Bizcuits: Now a resident, now you’re not

Leanda Lee

One of the issues close to the hearts of many of us is our Macau residency status. On the flippant side, there is that secretly held little elitist pleasure of lining up in the much shorter Macau residents’ queue at immigration. But the extraordinarily time-consuming process of obtaining and maintaining that status has become more difficult over recent years.
The media reports this week of the commencement of an appeal by an Australian family to have the cancellation of their temporary residency overturned (MDT 3 & 4 February) has elicited a reminder from the Macau Trade and Investment Promotion Institute. As is the norm in responses from administration, the institute justifies its actions by telling us ‘what’ the law is, not ‘why’ it exists. They remind temporary residents to communicate changes in ‘legal status’ to the institute.
In effect, that one regulatory clause grants the institute almost total discretionary power to rescind its original decision to grant temporary residency. IPIM advised MDT this week that the regulation demands “the applicant pledge that s/he will maintain the legal status after the application and/or during possessing of temporary residency status. In cases of the termination or changes in the legal status as mentioned above, the temporary residency approval should be cancelled”. The institute continues making reference to the regulation saying there are (and fortunately) exceptions if a) the applicant notifies IPIM within 30 days and if b) “any new legal status established by the applicant [is] accepted by the concerned authorities” – more administrative discretion.
So, if the applicant doesn’t advise a change in ‘legal status’ (this also applies to the accompanying family) within 30 days, the family should be prepared to pack their bags, or ready themselves for an expensive and drawn-out process through the courts. Even if one gets past the fear of the uncertain and ever-shifting outcomes of dealing with Macau’s bureaucracy and actually communicates a change, the issue here is knowing what should be communicated. Many people follow the old adage that one should tell governments only as much as they need to know, but here we aren’t told what they need to know, and thus explains the existing tension between applicant fear and reluctance, and institutional control.
The definition of ‘status’ has never been made clear. Applicants are not informed of the specific criteria used in the ultimate decision to grant their temporary residency.  IPIM however has now offered examples of changes in status such as “alternation of job, position, salary or breach of employment contract”. But these are just examples and it is still left open to interpretation and administrative discretion. According to these examples, any upwardly mobile self-respecting professional will have a number of changes in status during the 7 years of temporary residency required before permanency; raises and promotions, at least. How many temporary residents haven’t report their most recent salary increase? Does the institute have the power and authority to cancel temporary residency approval because of this?
Applicants could reasonably expect that if still employed with the same company/industry and earning enough to sustain a family regardless of changes to salary or job description, the change would be immaterial. If the new status would have resulted in the same initial decision to grant temporary residency, then why would a lack of communication constitute such a great misdemeanour? That a failure by an applicant to inform regardless of the content of the communication can negate the institute’s well considered initial decision to determine the worthiness of an applicant is a nonsense.
The question is not in the application of the regulation but the applicability of the regulation. Regulations must fit a purpose and have an intent – what’s the purpose behind cancelling the temporary residency of such families? Punishment for immaterial non-compliance with a logically inconsistent regulation? (Sorry, but Management and/or Technical Personnel applicants are paid to think.)
There are bad policies, outdated laws and arbitrary red-tape regulations, and for an administration to attempt to explain its actions through affirming its own compliance with a regulation is no evidence that it is fulfilling its greater purpose.