The amendment of the region’s Chief Executive (CE) election was passed by the Legislative Assembly (AL) yesterday, amid a fierce argument among the lawmakers concerning Macau’s democratic development, and the legitimacy of the former three CE elections.
The amendment, which is an annex of the law concerning the establishment of the city’s Municipal Institute, proposed replacing two of the CE election council members from the Macau SAR’s National People’ Congress with two members of the city’s future Municipal Institute.
The argument began when a few lawmakers deemed the amendment unclear on whether Macau is positively developing in terms of democracy.
After the government’s introduction of the amendment, Ng Kuok Cheong voiced that “this law poses absolutely no progress [in terms of democratic development]. I don’t think there are conditions for me to support such a bill.”
The Municipal Institute will consist of two councils: the Municipal Administration Council and the Municipal Consultation Council. All members of the two councils will be appointed by the CE.
“The CE can appoint members of both councils, and the members in turn will choose the CE. […] This is an ugly election. [The amendment] is unacceptable. […] Not only it does not feature progress of any sort, it can even be regarded as a step backwards,” declared Au Kam San.
Following Au’s comment, Sulu Sou complained that “the city’s former three CEs were not elected according to the Basic Law.”
Sou’s statement immediately became the focus of the discussion.
Secretary for Administration and Justice Sonia Chan, in reply to Sou, said, “all previous CE election procedures were legal and complied with Macau’s laws, with all former CEs elected legally.”
Pereira Coutinho then protested that “Macau’s corruption is due to […] the CE being elected by a few people.”
CE-appointed lawmakers Chan Wa Keong and Iau Teng Pio immediately responded to these comments by saying that Macau’s political stability cannot be destroyed and that every lawmaker has the right to be heard.
Nonetheless, Chan Chak Mo noted that there will not be universal suffrage in Macau.
“We do not see the Basic Law saying that universal suffrage could be implemented in Macau,” said Chan, adding that “universal suffrage might not be good. […] Our [Chinese] president is also elected by the communist party.”
Chan listed other examples, such as Taiwan’s former president Chen Shui-bian, South Korea’s former presidents, the former president of Malaysia, and the former president of Venezuela, all of whom are in prison despite having been elected under a democratic system.
Sonia Chan then replied to the lawmakers by saying that “democracy does not consist of just a singular method, and that there is not just one way of learning about public opinions.”
The Secretary, among other lawmakers, believed that Macau has a kind of democracy that is suitable for Macau.
Another government representative, surnamed Zhao, said that “the former three CEs were legally elected. […] Following the election, the CEs were then appointed by the Central Government, which means the election was legal.”
Besides the aforementioned lawmakers, others, including Kou Hoi In, Ma Chi Seng, Wu Chou Kit, and Fong Ka Chio, voiced their discontent with this statement.
Agnes Lam then proposed that Macau should include more residents in the city’s CE election when the government amends Macau’s election law. JZ
No Comments