boarding house- kennedy town

Anyone know the going rate for a spot in a boarding house in Kennedy Town? Thanks!

I pay $1125 for rent + $150 for utilities.

Patsidel- I sent you a PM. Hoping you can advise...

anyone? Patsidel never got back to me...

Sorry, meant to ask if anyone has contact details for boarding houses in Kennedy Town...

are you looking for a room? going rate is about 3000 and you can look for a room mate and share expenses. just saw one in sands street newly renovated and has air con.

You can do much better than $3000. Assuming it's for a live-out (no comment!) helper then that's the month's salary gone. The cases I know about pay in the region of $1000, but I guess it depends on location, age/condition of property, how much rent the primary renter pays before splitting the flat into individual rooms hardly bigger than the bed inside etc etc.

Thanks for the replies, but I only need contact details for a boarding house in Kennedy Town, where the person in question would be a roommate with a bunch of people. The rent range would be $1500-1800 max.

Kilwinning


Did you get the details of a boarding house in Kennedy Town? If so, would you mind passing the address, contact number and cost to me?


Thanks

Sorry, we had to come up with an alternate plan i.e. a space in Wanchai. Very hard to find boarding houses in Kennedy Town.

kilwinning, can you PM me th contact details of the bed space in wan chai? thanks

if you need a place to stay in wanchai i knew one my friend is managing it its in hopewell...

mahallulu,


can you pm me the detalis of the bedspace in hopewell?


or email me thru prang984@hotmail.com


cheers

Hi applebubble,

My helper has since found a place closer to our home (not wanchai) and she didn't keep the contact info for the place in Wanchai. I do hope you find something. What does work is for the helper to ask other helpers that work in your estate for contact details of boarding houses. There are tons of helpers in our area that live out- never realized how many until we started looking for accommodation. They knew someone, who knew someone, etc... Cheers.

Kilwinning - my helper's friend is moving to Kennedy Town and needs a room to board. Do you have any phone numbers from your helper that could help her search?


Really appreciate any reply.

Kilwinning - can u pls let me know about this place in Wanchai as well? We are the moment in Pofuklam i think our mini bus goes directly to Hopewell.


Thanks alot.

what are u doing? breach of contract condition for living out? no matter helpers or who provide accomodation, should be reported to immigration and liable for criminal consequences and future adverse record not for re-entry.

ASIAXDREAMY you must be a chinese employer - put your head back in the sand or crawl back into a hole.

Thees live in rules for DH's are so 17th century and create so many problems for these helpers.

A few years back FDH were allowed to live out however the law was changed, presumably there must have been reasons to make the change. Anyone here actually know why the rules were changed?

Dishka5

I just follow laws that is my profession to do so. The above discussion and your interpretation might be sound in a realm without legal binding. Go ahead and discuss more openly and let see if Immigration and Department of Justice will follow up your intention to cause the breach of condition of stay as read with Chapter 115, Laws of Hong Kong. There are many prevailing internet crime tracing techniques that can prove the identities of senders and the account holder of the speakers here.

Glad that somebody had deleted the post to avoid complication or implication.

If one just doesn't like to comply with the statutory requirement, one has the liberty to leave and live in some other jurisdiction .


FDHs were allowed to enter Hong Kong since the 1970’s to take up full-time domestic duties due to the shortage of local full-time live-in domestic helpers and in order to relieve housewives from household
chores for taking up employment. This is in line with the well-established principle that non-local persons are admitted for employment only if the jobs concerned are not readily taken up by the local work force.


Under existing immigration policy, FDHs are admitted into Hong Kong to work for a specific employer at a specified residence under a standard two-year contract. FDHs are normally permitted to stay for a period of two years commencing on the date on which the helper arrives in Hong Kong. The terms and conditions of employment are contained in the standard Employment Contract (ID407) (hereinafter referred to as “the Contract”). The Contract was last reviewed and revised to incorporate a mandatory live-in requirement so as to better reflect the policy intention to admit live-in FDHs to make up for the shortage of local workers who are willing to provide such services.

Prior to being granted permission to enter Hong Kong to work, an FDH is required to sign an undertaking that, among other things, he/she will reside at the employer’s residence and perform domestic duties as specified in the Contract.

An FDH who breaches his/her conditions of stay and his/her aider and abettor, if any, are liable to criminal prosecution. Immigration Regulations (Cap.115A) provides that permission given to a person to land in Hong Kong for employment shall be subject to the condition of stay that he shall only take such employment or
establish or join in such business as may be approved by the Director of Immigration. Immigration Ordinance (Cap.115) provides that any person who contravenes a condition of stay in force in respect of him shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction to fine and to imprisonment for 2 years.

Any person who aids and abets the breach of a condition of stay shall be guilty of an offence under the Immigration Ordinance, and by virtue of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance (Cap.221), shall be liable on conviction to the same punishment.

