Kapok: The bickerers

The contrast is quite shocking really: on the one hand, legislators who are either appointed or not even elected, but rather endorsed by corporations and traditional associations according to a method of selection in which one name corresponds to one seat — highly competitive indeed — and on the other hand truly elected members of that very same assembly, who have fought very hard to win their seat, and who will take every opportunity and use any mean to make the best out of this unique and very circumscribed forum of democratic debate to oversee, somehow control and to a certain degree make the whole system slightly accountable to the people of Macao.

And yet, the former are giving the latter lessons in solemnity! Complaining that posters and piles of paper cups with challenging messages directed towards the government are being detrimental to the dignity of this otherwise perfectly independent and reason-inspired body of “small circle” representatives who know only one thing: to vote in favor of whatever the government wants as long as their interests are preserved, even when they don’t actually understand and measure the ultimate consequences of the new laws.

The Land Law is but one example, but what an enlightening one it is! Conservative loyalists and self-serving legislators just realized a few months back that the law they had passed — “solemnly” one should add — in 2013 was actually making land grantees accountable for land they had failed to develop — usually after more than 25 years — and thus was somehow hurting either their own interests or the ones of their clients. They wanted (and still want) the law to be changed, or at least amended, or at the very least interpreted… in their favour of course!

The government they usually follow so blindly is now being deemed responsible for not explaining the ins-and-outs of article 48 — the non-renewal of concessions in case of failure to develop and operate, for being too slow in drafting an urban plan, for not providing the necessary authorizations in due course… in short, for fooling them! How can that be when they are supposedly one and the same? What a sense of betrayal they must have felt when the Chief Executive announced that he “strongly rejected” any amendment of the law! Mutiny was in the air. Article 75 of the Basic Law was being brandished: after all, a bill can be introduced by a legislator or a group of them if it does not relate to “public expenditure, political structure or the operation of the government“! Truly, a matter of rule of law and separation of powers! Montesquieu-inspired for sure. How solemn! How noble!

Luckily for us, the government learnt a lesson in May 2014, when it ended up being challenged by the street over the so-called Perks’ bill. Back then the proposal of law was favouring government officials themselves, and especially a soon-to-be- replaced highly unpopular governmental team widely perceived as both indecisive and incompetent. The mistake had been to trust the very same legislators who are now asking for the land law to be amended: for these people, anything goes and public opinion is of little consequence. Not being returned by universal suffrage, they are convinced that their own ceremonial hold over society through their positions in richly endowed associations can subvert any resistance, no matter how legitimate and prevalent it is.

Let it linger then; let it rot and wait for the right opportunity to change the rules of the game. Greed is acceptable only as long as it does not find echoes in unfairness. Apart for Zheng Anting who appears to be completely out of touch with public sentiment, nobody toys with mutiny claims anymore. The Chief Executive visits the Assembly and boasts about the generosity of the central authorities and his own accomplishments, and all the loyal legislators can do is ask for better-trained civil servants, more facilities for the elderly or free education for all in universities. Why and how? Only the frivolous poster and cardboard holders seem to care.

Published in Macau Daily Times on August 4, 2017

Kapok: Moaners

When I voiced concern in my column last February that Ho Iat Seng, the newly sworn-in president of the Legislative Assembly, was openly deploring the lack of “legal training” of legislators and thus questioning their ability to grasp public policy issues, and that Chan Chak Mo, the president of the second permanent commission of the same Assembly, was caught saying legislators should refrain from drafting “projects” of law and exclusively let the government make law “proposals”, I did so in pointing out that these two respectable figures of our community had basically decided on their own to interpret the Basic Law and let go of a key component of the legislators’ power, that is precisely to initiate legislation, as stipulated in article 75 of the Basic Law.

