Kapok: Look who’s talking!

Although I would not challenge being characterized as a “tree-hugger”, I would not consider myself an “animal lover”. For me, dogs are all about unpleasant dribbling, offensive wet dog smell and untimely walks in the woods for not-so-hygienic unloading. But it is one thing to show no great empathy for pets, it is an entirely different matter not to support legal provisions to put an end to cruelty towards animals. The former has to do with my own personal inclinations, the latter with the degree of advancement of a civilization.

There are many interesting aspects to the project of law that was introduced by José Pereira Coutinho, which pertains to the “Legal status and protection of animals”. This was rebuked in a plenary session of the Macao Legislative Assembly on April 22^nd.

It is important to note that it was a project of law (initiated by legislators, in this case only one), which is not to be confused with a law proposal (initiated by the government). Contrary to what is commonly heard, a few projects initiated by legislators have successfully been made into laws. For example, the very comprehensive Personal Data Protection Law that was passed in 2005 is the most well known, but it is not unique. Other examples include the Law requiring the systematic advice of a lawyer in judicial procedures, or the Law regulating Internet Cafés.

These laws are the highest testimonies of the revered principle of the separation of powers, which is enshrined in Macao's Basic Law. Legislator Coutinho clearly displays political motivation when he introduced six laws in a single week, but contrary to what Legislator Chan Chak Mo has argued, that is to say “mere politicking” by Coutinho in an election year, Coutinho’s actions clearly indicate that some legislators are actually doing their job. In the end, just as “some animals are more equal than others”, some legislators are indeed, more legitimate than others.

The project of law was voted down in its first stage, during the first reading in plenary session. The legislators had plenty of time to carefully examine the 30 articles of the law and the notes that accompanied it, as it was introduced in February, some two months before last Monday’s vote. But the project never made it beyond the political initiative of its introduction and will never be discussed in a permanent commission.

Those who either abstained or opposed gave several reasons. Some argued that the project was not precise enough: was it about domestic animals, or animals at large? Could we still enjoy eating ducks and chicken after the law would be passed? Article 14 of the project is very clear about that, just like the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Ordinance passed in 2006 in Hong Kong: what is to be prevented and punished is cruelty to animals, including in the slaughtering process. But most of the critics have concentrated on the supposed untimeliness of the project as it was released only four months before the end of the legislative session. However, one could argue that almost half of the 2012/2013 session still remains and that the Assembly record for law passing ranges from 6 to 27 laws passed in a single session. Coincidentally, the most vocal opponent regarding “timing” was legislator Vitor Cheung Lup Kwan, who holds the record amongst all legislators for lowest attendance to plenary sessions during the two previous terms in 2011 and 2012. Being a legislator is a full time job!

In the end 4 voted in favor, 9 abstained and 9 opposed, totaling 22 out of 29. Why were seven legislators missing? Why was the legislator, who is closest to the company that runs the infamous Canidrome of Macau (see here for local news and here for international coverage), absent from the vote? Untimely questions maybe?

Published in Macau Daily Times, April 26 2013.