| |
Analysis on Survey Results:
1. Most Macau citizens did not have a sufficient understanding of Article 23 in Macau.
On "How much do you think you understand Article 23 of Basic Law?" the result showed that those who understood "quite little", "very little" and "don't understand at all" were altogether 85.4%; "completely understand", "a lot", "quite a lot" were just 9.1%, showing that most of the Macau citizens did not have a sufficient understanding of Article 23 of the Basic Law. (See item 1 of the attached table)
2. The societies in Macau failed to actively launch consultation on the enactment of Article 23 of the Basic Law.
On "So far has the group to which you belong asked you about your views on the enactment of Article 23 consultation?", 69.9% of the respondents replied not belonging to any society while nearly 30% (28.9%) of the respondents had a background of a certain society. (See item 2 of the attached table)Amongst those who had a society background, a majority (70.0%) of the respondents' said that the societies they belonged to had not consulted their opinions on the Enactment of Article 23 of Basic Law consultation.
3. Society leaders could not represent public opinions
On "In terms of the enactment of Article 23 of the Basic Law, can the leader of the society to which you belong represents your opinions?", the survey result showed that excluding the 69.9% respondents who denied having any society background, amongst those who claimed to have a society background which just accounted for 30.0% of all the respondents, more than a half of which (52.7%) replied "don't know/difficult to say" whereas 23.0% replied "no"; and less than a quarter (22.2%) replied "yes", showing that society leaders cannot represent the public's opinion. (See item 3 in the attached table)
4. Citizens thought that personal freedom, freedom of information, human rights were as important as the integral benefit of society and national security.
On "In terms of the enactment of Article 23 of the Basic Law, which of the following do you think is important to you?", the result showed that 48.8%, 45.7% and 43.2% of the respondents deemed respectively the integral benefit of society, human right, personal freedom important whereas 39.0% and 31.0% of the respondents respectively deemed national security and freedom of information important. The figures showed that all the above aspects were considered comparatively equally important by the public. (See item 4 in the attached table)
5. Many citizens thought that there was no contradiction between "stability and prosperity" and "democracy and freedom".
On the item 'Do you think there is a contradiction between "stability and prosperity" and "democracy and freedom"？', the result showed that nearly half of the respondents (48.2%) thought there was no contradiction between the two, 35.5% thought there was while 16.3% replied "don't know/difficult to say". (See item 5 in the attached table)
6. The majority of the citizens thought that Article 23 of the Basic Law would not have considerable impacts on them.
On "How much do you think you are affected by Article 23 of Basic Law?", the result showed that "quite little/not much", "a very little" were 27.8% and 35.8% respectively, which accounted for more than 60% (63.6%) altogether. Twenty-five point three percent (25.3%) answered "don't know/difficult to say" whereas 2.8% and 8.4% replied having "a lot" and "quite a lot", which were just 11.2% altogether. (See item 6 in the attached table)
7. Most citizens could not predict the impact of Article 23 of Basic Law on their next generation.
On "How much do you think your next generation will be affected by Article 23 of the Basic Law?", the result showed that many citizens answered "don't know/difficult to say" (46.2%), while 16.3% and 16.5% answered "quite little/not much" and "a very little" respectively. (See item 7 in the attached table).
8. Citizens requested consultation from multiple channels by the government and recognized the effect of public opinion survey.
On "concerning the enactment of Article 23 of the Basic Law, besides discussion in the Legislative Council, which of the following consultation ways do you think is important?", the result showed that most chose the conduction of public opinion survey (49.6%), 38.9% chose the arrangement of public consultation forum, 38.2% favoured the invitation of citizens' submissions, 36.2% opted for issuing public consultation document, while the least (30.6%) chose public discussions with different societies. (See item 8 in the attached table)
9. Most citizens thought that the consultation ways listed in item 8 were sufficient already.
On "Besides the above consultation ways, is there any other important way?", 67.8% answered "no", only 9.1% answered "yes". The other consultations ways were diverse and difficult to be organized. They can actually be generalized into the consultation ways in item 8. (See item 9 in the attached table)
10. If the enactment of Article 23 of the Basic Law contravened citizens' wish, most citizens would still struggle in various ways.
On "if the final enactment of Article 23 of the Basic Law contravenes the public's wish, what will you do?", the result showed that 33.9% would "go on struggling in a legitimate way", 12.7% opted for "civil disobedience", which accounted for 46.6% altogether; 17.5% were "don't know/difficult to say" whereas 36.0% would "accept the reality". (See item 10 in the attached table)
11. If the government ignored the public's opinion concerning the enactment of Article 23 of the Basic Law, quite a number of citizens would take to street.
