It is indeed always moving to see the rich and powerful coming to the rescue of the rule of law, or more exactly the rule by law, which has to be amended because it no longer suits the interests of the happy few. The proposed alteration to the Land Law is a superb lobbying operation in the name — name only — of the general interest adorned by distorted legal, economic and political arguments. It would amount to a good laugh if this human comedy did not involve billions of MOP and the healthy development of the city at a time of renewed challenges, hence the dramatic turn of the whole story.
From a strictly aesthetic perspective, it does follow the three unity rules of neoclassical drama: a unity of action (land developers failing to develop land plots), a unity of time (25 years of provisory land concessions) and a unity of place (well-situated land plots never opened to public tendering promising juicy returns). The ending of the play should be obvious: if you meet the deadline, you get wealthier; if you miss it, you forfeit your future gains and hand back the concessions. The problem is: the parties disagree on who is to blame for the failure.The story of the 113 idle plots of land first surfaced back in 2009 thanks to a report released by the Land, Public Works and Transport Bureau (DSSOPT). In 2010-2011, 48 of these plots were recognised as not having been developed solely due to the inaction of the land grantees, and were thus meant to be recovered by the government at the leases’ expiration. Sixty-five were excluded because responsibility was shared, and the lack of proper regulatory work and planning by the government had impacted the delay. The Land Law was passed in 2013, and new constraints were imposed: article 48 states that “provisory concessions [of maximum 25 years] cannot be renewed.”With a new government being sworn in December 2014, the formerly dozing DSSOPT sprang into action, and thus land plots started to be repossessed. In June 2015, the new Secretary for Transport and Public Works, Raimundo do Rosário, made it public that out of 48 land plots, 16 had been excluded from recovery. Even though a public hearing on the case was denied in the legislature, a CCAC enquiry commissioned by the Chief Executive concluded that the only dubious aspect of the story was the lack of “proactive, systematic, and scientific communication” about the exemptions that were deemed perfectly legitimate. This was despite the fact that some legislators were shown to have directly benefited from the technical derogations, such as Angela Leong, Chui Sai Cheong and Vitor Cheung Lup Kwan. Since then, other plots have been recovered, more are at risk and court actions do not seem to favour developers.The legislator leading the charge for a revision to the Land Law, or more precisely a retroactive annexed interpretation of the law, is no other than Gabriel Tong. Mr Tong is an academic (acting dean of the law department at UMAC!), but he is also an appointed legislator and a partner in a law firm. He voted in favour of the Land Law in 2013 and now claims he was “deceived” at the time: I thought that these guys got their job because of their expertise? And can we be 100% sure that he has no conflict of interest in proposing the amendments? And then the developers would not be interested in (necessarily limited) compensations but rather to deliver on their promise? Why not earlier? Why act at best in the mid-2000s (UNESCO heritage dates to 2005), thus crippling the development of the city after the real-estate downturn of 1994?By my own calculation, based on the market, the initial land fee, the premiums and today’s construction costs, they don’t want to pass on 300% return! When there is only one team on the soccer field, I don’t see the point in providing it with extra time after July 31!
