Kapok: Liberté, égalité, fraternité

I must admit that I usually don’t easily gulp overly nationalistic injunctions, and hence consider appeals to “national unity” and unquestionable flag-waving displays of national pride with great suspicion. In that respect, I follow a long, ironically partially French, tradition of anarchist thinking, still very much alive today, the one of Georges Brassens who derided in his songs “the race of chauvinists and cockade-bearers” and “the happy fools whose hometown means the world”. Cabu, Wolinski, Charb and Tignious, the four (now for sure) world-renown caricaturists who were cold-bloodedly executed in the terrorist attack against Charlie Hebdo on January 7 belonged to this very same tradition: one of irreverence for self-confident powerful people as well as one of absolute rejection of every single form of intolerance—religious, but also political, social and economic. Core to that credo is the intimate conviction, one that can be traced back to Plato and the use of the Ring of Gyges described in the Republic, that power holders will always be tempted to abuse their power, and ultimately, as Lord Acton beautifully puts it that “power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely”.
Yet, after the dismay and awe triggered by the double terrorist slaughter that took place in the very heart of Paris and ultimately claimed the life of 17 people, including three policemen, whose job, as state representatives, was precisely to make sure that citizens’ rights were protected, a new kind of emotion kicked in. All of a sudden, individuals and governments alike, French and from all around the world, felt that a symbol had been partly destroyed and purposefully threatened, something essential to what makes us human beings, decent and civilized people. Of course, compared to the horrendous massacres that took place almost concomitantly in Yemen and Nigeria, claiming the lives of possibly thousands, one has to feel humble: Islamic terrorism mostly kills Muslim victims and to be honest one could even say that in comparison Europe is more fearful than actually devastated by terrorism. But symbols, and hence representations are what make us distinctively human. Thus, “liberté, égalité, fraternité” (freedom, equality and fraternity), the motto of the French Republic suddenly made perfect sense, as something that should be embraced and cherished. Feeling patriotic was suddenly universal and unmistakably worth espousing. The freedom to express my opinion, the equality of all, whatever the gender, race and religion, and the much needed fraternity to surmount this upheaval and possibly prevent what made this self-devouring brutal act possible. The point was not anymore whether one would agree or not with the provocative drawings of Charlie Hebdo, but the realization that these “foot soldiers of liberty” were the guarantors of the outer fringe of our freedom of expression within the boundary of the law. Hence close to 4 million people in the streets of France on Sunday 11 to pay tribute to those departed. Hence the totality of the members of the French assembly chanting the national anthem to salute the Prime Minister’s speech on Wednesday 14, a first since the armistice of 1918.
To my great consternation, that very same freedom of speech was invoked on January 13 to defend the unsavory comments made by legislator Feng Chi Keong during the plenary discussion related to the new Domestic Violence Law. Mr Fong, in his usual table-talk manners, clearly implied that it was okay to beat one’s wife once in a while when she was arguing too much or being seemingly unresponsive to sexual arousing—going as far as saying that marriage was some form of bestial arrangement to satisfy sexual needs. What shields Mr Fong is not the protection of freedom of speech, it is his legislative immunity. What protects Mr Fong is the fact that the penal code does not clearly define the “apology” or “instigation” of violence and discrimination towards women despite the fact that Macao is a signatory of the Convention on the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women. What protects Mr Fong is not the respect he commends in the community, it is the fact that he is not accountable to an electorate. The problem is: Mr Fong is designated by the Chief Executive, and is the president of the charitable association behind the Walk for a Million as well as the president of the Kiang Wu Hospital Charitable Association, among many other things. We trust that he could be made accountable in other ways…

Published in Macau Daily Times, January 16th 2025.

