Insight: Burying the ‘referendum’ alive

Paulo Barbosa

The unofficial referendum scheduled for next month made it to the New York Times. In an opinion piece titled “Macau raises its political voice,” the editorial board of the famous American daily newspaper states that “Macau’s 600,000 residents were politically quiet until recently. Then, in May, 20,000 people protested Mr Chui’s attempt to legislate a lavish retirement package for top officials and immunity from criminal persecution for the chief executive for any misdeeds committed while in office.” The NYT reaches a disputable conclusion: “What began as a protest against Mr Chui quickly shaped into a larger democratic movement challenging China.”
Seems to me that the government has shot itself in the foot by the way it reacted to the announcement of the so-called “Civil Referendum 2014 on Chief Executive Election” being proposed by the Macau Conscience, the Macau Youth Dynamics and the Open Macau Society.
The chief-of-cabinet of the CE office and government spokesperson, Alexis Tam, reacted immediately by saying that the initiative is “illegal” and “invalid”. Several government statements followed. “The MSAR government is strongly against the fact that some small groups are intending to challenge the legal basis of Macau,” read the first statement. According to the document, the initiative lacks a “constitutional legal basis.”
Curiously, the wording used by the government to slam the referendum is exactly similar to the one used by the Central Government Liaison Office: “Illegal and invalid”.
But why the barrage of statements from the government and Beijing regarding an initiative being proposed by what they deem as “small groups”? Why are they so concerned? Of course there is the Hong Kong precedent. In the neighboring region an informal referendum aimed at bolstering support for greater democracy draw nearly 800,000 votes and was denounced by Beijing as a political farce.
Feeling challenged, the government risks losing reason by using juridical arguments that are, at the least, fragile. As a matter of basic principle, the authorities should build a solid case before deeming something “illegal.”
Several law experts have swiftly dismantled the government’s accusation, saying that there isn’t any article in the Basic Law forbidding the activity.  As stressed by the organizers, the so-called referendum is not legally binding. They can call it what they want but it is nothing more than an opinion survey, protected by the Basic Law. If there is any doubt about this, please read article 27: “Macau residents shall have freedom of speech, of the press and of publication; freedom of association, of assembly, of procession and of demonstration; and the right and freedom to form and join trade unions, and to strike.”
As to the allegation that it shouldn’t be called a referendum, I agree. However, since there is no law in Macau regulating how opinion surveys are made and how they can be named, the organizers can use whatever name they want and do it when they want, inclusive of the CE election day.
By denouncing the alleged illegality of the event, the government and Beijing (where is the ‘one country, two systems’ here?) clearly want to dissuade people from participating in the referendum. Jason Chao, a member of the referendum’s organizing commission, pointed out that the intention may be to threaten potential participants: “If the government has an [legal] article saying that the civil referendum is illegal, just tell us the article. Alexis Tam’s words seemed like verbal intimidation,” he said.
The intent to repress the event doesn’t seem to be the best strategy to handle demands for a more democratic political system. Changing details so everything can stay the same has already been tried in the recent “political reform” process in Macau. Perhaps it doesn’t match people’s expectations. A crackdown on the referendum may backfire among the younger generations. Let’s not forget what Sigmund Freud wrote about the repressed: “Unexpressed emotions will never die. They are buried alive and will come forth later in uglier ways.”