Kapok: The spire hiding the temple

While presiding over a regular meeting of the Cultural Heritage Council last week, Alexis Tam, the secretary for Social Affairs and Culture, grabbed the opportunity of the genuine emotion he had felt at seeing part of the Notre-Dame Cathedral engulfed by flames to reflect on the measures needed to ensure that such a dramatic incident would be prevented in Macao. His emphasis, as reported by the press, was three-fold: strengthen communication with the people or organizations managing heritage buildings, continue to educate the public on the safeguarding of cultural heritage, and keep carrying out inspections under the supervision of the Cultural Affairs Bureau while enrolling the public at large on the matter by allowing citizens to easily notify the Bureau on the actual state of preservation of these buildings.

As a Parisian, I had always assumed that the Notre-Dame Cathedral was indestructible. After all, it had been erected in the mid-12th century and survived several invasions and civil wars. Beside the shocking images and the realization that what once was would be no more or at least will be different, it came as a relief that for the world over, Notre-Dame de Paris somehow represented part of this universal heritage going beyond the category of the most visited places in the French capital city.

A loss for the Parisians became a loss for humanity, far beyond France’s borders. The erection of such an edifice had a political dimension though: medieval historian Patrick Boucheron reminded us that the Cathedral was “a field of force, a metaphor for reason” which power was derived from its “proximity with the King of France”. Reconstruction was thus bound to be political as well: French President Emmanuel Macron immediately pledged to restore the Cathedral within five years and solemnly declared that it would be a collective effort. Without the scars? Or are scars and failures not part of history too? As Boucheron remarked, “if we were in medieval France, we would consider the latest techniques, the most modern ones so as to build the Cathedral again, only better”.

Although Mr Tam is thus to be praised for making the connection between what had just happened in France and what could occur in Macao — and try to put in place prevention measures rather than costly and traumatic cures — one can also suspect a pretty blunt political usage behind his take: if it can happen in a city like Paris and for a building like Notre-Dame, then everything is possible.

The irony is that it is under Mr Tam’s watch that the Buddhist pavilion of the A-Ma Temple caught fire in February 2016 — a previous fire had gutted the same pavilion back in 1988. At the time, a short circuit in the electrical installations was blamed, but the damage caused was considered not “irreversible” even though what was supposed to take just a few weeks to restore ultimately became more than a year. Also, it was revealed that a member of the association managing the temple had first tried to take care of the issue by himself instead of immediately calling the fire services, that eventually intervened promptly and successfully.

Moreover, it is in this very Cultural Heritage Council that the opacity of the measures designed by the government to protect historical buildings has been denounced time and time again. More recently regarding the Lai Chi Vun shipyards, and before that precisely regarding the overall policies supposed to be in place to protect Macao’s unique heritage. In 2017, a decision by the UNESCO World Heritage Committee read like this: “[the committee] regrets the lack of progress with the completion of the Management Plan [a plan to safeguard and manage the Historic Center of Macao], which was due for submission by 1 February 2015”. A new deadline was fixed for December 1, 2018 and thus in early 2018 a two-month public consultation was organized, results were compiled (but not disclosed), transmitted to the central authorities by September and supposedly sent to the UNESCO.

What has become of the Plan Mr Tam? Let’s not forget that the Ruins of Saint Paul’s became Macao’s main landmark precisely because of fire… and negligence!

Published in Macau Daily Times on April 26, 2019

Kapok: 22 out of the dirty 400

For a reason that escapes any logic primarily concerned with fairness, only 22 members of the Legislative Assembly will participate in the Election Committee responsible for the designation of the Chief Executive (CE) this year. It is at the very least an aberration. After all, in Hong Kong, all members of the LegCo — the 70 of them — participate in the Committee, so why not in Macao?

Are arithmetic and proportionality to be blamed? The Election Committee in Hong Kong is made up today of 1,200 members against 400 only in Macao. But then, why would “all” members representing the SAR at the National People’s Congress be included instead of a selected few: the whole lot, that is 12 of them, are entitled to participate, just like in Hong Kong — 36 altogether in the latter case. Does it mean that NPC members are more legitimate to elect the CE than members of the local legislature? Does it comply with the rationale of the “one country-two systems” formula?

