In a two-round election, you follow your heart in the first round and trust your brain in the second. In Macao, we only have one round, so both heart and brain have to be mobilised together. More so because this unique shot at excessively limited democracy happens within a very unfair system.
Unfair because only 14 seats out of 33 are returned via universal suffrage. That is a mere 42.4% of the legislature elected via some kind of competitive suffrage whereas the Macao Basic Law clearly states that “the majority of its members shall be elected”. Contempt for the ultimate law of the land is thus added to injustice!
To be clear, the so-called 12 “indirectly-elected” legislators do not deserve the label of “elected”, unless exactly matching the number of candidates with the number of seats somehow fits the notion of competition.
Has there been any progress since the handover? Yes indeed, at the pace of what the Macao government considers acceptable: we had 10 elected legislators out of 27 in 2001 (37%), growing to 12 out of 29 in 2005 (41.4%) as specified in the Basic Law, and then in 2012, the government took it upon itself to add 2 directly elected seats and 2 indirectly elected seats for the 2013 elections… at the time it was deemed a “successful progress in constitutional development” — an extra percentage point for the representation of the population at large!
Unfair because of the voting system. The so-called “modified d’Hondt” mechanism, a sub-category of Party-list proportional representation, is designed to break down the totality of seats into tiny pieces. The original design was fine as far as representativeness was concerned — although it applied to only a fraction of the Assembly — but Macao introduced its own modification for the pre-handover 1992 elections: the quotient ascribed to calculate the allocation of successive seats after the first one was significantly inflated, thus making it quasi-impossible to elect four members on any single list. Obviously, the then president of the Assembly, Carlos d’Assumpção, had not taken lightly that another list, connected to the independent Chinese-backed “livelihood faction” led by Alexandre Ho Si Him, had received the most votes and managed to lodge three legislators in the 1988 chamber. 1992 then saw the first victory of Ng Kuok Cheong, on a democratic agenda, as well as the first election of Fernando Chui Sai On, on a list, strangely enough, representing the Macao Federation of Trade Unions. Since then, the number of lists in competition has soared, and split lists can even be said to be a 2017 “new normal”!
Finally, it is unfair because of the rigidity of the electoral law regarding campaigning — even more so since the December 2016 amendments — and the unbalanced witch-hunt conducted by the Electoral Affairs Commission (CAEAL). Posting a unique electoral flag outside a dedicated campaigning site is liable to prosecution. But patriotic schools instructing parents on which candidate to choose is of no concern to the Commission. The same goes for the sixty “non-electoral activities involving the distribution of benefits” [查詢法人舉辦非競選福利活動] as detailed by Jornal Tribuna de Macau earlier this week, connected to prominent traditional associations and the lists conducted by Mak Soi Kun, Si Ka Lon, Song Pek Kei, Ho Ion Sang, Wong Kit Cheng, Angela Leong and Melinda Chan. Further, the CAEAL and the CCAC are for now turning a blind eye to “non-electoral activities intended to confer benefits in which candidates are involved” [查詢候選人參加福利活動申報] (!): no less than 62 events for Wong Kit Cheng & co, 24 for Si Ka Lon & co., and an identical 13 events for Angela Leong & co. and Mak Soi Kun & co.
Not so long ago, members of such a traditional and communal association were condemned in first and second instances to prison terms and ineligibility for vote buying despite having denounced selective law enforcement and even political persecution. The times they are a-changin’!
Published in Macau Daily Times on September 15, 2017
Showing posts with label electoral law. Show all posts
Showing posts with label electoral law. Show all posts
Friday, September 15, 2017
Friday, August 19, 2016
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…
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…
Friday, May 20, 2016
Kapok: Of Mountains and Molehills
My, my, my, so many things happening and so many documents being released, all at once: the five-year development plan is now being discussed, the “Interim review of gaming liberalisation for games of fortune” (love the official catchy title!) is being scrutinised and of course the “Revision of the electoral law for the Legislative Assembly” proposal is being opened to consultation — wide and large. Out of consideration for the publisher of this newspaper, I’ll mainly focus on the latter, but let me just ponder for a line (or twenty) on the two other monuments of scientific policy-making at hand.
We have known about the 13th national five-year plan and roughly how it would translate for Macao at least since last November. We heard again about this plan in March, right after Mr Chui’s return from attending the “two meetings” in Beijing. I even wrote a column about it, stressing that “inclusiveness” and “greening”, two of the five key-concepts of the plan had been cast aside for no good reason. Now, I can see that these core ideas have been re-introduced, and yet the lack of specifics, the disrespect for pre-existing and drawn-up schemes (most of them with the year 2020 as their horizon), and the absence of well-defined targets (with numbers!), both intermediate and final, are simply beyond my understanding. Or wait!?! Could it be that the lessons from the total failure of the “General Policy on Traffic and Land Transportation in Macao (2010-2020)” are finally sinking in? Better not have specific target figures with a clear schedule and intermediate stages, otherwise we will have to show the world (or at least our community) that in lieu of science we bring delays, constant revisions and ultimately pointlessness to the entire plan. Adding the imperative of building a “smart city” to the whole enterprise won’t change a dime: in order to have what can be called a city, you need a master urban plan, and for that city to be smart, you need innovative and independent people to run the show freely from vested interests.
