Inside Asian Gaming

Macau Policy T he suggestion the Macau government will only approve land applications for two out of three pending Cotai casino projects during 2012—essentially because administrators are too busy and the applications are complex—looks like a pretty thin excuse. It certainly wouldn’t wash in a litigious society such as the United States, where it would most likely expose public servants to a lawsuit for maladministration. Advertising the fact that your bureaucracy is not competent to cope with three admittedly complex land grant permissions in the space of 242 working days in this leap year (net of weekends and public holidays) is hardly the best way of presenting Macau to the outside world. But in Macau, and China in general, that’s not the point. The ‘reason’ publicly stated for a policy or decision is rarely the real reason. In the context of the Macau gaming market, this public face/private face approach means casino investors and operators are required to nod politely at whatever policy or statement of intent is issued by the authorities, as if it were the Wisdom of Solomon. But they must remember that a bigger political game is being played—namely, controlling the rate of growth of the Macau gaming industry. In that context, the individual twists and turns on issues such as planning permission are mere window dressing. The casino operators need to accept it in order to maintain the face of local officials and politicians, and live to fight another day. Land grant applications matter in Macau because—in common with city-states such as Singapore or de facto city-states such Always the Last to Know Macau’s mainstay industry and biggest taxpayer is again held hostage to local politics INSIDE ASIAN GAMING | February 2012 32