What about the members of the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference? Almost half of the delegates — 14 out of 29 in total, that is 48.3% — representing the Macao SAR in this toothless consultative body will participate in the Committee, proportionally more than in Hong Kong where the electoral law indicates 51 members out of a total of 124 (41.1%). Why would they be more “entitled” in Macao than in Hong Kong? And how does it reflect on the very idea of a “high degree of autonomy”?

The anomaly of the situation becomes even more obvious if one starts to look into Annex I of the Macao Basic Law, in which we are being told that “principles of democracy and openness” should prevail over the designation of the members of the Election Committee. How is it even possible to exclude the very few members of the community returned via universal suffrage in really competitive elections?

The Electoral Law for the Chief Executive only makes a passing reference to the way legislators should be designated to the Election Committee: an “internal vote” has to be organized (art. 14), but just like in the case of legislative elections for functional constituencies, an actual vote becomes optional if the number of candidates matches the number of seats.

At the very least, one could imagine that all legislators directly elected via universal suffrage — 14 out of 33 — should make the cut. However, only ten will participate. Three democrats — Au Kam Sam, Ng Kuok Cheong and Sulu Sou Ka Hou — abstained from even running for political reasons: they denounce what they have been calling for years the tragic embodiment of “small circle” elections — the “happy few” co-opting a single candidate — and advocate for really “democratic and open” elections in which the whole citizenry would be called to the voting booths.

But then, why is Si Ka Lon, a directly elected legislator and Mr Chan Meng Kam’s henchman, absent from the list of the 22? What does it say about his standing? Could it be a political statement? A deal for another to take his spot? Not quite: contrary to 2014, Mr Si Ka Lon is now entitled to a seat in the Election Committee because he is concurrently one of the twelve designated delegates representing Macao at the NPC! And talking about shrinking small circles, the same goes for Ho Iat Seng, Chui Sai Peng and Kou Hoi In, all NPC delegates as well.

Ultimately, indecency is really championed by the appointed members of the Legislative Assembly: the very people appointed by the CE will get to elect the CE by representing the one and only institution with a democratic component! True, they were appointed by Chui and will get to vote for Ho, but again, beyond a mere farce, what message does it convey? And will Wu Chou Kit and Fong Ka Chio (the only two appointed lawmakers left aside) prove better? Not exactly, as Mr Wu and Fong will most probably be among the 43 members representing the “professional sector” on the Committee. Clearly, the circle is tightening, almost to the size and shape of a single dot.

Published in Macau Daily Times on April 12, 2019

Kapok: Liveable tourism

When designing or even reviewing policy-making, the whole process is bound to start with a discussion of sort. Whether it is a subdued exchange of views or a heated debate over contentious points, hard facts will mitigate opinions and inform the overall spin of the conversation.

When the figures for visitors coming to Macao in 2018 were released earlier this year, it was thus only logical that some legislators wanted to discuss the matter further: almost 36 million visitors coming to a place whose total population is only 650,000 does qualify our SAR for the “overcrowded” category — we are talking about 100,000 daily visitors on average. This is also what is often referred to as “overtourism” these days. Mind you, this is not a new topic, and since Macao has breached the symbolic threshold of 30 million visitors in 2014, the idea of having daily quotas of tourists or restrictions regarding back and forth movements have been regularly aired.

Some very touristy “enclosed spaces”, such as islands or walled cities, have already taken drastic moves by substantially restricting sudden surges of visitors. Among the most well-known examples are Dubrovnik in Croatia and Santorini in Greece, and in both cases the cruise-ship stopovers were the main targets of these restrictions — what really distort everything being the massive arrival of day visitors.

Despite all the hype about Macao becoming a “world center of leisure and tourism” and the magic formula of “integrated resorts” for new casinos to develop, the average length of stay in Macao is still 1.3 days and it took years to go beyond 1.1!

What is indeed more troubling is that someone representing the food and beverage sector and by extension the hospitality industry, such as legislator Chan Chak Mo, would simply refuse to discuss the issue, and dismiss it on the ground that it is impossible to choose the tourists who visit our SAR. He thus concluded that residents “need to just get used to them.” This is not only irresponsible, but it goes against the latest reflections from the industry itself.

