Identifier
Created
Classification
Origin
08HONGKONG2109
2008-11-20 05:01:00
CONFIDENTIAL
Consulate Hong Kong
Cable title:  

MACAU ARTICLE 23 LEGISLATION: A DISTURBING

Tags:  PGOV PHUM MC 
pdf how-to read a cable
VZCZCXRO5306
RR RUEHCN RUEHGH RUEHVC
DE RUEHHK #2109/01 3250501
ZNY CCCCC ZZH
R 200501Z NOV 08
FM AMCONSUL HONG KONG
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC 6269
INFO RUEHOO/CHINA POSTS COLLECTIVE
C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 03 HONG KONG 002109 

SIPDIS

DEPT FOR EAP/CM AND DRL

E.O. 12958: DECL: 11/17/2018
TAGS: PGOV PHUM MC
SUBJECT: MACAU ARTICLE 23 LEGISLATION: A DISTURBING
VAGUENESS

REF: OSC CPP20081031701002

Classified By: Consul General Joe Donovan for reasons 1.4 (b) and (d)

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 03 HONG KONG 002109

SIPDIS

DEPT FOR EAP/CM AND DRL

E.O. 12958: DECL: 11/17/2018
TAGS: PGOV PHUM MC
SUBJECT: MACAU ARTICLE 23 LEGISLATION: A DISTURBING
VAGUENESS

REF: OSC CPP20081031701002

Classified By: Consul General Joe Donovan for reasons 1.4 (b) and (d)


1. (C) Summary and comment: To meet the requirement of
Article 23 of its Basic Law, the Macau Special Administrative
Region Government put forth a draft "Law for Safeguarding
National Security" in a consultation document released
October 22. Macau observers see three deficiencies in the
government's draft bill for Basic Law Article 23 legislation:
a murky process of declaring information a state secret, no
explicit "public interest" consideration for journalists
revealing secret information, and a vague definition of
"preparatory acts" for crimes identified by the law. Other
concerns include the applicability of the law to Macau
citizens outside Macau and the criminalization of spreading
"false or clearly warped" information on behalf of foreign
individuals or organizations. The bill, as currently
drafted, appears to create legal grounds to threaten
investigative journalism and some political activities under
a state secrets rubric. End summary and comment.


2. (C) Macau's Basic Law contains the same Article 23 as Hong
Kong's, which requires each region to "enact laws, on its
own, to prohibit any act of treason, secession, sedition,
subversion against the Central People's Government, or theft
of state secrets, to prohibit foreign political organizations
or bodies from conducting political activities in the Region,
and to prohibit political organizations or bodies of the
Region from establishing ties with foreign political
organizations or bodies." The bill text was included in a
consultation paper released by the Macau Special
Administrative Region Government (MSARG) October 22 for a
forty-day consultation ending November 30 (an informal USG
translation of the bill text is available from Open Source
Center). We discussed the legal issues relevant to the draft
bill with a range of scholars, law professors and
journalists, and attended a seminar at which legislators,
lawyers and journalists discussed the draft. We have also
reviewed relevant Macau laws and scholarly assessments of the
draft bill.

--------------
What is a "Secret"?
--------------


3. (C) The draft bill defines "state secrets" as "documents,

information or items on matters that should be kept
confidential (ying yuyi baomi) because they involve national
defense, diplomacy or other affairs which, as stipulated in
the Basic Law, touch on relations between the central
government and the MSAR." Macau lawyers tell us Macau has no
existing law on state secrets or national security, as the
Portuguese law addressing these matters lost force at the
time of the handover in 1999. The Macau Criminal Code of
1995 addresses protected information in terms of internal
Macau government-level matters handled by civil servants
(Art. 348) and protection of mail and telecommunications from
unauthorized disclosures (Art. 349). Thus, should the bill
become law, the only governing authority for state secrets in
Macau would be the "certifications" of specific documents
issued by the Chief Executive after consultation with the
Central Government, per Article 6, Section V of the draft.
These determinations would be fixed and final for purposes of
a criminal case.


4. (C) Our interlocutors regard this provision as vague and
open-ended in several respects. First, the act of obtaining
a certification for purposes of a criminal case into illegal
revelation of state secrets implies the document in question
was not already marked as secret. On that basis, some
observers believe the bill might grant the central government
the right retroactively to declare almost anything a secret.
One legal scholar, University of Macau Law Professor Jorge
Godinho, contends that the draft only criminalizes revealing
secrets related to foreign affairs, national defense, and
central government-Macau communications. He therefore
concludes that the courts and the government should not be
able to seek a certification about a matter outside these
areas. For example, Godinho argues, financial matters should
not be declared secrets for which disclosure would constitute
a crime.