Published on Macau Daily Times, July 8th 2016
Referenda can be divisive, very much so. And the vote over whether to remain in the European Union or not that is taking place in the United Kingdom at the very moment I write this column, demonstrates just that, or should I say reminds us of that, with the extra measure of ever invasive social media. A Poll-tracker set up by The Economist indicates that on June 20th, we were in for a tie — 44% to remain, 43% to leave, and 11% undecided. The UK Independence Party (UKIP) supporters are the leading force for what now everybody knows as “Brexit” (90%), the Conservatives are less supportive but clearly in favour of leaving (48%), so are people from the north of the country (43%), the Welsh (51%), the poor (52%) and the old (57%). The opposite is also true: Liberal Democrats (69%) and voters who identify with Labour (64%) want the UK to stay within the EU, Scots too (54%), and southerners (44%), the rich (53%) and the young (60%). Gender, however, does not seem to lean to either side — men are evenly divided, and so are women.As a French citizen, I participated in four referenda — and for two of these I was already living abroad. The two referenda pertaining to domestic politics — the self-determination process for New Caledonia back in 1988 and the shortening of the president’s term to five years instead of seven in 2000 — went rather smoothly and did not provoke a nationwide schism. Abstention ran high, respectively 63% and close to 70%, and in both cases the highly anticipated approbation was a clear-cut winner, respectively 80% and 73% of the votes cast. Referenda only existed as a validation of something that almost everybody considered the right — even dignified— thing to do.The other two popular consultations proved to be much more challenging, so much so in fact that the second one resulted in a rebuttal of the government’s proposal. And guess what? In both cases, Europe was at stake!In 2005, the question was about whether to ratify the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe. The “no” prevailed (almost 55% of the votes cast) whereas participation had been very high (close to 70%). This translated into a thorough revamping of the existing treaties that ultimately led to the Treaty of Lisbon in 2007, which came into force in December 2009.Back in 1992, the question had been about the ratification of the Maastricht Treaty that was to create the European Union. As the poll was getting closer, the “no” grew in strength and then President François Mitterrand launched a very energetic campaign to convince the citizens to give their approval.The whole atmosphere is still very vivid in my mind as I was myself campaigning for the “no”, considering that European institutions were taking yet again a bureaucratic turn, away from the democratic ideals they were supposed to not only profess but also practice.Mitterrand had started his political crusade in my university, Sciences Po, targeting the educated and politically savvy future generation, when some friends and I unfolded the Danish flag right in front of his eyes as he was about to deliver his lecture. I perceived a certain form of annoyance in the statesman’s eyes — to the point where security services ripped apart our big bright banner! The Danes had voted predominantly against the Treaty just a few weeks before! Even though the “yes” eventually “triumphed” (51%…), and despite my own frustration, the whole experience had actually proven constructive: arguments of all hues had been laid bare and populist rants were indeed almost like a necessary evil — on both sides! This is what popular sovereignty is also about!The infighting of epic proportion between “Brexit” and “Bremain” is thus not only about “divide” but also interest, awareness, sense of belonging, community-wide soul searching, and ultimately freedom. Branding referenda as disrespectful when they are not, illegal when they are not, can only serve one purpose: deception, not harmony.
In the latest stages of the protracted public consultation regarding the amendment of the electoral law for the Legislative Assembly — remember, we have elections next year — the voice of the people has finally been heard. Over the noise of the complacent faithful, the message is loud and clear: there should be more seats, and of the kind that is directly elected by the people — a sovereign body of citizens. Ironically, it is the multitude that is proving to be the architects, with a design for the future in mind, a better one for all. In contrast, the powers that be are acting like plumbers, of a fix-it Felix sort who would have lost his enchanting capabilities.During the first consultative meetings, only members of the legislature and supporters of well-established associations and corporations were asked to participate, and of course, apart from subdued outbursts by a few isolated participants, the sessions followed to the letter a very predictable pre-written script.Pro-establishment figures of the society insisted on minor adjustments or additional restrictions, with the occasional decorous pro-business “trouble-maker” making a “bold” suggestion: why not have additional “functional constituencies” now that the society has grown in size and complexity, proposed Angela Leong, a record-holder as the most absent directly-elected lawmaker.Never mind that in Hong Kong many people are now challenging the validity of “functional constituencies” for their uneven size and composition, denouncing these so-called representatives who hold multiple votes, sometimes in multiple constituencies, and condemning the fact that 16 out of 35 candidates in these constituencies ran uncontested in 2012, thus casting a shadow on the concept of electoral competition.In Macao, a quick look at the registered associations supposed to “indirectly elect” legislators representing only five “sectors of activity” reveals that most of them are intertwined, with such-and-such legislator, or even member of the