Denial of the Right to Assembly for Migrant Workers
In February 2021, the Public Security Police Force (CPSP) refused to accept a prior notice of assembly submitted by Burmese migrant workers who wished to organise a protest against the military coup in Myanmar.
The CPSP stated that article 1(1) of the Right of Assembly and Demonstration law (Law no. 2/93/M) accords the right to peaceful assembly to Macau residents only, and that migrant workers, classified as “non-residents”, do not enjoy this right. Legal scholars criticised this narrow interpretation, noting that article 43 of the Basic Law extends certain rights to all persons who lawfully stay in Macau and that the right to assembly is a fundamental right protected by the ICCPR.
The CPSP further claimed that the ICCPR “is not applied directly in Macau and must be applied indirectly through local legislation” based on article 40 of the Basic Law. This interpretation contradicts the position that international human rights law does not link the protection of the right to freedom of assembly to citizenship.
Abuse of “Purposes Contrary to the Law”
The police have relied upon article 2 of the Right of Assembly and Demonstration law (Law no. 2/93/M) to ban assemblies on politically sensitive topics. This provision prohibits assemblies “for purposes contrary to the law”.
In Court of Final Appeal (TUI) case no. 94/2019, the TUI upheld the police’s ban on a demonstration against the treatment of peaceful protesters by the Hong Kong police. The court ruled that the organisers’ right to assembly was not protected because their criticism of the Hong Kong police was “unfounded”. This ruling effectively allows the police to ban any assembly deemed politically intolerable by the authorities.
Low Tolerance for Peaceful Protests
The police have adopted a broad definition of “assembly” and enforce criminal sanctions for gatherings held without prior notice, creating a chilling effect on spontaneous expression.
- The mere display of placards in public places has been treated as an “assembly” requiring prior notice.
- Nearly all peaceful assemblies without prior notification are dispersed if detected by the police; the exercise of restraint is not the norm.
- In November 2021, 16 Filipino migrant workers were taken to a police station for questioning after holding placards in support of candidates in the Philippine presidential election.
- In September 2019, two students who held placards near their school in support of the pro-democracy movement in Hong Kong were warned by police of the legal consequences of holding an “illegal assembly”.
Police Recording and Retention of Images from Demonstrations
Evidence indicates that the police retain images and recordings from demonstrations indefinitely. In the surveillance files used to justify the disqualification of election candidates in 2021, some photographs were taken as long as 11 years earlier, showing candidates’ participation in vigils commemorating the Tiananmen Square Incident in 2010.
There is no legal limit on the retention period for such recordings, and there exists no effective avenue for individuals to challenge the authorities’ use and retention of these images.
Suppression of Opinion Polls on Macau’s Political System
Organisers of opinion polls on Macau’s political system have faced police harassment and threats to their personal safety:
- In 2014, despite a court ruling that a non-binding vote constitutes a lawful opinion poll, the Office for Protection of Personal Data (GPDP) used data protection legislation to ban the processing of personal data for a mock referendum on Macau’s political system. The organisers were arrested. Although they were eventually acquitted more than five years later, the criminal proceedings irreversibly impeded Macau residents’ right to express their views on universal suffrage at the time.
- In 2019, the organisers of a similar vote were forced to close it prematurely after members encountered threats to their personal safety originating from both Macau and mainland China.
Observations by UN Treaty Bodies
Human Rights Committee (July 2022)
The Committee expressed concern about increased reports of undue restrictions on peaceful assembly, including the banning of assemblies for promoting “purposes contrary to the law” under Article 2 of Law no. 2/93/M, while there is no statutory definition of this phrase. It noted with concern the application of criminal provisions such as Articles 298 and 300 of the Penal Code to ban peaceful assemblies, including events in June 2021 to commemorate the Tiananmen Square protests.
The Committee remained concerned that migrant workers were denied permission to hold assemblies because of their residency status, and about insufficient safeguards against the abuse of police recordings made during demonstrations.
The Committee urged Macau, China to:
- Bring all laws and practices governing peaceful assembly into full compliance with the Covenant;
- Review Article 2 of Law no. 2/93/M and clarify the definition of “purposes contrary to the law” to prevent arbitrary interpretation;
- Ensure the right to freedom of assembly for all persons regardless of nationality or residency status; and
- Develop guidelines to ensure that police use of recording devices during assemblies is consistent with international privacy standards.
(CCPR/C/CHN-MAC/CO/2, paras. 38–39)
Recommendations
MRG has recommended that the relevant UN treaty bodies urge Macau, China to:
- Respect the right to freedom of assembly of migrant workers regardless of residency status and nationality;
- Refrain from arbitrarily interpreting “purposes contrary to the law” as a ground for banning assemblies;
- Refrain from interfering with public gatherings that pose no threat to public order;
- Regulate the use, retention and destruction of images and recordings of demonstrations; and
- Respect Macau residents’ right to freely express their opinions on the political system of Macau, including through mock referendums.