Notes of the Second Meeting of the Children’s Rights Forum
Date: 29 March 2006
Time: 5:30 p.m.
Venue: Conference Room, 30/F Southorn Centre, 130 Hennessy Road, Wanchai
Attendants:
Non-governmental Organisations
Representatives
1). Against Child Abuse
Dr Patricia Ip
Mrs Priscilla Lui
2). The Boys’ & Girls’ Clubs Association of
Hong Kong
Mr Tsang Kwong-yuen
3). Children’s Council Working Committee
Miss Li Cheuk-ying
Mr Morphy Leung
Miss Christy Fung
Miss Michelle Lee
Miss Peony Wong
Mr Mickey Yip
4). Children’s Rights Association
Child Right Ambassadors
Chan Mei-ho
Karen Fung
5). Chinese YMCA of Hong Kong Hin Keng
Centre
Mr Dennis Yeung
-1-
Junior CEs
Chuk Ho-lim
Sin Po-lun
Yuk, Christopher Chak-kwan
Lee Yi-yan
Chin Jing-hue
So Shun-yan
Children Councillors
Jerry Tam
Sarah So
6). Hong Kong Committee for UNICEF
Mr Matthew Mo
Ms Chloe Wong
7). Hong Kong Committee on Children’s
Rights
Dr Chow Chun-bong
Ms Billy Wong
Ms Evelyn Razack
8). The Hong Kong Council of Social Service
Ms Klare Chan
9). Hong Kong Human Rights Monitor
Mr Chong Yiu-kwong
10). Hong Kong Informal Education
Research Centre
Mr Verdy Leung
11). Hong Kong Secondary Student Union
Ms Julie Lam
12). Office of Emily Lau, Legislative
Councillor
Mr Li Wing-shing, Wilson
13). Hong Kong Student Aid Society
Mr Jackey Lo
14). Society for Community Organisation
Ms Sze Lai-shan
Home Affairs Bureau
1). Mr Stephen Fisher (Chairman)
2). Miss Cecilia Lam
3). Miss Emily Ho
I.
Deputy Secretary for Home Affairs
Assistant Secretary for Home Affairs (4)2
Project Officer (4)
Chairman’s opening remarks
The Chairman welcomed everyone to the meeting, including
representatives from non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and children’s
representatives.
The Chairman said that an increasing number of
organisations had expressed their interests in joining the Forum. Thanks to
the concerted efforts of all members, all those who had signed up could
participate in the Forum. The Chairman also welcomed representatives from
-2-
the two organisations that joined the Forum for the first time. They were
Hong Kong Informal Education Research Centre and Hong Kong Student Aid
Society. The Chairman advised that in view of the increasing number of
participants, two rows of seats or a new venue might be required for the Forum
in future.
II.
Confirmation of minutes of last meeting
A) School bullying
Members asked if the Education and Manpower Bureau could provide
information on the number of schools that had anti-bullying policy in place
(excluding school disciplinary procedures).
B) Representatives of the Junior Chief Executives who attended the first
meeting included HUI Tsz-ki.
C)
Members sought the views of the Government on the “Hong Kong
Child Labour Survey Report”(《兒童童工研究報告》) and the “Annual
Report of the Civil Children’s Ombudsman in Hong Kong 2005” (《2005
年兒童權利民間專員監察報告》) submitted by the Society for Community
Organisation at the last meeting.
The Chairman said the Government would not comment on the whole reports
and invited members to raise a few key issues in the reports after the meeting.
III. Establishment of the Children’s Rights Unit (Paper No. CRF 3/2006)
The Chairman introduced the project officer of the Children’s Rights Unit who
was responsible for providing secretariat support to the Forum. The Chairman
advised that members could contact the project officer if they had any
suggestions on the agenda or other arrangements.
IV. Discussion topics for the meeting
A)
NGOs involved in children’s rights presented their submissions at the
-3-
meeting, pointing out that the discussion topics were not directly related to
children’s rights. It was hoped that more children’s rights issues, such as
setting up of the Children’s Commission, creation of a central database,
and promotion of the Convention of the Rights of the Child (CRC) etc.,
could be discussed in future.
