Kapok: is that normal?

One thing is certain: it is indeed pervasive! And it is meant to be so! It has almost become a mantra, one that everybody repeats in all circumstances, as if it could clearly identify, accurately characterize, precisely define, and ultimately allow us to anticipate, not to say predict, what was to come, for each and every situation, whatever the focus, regardless of the topic under discussion. What is that magic formula? What is that epitome of clear and unmediated understanding?

Taxis have stopped fishing on the fringe of casinos, are routinely queuing outside the ferry terminals and the airport, and have stopped overcharging and have started to provide the service that was rightly expected of them: this is the new normal. A new line up of secretaries have started to tackle public policy issues head-on; they are proving competent, reactive and swift in their approach to policy making: this is the new normal. The economy is slowing down, and yet with the ambition (under serious pressure) to become more diversified and sustainable: this is the new normal. The ongoing fight against the corruption of “flies”, “tigers” and “foxes” alike on the other side of the Portas do Cerco and beyond is the driving force of that decline in revenues and profits of the gaming industry: this is the new normal. Gaming stock prices are in correction mode and the prospects for a rebound in the mid-term — let’s exclude Chinese New Year and the new openings — have become bleak, to say the least: this is the new normal.

Gaming analysts and bankers, be they American, Australian, German, Swiss, Japanese or British abusively resort to the expression. Journalists are no exception either, and despite the lack of metaphoric beauty of the wording, they find it far more palatable and overall purposeful than the more cryptic “China dream”. Even scholars — some more than others — relish the evocative power of the formula: on January 22nd, the Center for Macau Studies of the University of Macau organized an entire forum bringing together 11 distinguished academics to discuss “Macao and China’s economy new normal”. And then of course, Xinhua, the China Daily, the People’s Daily, the Wen Wei Po or our own Macao Daily News abound in titles and op-eds adorned with this prescriptive depiction.

But where does that “new normal” — what I perceive as a rebranded “society of moderate prosperity” on steroids — come from? In Chinese, the expression xin changtai 新常态 was first used to characterize China’s economy today in a speech given by Xi Jinping at the occasion of the Central Economic Work Conference in May 2014. What are now branded as “hot words” by the news website of the Communist Party of China itself were meant to describe the “big logic” at work behind the credo of a new national economic policy. And this new economic rational was to “endure and accept the economic slowdown”, “resolutely face the contradictions of the industrial structure”, “level up the govern- ment’s objective knowledge and rationality in the development of the economy and the society”, “display self-confidence in providing serene answers”, while at the same time “acknowledging that this new normal requires good preparation and a mature approach to succeed”.

Mind you, I am not saying that this “new normal” is not doing us good, even though some of the more immediate and bankable benefits seem to suffer in the process. Diversification? If not a chimera, it was definitely a distant dream — Chinese, but distant. More transparency in the gaming operations? Uh? Good faith and accountability on the side of all the stakeholders? Uh-uh? The question remains though: if that’s an imperative, what will it really take to make it both achievable and sustainable in the short-term?

Published in Macau Daily Times on February 13th 2015

Kapok: Everything in style

This is an ancient dilemma: which one should prevail, substance over form or the opposite? For a very long time substance was always the one considered to be the most important. Getting an education used to mean being “elevated” by the teaching of the classics, and that knowledge was provided through the tedious study of the original texts, the teacher acting as the sole guarantor of compliance. In France, today still, primary and secondary students are called “élèves”, the ones being elevated—students have to make the extra effort to reach the teacher’s level. Up to the early years of the twentieth century in China, imperial exams were based on the perfect recitation of the Confucian classics and the complete subjugation to extremely formal literary styles—writing poetry usually came later, either after having fallen from grace or resigning from the civil service. In business, because of the industrial nature of our societies, the quality of the product used to be everything: the longevity of goods, for example, was the decisive testimony of engineering prowess. Stockings for women were meant to resist the hardship of any labor in the 1950s still, even while working the fields!
Things have changed, and not only because more than half of the world’s population is now living in urban areas. With the advent of mass education in the 1960s, the challenge has been to get a majority of the community up to a given level, and to a certain extent—the battle is not over—form prevailed: student-centered education became imperative, and what was to be taught became second to what had been learnt. For sure, the “middleisation” of society has had its virtues and benefits. With the advent of a consumerist society, the marketing and packaging of merchandise came to play a dominant role. Durability was no longer the crux of the matter: products were to be enticing and pushed to shoppers in order for consuming-cycles to be reduced. Quite a significant number of sophisticated goods, because of fast technological advance, are today meant to be renewed on a yearly basis—think iPhone 6, oops! Sorry, the 6S is already out! But then, you would be branded an environmental criminal if you had kept your car or your washing machine from 10 years ago! Ultimately—and this is true wisdom—one has to find a balance.
In politics, things are not much different, and Macao is of course no stranger to the need of striking a balance between form and substance. Take the misogynistic and phallocratic outbursts of legislator Fong Chi Keong who publicly advocates a good beating for spouses who talk back to their husbands: this is both unprincipled and devoid of any underpinning. If you add to that the flowery language, the burlesque act and the gravelly voice, not much form is left either, unless you consider crudeness as a proper stylish demeanor for a representative of the highest authority. Then, take our new secretary for Social Affairs and Culture, Alexis Tam. What a change! Superman Tam, as he is often referred to, is not only a workaholic but also an avid communicator. Interviews are given to the Portuguese press—in Portuguese—, and mind you, for the first time ever, All About Macao, one of the few Chinese-speaking liberal newspapers in town, got to be graced with a one-on-one interview. Short-term measures for both healthcare and education are already being announced, more than two months prior to the policy address. A vision is given for the next five years: could that be the end of short-termism? And then, City of Dreams gets to nag the Health Bureau over smoking areas at a time when the government is reviewing the tobacco control rules: the bureau’s director, under Mr Tam’s benevolent gaze, immediately announces that fines could soon become really deterring—how many times the MOP$100,000 already imposed? Chui Sai On himself could weigh in: after all, he can decide to simply terminate the smoking sections for repeat offenders. Well, everything is possible, even taxis have stopped fishing… That makes us look good!

Published in Macau Daily Times on January 30th 2015

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.