|
Human Rights Issues -- February 2001
Sex bias is not a big problem in Hong Kong (5 February 2001) (Article 5)
Police withdrew from the new Plan of keeping the names
of suspects and victims secret (8 February 2001) (Article
19)
UNHRC urged to establish a Human Rights Commission in Hong Kong (10 February 2001) (General)
Racial Discrimination Complaints to the Equal Opportunity Commission tripled (14 February 2001)(Article 26)
EOC initiated a lawsuit against the residents of Lai-ching garden (20 February 2001) (Article 2)
Sex bias is not a big problem in Hong Kong (5 February 2001) (Article 5)
Ms. Leung Lau Yau-fun, the first chairwoman of the Women's Commission established by the Government to advise on women's issues and policies, commented that sexual discrimination was not a major problem in Hong Kong.
She said that new immigrants from the Mainland China, women on low income and victims of domestic violence are the three main categories of women who were particularly vulnerable. She commented that most of the women in Hong Kong are generally well educated and the problems existed in lower grassroots women are stemmed from the lack of motivation and education. Thus, education and increased their motivation were the key to women's success.
The chairwoman commented that Women's Commission was a happy medium and it should not be too high-sounding and too confrontational to government policies. Oppositely, Law wai-ha, organizer of the Association for the Advancement of Feminism, had doubted on the effectiveness of the commission, as it did not have enforcement power. She also criticized the attitude of the chairwoman for the lack of considering equal opportunity and social equality.
Police withdrew from the new Plan of keeping the names of suspects and victims
secret (8 February 2001) (Article 19)
On 2 February, without prior announcement or public consultation, the Hong
Kong Police had a new plan of keeping the names of suspects and victims secret.
The Police claimed that the previous practice, by which incomplete names of
suspects, victims, witness and informants were revealed, breached privacy laws.
The new plan was condemned by the mass media group as a move towards a threat
to press freedom. Furthermore, the Privacy Commissioner, Stephne Lau Ka-men
said the previous practice did not breach the Privacy Ordinance.
It was believed that the launch of new plan was due to the complaint by the tycoon about press reports of a burglary on his flat. The Secretary for Security Regina Ip Lau Suk-yee admitted she had received complaints from a tycoon and passed it to the Police to handle it. But she insisted that she did not put any pressure on the Police.
After several meetings with the Privacy Commission and under a wave of criticism from the public, the Police withdrew the new plan.
UNHRC urged to establish a Human Rights Commission in Hong Kong (10 February
2001) (General)
The two representatives of the United Nations Human Rights Commission, Mr. Justice P.N. Bhagwati and Ms. Christine Chanet, who had visited Hong Kong for two days, urged that a local Human Rights Commission should be established by the SAR Government in order to monitor the human rights situation in Hong Kong. They urged the Hong Kong SAR Government to legislate for combating against racial discrimination.
However, Mr. Lam woon-kwong, Secretary for Home Affairs Bureau, commented that the Government was open to any suggestions and opinions, while the Government did not agree that there was a need for legislation against racial discrimination or establish a human rights commission at that stage.
Racial Discrimination Complaints to the Equal Opportunity Commission tripled (14 February 2001)(Article 26)
Since the establishment of the Equal Opportunity Commission in 1996, the Commission
has received 247 cases concerning racial discrimination. 131 out of 247 cases
are general information inquiries while the majority of the complaints are about
relations between employers and employees such as no job promotion or bonus.
Others concern the services, facilities and products. For example, the hospital
provided poorer services to mainlanders. However, the Commission also received
some strange complaints such as a beauty pageant always favoring Asian participants.
The legislative councilors criticized the Home Affairs Bureau in a meeting for turning a blind eye to the existence of racial discrimination in Hong Kong. The legislative councilor, Mr. Chan Wai-yip even criticized a recent research of racial discrimination in Hong Kong conducted by the Home Affairs Bureau for being poorer than the homework of primary three students.
EOC initiated a lawsuit against the residents of Lai-ching garden (20 February 2001) (Article 2)
The Equal Opportunity Commission (EOC) employed the Disability Discrimination Ordinance to sue the residents of Lai-ching Garden, who were accused of disturbing the patients and the staff of the Kowloon Bay Health Care Center. This is the first attempt for the EOC to sue a group of residents in court.