The Chairman said that although the agenda was drawn up by the Government,
members could comment on it. Regrettably, the Government had not received
any suggestions from members regarding the agenda of this meeting.
At the last meeting, members expressed concern over the concluding
observations of the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child
(UNCRC) and the point-by-point response made by the Government. Against
this background, the Government presented Paper No. CRF 1/2006.
Members also expressed concern over the situations of children from ethnic
minorities and the discrimination they faced. As such, the Government
presented Paper No. CRF 2/2006 to brief members on the proposed legislation.
As regards the paper on corporate governance of the Equal Opportunities
Commission (EOC) (Paper No. CRF 4/2006), members of the LegCo Panel on
Home Affairs (“Panel”) instructed the Government that the issue should be
discussed in all relevant human rights forums at the time this paper was
submitted to the Panel. As children’s rights fell within the scope of human
rights, the Government had the responsibility to present the paper. It was also
a subject worthy of discussion as the founding principles of the EOC were
similar to those of the proposed Human Rights Commission.
The Chairman deemed that the Forum was for discussion on issues not only on
children’s rights but also on human rights. However, if members had no
interest in discussing the two papers (Paper Nos. CRF 2/2006 & CRF 4/2006),
both could be treated as information papers. The issues to be discussed in
other forums, thereafter, might not necessarily be raised at the Forum.
B) Members were of the view that the meeting should give priority to
topics relating to children’s rights and spend less time on other topics.
Besides, members should agree on the topics to be discussed, determine the
order of priority, and focus on only a few issues at each meeting.
-4-
The Chairman suggested that the meeting could discuss some of the
recommendations in the concluding observations, or conduct group discussions
on the provisions of the CRC and other related issues.
C) Members agreed on using the concluding observations as the basis for
discussion. Other topics for discussion could be initiated by the
Government or raised by members through the Secretariat.
V. Initial Report of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region under
the Convention on the Rights of the Child : Response to the Concluding
Observations of the Committee on the Rights of the Child (Paper No. CRF
1/2006)
The Chairman briefed the meeting on the background of the paper and the
procedures for submission of the report. The Government would first compile
the report after gathering of views and submit it to the Office of the
Commissioner of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People’s Republic of
China in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region via the Chief
Executive’s Office. The report would then be forwarded to the Ministry of
Foreign Affairs of the People’s Republic of China in Beijing for onward
transmission to the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child
(UNCRC). The UNCRC would raise some questions on the report for
discussion at committee session before the concluding observations were made.
The state party would formally respond to the concluding observations in the
next report. As Hong Kong had a systematic monitoring system in place, the
Government would first make an initial response at the meeting of the LegCo
Panel on Home Affairs.
The submission (Paper No. CRF 1/2006) contained the initial response to the
concluding observations from the Government and covered a wide range of
topics.
Members’ comments and questions on the Government’s response to the
concluding observations were as follows :
A)
The UNCRC’s observation (1): some of the concerns and
recommendations have not been sufficiently addressed.
-5-
1)
Local legislation on children
Members noted that the UNCRC had recommended that the Government
should legislate to ensure that policies were formulated in the best interests
of children. They opined that without any local legislation, the CRC
would not have the force of law under the common law system of Hong
Kong. Hence, the best interests of children would not be often taken into
account in the formulation of children’s policy.
The Chairman was of the opinion that giving effect to the CRC was different
from implementing the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
(ICCPR). The ICCPR should be implemented through legislation and thus the
Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance was enacted. As for the CRC, it was a
special convention for children only by virtue of the International Covenant on
Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR).
Like ICESCR,
implementation of the CRC had to be proceeded in a gradual and orderly
manner.
The Chairman stressed that the mere enactment of a single children’s ordinance
would not suffice to enforce the provisions of the CRC. Enforcement of the
provisions was through a number of ordinances to protect the various rights of
children.
2)
Impact assessment on children’s policy
Members suggested that children’s policy should be formulated from
children’s perspectives. Impact assessment should also be carried out
with the results set out in detail. Members also pointed out that some
policies appeared to have no direct relations with children’s rights but had
an effect on children upon implementation.