The right of initiative held by legislators is indeed true power and constitutes one of the few “actual” prerogatives that mitigates the derogatory judgment that the Macao legislature is nothing but a “rubber stamp” assembly—toothless and, above all, indefectible, as a whole, in its support to the executive. Power as it allows at minima to elevate the gravitas of the debate and help clarify the stand of each and every stakeholder: a good example of that is the Law on the Fundamental Rights to form Trade Unions that has been pushed by José Pereira Coutinho several times and got defeated (again) in April by just 14 votes to 9. Power as it forces the government to change its order of priority when it comes to policy-making: again, I believe that it is Coutinho’s continuous drive to have an Animal Protection Law that ultimately forced the municipal affairs administration (IACM) to come up with a law that was unanimously introduced in the first reading last month, whereas the IACM had been “promising” that law for more than a decade. And finally, the capacity to “make” a law and not only to vote on or amend it epitomizes the essence of the “legislative power” of that branch of government: the Law on the Protection of Private Data, which was considered up to this summer one of the most advanced pieces of legislation when it comes to the protection of citizens’ rights, was indeed introduced in 2005 by a collective of 8 legislators, including 3 directly elected ones.
If this right to properly raise awareness, set the agenda of policy-making and legislate is forfeited, what is left then? Mere complaints that the government is not fast or good enough? If Melinda Chan champions the rights of the children so much, why doesn’t she come up with a piece of legislation herself? There are plenty of legal advisors in town to help her out—both in Portuguese and Chinese, and outside or inside the Assembly. But the problem is precisely that most of the businessmen-turned politicians conceive their role as having somewhat to do with populist brawling and badly acted moaning.
How can one otherwise explain the high-pitched whining of Mak Soi Kun regarding the noise disturbance generated by the Grand Prix whereas the Law on the Prevention and Control of Environmental Noise had already been voted in August, including favorably by himself? What credit can we give to legislators’ complaints about the level of execution of the government’s budget in November when the second permanent commission never found the time to review the mid-year report provided by the government in August? One of my friends who owns a pretty big business in China has the following slogan plastered on all the walls of his factory: “Winners find solutions, losers only find excuses.” No chance of losing when the game is not opened to competition.
And mind you, legislators cannot really propose laws on every single topic and issue: public expenditure, political structure or the operation of the government are expressly (and safely) out of bound. Legislators Ng Kuok Cheong and Au Kam San had thus to propose a mere debate on political reform and the implementation of universal suffrage in Macao. Expectedly, the proposal was vetoed by 27 legislators out of 33: when concerns get crucial and opinions become power, silence is then golden.

Published in Macau Daily Times, November 21 2014.

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: 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.

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: To go or not to go?

Culture as a concept is notorious for being both wide in scope and pretty vague in meaning. In most encyclopedic volumes, the first reference to it appears in Cicero’s writing as “cultura animi”, the cultivation of the soul or mind, thus an agricultural metaphor expressing the unique capability of a human being to enrich himself or herself, and therefore develop and realize their full and highest potential — philosophically speaking.
In the nineteenth century, romanticism gave culture a particular twist, less universal and more exclusive: culture became closely associated with nations and the ferment of national identities. Along with sweeping modernity arose the distinction between “high” or noble culture vs. “low” or popular culture, thus the reference to cultural specificities and a hierarchy of culture were the grammar of national exclusion and social division. The excess and brutality of the reign of ideologies in the twentieth century, among which nationalism fared on par with Communism and Nazism, led to a critical reappraisal of the notion.
In the words of the famous American anthropologist Clifford Geertz, culture is “a system of inherited conceptions expressed in symbolic forms by means of which men communicate, perpetuate, and develop their knowledge about and attitudes toward life.” The important idea here, contrary to what Samuel Huntington simplistically professed in his “Clash of Civilizations,” is that culture is not reified or solidified knowledge: it changes over time and transformations derive from outside borrowing, and thus acculturation and accommodation. Nevertheless, as Geertz puts it, “culture is simply the ensemble of stories we tell ourselves about ourselves.”
Then why on earth would the United Association of Food and Beverage Merchants of Macao (UAFBM), the association that organizes the Macao Food Festival, decide “not to feature any Japanese food stalls coming from Japan” because of the “relatively high tense political atmosphere between China and Japan” over the Senkaku/Diaoyu islands? Isn’t the food festival supposed to be about culture? Didn’t the UAFBM receive close to MOP 10 million from the Macau Foundation for its “project in support of the preservation of eateries in Macao” in August alone? Isn’t Mr Chan Chak Mo, the president of the UAFBM, also a functional member of the Legislative Assembly representing, precisely, culture? What’s the story then?
First, UAFBM doesn’t really deal with culture: not once, in its statutes, is the word culture in Chinese mentioned. Worse, article 2 states that the purpose of the association is to “love the motherland, uphold the ‘one country, two systems’ principle” and of course defend the legitimate rights and interests of the members of that particular industry. Mr Chan: where is your cultural background and why is the Macau Foundation providing your association with funding? And why would “one country” understood narrowly prevail over the “second system”? Mr Chan Chak Mo is concurrently the managing director of Future Bright Holdings, one of the heavyweights of F&B in Macao (which also operates on the mainland…) listed on the Hong Kong stock exchange, that operates 24 restaurants and 10 food court counters, including quite a few Japanese ones: no wonder then that the Festival’s Japanese corner is going to be filled by over twenty restaurants run by Macau operators! 
If I were my usual self I would merely say: boycott the Macao Food festival! This meddling of politics into culture and especially food culture — remember I am French, almost as inquisitive and demanding for food as a Chinese person can be — is a disgrace, a shameful and insidious act of self-absorbed petty business interests draped in bloated half-baked patriotic disguise! But then, not all the food stalls participating in the event are responsible for the misguided verdicts of Mr Chan’s association, so I will be reasonable: boycott all Future Bright stalls at the festival! Shanghai 456, Cafe Lan, Madeira or Oishii Ichiban and Edo don’t need and certainly don’t deserve your Patacas!

