Depiction of the Freedom of the Press and Access to Sources of Information for Working

Depiction of the freedom of the press and access to sources of information for working

journalists in Macau

Evaluation of the survey by the Macau Portuguese and English Press Association (AIPIM)

regarding

press freedom in the Macau Special Administrative Region

Frederico Rato, José Manuel Simões, Rui Flores

July 2017 Index

1. Chapter 1:

Introduction………………………………………………………………………………

2. Chapter 2: Profile of the sample group…………………………………………………………

3. Chapter 3: Analysis of results………………………………………………………………………

3.1 Question 1: Freedom of the press in Macau…………………………………………….

3.2 Question 2: Violation of rights………………………………………………………………..

3.3 Question 3: Knowledge of other situations……………………………………………..

3.4 Question 4: Types of restraint………………………………………………………………..

3.5 Question 5: Access to sources of information………………………………………….15

3.5.1 Question 5.1: Access to the executive branch……………………………… 17

3.5.2 Question 5.2: Access to the legislative branch……………………………… 19

3.5.3 Question 5.3: Access to the judicial branch………………………………….. 21

3.5.4 Question 5.4: Access to public administration...... 23

3.5.5 Question 5.5: Access to concessionaires of public services……………. 25

2 4. Chapter 4: General observations……………………………………………………………………

5. Chapter 5: Conclusions and recommendations……………………………………………….

6. References……………………….

…………………………………………………………………………… 33

7. Annexes……….

……………………………………………………………………………………………….

3 Chapter 1: Introduction

The Macau Portuguese and English Press Association (AIPIM) conducted a survey among its members and other Macau-based journalists about the freedom of the press and access to sources of information in the Macau Special Administrative Region (MSAR) of the People’s Republic of China, between the months of July and November of 2016.

The survey was provided by email to all of the association’s members and other journalists in Portuguese and English languages (see Annexes), to a total of 77 persons.

The journalists, totalling 44, hand-delivered their responses to the board of AIPIM, in two sealed envelopes: one containing the responses regarding the respondent’s profile and the other holding the responses regarding the practice of the profession in the MSAR.

AIPIM requested that the authors of this study (Frederico Rato, lawyer, collaborator for newspapers and magazines; José Manuel Simões, university professor, writer and former journalist; and Rui Flores, administrator, former journalist and former journalism instructor) to analyse the results of the survey and to, in an independent manner, present their conclusions.

This report is therefore solely the responsibility of those who were in charge of drafting it.

The authors guarantee, naturally, the confidentiality and the statistical secrecy of the responses of the professionals that participated in this highly important endeavour – to create as accurate a portrait as possible of the practice of the journalism in Macau by professionals of the Portuguese and English press.

The results of the analysis are presented in this document which, aside from this introduction, is comprised of four chapters and annexes.

In chapter 2, the report profiles the sampling of journalists, which participated in the survey.

4 In chapter 3, the report presents the results obtained from the survey regarding the freedom of the press and access to sources of information in Macau.

In chapter 4, the report provides general observations on the results of the survey.

In chapter 5, the report details conclusions and outlines some recommendations aimed both at AIPIM as well as other entities in the MSAR which deal on a daily basis with journalists.

Attached we provide two parts of the survey (profile of the journalist and the survey on the freedom of the press and access to sources of information).

The authors would like to express our deep gratitude to Yan Ming, Inês and Zhou Mengyuan, Lídia,

Master’s students of the Department of Portuguese at the University of Macau for their helpful contributions in the processing of the results of the survey. Without them the report would not have been able to be completed in such a short time period.

Thank you!

5 Chapter 2: Profile of the sample group

The journalists which participated in the survey had the option of responding to questions regarding their profile in terms of gender, age, denomination of the media organisation, number of years in the field, number of media outlets worked for in the past and/or number of years residing in Macau. Not all of the journalists filled out this part of the enquiry, while some journalists responded to all of the questions regarding the profile.

More men than women responded to the survey (22-16, which amounts to 58% male and 42% female).

Six professionals opted to not respond to the question regarding gender.

The journalists could further identify themselves through the use of their name, by which the report proceeded to identify them by the language of their professional name. According to the names identified in the survey, 29 journalists have Portuguese names, six have Chinese names and four of the respondents identified themselves with Anglo-Saxon names (five respondents opted to not respond to this question).

Regarding the media outlet in which they work, a total of 37 journalists responded as to which media group they are linked with, with written media presenting the majority. Of the respondents:

-19 are from the press

-10 are audio-visual

-4 are online

-three are news agencies

-one self-identified as a freelancer

According to the results obtained, the type of journalist which responded to this survey created by the

Portuguese and English Press Association has/is, on average:

- 33.12 years old;

- worked in 1.6 media organisations in the period before answering the survey

- 9.73 years in the field

6 - lived in Macau for 7.85 years

The youngest respondent was, at the time of the survey, 22 years old while the oldest was 48 years old.

