Kapok: For the people?

The contrast could not be more striking: while in Hong Kong two million residents were taking to the streets to express their dissatisfaction at Chief Executive Carry Lam, in Macao, slightly more than 5,000 happy few were taking part in an exercise of total perversion of democracy by choosing the electoral college that will select the next Macao Chief Executive on August 25.

On one side of the delta, a quarter of the population of the former British colony was marching and telling Mrs Lam that she had failed them and that the suspension of a much-derided extradition bill was too little and too late. Beyond the five precise demands — total withdrawal, retraction of the “riot” characterization, independent enquiry, charges being dropped and resignation of the CE — lies the idea of accountability, that one has to shoulder responsibility for his or her acts and that ultimately, if government could not be by and of the people, it had to be at least for the people.

On the other side of the delta, it was business as usual and the mockery of competition — 350 candidates for 344 positions — acted as a striking illustration of the political deadlock Macao has had to endure for the past twenty years. Same faces, or almost; same associations, or almost; same self-congratulations, always. All this for what? For Mr Ho Iat Seng to confirm the next day something everybody had already known for the past two years: that he would be the next CE. Only a handful of protesters led by legislator Sulu Sou, soon rounded up by policemen filming them from multiple angles at close range, dared disrupt the velvety process, denouncing the “small circle election” and the disenfranchisement of the vast majority.

On the next day, the cover page of the main Chinese daily in Macao, the Macao Daily News, was splashed with multiple photos of the successful voting exercise held the day before. The biggest ever peaceful demonstration in Hong Kong had no place on that first page. On June 10, only the “attack” on the LegCo had been reported on the cover of the same newspapers after one million people had taken to the streets the previous day. And on June 13, the full cover was dedicated to tear gas pictures and clashes between youngsters dressed in black and police in full battle gear, with a huge title splattered in the middle indicating that the “riot” (baoluan) had caused 72 people to be injured! Clearly, only a twisted, unfavorable and partial outlook gets reported.

What about these elections then? Why would they deserve the full cover the next day?

The 5,001 voters who turned out to the booths on June 17 actually represent very limited interests. Behind these voters, there are only 633 legal persons — associations — registered and authorized to vote. Each of these associations is entitled to a maximum of 22 votes, all of these votes entrusted in the members of the board of directors or managing bodies — regular members are excluded.

It is no secret that these associations vote as “blocks” and that voting instructions are discussed beforehand so as to make sure important figures of the community get the highest scores. Chui Sai Cheong, the brother of the present CE, made it first in the “professional” college, with 77% of the votes. He is also a member of the board in several dozens associations in Macao, even though not all of them are in the professional sector. Instructions are also made to exclude the very few who dare challenge the status quo, as Mrs Rita Santos just experienced in the “labor” college together with three others.

It is moreover clear that not all associations of a given sector are registered. If one simply looks at the “education” college, it is only made of 20 associations that select a total of 29 members of the Electoral Committee. And out of these 20, none of them has a connexion with catholicism, whereas there are 27 registered Catholic schools in Macao comprising about 37% of the non-tertiary educational service delivery in Macao!

Some are prevented from getting into the fray, others just renounced beforehand.

Hong Kong, standing for freedom and justice once more

On June 9, the march against the government sponsored extradition bill felt like a recast of the protest held on July 1 2003 against the enactment of a state security legislation that ultimately ended up with the bill being shelved indefinitely, the Secretary for Security resigning and the Chief Executive not being able to finish his second mandate for “personal reasons”.

Same main organizer: the Civil Human Rights Front gathering some 50 pro-democratic organizations. Same hot and clear-sky summer day. Same white t-shirts. Same mixed crowd of families and middle-class residents. Same upbeat mood with a different and yet echoing slogan: “Oppose extradition to China.”

Only this time was bigger, double the size actually, with more than one million Hongkongers taking to the streets in an uninterrupted human flow stretching from as far as Fortress Hill up to the government headquarters in Tamar and lasting for more than seven hours.

