The debate has now changed: the Law approving special judges and banning lawyers has been passed, and it remains to be seen what its application culture will be in the courts and in the National Security Defense Commission. In line with the spirit of the times, the law of the Central Authority prevails, and the absolute priority of National Security over the original intent of the legislature; rights, freedoms, and guarantees; values of autonomy; and international image.
There is no surprise; perhaps not even a drama – it does not have to be. However, avoiding it now depends entirely on those who make the decisions. China is far from being a unique case when the advent of National Security leads states to devalue rights, freedoms, and guarantees. The Covid pandemic showed this well around the world; Guantanamo is a beacon of evidence that the United States, for example, lacks even the minimum of morality in this matter.
Also read: Macau Bar Association expresses agreement with the improvement of the regime of the State Security Defense Commission
The Secretary-General of the Association of Macau Lawyers, Oriana Pun, clearly understands this in the way she supports the Government Law. But she also knows what is omitted in that text: first, the class she represents, which is directly affected, is divided – if not against it – and second, the accused had more protection in the Basic Law, Criminal Procedure Code, and in the Statute of Lawyers different from what it has now in the National Security Law; finally, as any lawyer knows; one thing is the Law, another is its culture of application.
With the debate on the Law, which in fact did not take place, now comes what actually matters: how does China expect Macau to implement this Law? There is no room for debate on the evidence that this is defined by the Central Authority – and not locally. In other words: will the special judges be the best prepared; or those who prefer to defend the State against the citizen? What is the real criterion for disqualifying lawyers? What are the true mechanisms for defending the accused? Ultimately… is there any shred of security for citizens against potential errors by the State?
Also read: National Security Defense and the Judicial Mandate
The difference between today’s Macau – and yesterday’s – or for countries like Portugal, United States, or Canada, is that there are fewer and fewer “checks and balances”: legislative power, courts, corporate orders, even the press… are becoming increasingly available – or submissive – to the priorities of power; and local power does not even interpret or negotiate with central power – compliance is enough. It is true that this guarantees more political harmony and economic potential for everyone. That’s life…
But it is also true – and this shapes our lives – that we are one step closer to the autonomy that Beijing always repeats should be different in Macau; that we are supposed to benefit from; and, through it, better serve China. Specifically in opening up to the outside world: the ability to attract investment and a critical mass of foreigners; and the mission of projecting to the world the advantages of the Second System.
The Security Law does not expose a problem that China faces with the West. It is rather a much more important debate about the relationship between the State and its citizens – worldwide. And, by the way, it is also about the state of autonomy of the Macao Special Administrative Region and its relationships: with the citizen, the Central Authority, and the rest of the world… The law itself loses points; it remains to be seen whether it can still win when it shows how it is applied.