Two of the journalists affirmed that they had less than one year of professional experience, while the most experienced journalist detailed a total of 23 years in the field (one year more than the age of the youngest journalist).

Nine of the respondents had no professional experience as journalists in other media organisations.

On the opposite extreme, one of the journalists affirmed having collaborated with six entities in the media sector.

Regarding the years of residence in Macau, one of the respondents affirmed arriving in the MSAR less than 12 months prior the survey, while two journalists had only been residing in the region for one year.

One other respondent declared having resided in Macau for 25 years, while two others detailed having spent 22 years in the MSAR.

7 Chapter 3: Analysis of results

This chapter presents the general findings of the enquiry, critically analysing the results obtained from each of the questions posed to the journalists.

The interpretation of the results also reveals the comments written by the journalists, facilitated by the survey, which allow a more detailed impression of the panorama of the freedom of the press and access to sources of information in Macau.

3.1 Question 1: Freedom of the press in Macau

For question 1, “Is there press freedom in Macau?”, 35 of the 44 respondents, which corresponds to

79.55%, answered “yes”, but, for the most part – 21 of the 26 which provided comments – pointed out reservations as to the constraints induced by access to sources. “Access to sources isn’t always easy, namely in what concerns the governmental, legislative and judicial areas”; “access to sources is very limited due to political, cultural and social concerns”; “a series of constraints and restrictions exist which, frequently, create obstacles in exercising the freedom of the press”, are some of the comments provided by respondents who answered “yes” to this question, while one response deserving a more in-depth analysis states: “From an overall perspective, it would be incorrect to state that media professionals in

Macau have freedom to investigate or work on the topics which they would propose to investigate and a fundamental part of a free press is precisely this aspect. This type of predisposition to act does not signify, however, that there are not obstacles in access to information, namely regarding access to sources: there is no free press without informed and available sources.”

On the other hand, four of the respondents, or 9.09%, responded “no”, and consider the difficulty of access to sources as an obstacle to this freedom. The remaining five, 11.36%, either didn’t know or did not respond to the question.

8 Chart 1: Freedom of the press in Macau

3.2 Question 2: Violation of rights

The second question, “Have you ever been subject to any violation of your press freedom rights?”, obtained 31 “no” responses”, or 70.45%, while four respondents (9.09%) opted not to answer.

The vast majority, 90% of the comments – totalling 10 – corresponded to the nine journalists, or 20.45%, who responded “yes” to this question, while worthy of note is that those who affirmed “not only once but it happened many times” and the emphatic “yes, multiple times”, detailed concrete situations such as the

“Case of the Gravesites”, in which one journalists describes a refusal of rights to sign notices of political nature, or of Oktoberfest 2015, in which “during the press conference the journalists were instructed to not ask questions that weren’t related to the event, as well as being instructed to ask questions about the brand of beer sponsoring the event”.

Chart 2: Violation of rights

Three of nine respondents who answered “yes” to the question also noted that “the unhindered access to sources is an inherent part of the freedom of the press. In Macau, systematically there is a continual violation of the access to sources, whether because the methods of facilitation (spokespersons, public relations, etc., which serve as filters) do not permit, or because they have entered into a culture of negation by not responding to the enquiries made. Requests for interviews, of data, of information”. In response to the same question, another respondent that answered “yes” to the question elaborated: “I have already had requests to alter content including declarations from interviews, or to cut paragraphs of text that would create a negative impression, to the public or to the Executive branch of the government of

9 Macau. Aside from this, it’s common that government spokespeople take weeks, months, or even years

‘leading on’ the journalists so as to not provide simple data…many times absurd excuses are given to deny journalists access to information.”

The respondent who answered “no” to the same question did provide commentary, pointing out the same difficulty of access to sources, in particular “I have yet to be directly a focus of ‘violation of rights’, as it’s too direct of an expression, frequently having it been made impossible to get to those in charge – governing authorities in particular. The access to those with responsibility (authorities, heads of public services, many legislators, businesspeople) is very difficult, either because of a lack of mechanisms of efficient communication, or because of a mind-set of acting without being accountable.”

3.3 Question 3: Knowledge of other situations

To the third question: “Are you aware of any other situation or situations of press freedom violation?”, 31 respondents, or 68.18%, responded “no”, 10 answered “yes”, or 18.8%, and four (at 13.64%) did not respond.

The majority of respondents that added comments were the group that answered “yes” to the question. Of the 12 journalists that commented on the question, 10 pointed out situations which, to their understanding, were attempts on the freedom of the press, whether the respondents themselves were subjects of these attempts or whether they were situations in which it occurred.