Kapok: Blowing Hot and Cold

Politicking in Macao at present is being blurred by the celebratory mood of the year-end, and Christmas has indeed a lot to do with it. With the visit of Xi Jinping on the occasion of the fifteenth anniversary of the handover (on top of the 65th anniversary of the establishment of the People’s Republic of China that some associations in Macao have been toasting to since the wee hours of January 1st), the overall atmosphere exudes an ever more ostensible display of loyalty and gratitude towards the benevolent fatherly figure whose tutelage has allowed Macao to (immensely) prosper in the past 15 years. Well, clearly, Macao has been (vastly) transformed since it was handed over back to China in 1999, but still what resonates in my mind is the corporate hype uttered by Sheldon Adelson in August 2007 during the inaugural speech of the Venetian that Macao would never be the same again after the opening of the world biggest casino. And here we are, seven years later, and Macao is seven times bigger than Vegas.
Yet, gaming revenues have plummeted in the past six months, and thus Macao is technically speaking in recession—two successive quarters of GDP contraction—, and the main culprit as reported by many gaming analysts and bankers alike is to be found in the anti-corruption drive that has been targeting both “flies and tigers” on the other side of the Portas do Cerco for the past two years—the latest high-profile victim being Zhou Yongkang, former domestic security tsar and former member of the ultra-selective Standing Committee of the Politburo of the Chinese Communist Party. Is Santa Claus thus the Whipping Father in disguise? With the trouble encountered by the “one country, two systems” formula in Hong Kong in 2014, it is all but too easily understandable that Mr Xi and his proxies would be quite pleased and even extremely forgiving with scrupulous devotees to a very conservative interpretation of what was imagined by Deng Xiaoping at the end of the 1970s. Public policy non-sense, appalling infrastructures and mismanagement of public funds are indeed little things compared to the unquestionable compliance with a political imperious necessity.
Well, up to a certain point, hence the vocal call for diversification that is now expressly required from Macao—this is not a suggestion anymore, and this time it is for the sake of China as a whole—and the clean-slate approach to the forming of a new government on December 20th. But then why let the Chief Executive nominate someone like Mr Chan Chak Mo on the Executive Council? Mr Chan is a successful businessman (that helps qualify for this consultative body) and has been a legislator since 2001 (representing, quite oddly the cultural and sports sector). But then, he is also the president of the second permanent commission of the Legislative Assembly that tried to push through, in May 2014, the now infamous ‘Perks Bill’ that would have provided golden parachutes to retiring principal officials in Macao. At the time, Mr Chan characterised the bill as “very reasonable”. He also commented that it was “naïve” to organise demonstrations or have petitions signed to oppose the bill, as if the piece of legislature was bound to pass anyway. The president of the Legislative Assembly, Mr Ho Iat Seng, rejoiced at the idea that an additional legislator in the Executive Council could improve communication between the executive and the legislative powers, something that I quite agree with, despite Montesquieu being a fellow Frenchman. Yet, is a legislator who was elected by a mere 53 associations in a constituency in which he was the sole candidate the best choice? Is the man who is partially responsible for provoking the biggest ever demonstrations in Macao in 25 years because of his lack of understanding of the popular discontent the most appropriate? Surely if you want to convey the idea that indeed everything is under control. And then, for Mr Chan, this is just another “business opportunity”: after all, he will get 30% of the Chief Executive’s salary for simply attending one meeting a month… Where has the Whipping Father gone?

Published in Macau Daily Times on December 19th 2014

Kapok: Expected Expectations

Nobody can deny it: the announcement of the new government line-up last Monday did not come as a surprise, quite the opposite. Secretaries’ and other senior officials’ names had been the talk of the town since early November. First on social media platforms, and then splashed on the web-based liberal Aamacau.com (All About Macau, 論盡媒體) on November 8th and ultimately confirmed, in a Pravda-like announcement, on November 11th as the masthead of the front page of the Macau Daily News. Interesting to note that the city’s main pro-government and pro-China daily has lost part of its edge—it was late compared to new electronic media—and yet journalists and commentators only went berserk after the list had been anointed by the establishment’s mouthpiece, here trusted almost like the “official gazette”—can anybody imagine the Ta Kung Pao or the Oriental Daily News announcing the new government beforehand in Hong Kong and everybody else taking it for granted?
Before the summer, rumours were rife as to who would be the chosen ones, but the idea of a complete fresh start was remote, to say the least. The retirement perks bill, despite its fiasco, had confirmed that some kind of musical chairs game was at play, and the names of Lionel Leong Vai Tak as well as that of Alexis Tam Chon Weng were in the mind if not on the lips of everybody slightly interested in Macao politics. But then, the rationale was that continuity would be preserved, and that “good soldiers”, even though they had proven themselves dully unimaginative, would stay on. Even Lau Si Io, the secretary for Transport and Public Works, most probably the most unanimously derided high official, was believed to keep his portfolio. Truly, who would accept the job that is at the heart of most livelihood issues in Macao— transport and housing, and in that order, if the government’s think tank is to be trusted—and still ignominiously tainted by the Ao Man-long scandal of 2006? No wonder that Raimundo Arrais do Rosário had to be called back from his decade long spell in Europe representing Macao…
Why then the need for such an apparent “clean slate” approach? First and quite ironically, because Chui Sai On himself was returned unopposed in his Chief Executive position, thus demeaning the very nature of an election by making it totally uncompetitive. Rigidity on the one hand was calling for more flexibility on the other. Second, because a real popular demand does exist and moreover was taken into account by Chui the candidate. On the side of popular demand, the unfairness of the retirement perks bill pushed 20,000 people onto the streets in May, ultimately forcing the government to bury the bill for good. And despite the many hurdles and intimidations faced by the organisers of the Macau civic referendum of late August, close to 9,000 citizens took part in this independent probing of citizens’ preferences. Eventually, the whole of Chui’s “campaign” was about him having heard the demands of the people, as expressed by the more than 100,000 suggestions and opinions sent to his office while “on the campaign trail”. And third, the Hong Kong SAR situation, whatever the perception, positive or negative, has had a corroding effect on the self-confidence of the powers that be, and in order to prevent a possible stalemate, preemptively providing a resolute stance for (orderly) change appears to be a smart move—beyond the real necessity to do so.
And then came Li Fei, the chairman of the Macau Basic Law Committee and the Deputy Secretary-General of the National People’s Congress Standing Committee, the very same man who came to Hong Kong in late August to explain the ruling of the standing committee over universal suffrage in our sister SAR, and now most notorious for having said that “Only one person [candidate] does not make an election, but too many is not proper either”. While attending a forum in Macao this week, he remarked that contrary to what some people think, deep-seated problems in Macao do not lie in the nature of political governance or stem from the fact that Macao is not democratic enough, but rather derive from Macao’s “own limitations”, the system inherited from the Portuguese colonial administration and other factors related to social and economic development. He then made it clear that “the overwhelming dominance of gambling in Macao is not in line with the overall interest of Macao” and furthermore that it is not in the “socioeconomic safety, stability and developmental interest of the mainland and the whole nation”. What is thus asked from Macao is to reinvent itself with much less gambling and much more patriotism. That for sure requires a whole new team!

