July, 2008

The Passage of Hong Kong’s Race Discrimination Ordinance
- A Cause for Celebration?

Devi Novianti

（The author is Programme Manager of Christian Action Domestic Helpers and Migrant Workers Programme）

The 10th of July 2008 is a historic day for ethnic minorities in Hong Kong. After more than a ten-year battle since the Home Affairs Bureau originally published their public consultation paper on racial discrimination, the Legislative Council finally passed the Anti-Racial Discrimination Bill. The Bill was gazetted on 18th July 2008 and called the “Race Discrimination Ordinance” - Ordinance No. 29 of 2008.(1)

The effectiveness of this ordinance remains to be seen. The Equal Opportunities Commission must provide guidelines regarding its implementation, and it is expected that this process will take a year to complete.

The Ordinance protects ethnic minorities in accessing employment and educational institutions, disposal of premises, and in the provision of goods and services. Yet, it fails to address the needs of the largest group of ethnic minorities-migrant domestic workers.  They comprise half of the total ethnic minority population in Hong Kong.

Three major hurdles for migrant workers are contained within the ordinance. The first is Clause 3, which states that the provisions in the Ordinance are not binding to Government functions; Section 8(3), which states that residency status and nationality is not a recognizable claim of discrimination; and Section 55, which states that the Immigration Department is excluded from this Ordinance.

Clause 3 has important implications for migrant workers. On many occasions, migrant workers must face governmental authorities, such as Immigration Department officers when applying for employment visas or extensions for existing visas, or police officers when falsely accused of theft or when it is necessary to lodge a complaint against an employer. These two government institutions are crucial in determining whether a domestic worker is able to continue working in Hong Kong.

Cause for concern regarding Clause 3 is not baseless. Since the inception of Christian Action Domestic Helpers and Migrant Workers Programme (DMW)  in 1993, we have listened to many complaints from our domestic worker client-base regarding the Immigration Department’s rude attitude towards them, and we have also seen evidence that the police can and do abuse their power.

Non-compliance of the police

Hong Kong prides itself as being one of the safest cities. It is also claimed that police treatment is excellent towards the populace(2). However, our clients have related a different story.

1.　Refusal to take complaint.

Ms. E, an Indonesian domestic worker came to Hong Kong on 24th February 2008 for employment. She claimed that she was repeatedly assaulted by her employer. On 1st July 2008, her employer once again physically assaulted her by hitting her on the back twice, and roughly pushing her head. Ms. E. said that she could not tolerate the abuse any longer and left her employment. On that same day she reported the incident to the police.  However, the police refused to take her statement because she did not have her HKID Card and passport with her, as her agent had confiscated them. The police did not offer any assistance to Ms. E. to regain her documents, which were kept against her will.

On 7th July, Ms. E. returned to the police station after she managed to obtain her identity documents. She was told by the duty officer that it was useless for her to complain about her employer’s treatment because the incident was no longer recent and she could not submit any proof. Only when we wrote a complaint letter to the police did they accept her statement.  The statement was not written in Indonesian, and Ms. E. cannot read Cantonese. This means she will not be able to amend or correct her statement.

When taking her statement, the police reiterated that it was useless for Ms. E. to file a complaint. Therefore, Ms. E. was persuaded by the police to withdraw her complaint and the employer received only a warning.

2.　Abusive behaviour of the Police.

Mr. J, a male Indian domestic worker, related to DMW that he was punched repeatedly, held by the neck, and then pushed out of the flat by his employer’s brother. He called for police assistance. Three police officers responded to the call. After speaking to the employer’s father, the police officers told Mr. J that his employer was willing to give him an air ticket, and he should accept it and go home without causing any more trouble.

Mr. J showed the police officers his swollen face and arms but they refused to make any note of it. One of the police officers wrote something in his notebook and instructed Mr. J to sign. As it was written in Chinese and no translation was provided, Mr. J refused to sign in the notebook. One of the police officers told him that if he did not sign he would be arrested. Mr. J was obviously stressed at the turn of events, but he still insisted that he would not sign unless someone translated the contents to him.  In response, one of the police officers slapped Mr. J’s face with the notebook. Fearfully, Mr. J then wrote his name on the notebook and left the house of the employer without any assistance from the police.

On 28th May 2008, Mr. J made an official complaint to the police station. However, the police officer in charge refused to take his statement unless it was accompanied by a medical report. Mr. J, not knowing proper police procedure, did go to the hospital and obtained a medical report. Only then did the police accept his statement.

We have helped Mr. J file a complaint to Complaints Against Police Officers (CAPO). However, after being informed that a CAPO formal investigation will take a long time, Mr. J then decided to ask for an internal investigation by the relevant Divisional Commander instead.

The above two cases are just a sample of what we hear from our clients on a regular basis. Apparently, these are not isolated cases, as many non-governmental oragnisations (NGOs) also have similar concerns regarding police behaviour. We have attempted to improve the situation by opening a dialogue with the police.  On 12th February 2008, Christian Action DMW Programme together with other NGOs attended a dialogue with Hong Kong Police Force, Public Relations Branch.  This meeting was facilitated by Ms Emily Lau, a Legislative Councillor.  The meeting ended with the promise of Mr. Danko Au Yueng（Senior Superintendent） and Mr. Alvin Wong（Chief Inspector） to look into our complaints and communicate our concerns to a different department of the police force.

On 14th May 2008, based upon the request of the Committee on the Promotion of Racial Harmony, Ms. Ade Lam, the Chief Inspector of Police, Yau Tsim District, was invited to the Promotion of Racial Harmony meeting, which was facilitated by Constitutional and Mainland Affairs Bureau. Again, during the meeting, many Committee Members raised concerns regarding police behaviour. However, it does not seem that this effort managed to improve the police overall conduct.

Much hope was placed on the Race Discrimination Ordinance, as we believed that this Ordinance would protect ethnic minorities, including migrant workers, from double discrimination due to their race and low social status in the community. However, we have had to swallow the bitter fact that the Ordinance does not bind the Government in any of its official functions. Organisations like ours, whose mandate is to make sure that clients’ rights are protected, feel that we have lost one of our arms, as the Ordinance implicitly states that discrimination against ethnic minorities is acceptable. Due to this fact, there is not much we can do to assist our clients against such discrimination.

For further information regarding our work, please visit www.christian-action.org.hk.

(1) Hong Kong S.A.R. Gazettes no, G.N.4789 as published at
http://www.gld.gov.hk/cgi-bin/gld/egazette/gazettefiles.cgi?lang=e&extra=&year=2008
&month=07&day=18&vol=12&no=29&gn=4789&header=1&part=0&df=1&nt
=gn&acurrentpage=12&agree=1&newfile=1&gaz_type=mg visited on 25.7.08.

(2) Survey shows Hong Kong remaining save city, Hong Kong Government Press Release, published at  http://www.info.gov.hk/gia/general/200710/18/P200710180187.htm visited on 25.7.08.