Chart 3: Knowledge of other situations

Aside from the particular referred case mentioned by only one journalist, it is relevant to transcribe some of the comments which relate to source access being an obstacle to media professionals: “I have never

10 felt, on the part of directors, editors or sources any type of pressure. However, I know that other colleagues have been discouraged when asking uncomfortable questions from certain sources”.

Other examples are equally expressed: “Closed-door meetings of commissions of the Legislative

Assembly or lack of translation of comments to the press from the police services”. One response indicates self-censorship as being a reality and which affirms that: “the public services refused to respond to journalists in a “proper” manner. In cases, there is a self-management of content which leads to the publication of imprecise information and even false facts and there are “prohibited” topics, another comment states.

Another respondent points out that despite having no knowledge of situations which involved attempts of restricting the freedom of the press for Portuguese- and English-language media, referred to having knowledge of cases in the Chinese-language media as well.

3.4 Question 4: Types of restraint

In regard to question 4, journalists were asked whether they felt restrained when they contacted various areas of the public (political, economic, cultural, social, religious, institutional, or others), allowing them to explain whether they had been subject to any type of pressures.

Less than one-fifth of respondents (18.8%) stated that they had not felt any type of restraints. In other words, the majority, over three-quarters of the journalists felt that, in some form in the course of conducting their profession had been subject to a type of constraint. The responses are spread across seven factors of restraint encountered while on the job, with results indicating that restraint of a political nature (19.48%) is the most highly demonstrated, while the second highest answer was that of no type of constraint (18.18%).

While it was not possible to detect, with the current survey, the types of restraint experienced by the journalists (pressure to not publish a certain article, suggestions to publish a story or to “push” a certain angle to the detriment of other angles, increased difficulties in consulting a certain source of information or others), a significant number of journalists feel that their work is limited.

11 In sum, close to 20 per cent of the respondents refer that they feel constraints of a political nature.

Constraints of an institutional nature are referred by almost 16 per cent of the journalists. Other sectors of the public which provoke constraints on the work of journalists include the economic (10.39%), social

(10.39%), and 6.49% feel the origin of the constraints is indifferent.

Chart 4: Types of restraint

12 3.5 Question 5: Access to sources of information

Regarding sources of information, the survey aimed to find how the journalists classify the access to diverse areas of Macau’s society, including the executive, legislative and judicial areas, as well as the public administration and concessionaires of public services.

The respondents classified the access to sources of information as: Easy, Satisfactory, or Difficult. The different areas in question (excluding non-responses) the various questions of this segment, regarding access to sources of information, are displayed in the following table (in which 1 is Easy and 3 is

Difficult):

Table 1: Access to sources of information (weighted average)

How do you assess the access to 1: Easy 2: Satisfactory 3: Difficult

sources of information?

Executive Legislative Public Public Service Judicial branch branch branch Administration Concessionaires

2.64103 2.25641 2.78947 2.58974 2.46154

Taking into account the responses provided by the journalists relating to the ease or difficulty of access to the sources of information by professionals of media bodies, the first observation is that the question of access to sources, of the five centres of authority indicated, all were qualified as Satisfactory and

Difficult, without a single response of Easy access.

Of the various functions of the state, the judicial branch, the courts, are the ones which create the largest impediment to journalists (68.18% of respondents consider Difficult the access to judiciary sources), followed by the executive branch, in other words, the Government as the executive body of the MSAR

13 (58.82%), next followed by the Public Administration, as the group executing governmental policy and providing services to the residents of the MSAR (54.55%, close to the percentage obtained by the

Government), and the public service concessionaires (43.18%).

The legislative branch is that which most facilitates the work of journalists, with only 34.09% of respondents considering that access to sources of information of the Legislative Assembly are Difficult.

3.5.1 Question 5.1: Access to the executive branch

In what relates to the executive branch, the Government of the Macau Special Administrative Region, it’s worthy of note that none of the respondents qualified as Easy the access to the body. More journalists answered that it was difficult to have access to the Government as a source of information (56.82%) than those that qualified it as Satisfactory (31.82%). Some of the journalists opted to not respond (11.36%).

The weighted average of the valid responses (excluding those of journalists that opted not to respond) is of 2.64 (in which 1 is Easy and 3 is Difficult).

These results point to that which could be considered as a problem of availability, of information from various sources of information, which could signify something deeper and more worrisome in how the freedom of the press is regarded in the MSAR.

The way in which the journalists commented on this question demonstrates that there are different perceptions about the access to sources of information. While some point out that efforts have been made by various departments of the government to respond to different requests from the media - particularly in person, when leaving a meeting or at a meeting in which the press was present, others noted that it was

Difficult to obtain political commentary regarding current issues.

A practice referred to by various journalists and which does not aid the process of communication is that of requesting journalists to send the questions they would like the ask of the executive branch in advance.