Published in Macau Daily Times on October 26th 2012

Kapok: Who’s the worst?

A survey conducted last week by the Association of Macao New Vision made the front page of the Chinese Daily Cheng Pou 正報 on September 27th revealing that the public rating of all twelve elected members of the Legislative Assembly had dropped compared to last year’s survey, even though Ng Kuok Cheong (a democrat) is still considered the best performer and Kwan Tsui Hang (traditional association, Macau Federation of Trade Unions’) remains the most well-known of the whole lot.

As far as the big picture is concerned, a bit more than 58% of the respondents consider that the Assembly has done an “OK job” (my free translation of “half-half”, 一半一半) in the past legislature, and the rest is highly polarized: only a bit more than 15% are satisfied, and a bit more than 17% dissatisfied. Strikingly, this third installation of the survey reveals that the proportion of “OK job” appraisals has risen constantly, some 8-percentage points more than in 2010, and that about half the respondents don’t believe there has been any improvement when compared to the previous legislature.

Now, looking at individual scores, the three best performers are two democrats, Ng Kuok Cheong and Au Kam San, and a vocal independent legislator cum-civil servant representative José Pereira Coutinho: surprise, surprise, together with Kwan Tsui Hang, these are the only four legislators scoring 60+ on a scale of 100. Then, in descending order, come Ho Ion Sang (traditional association, UGAMM known as Kai Fong), Chan Wai Chi (a democrat), Lee Chong Cheng (traditional association, Macau Federation of Trade Unions), Mak Soi Kun (business interests), Melinda Chan (gambling interests), Ung Choi Kun (business/ gambling interests), Chan Meng Kam (gambling interests) and last, but not least, Angela Leong (gambling interests).

From a purely subjective perspective — exactly what this survey is about, the public perception — it is stating the obvious to say that elected legislators representing gambling interests fail to impress the citizenry. Although multiple factors can explain this state of affairs, one can easily suspect that what wins the praises of the public has to do with the actual social engagement of individual legislators and of course with the capacity of these legislators to defend the general good of the community at large, rather than narrow and segmented interests. One cannot help but notice that all legislators representing business interests are in the lower half of the rankings.

If one connects these perceptions to facts (attendance in plenary sessions and permanent commissions; written and oral interpellations of the government) one can easily find causality relations: Ng Kuok Cheong attends all plenary sessions and permanent commission meetings and is for sure one of the most vocal legislators of the Assembly, both behind a microphone and in writing; whereas Angela Leong misses a lot of permanent commission meetings and writes four times less than Mr Ng. Interestingly enough, the fact that the overall rating of legislators (including the democrats) has continuously declined in the past two years despite the citizenry’s attested growing political awareness seems to indicate a rising disenchantment towards the political elite at large, probably induced by a lack of renewal of political personnel. And remember, this is just an indicative survey, with all its methodological shortcomings, dealing with elected members of the Assembly: Imagine what the appraisal of Vitor Cheung Lup Kwan or Fong Chi Keong would be, both of them indirectly elected and overall winners of the title for legislators least present in plenary sessions…

Published in Macau Daily Times on September 28th 2012