Forgive me for starting with these conceivably impertinent considerations. Movie lovers are well aware of the importance of the soundtrack when watching (and listening) to a story told through a camera. Music lovers are also aware that some tunes and lyrics made for very distinct purposes seem, sometimes, to fit surprisingly well other situations in our collective existence. You will understand, then, that when reading about the many issues raised by the jailing of the former Public Prosecutor, one may not avoid feeling this is a new version of an old movie, with a familiar tune playing in the background. One main topic of contention in the process is that the accused does not have access to an appeal procedure. Big surprise? Not so fast! That is a distinctive, if not necessarily proudly advertised feature of our legal system. I remember that same issue popped up some years ago when another high official was arrested under similar circumstances. Then, as now, he had no appeal mechanism. Other times those were, maybe, and fewer complaints were heard then (or perhaps it is only my memory betraying me). But even in those now seemingly not so remote times anymore, explanations were put forward. Yes, many people were aware of that soft spot in our legal system, but nobody felt the need to deal with it. Yes, solutions could have been devised but, after all, no-one ever thought that the need would arise. Leaving for the most enthusiastic readers the judgment about the (extreme?) naiveté or cynicism of such justification, the question facing us now is that such an appeal mechanism is still missing. No-one thought it would ever be needed again? The right of appeal is a basic element in any legal system that aims at fairness and is not shy about proclaiming the primacy of the rule of law. That we find ourselves in this situation again is not only a disservice to the standing of the legal system, but it also leaves all those who might have done anything about it in a less than favourable light. Meanwhile, a newspaper raised issues about the possible limitations of the Higher Court judges to join in the trial. The clarification volunteered by the Court, as reproduced by the governments press office, only heightens our sense of perplexity. It mentions that such impeachment only affects the foreign judge that was involved in the initial preparation of the process. I was not aware that foreign was a professional category in the judicial professions, and I still do not know what to make of it. I cannot even fathom why someone felt the need to highlight that (distinctive?) feature of the official involved, why that was felt to be relevant or necessary at all. I would appreciate it if someone among my possibly benevolent readers could provide me with some guidance on this matter.
Top Stories
RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR
【時事評論】困境未盡 艱難前行
一場新冠疫情,令2020成為人類百年一遇的世紀疫年,8千多萬人感染、逾182萬人死亡; 封城之下,環球經濟大衰退,苦不堪言。儘管疫苗已面世,但距全球有效防疫的目標仍然遙遠。展望2021仍是個艱難年頭,對澳門而言挑戰大過機遇,各位宜有心理準備,保持鬥志,做好防守。
OPINION – Soft figures
The ongoing economic slump has visible implications in casino revenues, visitor flows, and hotel occupation....
【主編前言】諮詢的作用
早前特區政府就南灣湖C區兩份興建司法機關的規劃條件圖作公示,及後在城規會聽取城規會議上交委員討論,並獲大部分委員支持。該兩份規劃圖是關於在現有初院刑事大樓、終審法院及中級法院大樓旁邊,分別興建法院及檢察院、法院設施。近初級法院院的大樓可建最高五十點八米。公示期間兩份規劃圖收到百三份反對意見,主要擔心樓高影響歷史城區,冀降低建築高度。
【總監之言】極具建設性
批判性思維是否值得鼓勵?初步答案似乎明顯“是”,但在《澳門青年政策(2021-2030)》諮詢文件中,這變成了一個相當微不足道的問題。上一個十年(2012-2020年)的藍圖確切地描述了培養具有“批判思維和獨立思考能力”的年輕一代的重要性;然而,在新提出的《政策》版本中,則以“較輕”的態度描述這些特質,因收集所得意見的偏好而捨棄了有關措辭,選擇用“審辨思維”描述“審視和辨識的能力”。根據社會文化司司長的解釋,導致改變用詞的背後原因是之前文件所使用的表述“批判”具有某種貶義或負面含義;她強調,歡迎持批評態度,但應該具有建設性。