This practice inhibits, in a certain way, the work of the journalists, as the spontaneity of response – an important element in appraising the intention of a politician regarding a certain topic and/or the encumbrance arising from a certain question – is compromised.

14 An interview is by its nature a free exercise, not constrained, in which the journalist strives to obtain responses on important topics and the clarification of those that are unclear. The prior sharing of the themes of the interview (not of the questions) by the journalist does not affect the result of the result of the interview. The normal international practice is that of “negotiation” of the terms of the interview between the journalists and the sources.

Chart 5: Access to the executive branch

15 3.5.2 Question 5.2: Access to the legislative branch

In a clear contrast to the executive branch, access to sources of information in the legislative branch

(Legislative Assembly) was described as much easier. The weighted average of valid responses

(excluding the journalists who chose not to answer) is 2.25 (in which 1 is Easy and 3 is Difficult).

While 11.36% of the respondents qualified as Easy the access to the legislative branch, only 34.09% of journalists ranked as Difficult the professional relationship with the Legislative Assembly; 43.18% considered Satisfactory the access to sources of information in the Legislative Assembly.

Five journalists opted not to respond.

Chart 6: Access to the legislative branch

The more facilitated relationship between journalists and the representatives of the legislative branch is due to the nature of the legislative branch. The work carried out in the plenary sessions of the Legislative

Assembly is open to the media. In the majority of the meetings of permanent commissions and follow-up commissions journalists are allowed to record images at the beginning and end of the session, while the presidents of the commissions present to the media a summary of that which was discussed. In addition, access to legislators was registered as being conducted with relative ease for the media as the legislators, of their own agendas, transmit to the journalists their opinions of the matters under debate in the

Legislative Assembly.

Despite the representatives of the legislative branch being those ranked with the best classification, in terms of ease of access the journalists identified some difficulties in carrying out their roles in the

Legislative Assembly. One is related to alleged “problems” in translation. Some journalists noted that not everything stated in the discussions is translated, namely side remarks and vulgarisms made in the heat of debate, which limits the capacity of the journalists to unequivocally understand the tone of the discourse.

16 A perception exists amongst some journalists that press conferences held by the presidents of standing committees of the Legislative Assembly have reduced in number in the sequence of meetings in which the journalists were more vehement in the questions asked.

3.5.3 Question 5.3: Access to the judicial branch

The questionnaire shows that access to the judiciary branch is where journalists face more obstacles.

Similar to the executive branch, no respondent states that access to sources within the judiciary is easy.

In a sharp contrast with the answers to the question about the executive branch, the percentage of those considering difficult the access to sources of information in the judiciary branch increases to 68.18%

(with regards to the executive branch the respective percentage of those saying it is difficult stands at

56.82%).

The weighted average of the valid responses (excluding those journalists who opted to not provide an answer) is 2.78 (where 1 stands for Easy and 3 for Difficult). Additionally, only one journalist elaborated the answer with a comment, stressing that it is “very difficult”, somewhat summing up perfectly the results of this question.

Chart 7: Access to the judiciary branch

The percentage of respondents who opted to not provide an answer to this question is 13.64%, the highest compared with the other questions concerning access to sources of information from the three branches of power. Such a level may be understood in light of the fact that judicial journalism, being a kind of specialized genre focused on concrete court cases, ends up being handled by a narrower number of professionals.

17 3.5.4 Question 5.4: Access to public administration

The access to sources of information from the public administration is, generally speaking, easier than the access to sources of the executive and judiciary branches. The weighted average of the valid replies

(excluding journalists that opted to not answer) is 2.58 (where 1 stands for Easy and 3 for Difficult).

More than half of the respondents consider access to sources of information Difficult, while merely

2.27% deem it Easy. Almost one third (31.83%) labels it Satisfactory.

The difficulty in accessing sources of information is not homogeneous within the Civil Service and Public

Administration. Journalists point out that some government departments and bureaus are more efficient than others. The main obstacle singled out by journalists regards the time government departments take to provide an answer, let alone when the journalist’s request is simply ignored. The immediate nature of the media cannot accommodate waiting for several days or weeks for a reply. The main reason behind the protracted responses may be related to the spokesperson system and the Government Information Bureau which do not have access to all the required and necessary information and are not allowed to answer journalists’ questions by themselves, waiting several days to have the permission to come up with a reply.

Some journalists note that the answers to their questions, which are in written form at the request of the government departments, are eventually sent to all media outlets through press releases. This obliterates the exclusivity of the relevant news content.

The ever-frequent use of English in communicating with journalists in a region where Chinese and

Portuguese are the official languages is another problem identified by media workers as not conducive to facilitating access to information.

