I am no economist, and yet I have enough interest in political economy to figure out when something is right or not. Such is the case with the dramatically loaded use of the word “austerity” by the government. Is it right – in both its rational and moral senses – to use the word “austerity”? And if it’s not, why use the word despite its dreadful adverse effects?
One can always blame translation. Should we translate 緊縮 (jinsuo) as “tightening” rather than “austerity”, which is better rendered by 撙節 (zunjie), that better conveys the notion of frugality? But then, jinsuo is also clearly used to express a “drastic” reduction, such as “credit crunch”, so it does not seem to be an overstretch to translate緊縮計劃 as “austerity plan”, and Macau Daily News indeed refers to 緊縮政策 when it describes “austerity policies” put in place in debt-ridden European countries.
When did we start talking about “austerity” for Macao? Back in June 2014 at the very start of the dwindling of the gaming industry? In December 2014 when the Budget Law for 2015 was passed? Nope.
Only in April 2015, precisely when the budget of the government was being re-examined and revised. At the time, a vaguely worried Chan Chak Mo, the president of the second permanent committee of the Legislative Assembly in charge of supervising public accounts, raised a pale orange flag to say that if monthly gross gaming revenues (GGR) fell below MOP17 billion then Macao could face a budget deficit by year-end. By his sophisticated calculation, MOP20 billion in GGR per month would total MOP240 billion for the year, and given the tax on gambling of 35%, that would in turn translate into MOP84 billion in government’s revenues… almost exactly the amount envisioned by the revision of the Budget Law in May!
Why the MOP17 billion threshold? Because then, we might really have a deficit – a “crisis” in Chan’s vocabulary – but no explanation (other revenues? actual execution of the budget?) was given regarding the MOP3 billion discrepancy. In the new Budget Law, prospective revenues were revised downward, from MOP154.7 to about MOP120 billion, but then expenses went up slightly (!), from MOP83.72 to MOP83.76 billion…
Ultimately, if need be, Chan revealed that expenditures could “easily” be cut across the board by 5%, without affecting social welfare-related spending or heavy investments. This is, albeit slightly pumped up regarding minor investments (-10%), what was announced on September 1st and Chief Executive Chui Sai On has confirmed that these cost-cutting measures were here to stay.
By any account, the seemingly resolute acts taken in the wake of the bad results of the first eight months of 2015 – we are now below the not-so-thin red line of MOP20 billion per month – do not equate to austerity, which is defined as a set of policies aiming at, by way of spending cuts or tax increases or a mix of both, the reduction of government budget deficits. In the case of Macao, this is an (inflated) “anticipated” deficit: we ran a surplus in 2014 and then we have more than MOP350 billion accumulated in fiscal reserve – not even impacted, so we are told, by the ongoing financial turmoil now affecting Shanghai and Shenzhen. Moreover, the government expects these cuts to save MOP1.4 billion, a mere 1.7% of the budgeted expenditures – so much for the rigor of the measures!
Finally, the Execution of the Budget is only 60% – if we rely on the 2013 figures as the most recent ones have yet to be examined by the Assembly – meaning the government spends, in any case, less than 2/3 of the money it said it would!
Taking a stand and publicly explaining what these spending cuts actually mean – the shy first steps in eliminating waste within public administration and restoring trust of the citizenry in its public service – can only benefit Lionel Leong. Resolutely and personally taking the lead in pushing through the ongoing revision of the new Budget Law framework, thus positioning himself as a manifest proponent of greater transparency and efficiency regarding public finances, might not hurt either.
Published in Macau Daily Times, September 11th 2015
Friday, September 11, 2015
Friday, August 21, 2015
Kapok: Accountable Responsility
For any political leader, probing the hearts and minds of constituents is of utmost importance, whatever the political regime. In a democratic setting, elected officials have learned to engage at every turn with the people they derive their power from. Gone are the days when one would regenerate his or her “representative” status only at election time: one’s presence on Twitter is imperative, and not only to cunningly (often perilously) grab the headlines, but to foster public participation and nurture one’s political course of action via the many corrective bits that constitute an audience’s reaction, measured in levels of re-tweeting, liking and commenting. The power and beauty of social media do not only spring from their instantaneity and their reach but from the reactivity and interactivity. They are indeed a much more sophisticated channel than basic opinion polls that verge on popularity contests. Social media allow for participative democracy to cut across a mere slogan, even though they cannot and will never replace the act of voting, which is the actual exercise of power by the citizenry, and thus of accountability.