Macao participates in the activities of the World Travel and Tourism Council, and several events of the Council, which represents the Travel & Tourism private sector globally, have actually been held in our SAR. All the research produced by the Council and the global summit it organizes are of course largely concerned by the economic impact and the mega-trends in the growth of the tourism industry, but the overall perspective is lined-up with other concerns, long terms ones, and the Council has actually made the 2015 United Nations Sustainable Development Goals its latest guiding principles.

In its remarkable 2017 study entitled “Coping with Success: Managing Overcrowding in Tourist Destinations”, the Council indicated that “an essential element of a sustainable tourism strategy [was] to put the local community first”. Someone has got his priorities wrong!

But before even thinking of defining a strategy — even one that would be backed by the latest tools of a smart city — the proper diagnosis has to be made.

The report recommends nine metrics grouped under five categories to understand the potential risks: the overall context (importance of tourism and arrivals growth), the alienation of local residents (tourism density — visitors per square kilometer — and intensity — visitors per resident), the degraded tourism experience, the overloaded infrastructure (arrival seasonality and attraction concentration), the damage to nature (air pollution) and the threats to culture and heritage (historic site prevalence).

Interestingly enough, Macao was part of the study and ended up in the most at risk categories in four metrics out of nine, with one (air pollution) not being documented — one can wonder why. And then comes the difficult part: the solutions! Five directions have been identified, with several instruments available: visitors have to be smoothed over time, spread across sites, prices have to be adjusted to balance supply and demand, accommodation supply needs to be regulated and then, if that’s not enough, access and activities can be restricted.

Ultimately, the city has to be liveable if it wishes to remain attractive.

Published in Macau Daily Times on March 29, 2019

Kapok: Images speak louder than words

Upon return from Beijing, Macao’s political heavyweights staged a highly official debriefing conference highlighting key points from their study trip and their studious participation in what is commonly referred as the “two sessions”. Interestingly enough, this was done in front of the very same people who, for the most part, had also attended these sessions – delegates to the assemblies, high officials, important businessmen and patriotic smooth operators from Macao.

That this was redundant or even overly repetitive for most of the audience is beyond the point: what matters is that the message gets hammered. The world gets BuzzFeed-like reports candidly spelled out by Xinhua “reporters” Katie Capstick and Roisin Timmins, or even a rap video about the two sessions, and we get ineloquent speeches listing the “four tasks” and the “four supports”, with threatening undertones of dire consequences if stability and social harmony are put to the test.

Ironically, it shows that beyond the catchy nickname of the “two sessions” lies the fact that these eminent figures just wasted more than two weeks attending a rubber-stamp assembly for some (the National People’s Congress) and a toothless advisory body for others (the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference). Premier Li Keqiang’s report was approved by 2,945 members of the NPC, with only three abstentions and no disapproval, so one could even argue that the rubber-stamping has worsened as Mr Li’s first work report back in 2014 was disavowed by 378 delegates!

On the task side, Chui Sai On insisted, first, on maintaining Macao’s overall stability, especially by organizing “legal, impartial, equitable, honest and smooth” elections for the next Chief Executive (far too many adjectives for an uncompetitive selection process), while successfully celebrating the 20th anniversary of the handover (can you see the millions flowing from the Macau Foundation to these patriotic communal associations?). Secondly, he insisted on ensuring the healthy and sustainable economic development of Macao, with the people’s livelihood at heart (Ouh la la, gaming concessionaires might be asked to dedicate more than 10% of their operations to non-gaming activities and then divert part of their war chest to open more casinos in Portuguese-speaking countries!). Thirdly, he focused on promoting the development of the Greater Bay Area (the insistence on the 49 points that concern Macao in the master plan are chilling as it will be unpatriotic not to implement them!); and finally, on making sure the youth of Macao, whose future will necessarily depend on their “love for the nation and love for Macao” (anything scarier than that?), is properly trained and educated.

The “four supports” articulated by Fu Ziying, the director of the Liaison Office, strictly echoed the four tasks delineated by Chui, as if one should not go without the other if the “superiority and vitality” of the “one country, two systems” formula is to be fully demonstrated. Even more anaemic were the speeches of Ma Iao Lai, a standing committee member of the CPPCC for Macao, whose main contribution was to praise the united front work of the Conference to efficiently promote “Xi Jinping Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era”, whereas Ho Iat Seng, the only standing committee member of the NPC for Macao, self-congratulated himself and fellow Macao delegates for having introduced no less than 78 recommendations in the NPC, supposedly all highly appreciated by the staff of the General Office of the Assembly. Former CE Edmund Ho tried to steal the show by warning that all acts committed against “unity and stability” should be banned, but his position also contradicted his earlier claim that he believed “the people of Macao had the wisdom and ability to elect” the right person as the new Chief Executive: since when are the “Macao people” voting in that election?

