Generation 40s – 四十世代

Good articles for buddies


Leave a comment

20 years on, and the fight against prejudice and bias continues in Hong Kong

CommentInsight & Opinion
2016-12-20
Alfred C.M. Chan urges the government to address reforms to anti-discrimination laws, as suggested by the Equal Opportunities Commission, because equality also makes good business sense

In seemingly the blink of an eye, the Equal Opportunities Commission has completed 20 years of serving the Hong Kong community. On December 20, 1996, the Sex Discrimination Ordinance, under which the commission was established, came into full force when its employment-related provisions became effective. Since then, the EOC has been implementing the four related ordinances to give voice to those facing discrimination on the grounds of their sex, marital status, family status, pregnancy, disability and race.

In the 20 years to August this year, the EOC had handled more than 13,300 complaints and innumerable inquiries, and secured over HK$100 million in compensation for the complainants, as well as other forms of redress through conciliation and legal action.

While these figures represent the commission’s achievements through the years, a more important part of the work – perhaps less quantifiable and tangible – is to encourage social change. This is because prejudice, bigotry and often traditions are the biggest enemies of equality. For discrimination to be defeated, mindsets have to be reformed, and it is best done through education – one of our key areas of work.

However, since some of its work clashes with deep-rooted social values and the vested interests of different groups, the EOC faces controversies and opposition from time to time. For example, the judicial review initiated against the Education Department  on the Secondary School Places Allocation System in 2000 and, more recently, the advocacy for better protection for the rights of LGBTI  (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex) people, have stirred vigorous, and at times acrimonious, social debates.

Despite the sometimes controversial nature of its work, the commission has gained increasing recognition from society at large. Two decades ago, few were aware of its existence. Today, many understand the values it stands for and defends.

The latest Equal Opportunities Awareness Survey, results of which were released in July, showed 98 per cent of respondents were able, upon prompting, to identify the EOC as the organisation tasked with promoting equal opportunities and eliminating discrimination in Hong Kong. This can be compared to 95 per cent in 2007 and 87 per cent in 1998.

Contrary to popular belief that equality is merely “decorative” for a money-driven city like Hong Kong, equality actually makes good business sense.

In recent years, there has been a conscious movement for diversity and inclusion policies to be made explicit among high-flying businesses  across a number of sectors, including finance and banking, law, information technology, and design and fashion.

The rationale is simple: people should be valued for what they are capable of, rather than who they are, because talented people find better incentives to contribute to a society where they feel welcome and at home.

The big corporations in ”Asia’s world city” know very well that an anti-discrimination policy championed by the government is crucial for Hong Kong businesses to go global and stay competitive. It also implies that the EOC plays a significant role in shaping Hong Kong’s future. To maintain Hong Kong’s competitiveness, the commission finds it necessary to update anti-discrimination laws in tune with the times.

Migrant workers in Hong Kong march against being subjected to racial and sexist slurs, in April 2015. Photo: Franke Tsang

Between July and October 2014, the EOC consulted the public on their views on reforms to the existing anti-discrimination legislation, and submitted 73 recommendations, 27 of which were deemed of higher priority, to the government in March this year.

Apart from better safeguarding those vulnerable to discrimination, the reforms aim to make the scope of protection more comprehensive, and equal opportunity values a vital element of public policies.

We once again urge the government to seriously consider these recommendations, which Hong Kong gravely needs to live up to its reputation as a world-class, civilised and developed society, and revise the legislation to offer all those living and doing business in Hong Kong the protection they deserve.

For my part, I feel fortunate to have arrived at the door of Hong Kong’s gatekeeper on the equality front as it reaches its 20-year milestone this year.

Alfred CM Chan is chairperson of the Equal Opportunities Commission


Leave a comment

Don’t force Cathay Pacific cabin crew to retire at 55

South China Morning Post
Comment›Insight & Opinion
2016-11-22

Philip Yeung

Philip Yeung says imposing the limit on its mostly female crew of flight attendants is not just discriminatory, but also defies common sense at a time of longer lifespans

There are some things in Hong Kong I will never understand. Corporate behaviour is one of them. Another is government indifference or connivance at unsavoury business practices that impinge on our livelihood.

Consider the case of Cathay Pacific, Hong Kong’s proud flag carrier. It requires its cabin crew to retire at the youngish age of 55. Conveniently, in this city, age discrimination is not an offence in law. Since most cabin crew members are female, Cathay’s practice is teetering close to sex discrimination, for the mandatory retirement rule applies only to flight attendants, not to pilots, who are predominantly male. Cathay is at least guilty of unfair inconsistency.

When you remember that the average lifespan for women here is over 87 years, has anyone stopped to think what you are supposed to do with the 32 years after you have to retire? This practice simply defies common sense.

