Equality chief deserves a fair chance to perform

There was a time, not so long ago, when the offer of a job as head of the Equal Opportunities Commission would have been considered highly attractive. The body enjoyed a reputation as one of the most effective and independent institutions in Hong Kong.

How that image has been tarnished over the past six months. One chief was effectively removed by the government and another was forced to resign under public and political pressure. The once highly regarded organisation has been engulfed by controversy, political infighting and doubts about its future course. As the new chairwoman prepares to take over, she may be forgiven for feeling like she has accepted a poisoned chalice.

Restoring the commission's reputation and getting it back to the business it knows best - fighting discrimination - will be the first, and most important, task for Patricia Chu Yeung Pak-yu. It will not be easy. Even if we put aside the commission's recent unhappy history, two hurdles immediately stand in her path. The first is that Mrs Chu's appointment has itself come in for criticism. The second is that her contract will last only for a year. She has a short time in which to make an impact, and much opposition to overcome. Mrs Chu's undoubted administrative abilities will be severely tested.

She has only recently become a member of the commission. But the controversy over her selection arises from her having spent 34 years as a civil servant, retiring last year as deputy director of social welfare. The appointment comes at a time when the government is making an unhealthy habit of appointing bureaucrats to head independent watchdogs, prompting suspicions that it is looking for an easier ride. Mrs Chu's appointment follows quickly on the heels of civil servant Benjamin Tang Kwok-bun being given the director of audit position. Although not ideal, however, the choice of a former public servant to lead the EOC is not so problematic. Its brief is much broader, covering Hong Kong society: it is not confined to monitoring the government.

Her one-year contract is said to be transitional. It is not entirely clear what this means. Perhaps Mrs Chu is expected to simply steady the ship until a review of the commission's operations has been completed. Perhaps she is playing a holding role, while a successor is sought. Either way, the short-term appointment will not help to give the commission the stability and continuity it so desperately needs. Mrs Chu will effectively be on trial, placing her under additional pressure and giving opponents an early opportunity to press for her replacement. It is to be hoped that we do not see a repetition of the problems which plagued her predecessor, retired judge Michael Wong Kin-chow.

Mrs Chu may not be the perfect candidate for the job, but she deserves a chance. Some have argued her lack of legal knowledge is a drawback. There is no reason why this should be the case. But if a director of operations is appointed as her subordinate- a proposal now apparently in doubt - then it would be helpful for the successful candidate to have a legal background. Mrs Chu is not a human rights activist. But a history of activism is not needed for the job. What is required, however, is a genuine belief in the principles of equality, fair play and protection of rights upon which the commission depends. Her social welfare background suggests Mrs Chu's heart is in the right place. In recent years, she has worked on projects which included helping child-abuse victims, the elderly and new arrivals from the mainland.