The principle of an open and transparent public administration is not fully observed when answers to journalists’ questions take days or weeks or when authorities turn a deaf ear on the reporters’ enquiries.

To communicate by fax or e-mail makes the whole procedure lengthy and the spontaneity of the reply is also a factor to be taken into account to assess the pertinence of the questions raised.

18 Chart 8: Access to public administration

Some journalists denounce the existence of discriminatory practices carried out by some government departments as they fail to invite all media outlets to the events they hold.

3.5.5 Question 5.5: Access to public service concessionaires

The weighted average of the answers about access to public service concessionaires is 2.46 (where 1 stands for Easy and 3 for Difficult), slightly better than the scoring on public administration. This means that public service concessionaires are more efficient in their communication with journalists than public administration departments. The major difference can be found in the percentage of respondents who consider that access to information to public service concessionaires is Satisfactory (43.18%), precisely the same percentage that deems it Difficult. The share of those who did not answer the question (11.36%) is the same as in the other questions of this section with the exception of the one about the judiciary branch).

Chart 9: Access to public service concessionaires

19 Chapter 4: General remarks

Considering that it was carried out on a voluntary basis and taking into account that a sizeable share of the

Portuguese and English speaking journalistic community took part in this survey, the answers are significant as they indicate that, notwithstanding the existence of press freedom in Macau, there are obvious obstacles in accessing sources of information by journalists.

Based on a thorough analysis of this survey, we may conclude that the major problem faced by the journalistic community is precisely access to sources, namely in what concerns information that should be public and is concealed as a result of a system where journalists are forced to request it via the

Government Spokesperson mechanism. The area which is conspicuously more problematic is the judiciary.

The survey allows us to conclude that in their daily work journalists are faced with difficulties in accessing sources of information which allow them to better understand the surrounding environment and obstacles in obtaining answers to questions that loom while performing their duty as journalists.

This situation is particularly relevant in what concerns the executive branch, which should be primarily focused on wholly clarifying to the citizens about priorities of political and administrative nature.

The existence of these constraints leads us to infer that there are some limitations with regards to freedom of the press in Macau. Unfortunately this is a tendency that has been increasingly common at a global scale.

U.S.-based Non-Governmental Organization (NGO) Freedom House assesses the levels of press freedom and editorial independence of the press worldwide. The result of their assessment is published in an annual report about press freedom in the world. Their 2016 report points out that “press freedom declined to its lowest point in 13 years in 2016 amid unprecedented threats to journalists and media outlets in major democracies and new moves by authoritarian states to control the media, including beyond their borders” (Freedom House, 2017a).

Paris-based International journalists NGO Reporters Without Borders (RSF) publishes every year their press freedom index. Norway, Sweden and Finland top their ranking (RSF, 2017a). RSF’s data coincide

20 with a not-so-favourable assessment of press freedom globally, stressing that the press freedom map is becoming darker.

Without studies on Macau available, perhaps the small size of the region does not make the case for a standalone approach, these two NGOs cast a clearly negative eye on the situation in China. The same assessment is made by the International Federation of Journalists. In IFJ’s annual report on China, entitled

‘Strangling the Media: China Tightens its Grip’ (IFJ, 2017), there are four paragraphs about the situation in Macau.

With regards to the SAR, IFJ - a Brussels-based organization - raises issues related to government delays in releasing information and self-censorship by management and discrimination (without specifying) of some media outlets during Li Keqiang’s visit to the SAR. Those outlets were denied access to some events which were part of the Premier’s official visit Macau (IFJ, 2017, p.62).

As a Special Administrative Region of the People’s Republic of China, Macau seems not to be immune to a certain secretive culture, which has been entrenched in the way some public entities perform their duties.

On the other hand, the People’s Republic of China’s recent practice has been to facilitate access to sources of information through a spokesperson system put in place in the run up to the 2008 Olympic

Games in Beijing and also to meet the challenges, and global impact, brought about by the SARS

(atypical pneumonia) crisis in 2003 ((Dong, Park & Chang, 2013, 263-264). In the same thread, laws governing state secrets have been to some extent loosened (Arrouas, 2014).

This tendency should be taken into account – and followed – more extensively in Macau.

“Silence is a friend that doesn’t betray”. The aphorism, attributed to Confucius (Dong, Park & Chang,

2013, p. 271), expresses a certain form of dealing with the press seen as the most correct by the various authorities in this part of the world.

Taking then into account the technological advances and the general use of social media, such as

Facebook or WeChat, which optimize the unrestrained circulation of news articles and comments, the

21 possible control of information on behalf of diverse authorities, through the use of silences, is no longer as efficient as it may have been in the past, when information circulated more slowly. Furthermore, as can be seen in other latitudes and longitudes, when the press tries to obtain responses about certain hot topics and the authorities remain in silence there is, in the eyes of the citizens, a type of blanket of questions and suspicion which falls on the politicians responsible.

