right to residency given

i've just heard that maids have been given the right to residency! umm...can be looked at in some ways like has HK become civilised and learned the painful lessons we in the west have. Maybe now they will think twice about hiring them. or...will they be fired in the sixth yr because they don't want them to have residency...or will there now be wholsale slaughter...open it up people, haha

What they won is just the right to APPLY for permanent residency.


Qualification to be resident is going to be tougher. Not many helpers will qualify, me thinks.

Surely the Govt will just create a new law limiting a helper to no more than 3 consecutive contracts?

As punter says they have won the right to apply only. You have to stay here seven years and as far as I know also prove you have the means to support yourself. Not a lot will be able to do that. The feared huge influx will simply not materialize. This may turn out to be a non-issue (as it always was) with just a small number gaining residency every year. If you look at helper wages it is not hard to do the math.


I applaud this ruling. About time.

Let's not forget that China may overturn the ruling anyway, if govt lose on appeal. So I'm just waiting to see what happens...

Whatever the admin will do in response to the ruling will not take anything away from the positive vibe the judge has added to the "rule of law lives/thrives in HK" which puts HK above the mainland in terms of fairness, openness, etc. The media mileage will be invaluable.


On the other hand, if the administration will challenge the ruling or run to the mainland for help, their reputation will be tarnished. It appears that they don't really mind what many think though, so they will just do what is correct in their view.


I agree that this is a non-issue but does elicit strong emotions for and against.

Another thing to consider is that just because many helpers may apply doesn't mean they necessarily all want to.


The press and the scaremongers keep citing a figure of 270000 helpers. As if all of them are eligible. As if all those eligible will want to apply.


As punter says, the vibe from the ruling is nice. Certainly helpers knew what they were getting into, but that didn't make it fair.

""We are disappointed at today's judgment," said Joseph Law, chairman of the Employers of Domestic Helpers Association in Hong Kong. "We can't accommodate such a sudden influx of population as this would impose a profound strain on our resources.""


Well, so much for him and his largely invisible "Association". He gets press coverage but otherwise seems largely incognito. I mean, you'd think such an organization would at least have a website....


But I digress...

I think the ruling is a fair one and demonstrates that at the end of the day in Hong Kong, the judiciary are impartial enough to deliberate and find an outcome that may be contrary to what the wider population(if the news reports and polls are to be believed) and the government's wishes.

I hope that with this ruling, that FDH do rightfully claim their PR after 7 years of continuous employment here. If the government wishes to stop this, then they need to create viable childcare options and encourage changes in the labour market to enable moms who mostly want to raise their own children (as opposed to outsourcing it to a FDH) to work part time and look after their children. The situation as it stands is near impossible for a woman who wishes to work part time, the expectation is that with a FDH at home, you should be able to work ALL THE TIME!

This ruling is a win, win (hopefully).

madtown hits the nail on the head. Most of the resistance is thinly veiled racism. If you want to stop immigration, stop it for everyone, Mainlander, European, Aussie and Filipino.


It is tragically hilarious how the numbers are bandied about. As far as I know there are 250-270k helpers in Hong Kong. In most of the articles, this number has somehow swelled to 300k! SCMP did not that only 125k have actually been in HK 7 years or more. So right there the problem is cut in less than half.


I really don't think that many will apply. It's not like HK can create 125k jobs overnight. And if they get residency and stay on as helpers (economically not a terrible deal) how have things really changed?

Agree with all of the above posters, this is indeed a good thing sadly am not yet convinced that this initial decision will stand, call me cynical!!!!! This may pave the way to abolishing the frankly ridiculous rule that FDH MUST live in their employers residence even if living out is the preferred option for both employer and FDH. Presumably if they have PR status they can live wherever they please??

axpt is correct again . This ruling does not mean automatic citizenship after 7 years . There are a great many other criteria that must be fulfilled to obtain PR...... that goes for ALL nationalities . An influencing factor in gaining HK PR for anyone is through financial wealth and specialised services & professions and this rules out many domestic helpers .The right to apply remains now even without this ruling but chances are slim as they will be , I suspect , after seven years of continual work here. I cannot see it made easy for FDH in many years yet to come .

