LCQ3: Equal Opportunities Commission

Wednesday, November 19, 2003

Following is a question by the Hon Emily Lau and a reply by the Secretary for Home Affairs, Dr Patrick Ho, in the Legislative Council today (November 19):

Question:

The recent spate of incidents surrounding the Equal Opportunities Commission (EOC) concerns the integrity and credibility of its Chairperson, who resigned early this month, while in office, and the Executive Authorities are reviewing the mechanism for appointing the chairmen of statutory bodies including the EOC. In this connection, will the Executive Authorities inform this Council whether:

(a) they will investigate thoroughly if that EOC Chairperson has disclosed to the media several confidential internal EOC documents, including the personal particulars of the candidates for the post of Director (Operations); if a thorough investigation will be conducted, how it will be taken forward; if not, the reasons for that;

(b) the reasons for that EOC Chairperson's meeting, on the day before his resignation, the Secretary for Home Affairs and individual members of the Executive Council and of EOC and the contents of their discussion, as well as the authorities' position on and role in the resignation of that Chairperson; and

(c) they will, in the course of the review, study the enhancement of the credibility of EOC through a new appointment mechanism; if so, of the details?

Reply:

Madam President,

(a) According to the information provided by the Equal Opportunities Commission (EOC), there were detailed discussions on the suitability of the then Director (Operations) designate (former Director designate) for the designated post and the relevant contract at EOC's meeting on September 18. Subsequently, a motion was proposed and seconded to authorise the then Chairperson to handle the former Director designate's contract. With no dissent or objection, the motion was carried.

If confidential internal documents are disclosed and such documents relate to personal data, then whether follow-up actions could be taken would depend on whether the incident is in breach of the Personal Data (Privacy) Ordinance. The Privacy Commission is an independent statutory body responsible for monitoring and supervising the implementation of the Personal Data (Privacy) Ordinance. The Privacy Commissioner is empowered by Section 38 of the Ordinance to conduct independent investigation into cases suspected to be in contravention of the Ordinance. In general, under Section 38 of the Personal Data (Privacy) Ordinance, the Privacy Commissioner can carry out investigation in either one of the two circumstances: Firstly, a complaint in compliance with the conditions stipulated in Section 37 of the Ordinance is received. Secondly, he has grounds to believe that the practice of the data user, that has been done or engaged in, or is being done or engaged in, relates to personal data and may be in contravention of the Personal Data (Privacy) Ordinance. The conditions stipulated in Section 37 of the Ordinance include:

(a) the practice of the data user specified in the complaint relates to personal data of the data subject;

(b) the complaint is made by the data subject or the representative of the data subject as defined by the Ordinance; and

(c) the relevant practice may be a contravention of the requirement of the Ordinance.

I believe that the Privacy Commissioner will act in accordance with the Personal Data (Privacy) Ordinance. The Government will not intervene or speculate on whether or how the Privacy Commissioner will follow up the incident.

(b) I have already given an account of my meetings with the former Chairperson before his resignation during the special meeting of the Home Affairs Panel held last Friday on November 14. In fact, we have recently met twice regarding the incident. First we met on November 4 (Tuesday). I was invited to a private gathering and the former Chairperson was also present. At that time, the former Chairperson told me that he had the intention to resign.

We met the second time on November 5 (Wednesday). The former Chairperson cancelled an EOC meeting scheduled for that day, causing a lot of speculation. In order to have a better idea about the former Chairperson's intention, I asked a friend of mine to arrange a meeting with the former Chairperson again on another private occasion that night. During the meeting, the former Chairperson and I talked about the latest developments of the EOC incident. I expressed to him the Government's concern about the incident. The former Chairperson then explicitly indicated that he would consider to resign. I did not ask him to resign at that gathering. The resignation was a personal decision made by the former Chairperson.

In the morning of November 6 (Thursday), I reported to the Chief Executive about the former Chairperson's intention to resign. That afternoon, the former Chairperson convened a press conference to announce his decision to resign. He then tendered a formal letter of resignation to the Chief Executive, who, on the same day, stated that he respected the former Chairperson's decision and accepted his resignation.

The EOC is a statutory body and its operation is governed by the law. Though appointed by the Chief Executive, the Chairperson, once appointed, will handle independently the affairs of the EOC according to the law. The Government will not and should not intervene.

The Administration has been concerned with the recent incidents surrounding the EOC. As the policy secretary responsible for the EOC, I have the responsibility to find out the former Chairperson's intention. The resignation was his personal decision. We respect his decision.

(c) The credibility of the EOC and other statutory bodies hinges on various factors such as the way of their operation and the effectiveness of their work in the past. Since 1996, the EOC has been establishing its track record. Under the leadership of the past Chairpersons and the cooperation of its Members and staff, the EOC has a proven track record and gained public recognition. Meanwhile, in order to consolidate the independence and credibility of the EOC, the Government will continue to adopt a non-intervention policy so that the EOC can operate independently and carry out its duties as vested by the law. The Government will continue to ensure that the composition of the EOC remains pluralistic and representative, and that it remains adequately funded.

At present, the Government is conducting an overall review of the system of advisory and statutory bodies. The review is multi-faceted, covering the policies on existing advisory and statutory bodies, the rationalisation of the structure as well as ways to enhance their accountability, openness and transparency, etc. There are nearly 500 advisory and statutory bodies in Hong Kong. The whole system of advisory and statutory bodies is very complicated and multi-faceted, comprising various different advisory committees, public bodies, appeal boards and public corporations, etc. It is thus not an easy task to develop a set of policies and principles applicable to all these bodies.

The recent incidents surrounding the EOC have aroused concern over a number of issues which call for further deliberation. They include the appointment of chairpersons and members of advisory and statutory bodies, and for statutory bodies with executive functions, whether the posts of Chairperson and Executive Director should be taken up by the same person. Under the principle of effective governance, we have to consider whether the policy-making and executive functions of certain statutory bodies should be separated so as to ensure proper coordination and checks and balances. Therefore, we need to extend the scope of the present review in light of the latest developments. We will complete the overall review of the whole system relating to advisory and statutory bodies as soon as possible, so that all advisory and statutory bodies can operate according to a mechanism that better meets the needs of the society.

Thank you Madam President.