested’, the ‘altruistic’ and the ‘malicious’. The narrowly self-interested ones are in the game for personal gain, either for money or to get ahead in a competitive environment. The generally interested ones seek to attract attention and to raise eyebrows in public, for the benefit of a group interest. The altruistic have a different playing field: they vie to promote the public good and are often genuinely outraged by what they denounce through the spread of rumor. Finally, the malicious just want to inflict pain, to injure others for the sake of doing so. What all of these propagators have in common is that most of them are no way near knowing the truth, and can offer little or no evidence of what they profess. Also, a rumor will be spread by different propagators at the same time, and so the question remains: what makes a rumor “successful”, if by successful we mean spreading widely, even though it might very well be false?
Sunstein thus emphasizes the importance of what he calls ‘prior convictions’: “whether people believe a rumor depends on what they thought before they heard it.” Firstly, because our beliefs are ‘motivated’ by our hopes, goals and desires. Secondly, because the rumor adequately or less so fits what we already know. Thus “thresholds” for accepting rumors are different from one place to another. Then the transmission of the rumor comes into play, mainly as a result of ‘social cascades’: firstly ‘informational cascades’, imperfectly informed or totally ignorant, one finds it increasingly difficult to resist what one hears from others; as well as ‘conformity cascades’ - one does not want to be seen as socially inapt by escaping peer pressure in not believing. Of course, ‘group polarization’, and thus the strengthening of one’s own convictions through discussions with like-minded people also play a role.
As of now, while reading the newspapers and discussing with friends who know presumably little about the Lau Si Lo case, I would acknowledge that there are only three types of propagators, as I haven’t read or heard any purely malicious comments regarding Secretary Lau’s potential dismissal. What is striking though is how nobody has really challenged the rumor, except for the person concerned and his boss, who have offered up to now only a mere denial or muttered response — and rightly so as the pace of government cannot be the same as the media’s.
Extensive ‘prior convictions’ seem to be giving an additional momentum for this rumor to stick and amplify: starting with what we know for sure — a very critical CCAC report regarding the LRT and the nullification of all the La Scala land grants by the government in September — all the way to what society widely postulates since the unraveling of the Ao Man Long scandal in 2006 — that corruption, conflict of interests and clientelism are original sins in our policy.
What is to be done then? How can rumor be fought in an environment where the culture of irresponsibility is tolerated, the lack of responsiveness on the side of public authorities is putative, and extremely powerful individuals are completely unaccountable, either through elections or vivid grilling by a truly muckraking press? At the end of the day, responsibility has to be shared in a community and we all must assume part of the burden. Nothing new under the sun here: both Socrates and Confucius were advocates of this individual imperative! You and I are also to be blamed for not being demanding enough…

Published in Macau Daily Times on Friday 12 October

KAPOK: The More the Merrier

It has become a ritual since 2003: happen what may, every year on July 1st Hong Kong people march in the streets from Victoria Park to Central to defend and assert the fundamental meaning of the “one country, two systems” formula.

Hong Kong just like Macao enjoys “a high degree of autonomy” as a Special Administrative Region and is therefore run by Hong Kong people. The “high degree of autonomy” principle is etched in stone in the Basic Law and the indigenous ruling is the motto oft repeated by top officials as a consequence of that autonomy. As the autonomy is not “full”, then the demo is all about “how high is high,” and thus demands echo both defensive worries and offensive claims, ranging from condemnation of blatant interference by Beijing to the appeal for full democracy, the latter being conceived as the best guarantee against the former.
The year 2003 clearly marks the end of “political apathy” for the population of Hong Kong, although one could argue that political activism had already embroiled the British colony in the 1920s because of massive labor disputes, later on in the 1960s because of the Cultural Revolution, and of course in May 1989 when more than 1.5 million participants took part in a march of sympathy for the young people demonstrating on Tiananmen Square — a similar rally gathered more than 100,000 people in Macao at the time.
The 1989 protesters in Hong Kong were not only sympathetic to the democratic cause fought in the Chinese capital city but of course equally apprehensive about their own future under the “one country, two systems” scheme. The hardening of the Chinese communist regime and the massive rallies held in Hong Kong led to a more democratic-oriented Basic Law (1990) and widened the opportunity for political reform as pushed by the last British Governor, Chris Patten, nominated in July 1992.
The July 1st march is definitely more strictly Hong Kong-focused though, and rightly so as it coincides purposely with the anniversary of the handover. Commemorations of the Tiananmen Square massacre are being held on June 4th every year in Victoria Park, and because of a particularly degraded human rights context on the motherland the candlelight vigil attracted this year some 180,000 quiet but resolute grievers. More specifically, the July 1st 2003 rally was originally triggered by the clumsy attempt to enact stricter state security laws as provisioned by article 23 of the Basic Law in a context in which the many lies of the Chinese authorities had been exposed regarding the SARS crisis, a pandemic that originated in Guangdong but hit the hardest in Hong Kong. The whole situation had furthermore been aggravated by the lack of political astuteness of both the Chief Executive of the time, Tung Chee Hwa, and his reviled security secretary, Regina Ip, thus allowing for clumsiness to become malevolence — and for the streets of Central to be crowded by 500,000 protesters!
In 2012, worries about the allegedly tainted new Chief Executive, C.Y Leung, brought to the streets some 100,000 to 400,000 people, depending which counting institution you trust (I intentionally disregard figures given by the police as they are always beyond being conservative). Tainted politically because of his suspected coziness with the Chinese Communist Party heightened by his “strong leadership” style. Tainted morally because of the “illegality” of some renovations made at his home(s) on the Peak that obliterate his vigorous attacks regarding similar wrongdoings made against his former opponent in the Chief Executive race.
Vigilance is thus about the nature of the matter, but you cannot claim bargaining power unless you have the big numbers.

