Sulu Sou speaks to reporters while exiting the TJB
The Court of First Instance (TJB) found suspended lawmaker Sulu Sou and activist Scott Chiang guilty of a co-authored act of unlawful assembly, which was charged under the framework of aggravated disobedience.
The two defendants were sentenced with a 120-day fine each. That amounts to a fine of MOP40,800 for Sou and MOP27,600 for Chiang, with the difference explained by a one-third reduction for Chiang because of his current financial situation.
The sentence was known yesterday evening when the court gathered to present the conclusion and sentence after the trial.
It took approximately one hour for the judge in charge of the process to explain the conclusions reached by the court, which considered the large majority of the accusations as proved, with the exception of a few details.
During the reading of the sentence, the judge repeatedly referred to the “intentions” of the defendants to have the demonstration take place close to the Santa Sancha Palace, the official residence of the Chief Executive (CE). Judge Cheong Weng Tong said it was “clear since Chiang applied for the demonstration to the Civic and Municipal Affairs Bureau that he aimed to reach this location.”
Besides the intentions of the defendants, the judge also noted that both Chiang and Sou were already experienced in organizing demonstrations and they should be well aware of the law and the fact they were “breaking” it by changing the route of the protest and by not following the orders of the police.
In fact, and as mentioned also by Judge Cheong, the crime for which Sou and Chiang were sentenced relates to the organization and leadership of an unlawful assembly at the area of the CE’s official residence, as opposed to the more broad charge of aggravated disobedience. “They knew it and they continued,” she said, recalling that previous sentences from the Court of Final Appeal have already defined clearly the concept of “unlawful assembly.”
The awareness of the “unlawful” nature of their activities, together with their intentions, show some premeditation. This led the court to conclude that there was a “willful misconduct” from the leaders of the protest who, during the process, “urged” other participants “even if in a veiled way.”
As for the justifications given by the defendants, Judge Cheong said they “infringe on the principles of common sense and are not acceptable by the court.”
During the reading, and while Chiang remained standing and looking up, Sou, on several occasions, expressed his disapproval by shaking his head.
In the end and while noting that the attitude of the defendants “is not praiseworthy,” the court also took into account that both had never been convicted for any crimes and that “the conduct was not violent and didn’t last for a long period of time.” For these reasons that the court considered the penalty of “deprivation of liberty” disproportionate, opposing the proposal of the prosecution that asked for a prison sentence for both.
Closing the session, Judge Cheong left a last piece of advice, delivered in a maternalistic manner. “We have to accept our own conducts,” she said, “even when we are acting with the purpose of protecting the population of Macau, we must do that in accordance with the law.”
Three other new macau members to be investigated
ALMOST CLOSING the court session at the TJB yesterday, it was revealed that three other members of the “New Macau Association,” including the president, Kam Sut Leng, will face an investigation and possible prosecution following the case of Sou and Chiang. As the judge of the case mentioned, “a court certificate has been extracted from this case and after this process [it] will be delivered to the Public Prosecutions Office that will open an investigation procedure.” That will fall on Kam and two other New Macau members that have been identified in the process as participants of the “illegal” protest. Commenting on the situation, Sulu Sou said, “we are worried that freedom of speech or of opinion will be tightened [restricted] after this case and that everyone [will feel] they are in a risky [situation] when they express their opinion without permission from the authorities.”
No Comments