|
Human Rights Issues -- July 2000
A Survey found Age Discrimination is serious in Hong Kong (25 July 2000)
Immigration officers and translator charged in court (July 19, 2000) (Article 9, 14)
Non residents' Children born in Hong Kong had right of abode (July 28, 2000) (Article 23)
The Equal Opportunities Commission sought an unprecedented Judicial Review of the Method of Allocating Secondary Places (14 July 2000)
In August 1999, the Equal Opportunities Commission found the method of allocating secondary school places breached the Sex Discrimination Ordinances and this system has been adopted since 1983. In accordance with this system, boys and girls in the same school are treated separately because gender curves are used to weigh their academic results to produce final mark for placement. Secondly, boys and girls are placed into two ranks in the banding process, leading to different scores, affecting the secondary schools they attend. Thirdly, coeducation school requires having a fixed proportion of boys and girls, regardless of academic results. The Education Department argued that this system was worth to be maintained as girls usually got higher scores as they were matured faster than boys at that age. The writ will be filed in the High Court and hearing will be heard soon.
A Survey found Age Discrimination is serious in Hong Kong (25 July 2000)
A survey concerning conducted by the Hong Kong Council of Social Service (the Council) found that many middle aged people were facing age discrimination when they were finding jobs. From March to June, the Council interviewed 412 respondents aged between 40 to 65 about their employment. 30% respondents said they had been unemployed last year, while half of them were unemployed for a year. 56% respondents faced age discrimination when they sought to have a job. The Council suggested that the government should legislate age discrimination ordinance and should implement an employment policy for middle-aged people.
Government's pressure to scholars to stop opinion polls violated academic freedom (July - September 2000) (Article 19)
Dr. Robert Chung Ting-yiu, the pollester of public opinion poll in the University of Hong Kong, stated that Mr. Tung Chee-hwa had pressured him to stop carrying out opinion polls of the popularity of the Chief Executive and the credibility of the SAR Government. The incident drew a widespread public attention as it was worried that the academic freedom was infringed. Unfortunately, after an independent and thorough investigation, those allegations were found valid and true.
Under a political pressure in carrying out opinion poll
Dr. Chung is director of the Public Opinion Programme at the Journalism and Media Studies Centre of the University of Hong Kong. In his column of South China Morning Post dated July 7 2000, Dr. Chung expressed that he definitely did not face any political pressure in carrying out research before the handover. However, it was not the case after the handover. He stated that he was given a message from the Chief Executive via special channel more than once that his polling activities were not welcomed. He realized that he became a negative asset to the University.
Vice-chancellor named as "third party" to stop the poll
On July 15, Dr. Chung attended a press conference and named the vice chancellor Professor Cheng Yiu-chung as "third party" to advice him to stop the opinion poll. Moreover, he was told by Pro-vice-chancellor Professor Wong Siu-lun that funding for his programme would dry up if he continued to carry out the opinion poll. However, Professor Wong said that he just talked to Dr Chung as a friend and had no intention of putting pressure on Dr. Chung or passing on instructions.
Pro-vice-chancellor Professor Wong stated that many colleagues, including the vice-chancellor, and the Office of the Chief Executive of the SAR Government doubted on whether Dr. Chung was completely politically neutral. However, the vice-chancellor Professor Cheng was on vacation during this period.
Establishment of Independent Panel for inquiry
Not only the Student Union of the Hong Kong University, different Deans of Faculties of the University, but also the general public requested the vice-chancellor to explain for the incident and demanded to establish an independent panel for investigation. The chairman of the University Council, Mr. Yang Ti-liang had agreed to set up an independent inquiry and made to the findings to the public. The Council member and Democrat James To Kun-sun said those allegations had done serious harm to the university. Mr. To commented that the vice-chancellor had failed to defend academic freedom and he suggested a select committee should be setup in the new legislature to investigate the incident and summoned Mr. Lo to appear. Frontier convenor Ms. Lau Wai-hing said Mr Lo had abused his position, while Liberal Party chief Mr. James Tien Pei-chun said the university chief failed to resolve all the questions of the incident. Besides, University Academic Staff Association chairman Mr. Chan Chi-wai said academic freedom and quality assurance could not co-exist under Professor Cheng's administration.
