The Macau Journalists’ Association demands the government better safeguard freedom of speech in its submission to the parliament on two bills being considered.
The two bills are the Amendment Bill to the Law on Safeguarding National Security and the Bill on Safeguarding National Secrets.
The submission pointed out that the proposed amendments include a new offence – overthrowing or undermining the root system established by the Constitution of the People’s Republic of China, which is Article 3.1 of the Bill.
The group cited the government as explaining previously that “the root system” refers to the framework pursuant to Article 1 and Chapter 3 of the Chinese Constitution, which the group finds to be an overhaul of Article 4 in the Bill. Article 4 concerns sedition and the incitement of sedition.
Therefore, the group questions the grounds on which “incitement to undermine the root system established by the Constitution of the People’s Republic of China” is found and the elements for the proposed offence.
Additionally, it demands the government clarify if the proposed provision will be applicable to scenarios such as expressing different political opinions, discussing the possible development of Macau’s political system and criticizing policies or officials.
Moreover, they claim that the differentiation between criticism and sedition is unclear, meaning that there are grey areas that may confuse the public.
On the Bill on state secrets, the group first and foremost pointed out that the current version was mostly derived from the counterpart law of mainland China, with a “vast” number of new concepts and therefore “more difficult to grasp.”
In particular, the group pointed out, Article 9 of the Bill lists eight categories of classifiable information with broad scope. Under this, even non-governmental activities related to economic and social development may be considered state secrets.
For journalists who collect a large amount of information on a daily basis, the group explained, the ambiguity of definitions is “a bottomless abyss”, creating potential legal risks and pressures that will limit their sources of information and may result in self-censorship, which will eventually jeopardize the public’s access to information.
As for what constitutes “endangering national security or interests once [state secrets are] leaked,” this critical concept has not been clarified by the authorities and is prone to subjective understanding. Future suspects may find it difficult to defend themselves.
The group concedes that, in most circumstances, members of the public do not need to know the actual content of state secrets, but stresses that they need a clear definition.
It also considers the proposed Article 9.1, which suggests that secrets in major political decisions be considered state secrets, contradictory to the fact that major decisions deserve scrutiny by the public and the press in particular. The group thus questions “whether news materials reported today will be considered classified tomorrow.”
With the Bill proposing classifying certain materials related to the economic and social development of Macau, the association pointed out that lawmakers should do their best to eradicate grey areas because the provision itself is “confusing.”
What is even more concerning, the association added, is that, in addition to tangible documents or carriers that must be marked as “confidential” according to the Bill, any officially recognized fact or action can be considered a state secret, “regardless of its carrier or form” (Article 2.2), which gives room to limitless legal interpretations.
The association suggests that matters that are required by local laws and regulations to be disclosed should not be classified as state secrets.
