Next week the court will hear the first judicial review, brought by Evangeline Banao Vallejos, a Filipino who has worked in the city for 25 years. About 290,000 helpers work in the city – including 146,000 from Indonesia and 139,000 from the Philippines.
Opinion is divided on the issue and most opposition is from such as Hong Kong Employers of Domestic Helpers Association, which body says, domestic helpers should not get permanent residency because the city could not sustain such an influx, an association representing employers of helpers says.
Joseph Law, chairman of the Hong Kong Employers of Domestic Helpers Association, which earlier called on the government to seek an interpretation of the Basic Law if the court rules in favour of the helpers, said the association’s biggest worry was discord in the city.
The local press carried his message: “Our policies and facilities for education, medical care and housing cannot cope with the sudden increase of so many permanent residents if helpers win the case,” he said. “Our society has never taken the possibility into account and there will be chaos.” Law also said helpers would have an edge in the job market because “their English is very good”!
Association committee member Josephine Ong said denying helpers permanent residency was not racist as many other places have immigration laws to protect against an influx of economic migrants.
Political commentator Albert Cheng King-hon can be taken as the voice of those happy to have the domestic workers given equal rights in Hong Kong and he supports granting foreign helpers the right of abode. “We should treat all foreign workers the same, as long as they meet the eligibility rules,” he says in his column in the South China Morning Post.
“This group of foreign workers has contributed to the city’s economic success over the years. Without them taking up domestic duties, many women wouldn’t have had the chance to work, especially those with children. A great number of career women have benefitted, including some of those who are now against granting overseas helpers permanent residency.”
He notes that both pro-establishment politicians and pan-democrats have been a huge letdown. They have been evasive, contradictory and hypocritical, with no respect for freedom, justice, human rights and the rule of law. How, then, can we entrust them with our future, he adds?
The move follows a Court of Final Appeal ruling in February 2003 declaring an Immigration Ordinance provision unconstitutional. Five judges unanimously struck out the discretionary provision that required applicants first to be granted unconditional stay, or to be declared ‘settled’, before being allowed to apply for permanent residency. They found the provision incompatible with the Basic Law.
Other provisions in the Immigration Ordinance designed to restrict residency rights for foreign domestic helpers were also found unconstitutional under Article 24 of the Basic Law. Article 24 requires seven years’ continuous residency in order for an applicant to obtain right of abode.
