Land law

Land occupation matters are often contentious. In Macau, given its geographical and social characteristics, they may be very delicate indeed. The issues relating to the application of the Land Law (Lei de Terras, in Portuguese), approved in 2013, seem impossible to move away from the public agenda. Two legislators have just submitted a new law proposal to change – or clarify – some details of the law. Maybe this (piecemeal?) approach will be more successful than other attempts, but speculating about it is beyond our purpose here.
Most of the public debate has centered on the proposed changes themselves, in very general terms, and on speculation about their chances of success. It might be worth trying to deepen our understanding of the wider issues at stake.
First of all, some people argue that the law – unanimously approved, remember – is currently applied based upon a very strict ‘reading’ of its contents. That is an interesting question. Can it be argued that the prevailing interpretation, apparently reiterated by the courts, goes against the expectations and intent of the legislators? ‘Real world’ enforcement outcomes are diverging from those envisaged by the lawmakers? That the letter of the law, in this case, somehow misinterprets their aims? If that were true, or could at least be reasonably argued, certainly there would be grounds for a revision or clarification of the relevant legal provisions.
Second, some have claimed that at least part of the responsibility lies with the Administration. Again, that issue deserves further enquiry. Our relationship with the government is, by its very nature, an unequal one. As much as the formal respect of the law, matters of fairness and good faith, and the perceptions thereof, are particularly significant and sensitive. Misgivings on these issues are undesirable and will be compounded if a perception of public irresponsibility – that is, that nobody will be held responsible for the Administration’s failures – were to take root. The willingness to ascertain the nature and extension of the mistakes made by public services, if they exist, and to determine who should be held responsible, is a necessary basis for good governance. Further, if an offence was made against the legitimate interests of others the matter of compensation cannot be skirted.
Deepening this debate may be relevant well beyond the particulars of this case. Some of the associated issues have broader implications. As such, they deserve further enquiry and a more careful evaluation.