Sulu Sou
The tensions from the last couple of weeks between newly elected lawmaker Sulu Sou and some lawmakers, (namely the appointed ones and those from the most conservative wing), have apparently evolved from yesterday into a new chapter. A direct war of words and a heated exchange of arguments started during and after the plenary session.
The spark that started the fire appears to be Sulu Sou’s recent publication on his Facebook page. He published content related to a meeting of the Legislative Assembly (AL) House Rules Committee. Sou participated, even though he was advised not to do so by the president of the AL, Ho Iat Seng.
In the post, Sou explained in some detail the content of the meeting; the meeting that aimed to discuss the method to be used by the AL regarding the vote on whether they should suspend him to allow him to stand trial (lawmakers are granted immunity from criminal prosecution). A criminal case of aggravated disobedience is running in the courts against him regarding his behavior during the demonstration held on May 2016, organized by the New Macau Association, over the RMB100 million donation from the Macau Foundation to Jinan University.
On the same post, Sou also added information regarding the positions expressed by several committee members on this topic, individually citing their names.
During the period before the agenda yesterday, by the initiative of lawmakers Kou Hoi In (the lawmaker who also presides over the AL House Rules Committee) and Vong Hin Fai, a spoken enquiry was presented. It aimed to criticize lawmaker Sou’s attitude. The complainants recalled that the meeting was held behind closed doors, by decision of the members, noting that such a meeting has a “restricted or secret nature and that the lawmakers participating from the meetings cannot reveal any details as well as political positions expressed.”
The spoken enquiry from the two lawmakers considered Sou’s attitude “disgraceful” and accused him of failing to comply with Article 4 of the Regiment of the AL (regarding the fulfillment of the deliberations of the plenary) as well as the article 38 of the statutory regime of the lawmakers.
Ma Chi Seng
Kou presented the enquiry and remarked, “until now, all the lawmakers fulfilled the regiment and we had never registered situations like this.” He continued by expressing their “strong dissatisfaction and defending that such an act should be censured.”
Later in the session, Sou made his reply. He presented a spoken enquiry that called for the fulfillment of the law and for the increase of transparency by the publication of reports regarding finance arrangements and subsidies attributed by the Macau Foundation (FM) to the associations. Sou recalled the case of the subsidy conceded by the FM to Jinan University to say that more than 18 months after that event, the situation that allowed it is continuing undisturbed. He accused the Chief Executive (CE) of ignoring the calls of the people for more procedural transparency and noted that “until now he [the CE] gave no reply.” In his allotted time, Sou still had time to respond to the spoken enquiry of the lawmakers Kou and Vong. He said in response that he has been acting in line with his duties and in the name of transparency and honesty. He insisted that these values are what characterizes his role as a political representative. He also made the point that his actions and the values underpinning them are in line with what the population would like to see in their representation.
Although the works of the AL proceeded with a certain degree of normality, several lawmakers moved in and out of the plenary session and this reflected the unusual nature of the session. Chui Sai Cheong, Chan Chak Mo and Ma Chi Seng were only some of those that exited the plenary room during and right after the presentation of Sou’s spoken enquiry; they returned after he concluded his presentation.
The discussion of the first topic of the agenda (concerning the 2018 Budget Law), ran over its allotted time and led into the break time. At the start of the break, when most of the lawmakers and media were already out of the plenary room, two lawmakers including Ma approached Sou at his seat to continue to exchange arguments, mostly on the fact that he cited the names of the committee members identifying them clearly. Visibly upset, the two lawmakers left the room after a few minutes and the sharp exchange of words that were audible across the room. Some of their comments anticipated that the dissatisfaction of some lawmakers with Sou might have reached an all new level.
SOU requests to present defense before suspension
LAWMAKER SULU Sou has formally submitted a letter to the president of the Legislative Assembly (AL) requesting authorization to present his defense prior to the AL vote on whether his mandate will be suspended, as requested by the First Instance Court (TJB). According to a report from Radio Macau, Sou made the request yesterday as a matter of urgency in a letter addressed to both the president of the AL, Ho Iat Seng, and to the chairman of the Committee of the House of Rules, Kou Hoi Hin. In the letter, Sou requests a 10-day period to prepare his defense with the intention of delaying the distribution to lawmakers of the opinion reached by the Committee, which will shortly be disclosed. Sou is also requesting access to documents on similar cases since 1997, and to be granted access to the communication between the AL and the TJB regarding his case. According to the same source, Ho has not yet replied to Sou’s request.
Budget Law approved after long discussion
The Secretary for Economy and Finance, Lionel Leong, presented yesterday at the AL the bill the aimed to discuss and approve the Budget Law for 2018.
Although the bill was passed at the first reading unanimously with all 31 votes in favor, as everyone would expect, the debate over the budget was, maybe unexpectedly, filled with several interventions from the lawmaker. These interventions forced Leong and his team to several explanations and justifications.
On the line were several significant increases presented on the budget for 2018, namely concerning the government’s expenses regarding the salaries of civil servants.
Mak Soi Kun, Ella Lei and Au Kam San where just some of the lawmakers that questioned civil servants’ salaries, with Mak noting, “[t]his had already happened in 2017, looks like there is a great hike on the staff [civil servants] what apparently goes against the police for the rationalization of staff members.”
Lei also questioned the rise of the expenses with staff that she noted is “well above of the salary update announced by the government,” she said, adding, “I’ve been paying attention to this [matter] since 2016, we have to take in note what happened with IC [Cultural Affairs Bureau].”
Lei also remarked that it was necessary to explain why some bureaus are growing a lot in terms of staff while others that apparently have many departments and perform several duties are reducing. She included examples and noted, “this will represent an increase on more than MOP10 billion just in expenses with staff.”
Au Kam San also remarked that for the first time the annual budget is passing the barrier of MOP100 billion, saying, “It passed from MOP80 billion to more than MOP100 billion very fast.” Au Kam San also questioned whether such progress would be considered normal.
Replying, Leong explained that the almost 10 percent of the increase on the government staff expenses are not only related with the salary updates but also, “with promotions and growth in the number of staff.” The Secretary remarked that back in 2015, “we launched austerity measures due to economic adjustment. At that time it was imposed through a control over the growth of staff to barely zero [noting that does not mean that staff were not needed],” Leong added. “The new 85 square kilometers of maritime area also presents challenges and leads to a significant increase on the personnel of the Customs Services,” he said as an example.
“There are many other services that we also need to increase staff that are regarding services to people,” he concluded, noting that he will be able to provide in a detailed manner, if needed, all the departments and services that will grow in staff members during the discussion of the budget in the committee.
No Comments