Like Tree40Likes

Why can't domestic helpers live out of home?

Closed Thread
Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 4 LastLast
  1. #1

    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Hong Kong
    Posts
    15,557

    Why can't domestic helpers live out of home?

    Latest News Columns & Insight from Hong Kong & China | SCMP.com

    "Allowing domestics to live away from workplace would be better for everyone
    Doris Lee says current live-in requirement opens workers to abuse and deprives employers of privacy

    Updated on Jul 30, 2012
    Readers, would you accept a contract with an employer who offered you a bed in a bathroom? Furthermore, would Hong Kong immigration officers approve this contract for hiring domestic help if the employer honestly disclosed such a sleeping arrangement?

    The answer in both cases, I'm sure, would be "no". Yet a bed in a bathroom is what some domestic helpers have to put up with. Singer Purple Lee, for one, was recently ridiculed after a magazine published a photo from her flat that appeared to show a bed for her domestic erected over the toilet.

    The local media has since last month exposed how many domestic workers live in degrading conditions in the homes where they work, sometimes on kitchen or toilet floors, sometimes in rooms with adults of the opposite sex.

    Domestic workers have spoken out about these problems for years. But employers and the government have tried to ignore it. The fact that few employers are ever monitored and penalised has made it almost certain that the problem remains widespread, even though it's virtually invisible to the general public.

    We have to ask: why does any domestic worker tolerate such conditions?

    First, employers regularly misrepresent the accommodation provided at the time of hire - misleading both immigration officials and the candidate domestic worker. Yet immigration makes no serious effort to penalise and root out such misrepresentations.

    Secondly, domestic workers feel unable to speak out, given the ease of termination and the high costs they pay to get jobs. This provides an element of coercion into the acceptance of inhumane living conditions, something the government should ensure never happens.

    The Immigration Department has offered the same response for decades: domestic workers can always complain if they suspect their rights have been violated. But the government has imposed conditions that make it onerous and costly to file complaints, let alone see violators punished.

    If we know that domestic workers are tolerating without complaint violations of their employment contracts, like being forced to sleep on kitchen floors, what other abuses are they quietly suffering? The reported cases must be only the tip of the iceberg.

    It is long overdue for the government to take steps that benefit both domestic workers and employers, instead of binding them to laws that benefit neither. The current situation puts both parties in jeopardy and pushes them to flout the laws.

    First of all, if an employer is willing to pay for housing, why should it be banned? The government should allow full-time migrant domestic workers to live outside of their employer's home - as most would surely want for themselves.

    The government's rationale - that domestic workers who "live-out" would take other part-time jobs, thereby depriving locals of job opportunities - is flimsy. Officials should produce evidence to support their assumption that the policy of forced live-in would significantly improve the employment of local domestic workers.

    More importantly, allowing domestic workers to live out would provide several benefits to both worker and employer. The worker would get privacy, rest and safety. The employer would gain privacy, family bonding time and self-sufficiency and higher-quality work from a well-rested, well-treated employee.

    Almost certainly, incidents of mental, physical and verbal abuse against domestic workers would be significantly decreased, if workers could live separately from their employers.

    In addition to just allowing live-out arrangements, the government could provide safe housing specifically for the female migrant domestic workers. Employers could cover the rent. In many countries, dormitories are provided by employers for migrant workers.

    Hong Kong aspires to be a great city. We should work not only to reach financial heights, but also to rid ourselves of domestic practices that border on slavery.

    As this paper has reported repeatedly, Hong Kong is far from being a child-friendly city. Domestic workers provide a much needed service by watching after the children of many city residents.

    To do this, we must end the pretence that foreign domestic workers enjoy the same freedoms as others and take concrete steps to ensure that they work here in conditions free from deception, conditions we would consider decent for any other person in our community.

    The government should end the requirement of migrant domestic workers living in the employer's home and take immediate action to end these and related abuses, including by monitoring contract conditions and punishing bad employers.

