Eric Sautedé
To paraphrase Scott Chiang, the president of the New Macau Association (NMA), talking to the press after the rather suspicious circumstances of the “suicide by asphyxiation” of the head of customs, Mandy Lai Man Wa, in late October last year: “you would be hard-pressed to find anyone in Macao who actually believes in the version of the government”. Except this time, it has nothing to do with Mrs Lai, but the less dramatic and yet possibly equally traumatizing arrest on February 27 of former prosecutor-general Ho Chio Meng on charges of fraud, abuse of power and document forgery.
The authentic feeling of disbelief is not really that the man who was the executive’s embodiment of the law for fifteen years could be corrupt and had abused his power to skim some 2,000 public contracts with the complicity of some of his staff and indelicate profit-prone local businessmen – only buffoons on TV get excited by the numbers. But rather that the government would be so intent on stressing that Mr Ho’s misdemeanor was unconnected with his expedition of justice, and thus the fulfillment of his duties was untainted.
The issues connected to procurement in Macao, that Sonia Chan, the secretary for administration and justice, is willing to tackle and legally resolve “within a year” – this yearly horizon being the new fad – should easily gather consensus, although independent legislator José Pereira Coutinho, who also heads the biggest would-be civil service union, ATFPM, already pointed out that the discretionary awarding of public contracts from the top was the norm rather than the exception in Macao; thus the Ho “case” was “just the tip of the iceberg”. This is another way of saying that the fish rots from the head down…
At the very distant end of the political spectrum, there seems to be another consensus that “there is more to it”. Jorge Neto Valente, the rather pro-establishment president of the Macao Lawyers Association, could not help emphasizing that the whole affair was casting doubts on the entire judicial system, especially because there had been persistent rumors of “influence peddling” – about whom to prosecute when – within the public ministry when Ho was in charge. For Mr Valente, the corruption charges regarding procurement almost seem secondary. Then, far away from Mr Valente – politically speaking of course! – Scott Chiang and Jason Chao, the vice-president of NMA, voiced their skepticism that Ho’s judicial responsibilities had been entirely shaded from his alleged misconduct for personal enrichment. Their question is simple: why break the law for a poorly remunerated paint job when you can break it for high return power meddling? He that will steal a pin will break a pound…
This “controversy” is now gathering additional momentum. Prominent lawyers and even a legal advisor of the Legislative Assembly started looking at the affair from a broader perspective. If we leave aside infatuated comments of one lawyer annoyed at a system that now prevents the boundless hiring of cheap and competent labor from Portugal for law firms, most of the remarks that were made (and hopefully will continue to be) deserve our whole attention. First of all because they concern the rule of law in Macao and the upholding of a “second system” that rests on clearly defined norms, due respect for processes and infused consideration for both the letter and the spirit of the law and the protection of individual rights. Second because they raise a core question related to the “independence” of our justice: the very fact that again Mr Ho will be denied his right to appeal –
just like the case of Ao Man Long – is more than problematic: it is in contradiction with the Basic Law.
Lack of resolve in tackling this issue will be a litmus test of what is to become of the “one country, two systems” formula in Macao. Let it not become a malediction of the second term of the Chief Executive.
No Comments