Since its restructuring in July last year, Hong Kong’s Social Workers Registration Board has revoked the licences of 30 social workers — 20 of them connected to political activism.
The latest case concerns a social worker who, in 2020, posted a photo on Instagram showing the slogan “Liberate Hong Kong, Revolution of Our Times.” Although the post was deleted in 2023, a complaint was later lodged.
The disciplinary committee recommended only a written reprimand, noting the post had already been removed. However, the Registration Board overturned this and imposed a six-month suspension, the first known instance of a social worker losing their licence over a social media post without any criminal conviction.
The Board said the case fell under “misconduct or negligence in a professional respect” and argued that a stronger penalty was necessary to reflect the importance of national security.
Critics say the move undermines the disciplinary process. Cheung Chi-wai, chair of the Hong Kong Social Workers’ General Union, argued the Board should have respected the committee’s recommendation: “If the Board itself doesn’t respect the mechanism, what’s the point of having a disciplinary committee?” He also noted that complaints against social workers have increased since the 2019 protests.
Cheung added that, under the current system, the Board is not required to explain its reasoning in detail. Nor does an appeal mechanism exist; the only option is a judicial review on procedural grounds. “They simply don’t have to answer to anyone,” he said.
Legislator Tik Chi-yuen compared the relationship between the disciplinary committee and the Board to a lower and higher court: “If the first instance recommends a lighter penalty, why should the second impose a harsher one?” He criticised the Board for failing to explain the criteria behind its decision-making, fuelling concerns about transparency.
Beyond protest-related cases, the Board announced two further disciplinary rulings in August. One social worker was found to have forged client signatures to obtain emergency funds, which he then pocketed, and to have falsified visit records. His licence was revoked for five years. Another admitted to a sexual relationship with a service user; he received a three-year suspension, with the Board describing the case as a serious breach of professional trust.
Source:The Collective HK