In an authoritarian context, regardless of the oligarchic or corporatist manoeuvrability, citizens are also being called upon. The lesson retained from the twentieth century is that no form of dictatorship can aspire to longevity if it does not somehow live up to the promise of a “rule for the people” – the greater good of the community remaining a distinctive finality. Thus demands from the society have to be accommodated, albeit with very stringent constraints. In Iran, many believe that the “Islamic Republic” serves as a “façade” for religious interests to clinch power while allowing for civil society to be placated. Quite tellingly, social media were at one point used as reversed illiberal weapons to track down activists challenging the regime, and today still, most Iranian netizens are denied access to Twitter while President Hassan Rouhani prides himself on having 378,000 followers (last tweet on August 9th) while even Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Seyed Ali Khamenei, is followed by less than 150,000 people. In the People’s Republic of China, many policies are opened to so-called “public consultations” and clearly there have been some interesting attempts at (very) local democracy. The regime today hammers that “democracy” is indeed one of the twelve core socialist values – along with freedom. But here again, engagement of and with the people follows very strict rules, as more than 250 human rights lawyers have been learning the hard way during the summer. Moreover, if China is home to the biggest Internet population on the planet – 668 million – and allows for citizens to express their concerns and participate in the public sphere, this can only ensue in a narrowly enclosed perimeter: Xinhua ultimately rules and the new cybersecurity law currently “under discussion” will fully “legalize” the usual practice of suspension of service and denial of access as soon as there is a hint of threat to “social order”. Thus, Virtual Private Networks that have been heavily targeted since January 2015 could be deemed “illegal”.
Public consultations and the use of social media can be characterized as a form of responsibility sharing. For a leader today, the source of political legitimacy matters less than the impression (at least) that he is ruling for the benefit of the whole community. Shouldering off part of the responsibility thus really comes handy. The ever-increasing use of “public consultations” in Macao is a good reminder that despite our lack of democratic institutions, the commitment to liberal values enshrined in the Basic Law together with their actual practice can be put to very potent use when it comes to accountability. Nobody will be voted out (or weep and resign), but then prospective public policies are openly discussed and challenged, omissions and shortcomings alike: the meticulous account provided by some media – the public meetings transcripts by All About Macao in particular – regarding the present public consultation on new reclamation areas is in that respect to be commended. Irrefutably, the quality of our future rests upon our freedom of expression.
Published in Macau Daily Times on August 21st 2015
In an authoritarian context, regardless of the oligarchic or corporatist manoeuvrability, citizens are also being called upon. The lesson retained from the twentieth century is that no form of dictatorship can aspire to longevity if it does not somehow live up to the promise of a “rule for the people” – the greater good of the community remaining a distinctive finality. Thus demands from the society have to be accommodated, albeit with very stringent constraints. In Iran, many believe that the “Islamic Republic” serves as a “façade” for religious interests to clinch power while allowing for civil society to be placated. Quite tellingly, social media were at one point used as reversed illiberal weapons to track down activists challenging the regime, and today still, most Iranian netizens are denied access to Twitter while President Hassan Rouhani prides himself on having 378,000 followers (last tweet on August 9th) while even Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Seyed Ali Khamenei, is followed by less than 150,000 people. In the People’s Republic of China, many policies are opened to so-called “public consultations” and clearly there have been some interesting attempts at (very) local democracy. The regime today hammers that “democracy” is indeed one of the twelve core socialist values – along with freedom. But here again, engagement of and with the people follows very strict rules, as more than 250 human rights lawyers have been learning the hard way during the summer. Moreover, if China is home to the biggest Internet population on the planet – 668 million – and allows for citizens to express their concerns and participate in the public sphere, this can only ensue in a narrowly enclosed perimeter: Xinhua ultimately rules and the new cybersecurity law currently “under discussion” will fully “legalize” the usual practice of suspension of service and denial of access as soon as there is a hint of threat to “social order”. Thus, Virtual Private Networks that have been heavily targeted since January 2015 could be deemed “illegal”.
Public consultations and the use of social media can be characterized as a form of responsibility sharing. For a leader today, the source of political legitimacy matters less than the impression (at least) that he is ruling for the benefit of the whole community. Shouldering off part of the responsibility thus really comes handy. The ever-increasing use of “public consultations” in Macao is a good reminder that despite our lack of democratic institutions, the commitment to liberal values enshrined in the Basic Law together with their actual practice can be put to very potent use when it comes to accountability. Nobody will be voted out (or weep and resign), but then prospective public policies are openly discussed and challenged, omissions and shortcomings alike: the meticulous account provided by some media – the public meetings transcripts by All About Macao in particular – regarding the present public consultation on new reclamation areas is in that respect to be commended. Irrefutably, the quality of our future rests upon our freedom of expression.
