HKSAR Government Lost for Responses as Committee on Rights of the Child Shoots Questions
Joint Press release by NGO delegation 27 Sept 2013
The Chairperson of the Committee on the Rights of the Child was critical of the lack of legal regulation of corporal punishment at the hearing of the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child today (27th September 2013). She pushed the Government to provide an account of the 'true causes as to why punishment is not being abolished in the home' and to go beyond the "reasons of cultural values" that were cited.
The Government's response that there was a need for social consensus on corporal punishment to determine what is an "acceptable level" of such punishment before these acts would attract legal liability drew fire from the Committee.
Another Committee Member, Mr. Jorge Cardona Llorens, expressed shock at the proposition that there needed to be a "social debate to ascertain the level of corporal punishment [that would] constitute a crime." He asked whether "for the administration, there are levels of corporal punishment that should be accepted?"
The Chairperson advised that "in some countries, it has been very useful to legislate against corporal punishment because it goes in advance of the population's attitudes and promotes non-violence in the families."
The Chairperson expressed serious concern over the rights of children with disabilities. It asked the Government to respond to the complaint that there was a failure to conduct early identification of young children with disabilities and to assess their needs. Another Committee Member, Mr. Hatem Kotrane stressed the importance of deinstitutionalization of children with disabilities with a view to integrating them into their natural family environment with special support, which was seen as vital to their nourishment and development. In terms of education, Committee Member, Mr. Jorge Cardona Llorens was concerned about segregation of children with disabilities from students in regular schools. The Government failed to respond to any of these concerns, however, citing the lack of time.
The Committee's Rapporteur Ms. Maria Herczog also probed the Government to explain why ethnic minority children were found to have poor Chinese language skills and why they were segregated into 'designated schools'. In response to the HKSAR Government's written response that this segregation is the result of parental choice, she considered that these decisions were better understood as an expression of parental concern for the wellbeing of their children who may be excluded or bullied in mainstream schools and left behind.
She expressed grave concern over the impact of isolation of ethnic minority children and children with disabilities on their proper development. The Chairperson asked whether the Government had budgetary lines established for allocation of resources for ethnic minority children, children with disabilities and children living in poverty. Herczog noted with great concern the dire situation of public housing and the long waiting list, stating that it meant that children were living in inhuman conditions and this detrimentally impacted family life. She asked the Government to explain how it was going to improve this situation.
The Chairperson highlighted the significant concerns raised by another vulnerable group – that of thousands of mothers with ineligible status due to death of their husbands who were residents of Hong Kong. During their stay in Hong Kong to take care of their children, their precarious immigration status renders them unable to work or settle in Hong Kong meaning that they lack access to welfare, housing or other services. The continued periodic separation from the child due to these factors has a detrimental impact on children's access to adequate family nourishment. Disregarding the Government's attempts to recite the cross-border immigration framework institutionalized in the Basic Law of Hong Kong, she urged the Government to work together with its Mainland counterparts to enhance the possibilities for the families to stay together.
The Chairperson further expressed concern that despite the Hong Kong Legislative Council's 2007 recommendation that the HKSAR Government set up the Office of a Children's Commissioner, the Government did not appear to see the need for this. The Committee emphasized the need for an independent participatory and consultative mechanism that served all children and pressed the Government to indicate whether it had plans to set up such an office.
In response, the Government indicated that it held the Children's Rights Forum and as of 2007 had established a Family Council which embedded three core family values into all decision making and its impact on family structure. The Chairperson responded that she was "very concerned with the strong focus on the family. The child is a rights holder and [ought to have] the possibility to stand out with their own views. It is hard to align [your] strong family focus with children's rights."
Furthermore, the Chairperson was of the view that the Government had confused the necessity for an independent monitoring body with the role the Children's Rights Forum plays in the coordination of Convention-related activities. To the extent that the Government reiterated the importance of the Forum as a principal mechanism for communication between different stakeholder groups, including children, regarding their concerns, the Chairperson of the Committee, Ms. Kirsten Sandberg, questioned whether the Forum serves this function effectively given complaints the Committee had received about the lack of inclusion of children's voices in determining the issues to be discussed and their accessibility to information and policies. These complaints appeared to be particularly prominent among advocates representing children with disabilities, ethnic minority children and children living in poverty.
Deeply concerned about the gravity of discrimination prevalent against various vulnerable groups, Sandberg observed that 'Hong Kong has no general legislation providing that the best interest principle be taken into account in developing policy meaning courts have limited authority to [apply] this [principle].' Although the HKSAR Government had professed its commitment to this principle as paramount in all decision making in its written response, she asked the HKSAR Government to 'confirm this as a general commitment with respect to all decision making which would make [Hong Kong] compliant with this important principle.' In response, Mr. Lau Kong Wah, the Head of the HKSAR Government delegation, reiterated that the government would take the best interests principle of the child into consideration in the development of policies.
Representatives of Hong Kong non-governmental organisations attending the hearing were of the view that the reporting exercise has underscored the Government's failure to mainstream policies relating to the interests and rights of children in Hong Kong. Its responses have further exposed the Government's unwillingness to tackle deep-rooted structures that have institutionalized the exclusion of children's voices as a whole and failed to take the best interests of the child into account. These issues are more even pronounced in the case of vulnerable children's groups, who continue to suffer under this persistent and systemic pattern of exclusion, discrimination and under-provision.
The hearing on Hong Kong Special Administrative Region's 2nd Report on the Convention on the Rights of the Child took place in Geneva on 26th and 27th September 2013.
NGO Delegation:
Chosen Power (People First Hong Kong)
Hong Kong Coalition for the Rights of Persons with Disabilities
Hong Kong Democratic Party
Hong Kong Human Rights Monitor
Hong Kong Unison
没有评论:
发表评论