Topic: Write an essay arguing either for or against the statement, “Legislation should be enacted

0
0



Legislation against discrimination

    With the cession to Britain in the 19th century, Hong Kong had been separated from the mainland under the century-long colonial rule, developing its unique culture with both Chinese and Western elements. Therefore, it is natural that Hongkongers find it difficult to communicate with Mainland Chinese, and this makes some people worry about the problem of discrimination against the mainlanders, which, as suggested by them, can be effectively prevented by the enactment of a relevant law. However, is legislation the best option for us? With the necessity, effectiveness as well as benefits in great doubt, it is quite evident that the addition of an anti-discrimination law tailor-made for the mainlanders is unsuitable for our city, at least in the short term.
    To begin with, with the presence of a complete set of laws prohibiting discrimination in Hong Kong, further legislation is simply an unnecessary waste of the tax payers’ money. Under the present system, the basic human rights of every individual in Hong Kong, regardless of his nationality and homeland, are well protected by the Hong Kong Bills of Right passed in 1991 and the Basic Law. Legal actions can be taken by any victim of discrimination according to this Ordinance, so as to seek justice and equality. In addition, various organizations such as the Equal Opportunity Commission have also been established to ensure that no one will suffer from discrimination in Hong Kong, providing great support to mainlanders in the territory. As a consequence of these existing laws and organizations, it is obvious that Mainland Chinese’s rights are so securely guaranteed that further legislation is undoubtedly unnecessary.
    Besides, the enforcement of the proposed new law is definitely no easy task as well. In order to punish the offenders of this law, not only does the authority need to identify the cases of discrimination in this busy metropolis with a huge population, the prosecutors also have to present enough evidence to convince the judges that the victims receive different treatments as a result of their mainlander status. Allocated with limited resources and time, the law enforcement departments simply do not have the ability to overcome these practical obstacles to compel obedience to the new law, and this will absolutely undermine the efficacy of the time- consuming legislation.
     Moreover, discrimination, a criminal offence under the proposed new law, lacks a clear and objective definition. Owing to the great variety in people’s sensitivity to others’ words or behaviors, it is absolutely possible that “normal” interactions to some may be considered as “offensive” and “humiliating” to others and this implies that there exist numerous definitions for the crime “discrimination”. Therefore, it is, for sure, reasonable and understandable for Hongkongers to worry that normal daily conversations and interactions with mainlanders might eventually become serious crime which leads to severe punishments like imprisonment and heavy fine, if legislation is really enacted. Such uncertainty is, to some extent, not only adding unnecessary mental stress to the busy local people, but also sowing the seeds of a series of legal arguments and challenges in local courts, wasting public resources without necessity.
      More importantly, the legislation itself carries a discriminative nature, forming a barrier which stands firmly in the way of reaching the harmony between the mainlanders and the locals. According to the present proposal, special care and protection will be provided to the mainlanders solely, granting them privileges that are not enjoyed by other Hong Kong citizens. In spite of its aim of bridging the gap between the two parties, the legislation simply creates a labeling effect, reminding every citizen to distinguish clearly between the mainlanders and the local people, and thus hindering the integration of the Mainland Chinese into our society. At the same time, owing to its discriminative nature, it is likely that a huge controversy over the new anti-discrimination law will be sparked off in the city, especially between the mainlanders and the Hongkongers, further destroying the existing relationship between people from the two places. By intensifying the segregation between the Mainland Chinese and Hong Kong locals, the proposed law, contradicting its objective of bringing harmony to the city, has clearly proved that it is not the right way-out for the discrimination problem.
       Some advocates of the legislation may still argue that the prohibition of discrimination against Mainland Chinese via legislation is the only way to save the mainlanders from being abused in Hong Kong, mainly due to the deterrent effect of the law. However, what they have overlooked is that even the strictest regulations can only restrict people’s behavior, but not their minds. Legislation against discrimination towards mainlanders does not eliminate the root cause of the problem, which is the suspicion and misunderstanding about Mainland Chinese. Instead, what it generates is simply an illusory mirage of a discrimination-free society, while deep in people’s minds mainlanders are still considered as inferior and not trustworthy. Thus, it is evident that only education and communication are possible solutions to the thorny problem, guiding all Hongkongers to abandon their prejudice and accept the mainlanders as part of our society.
        In conclusion, understanding and communication are the only ways-out for the problem of discrimination against Mainland Chinese. Therefore, instead of spending millions and months on an ineffective legislation, every Hongkonger ought to take one step further, standing in the mainlanders’ and other people’s shoes, so as to build a fairer and more friendly city for all to live in.