Some political decisions are as brave as they are risky, especially in a place as complex and unique as Macau.
The recent decision by the Culture Council – announced by the president of the Cultural Affairs Bureau, Ng Vai Meng, and supported by the secretary of Culture, Cheong U – to annul the controversial Central Library project, is both brave and risky, but also totally correct.
An earlier decision by a team led by the former president of the Cultural Affairs Bureau Heidi Ho, to hand the project over to an architect who worked for the company that handled the preliminary study that would then lead to the public tender, was most controversial.
First, it undermined the tender, but it also went against the most basic principles of incompatibility and it could have damaged the winning architect’s reputation, as well as that of the company administered by respected engineer and legislator Chui Sai Peng.
Considering, of course, that the architect had no idea that her boss was involved in the preliminary study and that the boss had no idea that his employee was a candidate in the tender.
However, Heidi Ho chose to, how shall we say, forget – and not for the first time – some of the most basic common sense norms of behaviour.
The Culture Council’s decision was brave because it rejects what seems to have become an unspoken rule in Macau: do not interfere with past decisions regardless of how stupid they were.
By revoking the decision and re-starting the whole process, the Culture Council and the secretary have scored important points for the new chief executive who has promised a more transparent government.
All in all, it is a decision that we salute!

A predictable debacle

The Viva Macau debacle was entirely predictable and is further proof that a succession of bad decisions were made during the first 10 years of the SAR.
Air Macau bears direct responsibility for the failure of Viva Macau, by preventing the healthy growth of its sub-concessionaire. But should we have expected a different outcome? Since Air Macau was nearly forced to let go of its monopoly, can we blame them for not wanting to make things easier for Viva Macau?
The monopoly came out of a foolish decision by the former Portuguese administration which, in 1995, seemed understandable at the time, because there was apparently no other way of attracting investors.
On the other hand, Viva Macau accepted such pre-conditions as the interdiction of flying to any of Air Macau’s destinations in exchange for not paying any royalties. If Viva Macau had had any long term vision at the time, instead of just wanting to save a few patacas, perhaps this sad outcome could have been avoided.
We believe Viva Macau has good reason to complain about a certain lack of good will from Nam Kwong – which apparently seems to have forgotten when it nearly went bankrupt – and quite a few other unlucky circumstances it found itself in.
Still, we find it strange that they are surprised with the government’s decision to no longer tolerate the frequent blemishes they have made on Macau’s international image. Viva Macau’s problems are nothing new, nor are its defective management practices.
As for the veiled threat that it can’t pay back the MOP200 million loan, this can only be a joke. We have many doubts regarding this subject, but one stands out: if Viva Macau had two companies ready to invest in it, with signed agreements and all – one of them worth US$30 million – why let things reach this point of nearly no return? After all, the problem was not just the non-payment of fuel bills.
Apparently, there were unpaid wages and, more than once, the company paid expenses with cash-filled envelopes.
Unfortunately, and not for the first time, the previous government was displaying the worst of behavior. By deciding not to liberalise the skies and choosing instead to benefit an unsuitable airline, the government ended up being the main culprit.
The fact that Viva Macau – a brand new company with little to justify its existence except for having money to invest and some good will – had family ties with former Chief Executive Edmund Ho Hau Wah that could lead to hasty and perhaps unfair conclusions, leaves the main decisions makers in a rather uncomfortable position.
There is a growing need to prevent such situations from happening, because more often than not, they are interpreted – perhaps unfairly – as the sorts of contracts only possible if one or more shareholders have family ties with the person who green lights the whole business.
A few days ago, the Macau International Airport Company (CAM) chairman announced the company’s results.
Let’s forget the fact that we still don’t understand why CAM even exists, since the airport should be directly managed by a company which wins a fair and open public tender.
It is also difficult to understand why the government decides to provide a third entity to earn money when the whole process should only have two parties, the owner and administrator (in other words the government) and the entity it decides to award the management of the airport to. I’m sure the scientific explanation is: this is Macau.
Deng Jun spoke to reporters after a meeting of CAM’s administrators, where the next objectives where set in terms of infrastructure management, namely the new runway and the airport main building’s extension.
Macau is full of surprises, so we won’t be shocked if the government approves the airport’s extension and invests in land reclamation, only to move the airport to, oh I don’t know, Mountain Island, and then sells the new lots of reclaimed land to real estate developers.
For now, we simply want to sound an alert that identical land situations must not happen again. We’re still waiting for clarification on the transfer of airport lots to private hands. If transparency is finally a realistic demand – and rightly so – then we must fight for it at all costs.
It is a courageous decision by the new government and we fully support it.

Finger pointing

Americans – and we apologise for the generalisation – are quick to point fingers. And they don’t need a lot of proof. They are an enlightened people, God bless them. As such, they need only their own absolute conviction of guilt in order to publicly lynch someone.
It’s a habit which must have been passed on from the State Department to part of the great American public.
This all pervasive tendency can be the only explanation for New Jersey’s decision to classify Pansy Ho Chiu King as an undesirable partner for MGM. Their logic goes like this: Pansy is Stanley Ho Hung Sun’s daughter, and Stanley Ho is – based on many never proven rumors – accused of dangerous liaisons. Therefore, Pansy Ho has dangerous liaisons.
This reasoning by the New Jersey Gaming Commission, completely trashes one of the most basic rights guaranteed by democratic societies, of which the USA is said to be the champion – the right to justice.
By inverting the burden of proof, Pansy Ho – or her father for that matter – have no right to be considered innocent until proven so in a court of law. This is the Inquisition, New Jersey-style: burn them at the stake, just in case.
Subjectivity affects us all equally. English-owned Reuters news agency has accused an American company, Las Vegas Sands, of having ties with organised crime. The accusation arose from the fact that an individual had certain interests in a company that owned part of another company that had a share in one of LVS´ VIP rooms.
As a publisher, I have first hand knowledge of the frustrating process of having a team of reporters work on an investigative story for months and get no conclusive proof in the end. The lesson is clear, no conclusive proof and the story doesn’t see the light
of day.
First of all, the individual only bought a share in the junket company after she started working with LVS. Secondly – and this must not be forgotten – the individual was never formally charged with any offence nor detained after being spoken to by the police.
So, without a formal accusation and, more importantly, without any charges or convictions, what right is there to publicly “burn” the image of a company that might have been linked to a suspicious fellow? Investigative journalism does not appear on the opinion pages, which are set aside for subjective commentary and “escape” the rules that condition the former.
The worst thing is that cases like this are quickly becoming the norm. I have little doubt that Reuters´ mistake was not due to lobbies or hidden agendas, but I can’t say the same regarding the New Jersey decision – a jurisdiction that is not exactly a paradigm
of honesty and transparency.
Without a shadow of a doubt, their decision was the result of huge backstage movements.

by Paulo A. Azevedo