5. (C) Second, both Godinho and Macau lawyer Nuno Lima Bastos
note that the scope of "relations between the central
government and the MSAR" covers a range of issues that goes
far beyond foreign and defense matters. A strict reading of
the Macau Basic Law indicates that, in addition to its
purview over foreign and security affairs, the central
government has either an explicit role in, or is reported to

HONG KONG 00002109 002 OF 003


concerning:

-- Interpretation of the Basic Law and the work of the Macau
Basic Law Committee;

-- The appointment of the Chief Executive and principal
officials, including the Procurator General and judges;

-- All legislation passed by the Legislative Assembly;

-- Applicability of national laws to Macau;

-- Court cases which may touch on areas of national
significance;

-- Emigration to Macau, Macau's negotiation of visa-free
travel regimes with other countries/territories, and the
issuance of passports;

-- Civil aviation arrangements;

-- Macau's continued autonomy in external agreements and
organizations, as well as the validity of contracts, from
prior to the handover; and

-- Macau's establishment of trade missions overseas.

As noted above, there are no criteria in either the draft or
any other law cited by our contacts that defines the basis
for declaring communications in any of these areas as secret.

--------------
Who Defines the Public Interest?
--------------

6.(C) The draft states "if a person steals, pries into, or
buys state secrets", he commits an offense unishable by two
to eight years' imprisonment. he terms for"buying"
(shoumai) or "stealing" (qequ) are straightforward, making
use of unambiguus terms in Chinese. "Prying into" (citan)
is a uch less precise term, the meaning of which could
include approaching confidential sources. The draft includes
no public interest defense for journalists revealing secret
information. The Macau Law on Publications provides
extensive rights to journalists to cover issues, to approach
a range of sources for information, and to report critically
on actions of the government. However, the Law on
Publications specifically forbids approaching sources for
information deemed secret in a judicial proceeding, state
secrets of relevant government entities (undefined),
materials deemed secret by law (also undefined),or matters
related to personal privacy.


7. (C) Article 30 of the 1995 Macau Criminal Code does define
"justified defense" (zhengdang fangwei) as a general legal
excuse from prosecution, but none of our contacts felt it
would automatically allow a "public interest" defense for
journalists under the draft bill. Even the question of who
might rule that there was a "public interest" in the
revelation of a particular secret is unclear. Macau
University Law Professor Luo Weijian told us confidently that
the judge would have discretion at least to rule on the
"damage" done to national interests by revelation of a
secret; to date no one else to whom we have spoken concurs in
this interpretation. In any event, our contacts have little
faith in the largely Mainland-trained Macau judiciary's
breadth of legal perspectives or resistance to political
pressure.

--------------
What Constitutes a "Preparatory Act"?
--------------


9. (C) Article 9 of the draft declares that "preparatory
acts" for any of the criminalized behaviors of treason or
revealing state secrets are punishable by three years'
imprisonment. The consultation paper offers no further
details beyond indicating such preparatory acts need to be
punished but, since no serious crime would have been
committed at the time of apprehension, the penalty should be
"comparatively light"; i.e. three years in jail. While the
vagueness of the definitions on secrecy is discussed above,
the treason and sedition clauses at least carry a fairly
specific condition of use of violence or incitement to others
to use violence. However, Article 9 in no way makes explicit
how an act is determined to be preparatory to commit such an
offense. Intentionality is not considered in the text, nor
is any specific threshold (gathering weapons, establishing
illegal funding sources, formation of an organization for the
purpose of committing a criminal act, etc.)

HONG KONG 00002109 003 OF 003



--------------
Other Areas of Concern
--------------


10. (C) Macau contacts are concerned about the applicability
of the law to acts committed outside Macau. Article 12
Section II states "the present law also applies to MSAR
residents who commit acts stipulated in Articles 2, 3, 4, 5,
and 9 outside of the MSAR." A concern not mentioned by our
contacts as yet is Article 8/II/(II)/1's ban on working with
foreign organizations or individuals in "collecting,
preparing, or openly spreading false (xujia) or obviously
warped information (mingxian yousuo waiqude xiaoxi)." The
consultation document offers nothing further defining
standards of falsehood or "warpedness". The question would
be whether this standard of law could be used against those
reporting on scandals or making critical evaluations of
government performance (alleging their information is
"false") or against groups like Falun Gong (alleging their
information is "obviously warped".)
DONOVAN