To be a fair and responsible speaker here, one should address the possible outcomes and liabilities before flowing ideas leading the others to the point of no return.

To be an objective reader and speaker, one should put out the lens of race ( although I am not as you wrongly guessed ) to the employers or the employee side. There is no difference when you are Hongkonger, American , Filipino, Mainlander, Indonesian.....for what is right and what is wrong, or simply speaking, what the laws require all people within the jurisdiction to comply.

Do you wanna proceed by advocating the live-out here? Looking forward to reading your detailed reply if you think it is so justice to say so, and I shall pass it to more professional readers to follow up.

Asiaxdreamy

I am well aware of what is stated in FDH contracts and what the law requires and yes I do want to proceed in advocating for an update to the live in ruling. Laws are not the end to be all and from time to time need to be adjusted or amended so they are current with a society as it changes over time. I, and many others, believe this law to be outdated and in need of serious review.

As it stands now, the live in rule creates a multitude of problems for these workers and gives unscrupulous employers the opportunity to take full advantage of the work situation. Over time, apartment sizes have decreased in Hong Kong and far too many workers are now made to sleep on kitchen floors or with the children of the employers. They lack for privacy and comfort which is, by law, required under the contract.

Being forced to live in leaves them at the mercy of an employer that has little regard for their holiday time or even required rest / sleeping time. By law they are to be given 24 hours holiday time per 7 days. This rarely happens and far too many are given curfews on their day off, must work before they leave, and, upon returning, are left to clean up the messes left by employers while they were having a "day off". Rarely do many get a full 24 hours holiday.

They are forced to get up at all hours of the night, at the beckoning call and demands of whatever an employer wants. This rule also leaves the door open to various abuses; verbally, sexually and physically and by not being given the opportunity to live out, they have no respite from these situations as they arise.

An amendment to the law, leaving it to the discretion of the employer / FDH to determine whether it will be a live in or live out situation would be a major step forward. Because there are so many varied situations with regard to the households here in HK a "live in rule only" does not take this into account. There is no allowance for flexibility for the employer or the worker.

Now look at your comment:
"no matter helpers or who provide accommodation, should be reported to immigration and liable for criminal consequences and future adverse record not for re-entry."

My take on this is that you have absolutely no regard for the FDH worker and unfortunately no understanding of where they came from, why they are here in the first place, and the sacrifices they are making to keep their families fed. Simply because someone chose to live out, so they could have some semblance of privacy and a more normal life, you would have their contracts terminated and forced to return to their country of origin where by eliminating any source of income for the families involved.

So before you decide its a good idea to report a worker, I suggest you go to the Philippines or Indonesia and live in some of the houses these workers come from. Live on a dirt floor, eat on a subsistence day to day basis, with no air cons, running water, flush toilets and under electricity that is at the whim of the weather and grid capacity. I suggest you go down to World Wide House on a Sat/Sunday on the 1st and 2nd weekend of the month and look at the thousands of people selflessly sending most of their earnings home so their families can eat and live a decent life.

Do these things and then decide whether you want to report someone because they are simply "living out". If, after that, u continue to feel it correct then you are a person without compassion or reverence.

DISHKA5,

You obviously feel very passionate about the FDH live in laws but seem to me at least to be painting a rather dark picture of a typical FDH's life here and in their own country. It is a fact that there are some cases of poor treatment (of FDH by employers) but for the vast majority of FDH I have personally known in the 20+ years I've been here this has not been the case - the FDH considered themselves fortunate to have had the opportunity to work in Hong Kong even if they had to live in.

As I mentioned in a previous post the law changed a few years back (not sure when, but around 10-15 years ago I believe) to stop live outs and there must have been reasons to make the change, does anyone know why? The government would not have made the change just for change sake.

Incidentally this live in or out topic may well become irrelevant for Indonesians if their government acts on its promises and stops them from going overseas to work as FDH in 2016 or 2017 - personally I don't think this will happen as there will be so much backlash against the loss of remmitances let alone the denial of human rights.

DISHKA5,

Don't let your personal rage over the rationales and legal basis. As mentioned, you cannot just break the laws as you don't like it. But you can quit from being governed under the same laws the others comply when you are out from that territories. This applies to both employers and employee sides.

In echo with your funny rationale, here are the detailed replies.

(..........you must be a chinese employer - put your head back in the sand or crawl back into a hole.)

