Ron lam seeks clarity on Macau Bridge inspections amid Signal No. 8 closure

During the first Typhoon Signal No. 8 this year, Typhoon Wipha escalated to Signal No. 10, resulting in the controversial closure of the Macau Bridge, which had been previously considered safe for use under Signal No. 8, leading lawmaker Ron Lam to question the government’s decision to request further inspections despite already having collected wind speed data.

Typhoon Wipha struck Macau on Sunday, prompting the issuance of the highest typhoon signal, No. 10, at 12:30 p.m. for the first time in two years.

During the six-hour period of the warning, all four Macau-Taipa bridges were temporarily closed, including the Macau Bridge, which had just been inaugurated in October of the previous year.

The closure of the Macau Bridge, which had previously claimed it could remain open during a Typhoon Signal No. 8, has sparked public debate about whether vehicles should be allowed on the bridge during such weather conditions.

In response, government authorities issued a statement titled “Ensuring Public Safety: Carefully Assessing Conditions for the Macau Bridge to Remain Open During Severe Weather,” explaining the reasons for the closure. The statement on Monday noted that since the bridge’s inauguration, it had never faced a Typhoon Signal No. 8 or higher, leaving no reference data available.

The Public Works Bureau (DSOP), in conjunction with the Transport Bureau (DSAT), stated that “the passability of the Macau Bridge during severe weather conditions involves significant safety considerations.”

The two bureaus stated: “Although the main span of the Macau Bridge is equipped with wind barriers to mitigate the impact of wind speeds on the roadway, it has not encountered typhoons with Signal No. 8 or above since its inauguration in October last year.

Consequently, there has been no opportunity to collect wind speed data during such conditions for relevant assessments. To ensure the safety of drivers and their property, the Macau Bridge will be closed to traffic during this typhoon, along with other cross-sea bridges. We appreciate the public’s understanding and cooperation.”

They further stated that during the bridge’s closure, the public works administration had arranged for the installation of 16 wind measurement devices to collect data. The next step will involve organizing and analyzing this data, which will serve as a reference for relevant departments in formulating policies or measures and comprehensively assessing whether to open the Macau Bridge during a Typhoon Signal No. 8 under safe conditions.

In the same statement, members of the public were urged to always remain indoors in a safe location and avoid going outside to prevent accidents during a typhoon.

In response to the authorities’ statement, the “Synergy of Macau Association” referenced DSOP data, which indicates that the Macau Bridge’s design standards were specifically developed to withstand strong winds, ensuring the safety of parking spaces. They argued that the contractor should have provided all relevant data to validate the bridge’s effectiveness before its acceptance, particularly since the contractor had previously claimed that their tests demonstrated a 33.4% reduction in wind power impact. The group expressed confusion regarding the government’s request for additional testing after the project had already been approved, suggesting that this demand might be unnecessary or inconsistent.

Lam, the president of the association, also cited the example of September 5 this year, when Typhoon Signal No. 8 was issued, noting that representatives from the bridge contractor had publicly stated that wind barrier speed reduction tests had been conducted on the bridge.

The results indicated that when wind speeds reached 100 km/h, the average wind speed could be reduced by 33.4%, suggesting that the bridge could theoretically remain open under a Typhoon Signal No. 8, pending government approval.

“However, the situation in Macau raises serious questions about professionalism and accountability. Why is there a need for additional verification after multiple tests? Is such repetitive testing truly necessary? This approach seems to waste resources and has led to criticism of the government and relevant authorities,” Lam questioned.

He called on officials to step forward and provide a clear explanation, underscoring the need for accountability and transparency regarding the situation.

Synergy of Power strongly denies allegations of disloyalty

In response to accusations from the Committee for Safeguarding National Security against the entire group for failing to uphold the Macau Basic Law and lacking loyalty to Macau – resulting in their disqualification by the Electoral Affairs Commission for the Legislative Assembly Election (CAEAL) from running in the eighth Legislative Assembly election – Synergy of Power addressed the incident through a live online broadcast on Wednesday evening.

During the event, Johnson Ian, the original second candidate, and incumbent lawmaker Lam, expressed their disagreement with the statements and actions of the National Security Committee and the CAEAL.

Both emphasized their commitment and affection for both the country and Macau.

After their disqualification from the election last week, Synergy of Power chose to remain silent for a week.

They addressed the situation through a livestream the following Wednesday, explaining that they wanted to allow the social atmosphere to settle before engaging with the public. During the livestream, they discussed their plans for follow-up actions and personnel arrangements.

“I must make it clear: I personally do not agree with the statements and actions of the National Security Committee and the CAEAL. Reflecting on everything we have done over the years, our efforts have always been aimed at benefiting Macau and the country. Our starting point has consistently been for the sake of Macau,” said Ian.

He emphasized that his team has remained true to the country, to Macau, and, above all, to the people of Macau.

“We ourselves also do not know the specific reasons,” he added.

Ian stated that their work has always been conducted with transparency.

“All of our work – whether parliamentary, association-related, or even my personal efforts – has been conducted openly and transparently online. Everyone can clearly see what we are doing. Therefore, when we hear these words being used to disqualify us, we naturally cannot agree […] If one wants to impose a crime, they will find an excuse. No matter what they say, we will wait and see. Justice will prevail.”

Lam, representing the same team, stressed that throughout his four years in the Legislative Assembly, he consistently reminded himself of the oath he took upon his entry.

Despite this, he has faced accusations of disloyalty to the Macau Special Administrative Region of the People’s Republic of China.

He expressed gratitude to his supporters, stating, “All the support came from the citizens speaking out for us.”

Lam acknowledged, “We never said a word because I didn’t want to get involved in this farce. If others use this method to disqualify us, I don’t agree with the reasoning, as we have nothing to hide. I don’t want to play this game, and I don’t want to hurt anyone.” He also clarified that even if there is an appeal process, he has no intention of appealing.

Facing online comments suggesting that lawmaker can earn a monthly salary of MOP100,000, Lam clarified that his actual income is modest, explaining that after deducting the allowance for his legislative office and salary, his income is approximately MOP30,000.

He added, “I don’t even know if I’ll reach 350 [referring to the 350 salary points for civil servants, equivalent to around MOP32,900].”

“I have nothing to hide,” Lam stated firmly, underlining that since entering public service, he has committed to a core principle: overseeing the government’s implementation of policies in accordance with the law and ensuring transparency, particularly concerning financial matters and government information.

According to him, he has consistently relied on sound reasoning and evidence to scrutinize government policies, including questioning initiatives like the transition period for satellite cities and the “sandwich-class housing” law.

In the aftermath of the disqualification incident, the social atmosphere has deteriorated, with many expressing feelings of discouragement and confusion across social media and in the news.