    Doris Lee is chairperson of Open Door, a local NGO that supports foreign domestic workers"

  2. #2

    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Tung Chung
    Posts
    435

    I agree with many points in this article but we also have to consider that:

    1) Landlords would try to gouge prices to take advantage of FDH's. If they live in boarding houses those conditions are sometimes even worse for FDH's.

    2) There is an affordable housing crisis in HK. It's difficult for many to find decent living conditions, so adding another 500,000 FDH's to the mix will really create an even bigger problem.

    I think the best policy would be for Government to use some of their surplus money to hire people to make surprise visits to the homes of employers. Hell, if a government worker comes by unexpectedly when an employer is home or not they will get a chance to see the FDH's real working conditions. If there are degrading conditions then heavy fines to the tune of $20,000+ HK should be levied against the employer. That might shake some common sense into the brains of some employers.

    Skyhook, emmie, hullexile and 3 others like this.

  3. #3

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Gold Coast Marina
    Posts
    17,934

    If FDH's could live out, I'd probably get one. So this policy is also reducing the economic value of transactions too. I wonder how many people are put off from having a DH just because of the live-in issue?

    EDIT: Although I guess those employers who make their DH's live in crappy conditions are those that cannot afford a large enough pad in the first place, so how could they afford the DH's accomodation too, unless that accomodation is miles away in which case the poor DH trades sleeping on the floor (something they probably did at home anyway) with a 2hour bus ride back and forth .... tricky ...

    Last edited by MovingIn07; 30-07-2012 at 01:04 PM.
    emmie and SiuMaiTaiTai like this.

  4. #4

    Same as Moving, we'd consider getting one if they were able to live out.


  5. #5

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    1,896
    Quote Originally Posted by Brooklynexpat:
    I think the best policy would be for Government to use some of their surplus money to hire people to make surprise visits to the homes of employers. Hell, if a government worker comes by unexpectedly when an employer is home or not they will get a chance to see the FDH's real working conditions. If there are degrading conditions then heavy fines to the tune of $20,000+ HK should be levied against the employer. That might shake some common sense into the brains of some employers.
    Given that the Tobacco bureau's inspectors are still chase out of most pubs by angry smoking patrons, I don't see this happening any time soon. Also, it would be a huge invasion of privacy if the government could inspect my flat (without a warrant? hello?).
    But I agree with the sentiment - if the government wanted to ensure decent living conditions for domestic helpers, they would be able to find ways to do so.

  6. #6

    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Hong Kong
    Posts
    15,557

    Check out the whole Purple Lee episode:

    Children’s song singer makes her maid sleep in bathroom

    http://news.hkheadline.com/dailynews....asp?id=196270

    She covers up then messes up, then covers up again. I guess she is preparing to become an HK politician.

    Edit to add:

    Check out this "opinion" from China Daily about Purple Lee. Total bullcrap commentary:

    http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/hkediti...t_15614464.htm

    "The average dwelling size in Hong Kong is among the smallest in the world. Perhaps this is because we have a small territory, but we still fare much worse than the Singaporeans whose flats are about 900 sq feet, whereas ours are only 500 to 600 sq feet. Local "Queen of childrens' songs" Purple Lee lives with her parents in an 1,800-sq-feet apartment, a huge flat here by any standard.

    The dichotomy between the public and private does not exist for celebrities, and there is no such thing as a work-life balance for them. Recently, Purple Lee did an interview in which she showcased her apartment, which supposedly is filled with amazing musical instruments. Not so clever for a holder of a Master's degree in social sciences, for if she cares to read the news, she would know that structures in and around the home are always scandal-prone.

