Secretary Wong defends ‘special missions’ phrase as PJ bill approved

The Legislative Assembly (AL) yesterday approved an amendment of the Judiciary Police (PJ) Bill, Law No. 5/2006, which outlines responsibilities, powers and penalties for police officers from this branch of law enforcement.
Secretary for Security Wong Sio Chak, together with other high-ranking officials from the security forces, brought the revised bill to the AL for a final reading. The latest version of the law includes four new provisions.
One of the new articles entitles the PJ to use seized items. The items must be designated as belonging to the Macau SAR and they must be useful for the bureau’s actions.
The law also added 10 types of extreme violation of discipline which are subject to mandatory retirement or suspension. These behaviors include insulting detainees, not offering help when it should be rendered, consuming drugs, drink-driving – which poses severe threats to society and to work duties – and more. These behaviors can be made subject to a disciplinary procedure within 10 years.
According to the new law, the Chief Executive has the right to exempt some specific PJ officers from revealing their identity, for example those on “special missions”.
Some lawmakers expressed that the local government had hitherto been transparent in terms of police officers’ identity in the past, however were concerned about the use of the phrase “special mission.” Lawmaker Sulu Sou said the term was ambiguous and should be better defined.
Wong disagreed that the term was ambiguous, adding that the amendment had been the fruit of enormous discussion among AL legal advisors and the government. Once again, the secretary rebutted criticism of the bill by explaining that protection for such officers was standard practice and is implemented in many countries in the world, including in the West.
As for other safeguards, the Secretary explained to the AL plenary that officers whose identity is not revealed to the public must still inform those being confronted face-to-face during a PJ investigation that he or she is a police officer. This would include when searching a person’s body or when taking action with a warrant. When a police officer requests assistance from a person for an investigation, the officer is already “enforcing the law and must reveal [his or her] identity.”
However, when the police officers are still undergoing the process of any action which does not require face-to-face confrontation, the concerned individuals do not need to reveal their identity.
“If there are any suspects, any disagreement or any violation, the public can also report the case. The report mechanism remains the same as what exists now,” said the Secretary.
Some lawmakers expressed that Macau is a small place and even if the government conceals the identity, these officers’ identities will be known easily.
Wong believes that although Macau is a small place and people’s identity is easily confirmed, from the perspective of the law, the officers must be protected. As for the practical difficulties, Wong did not elaborate.