Published in Macau Daily Times, Friday 6th July 2012

KAPOK: Neither One Nor the Other

Being in France at the time of the legislative elections last week acted as a stark reminder of what is missing in our polity here in Macao: good reasons to hope for the best and not only dream of it. Allow me to clarify. In this first round to elect legislators held on June 10th, French citizens were basically being asked about the kind of politics they would like their government to engage into for the next five years, bearing in mind that France, like most countries in Europe, has been confronted with daunting economic difficulties over the past four years. These elections are taking place one month after a new President, François Hollande, a socialist, has been himself elected against the incumbent head of state, Nicolas Sarkozy, a right-winger, and they seem set on sending a left-wing majority to France’s lower assembly, although short of an unstoppable pink-and-red wave — confirmation of the new majority will be secured on the evening of the second round, on June 17th. Among the many reasons why Nicolas Sarkozy was defeated a month ago, his authoritarian, bling-bling and hectic style — or lack thereof— played for sure a crucial role, but it is no doubt his inability to restore economic growth while concurrently allowing for inequalities to reach unprecedented levels since the nineteenth century that brought about his downfall, and all the rhetoric about the risks of changing the captain in the midst of the storm was proven wrong. To my own eyes, and even though I am myself more left-leaning, Nicolas Sarkozy’s policies ultimately conflicted with the core values of his own political tradition: instead of strengthening the idea of an organic national community, division was brought to the fore; efficiency was constantly undermined by frantic changes of orientation that never accommodated appropriate time to bear fruits; and if change (“rupture” as we say in French, meaning breaking away from certain practices and customs) was to be at the center of all politics, it ultimately failed to find its raison d’être thus confirming the African proverb than “when you do not know where you are heading to, you should remember where you are coming from.” Looking now at the legislative elections, the republican right-wing party registered in last Sunday’s first round its lowest score ever (less than 35%) since 1958, therefore confirming the wish for change expressed one month ago. Yet, only 57% of the registered voters did go to polling stations, a turnout that is as well a record-low in the past fifty years and indicates the prevalence of a wait-and-see posture. Now, the National Front, a far-right authority-prone xenophobic political movement has managed to capture some 13.7% of the vote, running on a political platform in which advocacy of protectionism and fear of globalization play the key roles. In this context, the tasks ahead for the new socialist government are formidable: France is the second biggest economy in Europe, but if inflation runs at less than 2.3%, unemployment has now climbed to 10%, economic growth only reached 1.7% last year, public debt hit 85.8% of GDP and public deficit, although receding, 5.2% of GDP — a far cry from Europe’s golden rules. If austerity measures seem to be out of the question in the short run, it seems obvious that public action will only be made possible by increasing revenues (the tax-to-GDP ratio in France is already the 7th highest in Europe) as well as becoming more cost-effective. Economic efficiency, social fairness and overall sustainability of the whole system are at stake. To put it short, the requirement is to move away from quantitative growth to qualitative nurturing at a time of great upheavals. Being deprived of making that choice through an electoral process clearly would have run the risk of getting neither efficiency nor fairness, or at least, to be less idealistic, missing an opportunity to give a trustworthy try at both.

Published in Macau Daily Times, June 14 2012