Hearing news reports, it seems that maids were being compared in court to Vietnamese refugees and criminals; these two groups also cannot claim abode.
Thank you for providing evidence of my point.
It is inherently easier to get a dependant visa than an FDH visa. For most people it's a simple form filling, submit docs and done. No specific criteria, as long as sponser (if PR) earns a wage comparible with average and you have a roof over your head. Slightly more specifics if you are dependant of someone on employment visa but usually just as easy. For Filipinas, Indonesians, Thai, et al there may be more evidence required such as photos, letters, etc. That is it, as long as there is a single brain cell that controls life supporting functions such as breathing it's all good.
It's not as simple to get an FDH visa and other requirements mean in some terms (such as medicals, training and consulate requirements) it's more difficult to get than some work visas.
On a related note, Mr Justice Bokhary is being replaced by an "older colleague" on the court of final appeal - the older colleague was one of those who ruled against the maids. Mr Justice Bokhary is considered to be the most liberal judge in the top court. See RTHK News.
yes, some nice choice of words there from Hong Kong's finest
I hope he has dropped a clanger and that the maid's lawyers can get him on a technicality.
overall I am quite ambivalent. Maids are hired on a specific visa which does not give them rights of PR. That is what they sign up for. There is no sophistry involved. At the same time, it doesn't seem right that after living here for 20 years and contributing to the economy, their residency rights are still so vulnerable.
@drumbrake and shenwen: before you get all worked up about the (admittedly rather tactless) refugee and criminal comparison, it appears that there is a legislative ground for this comparison. See the bold areas below from Claire's previous post.
It's also interesting to note that the domestic helper exclusion is fifteen years old. It's not like it was a recent addition. It must've been tied in with the handover as it looks to have been added the same time as the prohibition against members of the British HK Garrison.
He could have just as validly said "consular staff" but that would have probably sounded even stranger.
This thread was going so well until people started climbing on high horses and substituting emotion for logic.
Last edited by jgl; 29-03-2012 at 09:25 AM.
There is a pool of judges on the court of final appeal.
About Us
And from Court Services & Facilities
Who hears the appeal?
An appeal is heard and determined by the Court of Final Appeal, which is usually made up of the Chief Justice, three permanent judges and either one non-permanent Hong Kong judge or one judge from another common law jurisdiction.
"substituting emotion for logic" the main issue on this topic since day one, be in on geo expat, the local media....
@Mat: true. But this thread was going pretty well until about halfway though. It's still pretty good now compared to others that I've seen.
@Drumbrake: Surely an appeals panel should consist of an entirely new set of judges? I'm not sure if this is standard practice, but would be slightly shocked to find that any legal system would allow the same judges to recycle in that manner. Kind of seems to defeat the purpose. Also, note that Bokhary is turning non-permanent this year, and from your post there is only one slot for a non-permanent judge, so it would be baffling to have him re-hear the case both from a procedural and probabilities point of view.
I'm sure that there is lots of background politicking going on with this case, but it seems to me that most of the armchair pundits are looking at red herrings.
Last edited by jgl; 29-03-2012 at 09:53 AM.