On "if the government ignores the public's opinion on the enactment of Article 23 of the Basic Law, will you take to street?", the result showed that 41.1% would demonstrate on the street, while 41.8% would not, 17.0% answered "don't know/difficult to say". (See item 11 in the attached table)
|
| |
Discussion:
1. Quite a number of Macau citizens had a very low self-evaluated understanding on Article 23 of the Basic Law, showing that there is indeed a significant lack of understanding of Article 23 of the Basic Law amongst Macau citizens. Apart from revealing the lack of concern of the Macau citizens on politics, this also shows that the SAR government lacks active conduction of campaign before the legislation procedure, resulting in the majority of the citizens having an insufficient understanding of Article 23 of the Basic Law. The SAR has always relied on the non-governmental societies to help promote the implementation of a policy. Yet the survey result showed that in the overall sample, only 7.8% said the groups they belonged to had asked about their opinions concerning the consultation of the enactment of Article 23 of the Basic Law. It can be seen that societies are very passive or that because of the sensitivity of the issue, most of the societies do not want to take the risk.
2. Despite nearly 2000 registered societies in Macau and the "societal politics" in Macau as deemed by some scholars, nearly 70% (69.9%) of the respondents denied having any society background while less than 30% (28.9%) of the respondents thought they had a society background, in which only 24.2% believed that the leader of the society to which they belonged could represent their views. It can be seen that the recognition of Macau societies is very low among citizens. The society leaders cannot represent the public opinion concerning the enactment of Article 23 of the Basic Law. Thus, the government cannot use the traditional consultation way of a conference, by calling all the persons-in-charge of the societies to make a unanimous approval and regard it as a consultation to the whole public.
3. Citizens generally believed that the integral benefit of society (48.8%), human right (45.7%), personal freedom (43.2%), national security (39.0%) and freedom of information (31.0%) are of the same importance, showing that citizens can rationally handle the enactment of Article 23 and strike a balance between the integral societal and personal benefits in the mean time. Many of the respondents (48.2%) believed that there was no contradiction between "stability and prosperity" and "democracy and freedom". It can be seen that most citizens believed that the enactment of Article 23 of the Basic Law would not pervert the "stability and prosperity" of society. In fact there are indeed democratic and free countries which are stable and prosperous. Rather than saying that the two are not contradictory, it is more accurate to say the two can help mutually.
4. In light of the insufficient understanding of the citizens on Article 23 of the Basic Law, as well as the absence of a clear written document available now, it is difficult to conclude whether the impact of the enactment of Article 23 on the citizens themselves would be quite little/very little (63.6%) However, concerning the impact on the next generation, the respondents generally had worries about it (46.2%), which can show that citizens generally worry about the long-term impact of the enactment of Article 23. The main problem confronted the HKSAR government in the enactment of Article 23 of the Basic Law was the failure to eliminate citizens' worries and concerns, which resulted in a rally of 500,000 people. Thus we think that the main focus of the Macau SAR's work should be on driving away citizens' worries and concerns.
5. The survey showed that citizens requested multiple channels for the consultation of the enactment of Article 23 of the Basic Law, by issuing consultation paper (36.2%), inviting submissions by the public (38.2%) as well as arranging public consultation forum (38.9%). We are pleased that citizens recognized the use of public opinion survey (49.6%). However, the least asked for open discussions with societies (30.6%), which further shows the insufficient credibility and low recognition of societies among citizens. Societies can just represent a minority of public opinions.
6. Near a half of the respondents (46.6%) said that if the enactment of Article 23 of the Basic Law turned out to contravene public's wish, they would keep on struggling, in which 12.7% said they would struggle in the form of civil disobedience, more than 40% (41.1%) of the citizens said they would march on the street. Politically apathetic of citizens though, that does not mean that they do not treasure their right. At the critical moment the public will still strive for civil rights at all costs. The government thus should be refer the precedent of Hong Kong, actively and seriously listen to the public's opinion as well as appropriately prepare the enactment of Article 23 of the Basic Law.
|
| |
Suggestions:
1. The focus of the SAR's work should be on eliminating the public's concerns and worries on the enactment of Article 23 of the Basic Law.
2. Establishing an effective campaign, ensuring that the citizens understand the reasons for and the content of "the enactment of Article 23 of the Basic Law".
3. Multiple channels of consultation include: issuing public consultation document, inviting submissions from citizens, arranging public consultation forum, discussing with societies in public and launching public opinion surveys.
4. Ensure that the consultation process is fair, just and open.
5. Value the public's desire for human rights, personal freedom and freedom of information.
6. Besides introducing the proposed provisions to the citizens, the government should also explain the provision contents to expatriate ambassadors, the press and businesspeople so as to avoid unnecessary worries.
|
