National secret vs public interest trade-off not discussed at parliamentary committee
A parliamentary committee that is considering the National Secret Bill has not addressed the topic of balancing the need to protect national secrets against the principle of public interest.
The First Standing Committee held a meeting yesterday to consider the Bill. Committee members raised questions about the Bill for the compilation of a list of questions for the government’s preparation to answer, as disclosed after the meeting by committee president Ella Lei.
Lei gave the reply when asked if the committee had discussed how to protect the need for public interest. However, she added that the topic would be raised when government officials sit in committee meetings.
Meanwhile, she stressed that the Bill proposes that clear marks be made to identify materials constituting national secrets, so she believes that people without proper security clearance will not accidently violate such secrets.
Article 9 of the Bill proposes eight topics about which material or information can be designated by the Chief Executive as national secrets. Clause 3 of the Bill points to items on economic and social development of Macau.
At the first reading of the Bill, worries were expressed that the scope of Clause 3 may be too broad, leaving a lot of room for the administration to mark as secret information in the public interest.
While the Bill is being studied by the committee, the committee president was asked if legal consultants had expressed their views or concerns over Clause 3.
Lei, in reply, disclosed that the namesake law in mainland China had been studied before reviewing the local Bill.
“There are references on social and economic development in the mainland law,” she said. “The core discussion by committee members [yesterday] focused on the wording of the eight clauses and whether there is any incomplete areas.”
She added that the meeting did not deeply consider the provisions and contexts of the eight clauses, as the committee awaits government explanation in following sessions.
Lei also disclosed that in a judicial procedure, whenever national secrets are involved, the defendant or the witness will not be permitted to disclose them even if it will be in their interests.
In compensation, the Bill proposes that the court obtain a formal confirmation from the Chief Executive on the condition of the concerned materials before putting it into court. On the other hand, Lei explained that to protect the interests of the defendant, the Bill proposes to allow the defendant to make declarations before the judge on the secret nature of the material that may be to their benefit, so as to allow the judge to consider this during judgement.
Committee members also wondered why the local Bill has tighter provisions than the national law on release of secrets upon cessation of the confidentiality period. In mainland China, once the confidentiality period is reached, the materials deemed national secret will be automatically released.
Nonetheless, in Macau, the bill proposed that the concerned government entity holding the national secret materials should propose to the Chief Executive to release them, and the head of the government has the full discretion to decide.
The committee president expects the next session will see competent officials sitting in and answering questions from members.