In modern times, of instantaneous communication, silence, using now a Portuguese aphorism, is no longer golden; it is far from being a friend and this should be taken into account by those, of the various authorities, which have the final decision on when and whether to communicate with the journalists. And we know that without journalists there would not be news and without news there would be no public opinion and without public opinion there would be no civil participation.

This survey does not allow the creation of a clear picture on the possible situations of self-censorship brought up, as above referred by FIJ (IFJ, 2017, p. 62), although, in some open questions, a number of journalists have referred that the practice is evident in some newsrooms.

While the journalists could, in the responses to the survey, express their thoughts through the open questions, in regard to questions in the survey there are topics that are relevant which were not included, for example: who exerts the pressure on the journalists.

The outlook of the practice of journalism in Macau could be more clear if some of these questions could have been answered. For example, are there internal restraints in the newsrooms? On behalf of who, the owner? The director? The editor-in-chief? And what types of considerations guide these restraints?

Economic? Political? Social? Cultural? Others?

On the other hand, it could have been important in the survey to consider what is happening in the gaming sector, one which represents approximately 85 per cent of the fiscal revenue of the government of the

MSAR, which is the largest employer in Macau and which is the origin of many of the news of significance to the daily lives of the inhabitants of the region.

22 Chapter 5: Conclusions and recommendations

According to Freedom House, an organization which annually evaluates the state of freedom of the press worldwide, in order to say that the freedom of the press exists in a certain country or region, the following four factors need to exist simultaneously: (i) that the media can systematically cover political stories (ii); that the safety of journalists is guaranteed; (iii) that the interference of the State in matters of media is minimal; (iv) that the Press is not subject to costly legal or economic requirements (Freedom House,

2017a, p.3)

In the report, Freedom House does not dedicate a chapter to Macau (despite it including one on Hong

Kong, a region considered to be “partially free” in terms of freedom of the press, Freedom House, 2017b), but a substantial analysis of the current environment of the practice of journalism in the MSAR can bring us to affirm the existence of freedom of the press in Macau, legally established in Law no: 7/90/M, an innovative act in the region and perfectly and currently in place.

On one hand, the media professionals themselves recognize this. The Portuguese and English language press of the region can practice in a free manner their daily work of informing the inhabitants of what is happening in the region and the world.

On the other hand, there is pluralism; there are registered, for example, with the Government Information

Bureau of the MSAR, 19 daily publications and 19 weekly, many of them regularly published, in three different languages: Chinese, Portuguese and English (GCS, 2017a; GCS, 2017b).

Also registered is the freedom of expression. The access to the internet, for example, is not subject to censorship nor are pages blocked by the government.

Lastly, there also have been no news of threats to the physical or moral integrity of journalists.

There are, however, constraints in undertaking the function of informing, namely on behalf of the various authorities of the MSAR which do not disclose or facilitate in a timely manner information to the journalists. At the end of the day, the authorities don’t communicate “only” to and with the journalists. In truth, they communicate to the citizens through the journalists. An informed society is an enlightened society. And assuredly more dynamic. And with the capacity to criticize and make choices.

23 By administering what is public, those politically responsible are doing no more than managing that which is everyone’s, in the name of everyone. Communicating what they are doing, how and why it is being done, is an essential element of this process, which is the management of public property and is also a corollary of the state of legality and the rule of law.

It is therefore essential to this system the existence of freedom of expression and of the press, which is expressly stated in the Basic Law of the MSAR (article 27), and of the International Covenant of the Civil and Political Rights (article 19), which makes up the internal laws of Macau, in terms of article 40 of the basic Law and article 1 of the Civil Code, in which the members of the executive, legislative and judicial branches cooperate in carrying out these norms.

The question of access to information and to sources, as a relevant concern of AIPIM (and expressed in the results of the survey), should be debated within the journalistic community and in sessions in which non-members can participate, not only sharing the perspective of the awareness of the various sources of information in the MSAR, but also for the better credibility of the profession and the function of a journalist, together with public opinions and those of the authoritative bodies.

Following the approval and dissemination of the Code of Ethics Journalist Statute, important and decisive in the organization of the conditions of the practice of the profession, creating conditions for the resolution of the question of the professional card, which is still only emitted by AIPIM, could largely contribute to the legitimacy and the good impression of the journalistic profession in the MSAR.

Without facilitated access to sources of information, the freedom of the press can be brought into question, furthermore with the lack of commitment of the public administration. The question to ask is how to find the best way to bring together the principle of freedom of access to sources with the principle of collaboration between the Administration and individuals.

Transparency and the provision of information are the established principles in the judicial order of

Macau, particularly in the Administrative Procedure Code, which sets the relationship between the

24 Administration, in a broad sense, and the citizens and, even more so, should be present in relation to media professionals, citizens and interpreters of public opinion.

