Insight | Freedom of speech and the powers that be

Paulo Barbosa

The legality of last week’s arrest of two New Macau Association members – including the group’s leader, Scott Chiang – can be challenged. Chiang and his affiliate posted a banner targeting the Secretary for Social Affairs and Culture, Alexis Tam, on the façade of the decrepit Hotel Estoril. Is the action so serious that the activists involved had to be detained for at least one night and Chiang had to be shown in public handcuffed?
For sure, the activists would be more harassed if they had carried out the same protest on the mainland. There, they would perhaps be detained for a longer time, taken to an uncertain location or trialed by political courts. Perhaps their families would lose jobs or social prestige. But in Macau there is something called the Basic Law and one of the main pillars of that law is the protection of freedom of expression.
One can argue that the activists were not exercising their right to freedom of speech in a responsible manner when they invaded private property to post a banner saying that Alexis Tam is a “heritage killer.” Tam has all the right to say, as he did, that he does not agree with the message and even to feel that he is the victim of libel.
But the question is if the police can arrest activists and jail them for actions like those. In 2014, Chiang and Jason Chao were detained by the Judiciary Police when they organized a survey about the election of Chui Sai On for a second term as Chief Executive. The activists were detained for allegedly violating the legislation on personal data protection when organizing a “civil referendum” that the government had deemed illegal. It is worth noting that the Public Prosecutions Office has yet to produce an accusation regarding the case.
The detention of activists in Macau can also be viewed in the same frame as the Hong Kong booksellers case. After remaining in an unknown location for five months, Lam Wing-kee returned to Hong Kong and made explosive claims that the mainland authorities had abducted him at the border. He said they had only allowed him to return to the HKSAR in order to provide the Chinese authorities with information about “Causeway Bay Books” clients. This serious accusation challenges the policy of “one country, two systems.”
If a system doesn’t protect freedom of speech, then irresponsibility is widespread in both camps – the supporters and detractors of the powers that be. The books published in Hong Kong may be libelous and claim all kind of conspiracy theories. The official reaction to Lam’s return to Hong Kong is also ridiculous and tries to make us fools. On July 6, Xinhua said that Lam’s claims were “met with astonishment by many of the major players.” China’s official news agency cited a Ningbo police statement, saying that the case “had been handled in accordance with the law from the beginning to the end.” They also cite Liu Cheng, an associate law professor with Sun Yat-sen University, saying: “When people stress ‘two systems,’ they often neglect the ‘one country’ aspect of the premise.”
A system where freedom of speech is upheld – and we all want to believe that is the system being enforced in Macau – is a system where that right is exerted with responsibility. This means that if Tam feels that the activists had defamed him, he can prosecute them. The same principle applies to the books at the core of the Hong Kong controversy. If they are libelous, the persons or institutions that were targeted can seek legal counsel and prosecute authors and editors (not booksellers). If these can’t provide evidence of the claims they publish, it becomes clear that they didn’t act on good faith and should be penalized, preferably with fines rather than imprisonment.
The powers that be should not fear journalists or opinion makers. In Macau, everybody has a right to voice an opinion. If that opinion is considered libelous, people may resort to independent courts. That is the way a civilized society works. And the Basic Law protects the rule of law. When it comes to freedom of speech, the Basic Law is about responsibility, not autocracy.