3)
A comprehensive children’s policy
Members asked how they could obtain information on the Government’s
policy on children and whether the Policy Address was the only source of
reference.
The Chairman responded that the subject was covered in various ordinances
(e.g. the Protection of Children and Juveniles Ordinance and the Adoption
-6-
Ordinance), policy documents, the Policy Address as well as replies from
directors of bureaux in the Legislative Council.
4)
Consulting children in formulating policies
i)
Members proposed that the Government should consult the children
and have their best interests at heart in formulating policies. This Forum
alone was simply not adequate.
The Chairman reiterated that the very aim of setting up this Forum was to
establish a platform for children’s representatives to express their views and
monitor government policies. It was an important step forward though it was
not a perfect measure.
ii) Members maintained that not all the children’s representatives could
represent the interests of the disadvantaged. The Forum could become
more representative if children from different backgrounds (such as
disabled children) were invited to the Forum.
The Chairman reiterated that the Forum was open to all, and that he did not
want to be specific about which groups should join the Forum. However, if
the participating groups could invite children from different backgrounds to the
Forum, the Administration would welcome their participation.
iii) Members considered that the publicity for the Forum was inadequate.
They also hoped that there is regular turnover of members in order to tap
different views.
The Chairman disagreed with the suggestion of having new members for every
Forum meeting as they would find it difficult to follow up the discussion issues.
He said that it was not the ultimate goal of the Forum to attract large numbers
of participants. Besides, the information about the Forum was already
available on the relevant website.
iv) Members considered that they could not comprehensively represent
the views of all children. The disadvantaged and neglected children
should be given more opportunities to express their views.
The Chairman reiterated the importance of the existing mechanism. He said
-7-
that Forum members should not be appointed by the Government. Every
member should participate as a representative of an organisation, not in
personal capacity.
5)
Recommendations of the UNCRC were not legally binding
Members enquired whether the recommendations of the UNCRC were
legally binding and whether its concluding observations could be applied
in court.
The Chairman stressed that the concluding observations of the UNCRC were
just recommendations. Far from being an international court, the UNCRC
was a platform on which human rights experts made recommendations to the
state parties on how the CRC could be implemented in a more effective manner.
In making the concluding observations, it had considered the national
conditions of the sovereign state (i.e. the People’s Republic of China).
However, the interpretation of the CRC lay with the government of the state
party instead of the United Nations, and its recommendations could not be
implemented in the same manner as that for a piece of legislation.
B) The UNCRC’s observation (2): Reservations and declarations –
reservation to Article 32 and 37(C)
1) At present, offenders aged 14 to 20 were held together. Members
asked whether the Government had worked out concrete proposals to
improve the situation.
The Chairman reiterated the reservation to Article 37(C). The Government
accepted its broad principle but could not completely withdraw the reservation
in the present conditions. It was because the withdrawal would make it
necessary to construct more correctional institutions. Under the current policy,
offenders aged 14 to 20 would be held together. Subject to the availability of
resources, the policy would continue unless the offenders had committed
serious crimes or such an arrangement caused the problem of overcrowding.
2)
Members hoped that the reservations would be withdrawn finally.
The Chairman pointed out that the guiding principle of this policy was to avoid
influence on young people under the age of 18.
-8-
3) Members asked how would the Government solve this problem step
by step. Had the Government considered building a super-prison, or
re-allocating the existing training centres after the super-prison had been
built?
The Chairman reiterated that the reservation to Article 37(C) was necessary, as
the training centres for female inmates were overcrowded. It was also very
costly to build a new training centre. In the light of the existing resources, it
was impossible to withdraw the reservation to Article 37(C) for the sake of the
new arrangement.
4) Members inquired about the figures of inmates aged 14 to 18 in
training centres for adults.
The Chairman said that relevant information would be provided in the next
meeting. (The information is attached at Annex A.)
5)
Young persons’ employment hours
The Government retained the reservation to Article 32(2)(b) of the
Convention which required regulation of the employment hours of young
persons attaining the age of 15 in respect of work in non-industrial
establishments. Members suggested that initially the employment hours
of young persons could be specified in contracts of government or
outsourced projects so as to live up to the spirit and principles of the
Convention.
