Macau (MNA) – Legislators from the 1st Standing Committee of Legislative Assembly (AL) required the government on Tuesday to clarify article 25 in Civil Protection Law involving the criminalisation of spreading rumours and fake news in emergency situations, while suggesting the government amends the current Penal Code instead of adding such provision in the Civil Protection Law.
In Article 25 of the proposed Civil Protection Bill, the government seeks to criminalise the creation and spreading of ‘unfounded or biased news concerning risks, threats, and vulnerabilities’ during emergencies such as a natural disasters.
However, the committee president, Ho Ion Sang, stated that Article 25 had raised concerns within the media community as well as in residents, with committee members not understanding the necessity to specifically establishing a ‘rumour offence’ in the Civil Protection Law since the existing Criminal Law already regulates a similar crime.
“The government had claimed that this legislative work aimed to revamp a ‘grey area’ in criminal law, […] However, the usage of the words of Article 25 basically takes the Penal Code as a reference, thus we don’t understand why the government does not just amend the Penal Code?” Mr. Ho stated.
Meanwhile, as the law on the Control of Contagious Diseases in 2013 also regulated the spreading of rumours with a maximum punishment of 180 days fine or one-year of imprisonment, legislators doubted the need for the punishment proposed in the Civil Protection Law bill.
“Legislators do not understand why Article 25 in Civil Protection Law imposes a maximum of 240 days fine and two-year imprisonment. Therefore, we require the government to explain their justifications,” Mr. Ho mentioned.
In addition, the Committee also highlighted that many articles on the bill are ‘too vague’ while the draft cannot clearly explain the authority structure of the civil protection system.
Today the Macau Portuguese and English Press Association (AIPIM) also sent a letter to the President of the 1st Standing Committee requesting if a meeting could be held to express their concerns over Article 25.
