This is going to be an intense week in political affairs. Sulu Sou and Scott Chiang’s trial begins on Tuesday – after the defendants were granted a week’s postponement – the same day the plenary will debate whether or not interference by an external body in deliberations of the Legislative Assembly (AL) on matters of political nature should proceed.
Contrary to what the majority of the plenary has previously claimed – that the suspension of Sou was not a politically motivated decision – the question now somewhat reverses prior statements. Convenience is a handy thing.
The judiciary system is in the spotlight. The case Sou filed with the Court of Second Appeal, in which he requested clarifications about the legality of his suspension as a legislator, will set the bar higher. Impartiality and separation of powers are at stake. Above all, respect for the Basic Law.
If Sou is suspended from his functions in the case to be judged in the Court of First Appeal, this might complicate matters further if the second court rules his suspension was not in accordance with principles established by the regulations of the House Rules Committee as well as the Basic Law.
So while aiming to restrain the dispute within the AL proper, the body politic has created a situation which is already spilling over into spheres they have unlikely foreseen.
Not only has the impact of Sou’s case left a bitter taste in several sectors of Macau’s society – his constituency, the youth and lawyers – it is poised to create a snowballing effect which might escape the control of the plenary.
If the case was not, as claimed, a matter of political pressure, it is, nonetheless, becoming a matter of political capacity, highlighting the extent to which AL members are fit to perform certain tasks pegged to their political functions.
On the legal side of affairs, Macau still has a competent class. Legislators’ work would be handicapped without the assistance of dozens of jurists who get to the nuts and bolts of law proposals in order to make them consistent with major principles guiding the constitution that governs the city.
Legal experts, including the President of the Lawyers Association, Jorge Neto Valente, have highlighted during the course of last week that the AL’s approach to Sou’s case is not a prime example of good use of the political system and machine.
I tend to believe that he and other lawyers in town have reason to be confident that what they are saying is accurate.
Can the city’s legislators claim the same?