Again, I really don't think that all helpers who can will apply. Our helper has said she'll wait and see. Too early to tell where the chips will fall. These are already people who have come to HK to work, and work bloody hard, to support their families. Why would they suddenly all want to become welfare victims as some pundits cry? More likely they'll be hard working residents who contribute with, you know, taxes. It's only a strain on HK if these people don't pay for themselves.



"Presumably if they have PR status they can live wherever they please??"


That's right. However note that the live-in regulation is there to protect the helpers. Otherwise they'd have to rent accommodation at HK prices and pay for transit to and from their place of work.


Not saying helpers should not be allowed to live out but say a helper works in Repulse Bay and lives out. To find a cheap enough place to live she has to go at least to Wan Chai, and she'll be in a tiny dingy room, perhaps shared, in a boarding house. Because that's what she can afford. She'll have to get up at oh-dark-hundred and be home late six days a week. Better or worse than her maid's room? Well it depends on her employer I guess.

In my view people have generally read too much into this judicial ruling. It might take some legal background to fully understand it, but if you read the judgement, this ruling is merely about a legal interpretation of a term ("ordinarily resided") in the Basic Law. "It is NOT a judgment on whether as a matter of social policy FDHs should be given the right of abode," said the judge explicitly in his judgement. Nor is it about discrimination or equal protection. "In my judgment, this is not a case about discrimination. . . It has to be borne in mind that Article 24(2)(4) confers the status of permanent residents on foreign nationals. It must be up to the sovereign authority to decide the extent to which such a concession is to be granted. . . . a fundamental principle in international law is that a sovereign state has the power to admit, exclude and expel aliens. Therefore there cannot be any complaint that Article 24(2)(4) confers such status on certain people but not others."


In my view the ruling is good one in the sense that it does reflect the independence of the court and the spirit of the rule of law. But I wouldn't go any way beyond that, as explicitly disclaimed by the judge.


The PR issue is different from other FDH-related issues (working conditions, wages, etc., all of which I fully recognize). If the appellate court reverses the case, or if the government seeks legislative interpretation from the mainland, or if, failing all those, the Basic Law is sought to be amended, all in an effort to restrict FDHs from gaining permanent residency in HK, I cannot say there's anything INHERENTLY wrong in that undertaking. Yes it is protectionism, but which developed country is not when it comes to immigration policies? And it cannot be claimed as a racial discrimination; it's differentiating based on visa status, not nationality or races. Just because most FDHs come from a certain country/countries does not make the distinction racial. In the US student/scholar visa holders are not allowed to have immigration intent or apply for green card. That's not a racial discrimination despite the fact that the vast majority of those visa holders are from China and India. If one really wants to talk about racial profiling in HK immigration policies, I'm sure you'll easily learn that the mainlanders are actually a targeted group.


All a long way to say this ruling is only about a technical interpretation of a legal term. Let's not mix it up with the fundamental value issue as the ruling does not intend to support or disapprove either side of the debate. And before blaming the HK government for the position it's taking, one should really think whether HK is indeed more protectionist or "discriminating" than other developed countries in this aspect of its immigration policy. (Think about all the requirements one has to meet before even being able to go to U.S. or Canada or European countries to work as a domestic helper)


Personally, though, I do prefer to have the option of hiring FDHs who have gained permanent residency, so that we can have a more normal employment relationship. I prefer to have the option of having my helper live out. I prefer not to take full responsibility of my helper's well-being as if she's a dependent of mine, which often makes me worry whether she's ok when she stays out late on her day off as I'll be responsible even if she got hit by a car after getting drunk. I prefer not to worry about loan sharks coming to my door in case my helper defaults on her personal loan.


