Legislative power

The Legislative Assembly has approved new internal regulations. Much has been said about them. Most comments focus on the initiatives the legislators can take, what they cannot say or show, the timing of this or that type of statement. These are surely important issues. After all, the rules that a political body abides by will determine, in many ways, the results it can achieve. Can we expect the performance of the Assembly to improve under the new rules? Some doubts are legitimate, but that may not even be the main issue.
There is a distinct impression that some rule changes aim to limit the timing or the form of interventions by the members of that chamber. Setting a closed list of the types of statements allowed; setting time frames for certain types of interventions, or trying to limit what they show or how they dress are obviously ways to reduce the discretion of lawmakers on how and when to convey their opinions.
Whether or not these restrictions can or will be enforced in ways that actually will further limit the ability of lawmakers to make their positions known or to communicate them appropriately, only practice will tell. It is, however, possible to see the new regulations as not much more diminishing of the role and status of the Assembly than is already the case – regardless of internal regulations, present or future. Rules count but so also do the ways they are interpreted and used.
The (main) laws of a place define the role of the various political bodies. In the case of Macau, the Basic Law towers over all others. It does not define a parliamentarian regime and, as such, we would not expect the Legislative Assembly to be the heart of the local polity. However, that lesser role was (and is) compatible with various practical arrangements and understandings that might give the Assembly a stronger part in the promotion of our collective interests.
In the end, the actual influence and prestige of a political body depends heavily upon what its members choose to do and how much they are committed to defending and fostering the relevance of the body (and themselves). Some seem to prefer an approach that reduces the Assembly’s role and status below what would be defensible regarding both the letter and the intent of the ‘constitutional’ laws.
Lawmakers’ attitudes, more than anything, will determine what the Assembly can achieve.