The government launched a Public Consultation yesterday on the new rules that aim to shape the “Civil Protection Basic Law.”
The proposal, which the authorities submitted for public scrutiny, includes the establishment of a new crime of “false social alarm.”
Those who spread false rumors during “crisis periods” such as catastrophes, accidents, outbreak of diseases or terrorist attacks might be subjected to a new regulation that adds harsher penalties to the ones currently established by the Macau Penal Code.
Under the proposed regulation, the current punishment would be increased from six months’ imprisonment to three years.
The proposed change is part of the “Civil Protection Basic Law”, which was presented and launched by the Secretary for Security Wong Sio Chak yesterday morning.
“We would like to aggravate this penalty for cases [in which the disclosure of false rumors occur] during catastrophe or emergency situations,” said Wong, noting that such sensitive matters can cause social unrest and that people should “join forces” to help instead.
The task of contributing to “social harmony” and the enforcement of more rules also apply to media, with the government addressing the “added responsibility of support on the disclosure of information by the media outlets” in the proposed change.
“I think the media outlets all have freedom of expression but in situations of public risk, I believe that the media also has its [share] or responsibility, that is, of disclosure information that is correct and precise,” explained Wong, adding, “I hope [that] with the current law revision, we can do that.”
“Excluding these risky situations, the way media comments on the governance is not a problem and the media has freedom to do that, but in situations of risk or emergency I think we need to unite the efforts […] by the society, government and media to help the government [manage] the aftermath and reduce the impact of the catastrophe. I believe this is a responsibility to be assumed by everyone,” he continued, reaffirming that “to disclose false or irresponsible information is not [the] right way to react.”
Wong also added that this topic will be separated into two levels of responsibility, noting that “the first level is [regarding] the members of the structure of the civil protection and [those] must follow the government guidelines while disclosing information.”
“As for the others that are not part of the civil protection structure, we are incentivizing and encouraging them to follow the government guidelines. That is, for the first level is mandatory… for the [others] we are incentivizing them to prioritize the news disclosed by the government because these are correct, precise and simple,” the Secretary concluded.
Regarding the behavior of the population, the government has proposed changing the crime of disobedience – which carries the penalty of a one-year imprisonment or a fine of 120 days – to “aggravated disobedience”. Individuals may be charged with aggravated disobedience in situations where the level of security is of “immediate prevention” or above, with an increased penalty of two years’ imprisonment or a fine of 240 days.
In line with the media’s added responsibilities outlined previously, “public servants or responsible people by the companies, concessionaires of television and radio broadcasting are subjected to special duties”, according to the public consultation document in the chapter dedicated to the “Definition of Duties and Responsibilities.”
Non-compliance with these regulations “constitutes the crime of aggravated disobedience and severe disciplinary liability,” the document continues.
The bill, which includes the new Civil Protection structure, named the Secretary for Security as the main party responsible for such a group, which will be equivalent to a Bureau. It also proposes other measures such as the inclusion of a fourth category in the classification of incidents that the Civil Protection would address. In this sense, a “Public Security Incident” is classified under natural catastrophes and accidents as well as “Public Health Incidents”, which are separate from the previous “Catastrophes and Disasters” category.
The document will be in public consultation for 45 days from June 28 to August 11. Responses and opinions can be delivered by mail via the Unitary Police Services, the Internet (in the government official website) and also by telephone and fax.
Special powers given to CE to suspend gambling activities
One of the “Special Measures” introduced by the government as part of the new “Civil Protection Basic Law” in the public consultation document yesterday grants the Chief Executive (CE) special powers to act in cases of emergency. Among this is the power to suspend the operation of casinos in the region.
The measure is proposed in the chapter dedicated to the “Introduction of New Special Measures,” noting that the CE, in the use of non-delegable competencies, can decree the “suspension, or cancellation, of public activities of entertainment, gambling or other large-scale [activities] that have been authorized or carried out by concessionaires.”
As the text notes – and the Secretary for Security Wong Sio Chak also reaffirmed in the press conference held yesterday – this suspension or cancellation can occur in cases where these activities occur and are “vulnerable to incidents or threats of collective risk.”
As Wong explained, such conditions and situations will have to be evaluated “case-by-case” and according to the particular situation, are not subjected to a “simple” hoisting of any warning signal.
The same competencies are also extended to the closure of border checkpoints. The same rules also propose to “request […] telecommunication operators to give priority to the disclosure, free of charge, of civil protection information.”
It is reasonable that the Government should wish to curb spreading of unfounded rumours though one would suspect that nowadays this is more likely to occur through social networks than proper media outlets. This proposed new legislation will definitely constrain journalists and make them more cautious in what they report and thus gives more power to Government Officials. The legislation should be balanced with some provision to make officials more accessible and accountable to the public through the media. For instance if a journalist picks up a story or information, which is difficult to confirm. He should have the right to put it to the appropriate Government Official and expect a reasonable explanation back from the Government within a time limit (24/48 hours?). Failure of the Government to give a reasonable explanation should provide a release from proposed penalties under the new legislation. Perhaps to go further in rebalancing to open accountable government. It should be an offence for a Government Official to mislead the public.