Published in Macau Daily Times on December 5th 2014.

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: Red cards for yellow cabs

The disappearance of the yellow taxis in Macao is saddening. First, because they had become a customary fixture of our daily lives: the Official Gazette reminds us rather aridly that the license awarded to their operator, the Vang Iek Group, dates back to 1989, and a quick look at the Group’s website indicates that Vang Iek itself was established in 1935—a sign that the virtues of family business is not an assurance of sustainability in the new Macao. Second because, as Andrew Scott, the vocal founder of the Facebook group Macau Taxi Driver Shame, puts it, they were the “shining light” of the industry, while the “black taxis” are perceived as “being the problem.” This leaves us with a feeling of injustice. Third and finally, because the Transport Department (DSAT) appears to have performed, once again, below average when it comes to both its regulatory and tangible capacities—and here I am not even talking about style and disclosure skills.
Some might argue that they had it coming. At least 90% of their 100 taxis were supposed to be on call, but they ended up with only a fraction of the fleet actually on call. When the operator was told that the license would be renewed for another year, on condition that 80% of the taxis would satisfy that initial requirement, it failed to do so; and then the license was renewed for only 9 months, provided that 60% of the taxis would be on call. Vang Iek ultimately had to announce themselves that they would cease operations on November 6th, since the scheme was simply not viable—after all this is a company, not a charity. And Vang Iek’s management team noticeably pointed its finger to the lack of support and responsiveness of the DSAT. Sure, regulations and tender-biding commitments have to be respected, but then the overall context changed—and fast—so operating conditions should have adapted just as swiftly.
What are the main problems with taxis? The total number—too scarce—and the pricing—insufficient, thus encouraging malpractice, overcharging and abuse in general. This was clearly highlighted in the 2011 General Policy on Traffic and Land Transportation in Macao (2010-2020)—and what has the DSAT done since then? Not much regarding the taxis, and in fact the success of the Macau Taxi Driver Shame group (created in June 2014 and already counting more than 4,500 supporters) is an indication that the situation has worsened dramatically. I am myself not a big fan of this kind of group because—despite its claim that it is also “rewarding” the well behaved—it is designed to humiliate and discriminate against part of the community, making it very divisive and a trigger for equally acrimonious counter-strategies from those ‘shamed’. It creates a cycle of distrust and, although it allows disgruntled users to vent out their repressed resentment, ultimately it addresses the symptoms and not the ailment. Yet it still has its virtues, since its byproduct, the Macau Taxi Passengers Association (MTPA)—also headed by Andrew Scott—has submitted several recommendations to the DSAT in September in the framework of the consultation on the revision of the law on taxis—dating back to 1999, mind you.
Both the MTPA and DSAT propose comprehensive and far-reaching amendments regarding licensing, training, pricing, and monitoring (including punitive measures with much more significant fines and even the suspension and cancellation of licenses for non-complying drivers), but then where has the necessary holistic approach to public transportation as articulated by the 2011 plan gone? Is there any indication of the identity and motivations of clients, or the detailed breakdown of itineraries in today’s Macao?
The MTPA’s document relies on a rough estimate of operating costs of taxis—admittedly not in line with the ones of the Macau Taxi Driver Mutual Association—and a skimpy survey of only 172 respondents on “satisfaction”; whereas the DSAT’s 2014 consultation document is still in the infancy of proposing a “global study and scientific analysis” of the problem—again, what have they done since 2011?
On average, both Singapore and Hong Kong have 8 taxis per km of road, while Macao has 4.4, so my bet is that we only need to double the existing fleet of 1,380 taxis. Then service and conditions of operation are the real concerns, and for this to be solved, all stakeholders have to be involved if the whole community is to benefit in the end.

Published in Macau Daily Times, November 7th 2014