Anthony Lam
About a week ago, Macau joined an international coalition, comprising many jurisdictions across all continents. However, among the four Chinese- speaking jurisdictions in Greater China, Macau is the last to impose a charge on the use of plastic bags.
According to the Environmental Protection Bureau, the plastic bag charge applies not only to retail activities, but also to non-retail sales, including, but not limited to, catering and service industries. In other words, the bag used to carry takeaway from restaurants will be subject to the MOP1 charge.
The Bureau especially made a note of the fact that the scale of the business, or transaction, as I understood, will not affect the eligibility of the charge.
Certain exemptions were allowed, such as the purchase of unpackaged goods, including bread.
My perception is that the law has been working to a certain extent. Social media posts from or by my friends (yes, everybody has their own social media circles in which they pass on news and gossip) indicated that the policy has been working.
These posts have shown that a lot of people – according to my friends, middle-aged “female household administrators” (a reference made to avoid the word “housewife”) – have started to bring their own reusable shopping bags for shopping.
Such household administrators are usually most sensitive to price fluctuations. In economics terminology, it’s called elasticity of demand. Given the possession of reusable bags, the need for ‘paid’ plastic bags drastically dropped for these household administrators.
I have seen the Bureau’s officers working so diligently to make people understand the circumstances under which the bag will or will not be charged. Work should have been allowed to start much earlier.
No matter how hard the Bureau’s officers educated the public, the law seems to have a defect.
Recently, I heard a story related by a friend, who witnessed the entire incident. The other day, he was at a bakery when he saw a man who bought 10 piggy buns arguing against the charge for a larger bag to take the individually bagged piggy buns – which were originally unpackaged.
My friend told me the charge was required due to the size of the bag. Meanwhile, the smaller ones, bagging the individual piggy buns, were free of charge.
In my understanding, if the buyer opts to bag all 10 piggy buns in one single bag, the charge will be waived. However, my friend told me otherwise. He said it is the size that matters.
If my friend’s comment is true, it will totally contradict the (perceived) intention of the charge. Originally, one bag was needed to solve the problem, but 10 bags were used. Resorting to the website of the Environmental Protection Bureau yielded no clarity.
Some are concerned about where this MOP1 charge will go. The government should explain further how it will avoid the charge from becoming the revenue of businesses.
Although there is concern, I think the focus is not only on the charge, but on how resources can be saved. There are actually many ways this can be achieved. For instance, choosing dine-in when buying a burger at the fast food shop, even if it’s for takeaway. When it’s ready, given the small size, it can be easily taken away by a grab of the hand.
Most interestingly of all, bottled water is still served at press conferences, whether hosted by public or private entities.
No Comments