“If certain passengers were asked to speak certain languages to be served by service providers, those who could not communicate effectively in Cantonese or English would be treated unfairly.”

He added that although language was not a protected characteristic under the ordinance, it was closely linked to race.

Chu stressed that even if the cabin crew members were simply joking and did not mean to discriminate, it was not a reliable defence they could lean on.

Hong Kong’s Cathay Pacific discrimination scandal: why did aircrew behave so badly?

The fallout was sparked after a passenger on a Cathay flight from Sichuan in Chengdu province to Hong Kong recorded conversations among the cabin staff trio and posted them on mainland Chinese social media.

The attendants in the recording could be heard making fun of passengers for mixing up “carpet” and “blanket”, with one saying: “If you cannot say ‘blanket’, you cannot have it.”

The conversation, followed by some laughter among the colleagues, then continued with one of them saying: “It’s true … Carpet is on the floor … Feel free if you want.” “Yes, feel free, [remove it], lie on it.”

Apart from the recorded conversation, the passenger also accused the flight attendants of insulting an elderly customer.

One employee was said to have remarked in Cantonese to her colleague: “They can’t understand human language,” after making an in-flight announcement in the language to remind passengers to remain seated when the safety belt sign was on, as an elderly passenger holding a child went to the toilet.

Hong Kong’s Cathay Pacific tries to defuse insult scandal as union blasts management

Cathay CEO Ronald Lam Siu-por publicly apologised multiple times in the aftermath, vowing to review staff training and improve the customer service culture at the city’s flag carrier.

Chu also told the radio show: “If passengers felt uncomfortable, despised, or insulted after hearing what the cabin crew members said, it could constitute racial harassment or vilification.

“It does not matter if those words were spoken directly to the passengers, but whether they heard it, and whether an unwelcoming environment was created.”

It is unknown if the passenger in question eventually received a blanket from the cabin crew.

The commission has also not received any complaint over the incident, and no investigation has been launched.

Cathay Pacific fires 3 staff accused of insulting non-English speakers

Chu added that the commission was working on intra-racial discrimination legislation to protect mainlanders, tourists and residents.

Hong Kong presently has four anti-discrimination ordinances, which cover gender, disability, family status and race. Acts of discrimination, however, between mainlanders and Hongkongers have not been outlawed, despite escalating tensions between the two in the past decade.

The commission earlier said the Race Discrimination Ordinance did not stipulate that the person who discriminated and the one being discriminated against could belong to the same race, and proposed to amend the law accordingly to fill the loophole.

Critics had also pushed for the amendment to be narrow in scope to prevent freedom of expression from being chipped away, but some said they believed that broadening the definition of “race” would be in line with the legislation’s general objectives. Those seeking a wider definition cited the examples of New Zealand, Britain and Australia, which included nationality and residency status in their legislation.

He said the parties had not yet reached a consensus on the terms, but he hoped work on this could be completed soon.

Nevertheless, a few residents took to the airwaves to defend the sacked Cathay staff.

“Did the passenger not get the blanket just because they did not know the English word for it?” said radio show caller Mrs Ma, questioning whether the three flight attendants deserved such serious punishment and condemnation, adding that she believed a warning would have been sufficient.

Ms Chan, another caller, also said the punishment was unfair, as the company seemed not to have looked into the incident fully, firing the trio within hours of the complaint emerging.

“The aircrew members were just chit-chatting in a rest area, not to the faces of passengers,” she said, adding that many service industry workers vented about difficult customers to each other, not meaning to make them uncomfortable.