Secretary for Security Chan Tsz King and Judicial Police Service Director Sit Chong Meng attended as observers.
According to Leong, the government representatives explained the legislation creates a dedicated expenditure framework for national security matters, with funds allocated from the SAR’s general revenue.
On the specific quantum of national security funding, Leong said no figures were disclosed. Committee members focused primarily on the extent of future transparency. He noted concerns over oversight mechanisms, to which the government responded that strict internal monitoring protocols would be established.
Annual reports would be submitted to legislators to account for fund control and management.
The government further clarified that, following amendments to the Budget Framework Law, such expenditures would not require legislative scrutiny or public disclosure. However, annual reports would still be tabled before the assembly and could be made public, with specific content subject to legislators’ determination.
A Legislative Assembly adviser added that the Chief Executive, as head of the SAR and chair of the national security committee, would also exercise oversight and could, if necessary, request assistance from the Commission Against Corruption or the Audit Commission.
Regarding Article 3(4) of the bill—which stipulates that “decisions made by other entities based on the committee’s opinions shall not be subject to appeal or litigation”—the adviser noted that existing legislation, including the Chief Executive Election Law and the Legislative Assembly Election Law, already specifies which such decisions are exempt from appeal.
The bill’s proposer agreed to amend the provision to clarify that only “decisions and opinions of the national security committee itself” would be exempt. Whether decisions by other entities remain appealable would depend on relevant laws.
Some legislators queried how the committee would function if both the Chief Executive and Secretary for Security were absent from Macau.
Leong cited government explanations: the Secretary for Security would act as chair if the Chief Executive is away; if both are absent during an emergency, the acting Chief Executive could convene and preside. Corresponding amendments would be made to Articles 5(2) and 10(2) to codify this operational framework.
