The recent speeches by Xi Jinping and Sam Hou Fai had a strong impact on Macau, igniting a crucial debate about the advantages of the Second System within the political framework of the First System. The posture on the ground speaks volumes about the new discourse from above: many are now advocating the opposite of what they once said—and did. The exercise of deconstructing skepticism has become commonplace. Even those who appreciate what they hear doubt the sincerity of what is being said, because, truthfully, the narrative is surprising.
The political elite in Beijing and Macau is conservative, nationalist—even anti-liberal. It does not seem to have changed—quite the contrary. Yet, instead of focusing solely on patriotism and national security—undoubtedly dominant in personal and political agendas—the discourse now shifts toward a more tolerant, multifaceted, and global-minded Second System. At first, it feels strange; later, it becomes ingrained. Because it makes sense, and it must be done.
In politics, the future rarely fits the same voice as the past, and the shadow that dimmed the brilliance of the hybrid city cannot be dispelled by speeches alone. But is it really true? The truth is—it can be. There are many reasons to believe so. Because a convincing Second System is needed to at least entice Taiwan into trying negotiations; because the post-COVID era has made it clear that China cannot be a global power by turning inward and turning its back on the world; because domestic consumption alone cannot sustain a global economy. Also, because those who are now reviving the energy of the Second System have more than enough power within the First to say only what they want—or say nothing at all—and even have the power to do everything wrong while everyone else pretends everything is fine.
Reason dictates that when we hear what we want, when it makes sense and sounds right, we should not reject the discourse. Instead, it must be adopted, demanded, and those who pretend they did not hear it or do not understand it must be confronted: opening is the opposite of closing; tolerance is the opposite of imposition. Full stop—new paragraph.
Deng Xiaoping explained it well when he addressed a world astonished by the visionary Second System: the West always tries to understand what China does not say and, in doing so, loses focus on what China does say. If it paid attention, it would know what China would do. Because the First System does not need to speak; when it speaks, it is because action will follow. China is like a giant oil tanker; it does not tell the captain, the engine room, and everyone aboard that it will turn left, only to suddenly shift and turn right. It simply cannot happen.
Those who understood the concept of the Lusophone platform more than a decade and a half ago were right ahead of their time. But now it is here, breaking trade records, gaining political influence, and winning supporters. Those who realize that shutting the door to the West makes no sense are always right—not before their time, but by reclaiming lost time. The voice of power may have forgotten how many contradictory signals it has sent. Explaining authoritatively that the First System is in charge is an unassailable legal and political truth; however, it is not a truth that advances the Second System. It conveys circumstances, not purpose.
The truth is the Second System; only it is revolutionary. And the First System knows this very well.
General Director of PLATAFORMA