‘To see the right and not to do it is cowardice,” said Confucius.
Equality of treatment has always been a fundamental aspect of the Hong Kong way of life. It is not only a part of its common law tradition, but is also recognized by the Basic Law (Art 25). The notion that people should be treated fairly, irrespective of their place of origin, is one that must always be honored, and this means there can be no place for discrimination.
When the Race Discrimination Ordinance, Cap 602 (RDO), was enacted on Oct 3, 2008, its professed objective was “to render discrimination, harassment and vilification, on the ground of race unlawful”, and to “prohibit serious vilification of persons on that ground”. It was not, however, all-encompassing, and, over time, deficiencies have appeared. In consequence, it has not always provided everybody with the comprehensive protections to which they are entitled.
In particular, the RDO has been unable to help people from other parts of China. When it was enacted, the view was taken that it should not cover mainland Chinese, given that they belonged to the same ethnic group as local Chinese. When they faced discrimination, it was for social reasons, not racial, or so it was said, and this created a lacuna that has proved problematic over time.
In 2021, the Equal Opportunities Commission (EOC) disclosed that it had received numerous complaints of discrimination against people of Chinese stock in recent years. Indeed, a survey last year showed that nearly 3 in 5 adult mainland immigrants and 1 in 3 children complained of everyday prejudice. And, for some of them, the prejudice endured no matter how long they lived here.
The survey, conducted by the Society for Community Organization between May 2019 and January 2021, interviewed 531 mainland immigrants (336 adults and 195 children). About 44.7 percent of adult immigrants claimed to be the butt of impoliteness, and 31.2 percent said they received substandard service in restaurants and shops. One-third of respondents said they felt looked down upon, and 40.1 percent of adult immigrants and 45.6 percent of children felt it necessary to try to conceal their immigrant status.
Given its findings, the Society for Community Organization has unsurprisingly called on the government to beef up the RDO so it can combat discrimination based on resident status and country of origin, thereby providing mainland immigrants with a measure of protection they currently lack.
The discrimination they face is undoubtedly fueled by various factors, of which three are prominent. Whereas some people harbor hostility toward the central authorities, others simply like to look down on outsiders, while many fear competition by talented people from elsewhere.
The discrimination is often subtle, and can, for example, take the form of cold indifference, incivility, a refusal to greet workmates, or to engage in the everyday pleasantries of normal working environments. Occasionally, it rears its ugly head in public, as when mainland students at a local university recently found themselves crudely targeted in their dormitory late at night by local rowdies who were reportedly the worse for wear. Although this incident has been satisfactorily resolved and the culprits punished, it will have had an unsettling effect on the victims and others, and it will not have created a good impression on the mainland.
But whatever the motivation may be of those who try to make life difficult for their fellow countrymen, discrimination is always poisonous. It can cause real difficulties, mental and otherwise, and is obviously inimical to social harmony. It has, moreover, become more pronounced in recent times.
Both before and during the insurrection of 2019-20, there were people who called themselves “localists”, or a variant thereof, and who went out of their way to whip up hatred of mainland Chinese, and this took various forms. In 2014, for example, over 100 so-called “nativists” harassed mainland shoppers in Tsim Sha Tsui, screaming “Locusts!” at them. Thereafter, mainland people, regardless of whether they were Hong Kong residents or visitors, found themselves routinely abused and ostracized, most notably in the New Territories.
Whereas, moreover, during the public disorder, mainland students had to be evacuated for their own safety from their universities, and “yellow economy” eateries refused to serve Putonghua-speakers, even MTR commuters had to conceal their accents for fear of reprisals. The Reuters news agency even reported that a hair salon had announced it would cut only “Hong Kongers hair”. Such incidents marked a shocking low for Hong Kong, a place that has always prided itself on its courtesy and internationalism, and the culprits, many of whom will hopefully by now have emigrated, represented the very worst of this great city.
Some, however, are still around, albeit not usually so noisy, and they must not be beyond the reach of the law. Although the RDO contains effective provisions designed to combat discrimination, including the vilification of others, mainland Chinese can find themselves outside of its protections, which is intolerable.
After all, Hong Kong’s future lies in closer integration with the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao-Greater Bay Area, and this will attract mainland talent to the city. Others may also move to Hong Kong to help fill any gaps in the labor market created by the losers and malcontents who are running away to the UK, the US, and their other Western “havens”. As these arrivals will wish to help Hong Kong and even settle down here, it is vital that they are courteously treated upon arrival, and made to feel at home thereafter.
It is, therefore, gratifying that, in 2021, the EOC took up the cudgels, and called for all forms of discrimination against mainland Chinese to be proscribed. Having researched the issues, it recommended legislative changes that prohibit, one, intraracial discrimination, harassment and vilification; two, discrimination, harassment and vilification on grounds of residency status; and three, discrimination, harassment and vilification on grounds of regional origin. These proposals reflect the EOC’s awareness of the scale of the discrimination these people face, whether in the workplace, the school or elsewhere.
Quite clearly, the EOC’s efforts are commendable and should be fully supported, and it also needs to be empowered to investigate and prosecute cases of discrimination against Chinese people who come from elsewhere. While immigrants and visitors are as ethnically Chinese as local people, their cultural, linguistic and historical characteristics can differ greatly, but this in no way justifies prejudice against them, let alone harassment or victimization.
As the EOC has emphasized, it is keen to help everybody, and, once it is given the tools, it says it can get on with the job. On Oct 20, 2021, the EOC commissioner, Ricky Chu Man-kin, declared that “now is definitely the time to legislate, and we should do it as quickly as possible”. This initiative, therefore, will hopefully feature in the first Policy Address of the chief executive, John Lee Ka-chiu, to be delivered on Oct 19, 2022.
In the meantime, the police can always consider if those who discriminate against others are guilty of sedition, an offense chargeable under the Crimes Ordinance, Cap 200 (Section 10). Although sometimes overlooked, suspects can be prosecuted for sedition if they engage in particular activities with a “seditious intention”, one definition of which is the promotion of “feelings of ill-will between different classes of the population of Hong Kong” (Section 9, e). Although some lesser types of discrimination may not be caught by this offense, the more serious instances could be, and, until the EOC has acquired the powers it needs, sight should not be lost of this useful tool.
Until such time as all Chinese living in Hong Kong are comprehensively protected against discrimination, the harmonious society that is the shared aspiration of the city’s civilized residents will remain elusive, and the time to correct this historical anomaly is now.
The author is a senior counsel and law professor, and was previously the director of public prosecutions of the Hong Kong SAR.
The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.