Daniel Beitler
The Macau government likes to remind the public that it is conducting its affairs according to the law.
Listen to the Secretary for Security or the Secretary for Administration and Justice speak for half an hour and they are likely to utter the phrase, “according to the law.”
The fact that these officials feel the need to constantly remind us that the government is conducting its business “according to the law” is very telling.
One must wonder: what sort of institution might need to remind its citizens or consumers that it is abiding by the rules expected of it?
Imagine if a government or business leader declared, on a regular basis, that they had not appropriated or misused public funds or the firm’s capital. It would be suspicious.
The presumption would be that they have misused or appropriated funds on occasion – just not this time. A sort of sober-since-situation… or it’s been x-number of days since we last broke the law.
The context of the phrase “according to the law” is also revealing. We rarely see it used as, “according to the law, the government must…”, but rather more often as, “everything will be done according to the law.”
The first context refers to a specific case; a specific law that mandates a particular government response. The second is vague and non-specific, and translates as, “trust us, we know what we’re doing.”
A quick search on the Macau Daily Times website brings up two articles with titles including the ambiguous phrase: “Police actions to fight Uber were all done according to the law” and “Coloane Hill skyscraper case to be handled according to the law” – both examples of the latter context.
Secretary for Security Wong Sio Chak has used it on several notable occasions to justify government behavior without having to defend a specific measure.
“All speech needs to be controlled within the law, […] it is not absolutely free, including speech online. We are supervising according to the law,” he said earlier this year in defense of the cyber security law.
Wong made similar comments regarding police body cameras and surveillance systems in the Coloane penitentiary after concerns were raised over whether they might violate privacy laws.
On the matter of several Hong Kong lawmakers, journalists, and political activists being barred from entering Macau in the aftermath of Typhoon Hato, Wong said that the police force had “judged each individual case according to the law.”
Even Chief Executive Chui Sai On is fond of the phrase. He has used it to describe the government confiscation of land plots that were formerly owned by idle developers, noting that “all the measures were taken according to the law.”
It’s all very well that the government is formulating and implementing policies according to the law, but what about the occasions when an executive or legislative decision appears to violate it? That determination falls to the courts, which tend to agree (at least partially) with the establishment’s position.
The best example is in the case of Sulu Sou’s suspension; a process riddled with illegal procedures, according to the lawmaker and most legal professionals in Macau.
The courts’ reaction? It might not be according to the law, but it’s not our place to judge.
No Comments