Hong Kong and Blatant Racism

http://asiasentinel.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=5287&Itemid=204

The article is ignorant, stupid and blatantly inaccurate. It plays the race card and ignores the true responsibility of the court --> To accurately interpret existing laws. Fact of the matter is, Hong Kong (like most western countries) only grants employment visas to skilled laborers and their dependents. In order to obtain such visa, typically a company has to demonstrate that a candidate with the same skill set / experience cannot be obtained in the local market. This process requires submission of University Transcripts, CVs, etc. Similarly the Quality Migrant Scheme seeks to provide visas to those who can contribute via skilled labor to the economy of Hong Kong. Unskilled labor is typically not granted employment visas as such mass migrations of unskilled labor significantly distorts the labor pools and economic demographics of a region. As such, the FDH scheme was set-up as a highly restrictive and highly regulated program for shot-term contractual employment. The intent was never one to offer taking up of residency and that is clearly outlined and explained to both employers and FDH applicants at the start of the process. Both sides know / knew the rules by which they agree to play. Now they're asking the courts to change those rules after the game has already started. Allowing FDH visa holders be considered equal to other employment visa holders would open up enormous flood gates to other unskilled labor. Hong Kong is a city which in itself describes the "scarcity of resources" The competition of existing population for things like school placements, medical treatment (birth deliveries), housing, etc...is already stretched to the limit. Imagine the implication of suddenly granting permanent residency to 300k + FDH with unknown potential sponsorships of dependents. That act would surely place an enormous burden on the city's coffers which would then be faced with the liability and subsidy of this new population.


Granted, there are many individual cases which should be treated separately. When someone gives up a big portion of their life (like 20 years) to go live/work in a place there should be a way to grant them residency. However, that would require NEW legislation to describe the pathway by which such things could be achieved. (i.e. if the FDH had her contracted extended 6 or more times than they are eligible, etc.) However, this was NOT what the court was asked to rule on! The court made a decision only on existing legislation and the programs as they exist today. They had to rule on the FDH as a immigration visa "class" not as individuals. Clearly a change is needed here, but this change should come from revision to the scheme rules and not through court rulings.

You've made the points crystal clear in layman's language. Tnk you !