Letters | Hong Kong racism law needs more teeth, but equality watchdog is up to its job

The Equal Opportunities Commission has been pushing the government to plug the legal loopholes, while working with the victims of discrimination to seek redress

Racism and other prejudice

Letters

Published: 5:00pm, 12 Feb 2019

Why you can trust SCMP

I refer to the article by Mr Yonden Lhatoo, “Let’s face it, Hong Kong’s law against racism is completely useless” (February 2).

As a statutory body tasked with enforcing Hong Kong’s anti-discrimination laws, the Equal Opportunities Commission has long shared Mr Lhatoo’s view that there are fundamental flaws in the Race Discrimination Ordinance. To begin with, there is no provision, as in the three other anti-discrimination ordinances, that outlaws racial discrimination committed by the government in performing its functions and exercising its powers. The ordinance also places new immigrants and asylum seekers in a potentially vulnerable position, as its definition of race does not cover citizenship, nationality and residency status.

These yawning gaps must be filled, as the Equal Opportunities Commission made clear in its submission to the government on the Discrimination Law Review in 2016, which contained 73 recommended revisions to the four existing anti-discrimination ordinances.

For Hong Kong, ending racism starts with ending it at home

Indeed, as a statutory body funded by the government, rather than a legislative body, the commission cannot act beyond its jurisdiction; we do, however, continue to push for legal reforms in solidarity with unprotected victims and the NGOs that help them. I myself wrote an article in the Post last December, calling on the government to plug these legal loopholes.

Thus, the fact that no one has been prosecuted under the Race Discrimination Ordinance since the law was enacted – as mentioned by Mr Lhatoo – is more indicative of the nature of the law than the work of the Equal Opportunities Commission. All unlawful acts under the ordinance give rise to civil liability, with the exception of “serious vilification” (where a public activity incites hatred against, serious contempt for, or severe ridicule of a person on the grounds of race, and involves threat of physical harm to persons, their property or premises).

Furthermore, the law was drafted in such a way that conciliation is the preferred mode of seeking redress. The spirit of the law is to ensure justice is done in a way most beneficial to all parties, and that discrimination is eliminated first and foremost through mutual understanding between parties in dispute.

The commission has striven to provide avenues of redress for those aggrieved by discrimination within the bounds of the law. In 2017-18, we handled 821 complaints lodged under the anti-discrimination ordinances, achieved a conciliation success rate of 67 per cent, and accepted more than half of the applications for legal assistance.

Specifically, complaints lodged under the Race Discrimination Ordinance totalled 83, most of which were related to hate messages on social media platforms. In fact, in our continuous effort to combat hate speech online, we have been urging Facebook to hand over contact information of users who posted vilifying comments about ethnic minorities on an NGO’s page.

To sum up, the commission recognises the need to strengthen the protection afforded by the Race Discrimination Ordinance while continuing to do its best in eliminating discrimination within the law’s current framework. Legal advocacy and complaint handling are far from mutually exclusive functions; ultimately they both testify to our quest of creating a society free from prejudice and discrimination.

Professor Alfred Chan Cheung-ming, chairperson, Equal Opportunities Commission

This article appeared in the South China Morning Post print edition as: Equality watchdog is doing its best as a statutory body, but racism law needs more teeth

Post