why should or shouldnt DH have permanent residency status?

[audiot]

it does seem a bit unfair to me that I can get permanent resident status yet a DH cant..

or is the fact that I came over a skilled employee relevant

( actually thats not true - I didnt need a visa in 94 )

but if someone has been here 20 + years - it does seem that being able to "chuck" them back to the philipines at a whim isnt nice..

[Satay Sue]

Agree with you, it does seem very unfair. And the argument which is used about them bringing in relatives is just ridiculous.

[virago]

On the last paragraph in quality rag The Standard today says 'a poll conducted by the Liberal Party found 84% of the 796 respondents objected to maids getting right to abode...'.

I don't know the Liberal Party and their agenda (if they have one) but I think if they did allow the 100,000 or so maids that have lived here 7 years or more will not be viewed well by the general public. The 100,000 will turn into 200,000 very quickly over the next 5 years and put enormous pressure on the social welfare system.

Even HK'ers object to mainlanders get right of abode here and they are Chinese!

BTW, i don't agree with it either but I think they are pushing poo uphill to get this.

[Cwbguy]

There will be " interpretations" to the Basic Law requested, and granted, and new rules put in place to make it impossible.
Wasn't it being discussed that the new contracts were to stay at two years, but only renewable twice, so after six yrs the helper is kicked out?

The law as it stands stinks.

[virago]

Well, they asked Beijing for a better interpretation of the law! How does Beijing know anything about the rule of law?

[bryant.english]

it does seem a bit unfair to me that I can get permanent resident status yet a DH cant..

or is the fact that I came over a skilled employee relevant

( actually thats not true - I didnt need a visa in 94 )

but if someone has been here 20 + years - it does seem that being able to "chuck" them back to the philipines at a whim isnt nice..

Might be unfair but it's smart policy. Can you even imagine if the law changed to allow DHs to gain PR after x years. Every man and his dog would be here as DHs, DHs would have DHs. It probably isn't 'fair' but the consequences of making it fair would be dire.

Think about it, coming to HK would suddenly become very easy for many many many unskilled people..

[audiot]

is that true tho? those stories I hear of maids with alsorts of degree etc?

[Dreadnought]

I am concerned about the impact of this move on the social welfare system. I'd like to see the gummint win this one, but at most, I would hope that if the 100,000 or so are awarded PR status, then new contract renewals are capped at two.

As to whether that woukd be unconstitutional, possibly, but I haven't the slightest idea.

F.A.O. Satay_Sue:

Why is the argument about them bringing in relatives ridiculous?

[audiot]

I also wonder if the polled ppl are that smart and forward thinking?

or they just enjoy having a slave class they can lord it over?

[dipper]

Well here goes. I’m reticent to post on this as I know it’s an emotive topic for many people. I’m as reluctant as anybody to be associated with dishonourable characters like the DAB and their cohorts for whom I have nothing but disdain but I think it is actually a more complex issue than many people imagine so apologies in advance for the wall of text.

Firstly, I absolutely agree that the principal of equal treatment for all under the law is an essential part of any civil society and I therefore understand entirely where the drive for change is coming from.

However, I think it’s important to look at what that principal really means in this case. The Domestic Helper Visa gives unequal treatment to a particular group of people in two ways, although only one is being focused on at the moment. As I understand it the current Domestic Helper Visa arrangements mean that Domestic Helpers from certain selected countries are given essentially unconditional entry to Hong Kong without having to pass the normal hurdles needed to apply for a work visa, ie they don’t need to demonstrate that they have unique skills not otherwise available in Hong Kong and that there are no local applicants who could do the job. In return for this essentially unconditional visa arrangement Domestic Helpers currently forego their right to claim Permanent Residency after 7 years. Citizens of the countries that come under the Domestic Helper Visa scheme can still apply for Work Visas should they meet normal work visa requirements and are entitled to Permanent Residency if they do– musicians, nurses, bankers etc from the Phillipines and Indonesia can and do do this - the Domestic Helper Visa is currently an additional option for citizens of those countries.

Obviously, this is not strictly fair and equal treatment under the law but it is a ‘fudge’ that works quite well for domestic helpers in many ways, particularly given that Hong Kong offers by far the best pay, working conditions and legal protection of any country offering similar arrangements (compared to Singapore, the Middle East, Malaysia etc). It’s entirely reasonable that people should ask for equal treatment under the law but it seems to me that if domestic helpers really get equal treatment under the law it won’t necessarily be in their interest, right in principle though it is.

If we give equal treatment under the law then surely that must apply to both aspects of the current Domestic Helper Visa? Equal treatment means that everybody applies under the same Work Visa arrangements and needs to meet the same threshold for approval and has the same rights if they do. This is how it works in most Western countries and the reality of this is that although domestic helpers from the Philippines (for example) would rightly get the same rights to residency as anybody else if they successfully applied for a work visa in the UK (for example), the flip side of this is that in reality very few are successful in doing that.

This seems to be the model towards which we are heading in Hong Kong at the moment. And in many ways, perhaps it’s a good thing for Hong Kong. If the special arrangements for domestic helpers were removed and people had to apply under normal work visa arrangements then the supply of domestic helpers to Hong Kong from the Philippines and Indonesia would pretty much cease (maybe a few expatriate employers could make a case for employing English-speaking domestic helpers but this is a very small proportion of employers). This would be good for kindergartens in Hong Kong, for example, many of whom are struggling to stay open with the low birth rates in Hong Kong and some of these could switch to offering crèche and after-school facilities and charging extra for that service. For those who wanted help with domestic chores then those who could afford it would pay higher wages to part-time local staff creating more and better-paid employment for the lower paid in Hong Kong. Without competition from overseas domestic helpers, wages for local domestic workers would likely increase significantly and this would be a good thing for lower paid workers in Hong Kong. The abolishing of the Domestic Helper Visa would however be pretty disastrous for domestic helpers from the Philippines and Indonesia as the other countries that do offer domestic helper visas offer significantly worse pay, conditions and legal protection than Hong Kong.

Some people seem to imagine that Hong Kong could somehow keep the Domestic Helper Visa with unconditional entry but give the right to permanent residency with that visa. It’s hard to see how this would be possible, desirable or fair. The principle of equal treatment under the law surely means that everbody should meet the same requirements and have the same rights if they do, there is no place under such a principle for a Domestic Helper Visa that offers either special benefits (not needing to meet the normal work visa requirements) or special restrictions (loss of entitlement to permanent residency).

Moreover, if this were to happen there would be a number of consequences. Nationals of other countries could, and surely would, argue, using the same principle of equality under the law, that they should be entitled to the same arrangements. It’s hard to see what argument could be made that nationals of the Philippines should be entitled to this privilege but nationals of China not, for example, given that the whole point of the legal argument is equal treatment. Anybody from any country in the world could, potentially, be allowed to come to Hong Kong provided someone was prepared to state that they wished to offer them a position as a domestic helper and apply for permanent residency after 7 years and then work in any job and also employ people on Domestic Helper visas themselves. It’s hard to see how that could be sustainable or reasonable for Hong Kong.

That’s the way it seems to me, does that make sense to anybody else?