[ Don't be a racist and please calm down to see the rationales. You guessed wrongly and might offend the locals here. My family is rather multinational, including aunt from one of the labour supplying country as you've mentioned , with her daughter (mixed local/that nationality) being an English Teacher in a renowned education institute. I also have an helper all along with my family over 16 years, but also encountered some nasty helpers requiring attention. ]


(.......I am well aware of what is stated in FDH contracts and what the law requires and yes I do want to proceed in advocating for an update to the live in ruling. Laws are not the end to be all and from time to time need to be adjusted or amended so they are current with a society as it changes over time. I, and many others, believe this law to be outdated and in need of serious review. )

[ Yes, the old laws for living-out costed social security and labour supply issues so it was revised to plug the loophole. Honestly speaking, we have empathy to the helpers with poor living conditions, during the job interview, both sides should clearly discuss the supply and need and make an agreement before proceeding. ]


(........As it stands now, the live in rule creates a multitude of problems for these workers and gives unscrupulous employers the opportunity to take full advantage of the work situation. Over time, apartment sizes have decreased in Hong Kong and far too many workers are now made to sleep on kitchen floors or with the children of the employers. They lack for privacy and comfort which is, by law, required under the contract. )

[Cost of living and housing is surprisingly rising no matter the economy is up or down. When you think the space for some helpers are small, you might find the same family actually shared little space for their own, according to the latest statistic research of the home and family size. And also, counting the per capita resting area, sometimes the helper might have been enjoying the space costed over 1 million though it's tragically small. Back the the mutton, before entering the contract, both sides can talk and make decision, and even don't come for this place for employment as the world is bigger than you might think of. Be considerate to everybody, we should thank the helper for the hard work and provide the best option to let the one who helps us to have a good and decent rest for the next day's works. I also agree that employer should treat human like human and not to fold them into the narrow gap on the kitchen / toilet floor. In such a case with no live-in rest space for helpers, you better not hiring live-in ones and opt for live-out legitimate local helpers. BUT IT DOESN'T MEAN THAT you can break the laws by claiming that you are hiring live-in helper but let helper living under BREAKING CONDITION OF STAYS (criminal offence with custodial sentences and life-long criminal records to both sides)]


(....Being forced to live in leaves them at the mercy of an employer that has little regard for their holiday time or even required rest / sleeping time. By law they are to be given 24 hours holiday time per 7 days. This rarely happens and far too many are given curfews on their day off, must work before they leave, and, upon returning, are left to clean up the messes left by employers while they were having a "day off". Rarely do many get a full 24 hours holiday.

[....."Being forced to live in leaves them at the mercy of an employer ".....it is not mercy, it is the legal requirement upon the employer, it is responsibility. We always talk to our helper "Don't look down yourself". When you are not looking down on your profession, you will see the world without the unnecessary lens. Fairly speaking, the 24/7 live-in relationship also costed the employer to provide utilities and accommodation 24/7. There are always give-and-take for both sides. About "curfews" , actually a term not understood by employers but created by the employees. We have to face the legal binding that the helper should reside, every night, at the contracted place of abode. Some nasty ones got caught for breach of 2 conditions of stays in somewhere along Lockhart Road ( not living at employer's home and doing unauthorized/ illegal works) and in past case history some got caught for jail for just living-out. However, I would totally concur that we should let the employee take a good holiday rest under many agreed terms. ]

(....They are forced to get up at all hours of the night, at the beckoning call and demands of whatever an employer wants. This rule also leaves the door open to various abuses; verbally, sexually and physically and by not being given the opportunity to live out, they have no respite from these situations as they arise. )

[...about "beckoning", it depends what kind of help and why there is a need for a helper. For elderly with health complications? for infant with immediate attention ? Or trivial stuff that can be done at appropriate moment and the employee would follow up on self-initiative? Yes, employee should have rest time for own health and better performance on the next day. However, I cannot see the correlation between this live-in rule and abuses. Abuse is abuse, not tolerable and should be dealt fairly to protect the victims. According to your logic, live-out can save all such risk from live-in situations....? what's the sense? How about the employee and employer never meet, or simply employee choose another place(country) to serve? ]

(...An amendment to the law, leaving it to the discretion of the employer / FDH to determine whether it will be a live in or live out situation would be a major step forward. Because there are so many varied situations with regard to the households here in HK a "live in rule only" does not take this into account. There is no allowance for flexibility for the employer or the worker. )

[.....before you could think of, the legislation council had once and once discussed the issue with the current resolution to balance the interests....to the employee, to the employers, but also to other labour forces or similar labour supply (locals? Mainlanders -- even cheaper than those from SE Asian countries). One of the reasons for such live-in binding discussed was...for those live-out ones, all 100% with no other part time illegal employment (which would cause adverse effect on local or even current FDH labour markets) ? no dirty business ( walking along some district in Wan Chai would give you a fantastic answer) involved? no other threat to the stability in terms of labour / social security ? I agree that more flexibility is better, provided that all interests and concern can be balanced. ]

(.....Now look at your comment:
"no matter helpers or who provide accommodation, should be reported to immigration and liable for criminal consequences and future adverse record not for re-entry.")

