Severo Portela
In these trumped up times of simple-minded populism, we would rather like to begin with a quote borrowed from the Hong Kong Free Press, selected blindly from the matrix of social network comments: “Oh god, you don’t have to outpace Beijing in limiting yourself, you know…”. Secretary Chan confirmed that in no way had the Central Government asked for or suggested that the MSAR apply any new regulations on Legislators to such oath-taking protocol, assuming the initiative was to be a means of “optimizing the legal system”; furthermore, a statement from the Government Information Bureau assumed its pre-emptive motivation, precisely to “prevent” misunderstandings in the future. Excessive care is taken to not assume openly or loudly the true colors of a revision on the Election Law that would prevent, yes prevent, those candidates who may have proved to have failed, or violated, the Basic Law or if their loyalty is considered questionable, from running for a Legislative Assembly (AL) seat, much less to be seated.
Veteran pro-democracy lawmaker, Ng Kwok Cheong, had no difficultly explaining the situation in terms of a Government eager to show its loyalty to Beijing “by following the Chinese Government´s ruling on Hong Kong´s Basic Law and introducing disqualification rules to our laws”.
This is not a detour, but shall we break the matter and Ng’s proposition into two parts. The first one is somewhat of a description of the facts (diagnosis), and the second is the set of rules and regulations needed to prevent situations like the elected lawmakers, Sixtus “Baggio” Leung and Yau Wai-ching who were disqualified from the Hong Kong LegCo (therapeutics).
Regarding the first part we do have to clarify that resorting to the tool of diagnosis aims not at any potential Macau separatist or localist: such a breed is not known among pro-democracy circles. Actually, the Hong Kong affair was a serious challenge to LegCo and PRC dignitas, and as such was handled through courts, as it had to be. The Court of Appeal sided with the High Court Ruling decision that the pair declined to take the mandatory oath, thus violating article 104 of the Hong Kong Basic Law.
We do mention here diagnosis as a metaphor for the shadow Beijing’s (NPC) decision to respond to the Hong Kong legislative impasse with a constitutional interpretation released before the lower court came to a decision on Sixtus and Yau’s, let us say, iconoclastic oath. Albeit no hints of the Hong Kong anti-China sentiment can be found in pro-democracy organizations, among liberals or as a brand of the much-known dissenting views circling the petite enclave, the Election Law will still contemplate provisions to disqualify candidates to be: Not through due process in courts but by a mere non-independent government kind of panel, echoing the trend of administrative rules.
Such an honorable institution is to decide if a candidate’s loyalty is sound, if he or she has broken the Basic Law, and, even more frightening, the commission can assess cases of repentance! New Macau Association’s Jason Chao puts things mildly, one would say given his historic wisely: the lack of objective criteria is problematic! It is, indeed, so much so, the possibility to apply the new law retroactively is haunting the city.
Whether or not this piece of legislation will be needed, does not diminish its profile as a thought police. There are tasks that thought cannot renounce!
No Comments