HK anti-racist bill could exclude migrants

The Sun, HK: If the government's Race Discrimination Bill is passed by the Legislative Council without amendment, cases of migrant domestic helpers who have been discriminated against because of their race will still go unheeded. This was one of the concerns raised during a day-long conference organized by the University of Hong Kong's Centre for Comparative and Public Law on Mar. 31 which gathered people from the academe, non-government organizations, and the government. The Bill is the fourth piece of anti-discrimination legislation in Hong Kong and it would prohibit discrimination on the basis of race, color, descent, or national or ethnic origin. However, Carole J. Petersen from the University of Hawaii at Manoa, noted that under clause 8 of the proposed law, discrimination would not apply if a person is not a resident. "If I am understanding this correctly, you can't bring a claim of either direct discrimination or indirect discrimination on the basis of a distinction that's based on nationality or citizenship." "It looks to me that under this Bill, you could perfectly lawfully post a sign that says... citizens of the Philippines may not stay in this hotel," she said. Michael Davis of the Chinese University of Hong Kong shares the same concern. "What has not gone through much debate in public discussion is the domestic helper side of this. I think even among us, we don't push this issue as hard as we should and it worries me a bit.." Davis noted that international conventions on racial discrimination have all been critical of Hong Kong's 2-week rule which obliges foreign domestic helpers to leave Hong Kong within two weeks after the termination of their work contract. This was seconded by P.Y. Lo, a barrister and a PhD candidate at HKU, who said, "The problem of race discrimination is the two-week rule, the immigration policy concerning groups of people who come here to work." Davis went on to ask, "Are the domestic helpers of Hong Kong a floating population? Literally taken outside the law, if this Bill excludes them?" Though he recognized that the issue may be more political than legal, he made known that, "People who are disenfranchised do not have a voice" and suggested that some advocacy should be in place so that the voices of the domestic helpers will be heard. The Bill was heavily criticized because of its wide ranging exclusions. According to Petersen, "It appears that the general intent of Clause 3 is to make the RDB not apply to many truly "governmental" responsibilities such as policing and correctional services." Margaret Ng, chair of the Legislative Council's Bills Committee, thanked those who gave comments, especially on Clause 8, which she said she never understood until Petersen pointed out its possible meaning. But some Filipinos who were at the conference, another pressing concern was whether overseas Filipino workers would recognize discrimination when it's used against them. Edwina Santoyo, the director of the Bethune shelter home, cited possible cases of racial discrimination which have gone unreported. "These are not treated as serious cases. Hindi ito tinitingnan as racial discrimination. Kulang din kasi ng information at education ang mga Pilipino tungkol dito." She cited the case of a Filipina helper whose contract was immediately terminated by her Chinese employer upon seeing and taking a dislike to the shape of her face. Another case was that of another helper who was asked during an interview: "Why is your skin color like that?" Santoyo said that the interview ended immediately after the employer asked the question. Santoyo went on: "Hindi lang ito nangyayari sa mga residente. Paano na sa loob ng bahay. Posible ring may racial discrimination doon. Tulad ng hindi pwedeng paliguin ang katulong dahil sa madumi ito. Minsan, hindi lang iyan simpleng abuse or maltreatment. Maaaring racism na. Isa pa ang 2-week rule. Bakit dh lang ang sakop niyan?" The possibility that the Bill was excluding non-resident migrant workers from a claim of racial discrimination became evident only when the afternoon session began. In the morning, the conference began with a brief overview of the Bill's provisions which was discussed by Carrie Lam, the Permanent Secretary for Home Affairs. It was followed by the presentations of racial issues in Hong Kong chaired by Vandana Rajwani of the HKU. Victims of racial discrimination attended to give a face to the real situation. Two Chinese testified that they were booed away from a restaurant and told to go back to the mainland. An Indian, who is educated and fluent in both Cantonese and English, said that she was not accepted for a hair dresser's job because she mentioned her nationality during a phone interview. The Hong Kong Unison has prepared a report on how the criminal justice system deals with ethnic minorities (EM) in Hong Kong, however, Fermi Wong limited her study to EM who are youth and young adult Southern Asians in the lower socio-economic class. In her submission to Legco, Sharmila Gurung of Christian Action said, "Ethnic minorities are Hong Kong residents. They should no longer suffer in their own country. The Hong Kong Government must act to meet their most basic needs and uphold their rights as a resident." The limitation of the studies done on EM may suggest that only the EM who have permanent resident status or have right of abode in Hong Kong and who are mostly southern Asians are covered by the Bill. Other nationalities may be overlooked, especially the 200,000 migrant domestic helpers currently living here. At least one migrant worker who attended the conference felt this way. Indonesian domestic helper Eni Lestari said that she was emailed whether she wanted to give a testimonial on the situations of the migrant workers. "But they did not get back to us when I replied," she said. Most of the speakers in the conference concluded that the Bill is badly drafted and full of inconsistencies. If passed as is, it will fail to promote anti-racial discrimination acts. In the words of Petersen, "When one does manage to work through these added clauses, it is difficult to escape the conclusion that ethnic minorities have been targeted for less favorable treatment in this Bill making the RDB itself an example of official discrimination."