Only this time the loud and clear demand expressed by one out of seven residents fell on a deaf ear. Speaking only on the next day, Hong Kong’s Chief Executive Carrie Lam pledged to press ahead with the bill and insisted that further delays would only instill “more anxiety and divisiveness in society.” As calls for a second rally opposing the bill were starting to be heard, the LegCo president announced on June 11 that the bill would have to be adopted by June 20, tabling some 66 hours for debate with extraordinary sessions to be held on every single day of the week whereas the LegCo ordinarily convene only on Tuesdays and Wednesdays.

Rather than being delayed the legislative process was thus being sped up! All this while the proposed amendments to the Fugitive Offenders Ordinance and the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Ordinances had been heavily challenged right from the start in February.

The Hong Kong Bar Association had published as early as April 2 a comprehensive review of the amendment bill that had been gazetted on March 29. Many voices from all corners of society soon joined — democrats of course, journalists, NGOs, foreign governments and politicians, businessmen with interests in China, and the many professional associations who felt threatened by the law. The same two main objections were repeated again and again, with various degrees of subtlety: why the rush? And why the absence of effective judicial and/or legislative safeguards? The Hong Kong judiciary would only be entrusted with checking the adequacy of formalities and ultimately, only the Chief Executive, himself or herself nominated by the central authorities, would be left to refuse case-by-case demands formulated by China’s courts.

On June 12, the mood of the crowd converging towards the LegCo had changed. This time around, the objective was not anymore to voice out a disagreement and quietly address it to the government but rather to forbid the convening of the second reading of the bill.

The power struggle had shifted from being symbolic and argumentative to meddling with the ugly reality of decision making. Inspiration thus came from the Umbrella Movement of 2014. Organizers were many, and, even though all progressive in essence, from every segment of society. The Hong Kong Confederation of Trade Union had called for a general strike. The Diocese of Hong Kong had implored the government to withdraw the bill. Even small businesses were closed, in different parts of the territory, with some leaving cardboards on their metal curtain reading “Busy being heroes.” And the crowd was young, very young, all dressed in black and geared-up to sustain a siege.

Contrary to September 2014, young people knew that the government would not hesitate to use tear gas, rubber bullets and pepper spray against them. If the effective withdrawal of the bill was to be achieved, nothing could be left to improvisation. Mistakes from 2014 would not be repeated if the success of 2003 was to be achieved.

Out of practicality — the LegCo being inaccessible — the second reading of the bill was officially postponed. But as the crowd refused to disperse and evacuate Harcourt Road, tear gas was fired and pepper spray splashed all over. This is unfortunately just the beginning.

Published in Macau Daily Times on June 13, 2019

Kapok: The politics of memory

Remembering and commemorating June 4, 1989 is not an easy task.

First and foremost as the government that sits in Beijing forbids and effectively prevents any attempt at commemorating what happened in Tiananmen Square and around that day. The official press is silent. People who were at the forefront of the movement are tightly monitored, if not under house arrest or gone for forced holidays. Sensitive places are not freely accessible, be it the Square itself, adjoining streets where most of the bloodshed took place or cemeteries where the ones who have killed that night rest forever. And even virtual candles cannot be posted online.   

Equally important is the fact that the regime has been systemically and thoroughly wiping off all traces of memory in connection with the events, and has refused to revise its judgement regarding those, even though what was once characterized as “a counter-revolutionary rebellion” has become mere “political turmoil” in official lingo. Actually, additional blurriness serves a purpose as it is one step further towards the completion of the erasing process.

And then, in places where it is actually possible to publicly pay tribute to June 4, what is it that we commemorate? The “massacre” so that unarmed students, workers and ordinary beijingers killed by the bullets of the People’s Liberation Army or crushed by its tanks do not fall into the oblivion of a mere “incident”?

But, in commemorating the tragedy and rightfully requesting a long-overdue vindication, aren’t we ourselves relegating to the background the hope and joy that existed beyond injustice and sadness? After all, the occupation of Tiananmen Square was the main stage of a social movement that initially started with a gathering of students from elite universities on April 15. That day they had come to the Monument to the People’s Heroes to mourn the passing away of a former general secretary of the very same Party that would ultimately order to fire on unarmed civilians on June 4.

