Firm grounds lacking for race law delay

WHEN THE GOVERNMENT finally released results this week of its consultation exercise on whether to bring in laws against racial discrimination, it did so in a surprisingly low-key fashion. The findings, which revealed widespread support for the legislation, were given to a legislator who had requested them and then quietly placed on a government Web site. There was no press release or press conference to publicise the contents. Both the lack of fanfare, and the conclusions the government reached in the report - which emphasised opposition from local business organisations - have led supporters of the legislation to believe it is, once again, dragging its feet on the issue. Barrister Vandana Rajwani, of Hong Kong Against Racial Discrimination, said: 'The impression is that they [the government] are going to bury the issue. It is on the back burner.' Some of those who argue the laws are needed suggest that opposition among certain senior officials is to blame, and are hoping that the appointment of Patrick Ho Chi-ping as Secretary for Home Affairs may bring change. The issue is not a new one. For more than 10 years the government has resisted pressure for laws which would make it illegal to discriminate on the grounds of race, and allow victims to seek a remedy in court. It prefers to focus on tackling the issue by educating the public. But a United Nations committee has expressed concern and the government needs to make a decision on the legislation issue before reporting back to the UN next year. The consultation paper revealed worries among sectors of the business community that the laws will have a damaging impact on employers, particularly during an economic downturn. It is argued that extra expense will be incurred to comply with new legislation and companies could end up having to deal with a flood of court cases. Such views were broadly reflected by Glover Chan Wing-wah, spokesman for the Hong Kong Management Association, which provides training and education for executives. He said it supported the spirit of the legislation, but added: 'We think it is not necessary to introduce the legislation at this moment. There is no visible evidence that racial discrimination is really prevalent in Hong Kong. 'We think it is inappropriate to introduce such legislation in a difficult economic environment.' But supporters of the laws argue the concerns are misplaced, and based on myths rather than evidence. Ms Rajwani said: 'It is not going to be expensive at all. There will probably be no extra cost.' The argument that the problem of racial discrimination is not sufficiently serious to warrant legislation has received official backing. In June, then secretary for home affairs Lam Woon-kwong said: 'Is the situation so dire as to warrant legislation? I think most Hong Kong people will not think the situation is that serious.' But former legislator Christine Loh Kung-wai, who put together a bill intended to bring in such laws, said there were broader issues at stake. 'The problem really is a matter of principle. Do we believe that our society should have such laws? It is very hard to argue from a philosophical and values basis that we will protect people from some kinds of discrimination but not others.' Laws against sex and disability discrimination were introduced six years ago, but racial discrimination was not included in the legislation. The idea that anti-racial discrimination laws would lead to a flood of court cases does not appear to be backed up by the way in which the other discrimination laws have been used by the public. Equal Opportunities Commission chief Anna Wu Hung-yuk, a longtime advocate of anti-racial discrimination laws, said the commission already had sophisticated methods for ensuring that only cases with merit were taken to court. 'There are a lot of hurdles to go through,' she added. 'Individuals are free to litigate on their own, but we have not seen a huge output since these laws were introduced. We do not have vexatious litigants . . . I don't see unnecessary litigation. People in Hong Kong do not like going to court.' Ms Wu said the law specified that conciliation between the parties must be tried first, and in the majority of cases an agreement was reached. It is only when this is not possible that a case goes to court. 'A race law would follow the same stages,' she said. Ms Rajwani said: 'Complainants of race discrimination only go to court as a last resort. Victims are reluctant to come forward.' She said companies would be able to avoid court cases simply by obeying the law. Litigation aside, opponents of legislation argue it would force companies to spend money to ensure their procedures comply. But Ms Wu said companies already had procedures to deal with sex and disability discrimination. Race laws would be framed in a similar fashion and it should be simple to ensure compliance. There is also an argument that the introduction of laws will not, in practice, help to combat racial discrimination or even that they may contribute to racial tension. Ms Rajwani said: 'I have to accept you cannot change people's mindsets overnight, but you can change their behaviour. Therefore, having laws is one step towards creating racial harmony.' The introduction of laws also helped to widen society's awareness of the issue, she said. With the government focused on dealing with Hong Kong's economic woes, and business interests sensitive to any moves that may make matters worse, it is perhaps not surprising that race laws are not seen as a priority. But there is evidence that support for the laws among the business community is growing. Ms Wu said recent surveys conducted by the commission 'reflect the business community saying that they have moved beyond opposing legislation and are looking at the value of compliance'. 'It was also interesting to see that many businesses we surveyed thought we already had a race law,' she said. Indeed businesses could benefit from such laws, said Ms Wu. Adopting more objective recruitment criteria led to a better quality workforce. Becoming an employer which puts equal opportunities into practice could also lead companies into new markets, she added. The government's consultation exercise tended to back this up, with 16 of the 25 business organisations which responded stating they were broadly in favour of legislation. Of those 16, nine were from overseas chambers of commerce. Christopher Hammerbeck, executive director of the British Chamber of Commerce in Hong Kong, said it backed legislation. 'The United Kingdom, from where many of our companies originate, does have comprehensive legislation to define and deal with racial discrimination . . . The experience in the United Kingdom was and is that legislation is a key element in winning the battle against discrimination of all kinds and this includes racial discrimination.' He said education was also needed. In its conclusion on the consultation exercise, the Home Affairs Bureau stated: 'It may be significant that the majority of those in favour were foreign chambers whereas most of those opposed were the major local chambers.' Some supporters of the legislation argue that this conclusion places undue emphasis on the minority of opposing views and does not fairly reflect the findings themselves. If the government decides not to introduce the laws, it will need to provide good reasons backed by evidence. At present, the evidence to back up the local concerns seems to be lacking. Ms Wu said: 'I think the government is going to have to bite the bullet and make up its mind. I would strongly urge the government to put on its thinking cap. Be bold and look at the positive side, look at the value.' Cliff Buddle edits the Post's opinion pages