[ Clearly , I have absolutely no regard for LAW BREAKERS ( sorry, my point is NOT pointing to the FDH, but would also point to those advocating the wrong deeds with no regret) . I truly understand the great dedication of FDH to local families and there own families abroad, and that's why we treat our own helper every good with due respect and far more than fair treatment. This thinking is also caused by the composition of my extended families ]

(......Simply because someone chose to live out, so they could have some semblance of privacy and a more normal life, you would have their contracts terminated and forced to return to their country of origin where by eliminating any source of income for the families involved. ).

[ talking about privacy, yes, the employer should have empathy to the hard work and conditions of their helpers and provide so. However, this is not the legal excuse for allowing anyone breaking the live-in rules. Logically error.]

(.....So before you decide its a good idea to report a worker, I suggest you go to the Philippines or Indonesia and live in some of the houses these workers come from. Live on a dirt floor, eat on a subsistence day to day basis, with no air cons, running water, flush toilets and under electricity that is at the whim of the weather and grid capacity. I suggest you go down to World Wide House on a Sat/Sunday on the 1st and 2nd weekend of the month and look at the thousands of people selflessly sending most of their earnings home so their families can eat and live a decent life. )

[...every year my aunt would lead us to her home country with more live proof that cannot be depicted literally. We should respect such great helpers coming from those families to earn for the other family members, but this cannot be a ground for one to break the laws. By your logic, we should also be empathetic to those stealing or doing other dirty business also for their own personal good to their own poor families? ]

(....Do these things and then decide whether you want to report someone because they are simply "living out". If, after that, u continue to feel it correct then you are a person without compassion or reverence. )

[ Please don't just talk from the employees' angle, be objective to see whether your words would cause others to the jaws of laws with their blood bleeding but not yours. I just clearly state what is right or wrong in reality, it does not make anyone following the laws with compassion. Whether I have pointed this out or not there are many unseen eyes looking for such wrong deeds from these threads. I passed every word to my helper sitting right beside me and she fully understands what is the right thing to focus on and enjoy every minute living without the feeling of being caught suddenly if uncovered.]



GREENE KING ,

Yes, you are right. We cannot pay too much attention to the little dirt over the vast area of tidiness in the employer-employee relationship. We objectively discuss here with no offend to whatever nationality / position and would like to help promote a healthy and positive relationship between employers and employees in this forum.

Also, if the Indonesian Government proceed as claimed, it would be a disaster to those good employers and good employees. There is an article today from the voice of an Indonesian also said such act would cause many Indonesians cannot find jobs with decent income ( as compared to their income from local market, and under such huge unemployment rate).

Everybody should treasure the good relationship , no matter you are employer or helper.

Cheers.

A bit late, but just wanted to say to asiaXdreamy that your responses were well presented and well thought out. Anybody who immediately throws out a racist remark like DISHKA5 did ("...you must be a chinese employer - put your head back in the sand or crawl back into a hole.") should have been deleted/banned from the forum. Yes, there are some unscrupulous employers but its not the majority and lets not generalise. According to my former employee, many employees also prefer to live in rather than live out.

Latest enforcement news on 29 Jan 2015 :-

Four foreign domestic helpers were arrested in dawn raids yesterday morning on suspicion of breaking immigration laws by not living in their employers’ homes.

Three minibuses with at least 20 immigration officers descended on Ma Wan village around 7am, accusing the helpers of breaching employment legislation and their contracts.

One Hong Kong resident, understood to be an employer of one of the helpers, was also held for obstructing officers. Immigration officers arrested his wife yesterday afternoon. Both were released on bail.

An immigration spokesman confirmed that four foreign domestic helpers were detained on suspicion of making a false representation to an immigration officer.

The government requirement that domestic helpers live in their employers’ homes was tightened in 2003 in a bid to boost job opportunities for local domestic helpers. Only those helpers who have been employed continuously by the same employer since before 2003 are allowed to live out. Under the same laws, employers are also targeted for letting helpers out of their duty of care.

The government insists the laws prevent abuse of helpers working part-time outside of their employment.

According to Hong Kong law, employers hire a domestic helper using a standard employment contract – a legally binding document. Clause 3 states that the migrant worker must reside in the employer’s residence with a stated address. The visa application states that the helper and employer must comply with clause 3.

Classed as “false representation” to immigration officers, letting helpers live out is an offence liable to prosecution that is punishable by a maximum fine of HK$150,000 and imprisonment for 14 years. Employers can also be banned from hiring another helper.

Domestic helpers, if found guilty, are deported and blacklisted from working in Hong Kong.

Mahallulu,
I'm looking for a room to rent please pm me. TIA

http://hongkong.asiaxpat.com/forums/hong-kong-domestic-help/threads/147659/penalty-for-live-out/


http://www.info.gov.hk/gia/general/201207/07/P201207070469.htm

Hi does anyone know a boarding house I can rent in hk island?