In between these two dates, a tribute to a reformist communist cadre who had unjustly been sacked two years earlier had transformed over the course of almost two months into a resolute denunciation of rampant corruption and demands for greater political participation as well as democratic reforms, and spread to some 400 cities in China.

This year, as we were commemorating the thirtieth anniversary of the massacre, a lot of the commentaries focused on whether or not the official attempt at wiping out the memory of the events among Chinese citizens and especially the younger generations had actually been successful.

Foreign journalists going around the streets of Beijing with an image of the Tank Man, the most iconic picture in the West of the Chinese people’s heroic resistance to savage repression, and asking passers-by whether they had recognized the image verged on indecency as it produced mainly bewilderment and embarrassment, and clearly did not prove much given the general political environment of the capital city at this sensitive time.

Much more convincing was what Louisa Lim, a journalist turned scholar, has characterized as the “People’s Republic of Amnesia” and her more recent essay in which she remarked that “indoctrinating China’s young people with a utilitarian view of history is an even more powerful tool than censorship itself.”

But then, are these really certainties, even though documentation goes beyond the incidental? Another scholar working on Chinese millennials is now stressing that most of his interviewees were indeed the ones who had brought up the subject of the Tiananmen repression during the lengthy conversations he had with them. Another journalist-scholar emphasizes that a significant number of unabated writers, filmmakers, poets, artists, songwriters and public intellectuals have turned into amateur historians to preserve the memories of the country’s many upheavals. And then, what about the many private photos taken at the time?

In Hong Kong, there is no doubt that record numbers of participants turned up for the vigil this year also because of the ongoing debate over the extradition law. Ultimately, memories resurfaced when they resonate with the present. Sooner or later, they never fail to do so.

Published in Macau Daily Times on June 7, 2019

Kapok: Aiming higher

Reference documents and generic resolutions adopted by the United Nations are usually dismissed by critics as either too broad, too generous or too normative, and sometimes the three together. Then they are often simultaneously considered rather weak when it comes to binding effects and even weaker when considering enforcement. Of course, there are exceptions, especially when peace, security, trade and sometimes international justice are concerned, but more often than not timing and whether or not powerful states get involved remain crucial and can prove either incapacitating or, on the contrary, expediting.

Yet, when it comes to global concerns — in particular the protection of the environment, but not only! — there are no better institutions than UN agencies to come up with eloquent and insightful perspectives. Such is the case with the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) that succeeded the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) in 2015. MDGs were broader and less numerous — 8 goals with 21 targets, whereas SDGs comprise 17 goals to be achieved by 2030 — but marked a turning point in the UN drive to be more results-oriented and multi-dimensional as well as inter-related in its approach to development — the United Nations Development Programme stresses that “often the key to success on one will involve tackling issues more commonly associated with another.”

Reviewing whether or not the claim that MDGs had been the “most successful anti-poverty movement in history”, analysts concluded in 2015 that even though it was quite an overstretch to proclaim “mission accomplished”, crucial progresses had indeed been made: the number of people living on less than $1.25 had been more than halved even though the same ambition for people suffering from hunger was not fully realized; net enrolment rate in primary school had reached 91% (not fully universal, but pretty close); two-thirds of developing countries had achieved gender parity in primary education; child mortality rate as well as global maternal mortality had dropped by about 50% but had failed to drop by two-thirds; number of new HIV carriers had fallen by 40%, even though the spread had not been reversed as promised; but then halving the proportion of people without access to clean water had been achieved five years in advance and overseas development aid to developing countries had increased drastically by about two-thirds over the period.

There is thus hope for the SDGs, and reading reports from numerous Non-Governmental Organizations and International Organizations on a regular basis, I can testify to the fact that the renewed and more ambitious goals for the next decade have permeated all kinds of institutions, and help create a new consensus on what needs to be done.

Labor conditions and employment — a subject dear to my heart — are now covered by the standalone Goal No. 8 in the SDGs whereas they use to be minimalistically embedded and split inside the goals to eradicate poverty and achieve gender parity under the MDGs. The full name of the new goal actually resonates like a program in itself as the ambition is to “promote sustained, inclusive and sustainable economic growth, full and productive employment and decent work for all.” Under one goal stand some 10 targets, to which are appended 17 indicators that will allow policy-makers and citizens to assess the progress made towards the goal. And besides the usual GDP growth or unemployment rate, one finds the latest concerns related to the worrying spread of urban informal employment, all forms of discrimination affecting hourly earnings, fatal and non-fatal occupational injuries with a breakdown by gender and place of origin (migrants), and even the level of national compliance with labor rights (freedom of association and collective bargaining) based on the International Labor Organization conventions.

