Equal Opportunities Commission (Hong Kong)

The Hong Kong government has had a history of opposing anti-discrimination legislation.[4]^:337 When the United Kingdom ratified the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) in 1986, the effect of CEDAW was extended to other British dependent territories.[5]^:22 However, the Hong Kong government requested that CEDAW to not be extended to Hong Kong until it could assess its effect,[6]^:9 claiming that the ratification of CEDAW might lead to "significant economic and social consequences".[7] Specifically, the government believed that CEDAW and anti-discrimination legislation would affect Hong Kong's laissez-faire market and traditional Chinese customs that treat men and women differently.[5]^:22–23

In the 1990s, the Hong Kong government was increasingly pressured to address equality and human rights. The 1991 legislative election produced Hong Kong's first directly elected Legislative Councillors. During the election, women's groups pressured candidates into acknowledging discrimination against women.[4]^:363 As a result, the 1991 Legislative Council asserted more pressure on the executive than its predecessors.[4]^:362 In November 1991, Legislative Councillor Emily Lau helped establish an ad-hoc group in the Legislative Council to study women's issues.[4]^:363 In March 1992, an inter-departmental working group on sex discrimination was established to advise the government on whether to extend CEDAW to Hong Kong.[7] On 16 December 1992, Lau introduced a bill that called on the Hong Kong government to support the extension of CEDAW.[4]^:363–364 The bill was opposed by the government, but nonetheless passed after all but the three ex-officio members voted in its favour.[4]^:365

Emily Lau at a demonstration in 2014.

The Hong Kong government did not act on the bill immediately and maintained that the public must first be consulted.[6]^:9 After nine months of preparation, it issued the "Green Paper on Equal Opportunities for Women and Men" in August 1993.[4]^:366 According to Carole Petersen, discrimination against women was understated in the green paper by the government.[4]^:366–368 By the end of the public consultation on the green paper, Secretary for Home Affairs Michael Suen admitted that "[it] would be difficult for [the government] to come up with credible arguments not to extend CEDAW".[8]

Anna Wu, then an appointed Legislative Councillor, tabled the Equal Opportunities Bill 1994 before the legislature,[3]^:345 during a period leading up to the handover of Hong Kong which Wu believed to have given a window of opportunity for expanding equality rights.[1] The bill sought to prohibit discrimination on a number of grounds, including sex, marital status, pregnancy, sexuality, race, age, disability, and political and religious conviction.[4]^:372 As a private members' bill not affecting government revenue, the Equal Opportunities Bill did not require government consent to be tabled.[1] Wu also proposed the Human Rights and Equal Opportunities Commission Bill, which would create a statutory body for equality and a tribunal to adjudicate claims under the Equal Opportunities Bill.[4]^:372 The bill was rejected by Governor Chris Patten, as the government was going to present a similar bill establishing an equality commission and to legislate against discrimination on the grounds of sex, disability and family status.[1]

In 2003, Michael Wong Kin-chow was removed as the Chairman of the EOC after an investigation by the Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) revealed that Mr Wong had deliberately made improper applications to the HKSAR Government for reimbursement of several first-class flights between 1998 and 2001, valued at HK$171,666.[13] It was also reported that Mr Wong had continued to draw his pension as a former High Court judge while he was employed at the EOC. The ICAC's report was submitted to the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) in November 2005 who ultimately decided not to lay charges.[14]

On 1 June 2016, a concern was raised by some legislators that the newly appointed Chairperson, Prof Alfred Chen, had expressed views which suggested he was not suitably aware of the key issues necessary to execute his duties as head of the EOC. These included a dismissal of the need to address the lack of any anti-discrimination ordinance to protect sexual minorities, confusion of concepts such as gender identity and sexual orientation, and declaring that the EOC should echo the views of the government.[15]