Domestic Helpers in Hong Kong

Dhruv M., 13, HKIS

At present, Domestic Helpers are not allowed right of abode in Hong Kong despite residing here for many years. Until recently, domestic helper Evangeline Banao Vallejos was part of the 250,000 domestic helper population in Hong Kong. She recently won a lawsuit with the backing of several renowned lawyers to be able to seek permanent residency. However, the rest of the hundreds of thousands of helpers present in Hong Kong still have not been granted the right to abode in this city and enjoy the benefits permanent residency ahs to offer. This is wrong. After living for 24 years Vallejos still had to go to court, and she is just on helper. The Hong Kong government must realize that after rechecking their system it would be illogical, and maybe even illegal, to prohibit domestic helpers the right of abode.

One of the foremost reasons that helpers should be enabled to have permanent residency because by denying residency, that is a contradiction of the Basic/Immigration Ordinance laws. The Basic Law states that discrimination is not legal in Hong Kong SAR. According to it, residents are of equal status when involved with the law. On the other hand is the Immigration Ordinance law, which according to the reference basically disables helpers from being granted “permanent resident” status. Not allowing helpers to get permanent residency based on their occupation is discriminatory, and by having one law that says that discrimination is unlawful, and another promoting discrimination there is, as earlier stated a crossover in the law. Basic Law is fundamental to the city, and in order to prevent violation Basic Hong Kong Law, regulators must make sure that helpers are no longer discriminated, because this could quickly become a massive flaw in the city’s vast legal system.

Secondly, helpers do in fact contribute to Hong Kong society. They give people the ability to not have to worry as much as they would have to without a helper about the home life, and whether everything is in check, and so on. While some people say their contribution to society is outweighed by the negative effect they would have on the economy if granted residency, these people may in fact be incorrect. Now that they debate on permanent residency has been raised, some helpers may leave if not granted citizenship, because they have “come to their senses”. The helpers leaving could create a domino effect.

First the helpers would leave, then people would work less in order to take care of the home, then income would reduce, and consequentially the economy will slow down. So now that the topic on residency has been raised within the helpers’ community it would be a safer bet for the government to grant them a right to abode.

On top of this, it makes no sense that the government are complaining about the effects on the economy, when the Hong Kong government just spent 5 billion dollars on a new headquarters. The amount the government would have to pay in order to give the helpers citizenship is dwarfed by the amount they paid on something that has no visible public benefit. The amount spent on Tamar (new headquarters) could have been allocated into many different projects across Hong Kong that would have had a larger public impact.

At the end of the day, it is time for the Hong Kong government to reanalyze their laws, and to double-check whether some of it may be wrong, and actually promote discrimination. It would most certainly save them quite a few million in probably future lawsuits from the now awoken helpers group of Hong Kong. It is time for a change.