Following last Friday’s sudden announcement of their disqualification from the parliamentary election, four out of the six eliminated groups have pledged not to file changes to their lists of candidates and will instead file appeals to the court.
The four groups are: the Macau Democratic Prosperity Association, led by incumbent lawmaker António Ng Kuok Cheong and advocate Scott Chiang Meng Hin; the New Macau Progressives, which include incumbent lawmaker Sulu Sou Ka Hou; the New Macau Progressive Association, with former full-attendance lawmaker Paul Chan Wai Chi taking the lead; and the Macau Justice, led by labor rights advocate Lei Sio Kuan.
Last Friday, the Legislative Assembly Electoral Affairs Commission (CAEAL) suddenly called a press conference in the late afternoon to announce the decision to disqualify 23 candidates from seven lists. In addition to the 21 across six lists whom the CAEAL deemed to be in violation of the duty of being faithful to Macau, two candidates from a seventh list were disqualified because they are not yet registered voters, which is a key precondition for eligibility of candidacy.
The decision to disqualify the two on the grounds of non-registration is irrevocable. However, the six lists which include candidates deemed in violation of the duty to be faithful to Macau can either substitute the affected candidates with “clean” candidates or file an appeal to the court.
All of the candidates from the four lists that will file appeals believe that they have not violated the law governing the AL election. The law states that a candidate will be legally ineligible if evidence proves that they refuse to declare their allegiance to the Macau Special Administrative Region of the People’s Republic of China and that they will defend the Basic Law.
On this, Chan pointed out that the CAEAL should provide official documents to the candidates as proof or explanation of the accusations. Chan’s list has decided to give the CAEAL a deadline of July 14 to provide such materials or reconsider their decision. If the CAEAL decision remains unchanged, Chan’s list will file a judicial appeal.
He stressed that the matter does not only affect them as candidates, but will ripple through the matter of rights of political participation and the Basic Law. He described it as a “deprivation of political rights.” The group hopes to defend the Basic Law and the rights of Macau residents.
Chiang did not see any point in swapping candidates if this was indeed interference in the election.
He added that the letter handed to them by the CAEAL last week only pointed out which article of the law that they had allegedly breached and noted that the absence of evidence does not assist the candidates in defending their rights.
Yesterday, Chiang waited at the CAEAL’s public reception counter at the Public Administration Building for half a day to request the details of the decision.
He pointed out that the primary duty of the CAEAL is to ensure the rights to elect and to be elected. He also accused the CAEAL of not providing sufficient assistance to candidates because it did not provide sufficient evidence or explanation for the decision it made.
In contrast to Chan and Chiang, Lei stressed that the candidates on his list love Macau and China, and that he personally stood for the National Security Legislation. He also recalled that he had participated in protests for China’s sovereignty over the Diaoyu Island against Japan, citing news reports which prove this.
Chan, Chiang and Lei stressed that they were not aware of any “wrongdoings” that would constitute violation of the law in question.
If the disqualified candidates file a judicial appeal, the court is required by law to make a ruling between July 29 and August 2.
CAEAL explains criteria three days later
Tong Hio Fong, president of the CAEAL, was asked several times last Friday on what grounds the CAEAL decided against the 21 candidates on their eligibility to run in the upcoming election.
In contrast to listing the criteria for decisions, the CAEAL head declined to give direct answer, citing various reasons such as defending the candidates’ rights to fair judicial procedures.
However, the CAEAL did not even give the details to the candidates in the letter delivered to the latter.
Yesterday, the CAEAL finally held a press conference to explain the crucial information. When questioned about the delay, Tong said the clarification was necessary in response to online rumors which suspected that the candidates were disqualified on the grounds of criticizing the government.
Tong said that the evidence in the commission’s hand has online materials.
CAEAL’s seven criteria
Candidates must safeguard the constitutional order established by the Constitution and the Basic Law
Candidates must safeguard national unity and territorial integrity
Prevention of collusion of candidates with foreign countries or foreign forces in infiltrating the power bodies of the Macau Special Administrative Region
Candidates must respect the political system established by the Constitution and the Basic Law, and may not denigrate the People’s Republic of China and the Macau Special Administrative Region of the People’s Republic of China
Candidates may not perform acts against the sovereignty and security of the State
Candidates must respect the competences delegated by the Constitution and the Basic Law to the National People’s Assembly of the People’s Republic of China and its Standing Committee
Candidates cannot play a role in contradicting the above points
No Comments