The Macau Journalists Association has expressed its concerns over the vagueness and breadth of the proposed review on the National Security Law in a document released October 5.
The same day also saw the cessation of the public consultation period.
In contrast to the public consultation conducted for the legislation of the current law, this consultation was done in such a way that express provisions were absent. Discussions were about the direction of the review, rather than on actual provisions proposed by the government.
A similar approach was taken for the review of the gambling law.
In the preamble of its document of opinions, the association emphasized Macau needs a National Security Law that “stabilizes society and takes into account both basic human rights and freedom.”
The association called for the government to consider the actual situation and weigh various factors, as well as to avoid over-powerful proposals.
Moreover, the association warned that the core of the debate on the law review should be about the necessity, legality, suitability and benefits of the review, based on the fact that, on certain occasions, those expressing doubftul or opposing opinions were hastily smeared as being unpatriotic or of damaging national security.
The association expressed concern that if the reviewed National Security Law was not to be promulgated side-by-side with the Law on SAR Secrets, press freedom may be threatened, with particular emphasis on journalists’ sources and the public’s right to know. The association described the expansion of police power in certain areas as “prodigious.”
The association said it found insufficient grounds for the law review, mainly because the current law had never been triggered, meaning that no judicial precedents are present. As such, “it is difficult to prove that the current law and criminal investigation tools are [inadequate].”
It warned an overly strict law review may lead to political censorship and extensive police power, which would eventually jeopardize Macau’s harmony and stability.
On the other hand, the association found the proposed review imprecise. For example, it pointed out, the government had not succeeded in clearly explaining the definition of “the key factors constituting a criminal act,” which is opposed to allowing the public to be informed of the activities that constitute a criminal act as a basic principle in the criminal laws of Macau.
In another area, the association said the direction of the law review is different from what the government claimed in the first place. The government said the law review would lead to greater protection, but the association thinks only punishments will prevail.
For instance, the association pointed out that the government intends to restrict a person’s freedom to leave Macau if that person is under suspicion without the government having to identify the person in question as a suspect. This is contrary to the provisions in Article 47 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the association noted.
In Macau, Codes of Law are above single laws in terms of legal hierarchy.
The association also questioned the necessity of “opening another door” by the security branch in terms of requesting information from people under suspicion, when existing laws effectively cover the matter.
Furthermore, the law review has a tendency to rely extensively on wiretapping, the association pointed out. Although security officials have reiterated the role of the court of law in the loop, the association cited the recent Suncity lawsuit as an example to prove that wiretapping can be constant and extensive.
Communication data spanning 10 years was presented to the court as evidence in the Suncity lawsuit.
Most importantly, the association noticed, the proposed law review may transgress the authority of the Central Government, by expanding the coverage of the provision on inter-organizational contacts from political organizations to any individual, groups or organizations, as well as from foreign organizations to non-local organizations. It warned that the proposed changes may eventually violate Article 144 of the Basic Law.
While the government is considering introducing incitement and non-violent alienation and subversion, in addition to the lack of a well-defined “national secret” to the law, the association feared it would hurt public confidence in expressing their dissatisfactions against certain policies, even non-political types of policies.