Published in Macau Daily Times on August 21st 2015
Friday, August 07, 2015
Kapok: Head counts or headaches?
Censuses have been in existence for millennia, the first known having been undertaken by the Babylonians and in Pharaonic Egypt in the Third Millennium BC. The oldest existing census was conducted in Han Dynasty China in 2 AD when Imperial China was believed to be home to the largest population in the world with 59.6 million inhabitants. Interestingly enough, references to these distant head counts usually indicate some level of “reliability”. Censuses appear to be associated with advanced civilizations and sophistication of public administration. Today, the universal and periodic acquisition and recording of key population indicators determine the shape and scope of public policies.
In Macao, the first census dates back to 1867 when 81,525 individuals populated the Portuguese enclave. The latest census of 2011 recorded a total population of 552,503 and the latest estimate from the Statistics and Census Service puts this figure at 636,200 at the end of 2014.
On July 30th, the government’s Policy Research Office released its Study Report on the Population Policies of Macao, and expectations were running pretty high. Unfortunately, some serious doubts can be raised on the intent and accuracy of the document.
Although it is true that Macao’s population is today characterized by a low birth rate, one of the longest life expectancies in the world, a population growth fuelled by immigration, heterogeneity between local and non-resident workers, a need to “import” young workers to compensate for an ageing population, and the fact that a low rate of analphabetism is emulated by an equally low level of tertiary education, why do these conclusions need to be drawn from a study by the University of Peking? And then, why not phrase the main challenge of Macao as being the staffing of a (super-) fast hospitality and gaming industry with low-skilled as well as highly competent people who are mostly imported from the outside (today, 45% of the active population is made up of “non-resident workers”, twice that of 2010, and less than 20% of the population have been to university) while at the same time maintaining acceptable conditions in one of the most densely populated territories on the planet? With further diversification ahead, what was true in the past decade will be even truer in the next.
Every single piece of information in this report seeks to tone down the issues at hand and is presented as a validation of insufficiently published indicators and reports to appraise the quality and relevance of past and upcoming public policies. It is more a justification exercise than an objective assessment from which to derive public policy recommendations.
Projections are on the conservative side: the population figures of 710,000 by 2020 and 750,000 by 2025 are based on lower growth to come. With a population increase of 25,500 people in 2012-2013 and close to 29,000 in 2013-2014, should not we at least consider a higher limit – despite the recent sharp GDP decline – according to which the threshold of 710,000 could be reached by the end of 2017? Unless, of course, there is a significant contraction of non-resident workers and thus a sudden change in immigration policy – unimaginable with 19,000 additional hotel rooms in the making and the drive for Macao to become a world-class tourism and entertainment center. Is it reasonable to argue that HR issues can be significantly addressed by an untapped reserve of women and a fast ageing population? What is the rationale behind an acceptable (“not saturated”) carrying capacity of 22,000 people per sq. km by 2025? What are the envisioned measures to optimize transportation and tourism facilities for sustainable development? Why not include indicators like “waiting time” for health services instead of boasting that Macao is on par with countries from East Asia based on the number of doctors and hospital beds per 1000 residents? Should not the development of the “Grand Macao” as the solution to all challenges be discussed?
The 2006 predecessor of this Policy Research Office was supposed to emulate Hong Kong’s Central Policy Unit: there is obviously still room for improvement!
Published in Macau Daily Times, August 7th 2015
In Macao, the first census dates back to 1867 when 81,525 individuals populated the Portuguese enclave. The latest census of 2011 recorded a total population of 552,503 and the latest estimate from the Statistics and Census Service puts this figure at 636,200 at the end of 2014.
On July 30th, the government’s Policy Research Office released its Study Report on the Population Policies of Macao, and expectations were running pretty high. Unfortunately, some serious doubts can be raised on the intent and accuracy of the document.
Although it is true that Macao’s population is today characterized by a low birth rate, one of the longest life expectancies in the world, a population growth fuelled by immigration, heterogeneity between local and non-resident workers, a need to “import” young workers to compensate for an ageing population, and the fact that a low rate of analphabetism is emulated by an equally low level of tertiary education, why do these conclusions need to be drawn from a study by the University of Peking? And then, why not phrase the main challenge of Macao as being the staffing of a (super-) fast hospitality and gaming industry with low-skilled as well as highly competent people who are mostly imported from the outside (today, 45% of the active population is made up of “non-resident workers”, twice that of 2010, and less than 20% of the population have been to university) while at the same time maintaining acceptable conditions in one of the most densely populated territories on the planet? With further diversification ahead, what was true in the past decade will be even truer in the next.
