Hong Kong’s Basic Law and domestic helper permanent residency

In less than a week, one of the hottest topics in Hong Kong will move towards a milestone. A petition by one of at least four Filipino domestic helpers to the Hong Kong government to grant them permanent residence will be heard at the High Court starting August 22.

Article 24 of Basic Law, Hong Kong’s de facto constitution defines who may become a Hong Kong Permanent Resident and have the right of abode in Hong Kong. Most of the definitions involve Chinese citizens, but item (4) states that:

Persons not of Chinese nationality who have entered Hong Kong with valid travel documents, have ordinarily resided in Hong Kong for a continuous period of not less than seven years and have taken Hong Kong as their place of permanent residence before or after the establishment of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region;

But Hong Kong’s Immigration Department’s ordinance outlines who qualifies to become a permanent resident:

A person shall not be treated as ordinarily resident in Hong Kong while employed as a domestic helper who is from outside Hong Kong.

The term “ordinary citizen” doesn’t apply to certain groups of people: those who apply for asylum, those who work under a government labor import scheme, and foreign domestic helpers, among others. Such status disqualifies them from applying for permanent residency.

Such apparent inconsistency sparked various interpretations and even members of the Basic Law Committee have sought Beijing’s thoughts in an effort to help clarify the definition without affecting judicial independence and hopefully end the dispute over permanent residency claims of some domestic helper groups.

Each of the domestic workers who lodged petition have lived in Hong Kong for more than 20 years. First to be heard is the case of Evangeline Vallejos, a Filipino helper who has worked in Hong Kong for 25 years. By virtue of the Immigration Department’s guidelines and nature of her job, Vallejos is not qualified to apply for permanent residency even if other Filipinos (me, for example) who practiced other jobs were granted permanent residence status. According to the Philippine consulate there are 12,452 Filipino permanent residents in the former British colony.

Should the applicants win their case, 125,000 of almost 300,000 Filipino and Indonesian domestic helpers in the city could spike the city’s population “overnight” by about 17%. As new permanent residents, these household workers can also bring qualified members of the family to Hong Kong – children under 18 years as well as parents and spouses.

Local groups aired their opposition to the news for various reasons. In a city that has one of the highest population density in the planet, the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong (DAB) claims the granting of permanent residence status to thousands of newcomers could trigger soaring unemployment rate. Legislator Paul Tse earlier feared that a rush of domestic helpers with permanent residency would gravely affect the city’s welfare resources, notably the understaffed public hospital staff. The DAB claims an extra HK$25 billion would be needed in social welfare if the ruling favors the petitioners.

Job hunting could also become more competitive when domestic helpers are granted permanent residence. As lowly as their job nature suggests, many of them are actually college degree graduates and are fluent in English, which puts them in direct competition not only for menial jobs but also white collar opportunities. But perhaps local opposition to the idea may not just be due the possible threat to jobs and welfare facilities, but also to recent developments. The hearing at the High Court comes exactly a day before the first anniversary of the bloody Manila hostage crisis which killed eight Hong Kong tourists. Families of victims sought government help to sue the Philippine government and Hong Kong continues to issue the black travel warning, which advises its citizens to avoid travel to the entire Philippines even if the situation is relatively stable.

On the other side of the argument, Fish Ip Pui-yu of Hong Kong Federation of Asian Domestic Workers Unions (HKFADWU) says more permanent residents could improve the city’s population structure and address its ageing population and low birth rate.

A number of domestic helpers may have degrees in medical fields such as nursing and midwifery and as permanent residents they have better opportunities to help the city solve its acute staffing problems in public health facilities, battered by high turnover rates and overworked employees.

The government could easily appeal if it loses the judicial review. And if it loses again, the government could implement certain stopgap measures. For example, the government could ask the court to suspend the execution of the ruling, effectively delaying the issuance of PR status of petitioners and qualified domestic workers. Or it could set a maximum number of years foreign helpers can work in the city so it doesn’t reach seven years, making them a year short of qualifying for right of abode.

Above all the arguments presented before the High Court review, questions remain even if foreign domestic helpers are granted permanent residence. Will they really be able to compete for jobs other than domestic helper or other minimum wage jobs? Will they have language and experience requirements companies would set before even considering them for interview? If there are jobs that are under threat, it’s the part-time domestic helper work that employs locals under employee retraining scheme that are the most likely affected, since the job nature is very similar. Can they handle the high cost of living in the city? As domestic helpers, employers are required to provide them with food and accommodation, saving them from such cost. But as permanent residents, they are mostly on their own, and expenses can pile up easily.

That is why we ask, is permanent residence really what the majority of domestic helpers want? Despite the pending petition of the four household workers for right of abode as well as appeals by leaders like Eman Villanueva of UNIFIL and Fish Ip of HKFADWU, not all domestic helpers wish to become permanent residents. At Overseas Filipino Workers Facebook page, most domestic helpers expressed they do not want permanent residence. Instead, they wish their monthly wages would increase. After all, they came to Hong Kong with primary aim of making a living to support families back home. They’ll probably be happy if they are granted permanent residence after seven years of continuous employment. But maybe to some, it’s not as important as being granted with salary increases. –Elmer W. Cagape, http://asiancorrespondent.com/62551/hong-kongs-basic-law-and-domestic-helper-permanent-residency/