And on a separate level, I also agree with lagrue that the government, regardless whether it'll seek to restrict FDHs from gaining PRs, should also make a genuine effort to alleviate the society's dependence on FDHs. Not at all to disrespect the contributions made by FDHs to HK, but I do think the society's reliance on them have reached such an unhealthy level that should take responsibility of a lot of the problems. Think about a household where both parents have to work to earn 20k a month, the only option they have for childcare/elder care is a FDH. They can barely afford the minimum FDH salary. They live in such a cramped space so imagine their helper's accommodation. The employers themselves probably work late most of the time (who doesn't in HK?) without overtime pay, and adding the commute time they are working or on the way to/from work 13-14 hours a day, so would it surprise you a lot if their helper has to work the same hours? The society needs to change the way its people live/work to reduce its dependence on FDHs to a more reasonable level, so that a more decent treatment in general can be expected for FDHs.

miao miao, thanks for taking the time to explain the situation so thoroughly.

Another thought: how many households can afford to pay $8,000 instead of $4,000 to the helpers?

We (my husband & I) no children, no pet are paying our helper $4,500 per month and she's happy working for us (7 years now) but I think we will have to let her go once she is qualified to earn the basic minimum of $28.00 per hour.

Having worked in the US both with a working visa and with a Green Card, I can well understand what miao miao is saying. Excellent post.



"I think we will have to let her go once she is qualified to earn the basic minimum of $28.00 per hour."


You have a point homely. However even if she is qualified to do so this does not mean she will automatically find a job paying this. Methinks many helpers will opt not to apply for residency because they will lose their jobs if they do so in favor of helpers who do not have it.

madtown, what I was trying to point out was, AS A LEGAL MATTER, it's not racial discrimination because first, it's a distinction on the basis of visa status (not race), and second, there is really not much equal protection (and hence "discrimination") to talk about when it comes to immigration matters, and that's the case everywhere in the world. Whether as a matter of international law or domestic law, it's pretty much up to a sovereign government to decide who it wants to allow to come and stay, subjec to requirements in its own constitution (which is the issue in this case). Can one successfully (or even plausibly) raise a 14th amendment argument to challenge the U.S. government for granting free entry to certain foreign nationals but requiring visa for others (and again subject to different gradations of written/unwritten requirements depending on where you are from)?


This case in itself is about law, not about policy. The judge ruled in the FDH's favor only because the Basic Law was written in a certain way and the judge chose to interprete the Basic Law in one out of several reasonable ways. Therefore it wouldn't surprise me whether the case was affirmed or reversed on appeal, because there's some ambiguity in the Basic Law in my view.


I also think that the HK government does have the right to determine, based on what is best for its citizens, whether, as a matter of policy, FDHs should be granted the right to residency. And the government should not be blamed for doing what its citizens call on it to do on this immigration policy, as that's what all governments do. Again this is different from other FDH-related issues such as working condition or wages, where equal protection/discrimination IS a genuine issue.


Whether or not SE Asians are being discriminated in HK as a socioeconomic matter, or whether or not it's morally wrong to import cheap labor from disadvantaged countries, are separate issues from the immigration question. I tend to say yes to the former (but noting that kind of discrimination is also not news in all other developed countries, without saying it's justifiable at all), but have reservation about the second. You may want to say the racial discrimination is what's underlying the immigration issue, and you are not wrong. However, my point was one can hardly raise a plausible argument to challenge an immigration rule on the basis that racial discrimination is underpinning the rule. Which developed country does not place more immigration restrictions on foreign nationals from poorer countries? The wide recognition is there's nothing wrong about it, whether as a matter of law or policy, at least at this stage of the development of the earth.

madtown, thanks for the clarification. We are not in that much of a disagreement.


On the immigration matter, I do think it's up to a government to decide (1) whether it wants to allow certain group of foreigners to enter, and (2) the conditions to be attached to the grant of entry, such as whether immigration intent is allowed or not. It would not be inherently wrong to design different types of work visas, with some having the potential right to residency and others not having it.