Quite interestingly, this goal also comprises a recommendation to “devise and implement policies to promote sustainable tourism that creates jobs and promotes local culture and products,” an objective that the Macao Government Tourism Office could easily make a requirement — why not even for the renewal of casino licenses — in order to make the ambition to become a “World Centre of Tourism and Leisure” slightly more meaningful for the good people of our SAR.

Published in Macau Daily Times on May 24, 2019

Kapok: Killing them not so softly

True: United Nations agencies or “bodies” can be confusing, especially when their names are long — the more specialized they are the longer the name — and the way they are designated in the mainstream press only refers to their acronym. There is the IPCC on the one hand, and the IPBES on the other, with the latter sometimes being characterized as the former “on biodiversity”—how helpful is that?!? Indeed, the IPCC is the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and this is the one organization we most often heard about as the unprecedented warming of planet earth is seen as the root cause of all our environmental challenges, present and future.

The IPCC’s work provides scientific evidence about and policy recommendations on how to deal with these challenges to its 195 member states. It is the IPCC, which was founded in 1988, that warned us last October that efforts to limit global warming “well below 2ºC” above pre-industrial levels over the century would not be enough, contrary to what we thought in 2015, and that the new threshold not to cross was 1.5º C in order to prevent a grilling amplification of heat-waves, a sudden destabilization of the marine ice sheet in Antarctica, the irreversible loss of the Greenland ice sheet, and an alarming rise of mean sea level across the globe. 

The consequences would be dreadful for human societies and the urgency is here and now: CO2 emissions have to be reduced by about 45% at the horizon of 2030 and reach net zero — carbon neutrality — by 2050!

The Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services is more recent — it was created only in 2012 — and, as the name indicates, is focused on the footprint human activities have on biodiversity and ecosystems across the world. Governments — 130 member states altogether — support the action of the IPBES, but just like the IPCC, its different roles are grounded in expertise bringing together scientists, NGOs as well as businesses and industries. It is well-known for its “assessments”, among which certainly the most influential to date has been its report on “Pollinators, Pollination and Food Production” and ground-breaking trend it triggers in the global fight against pesticides since it was published in 2016.

Now, the plenary session of the IPBES just convened for two weeks in Paris in the UNESCO building and released on May 4th a short version of its huge report on the unprecedented and dangerous decline of nature because of human activities. The most quoted and conscience-striking fact highlighted in that “summary for policymakers” being that 1 million species of plants and animals — out of a total of 8 million, including 5.5 million insects — are “threatened with extinction, many within decades, more than ever before in human history.”

The report also indicates, just like the IPCC report from October, that “global goals for conserving and sustainably using nature […] cannot be met by current trajectories, and goals for 2030 and beyond may only be achieved through transformative changes across economic, social, political and technological factors.” The constant reminder of the 2030 horizon deriving from the 17 Sustainable Development Goals set by the United Nations General Assembly in 2015.

What is meant by “transformative changes” is pretty complex, although the executive summary makes it very clear that these should follow four key principles of governance: ‘integrative’ governance to ensure policy coherence and effectiveness; ‘inclusive’ governance approaches through stakeholder engagement and the inclusion of indigenous peoples and local communities; ‘informed’ governance for nature and nature’s contributions to people; and finally ‘adaptive’ governance and management. Any piece of policymaking should thus be implementable and implemented across the board, by all and for the benefit of all, based on facts and assessments and enabling locally tailored choices that can then be erected as guidelines for best practices by all.

But then, the report concludes distressingly that a “transformative change can expect opposition from those with interests vested in the status quo,” a disheartening warning not quite mitigated by the somewhat naive assertion that “such opposition can be overcome for the broader public good.” Reminds you of anywhere?

Published in Macau Daily Times on May 10, 2019