Ms. Anna Wu Hung-yuk, the chairperson of the EOC, commented that various government departments involved in this incident did not have a good co-ordination. These departments include the Hong Kong Police Force and Home Affairs Department (Kwun Tong Branch).
The opposition of the residents against the centre was started since 1996 as they rejected to have a health clinic, which partly used for the treatment of sexual diseases. The residents had set up a counter outside the garden to block the patients and the staff to enter the centre. Since the centre has operated in May 1999, some protestors and dissents of the garden have targeted the staff and patients and bullied them from entering the clinic violently. With reference to the seriousness of the incident, the lawsuit was raised after legal consultation.
The Sue of wrongly jailed teenager Lin Qiaoying against Court Interpreter and Immigration Department Assistant was cleared (24 February 2001) (Article 14)
A court interpreter and an immigration department assistant were cleared of charges of preventing the course of justice.
The sue was begun when a teenager Ms Lin Qiaoying was detained at the airport due to the genuineness on 9 October 1999 on suspicion that she was travelling on a forged passport. She accused the above-mentioned persons for threatening to send her back to China and jailed her for a life in Hong Kong during the questioning. She also accused them for being forced to admit another person's identity, Chan Lai-na. Lin was jailed for four months after pleading guilty to a charge of possession of a forged passport on 12 October. But her conviction was quashed when her passport was proved genuine on 13 January 1999.
In the ruling, the Judge Barnabas Fung Wah pointed out 17 inconsistencies in Lin's evidence by which it particularly damaged her credibility. The Judge had doubt on her failure in recalling her memory on whether the immigration assistant had pushed her head into the rubbish bin. She also failed to recall of her memory about her allegation that the court interpreter waved a baron and threatened to beat her to death. In addition, she accused the court interpreter for forcing her to admit another person's identity and picking up September 24 1983 as her birthday. But she did not complain it to the duty lawyer and magistrate. The Judge found that the information could have only come from Lin, given that she has admitted it was actually Chan's real birthday. Judge Fung concluded that "Notwithstanding that the passport used by Lin was genuine, and bearing in mind all the circumstances, including the fact that travel and other identity documents in her name were being used by others, and having observed her demeanor in court, I am not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that she was a truthful witness."
In order to prevent such case to happen again, the Judge suggested the installation of video in the interview's rooms and sending questionable passports to government laboratories.
A Woman won the First Court case concerning Sex Discrimination against pregnant woman (27 February 2001) (Article 26)
The famous pharmaceutical company, Wyeth (HK), was sued by the breach of the Sex Discrimination Ordinance. District court Judge ruled that it discriminated against former product manager when she informed the company she was pregnant in September 1997. She was requested to leave the company or to be downgraded after she received an ultimatum in December 1997. She refused the proposal and filed her complaint to the Equal Opportunity Commission four days later. She also complained that the company denied her a pay rise in 1999 and increased her workload. She finally resigned in 1999. With the help of Equal Opportunity Commission, she sued her complaint to the court and asked for more than 1 million for compensation.
The company explained that the reason for having such proposal was because of her unsatisfactory performance. However, the explanation was rejected by the Judge. In the ruling, the Judge agreed that there was no company culture of prejudice against pregnant employees. But, when the boss discriminated against the employees, the company still needed to bear legal responsibility.
The case was adjourned to May, when the Judge will announce the date he will rule on compensation.
US rights report attack HK SAR Government on police brutality (February 27, 2001) (General)
The States Department of the US had announced a report to comment on the human rights practices in Hong Kong. The report was composed by the Human Rights and Labor Division of Bureau of Democracy and the problem of police brutality was highlighted.
According to the report, the US government commented that individual members of the force sometimes used excessive force, especially against persons in custody. It was concerned that complaints against the police were solely investigated by the Complaints against Police Office and merely reviewed by the Independent Police Complaints Council. Moreover, it highlighted the exceptionally low rate of complaints being found substantiated. With reference to the situation in 1999, 1,098 assault allegations were received and only one allegation was substantiated. The report also coded the June 2000 protest against the right of abode issue and agreed that police had exerted excessive force when they used pepper spray and hit demonstrators.
The US Government called for the SAR Government to follow the recommendations drawn by the United Nations Human Rights Committee. It suggested the government to reconsider the mechanism of handling complaints against police because the credibility of the IPCC would be undermined as the police are responsible for investigation of police misconduct by themselves.