Paulo Barbosa
The new bill on civil protection law, which proposes the establishment of a “crime of social alarm,” represents a new attack on freedom of speech in Macau.
The proposal, which is under public consultation until August 11, notes that the current legislation regarding civil protection is more than 25 years old. According to the consultation paper, “nowadays the incidents involving large crowds and public health situations are getting more challenging.” The document points out that it is “imperative to change the law” in order to improve disaster prevention and relief operations.
I have no major issues with these justifications, although we all know that the real reason for the bill is the evident unpreparedness to deal with a storm of the magnitude of Typhoon Hato, which occurred last August.
Several of the bill’s provisions may be unconstitutional, such as forcing telecom operators to air free warnings and stipulating that all civil servants are liable to participate in civil protection operations (and may face criminal charges if they don’t).
For me, however, the most controversial point is the creation of “a false social alarm crime” for those who “issue or divulge rumors or fake rumors [sic]” punishable with a maximum of three years in prison. This seems like a gag order. It may contradict Article 27 of the Basic Law, which entitles residents to enjoy freedom of speech and freedom of the press.
The essential role of the media when covering crisis situations is also placed at stake. The consultation paper states that “there is a civic responsibility of the media when divulging the civil protection information issued by the authorities.”
Secretary for Security Wong Sio Ckak made several statements last week which added to the confusion over how these provisions will be interpreted. “I think the media outlets all have freedom of expression but in situations of public risk, I believe that the media also has its [share] or responsibility, that is, of disclosure information that is correct,” Wong told journalists. “Excluding these risky situations, the way media comments on governance is not a problem and the media has freedom to do that, but in situations of risk or emergency, I think we need to unite efforts.”
What is Wong trying to say? Read the underlined sentence again. Excluding situations when media should be more active in reporting the facts independently and offering the public accurate and useful information about “risky situations,” media coverage is not a problem. Or, as Wong also said, the information issued by the government is “truthful.” The public doesn’t need anything else to understand what is happening. The rest is noise and rumors.
It is understandable that local authorities did not appreciate some of Hato’s media coverage. The shortcomings were so evident that it became an embarrassment to them. Reporters from Hong Kong were barred at the border for “internal safety matters” when they were coming here to report on the deadly typhoon.
Should we not be concerned about this civil protection proposal, given the apparently arbitrary and paranoid way some rules are enforced in Macau?
So far, one of the lonely voices against the proposal came from the president of the Association of Lawyers, Neto Valente, who told Radio Macau that it was just “one more [measure] to make the lives of citizens hellish.” Valente said that existing laws are sufficient. “Certainly if there are rumors favorable to government authorities, they will not be punished,” he said.
Obviously, the creation of a “crime of social alarm” is redundant. There are libel laws to protect government representatives and citizens who feel defamed. That is what was unreasonably applied last year, when two elderly siblings were prosecuted for spreading messages via WeChat claiming that the government had covered up information relating to the five dead people found in a parking lot during Typhoon Hato.
The new proposal is the latest attempt to create a new modus operandi in Macau. Besides the aforementioned, one of the most shocking so far was the interpretation of the new electoral law by the Electoral Affairs Commission during last year’s pre-campaign period, mixing up news coverage and electoral propaganda. Regrettably, a local newspaper was even notified to remove an interview.
No Comments