Activists: Macau is ‘unconvincing example’ of One Country, Two Systems

According to Chinese President Xi Jinping, Hong Kong has a lot to learn from Macau when it comes to the ‘One Country, Two Systems’ policy framework, designed to safeguard Chinese sovereignty in the two special administrative regions while allowing them to exercise a “high degree of autonomy.” That was the core of Xi’s message this week, delivered on more than one occasion during the celebratory events to mark the 20^thanniversary of the transfer of sovereignty over Macau to China.

But two young and influential activists from opposite sides of the Pearl River Delta disagree.

Macau’s Jason Chao and Hong Kong’s Joshua Wong, both well-known pro-democracy activists, have penned an article in British broadsheet The Independent calling the Macau SAR “an utterly unconvincing example” of the semi-autonomy principle at work.

“Macau is an unconvincing example of ‘One Country, Two Systems’ as advertised by China,” they wrote in The Independent. “Effective indirect control by and rapid assimilation with China is evident in the ‘success story’ of Macau. The essence of Macau’s ‘success’ goes against the rights, freedoms and autonomy guaranteed by China in the constitutional law and treaties.”

Jason Chao, a well-known political activist who has increasingly found a voice in international media, is a former president of pro-democracy group New Macau Association. Joshua Wong is an activist-cum-politician in neighboring Hong Kong, who grew to prominence in the 2014 Umbrella Movement and his subsequent arrest and imprisonment. He has emerged as one of many unofficial figureheads in the 2019 protests.

In their joint article, the two activists cite the diminishing respect for the rule of law in Macau as a sign that the autonomy supposedly guaranteed under the ‘One Country, Two Systems’ framework is disappearing.

The democrats say the court rulebook is thrown out when it comes to the most important cases. “The rule of law should be upheld not only in mundane matters but also in the most sensitive issues,” they argue in the article.

The activists criticized recent rulings made by Macau’s highest court, the Court of Final Appeal (TUI), that conveniently fall in with Beijing’s political expectations.

They highlighted one such ruling in late September in which the TUI sided with a police ban on a demonstration based on the court’s interpretation of the accuracy of the claims made by rally organizers. The protest had been called to condemn what opposition forces in both SARs describe as the disproportionate use of force employed by Hong Kong police. The organizers had planned to raise awareness of some police action in neighboring Hong Kong that they view as tantamount to torture.

In early October, Chao, who was acting as a spokesperson for the protest organizers, told the Times that the decision was very concerning as it establishes a precedent.

“The most dangerous part of the ruling is that the TUI has made official proclamations a prerequisite for the people’s exercise of freedom of assembly,” he said at the time, echoing an earlier police explanation that “no public authority in Hong Kong has found that the actions of the police amount to [torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment] as charged by the applicants.”

The activists also highlighted comments made earlier this month by a high-ranking Chinese official who praised the strategic deployment of loyalists in key judiciary positions.

Moreover, as the Times reported in October, even members of local academia have ascribed the efficacy of Macau’s judiciary to a lack of “foreigners” within its ranks. This particular comment was made with impunity by a senior professor at the University of Macau, who was contrasting the situation in Macau with neighboring Hong Kong.

Chao and Wong argue that resorting to loyalists to overturn the political or judicial status quo in Beijing’s favor at pivotal moments is exactly the type of approach that undermines the ‘One Country, Two Systems’ framework.