It has taken the government years to legislate against racial discrimination, even though Hong Kong has long been a signatory to an international convention that requires it. The bill passed by the Legislative Council yesterday is nonetheless welcome. The city is soon to have a law upholding the respect for human rights expected of a multi-ethnic society that claims to be an international city. The legislation is far from perfect. And other comparable societies have better laws. But there remains none that can claim to have eradicated prejudice on grounds of race, colour, descent, national or ethnic origin.
The passing of the Race Discrimination Bill therefore is a landmark in an ongoing battle against a particularly repugnant form of discrimination that harms Hong Kong's best interests. It was marked by a rare defeat for the government on the floor of Legco, when legislators usually considered friendly to the administration voted against an exemption for language discrimination. The bill was eventually passed without it. Campaigners for racial equality can be forgiven for a measure of euphoria, although that will be tempered by the bill's lack of a proactive approach to enforcement.
Remarks yesterday by Secretary for Constitutional and Mainland Affairs Stephen Lam Sui-lung and Equal Opportunities Commission chairman Raymond Tang Yee-bong remind us of the task ahead. Mr Tang said the success of the law would be dependent upon everyone in the public or private sector honouring the spirit of the legislation. Though self-evident, this is important because the EOC will be responsible for administering it. The number and nature of complaints by victims of alleged discrimination, and how often the EOC feels compelled to take enforcement action, will be a measure of community compliance and the effectiveness of the new law.
Mr Lam said the government believed that along with other administrative measures, the legislation would create a new situation in which different ethnic groups would feel 'better served'. The reference to 'other administrative measures' is problematical. It goes to the heart of the main criticism of the bill - the exemption from its provisions of many of the government's public functions. This not only departs from international norms but from existing Hong Kong laws that ban discrimination on the basis of gender and disability. Leading lawyers and human rights advocates campaigned against it.
The government spurned a sensible suggestion from the EOC that would have got around its concern about being exposed unjustifiably to litigation when government practice or policy is perceived to be less favourable to a particular race. It would have required the government to acknowledge in the law a general duty to promote equality, set up a racial equality scheme, assess the impact of its policies on ethnic minorities and remedy adverse effects. The EOC would have had a monitoring role.
The government gave no convincing reason for not adopting this suggestion, modelled on practice in Britain for several years. Instead, Mr Lam promised 'administrative guidelines'. These were the administrative measures he was referring to yesterday when he pledged the government's intention to create 'the environment in which both Chinese and other ethnic groups will feel very much that they are part of this international community'. Minorities and rights advocates would rest easier if good intentions were backed by law. The administration, the bureaucracy and the EOC face a heavy responsibility to deliver on Mr Lam's pledge.