It is well known that Macau people are not fond of gambling, even though many of them make their living at the casinos where visitors bet - and lose. Perhaps this play-it-safe attitude stems from the innate caution of their seafaring background, or their cultural heritage focused on surviving social change. Nor, it seems, are they political gamblers, preferring not to rock the boat for the sake of stability.
After all, it could be risky provoking the wrath of the ruling gods if last year's anti-gambling muscle-flexing by Beijing is anything to go by. The crackdown on mainland casinos cut into Macau's gaming profits as well. This may explain why few words of protest have been uttered by the public about one of the largest over-expenditures in Macau's history - an extra $2.1 billion spent on last year's East Asian Games, which had originally been budgeted at $2.1 billion.
Sure, there are mutterings about the average $9,000 that each citizen has had to bear for an event few of them turned out to watch. In fact, the games were so unpopular that organisers had to mobilise students and the elderly to fill seats.
'Why wasn't the money used on social welfare or old-district renovation?' is a typical opinion - albeit voiced quietly. But then comes: 'Let it be. What can we do about it?' Overspending by 100 per cent on a megaproject costing 5 per cent of the gross domestic product would, without doubt, have triggered a political storm in Hong Kong. But not in Macau.
However, there are a few hardy souls with the stomach for making noise on behalf of the masses. A minority of legislators have tried in vain to pass a motion to summon officials responsible for the spending to testify at the legislative assembly.
Pro-democracy lawmaker Antonio Ng Kuok-cheong blames the failure to pass the motion on an electoral system that allows less than half the legislators to be directly elected. And he may be right: all five votes in favour of the motion came from directly elected lawmakers. It was opposed by six of the seven legislators appointed by the chief executive. Three legislators who voted against the motion explained that summoning officials would be hugely expensive.
