AIPIM: Portuguese, English journalists think freedom of press well established

Frederico Rato (right), José Carlos Matias (center) and José Manuel Simões

The vast majority of Portuguese- and English-speaking journalists in Macau consider the level of press freedom in the territory to be satisfactory, a new study released by the Macau Portuguese and English Press Association (AIPIM) shows.

Some 80 percent of the survey respondents said that they thought freedom of the press was well established in the MSAR, though most of them also highlighted the existence of “[media] constraints induced by access to sources.” Less than 10 percent of respondents said that freedom of the press did not exist in Macau.

The survey, which was distributed to non-Chinese media outlets between July and November last year, asked respondents to answer six questions about freedom of the press, violations that they had personally experienced or heard about from others, and the ease of access to information from government sources.

A subsequent report was assembled by Frederico Rato, José Manuel Simões and Rui Flores and presented yesterday at a press conference organized by AIPIM.

The report found that the major problem faced by the journalistic community in Macau is access to sources, particularly concerning “information that should be public but is concealed.”

“As a Special Administrative Region of the People’s Republic of China, Macau seems not to be immune to a certain secretive culture, which has been entrenched in the way some public entities perform their duties,” the authors of the report argued.

The authors of the document point out the consequences of not disclosing or facilitating in a timely manner information to the press: “At the end of the day, the authorities don’t communicate ‘only’ to and with the journalists. In truth, they communicate to the citizens through the journalists.” 

“The principle of an open and transparent public administration is not fully observed when answers to journalists’ questions take days or weeks or when authorities turn a deaf ear on the reporters’ enquiries. To communicate by fax or email makes the whole procedure lengthy and the spontaneity of the reply is also a factor to be taken into account to assess the pertinence of the questions raised,” the report reads.

Generally, however, journalists in Macau face few restrictions, the report indicates. The MSAR government does not attempt to limit access to the internet and there have been no reports of threats to the physical or ethical integrity of journalists.

Nevertheless, about 20 percent of the survey respondents recalled at least one instance of having their freedom of the press rights violated. Three of the nine respondents that reported violations argued that “the unhindered access to sources is an inherent part of freedom of the press,” according to the AIPIM report.

As the surveys were distributed and completed last year, there is a striking absence of recent cases involving press interference by Macau immigration authorities and the Electoral Affairs Commission for the Legislative Assembly election (CAEAL).

Since Typhoon Hato swept into the city on August 23, at least 15 Hong Kong journalists have been barred from entering Macau. The media personnel were reportedly traveling to the MSAR to either cover the aftermath of the typhoon or the Legislative Assembly election on September 17.

The CAEAL was also the subject of widespread criticism after it forced Portuguese newspaper Plataforma Macau to pull an article during the election blackout period, when Legislative Assembly candidates are forbidden from engaging in electoral propaganda.

“Since the end of the survey period, we have witnessed several disturbing incidents,” AIPIM president José Carlos Matias said yesterday. “These are worrying signals of course. […] We hope that the authorities will soon realize that to continue on this path is not only unfair, but also unwise.”

AIPIM: sample size was satisfactory

The report is based on the responses of 44 non-Chinese-speaking journalists in Macau, who were surveyed between July and November 2016. It is estimated that some 70 to 80 journalists in Macau are employed by non-Chinese media, though a definitive number is not known. “Considering that it was carried out on a voluntary basis and taking into account that a sizeable share of the Portuguese- and English-speaking journalistic community took part in this survey, the answers are significant,” the report notes. However, the results are likely to be subject to a wide margin of error, due to the small number of respondents. AIPIM president José Carlos Matias said that he thinks 44 is enough to attain a “partial understanding” of how non-Chinese journalists regard freedom of the press in Macau. “We are satisfied with the level of participation, but of course we would like to see more,” he said.

Lost in translation

Portuguese is not being given the respect it deserves as an official language of the Macau SAR, the president of the Macau Portuguese and English Press Association advanced during yesterday’s press conference, and this is impairing the ability of non-Chinese-speaking journalists to fully comprehend issues discussed in the legislative branch of government.

Citing the claims of several journalists that not everything discussed in Legislative Assembly meetings is being accurately translated from Chinese to Portuguese, the AIPIM report argued that language issues in Macau constrict access to information.

Macau’s two official languages are Chinese and Portuguese, and public sector entities – including the legislature – are required to provide information in both.

However, on the basis of claims made by survey respondents, the AIPIM report noted that “not everything stated in the discussions is translated, namely side remarks and vulgarisms, which limits the capacity of journalists to unequivocally understand the tone of the discourse.”

English, which does not hold the legal status of being an official language but is widely spoken in Macau to varying degrees of proficiency, is also problematic, according to some journalists.

“The ever-frequent use of English in communicating with journalists in a region where Chinese and Portuguese are the official languages is another problem identified by media workers as not conducive to facilitating access to information,” noted the report.

English is used more extensively than Portuguese in the private sector, but it has also found a way to supplant the latter in the case of public concessionaires such as utility companies and gaming operators.

AIPIM president José Carlos Matias believes that the encroach of English and Portuguese in the territory does not represent a zero-sum game with respect to either language. Speaking on behalf of the organization he heads, Matias argued that both deserve a place in Macau.

“I don’t regard this as a zero-sum game,” said Matias. “We never look at things as Portuguese at the expense of English, or vice versa.”

“What we want, first of all, is for Portuguese to be fully respected as an official language of the Macau SAR – because we all know that it’s not. So we are lobbying for that, especially in the different branches of power, but also for the public service concessions, which often fail to provide information in Portuguese.”

At the same time, Matias recognizes a growing need for English in Macau.

“The share of the population who don’t speak Portuguese or Chinese is increasing by the day,” he said, “ and it is important is to make them feel that they are part of Macau.” DB