    The interview strangely included a photo of her maid's room, which is a bathroom. The bathroom is admittedly big, furnished with a typical stall shower and a washing machine. Then there is a loft bed installed above the toilet. That created a controversy. People logging on to Internet forums found it reprehensible that Sister Purple does not give the maid a proper bedroom. Sister Purple twitted a response, saying the bed above the toilet is used for storage only. However, Web commentators were not satisfied with the photo of the maid lying in another bed that Purple posted, since she had twitted herself lying on the same bed in May.

    It's almost certain that Sister Purple is guilty of both mistreating her maid and covering up. But who knows, there is always a chance that the two switched rooms last month. Perhaps those are two different rooms that happen to have the same layout and a same set of bed and cabinets.

    Domestic arrangements, by their very nature, are difficult to verify. That's why bad things happen when you give the public a glimpse: they inevitably want more. Now, please install a live feed in the room where the maid sleeps. That is the only way we can ascertain, once and for all, whether she sleeps in the toilet or not.

    Public figures naturally have to toe the thin line between underexposure and overexposure, but the way that we deal with our celebrities here in Hong Kong is quite pathetic. Once they acquire wealth we idolize their success, as this is the only standard that we know. Then we peep into their world of luxurious consumption, stunned, only to find that it is a world in which we have no place. "How outrageous!" we say, disillusioned. In short, these heroes are made only to be destroyed.

    Who says life is fair?

    The author is former president of the Hong Kong University Students' Union and a current affairs commentator. "

    Basically the dude is not attacking the lady for making her maid sleep in the bog, but that the public are being too demanding on celebrities.

    Last edited by pin; 30-07-2012 at 02:02 PM.
    dear giant likes this.

  7. #7

    "Children's song singer"?! Let me guess, I bet she sings about how every child is special and every child must be loved, and how the world is a beautiful, sunny place.

    dear giant likes this.

  8. #8

    Sadly, I bet that bathroom with the bed above it is MILES above the conditions of the majority of helpers in HK, and even better than how a lot of locals live.
    But obviously in this exact context it is awful as their flat is clearly big enough! 5 bedrooms and 4 adults (I think) including the helper so they have 2 spare rooms for what? To put her instruments and hello kitty bears...bye bye career!

    dear giant likes this.

  9. #9

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Gold Coast Marina
    Posts
    17,934

    When we lived in Malaysia our "maids room" (we didn't use it as such, but this was the purpose of the room) was outside the air-conditioning, adjacent to the kitchen, with raw concrete walls (so no pastering or finishing), no window, about 60sq feet in size with a squat toilet in one corner, a shower with no partitioning adjacent to the toilet and I assume the bed would then go the other side. It was impossible to see how anyone could have a bed in there that did not get splashed by water from the shower and there was no room for anything else .....

    Compared to that, the bathroom-bedroom shown in the photo actually looked pretty nice! One could say that the maid had her own bedroom with en-suite bathroom. I'm sure that's how the singer saw it anyway! And as for the Mother not wanting to share her bathroom - I refuse to share a bathroom with anyone including my husband .... but I guess if the whole family shares one bathroom then refusing to share with the maid is rather pathetic.

    So it's all in the context! It does seem like with that much room, that singer could have afforded to give her poor maid a proper room.


  10. #10

    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    5,110
    Quote Originally Posted by pin:

    Who says life is fair?
    There is a problem with logic in the article you posted here.

    I agree public figures or "celebrities" are often held up to an unrealistic and morally upright standing by the media. Yet somehow we are "shocked" when their dirty laundry is exposed (maybe there are more naive people out there than I thought). But that is setting up a straw man argument.

    Yes, life ain't fair. The poor still go hungry. Crime still happens. But that's missing the point. For example, just because crime still happen, does it mean it is ok for the police to stop catching crooks? After all, you can never catch all crooks in the world, so why bother? Likewise, just because the media has been somewhat "harsh" on "celebrities" , it means it is ok to ignore how they treat domestic maids? See the fallacy with this line of argument?
    Last edited by Watercooler; 30-07-2012 at 04:22 PM.

Closed Thread
Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 4 LastLast