Share
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
Share

Nature of the Case

Action by the Equal Opportunities Commission (EOC) against the Director of Education for systematic sex discrimination within the Secondary School Places Allocation (SSPA) program; Whether the Director of Education’s policies violated the fundamental right of equal treatment; Scope of Hong Kong’s obligations under the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW); Judicial Review of Education Policy; Right to Education on a basis of Non-discrimination; But for test of sex discrimination; Gender-based mechanisms; Application of the Principle of Proportionality.

Enforcement of the Decision and Outcomes

Following this decision in 2001, over 100 female students were transferred to more favorable schools and following 2002 the rankings and seat allotments are no longer based on gender. Because of the success of this case, the Equal Opportunity Commission has received at least two more sex discrimination complaints concerning the SSPA system, both in 2003.

Significance of the Case

This case resulted of the first formal investigation of the Equal Opportunities Commission of Hong Kong. To many activists this case set the tone for the effectiveness and authority of the commission. The court’s decision set an important precedent and provided the basis of interpreting sex discrimination under the standards established by CEDAW. In this case, the Tribunal made clear that the law must be construed consistently with the State’s obligations under CEDAW. This case was also significant because Hong Kong had only become a party to CEDAW in 1996 and this was an early indication of its integration into the domestic legal system.

Groups Involved in the Case

Equal Opportunities Commission of Hong Kong