Internal security law | Committee dubs security bill provision ‘too abstract’

Members of the Third Standing Committee of the Legislative Assembly (AL) have requested that the local government further explain the dissuasion of security force personnel from participating in political or workers’ organizations or relevant activities, dubbing the provision of law “too abstract.”
On Friday, the committee held another meeting to discuss the city’s internal security protocol.
The internal security bill proposes that personnel from the security force or security department should not be members of political organizations or trade unions, and nor should they participate in any activities organized by such associations.
According to Vong Hin Fai, chairman of the AL committee, the security force militarized personnel protocol already in effect contains the same prescription, meaning that the internal security law’s provision is not imposing a new regulation upon the concerned individuals.
However, among members of the AL Third Standing Committee, there were questions regarding the proposal of dissuading security personnel from participating in political organizations or trade unions.
According to Vong, the opinions were that personnel from the security force are different from militarized personnel, and, due to this distinction, it is unnecessary for the standards for the two different categories of individuals to be the same.
In addition, the law listed criteria for a person to join the city’s security force. Members of the committee think that the relevant prescription gives the government broad flexibility to make its own judgement and that the provision is “too abstract.” During the meeting, some of the committee members raised concerns regarding the prescription regarding mandatory measures and the use of weapons. The lawmakers asked the government whether the authority has a supervision mechanism to ensure that mandatory measures and the use of weapons will be appropriate, as well as to prevent the abuse of these policies.
In addition, some lawmakers also asked why the resignation of security forces personnel must be approved by the Chief Executive. The government explained that these are also existing relevant regulations.
The most notable amendment removed the classification of the “militarized force and security department” and renamed it as the “public organizations forming internal security system.”
The other amendments mostly consisted of technical changes made to names.
One amendment suggests that public organizations of the internal security system, under the supervision of the Secretary for Security, will be integrated as part of the security force.
In October, after the bill was passed, lawmaker Au Kam San remarked that “the internal security law has been abused by the police force to ban tourists and the law has damaged Macau’s image.”