Kapok | They talk, we listen

Eric Sautedé

It was an epiphany of sorts. It was some kind of astonishment mixed with a sudden surge of exasperation: they were talking, we were listening, and everything had to be absorbed to the full. The scene was taking place on the sidelines of a SJM-sponsored dinner, and the comments were made by two of the most senior managers of the company, who were obviously well sought-after by journalists in attendance.
Mr Ambrose So, SJM’s CEO, was asked to comment on the remarks made by Li Gang, the director of the China Liaison Office, which related to the fact that the central authorities would introduce policies to support Macau’s battered economy. Mr So naturally appeared very confident that it would be so—we hope that this is what he is suggesting whenever he attends a meeting of the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference in Beijing—and that more cities in China will open up to individual travel schemes.
Then Mr So added that it was not only a question of “numbers” but one of “quality”, as if he were remembering that a few days back, the Secretary for social affairs and culture, Alexis Tam Chon Weng, had said that “more” was not an option. In the present conditions, we seem to be stuck at 21 million mainland visitors per year. So quality it has to be, not quantity! The question for Mr So is therefore how to, and I quote, “select the quality of visitors… and to attract high-quality and high-spending visitors”. What Mr So actually means by “high-spending” is, I am sure, preferably those who are glued to the gaming table!
And then I wondered: but how could one do that and isn’t this in contradiction with several policies supported by Beijing? The central authorities and the Macau government itself are advocating for the diversification of the economy.  In addition to this, if my memory serves me well, fund transfers to Macao by mainland visitors are strictly limited. And then, if the idea, just like in Bhutan, is to only attract the rich, what do we make of one of the four key components of Xi Jinping’s China Dream which is to “comprehensively build a moderately prosperous society”? Are creativity and culture only stemming from wealth? What has SJM done since it opened the Crazy Paris Show in the early 1980s to generate further interest in Macau in order to attract these premium customers—for more than one day, I mean? When was the last time diversification meant a little bit more for SJM than expanding culinary offerings, especially now that the “fish bowl” has gone? Well, the fact that Mr So defines the new game in town as developing Macao into “a center of amusement and leisure” instead of “tourism and leisure” says it all!
As a grand finale, Mr So was asked about the recent scandals and complaints revolving around certain junket operations. For him, junkets are of a different nature at SJM and function strictly within the law. In the words of Mr So, “I checked, they do not follow that same model”. He even went as far as embracing “a more regulated market”. Again, wasn’t it Stanley Ho himself who invented the VIP junket model in the early 1980s? Isn’t this model precisely the one that allows for legally registered stakeholders to avoid responsibility and scrutiny regarding credit extension and debt collection? I guess Mr So will not be proven wrong as long as the only solution championed by the DICJ is to create a code of ethics for junkets…
Finally, Mrs Angela Leong, SJM’s managing director, rejoiced at the temporary extension of her concession to Macao’s canidrome, announcing that SJM would engage into an ambitious renovation plan “to allow for cultural developments, and to allow young people to develop their business.” There is no doubt that Mrs Leong is listening more effectively during the meetings of the government’s Cultural Industries Committee than the ones of the Legislative Assembly. In any case however, i s whistling the tune of the hour enough? The last time SJM’s parent company invested money into these dilapidated and shameful facilities was in 1998… slightly better than the 1980s!