Opinion | Rear Window – Legislative Assembly: Unexplained haircut

Severo Portela

Beyond its functions and powers, the Basic Law gives the Legislative, within an Executive-led system, the role of the president, so much so we dare to say the president makes his role…up to a point. First incumbent, Susana Chou, made herself known for bringing leadership to the Legislative and earning a lighthouse status while seeking co-operation with Chief Executive Ho Hau Wah. Chou was a political heavyweight and fought for the material and human resources which the house needed to perform its duties as prescribed by the Basic Law, under the concept of “one country, two systems.” She attained the resources to make the ground to build the relevance of the Legislative Assembly (AL).

Chou was followed by a discreet, seasoned labor conservative from the Workers Association, allegedly happy to accept the new mission as a lifetime achievement of sorts. Lau Cheoc Va, already bordering seniority, brought the Nam Van house to a smooth mode with a non-assuming leadership style which harshly contrasted with that of Chou’s Legislative Assembly. We would say we went from a zenith to an anti-climax, or if we opt for a musical metaphor, from a Chou vivace to a Lau honorable adagio.

So now we are at a point where we have to wonder what and how Ho Iat Seng intends to make of his presidency. Ripe with controversy, and we mean not only the obvious mishandling of directly-elected Sulu Sou’s suspension but also the imbroglio, the house managed to make the Land Law and the Legislative Assembly look like (without intending any disrespect) a surreal reading of Pirandello at times, in which an Author is in Search of Six Characters and not the other way around. Indeed there were nine, and they were auditioning for democrat roles.

On top of this, Ho decided on the dismissal of two legal advisors. He can do it, indeed, but the idea sounds ill-conceived since a haircut to the pool of the six advisors concerned was to select the longest-serving, best-qualified legal experts to act as a legal and technical buffer to the raw enthusiasm of lawmakers with limited knowledge of legal and political things. To summarize, Ho and the AL board sent a letter to both the dismissed advisors and abstained from referring to anything as justification. Later he mentioned a vague restructuring of the legal advisor apparatus.

Understandably, commotion in the Portuguese legal community followed, both because of the personal inconvenience and the perceived absurdity of the dry dismissal. This is when the Legislative Assembly will need all the expertise available when facing the upcoming gaming law, internal security law and the new electoral law. Outsourcing is not an option, we believe.

Perhaps this commotion can also explain the excessive commentary trying to dilute the dismissal of the two advisors to an imaginary drive to dispense the Portuguese talent. Not really…the dismissal looks like an arbitrary exclusion of both legal advisors* Cardinal and Cabral Taipa. Legislators Ng Kuok Cheong, Sou Ka Hou and Pereira Coutinho sent a letter to the board asking for an explanation and the content says it all: the quality of the legislation and deliberations of the Legislative Assembly has been improving over the years because of their input…they have used their deep understanding in the law to implement the values of the Basic Law.

While we wait to hear the reasoning behind the presumed well-thought-out decision, we sincerely doubt the board will care to give this to the three lawmakers. We’ll stick with Ho’s scarce words: It´s time we part ways; we (AL) go our way, you go yours.

Which way will the Legislative Assembly go? What will Ho make of his presidency of the Macau Legislative, in the footsteps of Chou’s vivace and Lau’s adagio?

*As a disclaimer we have to disclose that the author is a close friend to both legal advisors.