Back

Note: This article represents the view of the author and not the University of Hong Kong.

The trouble faced by the Equal Opportunities Commission would not end with Michael Wong Kin-chow's resignation. To salvage the credibility of the EOC, a review of the appointment regime is vital. The author believes that the government need not appoint another chairperson in haste. It should learn from this experience first.

We all know that the EOC's brief is to implement the three anti-discrimination ordinances. But more importantly, it has to make sure the government also abides by these ordinances. In other words, just like the Ombudsman's Office, the ICAC, and the Audit Commission, it serves to supervise the government, too. For the EOC to function properly, the pre-requisite is to have a government that is open enough to allow itself to be bitten, even though it is the hand that feeds the EOC.

Besides, to a government that lacks popular mandate, the existence of bodies such as the EOC is crucial. According to a random telephone survey conducted by the Public Opinion Programme (POP) of the University of Hong Kong in late October, Tung's popularity rating was still floating around the credibility crisis level. At the same time, people's dissatisfaction rate with the SAR Government was 48%. Not only does the EOC increase the government's credibility locally, it also helps to enhance the SAR's image internationally. Thus, the chairperson of such an organization must not only possess adequate knowledge, sensitivity, and vision about equal opportunities, but must also exhibit independent thinking, openness, and courage to confront the powers-that-be. If the government fails to appreciate these crucial criteria in its appointment process, it is not going to help the EOC rebuild its credibility. After all, the appointment of the EOC chair is different from appointing principal officials. It is not necessary to appoint someone who shares the same views as the Chief Executive.

In a similar vein, the appointment of members to the board of the EOC should also follow the criteria listed above. Membership of such commissions should never be used as a reward for showing support to the government, nor should the latter ever be part of the criteria.

What is there to guarantee that the government would make better appointments next time? Under the existing power structure, there is little guarantee. However, if the current government is serious about improving its governance, and if it cares about its popularity, it should make its appointment system (to all sorts of committees and commissions) more open and transparent. It should, for a start, allow for open discussion about the criteria for appointment to a certain position, and allow for open nomination and selection. This would give the public a chance to see for themselves whether the candidates are really qualified.

The next level of guarantee required would be a well-institutionalized system of supervision by civil society. In the current incident, non-governmental organizations have demonstrated that they are politically mature enough to deserve more input in decision making. Not only did they react swiftly to every twist and turn of events, they were also able to voice their demands in a focused, rational, and peaceful manner. It is time the government fosters a genuine partnership with civil society.

In short, rather than hastily search for another candidate to fill the position vacated by Michael Wong, the government should stop and think introspectively first.