Cathay may have taken its cue from the government, which offers civil servants the option to retire early at 55, a practice intended to make room for up-and-coming employees. But, for a city that is demographically on the critical list, with a fast-ageing population, this policy has outlived its usefulness, except where declining physical powers affect job performance, as in the case of firefighters, for example.

The Cathay Pacific Airways Flight Attendants Union is now fighting back, splashing ads across local papers to plead for an end to this outdated practice. Though it lacks jurisdiction, the Equal Opportunities Commission should take a moral stand on this dispute, lest it send the wrong signal to private industry.

Elsewhere, the reality is quite different. I remember when I flew with United Airlines years ago, its first-class cabin was staffed wholly by grey-haired stewardesses, whom I called “the Grandmother Brigade”. They earned their place in the preferred cabin by virtue of their seniority. By contrast, Cathay Pacific sends its young flight attendants to serve its premium passengers.

If All-Nippon Airways can keep its flight attendants on until 65, and if Singapore Airlines, Cathay’s rival, can let them work until 62, then Cathay’s argument, whatever it is, doesn’t have a leg to stand on.

Cathay leads the world in customer service but lags in enlightened employment practices. If it wishes to make early retirement an option, its employees would doubtless welcome that. Sadly, in this self-proclaimed world city, you have to fight for what is taken for granted in other places.

Philip Yeung is a former speech-writer to the president of the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology.


Leave a comment

So love is dead after the Brangelina break-up? Get a life

South China Morning Post
Comment›Insight & Opinion
2016-09-23

Yonden Lhatoo

Yonden Lhatoo marvels at the non-existent personal connections people are making with Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie upon news of their divorce

Omg! The world is running out of weeping emojis. Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie are getting divorced.

I usually couldn’t give a hoot about celebrity romances and the inevitable break-ups that follow, but there’s no escaping the global hysteria over “Brangelina”.

Even a senior colleague, who normally comes across as one of the most level-headed editors I’ve met in the news business, was swooning over a line she read in Vogue magazine: “Today shall go down as the day love died.”

Puh-lease. If you combined all the world’s exploding Samsung phones into one mega blast, it would still be extinguished by the “love is dead”-themed cry fest that has waterlogged the internet and social media platforms.

Most of the reactions project shock and despair. “Honestly, how do people expect me to still believe in love after this?”; “How is there hope for anyone else? There is no love in this world”; “I don’t know what to believe in any more”; “If love fails them there is no hope for us muggles”.

Some are defiantly supportive: “If Angelina Jolie doesn’t need a man, I don’t need one either.”

Others are opportunistic: “Ladies, Brad Pitt is single again!”

Or philosophical: “If a couple with millions of dollars, six kids and a brand of overpriced rosé wine can’t make it, we should all just give up now.”

The day of the earth-shattering announcement, #Brangelina saturated Twitter with well over 700 mentions a minute – more than triple that of the ongoing UN General Assembly meetings.

It’s good to know that the world has its priorities straight.

Of course, there are sensible types around as well who get the supreme irony of it all. “Help, my heart is breaking for humans I don’t actually know personally.”

I would replace “humans” with a more appropriate phrase: “super-rich celebrities who really couldn’t care less about our delusional connections to their ups and downs while they enjoy luxuries in life that the vast majority of us can only dream of”.

They eat, sweat and defecate like the rest of us. They shed hair, grow old, catch unglamorous diseases and die, just like any other Homo sapiens. And, yes, they also get married and divorced.

Let me clarify that I’m not deriving any sadistic glee from the break-up of “the most beautiful and inspiring couple in Hollywood” – whatever that means. I don’t know them and I’m just not bothered enough to be sad or happy about it.

Judging from all the media reports, the male half of Brangelina has already found a new love. The other is “beautiful and brilliant” enough to get any man she wants, if the very fans who are crying for her are to be believed, so why the tears?

Serial monogamy is a way of life in Hollywood. Give them a few years, if not months, and they’ll each move on to the next great romance. And there’s nothing wrong with that. There’s only something wrong with the people outside the couple’s social circles overreacting to something that doesn’t really concern them.

Celebrities themselves have made pretty astute observations about marriage and separation.

Monica Bellucci: “When people divorce, it’s always such a tragedy. At the same time, if people stay together it can be even worse.”

Joan Rivers: “Half of all marriages end in divorce, and then there are the really unhappy ones.”

Picture me as I wrap up this column now. I’m holding up one hand and rubbing the tips of my thumb and forefinger together.

It signifies the world’s smallest violin playing a mournful tune for Brad and Angelina – and for all those out there who think love is dead now. Get a life.

Yonden Lhatoo is a senior editor at the Post