Every single piece of information in this report seeks to tone down the issues at hand and is presented as a validation of insufficiently published indicators and reports to appraise the quality and relevance of past and upcoming public policies. It is more a justification exercise than an objective assessment from which to derive public policy recommendations.
Projections are on the conservative side: the population figures of 710,000 by 2020 and 750,000 by 2025 are based on lower growth to come. With a population increase of 25,500 people in 2012-2013 and close to 29,000 in 2013-2014, should not we at least consider a higher limit – despite the recent sharp GDP decline – according to which the threshold of 710,000 could be reached by the end of 2017? Unless, of course, there is a significant contraction of non-resident workers and thus a sudden change in immigration policy – unimaginable with 19,000 additional hotel rooms in the making and the drive for Macao to become a world-class tourism and entertainment center. Is it reasonable to argue that HR issues can be significantly addressed by an untapped reserve of women and a fast ageing population? What is the rationale behind an acceptable (“not saturated”) carrying capacity of 22,000 people per sq. km by 2025? What are the envisioned measures to optimize transportation and tourism facilities for sustainable development? Why not include indicators like “waiting time” for health services instead of boasting that Macao is on par with countries from East Asia based on the number of doctors and hospital beds per 1000 residents? Should not the development of the “Grand Macao” as the solution to all challenges be discussed?
The 2006 predecessor of this Policy Research Office was supposed to emulate Hong Kong’s Central Policy Unit: there is obviously still room for improvement!
Published in Macau Daily Times, August 7th 2015
Friday, July 24, 2015
Kapok: Too many ways to be No. 1
Being in the news for allegations of vote-buying during election time is never a great thing in terms of image, to say the least. This is even worse when it concerns the leading contender—being a tainted number one will always make you look like a loser—and then it can turn into a disaster when what is alleged eventually becomes proven and established beyond reasonable doubt. This is partly the situation of the not-for-profit group Aliança do Povo de Instituição de Macau (API), or 民眾建澳聯盟 in Chinese, which I would translate into English as the Alliance of the People for the Strengthening of Macau—the flagship organization of legislator and executive council member Chan Meng Kam. However, the condemnation of two members of the association for vote-buying during the 2013 elections has unraveled almost two years after the casting of the vote. The association today, in effect, is distinct from the list that was then led by the strongman of the Fujianese community, the Association of the United Citizens of Macao, although the logos are pretty similar—the people 民 is made of people 人人人!
Beyond the debate about the nature of the allegations (buying meals and transporting supporters to voting booths), the way the proof was obtained (a CCAC agent going undercover and interviews being conducted in a suggestive manner) and the condemnation proper (targeting two elderly supporters and being supposedly politically motivated on the part of the government), one can easily understand why the secretary for Administration and Justice, Sonia Chan, would promise to amend the electoral law before the end of the next legislative session, in the wake of the tumult: irresponsibility and lack of accountability appear to prevail because of the time lapse and confusing identities, and actually weaken the one and only institution in the whole institutional design of our SAR that demonstrates a slight democratic component.
While Song Pek Kei, the third member of Chan Meng Kam’s winning list in 2013 and vice president of the API, has started to voice her discontent at the judgment made public on Friday—that the API is appealing—along with the very vocal Chan Tak Seng, the API director who organized a very combative press conference on Tuesday, several media outlets have highlighted the contrasting fact that Mr Chan Meng Kam and his number two, Si Ka Lon, are nowhere to be seen. Coming in as the fourth-best funded association in the first quarter of 2015 by the Macau Foundation after the Federation of Trade Unions, the General Union of Neighborhood and the General Association of Women, there is no doubt that the API has all the characteristics of a quasi-political party at the service of Mr Chan Meng Kam, who is the honorary president, whereas Si Ka Lon serves as its current president.
Looking at the statutes of the association, which was only established in March 2008, one can read that the raison d’être of the whole group is not only to foster the love of the motherland and Macau, to serve the “one country two systems” principle as well as to ensure that the “people of Macao govern Macao” according to “a high degree of autonomy”, but also to provide social and welfare services. The statutes further indicate that beyond the full support it ensures to the Macau SAR government when it comes to law, economic development, people’s livelihood, the promotion of democracy (sic!) and the advancement of unity, long-term prosperity and stability, API should also explore and initiate new perspectives!