Uncover the content of the meeting with government official
After one week of the press conference, the vice chancellor Professor Cheng Yiu-chung came out for explanation. He admitted that he had met Chief Executive Tung Chee-hwa's closest adviser Mr. Andrew Lo Cheung-on to discuss Dr. Chung's polling work in January 1999 but he did not construe it as "pressure" from the Government. He defended those allegations from Dr. Chung as he never speculated about Mr. Lo's intention for the meeting. He stated that the Chief Executive had never discussed Dr Chung's Public Opinion Programme with him, nor requested the university to stop the programme. However, he admitted Dr. Lo had raised two questions during the meeting: whether the polls conducted by Dr Chung were done in his own personal capacity or in the name of the university; and whether the university monitored Dr. Chung's polls and who decided the topics of the polls. Moreover, Mr. Lo doubted that Dr. Chung's being a pollestor and a political commentator concurrently constituted a conflict of roles.
The inquiry and the report
The inquiry lasted for a month and the Panel had no power to swear witnesses or to require them to give evidence. Mr. Patrick Fung S.C. was counsel for assisting the Panel. Mr. Warren Chan S.C., represented the Vice-Chancellor. Mr. Alan Hoo S.C. was instructed by the Department of Justice to represent Mr. Lo.
An infringement on academic freedom
The report of the University of Hong Kong independent inquiry came out on September 1, 2000 and was announced by the University Council. The independent investigation panel unanimously found that Professor Cheng Yiu-chung, the vice chancellor of the university, did inhibit right to academic freedom. The panel stated that after Professor Cheng had had a meeting with Mr Andrew Lo Cheung-on, a senior special assistant to the Chief Executive, Professor Cheng informed pro-vice-chancellor Professor Wong Siu-lun, to pressure Doctor Robert Chung with a view to interfering in his opinion polls on the Chief Executive's popularity.
The panel had not found out whether the Chief Executive had ordered to terminate the opinion poll, but it confirmed that the academic freedom of the Hong Kong University was deteriorated. The panel criticized that Mr. Andrew Lo was a poor and untruthful witness and the vice-chancellor Professor Cheng Yiu-chung had not presented the whole picture of the incident to the panel. On the contrary, it praised that Mr. Chung Ting-yiu was a reliable and honest plaintiff and that his allegations and complaint were true.
However, the Council did not take any action and handed the report to the Council of the University. After the report was announced, the student union of the University, the academics and the general public further urged the Council of the University to dismiss the vice chancellor. As a result, vice chancellor Professor Cheng resigned by himself before the meeting of the Council was held, though he still insisted that he had not interfered the academic freedom. On the other hand, the Chief Executive Mr Tung Chee-hwa actively claimed that he believed Mr. Andrew Lo was a reliable person and would not resign him. Legislator Margaret Ng Ngoi-yee had proposed to resign Mr. Andrew Lo in Legislative Council but it was not successful.
Immigration officers and translator charged in court (July 19, 2000) (Article 9, 14)
Two immigration assistants, Mr. Lung Kin-sing and Mr. Wong Chui-kam, and an interpreter Mr. Wong Kin-ang, who were involved in the case of Ms. Lin Qiaoying, were charged on July 18, 2000 with perverting with the course of justice over the wrongful jailing of Ms. Lin in 1999.
Ms. Lin Qiaoying, aged 17, had been detained over 65 days in prison after she arrived at Hong Kong airport in January 1999 because she was charged with travelling on a forged passport. She was released on appeal after a court found that her passport was genuine. Her family alleged that she was bullied by the officers and forced to sign a confession.
Legislator Lee Cheuk-yan agreed that if the immigration officers were found guilty, the Government should formally apologize to Ms. Lin for the incident. Moreover, Democrat Mr. James To Kun-sun said that Ms. Lin had high possibility to win if the officers pleaded guilty.
Non residents' Children born in Hong Kong had right of abode (July 28, 2000) (Article 23)
The Court of Appeal maintained the same ruling of the Court of First Instance that any Chinese citizens who were born in Hong Kong should have right of abode, even though their parents did not have right of abode. The judges ruled by the following arguments: Firstly, the content of Article 24(2)(1) of the Basic Law, which states that any Chinese citizen born in Hong Kong before or after the establishment of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall have right of abode, was clear and without ambiguity. Secondly, this article does not require the parents of the benefited children to have right of abode. Furthermore, the re-interpretation of the National People's Congress Standing Committee on June 26, 2000 mainly interpreted Article 22(4) and Article 24(2)(3) and hence the Government could not use the re-interpretation to explain Article 24(2)(1). The Court of Appeal also ruled that the additional requirements, which were stated in the paragraph 24(2)(1) of Appendix 1 of Immigration Ordinance, violated against the Basic Law.
The SAR Government worried that the ruling would induce the large influx of illegal immigrants from the mainland China to give birth in Hong Kong and the Immigration Department decided to appeal the case.