The Chairman said that children employment in industrial establishments was
regulated by the existing law. As for employment in non-industrial sectors,
e.g. advertisement production, the employment hours could not be regulated
through legislation because of the nature of work. It did not mean that
children in employment were not protected by the law in Hong Kong but
flexibility was needed under certain circumstances.
C) The UNCRC’s Observation (3): Coordination and National Plan of
Action (NPA)
1) Members requested that a detailed NPA should be developed and its
implementation schedule be made. They also proposed that NGOs should
-9-
be allowed to take part in developing the NPA.
The Chairman did not agree that developing an NPA was the best way for Hong
Kong to implement the Convention, though it was one of the ways of doing so.
2) Members expressed special concern about the fact that even the
United Nations (UN) had already developed several major areas of the
NPA. They pointed out that it was necessary to develop an NPA,
although Hong Kong might not agree with the areas set out by the UN.
The Chairman reiterated that relevant measures had been implemented in
various areas under the existing systems. It was doubtful if the proposal to
develop a plan in order to implement the Convention would serve the purpose.
3)
Fragmented coordination of existing programmes and policies
i)
Members said that as a result of the lack of an NPA, the policies
concerning children’s rights were uncoordinated and the relevant work
was fragmented. Hence it was rather difficult for children to learn those
policies concerning them. Members asked if the Government had a
paper setting out the policies concerning children.
The Chairman did not think that the Government had no coordination
mechanism. The existing Executive Council and the Policy Committee served
precisely as the coordination mechanism for the work of various bureaux.
At present, details of policies were mainly coordinated internally within the
Government. Even if a policy bureau were set up to deal with children affairs,
it would end up requiring various bureaux to cooperate because of the wide
range of matters covered.
The Chairman explained that polices were detailed separately in the terms of
reference of different policy bureaux. In respect of individual areas such as
education, medical service, etc., there was a paper specifying the relevant
polices. The Government implemented the provisions of the Convention in
the light of the special conditions in Hong Kong. Hence, it was impossible to
detail all the relevant policies in one single paper.
4) Members agreed that the coordinating functions of the NPA and the
Children’s Commission should be discussed together in the coming
- 10 -
meetings.
VI. Any other business
A) The Chairman and members agreed to discuss mainly a few items
raised in the Concluding Observations in the coming meetings. The
secretariat would provide the background information.
The Chairman invited members to raise other related issues for discussion apart
from the Concluding Observations. At the next meeting, discussion would
focus on items 4 to 8 at Annex A of Paper No. CRF 1/2006.
B)
Children’s Rights Education Funding Scheme
As a majority of members said that they were interested in applying for funding
under the Scheme, they would not be eligible to join the Vetting Committee of
the funding scheme. HAB invited members of the Commission on Youth and
the Committee on the Promotion of Civic Education to serve as members of the
vetting committee.
VII. The next meeting would be held in November 2006.
Home Affairs Bureau
November 2006
- 11 -
Annex A
Young persons aged 14 to 17 in penal custody1
By type of
correctional
programme
2002
2003
Male Female
Total
2004
Male Female
Total
2005
Male Female
Total
192
292
8
2
10
88
54
3
57
N.A.
191
113
N.A.
113
121
43
164
101
36
137
565
323
888
376
233
609
328
438
115
253
368
158
254
412
Drug Addiction
Treatment Centre
45
3
48
31
2
33
25
8
33
Training Centre
77
14
91
47
9
56
70
18
Detention Centre
232
N.A.
232
173
N.A.
173
191
44
21
65
111
39
150
508
366
874
477
303
780
Rehabilitation
Centre
Overall
1
Total
100
110
Prison
Male Female
The Correctional Services Department (CSD) does not maintain dedicated detention facilities for offenders aged under 18. Young offenders aged 21 and
over but under 25, and who have been sentenced to a Detention Centre are detained in the CSD’s sole Detention Centre. But they are not permitted contact
with those detainees aged under 21.
- 12 -