Our Desk | Who watches the watchers?

Daniel Beitler

The Commission Against Corruption (CCAC) has a knack for assessing situations on the strength of a technicality.
In its most recent report, the CCAC conveniently found that the government owes no compensation to the Baía da Nossa Senhora da Esperança Company that was illegally granted land by the former director of the Land, Public Works and Transport Bureau.
Despite the fact that the alleged illegal decision seems to have been approved by a senior government official, the CCAC has declared any responsibilities of the government are now void. Nevertheless the question of who owns the land is still, somehow, under discussion.
The anti-corruption bureau is prone to defending the government and the upper echelons of its senior leadership, as reported by the New Macau Association on multiple occasions. Like its Hong Kong counterpart on which the CCAC was modeled, Macau’s corruption watchdog is directly accountable to the Chief Executive (CE).
It is therefore no surprise that a speedy investigation into the CE’s role in expediting the Jinan University Donation last month revealed that there was categorically no contravention of the law and that everything had been done by the books. We can be sure that the CE was pleased with the “independent” findings of the bureau.
What struck me about the latest CCAC report – and indeed earlier ones – is that every paragraph or section seems to follow the same argument structure, usually predicated on a technicality: since it was not…; due to the unusual circumstances…; according to the law…; thus there was no violation.
It almost seems like an instant report generator, where CCAC staff members are only required to fill in a few blanks to produce a report absolving a suspect’s wrongdoing.
In every country that has existing free press and independent government investigation entities, senior public officials of all levels are found to act unlawfully or illegitimately. In Macau, it tends to be the junior leaders and subordinates that are honorably thrown under the bus – or, in some cases, the big names, but only once they have fallen from favor.
The three other most notable CCAC reports of late also fit the bill, including the proceedings against the former Public Prosecutor General Ho Chio Meng, the Firecracker factory case and the investigation of two Civic and Municipal Affairs Bureau chiefs for turning a blind eye to the tardiness of two subordinates in the bureau, which has reportedly lead to “a direct loss” of around MOP550,000 to the government.
Of course this is almost certainly a gross overestimation of cost to the government for the “600 unjustified absences” namely tardiness and leaving work before workers’ finishing hours.
If this were true then on average each infraction would amount to a loss of about MOP915. And if the average duration of each infraction amounted to as much as an hour, then the “subordinate” workers would have to be jointly paid more than MOP170,000 per month.
But assuming that the figure is not inflated, what a truly insignificant finding it is when compared to the hundreds of billions of U.S. dollars laundered through the city and paid out in contracts, concessions and other agreements that never reach public tender!
It is good to see the CCAC tackling the big issues in Macau, right?
In addition to concerns about the bureau’s integrity, there are also suspicions of misconduct of leaders within the CCAC. Last year a staff member at the bureau committed suicide by jumping off the Dynasty Plaza building. His wife later revealed that he had been under investigation by the CCAC at the time of his death and she accused the body’s senior leadership of “hiding facts and giving false statements.”
It has been said before, but the CCAC needs to be truly independent in order to effectively tackle corruption at all levels within the government. Failing this, the second best option is to establish a watchdog for the anti-corruption watchdog itself. A “Commission Against Corruption in the Commission Against Corruption,” or CACCAC to fuse the English and Portuguese acronyms.
After all, who watches the watchers?