Even when negotiations between Portuguese and Chinese diplomats were going on over Macau’s handover and the hottest of topics were under discussion, it was being argued that the Commissioner Against Corruption (CCAC) should have the power to intervene in the private sector.
At a time when the Portuguese still administrated in Macau and Aragão Seia was the Commissioner – despite the fact that there was no love lost between him and Governor Rocha Vieira – we in the Portuguese newspaper Ponto Final, said that to have a commissioner with no power to investigate the private sector amounted to creating a toothless tiger. This opinion was shared by the commissioner himself, a judge and a thoroughly decent and honest man, who sadly, has passed away.
Over a decade later, we still feel the same and our opinion – which was once a minority view – is now shared by the majority. The CCAC’s powers have been reviewed and amplified and the institution now has the power to investigate the private sector, an area that possesses an uncanny tendency to be the source of public corruption.
The first step has been taken but the second is a much more difficult one to take. This broadening of powers and responsibilities should only have happened after the CCAC had full capacity to perform its functions. It is inconceivable and unacceptable to have an official who publicly declares that the institution can’t investigate without whistle blowers, as happened in the Primedia (or Prime Marketing) case. We can do without someone who sleeps on the job, who doesn’t initiate investigations, who is unable to read between the lines while reading and who, overall, only investigates when the media gets anonymous calls.
An official who prioritises public denouncements is a person completely unaware of his responsibilities and, therefore, is not suitable to perform at the level people expect of him. Increasing the powers of an immature entity is worse than having a toothless tiger, not to mention potentially dangerous.
The strange – yet unsurprising – decision of the Government Information Bureau (GCS) to directly award the lucrative 10 Years of Macau SAR exhibition contract to Primedia, was all over the newspapers when we were hit with the Alexandre Ho case.
The former Consumer Council president, indicted on corruption charges, took his own life in Zhuhai. Unemployed, ill and with his reputation shattered, he succumbed to depression and shame. Eight months after being indicted, Ho’s case hadn’t even reached the Public Prosecutor’s Office. The matter was still being handled by the CCAC, which can afford to be “lazy” since it enjoys exceptional powers and hasn’t heard of deadlines.
We share the balanced opinion of other analysts: no-one can say that this apparent lack of action caused Ho’s suicide. It’s clearly not a case of cause and effect. What we can say is that a state of perpetual lack of clarity, as well as automatic public apportioning of blame and the impossibility of proving one’s innocence – if that’s the case – and clearing one’s name and reputation, can deeply affect a person.
Why did the CCAC refrain from acting? What difficulties did it face while investigating a case that apparently involved only two people, a few direct adjudications and as little as MOP20,000 in bribery? We don’t know, but the truth is that the CCAC didn’t act and, if the CCAC takes eight months to investigate an apparently minor case, it’s little wonder that in the Ao Man Long case, years have passed without any further progress.
Can it be that we have a CCAC only able to investigate a MOP100 cases? A body with the nouse and initiative only to investigate lesser questions? Unfortunately, it appears so. If this is the case, then it’s better for it to remain as it was, because as the old Portuguese saying goes "For a bad thing, one is enough".

by: Paulo A. Azevedo