Pro-democratic groups file court appeal on referendum assemblies

Pro-democratic groups organizing a civil referendum on universal suffrage will be filing an appeal at court today after the Civic and Municipal Affairs Bureau (IACM) rejected all their attempts to hold a total of 10 assemblies designed to promote the ballot. By resorting to a court appeal, political activist Jason Chao said they are “putting Macau’s rule of law to test.”
The president of the Open Macau Society, one of the three groups involved in launching an unofficial referendum on electoral reform, told the Times that they will be filling an appeal at the Court of Final Appeal (TUI) today, after having received IACM’s answers on the requests they had submitted.
The pro-democratic groups had filed a total of three requests within IACM; one regarded an assembly scheduled to take place yesterday; another related to an assembly due to be held today; and finally a request for organizing eight more assemblies next week.
All requests have been rejected by IACM, Jason Chao confirmed. However, the way IACM has notified the pro-democratic groups of its decisions triggered a series of accusations between Open Macau Society and the bureau.
The decision on the first assembly, to be held on July 24, was provided to the group 24 hours prior to the scheduled event.
In the letter, IACM made it clear: the constitution of the People’s Republic of China and the Macau Basic Law do not have an established system for a referendum. “A so-called referendum challenges and damages the national constitution and the Basic Law, no matter [whether] it is being organized by the government or [by a] civil society. It is completely incompatible with the legal status of the MSAR,” it reads.
IACM based its decision on the law regulating freedom of assembly and demonstration, highlighting articles number two and six. Article two, for instance, stipulates that holding assemblies or demonstrations, whose aims go against the law, is not allowed.
In statements provided to local media this week, IACM hinted that it would reject any activities related to the referendum.
As a first reaction to this decision, the three pro-democratic groups handed a petition letter to IACM yesterday. Until noon, when they met reporters at IACM, Open Macau Society had only received a reply from IACM regarding two assemblies. Pro-democratic groups were still waiting for a decision on eight additional assemblies scheduled for next week.
Therefore, they accused the bureau of stalling the process, trying to prevent them from filling a court appeal, since IACM was delivering its decisions too close to the planned activities.
Generally, IACM should inform those who have submitted a request to hold a protest or assembly 48 hours prior to the event’s commencement. However, in cases related to article number two, IACM is only required to provide a decision as late as 24 hours before the event.
The pro-democratic groups only received an answer from the IACM regarding Wednesday’s assembly the day before it was set to take place. Regarding today’s event they were notified by IACM yesterday morning.
While handing in a petition letter yesterday at noon, Jason Chao said that if the bureau did not provide an answer on the remaining eight assemblies, they would probably not meet the schedule necessary to appeal the decision in court. They went even further to accuse IACM of abuse of power.
Later in the afternoon, the bureau issued a statement accusing Open Macau Society of sharing with the press facts that were untrue. IACM stressed it had already replied to the group regarding the remaining assemblies. And therefore denied any attempts to delay the process, or prevent pro-democratic groups from appealing through the courts.
Contacted by the Times, Jason Chao explained that Open Macau Society had not yet received the latest IACM’s decision when they spoke to the press. He claims that IACM only drafted a third letter yesterday afternoon. Besides, the political activist said IACM had sent a letter with the wrong address.
“All letters were identical; they just copy pasted and changed the time, date, and corrected an address on the last one,” said Jason Chao, confirming that IACM refused all their requests to hold the 10 assemblies.
The group issued a statement yesterday evening saying they were extremely disappointed with IACM’s handling of this case. “They deliberately misinterpreted our accusations,” it reads.
Having all the required documents to hand now, Open Macau Society is appealing to the Court of Final Appeal today. Asked if they are confident the court could revert the situation – as has occurred previously with pro-democratic groups activities – Jason Chao said the referendum “is the most sensitive issue of all we have dealt with.”
“The sensitivity of the issue goes beyond the Macau government. This case is different because the Chinese government has already criticized [the referendum],” he stressed.
Believing that they will be putting MSAR’s rule of law to test, Jason Chao said that judges who were born in Portugal or have a Portuguese educational background are more inclined to rule in favor of human rights, rather than those who have a Chinese background, who are likely to rule in favor of pro-establishment ideals.
The court’s decision is due to be released within five days.
The Open Macau Society, Macau Youth Dynamics, and Macau Conscience are jointly organizing an unofficial referendum on electoral reform, universal suffrage, and ultimately on democracy.
A similar ballot took place in Hong Kong last month when a total of 792,808 voters took part in a referendum on universal suffrage. Macau’s ballot is due to take place between August 24 and 31.

plan b not disclosed for security reasons

Jason Chao stressed yesterday that if all attempts to hold assemblies fail, they have a plan B, but declined to disclose any further details “for security reasons.”
If denied a public place in which to hold the assemblies – and even the ballot itself – the groups have said that a back-up plan is already in the making. “If no public place is granted, we will still be able to serve our purpose,” Jason Chao said, although he did not confirm whether or not they will be able to use private venues.

*with João Pedro Lau