Secretary for Security Wong Sio Chak
Media and law experts have expressed concerns about article 25 of the civil protection law, calling on authorities to amend the article and clarify the controversial expression, “biased, unfounded and fake news.”
Last week, the government moved forward with its proposed civil protection law, sending it to the Legislative Assembly, Macau’s rubber- stamp parliament, for approval. The city’s top security official, Secretary Wong Sio Chak, has said on several occasions that he wants to see the bill enter into force “before the typhoon season this year,” stressing his sense of urgency.
The bill formerly specified a new crime of social alarm, but it now states it as “a crime against safety, order and public peace during sudden incidents of public nature.”
Yesterday, the Macau Portuguese and English Press Association (AIPIM) slammed a phrase uncovered in article 25 – namely “biased, unfounded and fake news” – that was never under discussion during the public consultation phase.
Their great concern comes in part from the vague and subjective nature of the expressions and concepts used, but also from the fact that the government introduced the concept after the public consultation was complete.
“AIPIM has great reservations concerning the expression ‘fake news’ in itself, and considers the qualification ‘biased and unfounded’ inadequate and highly subjective, posing a risk at the level of press freedom, the editorial independence of the media and citizens’ right to information,” the association said.
President of AIPIM José Carlos Matias expressed to the Times that such wording in the law threatens to result in arbitrariness of interpretation and enforcement.
He noted that the proposed bill raises concerns over what might become the standards and qualifications of “biased, unfounded and fake news.”
“We are [against] language and terms which are vague and highly subjective,” he said. “This proposes a lot of risk in terms of abuse in the enforcement of this law.”
The proposed legislation was raised after the circulation of rumors and social alarm during Typhoon Hato back in 2017.
At a press conference last week, Secretary for Security Wong Sio Chak stressed that there needed to be “intentional” harm caused by the spreading of rumors and not just negligence involved. He said that the bill would not be used as a carte blanche to “arrest someone just because he disclosed some news.”
However, some fear that the expressions used in the proposed bill remain problematic, particularly in their scope for interpretation and particularly for journalists.
Matias believes that the law is not necessary as there are already similar provisions in city’s penal code and the press law in the SAR.
“There is a whole framework that already has the normal boundaries of our [journalist] activities, [so] why the need for this law and new type of crime that specifically targets our activity? We see lot of risks here,” said the media industry representative.
Matias believes it would be better to counter fake news, prevalent in many regions, with education and awareness.
Legal expert António Katchi agreed and said the media should be worried about the provision and fight against it.
Katchi criticized the expression for being too broad. For example, he said, the word “unfounded” is problematic as authorities may claim a certain piece of news is unfounded, while the journalist, in order to protect the source, is unable to prove that it is founded or that he had every reason to believe it was founded.
The legal expert also believes that the move may be instructed by the central government.
“This provision is intended to serve as one more legal tool in the hands of the Communist Party of China’s ruling elite, using its local subordinates as intermediaries, to intimidate, muzzle and persecute people for political reasons or for political purposes,” Katchi told the Times.
“It’s one more weapon in an ever-increasing legislative arsenal that the government has been building, certainly under pressure of, and instructions from, the central authorities,” he added.
As with any criminal law, several entities will be involved in the process and the courts will have the final say. However, the people targeted by the authorities will have already been affected by the process leading the case to the judiciary.
“Any pretext to launch criminal proceedings against somebody is a problem, because criminal proceedings are a problem in themselves, even when they don’t end in condemnation,” Katchi argued.
The crime of the proposed bill has a penalty of imprisonment of two years or a fine equivalent to 240 days, but could also be aggravated to three years of imprisonment.
No Comments