The good news is that people care. Despite the delay, the citizenry is paying attention by eagerly following the twists and turns of the affair via the press. The judicial system, the government at large and even the perpetrators—contesting is being attentive—are in full battle mode. In a banana republic, nobody cares, but even in a very truncated democracy, an increasingly vibrant civil society, supported by more sophisticated citizens, is remarkably looking for greater meaning and ultimately vaster purpose. The government cannot fail to respond to that call.
Published in Macau Daily Times, July 24th 2015
Beyond the debate about the nature of the allegations (buying meals and transporting supporters to voting booths), the way the proof was obtained (a CCAC agent going undercover and interviews being conducted in a suggestive manner) and the condemnation proper (targeting two elderly supporters and being supposedly politically motivated on the part of the government), one can easily understand why the secretary for Administration and Justice, Sonia Chan, would promise to amend the electoral law before the end of the next legislative session, in the wake of the tumult: irresponsibility and lack of accountability appear to prevail because of the time lapse and confusing identities, and actually weaken the one and only institution in the whole institutional design of our SAR that demonstrates a slight democratic component.
While Song Pek Kei, the third member of Chan Meng Kam’s winning list in 2013 and vice president of the API, has started to voice her discontent at the judgment made public on Friday—that the API is appealing—along with the very vocal Chan Tak Seng, the API director who organized a very combative press conference on Tuesday, several media outlets have highlighted the contrasting fact that Mr Chan Meng Kam and his number two, Si Ka Lon, are nowhere to be seen. Coming in as the fourth-best funded association in the first quarter of 2015 by the Macau Foundation after the Federation of Trade Unions, the General Union of Neighborhood and the General Association of Women, there is no doubt that the API has all the characteristics of a quasi-political party at the service of Mr Chan Meng Kam, who is the honorary president, whereas Si Ka Lon serves as its current president.
Looking at the statutes of the association, which was only established in March 2008, one can read that the raison d’être of the whole group is not only to foster the love of the motherland and Macau, to serve the “one country two systems” principle as well as to ensure that the “people of Macao govern Macao” according to “a high degree of autonomy”, but also to provide social and welfare services. The statutes further indicate that beyond the full support it ensures to the Macau SAR government when it comes to law, economic development, people’s livelihood, the promotion of democracy (sic!) and the advancement of unity, long-term prosperity and stability, API should also explore and initiate new perspectives!
The good news is that people care. Despite the delay, the citizenry is paying attention by eagerly following the twists and turns of the affair via the press. The judicial system, the government at large and even the perpetrators—contesting is being attentive—are in full battle mode. In a banana republic, nobody cares, but even in a very truncated democracy, an increasingly vibrant civil society, supported by more sophisticated citizens, is remarkably looking for greater meaning and ultimately vaster purpose. The government cannot fail to respond to that call.
Published in Macau Daily Times, July 24th 2015
Friday, July 10, 2015
Kapok: The Fongchikeongisation of the minds
Honestly speaking, I never expected some of my friends – many of them educated – to fall victim to arguments that only the most cynical and unrefined individuals would dare to use. But here we are, the amended version of the law on the control and prevention of smoking that is paving the way for a long-overdue full ban in public places appears to be able to bring the worst out of even the best, and the very little confidence one might have in people’s rationality can easily go up in smoke!
The most obvious arguments as to why, as a community, we should embrace a full ban on smoking in public have been stated by many, including myself (MDT, May 15th) and these are grounded in independent scientific arguments, both regarding healthcare and the impact on the most exposed business operations, and take into account global trends, including the ones that have affected China in the recent past. The key words here are “independent” and “global”.
When directly elected legislator Zheng Anting, who is a prominent figure in the Macao Jiangmen Communal Society, the one and only association that organized a counter-demonstration in May 2014 to support the Perks’ Bill, openly accompanies gaming promoters to meet with the secretaries in order to question the soundness of the full ban, he is acting as a lobbyist. When the same Mr Zheng quotes the survey done by one of the associations of junkets as well as a study commissioned by gaming operators in order to contest, supposedly scientifically, the arguments of the government in favor of the bill during a plenary meeting of the Legislative Assembly, he at best looks cynical, and for some, like a fool. Even if his intention is noble – I am giving him a lot of credit – in considering the adverse effect the bill could hypothetically have on employment in Macao, how can he sensibly expect to win the argument with such a lack of independence?
