PLA soldiers conducting cleaning operations in the aftermath of Typhoon Hato
Secretary for Security Wong Sio Chak’s latest proposal concerning the Civil Protection Basic Law will seek to strengthen the government’s grip on information during periods of crisis, such as natural disasters, the outbreak of diseases or terrorist attacks.
Now in its official public consultation period (which lasts until August 11), authorities claim the proposal is needed to “ensure the efficient dissemination of important information by the authorities” and “to prevent the spread of false rumors to society.”
If approved, offenders might face an increased penalty of up to three years’ imprisonment should they propagate falsified information that results in social alarm.
In response, critics argue that the government’s proposal has the potential to violate two articles of the Macau Basic Law, concerning freedom of speech and the right to privacy of communications.
Article 27 of the Basic Law entitles Macau residents to enjoy freedom of speech and freedom of the press, while article 32 dictates that the “freedom and privacy of communication of Macau residents shall be protected by law.”
“No department or individual may, on any grounds, infringe upon the freedom and privacy of communication of residents,” article 32 reads, “except that the relevant authorities may inspect communication in accordance with the provisions of the law to meet the needs of public security or of investigation into criminal offences.”
The President of the Association of Lawyers, Neto Valente, told Radio Macau that the proposal was just “one more [measure] to make the lives of citizens hellish.”
Valente said that the law already provides for serious cases of spreading falsified information, and implied that the authorities were pursuing this course to control information that displeased the government.
“Certainly if there are rumors favorable to government authorities, they will not be punished,” he said. “Only something that displeases the authorities will [trigger] the law into action.”
But for lawyer and former lawmaker Leonel Alves, the issue belongs in the public domain, warranting an inclusive discourse from all segments of society.
“In freedom of expression, there are always limits. It is never unlimited and we must discuss these limits as a society,” he told the Times in an interview yesterday. “We need to protect the public, and false alarms have the potential to create social harms. However, if someone says something [that is not true], but did not intend to provoke social harm, that may be different.”
In other countries, several popular exceptions to free speech exist. These may include hate speech or offensive comments, obscenity, speech owned by others or false statements of fact.
Other governments have gone further. In Malaysia, the government has already introduced an “Anti-Fake News” bill, while India, the United Kingdom and France are among other countries contemplating laws against misinformation.
Critics in Macau fear that the local government is seeking not only to prevent the spread of false information, but to close down narratives that run contrary to state propaganda – and the media will be no exception.
“There is a civic responsibility of the media when divulging the civil protection information issued by the authorities,” said Secretary Wong at a press conference late last week, adding that public media organizations would be required to disseminate information according to “government guidelines.”
Wong even went as far as to describe information provided by the government as “correct, precise and simple,” and recommended that private media organizations should defer to the official narrative in times of crisis.
The Macau Association of Portuguese and English Press admitted that the proposal could inhibit the way that journalists operate in the city, but said it needed more time to study the new law.
“We are paying close attention to it, but right now we need to study the proposed legislation in more detail,” association president José Carlos Matias told the Times last night.
“It is understandable that the authorities want to improve the laws concerning civil defense,” he added, “the question lies with the means and with the specific details. […] What we don’t want from this is an outcome where the journalists [are encouraged to] self-censor.”
The Journalists Association of Macau, a seperate entity, reported in August last year that the Macau government had pressured at least five local media outlets to report “positively” on the government’s response to Typhoon Hato and not to hold Chief Executive Chui Sai On responsible for any unpreparedness or inadequacy.
“I think the media outlets all have freedom of expression but in situations of public risk, I believe that the media also has its [share] or responsibility,” said Wong last week, “that is, of disclosure information that is correct and precise.”
“This is a responsibility to be assumed by everyone,” he continued, and “to disclose false or irresponsible information is not [the] right way to react.”
Last year, two local siblings, a 73-year-old man and his 68-year-old sister, were prosecuted for spreading rumors related to Typhoon Hato. The two had spread messages via Wechat claiming that the Macau government had covered up information regarding five dead people found in a parking lot located in Fai Chi Kei.
One lawyer in Macau, who requested to speak with anonymity, questioned to what extent the government hopes to prevent the spread of rumors by criminalizing those who share information – especially in times of uncertainty and alarm, like those seen in August last year.
The lawyer also wondered whether parents could be held responsible for a rumor started by a child under the age of adulthood, or whether the thousands of people who share inaccurate photographs on social media could be seen as accomplices.
No Comments