Lawmaker Ron Lam expressed his dissatisfaction with the government’s often “brief replies” to his written inquiries during his review on the past legislative term yesterday.
In accordance with law, government authorities must respond to lawmakers’ inquiries within 30 days of the Chief Executive receiving the inquiries. However, the law does not specify the minimum length of these responses.
Lam highlighted an instance on August 1, 2023, when he submitted a written inquiry regarding the progress of the development of the legal framework for telecommunications services. He asked the government to provide an update on its plan to develop the services and its handling of concessionaire properties, among other questions.
In response, he received a reply consisting of a mere 55 Chinese characters, which briefly stated that “internal discussions [are] in progress and announcements [will] be made in due course.”
On April 20 of the same year, he submitted another inquiry related to the release of data and compliance by owners or operators of private cemeteries. Again, he posed three questions on breaches, data mapping and data publication.
The Municipal Affairs Bureau (IAM) issued a longer response than that provided to the telecommunications services inquiry, which was handled by a different bureau. However, the IAM merely reiterated that the applicable laws must be complied with for private cemeteries and burials, adding that it routinely conducted spot checks on private cemeteries and reported any irregularities to the relevant bureaus.
The lawmaker noted that during the second legislative term, he had received seven replies that were shorter than 300 Chinese characters.
Lam observed that these brief replies were in conflict with the government’s regular pledges to improve communication with parliament, criticizing some bureaus for obfuscation and sometimes providing responses that were “perfunctory.”
During the same session, he also called for improved transparency in the Administrative Plan for the Development Investments and Expenditures (PIDDA).
He pointed out that additional government investment or spending in the absence of regular PIDDA announcements would lead to doubts within society about government accountability. The absence of PIDDA updates would also effectively deny community members the opportunity to participate in rational discussions and discourse.
Additionally, Lam noted that he had requested PIDDA announcements during two Chief Executive question sessions but was informed that the information had already been provided to lawmakers.
He also questioned why some bureaus had directed him to request meetings through the parliament, stating that it is not uncommon in Macau for lawmakers to request meetings with officials or bureau teams related to complaints they had received. Lam disclosed that some bureaus had not even responded to his requests for meetings.
He acknowledged the government had improved its engagement with lawmakers on matters concerning major construction projects. Nonetheless, Lam expressed his hope that more time would be allocated for questions from lawmakers to provide them with the opportunity to convey more opinions.
For example, he said that lawmakers usually had limited time for follow-up questions at these introductory sessions, while government officials enjoyed the benefit of greater time resources.
No Comments