Several figures who have played important roles through the years in Macau, have made public statements in the past few days. We feel compelled to give our considerations to what they said and, especially, what they didn’t say.
First of all, the last Portuguese governor of Macau, General Rocha Vieira. It’s easy to believe he feels disappointment towards certain Portuguese officials for Macau’s “abandonment” by Lisbon.
Reading between the lines, I detect in the last governor’s words, direct criticism of former Portuguese President, Jorge Sampaio, to whom the general answered directly. Coming from different political corners, it’s no secret that Rocha Vieira was not the most beloved son of BelémPalace, and he only kept his post because he was well regarded in Beijing and because the Portuguese President had no suitable replacement.
In the interview with Lusa news agency, Rocha Vieira also spoke about the controversy surrounding the Jorge Álvares Foundation (JAF), something he had not previously done in the last decade – at least not so openly.
He criticised those who attacked the foundation and irreversibly “undermined” his performance. He believes the foundation was torpedoed out of sheer “prejudice” and “envy”.
I was one of the first to do it. As a journalist, I was on the frontline reporting on the creation of the JAF and, specifically, the way it was created. As an analyst, I openly criticised what I still believe was the shameful way the JAF was created.
Following the handover, the last governor wanted a foundation based in Portugal that somehow would serve as a bridge between Lisbon and Macau.
The Orient Foundation (whose existence practically relied entirely on gaming tax revenues, and which was replaced by the Macau Development Foundation and later by the Macau Foundation) had ceased receiving funding from gaming taxes and was likely to reduce its role in Macau.
Rocha Vieira’s intentions were not without merit, but they were annihilated by the methods behind JAF’s last-minute creation, which displayed whiffs of abuse of power that later forced Edmund Ho to start an internal inquiry.
The creation of JAF was formalised on December 18, 1999 – 24 hours before the Portuguese handed over power – with a MOP100 million donation from Sociedade de Turismo e Diversões de Macau (STDM) and MOP50 million from the Macau Development Foundation (MDF).
The Portuguese government was behind the decision to renew over and over again Stanley Ho’s gaming monopoly and, as we all know, throughout the decades, the gaming tycoon seldom refused requests from the different governors.
We can’t point criticise him, because he always acted as the astute businessman he is. However, MDF was a public institution that managed gaming money, and its president had to answer to the Curator’s Council presided over by Rocha Vieira. Although no illegalities were found, how can anyone dispute those who criticise such a donation and the way it
was made?
I’m still convinced that the whole affair was badly managed and that its details should convince the general to at least have some decorum and keep silent about the matter.

 A lack of modesty was not exclusive to the Portuguese administration if we believe talk coming from the democratic camp. Ng Kuok Cheong and Au Kam San have questioned several strange bits of business, and if no-one investigates them, the reason may well be that Beijing has no interest in digging further and finding some unpleasant surprises.
Unexpectedly, strong criticism came from the territory’s former number two. On her blog, the former president of the Legislative Assembly, Susanna Chou, laid out accusations we have been making for five years: that some existing government officials choose to turn a deaf ear to public opinion and “regard criticisms as attacks” and they also believe that those who don’t make flattering remarks should not get important jobs.
Yes, there is a culture of flattery here that the Edmund Ho administration did not want to, or could not change. If we’re lucky, the new chief executive will change course, which I doubt judging from some appointments to the executive council and other top posts in the administration.
Speaking of which, an inevitable question comes up: how can anyone support the promotion of the former Commissioner Against Corruption to the position of secretary?
The biggest job he handled was the former-secretary Ao Man Long scandal. By accepting his appointment while the investigation is far from finished, and without any public information that it will ever be concluded, what are we supposed to think?
And what about the replacement of the “controversial” Commissioner of Audits Fátima Choi, by the person who served for a decade as Edmund Ho’s chief of staff?
In politics, often if not always, it’s not what you do, but the way you do it that indicates the presence or lack of good faith behind decisions.
May this serve as a lesson for the future government.

DESPITE ALL THE CRITICISM HURLED AT
Edmund Ho, the truth is that the first Macau Chief Executive helped shape the territory. I’m guessing the balance is positive and what was done has steered us into a position of careful trust from the Central Government.
I imagine that Chui Sai On won’t have the same room to maneuver, not only because he won’t be the first to rule over the territory’s future, but also because of his experience as a member of Edmund Ho’s team.
That’s the reason behind his apparent shyness and reinforced precaution, never promising more than a “we shall study the situation”.
Indeed, we need a lot of situations to be studied however, more than that, we need fast, concrete and, above all, transparent action. So, this is my wish for the new era: Greater accountability from those who decide policy, and decisions made based on a proposal’s quality and not on the names behind the proposals.
A responsible and honest government should be synonymous with the creation of wealth and social harmony, at a time when Macau possesses all the conditions to leave a lasting mark on the history of this still young century.

by Paulo A. Azevedo