Regarding the question of the existence and confirmation of press freedom and correlated rights in

Macau, it would seem that the creation and diversification of the relationships with liaison bodies, unions and federations, of a national and international nature – from a trade unionist, corporative or functional perspective, could bring about a bolder visibility and shed light on to the reality on the ground when it comes to working as a journalist in the MSAR. This is particularly meaningful taking into account the strategic importance of Macau, internally, as a special administrative region of the

People’s Republic of China, and externally, considering the region’s international dimension.

6. References

Arrouas, M. (2014, February 3). China Alters State Secrecy Laws for 'Greater Transparency'. Time. Acedido em http://time.com/3544/china-alters-state-secrecy-laws-for-greater-transparency/. Código Civil (1999). Macau: Imprensa Oficial.

25 Código do Procedimento Administrativo (2000). Edição bilíngue. Macau: Imprensa Oficial. Dong, S. G., Park, L. Y., & Chang, J C.-W. (2013). The evolution of Chinese government communication: Towards transparence governance. In K. Sanders & M. J. Canel (Eds.), Government Communication: Cases and Challenges (259-275). London: Bloomsbury. Freedom House (2017a). Freedom of the Press 2017: Press Freedom's Dark Horizon. Washington, DC: Freedom House. Acedido em https://freedomhouse.org/sites/default/files/FOTP_2017_booklet_FINAL_April28.pdf. Freedom House (2017b). Freedom of the Press 2017: Hong Kong profile. Acedido em https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-press/2017/hong-kong. GCS (2017a). Gabinete de Comunicação Social: Publicações, diário. Acedido em http://www.gcs.gov.mo/index.php?PageLang=P&TType=;1;1&OffsetValue=0&PassType=PUB. GCS (2017b). Gabinete de Comunicação Social: Publicações, semanário. Acedido em http://www.gcs.gov.mo/index.php?PageLang=P&TType=;1;3&OffsetValue=0&PassType=PUB. IFJ (2017). China press freedom report 2016: Strangling the media: China tightens its grip. Brussels: International Federation of Journalists. Acedido em http://www.ifj.org/fileadmin/documents/170120_China_PF_Report_ENGLISH_01.pdf. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (2004). EU-Macao Co-Operation Programme in the Legal Field. Macau: Legal Affairs Bureau. Lei Básica da Região Administrativa Especial de Macau da República Popular da China (sem data). Macau: Direcção dos Serviços de Assuntos de Justiça. Lei de Imprensa (1990). Lei n.° 7/90/M, de 6 de Agosto. Governo da Regiao Administrativa Especial de Macau: Imprensa Oficial. Acedida em http://bo.io.gov.mo/bo/i/90/32/lei07.asp. RSF (2017a). Reporters without Borders: 2017 World Press Freedom Index. Acedido em https://rsf.org/en/ranking/2017. RSF (2017b). Reporters without Borders: 2017 World Press Freedom Index, Analysis. Acedido em https://rsf.org/en/ranking_list/analysis.

26 7. Annexes

27 Inquérito

Exercício da Liberdade de Imprensa na Região Administrativa Especial de Macau

28 Introdução

O presente inquérito destina-se a elaborar um relatório sobre o exercício da Liberdade de Imprensa na Região Administrativa de Macau. O inquérito deve ser preenchido por todos os jornalistas que trabalham nos órgãos de comunicação social em língua Portuguesa e Inglesa de Macau, independentemente da sua nacionalidade ou língua materna. São distribuídos inquéritos em língua Portuguesa e Inglesa. A Direcção da Associação de Imprensa em Português e Inglês de Macau garantirá o anonimato dos respondentes e compromete-se a utilizar os dados unicamente para efeitos de tratamento estatístico com vista à elaboração do relatório. Para assegurar a total confidencialidade das respostas, a Direcção da AIPIM exige que os inquéritos sejam preenchidos em computador. Os inquiridos poderão usar tantas páginas quantas as necessárias para elaborar as suas respostas. O inquérito será distribuído pela mailing list da AIPIM. No caso dos jornalistas que não são sócios, solicitaremos ao director do OCS que proceda à reencaminhamento do inquérito. Junto dos directores de cada OCS será entregue um conjunto de envelopes que têm como destino os jornalistas que vão responder ao inquério. Os inquiridos deverão colocar a página com a identificação pessoal num dos envelopes e fechá- lo de forma inviolável. As folhas com as respostas ao inquérito deverão ser colocadas no outro envelope que terá ser fechado de forma inviolável. Os envelopes interiores deverão ser colocados num outro envolope que deverá ser também fechado de forma inviolável. Solicitamos que nada seja escrito no exterior de qualquer um dos envelopes. A Direcção da AIPIM deslocar-se-á em data a anunciar a cada uma das redacções onde receberá, por mão própria, os envolopes contendo as respostas ao inquérito. Quanto aos jornalistas que trabalham em regime de freelancer, solicitamos que contactem a direcção para ter acesso ao inquérito e envelopes respectivos. Após o preenchimento do inquérito, solicitamos que contactem a Direcção da AIPIM que se encarregará de fazer o levantamento do envelope. Os inquéritos deverão ser preenchidos e entregues até ao dia 31 de Maio. Nesse dia, dois representantes da Direcção estarão na Fundação Rui Cunha para receber todos os envelopes com inquéritos que ainda não tenham sido entregues. Qualquer envelope recebido após esta data não será considerado para os efeitos do inquérito. Para garantir a transparência do processo, os envelopes contendo o inquérito, serão abertos em sessão pública na qual poderão participar todos os interessados e que será presidida por um jurista de Macau.

