Kapok | Who is in charge?

Eric Sautedé

Back in my student years, I wrote a short essay about the massive peasant demonstrations that took place in France in the 1960s, which started before the May 1968 social unrest: Common Agricultural Policy was just starting (1962); younger and more challenging famers’ unions were coming of age; and Charles De Gaulle, the tutelary figure who had given pride back to the French in 1940, had become the first-ever directly elected president in 1962, and yet he was getting old and his prestige was fast-eroding – political personnel, institutions and society were not in congruence anymore.
On the one hand, peasant demonstrations were pointing to a chiasm between the demands of a significant part of the population who were confronted with a fast changing environment and disappointing answers given by a far too rigid domestic political establishment. On the other hand, these rallies were in effect strengthening the state as they considered public institutions as the necessary and exclusive intercessor, and this even when unloading rotten fruits and vegetables in the courtyards of the ‘préfectures,’ the symbols of the state in local administrative units. Challenging and yet legitimizing!
What is presently happening with the Dore case in Macao and what occurred in May with the disgruntled construction workers taking to the streets to protect their rights are two instances of this tumultuous interplay between state, government policies, corporate practices and segments of the society being confronted with unfair situations. Not only are they revealing a lack of appropriate regulatory environment but also of a possible challenge to the legitimacy of the local state apparatus.
Both cases involve mainland workers or investors, and each time we were made aware of their pleas because the victims took their cases to the China Liaison Office.
In May, the number of people involved was in the hundreds and it lasted almost two weeks – images of disgruntled workers marching from Taipa and occupying the street in front of the Liaison Office were splashed across social networks as well as the pro-government and liberal Chinese press. At stake were large dismissals at several casino construction sites and claims of unpaid wages (up to seven months), and the realization that with only one-month to settle their case, dismissed workers might be in for spoliation.
Lionel Leong, the secretary for economy and finance, had to step in heavily and openly state that instructions were being coordinated by his own secretariat as well as other administrative units, including the Human Resources Office and the Labor Affairs Bureau.
Still, one can wonder why disgruntled workers would turn to the Liaison Office. Could it be because they have more trust in the higher echelon of the Chinese state to protect them? Could it be because the labor laws are in Macao exclusively drafted by their employers? Or because these laws as they exist are conducive to many forms of discrimination?
Earlier this week, a handful of investors in the Dore junket who are not able to withdraw funds they placed with the company also ended up in front of the Liaison Office. Although there is a clear irony involved in these claimants concerns for the whereabouts of what they call their “hard-earned money”, the questions that arise are of the same nature. Why would they turn to the Liaison Office to protect their assets within the gaming sector? Could it be because the laws allow both the gaming operator – Wynn – and the gaming promoters to play dumb? Could it be because the regulator itself is in denial of the reality regarding the adequacy of the laws and the scale of money laundering that goes on unsanctioned? It was only last week that the legal advisor of the DICJ was recommending a mere Code of Ethics for junkets! Once again, Lionel Leong had to vehemently step in… only after.
In the end, legitimacy will be secured if the right tools and the right channels for mediation are put in place.