Alexis Tam pictured yesterday at the AL
The Legislative Assembly (AL) has debated and passed the government’s proposed Domestic Violence Prevention and Correction Law in yesterday’s plenary session. Lawmakers continued to question the government’s decision not to include same-sex couples in the legislation, as well as the definition of “mild domestic violence cases.”
After the Secretary for Social Affairs and Culture, Alexis Tam, read the introduction to the lawmakers, Ng Kuok Cheong raised the first question, regarding the fact that the protection of people in same-sex relationships was not covered the legislation. The government previously stated that one of the reasons same-sex couples were not mentioned was because Macau does not recognize same-sex marriage. Ng suggested that while neighboring regions like Hong Kong and Taiwan do not recognize same-sex marriage, the domestic violence legislation in both places covers same-sex relationships.
“Why is Macau so special that we have to be different and exclude same-sex relationships from the protection of the law? The consultation documents have already explained that this involves the concept of ‘family members,’ which is related to the Penal Code, and something has to be done with it. But the question is why Hong Kong and Taiwan can legally handle this matter while we cannot?” he said.
Moreover, the lawmaker is concerned with the possible confusion caused by the definition of “mild cases” in the legislation. While it has listed domestic violence as a public crime, the bill proposed that a case be treated as a semi-public crime – where the victim can decide whether to pursue charges – if the perpetrator’s action has only mild consequences.
“Some front-line workers who usually deal with domestic violence cases were concerned that if there is this [exception] and a new definition, how are the front-line police officers going to determine the case?” he said. “The legislation has already included several procedures, including the support for victims, a mediation mechanism and the mechanism to terminate legal pursuit against perpetrators… Therefore, even if we are to treat all cases as public crimes, it is very unlikely that innocent people will be wrongfully prosecuted. Then why is there still a gray zone like this?”
Ng’s concern with the definition of mild cases is echoed by several of his colleagues, who have urged the Secretary and the government officials to provide them with a clear explanation. Song Pek Kei also suggested that the authorities should differentiate between cases where domestic violence is carried out intentionally from those unintentional acts, although they can both be incidental and have only mild or no consequences.
Other lawmakers have offered government representatives their concerns and queries about the bill as well. Some asked the officials to detail the government’s supports for victims who depend on the perpetrators either financially or legally. Wong Kit Cheng asked what the authorities would do if the victim is applying for residency through their relationship with the perpetrator. Melinda Chan is concerned with the situation of accommodation for the victim being provided by the perpetrator. She wants to know whether the restriction order proposed by the legislation can prevent the perpetrator from selling the accommodation, which would effectively leave the victim homeless.
In response to lawmakers’ questions and concerns, Alexis Tam stressed that the government adopts a zero-tolerance policy on domestic violence. On the lack of protection for same-sex couples, Tam said that the issue is related to several articles in the Civil Code, such as those on marriage. Legal Affairs Bureau deputy director Leong Pou Ieng said that the government highly valued the opinions of the LGBT community. “We have been studying the issue for a long time [and found that] there is no regulation on same-sex relationships in the Civic Code, the Code of Administrative Procedure and the Penal Code…We are not sure if it is appropriate to regulate same-sex relationships in this legislation without reaching a social consensus on the issue. We think that the discussion should be carried out when there is an amendment to the Civil Code”, she explained. As for the domestic violence legislation in Hong Kong and Taiwan, Leong said that although both listed same-sex partners as family members, this definition only extended to some civil or administrative procedures, not to criminal matters. This means that even if domestic violence took place in a same-sex relationship in Taiwan, it is still treated as a semi-public crime there.
As for the controversies over introducing the notion of “mild cases”, the deputy director said that they have heard some totally contradicting opinions during the preparation for the bill. As a result, the government decided to take the middle ground and allow the victim to decide whether to legally pursue the perpetrator in some cases. She also said that the government has an open attitude on this issue and is willing to negotiate with the lawmakers when the bill is discussed in the AL Standing Committees.
Furthermore, the government has taken this bill as an opportunity to amend a section in the Criminal Code and to change several types of sexual violation against persons under 16-year-old from semi-public crimes to public crimes. Leong Pou Ieng said that this action is triggered by the opinions that question why it is a public crime to sexually assault a minor family member while the sexual assault against other minors is not. “In terms of sexual assault against minors, we are especially advocating for the strengthening in child protection. Therefore, we would like to take this chance to make this amendment”, she explained.
After the legislation is passed, the Social Welfare Bureau (IAS) president Iong Kong Io predicted that the department will be struggling to handle future domestic violence cases due to constrained manpower. But he said that IAS will be formally collaborating with non-governmental organizations.
Fong Chi Keong on domestic violence
Government-appointed lawmaker Fong Chi Keong, infamous for his controversial comments in the AL, has again caused a stir in the legislative chamber by arguing that the Secretary should not promote the idea of zero-tolerance against domestic violence. “I really disagree [with] the secretary’s advocacy for zero-tolerance. You cannot clap with only one hand. It always takes two hands. [In cases where] the wife is chewing the husband’s ear off, if the wife did not talk back when the husband reprimanded her, the husband would not have beaten her,” he said.
Fong also said that he did not understand the concept of sexual assault between couples. “They are already married. Why would there be sexual assault? For me it is a need. Isn’t it to satisfy that need [that marriage exists]? If the husband wants and the wife says she’s busy there is going to be a problem.”
No Comments