Ultimately, the real takeaway lies in this family photo, in which the only ones talking are the representatives of the three families that have run Macao since the 1960s, anointing the future CE in front of the central authorities’ representative. The race is on!

Published in Macau Daily Times on March 22, 2019

Kapok: What has been will be again

Not everything is about arithmetic, far from it, as Macao’s Chief Executive election clearly shows.

If numbers were all that matters, elections in Macao would seem fairer than in Hong Kong: in the case of our SAR, the CE is elected by an electoral college of 400 electors, that is to say there is one elector for every 776 registered voters (total of 310,400 registered voters at the end of 2018), whereas there is only 1 for 3,178 in Hong Kong (1,200-member strong electoral college for the CE election and 3,814,318 registered voters).

And then, even with only one candidate in Macao against three candidates in 2017 in Hong Kong, our SAR gets the upper-hand, even though the margin is less striking—basically twofold against the Fragrant Harbour. Macao has a non-competitive selection process with a single candidate and still, somehow, the ratio of electors to voters is in Macao’s favour.

In a recent piece, I made the assumption that there would be close to no change in the composition of the electoral college that is going to elect our next Chief Executive.

First, I have to admit to a slight mistake as the structure of the college will accommodate two newcomers, in terms of functions: representatives of the newly revamped Municipal Affairs Bureau will replace two Macao delegates to the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference (CPPCC).

And then, there should be new faces among the Macao delegates to both the National People’s Congress (NPC) and the CPPCC as both assemblies were “elected” in 2017/2018.

On the side of the NPC, we have 12 Macao representatives, but only four are actually new: Dominic Sio Chi Wai, Ng Sio Lai, Lai Sai Kei and Si Ka Lon. But these people can hardly be characterized as unfamiliar: Sio is a businessman, close associate of the present CE and a former legislator; Ng is the president of the Macau General Union of Neighbourhood Associations (Kai Fong); Lai is a vice-chairman of the Macau Chinese Educators Association; and Si is a Fujian-community leader, close associate of Mr Chan Meng Kam and currently a two-term legislator. And then, the four of them participated in the election of Chui Sai On back in 2014: Sio and Si as legislators, Lai in the education constituency and Ng in the social services constituency. Zero changes after all.

Now, looking at the CPPCC delegates, things get a bit tricky. For sure, Ng Lap Seng who got four years in a US jail for bribing UN officials and Or Wai Shuen, the chairman of Polytec Asset Holdings Limited involved in a trial over a land plot dispute with the Macao government will not be present as they have not been re-appointed to the august assembly. But out of 29 delegates for Macao, 18 are new, including O Lam, the chief of cabinet of the Chief Executive; Cheong U, the former Secretary for Social Affairs and Culture; Vong Hin Fai and Chan Hong, both sitting legislators non-competitively elected in functional constituencies; Wu Zhiliang, the president of the Macao Foundation; Leong Lai, the director of Education and Youth Affairs Bureau and; Ho Ion Sang, a directly elected legislator. A few might actually make the cut to the electoral committee (possibly 4 or 5 among 14 out of 29 in total) even though they were not among the happy few in 2014. But again, none of these people are really novel, to say the least.

The functional constituencies, returning some 350 electors to the election committee, are another game altogether that deserves more detailed scrutiny—to be continued!—especially because some of these electors extend their reach across the Delta. If Pansy Ho, the chairlady of Shun Tak Holding, elects the Macao CE, her sister, Daisy Ho, the chairlady of SJM Holding Limited, elects the Hong Kong one. But nobody can beat Francis Lui Yiu-tung, the deputy chairman of Galaxy Entertainment Group, who himself elects both the CE in Hong Kong (as a delegate to the CPPCC) and the CE of Macao (as one of the 120 electors representing business and industry). Showing the way for further integration? 

Published in Macau Daily Times on March 1, 2019