Gov’t and lawmakers dispute definition of ‘key-industries’
The government and lawmakers have disagreed on the definition of “key industries” in the new law for Talent Acquisition, the chairman of the Third Standing Committee of the Legislative Assembly (AL), Vong Hin Fai said yesterday in a media briefing after a committee meeting with government officials.
According to Vong, several articles of the new law use the term “key industries,” referring to industries which will benefit from the new government program assisting in the recruitment of qualified staff from abroad. Nevertheless, Vong noted that “it is not convenient to create a definition for this expression since the concept is dynamic.” He added that the concept of key industries will be tied to the Five-Year Development Plan of the Macau Special Administrative Region (5-year Plan).
The chairman noted that several lawmakers on the committee are dissatisfied with this explanation. The objection being that this explanation of the link to the 5-year plan is mere verbal commentary without legal effect, and should be clearly stated in the law itself.
Vong noted that “for the time being, according to the 5-year plan, the four main industries that the government wishes to promote are big health, the financial services, high technology, and culture and sports industries, alongside with those that already have some development like the gaming sector, the exhibitions and conventions, and tourism.” However, Vong also noted that it was uncertain whether there will be any program allowing talent acquisition for the last three or just for the first four.
Another question that merited the attention of lawmakers was the procedure and application process of the candidates to the programs and how will they be evaluated, Vong added.
“In reply to the question of how to evaluate the candidates, the government made a presentation regarding the future entities that will be in charge of the process, including the Public Security Police Force (PSP) and two new committees to be established that include a Talent Development Committee and a Talent Evaluation Committee,” Vong remarked, stating that the whole process will be undertaken by these three bodies.
The difference between the development and the evaluation committees is less clear, as is the need for two separate committees in the first place. Both will be chaired by the Chief Executive (CE) and the members of the committees will largely be the same.
According to Vong, the Development Committee will have more competencies in elaborating on and defining the programs to which candidates can apply, while the second will be more related to the evaluation of the applications.
The PSP will administer the final stage of the application after the residency of the candidates is approved.
concernes with procedure time
One of the aspects that attracted the attention of the lawmakers of the Third Committee was the duration of the process.
Although the government could not provide a precise answer, they said that the timing of each program depends on the program itself.
The government explained that the plan is to release new programs for applications and processing every quarter, assuming that the entire application process is completed in less than three months.
The government also noted that the candidates will complete their application on an online platform to accelerate the process and minimize bureaucracy.
Lawmakers suggested that when any given program is launched, the government should immediately inform the candidates of the processing time and when final verdicts could be expected. Vong said the government would consider the suggestion.
Appeals only to courts
The government also clarified that if candidates disagree with the decision of the evaluation committee, no appeals would be granted.
According to Vong, the Secretary for Social Affairs and Culture, Elsie Ao Ieong said that this policy has the aim of accelerating the process by removing the internal appeals process.
“If a candidate disagrees with the evaluation, he must resort to an appeal to the courts. The regime allows no appeals to the Committee,” Vong said. According to Vong, Ao Ieong said that this is so that appeals from candidates will not affect the processing of other applications.
A final veto power is also attributed to the CE, who can revoke the decision to accept a candidate.
“The CE can use his discretionary power to refuse to accept a candidate due to reasons related to national security and others,” Vong said. He also noted that the question has caused some confusion for the juridical advisor to the AL. The advisor noted that the CE also presides over the evaluation committee – thus, the last-minute veto power is a potentially overlapping competence.
