Table of Contents
A former pro-democracy lawmaker in Macao, Au Kam San, was sentenced to 12 and a half years in prison on Friday following the Chinese casino hub’s first national security trial. The closed-door legal proceedings and subsequent ruling have sparked significant concerns regarding fairness from critics and family members.
Conviction and Court Findings
Au, 69, was arrested last year in what marked the first publicly known prosecution under Macao’s national security law enacted in 2009. A local court found him guilty of subverting state power, breaching confidentiality, and establishing contact with external organizations or individuals to commit acts that endanger national security.
According to a court statement, Au cooperated with hostile overseas organizations over a prolonged period to collect and disseminate political views containing false information and subversion ideas. The court stated that he and others conspired to incite hatred among Macao residents against the central government with the intent to undermine the nation’s fundamental system.
The court noted that although Au is a first-time offender who admitted to a substantial portion of the criminal facts, he displayed a high degree of intent, making the unlawfulness and potential consequences very serious. The judges decided to hold the trial behind closed doors in September to protect national security interests.
Investigators determined that between 2023 and 2024, Au assisted overseas groups in spreading distorted information to provoke hostile foreign actions against China and Macao, incite hatred against Beijing, and disrupt the 2024 city leader election. Furthermore, the court stated that in 2021, while serving as a lawmaker, Au leaked confidential information to overseas groups regarding closed-door committee discussions on the renewal of gaming licenses.
Family and Legal Reactions
Au’s wife, Virginia Cheang, released a public letter condemning the verdict as a political trial and groundless persecution meant to humiliate his character, expressing hope that authorities would at least permit unconditional family visits and letter exchanges.
As reported by The Associated Press, Au’s daughter in London, Au Hon I, described her father as a peaceful family man who cares deeply about Macao. She told AP that the ruling establishes scary boundaries for citizen rights and that Macao no longer feels like a safe space.
Jorge Menezes, a Portuguese lawyer practicing in Macao, told AP that holding the trial in secret without revealing specific details about the involved organizations or leaked information was unfortunate. He noted that while the court statement mentioned Au acknowledged certain facts, it did not mean he pleaded guilty, calling the characterization misleading.
Michael Polak, Au’s international counsel, urged Portugal and the European Union to intervene and demand that Au, a Portuguese citizen, be allowed to leave Macao. He warned that a sentence of this length for someone of Au’s age amounts to a life sentence.
In response to these concerns, the court maintained that an approved lawyer was appointed to represent Au, that he fully exercised his defense rights, and that regular family visits were approved.
Background and Official Responses
Au is a teacher-turned-politician who served in a legislature dominated by Beijing loyalists for 20 years before stepping down in 2021. He previously organized Macao’s commemorations of the 1989 Tiananmen Square crackdown and was known as a rare, albeit mild, critic of government policies on Facebook and in interviews.
The Macao government expressed full support for the ruling and urged all sectors of society to respect the decision, adding that officials will continue enforcing the security law strictly.
Beijing’s Hong Kong and Macao Affairs Office stated that the verdict proves Macao’s unwavering resolve to protect national security and serves as a reminder to stay vigilant during stable times. Meanwhile, China’s Foreign Ministry declared that it strongly opposes any external entities using individual cases as an excuse to interfere in Macao’s internal affairs.