Other than the immigration matter, however, I do agree that the way that HK operates the FDH system is far from desirable, as said in my prior posts. With or without the residency right, FDHs can have better rights in terms of work condition, salaries, etc. The predicament is that this society is overly-dependent on FDHs as the only viable option for childcare/eldercare/household help, in particular for the middle class. I do think that, as a socialeconomic matter, people in this society would better live and work in a more normal way so that FDHs are hired by only those in true need and with the capability to provide better work condition. I would prefer to have the option of putting my child in a high-quality day care/afterschool care instead of leaving him with the FDH all the time while I'm working. I would prefer to be able to leave work on time each day to take care of my share of household/childcare responsbilities. I would prefer to be able to tell my boss that I cannot work on a weekend because my helper has the day off and my child needs me. However, that's simply not how things work in HK (it's even worse for local people than us expats), and it's very frustrating on a personal level and leads to numerous social problems on as a general matter. In this aspect the HK government has not been doing its job in terms of creating/encouraging a more healthy life mode with reasonable options for its people, and both the FDHs and their employers are bearing the cost of this failure.


Of course, from the FDHs' perspective, if better work conditions, higher salaries, etc. are required to be granted to FDHs, then less people will be able to afford it and the entry threshold will almost surely be higher (remember now there's virtually no threshold as to qualifications/experience, etc.). If FDH residency restriction is to be eliminated entirely, then I would expect the qualification requirement to be even higher (i.e., the quality that cannot be found from the local labor market). You would think that's the morally right thing to do despite the fact that a lot of FDHs would be losing their job. Others may think there's nothing morally wrong if FDHs voluntarily come to work to earn more than what they can back at home. This debate can last forever and I tend not to take position on it.

No one deserves to clean toilets and live in a closet their entire life.


Madtown...unfortunately it is not only the FDH who find themselves in this predicament, many of the locals literally live in a closet and if they are cleaners....clean toilets all their life. In fact I would wager that for the FDH who are employed by the upper middle class, their living conditions are far better than you suggest. My helpers have a separate self contained unit within our apartment with a separate lounge area and toilet, and their living space is larger than the one our driver shares with his extended family. For the FDH employed by expats/local who live in tiny apartments, their living conditions reflect the size of their employer's home -tiny if the apartment itself is a 'closet'. Having said that, I am certainly not condoning one rule for the FDH and one for expats/the locals ect and definitely welcome the ruling. As I've said earlier I hope it leads to major structural changes in Hong Kong which redress a number of problems including the work/life imbalance here and the lack of properly vetted facilities for childcare/elder care.


I agree with miao miao that there is absolutely no alternatives for quality child care and elder care in Hong Kong and hence the need for FDH. Like miao maio, I would prefer to have my child interact with other children in a creche or child care facility that has been accredited by a governmental agency, by staff who have the relevant qualifications. The situation as its stands now is that each and every mom out here that decides to work, or has other things they need to do, has to take huge leaps of faith with their FDH and rely on word of mouth recommendations and 'gut instinct' when employing FDH to look after their children. Is this a good system...I think not...is there an alternative...no! (unless you have family who can and are willing to pick up the slack).


Moreover as miao miao has pointed out, in some ways perhaps the FDH enslaves the local populace as much as it does the FDH. Companies here have a tendency to believe that as you have a FDH at home you are available all the time. Choosing to bathe your own children, wishing to cook with them or for yourself (even if you enjoy this), are not options as it is the FDH duty. When I have asked for part time work, the bosses always assume that it is because I have FDH problems - is this the only situation where this should be an option, when you have FDH problems, I think not, but it is the situation in Hong Kong. Many other mums I know either work relentless hours because they have to, even if they could afford to work part time (but can't afford not to work at all), others, who wish to work part time for their own edification, can't, so choose either to work full time unhappily or not at all (unhappily). Surely HK can do better than this.


