Bizcuits | IPIM rebranded

Leanda Lee

The lack of transparency and high use of discretion with the residency application and renewal process through Macau Trade and Investment Promotion Institute (IPIM) have been ongoing and problematic for a good decade. The 2nd of July report released by the Commission Against Corruption on a study commenced at the end of 2015 finds negligence on the part of the institute in the assessment of applications for residence. For expatriates and those close to the process, the report comes as a surprise only in that it has taken so long to be formally recognised.

Acceptance of residency applications is only one side of the story. Should the report be damning in its detail of serious oversight deficiencies, “legality of the vetting and approval procedures, criteria and decisions”, this applies to all decisions made by the institute, not just acceptance, but rejection, too. If there were false positives caused by lax checking mechanisms, there were most certainly false negatives. Other things being equal, if applicants without university degrees can be erroneously accepted, then that could explain doctorate and master’s degree applicants being rejected.

Much of the problem appears to lie in the fact that the Administrative Regulation only provides for general provisions; IPIM sets its own rules. As an example of one such unsettling discretionary change for potential investors was the sudden increase in the minimum investment reference point from MOP1.5 million to MOP13 million on 17th November 2015.

Also in 2015, it was the focus on “change in legal status” that had renewal applicants concerned, as an Australian family appealed through the courts to have the cancellation of their temporary residency overturned. IPIM justified its actions by referring to the rules, not why the rules existed or indeed to clarify what constitutes legal status, or to what extent life circumstances could change without impacting upon an applicant’s residency status. Life circumstances are necessarily dynamic for the upwardly mobile. IPIM should not expect an individual to maintain a holding pattern for 7 years to appease a bureaucratic checklist.

The system in its opacity and arbitrary processes sets up worthy applicants to stand vulnerable and begging before administrative discretion, and encourages the shady to set out on a fishing trip. The low average of 40% for professional approvals between 2012 to 2016 tells this story.

IPIM’s president Jackson Chang attempted to assuage the Legislative Assembly, saying where it is proven that residency was obtained illegally, authorization will be revoked: Such cases merely prove IPIM’s failure!

The upshot of the message from the report conveyed by the media that many people applying for residency are dishonest and that IPIM is found wanting will force IPIM to hunker down. Not only will they do so by a fine-tooth comb review of their internal processes but by assessing each application with mistrust. There is an increased risk of institutional power-play and malevolence. CCAC, however, warns against this in its report: “doubting the effectiveness of the ‘technical immigration’ system or denying its significance simply because there are problems in the vetting and approval process is just a case of “not eating for fear of choking” or “trimming the toes to fit the shoes”. 

The best part of the report is “the IPIM should also carry out necessary publicity for the general public of Macao so that the citizens will understand the stipulations, the application procedures, the processing criteria, the implementation of the policy and THE BENEFITS IT BRINGS TO THE SOCIETY.”

Immigrants and investors choose their destination for a plethora of reasons beyond the economic, and these include whether Macau has procedural justice and treats people with openness and respect. From CCAC to IPIM, the message is clear; that it stops playing the role of the arbitrary and secretive gatekeeper and starts encouraging and actively facilitating entry of skilled professionals to meet Macau’s developing needs.

Leanda Lee