Before they are journalists, they are people – Macau residents who now face the possibility of up to three years in prison for what prosecutors describe as “disrupting the functioning of organs of the Macau Special Administrative Region.” Regardless of the facts of the case, this sets a troubling precedent for society as a whole and raises broader questions about the kind of city we live in.
The matter is now before the courts, where restraint and sound judgment are essential.
Macau’s legal tradition has long embraced an important principle – one that practice has gradually eroded: there is the letter of the law, and then there is the culture of its application, which takes into account context, precedent, and the broader impact of a judgment.
Let us be clear: the incident happened. There was shouting, confrontation, and conflict with staff at the Legislative Assembly. Such conduct is incompatible with the role of a journalist, jeopardizes the right of access, and does nothing to defend either the profession or press freedom. But the issue extends far beyond that. All About Macau, which has since ceased operations, believed it was being targeted and obstructed in its journalistic work – not only in this case, but in several others.
The elephant in the room is that there was an open conflict between that online news outlet and the public authorities. Neither side can claim legitimacy. While all journalists are entitled to equal treatment, it is also true that this publication went beyond legitimate criticism and press freedom, turning itself into an instrument of opposition that was consistently anti-establishment.
This model exists in other systems, such as the Anglo-Saxon and Portuguese media traditions. At this newspaper, however, we reject that approach, both as a matter of conviction and editorial positioning. Independence does not mean becoming polemical. Defending freedom and critical journalism is one thing; embracing permanent confrontation is another, because doing so ultimately undermines independence itself and weakens the ability to defend the public’s right to information.
Context also matters. In a city without a genuine media market, journalism survives because the system recognizes its importance and provides support – a reality that should be acknowledged. Everyone in Macau also knows that institutional reactions to open confrontation can be severe. The line is a fine one, and navigating the middle ground requires maturity. One should not act in ways that are self-defeating.
The arrest of the reporters outside the Legislative Assembly immediately signaled the official response. Then came the charges. Now comes the trial. We should approach the matter seriously. What is being judged is conduct – the disruption of official proceedings – not theft, corruption, or physical assault. It is difficult to accept the idea that what occurred warrants an effective prison sentence. And if that happens, it will inevitably reinforce the perception that harsh treatment of journalists carries unavoidable consequences.
No one can ask the courts to decide political questions. But social harmony, context, and mitigating circumstances are fundamental pillars of the legal system and of the identity of Macau’s legal order. It will not be difficult to establish that there was disruption, because there was, and there are numerous witnesses to that fact. What remains to be seen is how severe – or how flexible – the court will be.
This is not a matter of professional solidarity. A journalist working for this newspaper would not be permitted to behave in that manner, under any circumstances or toward anyone. Journalists everywhere must deal with pressure – as they do throughout the world – with professionalism and maturity.
And every citizen, whether a journalist or not, must face the consequences of breaking the law. The question now is whether the system is capable of demonstrating proportionality and common sense. Because even if a legal basis for imprisonment can be found – and we hope it cannot – a prison sentence in a case like this will inevitably leave the impression, justified or not, that it is being used to silence dissenting voices.
Irrational, illegitimate – or even unlawful – conduct is just that. It is nothing more than that. Macau will be a better city if the court recognizes this. It is a significant opportunity.