executive council, being on the board of dozens of these “collective personalities” with the right to vote. Ultimately, in Macao, none of these “indirectly elected” legislators is ever contested in his constituency: they systemically run unopposed! What is an election without a choice? What is the meaning of a contest without candidates to opt for?And then, when pro-democratic and independent legislators suggest that there is a need for more directly elected seats, why is the idea being rejected on the ground that “it is not adequate to go forward with reform too quickly in [Macao’s] political development”? Why is it objected by legislators who are themselves all appointed by the Chief Executive?Article 68 of the Macao Basic Law indicates that “the majority of [the legislature’s] members shall be elected”: we have 33 members, 14 are returned by universal suffrage whereas 12 run uncontested and 7 are still appointed (something that existed only in colonial Hong Kong), so we are either missing six additional directly-elected legislators or the electoral law should be in for a far deeper revamping than the four-fold limited adjustments presented to us.The claim is that these highly sophisticated fine-tunings of our electoral rules are based on reports and observations made by different governmental agencies since the last time we held legislative elections in 2013. Is that really so?Monitoring expenses and capping them: yes, correct. Strengthening the supervision of electoral activities and updating the rules for candidacy: yes, indeed, but not necessarily the way it is proposed. Defining more clearly what is meant by promotional efforts associated with an electoral campaign and regulating such promotional efforts: sure, but certainly not by completely letting go with the opening of a pre-campaign period during the six months prior to the official campaign.On the banning imposed to elected members of the Legislative Assembly to hold any political position in a foreign country, well, this is only logical, and I find it absolutely proper, especially because it could be far more stringent and indeed impose a strict Chinese nationality upon all legislators—an extra step not many would rejoice about, I am sure, in the present legislature.
Published in Macau Daily Times, June 3rd 2016
My, my, my, so many things happening and so many documents being released, all at once: the five-year development plan is now being discussed, the “Interim review of gaming liberalisation for games of fortune” (love the official catchy title!) is being scrutinised and of course the “Revision of the electoral law for the Legislative Assembly” proposal is being opened to consultation — wide and large. Out of consideration for the publisher of this newspaper, I’ll mainly focus on the latter, but let me just ponder for a line (or twenty) on the two other monuments of scientific policy-making at hand.
We have known about the 13th national five-year plan and roughly how it would translate for Macao at least since last November. We heard again about this plan in March, right after Mr Chui’s return from attending the “two meetings” in Beijing. I even wrote a column about it, stressing that “inclusiveness” and “greening”, two of the five key-concepts of the plan had been cast aside for no good reason. Now, I can see that these core ideas have been re-introduced, and yet the lack of specifics, the disrespect for pre-existing and drawn-up schemes (most of them with the year 2020 as their horizon), and the absence of well-defined targets (with numbers!), both intermediate and final, are simply beyond my understanding. Or wait!?! Could it be that the lessons from the total failure of the “General Policy on Traffic and Land Transportation in Macao (2010-2020)” are finally sinking in? Better not have specific target figures with a clear schedule and intermediate stages, otherwise we will have to show the world (or at least our community) that in lieu of science we bring delays, constant revisions and ultimately pointlessness to the entire plan. Adding the imperative of building a “smart city” to the whole enterprise won’t change a dime: in order to have what can be called a city, you need a master urban plan, and for that city to be smart, you need innovative and independent people to run the show freely from vested interests.
Now, looking at the interim review: well, let’s just say that the concessionnaires are credited for having by and large fulfilled all their contractual and operational duties. The positive impact far outweighs the negative downsides, and slightly muscling the “regulatory effort” will unmistakably allow for “a healthy and orderly development of the industry.” Well, if it had not been for Beijing’s new normal and sweeping fight against corruption, the deleterious explosion of junket operations would have never been reined in.
In November 2015, the DICJ was still talking of a simple “code of ethics” for gaming promoters, just like for pharmacists, doctors, lawyers and journalists! Did not I read somewhere that VIP rooms are the place where money-laundering takes (took…) place? Nobody will deny the astounding changes the liberalised gaming industry has brought to Macao: its colossal success has somehow brought pride to the sleeping beauty of the East, but, was it achieved evenly and for the benefit of all? Just like Archimedes’ principle, adverse forces tend to equal favourable ones, despite being different both in scope and nature — overpopulation, traffic congestion, domestic violence, family dysfunction, etc. And then, “tourism and recreation” were the chosen paths inscribed in article 118 of the Basic Law, not gambling, gambling and possibly gambling. Ultimately, making it straightforward and official, right from the start, that this interim review will not count in the 2020/2022 concessionaires renewal process might not be the best of ideas while we are still contemplating the fragile early stages of a long overdue drive towards diversification!
