Macau Opinion | Waste waters

Etymologically, the word surprise refers to a ‘feeling of astonishment caused by something unexpected’. It is therefore not possible to be surprised by something that is well known – we might readily agree on that. But there are situations when the word surprise pops up in association with things or facts that were known or visible for a long time. In such cases, the surprising thing may be the surprise itself – or maybe not, but such discussion would lead us beyond the confines of this column.

According to media reports, most of the wastewater produced on the Macau Peninsula is being flushed into the sea minimally treated – or, which amounts to the same, is dumped mostly untreated. Following, it seems, four evaluation reports, the government recognises that the plant cannot process all the wastewater produced on the peninsula. The actual volume of treated water is well below the nominal capacity. The four evaluation reports notwithstanding, the government does not know how to explain the situation and promises to make enquiries. Presumably, the evaluation instructions did not include identifying the causes of the problem.

Now, that might come as a surprise. The issue is not new, and was already known without the necessity of any evaluation report. The matter was in the public record. Anyone reading the environmental reports produced annually by our statistical department could see it coming – and happening. By the early years of the century, the plant was approaching its maximum capacity. Since then its refurbishment, upgrade or replacement should have been on the agenda. Such was not the case, but no-one seemed to care.

Then, the statistics suggest, it started patently failing. It has been efficiently processing (we presume) only a fraction of the wastewater it receives. As the government recognizes, that has been happening for almost ten years. Further, on a few occasions, the issue was publicly mentioned and commented upon, not least in media columns. It did not appear to elicit any interest, feigned or real, from the supposed stakeholders: government agencies, environmental organisations, political leaders, or the general public.

Did nobody read the statistical reports? No-one thought that was a matter of public relevance, for both environmental and public health reasons? Whether the readers of these lines find such blissful obliviousness surprising or not will probably hinge on their level of scepticism, and I will leave it at that.

But some might look at it as a dereliction of duty.