Kapok | Head counts or headaches?

Eric Sautedé

Censuses have been in existence for millennia, the first known having been undertaken by the Babylonians and in Pharaonic Egypt in the Third Millennium BC. The oldest existing census was conducted in Han Dynasty China in 2 AD when Imperial China was believed to be home to the largest population in the world of 59.6 million inhabitants. Interestingly enough, references to these distant head counts usually indicate some level of “reliability”. Censuses appear to be associated with advanced civilizations and sophistication of public administration. Today, the universal and periodic acquisition and recording of key population indicators determine the shape and scope of public policies.
In Macao, the first census dates back to 1867 when 81,525 individuals populated the Portuguese enclave. The latest census of 2011 recorded a total population of 552,503 and the latest estimate from the Statistics and Census Service puts this figure at 636,200 at the end of 2014.
On July 30th, the government’s Policy Research Office released its Study Report on the Population Policies of Macao, and expectations were running pretty high. Unfortunately, some serious doubts can be raised on the intent and accuracy of the document.
Although it is true that Macao’s population is today characterized by a low birth rate, one of the longest life expectancies in the world, a population growth fuelled by immigration, heterogeneity between local and non-resident workers, a need to “import” young workers to compensate for an ageing population, and the fact that a low rate of analphabetism is emulated by an equally low level of tertiary education, why do these conclusions need to be drawn from a study by the University of Peking? And then, why not phrase the main challenge of Macao as being the staffing of a (super-) fast hospitality and gaming industry with low-skilled as well as highly competent people who are mostly imported from the outside (today, 45% of the active population is made up of “non-resident workers”, twice that of 2010, and less than 20% of the population have been to university) while at the same time maintaining acceptable conditions in one of the most densely populated territories on the planet? With further diversification ahead, what was true in the past decade will be even truer in the next.
Every single piece of information in this report seeks to tone down the issues at hand and is presented as a validation of insufficiently published indicators and reports to appraise the quality and relevance of past and upcoming public policies. It is more a justification exercise than an objective assessment from which to derive public policy recommendations.
Projections are on the conservative side: the population figures of 710,000 by 2020 and 750,000 by 2025 are based on lower growth to come. With a population increase of 25,500 people in 2012-2013 and close to 29,000 in 2013-2014, should not we at least consider a higher limit – despite the recent sharp GDP decline – according to which the threshold of 710,000 could be reached by the end of 2017? Unless, of course, there is a significant contraction of non-resident workers and thus a sudden change in immigration policy – unimaginable with 19,000 additional hotel rooms in the making and the drive for Macao to become a world-class tourism and entertainment center. Is it reasonable to argue that HR issues can be significantly addressed by an untapped reserve of women and a fast ageing population? What is the rationale behind an acceptable (“not saturated”) carrying capacity of 22,000 people per sq. km by 2025? What are the envisioned measures to optimize transportation and tourism facilities for sustainable development? Why not include indicators like “waiting time” for health services instead of boasting that Macao is on par with countries from East Asia based on the number of doctors and hospital beds per 1000 residents? Should not the development of the “Grand Macao” as the solution to all challenges be discussed?
The 2006 predecessor of this Policy Research Office was supposed to emulate Hong Kong’s Central Policy Unit: there is obviously still room for improvement!