January, 2007

Whose Interests Are Our Government Defending?

Rose Wu

Recently there were clear illustrations of how our government has failed to defend the human rights of racial and sexual minorities in our community. The first example was the release of the government's Race Discrimination Bill that was tabled in the Legislative Council (Legco) in December 2006-10 years after the proposal was first included in a public consultation exercise in 1997. However, instead of the overdue bill being welcomed, it was met with a storm of criticism by human rights activists as well as racial minority groups.

The bill deals with six areas, including employment, education, club memberships and the provision of goods and services, and prohibits both direct and indirect forms of discrimination. The most controversial aspect of the bill, however, is the exemptions it contains. Differential terms of employment, for instance, are allowed for expatriate staff on the basis of skills and experience but not race. In addition, companies with five staff or fewer will be exempt for three years. Employers are also allowed to choose domestic helpers of a particular race, though once the helper has been employed they will be protected by the law. The bill moreover does not pertain to discrimination against indigenous villagers or prejudice based on nationality and residency status.

The most debate, however, has been generated by the language exemption, which cuts across all six areas included in the bill. The bill states that the choice of medium of instruction in schools cannot be grounds for racial discrimination. It is also spells out that affirmative action-requirements for the government and organisations to adopt measures to promote equal opportunities-will not be covered. The clauses effectively protect the Education and Manpower Bureau against potential lawsuits from minority children unable to compete on an equal footing with their local Chinese counterparts in Chinese-medium schools. In this regard, Fermi Wong Wai-fun, the executive director of minority rights group Unison Hong Kong, described the bill as unprecedented in legitimising and legalising discriminatory practices, particularly in the field of education and public services, rather than protecting the equal rights of ethnic minorities in Hong Kong.

According to Unison, in the current educational system, ethnic minority children face tremendous difficulties in learning Chinese that, as a consequence, deprives them of equal opportunities in both further studies and the job market. The language barrier further denies members of ethnic minority communities of their equal right of access to information and various public services, including medical and health services, labour services and vocational training. Unison also notes that deprivation of an effective language education creates cross-generational disadvantages and poverty. Unison believes that a competent and comprehensive law can protect ethnic minorities against racial discrimination.

The second issue which caught the public's attention was the Broadcasting Authority's ruling against a television programme about gay marriage produced by RTHK that aired during peak family viewing hours on July 9 last year. The episode, featuring the stories of two lesbians and a gay man, was part of the television series Hong Kong Connection on TVB Jade. According to the media, the Broadcasting Authority strongly advised the broadcaster to follow the family viewing policy after ruling on an appeal brought by a member of the public. It decided the programme was "unfair, partial and biased towards homosexuality." The authority added that the programme gives the public the wrong impression that society should accept homosexual marriages. A day after the ruling Secretary for Commerce, Industry and Technology Joseph Wong Wing-ping, the minister in charge of broadcasting, took the unusual step of asking for an immediate meeting with the director of RTHK.

From an educational point of view, we should welcome the production of this programme, for it sought to reflect the reality of homosexual partners as they experience social and legal discrimination in Hong Kong that is hidden from most of us in the midst of our everyday lives. By claiming that this programme was "biased toward homosexuality," the Broadcasting Authority is itself expressing bias toward homosexuals in our community and seeks to maintain the discrimination that they face. Indeed, there are many programmes presently being broadcast regularly on TV, especially by Christians, that present views that promote heterosexual marriage as the only form of family. Is it acceptable for only so-called mainstream views to be broadcast? How about the biased attitude toward sexual minorities in our society? Does the Broadcasting Authority understand how difficult it is for people who feel discrimination daily and attacks on their identity to come forward and try to explain their beliefs and lifestyle?

In fact, the government should be reminded that it made a promise to the public that instead of enacting anti-discrimination legislation regarding sexual orientation it would initiate more public education on the topic as a way to change people's prejudice because homosexuality is a controversial issue in Hong Kong. However, the government's actions in response to this incident contradict what it promised.

In addition, the public was also shocked by the apparent attempt by the secretary of commerce, industry and technology, Joseph Wong Wing-ping, to stifle freedom of the press in Hong Kong by immediately seeking a meeting with the head of RTHK, Chu Pui-hing. According to the RTHK staff union, it is believed that such a meeting between a policy secretary and RTHK immediately after a Broadcasting Authority ruling never occurred before. We are afraid that if RTHK can be muzzled, then all media in Hong Kong can be muzzled.