29 Dados Identificativos

Nome: Idade: OCS em que trabalha actualmente: Número de OCS de Macau onde trabalhou no passado: Anos de exercício da profissão: Anos de residência em Macau:

Questionário 1 - Considera que há liberdade de imprensa em Macau? Sim Não Por favor, justifique a sua resposta?

30 2 - Foi alvo de algum atentado ao exercício de liberdade de imprensa? Sim Não Em caso afirmativo, pode relatar o caso?

3 - Tem conhecimento de qualquer outra situação ou situações que atentem contra a liberdade de imprensa? Sim Não Por favor, relate o caso ou os casos.

4 - No exercício da profissão sente constrangimentos de natureza: Política Económica Cultural Social Religiosa institucional Outros Nenhum Pode desenvolver?

5 - Como classifica o acesso às fontes de informação? Poder Executivo Fácil Satisfatório Difícil

Poder Legislativo Fácil

31 Satisfatório Difícil

Poder Judicial Fácil Satisfatório Difícil

Administração pública Fácil Satisfatório Difícil

Concessionárias de serviços público Fácil Satisfatório Difícil Quer comentar qualquer um destes aspectos?

6 - Quer fazer qualquer outro comentário sobre questões de liberdade de imprensa na RAEM?

32 Survey

Press freedom in the Macau Special Administrative Region

33 Introduction

This survey is aimed at producing a report on press freedom in the Macau Special Administrative Region. The questionnaire should be filled by all journalists working in Portuguese and English speaking media outlets operating in Macau, regardless of their nationality of native language. The Board of Directors of the Macau Portuguese and English Press Association (AIPIM) will ensure the confidentiality of the respondents' identity and is bound to make use of the data collected solely to produce the report. In order to ensure confidentiality all questions should be answered in digital format. The questionnaire will be sent to all members through AIPIM’s electrocnic mailing list. For jorunalists who are not members of AIPIM , we resquest the assistance of the editors-in-chief of the respective media outlets to forward the questionnaire. AIPIM will distribute envelopes to the newsrooms to be distributed among all interested journalists The respondents should enclose the personal data page in one of the envelopes and the remaining pages of the questionnaires in another envelope. Both envelopes should be poroperly sealed. The envelopes should remain blank For free lance journalists, we request them to contact AIPIM’s Board of directors as soon as possible to receive the questionanire and envelopes. The questionnaires should be printed and submitted by no later than May 31st. On that day two AIPIM representatives will be at Rui Cunha Foundation to receive in person the pending questionnaires. Any questionnaire submited after the aforementioned deadline will not be considered for drafting the report. To ensure the transparency of the whole process, the evelopes containing the questionnaires will be opened during a public session which can be attended by all interested parties. The session will be presidended over by a local lawyer.

34 Personal data

Name: Age: Media organization: Number of media organizations where you worked previously: Number of years as professional journalist: Number of years based in Macau:

Questionnaire

1 – Is there press freedom in Macau? Yes No Elaborate

2 - Have you ever been subject to any violation of your press freedom rights? Yes No If yes, can you please report the case (s)?

3 – Are you aware of any other situation or situations of press freedom violation? Yes No If yes, can you please report the case (s)?

4 - In your work as a journalist have you experienced any of the below mentioned types of restrictions?

35 Political Economical Cultural Social Religious Institutional

Other None Can you please elaborate?

5 - How do you assess the access to sources of information? Executive branch Easy Satisfactory Difficult

Legislative branch Easy Satisfactory Difficult

Judiciary branch Easy Satisfactory Difficult

Public Admninistration Easy Satisfactory Difficult

Public service concessionaires Easy Satisfactory

36 Difficult

Have you got any comment with regards to comment on any of the abovementioned aspects?

6 – Would you like to provide any additional comment or remark on issues pertaining press freedom in the Macau SAR?