Blimey! No more space for Mrs Sonia Chan’s ambitious plan to reform the legislature’s electoral law! To be honest? Never mind: just like for the 2012 “+2+2+100” missed opportunity at real political reform, the proposal is overly modest and fails to address the core issues — a law on political parties could have been a start. Some people still think that the engine just needs a paint-job: wait until it stops!
Published in Macau Daily Times, May 20th 2016
Several reasons can explain why many governments around the world, in democratic or partially democratic and at least liberal settings, have become impotent, incapable of solving clearly identified issues and designing ill-suited public policies resulting from compromises that ultimately satisfy nobody.
When the blame is put on outside forces, globalisation often becomes the big villain and supra-national entities, the United Nations and the WTO worldwide or the European Union institutions on a regional scale, are common embodiments of this wicked and not-so-distant influence.
When the ailment appears to be coming from within, then the elites and especially political elites are being held responsible: alleged deadlocks and deficiencies originate from the excess of institutionalisation of traditional political organisations and the overly intimate relations between stakeholders, be them in the political, economic, social or cultural spheres. Innovation is thus constantly frustrated and conflicts of interests grow on the back of an overall sense of unaccountability and impunity.
What often tie all these together is a perceived submission to the unrestricted and nefarious forces of the “free-market”, and henceforth the dominant position that self-centred corporations tend to acquire in polities. In a nutshell, governments and their ability to act fall victim of constraints coming from all sides: the sense of what makes a community holds together is being challenged persistently, hence the discomfort felt regarding the authenticity and logic of established forms of representativity.
Symptoms of this defiance towards traditional and “representative” politics, whatever its arrangements, are aplenty. In 2011, we had the Geração à Rasca (struggling generation) movement in Portugal and the Indignants in Spain. Later in the year, there was the Occupy Wall Street movement in the United States, with its inspiration admittedly coming from the massive occupation of the Puerta del Sol.
Closer to us, we had the Sunflower student movement in Taiwan in 2014 — a distant echo of the Wild Lily student movement of 1990 — that ultimately led to the occupation of the Legislative Yuan on March 18. In Macao, we had the short-lived Anti-Compensation movement of May 25 and 27 of the same year that eventually forced the government to back down on an overly generous perks bill tailor-made for its soon-to-be retiring senior officials. In Hong Kong, the Occupy Central movement transformed into a city-wide Umbrella movement in late autumn 2014 and led to the youthful and politically boisterous occupation of several key parts of the city for more than two months.
In my home country, the birthplace of revolutionary movements that led to the demise of the “old regime”, to paraphrase Tocqueville, we have had the “Nuit debout” (literally “Night, Standing Up”) on the place de la République for about a month now. Beside the baroque mix of denunciations taking aim at such varied issues as "‘speciesism’, multinational corporations, capitalism, G.M.O.s, the police and nuclear power", the motivations are the same: letting go with worn out traditional forms of representation — individuals are to be trusted more than groups — and founding a new political culture — beyond the left and right devide, with the possibility to express oneself at any time, with the recognition that an individual is as much a citizen as he or she is a consumer and resolutely grounded in digital networks. In the end, these movements want to reconcile the apparent antagonism between “making society” — binding together — and respecting the singularity of each and every individual, without having to subsume under a collective identity.
In Macao, the clothes of the emperor are wearing out. Beyond the issue of legality — tax evasion is not, tax optimisation supposedly is — the Panama Papers question the exemplarity and trustworthiness of the ones in power: how can a personality holding an official mandate lie about his assets to a court of justice? How can an official serving in the CPPCC or NPC hold concurrent nationalities, be them Singaporean, American, Australian, Canadian, British or Portuguese? How can a supposed Beijing loyalist give lessons in patriotism while cultivating back door escape routes only available to the happy few? Are these “persons representative of various strata and sectors of society” really so?
Published in Macau Daily Times on May 6 2016
