CCAC report labels Cable TV, public antenna companies agreement ‘a sham’

CCAC commissioner Vasco Fong hands the report to Chui Sai On

The Commission Against Corruption (CCAC) 2013 Annual Report published yesterday has documented the administrative irregularities of several government departments that the Commission has investigated. It has labeled the previous agreement between Macau Cable (MCTV) and the public antenna companies, which expired in April this year, a sham. The report also criticized the Education and Youth Affairs Bureau’s (DESJ) handling of complaints about excessive fees charged by private schools.
MCTV previously took the Macau government and several antenna companies to court, arguing that the antenna companies violated their copyrights and the government failed to enact the concession contract and prevent those companies from illegally transmitting television signals. The Court of Second Instance, on June 6 in 2013, ruled in favor of MCTV and ordered the government to enforce the contract. In August 2013, MCTV and 15 antenna companies signed an agreement to resolve the matter.
The CCAC report has examined the legality of the Bureau of Telecommunications Regulation (DSRT) sponsored agreement between MCTV and the antenna companies. Under the agreement, the companies operating illegally (according to court rulings) would provide their cable networks to MCTV as gratuitous gifts. In return, MCTV would commission the companies to manage and maintain those networks and charge users a maintenance fee. The antenna companies also could not construct new networks or alter their original networks without approval from DSRT.
CCAC pointed out that despite MCTV being the sole party to receive the cable networks as gratuitous gifts from the antenna companies, those could make changes to the networks they maintain after receiving approval only from DSRT instead of from  MCTV. The Commission said that this clause in the agreement is clearly in conflict with the law regarding ownership issues.
Moreover, the agreement stipulates MCTV must allow antenna companies to manage and maintain the network and charge users a maintenance fee. It also stated that if both parties failed to renew the agreement after it is expired, or if the Macau government does not renew the MCTV television signal transmission concession, the company would give the antenna companies cable networks that they are managing.
Therefore, CCAC argues that the action of the antenna companies to give MCTV their network does not translate into their giving MCTV ownership of the networks. “Macau Cable has no ownership, nor the power to punish, nor the power of management, but only a pseudo-
ownership,” the report stated. “The agreement in fact produced a fake legal label that was put on the networks and facilities [of the antenna companies], showing that they belonged to MCTV. But there is no substance within [this label].”
Therefore, CCAC stated that the agreement was actually conducted under false legal authority and there was no change in the status of the networks owned by the antenna companies. “Both parties, through an ‘agreement’, created a ‘sham’”, the report said.
In fact, the Commission pointed out that the clause concerning MCTV giving the networks back to the antenna companies if the government decides not to renew the contract with it, would be very complicated to enforce. According to the law governing public concession contracts, this is because the government will take possession of MCTV’s networks once the contract is not renewed. Hence, CCAC argues that the clause actually violated the law and has no legal effect.
Although CCAC has recommended several measures where the government can correct their errors, it said that the authorities did not accept those recommendations and has instead established the Macau Basic Television Channels Limited company. Currently, the government-
owned Macau Basic Television Channels Limited has replaced MCTV and is providing 49 basic TV channel signals to residents through the networks of the antenna companies.
Apart from criticizing the MCTV – antenna companies agreement, CCAC has also found administrative omissions in the Education and Youth Affairs Bureau (DSEJ)’s investigation into excessive fees charged by local full-subsidized “in-network” private schools.
The Commission report stated that DSEJ did not fulfill its duty to monitor the schools and to urge them to refund the overcharged amount. Instead, it only asked the appellant to contact the schools themselves and arrange the refund.
CCAC suggested that DSEJ should be intervening in the case and actively following up the refund progress rather than advising the appellant to handle the issue themselves. This is because it may expose their identities and jeopardize their children’s future in the schools.

doctors referred to mp for corruption

Two doctors working in a private medical institution were referred to the Public Prosecution Office (MP) for allegedly receiving kickbacks from a laboratory totaling MOP1.4 million. Information suggested that the institution the two doctors were employed by has its own laboratory. However, the two doctors, one of them a member of the institute’s management, have started to demand their subordinate doctors refer patients to several private laboratories. In return, they received kickbacks (or a so-called consultation fee) from those labs. Until October 2014, CCAC estimated that the total amount of kickbacks involved could exceed MOP1.4 million.