Principle of fairness must be practised
The Equal Opportunities Commission, by definition, lives or dies by its commitment to fair treatment and transparency. The unsatisfactory circumstances in which newly appointed director of operations Patrick Yu was sacked, days before he was due to take up his post, are therefore a matter of concern.
Mr Yu had good credentials for the job. He was born and brought up in Hong Kong but has had a wide range of experience in the anti-discrimination field both here and overseas.
He has an international reputation. His problem, however, was that by the time he accepted the offer, the person who had appointed him - former commission chairwoman Anna Wu Hung-yuk - had been replaced.
Her successor, retired judge Michael Wong Kin-chow, clearly did not approve, apparently feeling the appointment was a challenge to his authority.
Mr Wong is said to have taken issue with comments made by Mr Yu to this newspaper in which he expressed the hope he would be able to help Hong Kong deal with planned anti-racism laws.
Mr Wong may be forgiven for not being wildly enthusiastic about an appointment that he felt had been imposed on him. But it is not as if the hiring of Mr Yu was a rash last-minute decision intended to tie his hands. The director of operations post was created after the disability and gender discrimination units were merged to boost efficiency and Ms Wu had raised this idea as far back as August last year.
The recruitment exercise was flawless. A selection committee comprising members of the EOC board was established, the post advertised and a number of candidates interviewed. A short-list was prepared and, in May, Mr Yu was selected. He was entitled to expect the contract would be honoured.
But after a meeting with his new boss, during which he says he was criticised and told he was not suitable for the job, Mr Yu was fired. No explanation has been provided by the EOC for the sacking. It issued a statement saying the decision had been endorsed by its board, although two commissioners have disputed this.
In the absence of further details, the decision looks petty and Mr Yu appears to have justification for claiming he has been harshly treated.
The manner of his dismissal does not sit easily with the principles of fairness upon which the EOC's credibility depends.
There is a need for a full account of what happened to be made public, for the implications go beyond the reputation of Mr Wong and the commission.
The EOC, during the four years it was led by Ms Wu, impressed with the rigorous way in which it went about promoting equal treatment and protecting citizens from discrimination.
It won praise both from within Hong Kong and overseas, notably from relevant United Nations committees. At times the EOC's work brought it into conflict with government departments. But this is to be expected - indeed it is required if the commission is to take its responsibilities seriously.
The controversy over Mr Yu's sacking comes at a sensitive time.
Ms Wu's removal in July raised fears the government wanted an easier ride from the EOC and was weakening in its commitment to the body. It is vital that Mr Wong proves this is not the case.
Indeed, the responsibilities of the commission should be widened to include, at least, discrimination on the grounds of race and age.
This is a time requiring strong and skilful leadership.
Mr Wong's term has got off to a bad start. But it is early days. We hope, in time, he will prove to be as successful in the post as Ms Wu.
Hong Kong's international image - and the fair treatment of people, regardless of their background or circumstances - depend on it.