In a business environment, it seems perfectly legitimate for gaming operators to lobby the government, at every level and using whatever legal means, against a measure they perceive to be contrary to their interests, but Mr Zheng is not on their payroll; he is a directly elected member of the Assembly embodying the sovereignty of the people. And youth and limited experience are no excuse, as Mr Fong Chi Keong aptly reminds us.
Mr Fong has been a well-known and colorful figure in the Assembly for almost a quarter of a century. On the one hand, he is a true man of the people with a capacity to empathize with the many – I remember seeing him doing his own grocery shopping and talking to everybody in the Red Market, and that was not for show. On the other hand, his many outbursts and unfortunate, often gross, comments regarding many issues, including domestic violence and, most recently, healthcare have made the roster of Chief Executive-appointed legislators look really bad, if not completely irrelevant. By bringing in the arguments of “discrimination” against the poor, the infringement of human rights regarding a preposterous “right to smoke” and the colloquial portrait of Chinese people who “speak, smoke and drink,” Mr Fong appears to be calling for his own demise. The real discrimination is when people cannot afford to pay for expensive healthcare services for treatment for lung cancer or strokes. The real infringement is the government not considering the protection of the citizens – including the victims of second-hand smoking, meaning the vast majority – as its priority. And being Chinese today obviously goes way beyond a very outdated conception of culture that negates the capacity, if not the necessity, to change and adapt. Becoming “a world center for tourism and leisure” implies a few requirements!
Ultimately the question is not really whether there are better measures to prevent people from inhaling nefarious puffs today but rather removing, at long last, an exception in the law that should have never been inserted back in 2011 and strengthening measures that will imbue the government’s public policies with greater consistency.
Published in Macau Daily Times, July 10th 2015
The most obvious arguments as to why, as a community, we should embrace a full ban on smoking in public have been stated by many, including myself (MDT, May 15th) and these are grounded in independent scientific arguments, both regarding healthcare and the impact on the most exposed business operations, and take into account global trends, including the ones that have affected China in the recent past. The key words here are “independent” and “global”.
When directly elected legislator Zheng Anting, who is a prominent figure in the Macao Jiangmen Communal Society, the one and only association that organized a counter-demonstration in May 2014 to support the Perks’ Bill, openly accompanies gaming promoters to meet with the secretaries in order to question the soundness of the full ban, he is acting as a lobbyist. When the same Mr Zheng quotes the survey done by one of the associations of junkets as well as a study commissioned by gaming operators in order to contest, supposedly scientifically, the arguments of the government in favor of the bill during a plenary meeting of the Legislative Assembly, he at best looks cynical, and for some, like a fool. Even if his intention is noble – I am giving him a lot of credit – in considering the adverse effect the bill could hypothetically have on employment in Macao, how can he sensibly expect to win the argument with such a lack of independence?
In a business environment, it seems perfectly legitimate for gaming operators to lobby the government, at every level and using whatever legal means, against a measure they perceive to be contrary to their interests, but Mr Zheng is not on their payroll; he is a directly elected member of the Assembly embodying the sovereignty of the people. And youth and limited experience are no excuse, as Mr Fong Chi Keong aptly reminds us.
Mr Fong has been a well-known and colorful figure in the Assembly for almost a quarter of a century. On the one hand, he is a true man of the people with a capacity to empathize with the many – I remember seeing him doing his own grocery shopping and talking to everybody in the Red Market, and that was not for show. On the other hand, his many outbursts and unfortunate, often gross, comments regarding many issues, including domestic violence and, most recently, healthcare have made the roster of Chief Executive-appointed legislators look really bad, if not completely irrelevant. By bringing in the arguments of “discrimination” against the poor, the infringement of human rights regarding a preposterous “right to smoke” and the colloquial portrait of Chinese people who “speak, smoke and drink,” Mr Fong appears to be calling for his own demise. The real discrimination is when people cannot afford to pay for expensive healthcare services for treatment for lung cancer or strokes. The real infringement is the government not considering the protection of the citizens – including the victims of second-hand smoking, meaning the vast majority – as its priority. And being Chinese today obviously goes way beyond a very outdated conception of culture that negates the capacity, if not the necessity, to change and adapt. Becoming “a world center for tourism and leisure” implies a few requirements!
Ultimately the question is not really whether there are better measures to prevent people from inhaling nefarious puffs today but rather removing, at long last, an exception in the law that should have never been inserted back in 2011 and strengthening measures that will imbue the government’s public policies with greater consistency.
Published in Macau Daily Times, July 10th 2015
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)