A few days ago, the Macau government publicised the casino gaming contracts entered into with the concessionaires. We are still waiting for the publicisation, in the government website or somewhere else, of the substantiated report underlying the adjudication of the six concessions.
It is the document prepared by the tender committee for the Chief Executive where the tender committee explains the reasons for the decision regarding the adjudication of a concession to some companies, the scoring weight given to each criterion set forth in the law and eventual adjustments and why. In the 2001-2002 casino gaming tender, the Substantiated Report then made was not only notified to each tenderer but also publicised for one month on the Macau Government webpage. What is the government waiting for to publicise it?
As regards the investment plans referred to in the casino gaming concession contracts entered into between the government and each of the tenderers-concessionaires, the information contained in the concession contracts is very scarce, close to none. Apparently, Macau concessionaires will have to invest significant sums in non-gaming areas. However, although Macau casino gaming concessionaires have made brief statements on the non-gaming investments that each of them commits to making in the coming 10 years, the Macau government has not given any details on the subject. We know the overall amount of committed investment for each concessionaire – quite diverse between them and again with no explanation on how they were reached – since it is mentioned on the 8-lines Appendix to each concession contract. But these amounts refer to gaming and non-gaming investments altogether and they can be made, “namely” (!) in a myriad of “areas: (1) Origin of international visitors; (2) Conventions and exhibitions; (3) Entertainment shows; (4) Sporting events; (5) Culture and art; (6) Health and well-being; (7) Thematic amusements; (8) City of gastronomy; (9) Community tourism; (10) Maritime tourism; (11) Others”. This amazing contract drafting technique does not bode well for any purpose.
As per clause 41 of the concession contracts, these investments can be made directly or indirectly. And each concessionaire is bound by the commitments it assumed to do during the tender process (clause 30, 33, 36 of said contracts). Again, we do not know what investment commitments were made during the tender process, apart from some brief references made by the concessionaires.
Some of the intended investments alluded to by the concessionaires seem to be in line with the goals – set forth in the “Outline Development Plan for the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macau Greater Bay Area” – of making Macau a global tourism and leisure centre, as well as a platform to facilitate multi-cultural exchanges.
Many wonder if is wise to expect that companies that have expertise in running integrated resorts with casinos will excel in other fields of the economy. But one may be making assumptions or considerations based on what one does not know but through brief references by the concessionaires. Hence the need to have the alluded investments publicised.
Also, to give the casino gaming operators the possibility of entering many other sectors of Macau’s economy, deepening even more the dependence of Macau’s economic tissue from the casino gaming sector is a questionable strategy. It certainly does not help as regards the creation of local critical mass in other fields of the economy. Given the huge influence that Macau casino concessionaires (half of which have their mother-companies in the US) will have in Macau’s economy within a decade, let us hope that the Macau Government made this political choice in strict articulation with China’s Central Government.
The fact that such unnecessary opacity surrounds the greatest innovation underlying this tender is hardly understandable. The Macau Government certainly wants the Macau residents to know about the non-gaming investments that are going to change Macau’s economy. At a time where China’s Central Government reiterates statements on efforts to improve government transparency in China, the Macau Government seems to move in the opposite direction. Let us hope this is but a delay and that the Macau Government publicises the non-gaming “investments” in the order of dozens of billions. And the Substantiated Report.