When I was in Australia, the FDH was sold to me as something wonderful, someone to cook and clean so that you could just enjoy your children, basically a housekeeper, now I am here there are loads of dark implications to the FDH, not only the plight of the FDH but the plight of the people who employ the FDH.


Anyway my two cents.

madtown wrote "I digress" but he definitely doesn't really know what he is talking about and so very far away from the truth on the local scene. He seems to hate HK on the whole....says nothing good or nice about anything in HK except "HIM" coming here to grab enough money and leave the place. Wonder why?

Madtown, you seem to suggest that most employers want live in help. As has been suggested by many on this website, most would prefer live out help but because it is illegal they fall in line with the letter of the law.


Simply not true. The help could come locally. Why does the 'help' have to come from foreigners? Because it is cheaper?


You argument simply does not make sense. Sure, the help could come from locals but then that would cost 8,000 per month for a standard 6 day, 12 hours a day week. This would be quite alright for the expats on this website, and the local upper middle class and rich, most of these people would simply down-size the number of helper employees they have on their payroll, and choose one efficient, suitably skilled 'local'. No skin off anyone's back.


Unfortunately, you haven't addressed the problems of the local community at large, which are probably the largest employers of FDH here. What about the mums and dads who both work to make 20K a month, just making ends meet, they can't afford 8000K per month. What should they do? Should the wife quit her job to look after her children and the whole family live in abject poverty as a result? This would be the current scenario as the government has NO ALTERNATIVE to FDH at present.


What about the family who wishes to keep their elders at home to care for them, should the wife quit to look after them and again ensure that her family lives in abject poverty. Should she never have any respite? As in western countries it is understood that carer fatigue is a huge problem and so supports like respite care, district nursing, meals on wheels ect are available to give the carer a break. Does this exist in Hong Kong.....No......


What about the elder who has no one to care for them? Should they go straight into an old age home if they can't afford 8K a month (and if your answer is YES......well let's hope you end up in a Hong Kong Old age home yourself! The ones I have seen here with my own eyes through volunteer work (and these are the better ones) are really abysmal).


As I've said I welcome the judgment. I hope it ushers in some serious structural change for both FDH as well as the HK inhabitants. I think in truth, if you had financially competitive alternatives here, childcare, elder care wise, most families would decline to hire a FDH in droves, most people I know do not wish to have a 'third wheel' living in their homes, as the current situation stands there are no alternatives.

Just because the system works for those who live here doesn't make it fair or just.


For those who can only afford an FDH on minimum wage, there will be an abundant supply even if the ruling is upheld. You can always hire someone who is not resident. There will always be Filipino and Indonesian women willing to travel to HK to work as helpers. Yes, some will eventually become resident, but so what? It's not like the entire population of The Philippines will move here since they couldn't afford to support their families here.



@madtown: "I have no problem with HK importing labor. But they should operate under the same protections as every other worker, because that is the morally right thing to do."


Agreed. How is an imported helper different from an imported banker or lawyer? Both are imported to do a job. Unfortunately helper jobs are seen by most as menial, which is silly since in the next breath these people say helpers are essential.



@lagrue: "I agree with miao miao that there is absolutely no alternatives for quality child care and elder care in Hong Kong and hence the need for FDH. "


That's only because Hong Kong runs on helpers. If you change conditions for helpers, society will change as well. Most countries in the world get by just fine without FDH. Yes, the transition may be painful, but it will be a "good thing".

what can i say....

1 out of 100 Filipinos can only afford it....whats the fuss? whats the big deal?

Employers will always choose what is cheaper anyway....

The thing is...the chinese people dis agree with this because they are afraid to be taken over by Filipinos which is very impossible.....

@madtown: "I have no problem with HK importing labor. But they should operate under the same protections as every other worker, because that is the morally right thing to do.


totally agree too. IN ADDITION, whether banker, domestic helper, waiter, secretary, architect, teacher etc etc... all should be responsible for earning the right to be hk residents including paying taxes and contributing to society