Now, looking at the interim review: well, let’s just say that the concessionnaires are credited for having by and large fulfilled all their contractual and operational duties. The positive impact far outweighs the negative downsides, and slightly muscling the “regulatory effort” will unmistakably allow for “a healthy and orderly development of the industry.” Well, if it had not been for Beijing’s new normal and sweeping fight against corruption, the deleterious explosion of junket operations would have never been reined in.
In November 2015, the DICJ was still talking of a simple “code of ethics” for gaming promoters, just like for pharmacists, doctors, lawyers and journalists! Did not I read somewhere that VIP rooms are the place where money-laundering takes (took…) place? Nobody will deny the astounding changes the liberalised gaming industry has brought to Macao: its colossal success has somehow brought pride to the sleeping beauty of the East, but, was it achieved evenly and for the benefit of all? Just like Archimedes’ principle, adverse forces tend to equal favourable ones, despite being different both in scope and nature — overpopulation, traffic congestion, domestic violence, family dysfunction, etc. And then, “tourism and recreation” were the chosen paths inscribed in article 118 of the Basic Law, not gambling, gambling and possibly gambling. Ultimately, making it straightforward and official, right from the start, that this interim review will not count in the 2020/2022 concessionaires renewal process might not be the best of ideas while we are still contemplating the fragile early stages of a long overdue drive towards diversification!
Blimey! No more space for Mrs Sonia Chan’s ambitious plan to reform the legislature’s electoral law! To be honest? Never mind: just like for the 2012 “+2+2+100” missed opportunity at real political reform, the proposal is overly modest and fails to address the core issues — a law on political parties could have been a start. Some people still think that the engine just needs a paint-job: wait until it stops!
Published in Macau Daily Times, May 20th 2016
We have known about the 13th national five-year plan and roughly how it would translate for Macao at least since last November. We heard again about this plan in March, right after Mr Chui’s return from attending the “two meetings” in Beijing. I even wrote a column about it, stressing that “inclusiveness” and “greening”, two of the five key-concepts of the plan had been cast aside for no good reason. Now, I can see that these core ideas have been re-introduced, and yet the lack of specifics, the disrespect for pre-existing and drawn-up schemes (most of them with the year 2020 as their horizon), and the absence of well-defined targets (with numbers!), both intermediate and final, are simply beyond my understanding. Or wait!?! Could it be that the lessons from the total failure of the “General Policy on Traffic and Land Transportation in Macao (2010-2020)” are finally sinking in? Better not have specific target figures with a clear schedule and intermediate stages, otherwise we will have to show the world (or at least our community) that in lieu of science we bring delays, constant revisions and ultimately pointlessness to the entire plan. Adding the imperative of building a “smart city” to the whole enterprise won’t change a dime: in order to have what can be called a city, you need a master urban plan, and for that city to be smart, you need innovative and independent people to run the show freely from vested interests.
Now, looking at the interim review: well, let’s just say that the concessionnaires are credited for having by and large fulfilled all their contractual and operational duties. The positive impact far outweighs the negative downsides, and slightly muscling the “regulatory effort” will unmistakably allow for “a healthy and orderly development of the industry.” Well, if it had not been for Beijing’s new normal and sweeping fight against corruption, the deleterious explosion of junket operations would have never been reined in.
In November 2015, the DICJ was still talking of a simple “code of ethics” for gaming promoters, just like for pharmacists, doctors, lawyers and journalists! Did not I read somewhere that VIP rooms are the place where money-laundering takes (took…) place? Nobody will deny the astounding changes the liberalised gaming industry has brought to Macao: its colossal success has somehow brought pride to the sleeping beauty of the East, but, was it achieved evenly and for the benefit of all? Just like Archimedes’ principle, adverse forces tend to equal favourable ones, despite being different both in scope and nature — overpopulation, traffic congestion, domestic violence, family dysfunction, etc. And then, “tourism and recreation” were the chosen paths inscribed in article 118 of the Basic Law, not gambling, gambling and possibly gambling. Ultimately, making it straightforward and official, right from the start, that this interim review will not count in the 2020/2022 concessionaires renewal process might not be the best of ideas while we are still contemplating the fragile early stages of a long overdue drive towards diversification!
Blimey! No more space for Mrs Sonia Chan’s ambitious plan to reform the legislature’s electoral law! To be honest? Never mind: just like for the 2012 “+2+2+100” missed opportunity at real political reform, the proposal is overly modest and fails to address the core issues — a law on political parties could have been a start. Some people still think that the engine just needs a paint-job: wait until it stops!
Published in Macau Daily Times, May 20th 2016
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)