Our Desk: Dis-communication

João Pedro Lau

Throughout my 18 months as a journalist, the one expression I have heard most often from government officials is “continue to communicate with the public and collect more opinions.” I commend the person who first came up with this phrase, since it manages to give the impression that the speaker is going to do a lot of things, while at the same time making no promise of any meaningful outcome. It is like a mother telling her kids to clean their room and the kids, annoyed, simply reply “Fine.” You know the room will remain untidy.
The government talks about “communication” and “collecting opinions” when being asked about many issues: the LRT, Macau’s tourism capacity, the city’s public transportation, inflation, the higher-than-
my-grandma’s-blood-pressure housing prices – as if the magic phrase means anything, or they would really do something.
But do not accuse them of doing nothing; after all, they have organized many consultation sessions for proposed legislation and major construction projects. Those sessions usually last two to three hours, and are, surprisingly, not censored at all. They do not pre-select participants to speak during the session or stop them from making criticisms. As genuine as those consultation sessions are, they are the prime example of what I call “dis-communication”: a failure for meaningful communication.
If you have participated in one of these sessions, you will have noticed that, apart from explaining some technical questions regarding the subject of the consultation, officials attending usually do not answer questions or engage in debate over fundamental issues. For example, they are very good at telling you how legislation should be drafted in order to avoid any contradictions to already existing laws. However, when asked about principal issues, the government retreats to rhetoric prepared beforehand.
One example is when the government consulted people about increasing the number of directly and indirectly elected seats in the Legislative Assembly. Officials never discussed the possibility of increasing more directly elected seats, or explained why there are government appointed seats in the first place. This is not communication at all, only the appearance of it.
The authorities are not the only one engaging in dis-communication. There are many people who refuse to acknowledge the flaws in their thoughts and arguments during debate on political ideas; they keep repeating their ideas and ignore others who point their flaws out.
This is a frustrating situation and is very bad for a democratic society. This is because, in a democracy, everyone can affect the government with their vote. If people hold on to their own views and refuse to listen to other opinions, they are incapable of making an informed choice.
Therefore, I implore my fellow residents to open themselves to debate and discussion and to have their ideas tested, especially those related to politics. Only through this will we have a true political awakening that might lead to a better future for Macau.