HK wins appeal against maid residency rule

HONG KONG’S government, facing calls to limit the strains on the city’s health and social services, won an appeal against a ruling that would have cleared the way for foreign maids to seek permanent residency in the territory.

An immigration ordinance that prevented the helpers from applying for the status is constitutionally valid, Chief Judge Andrew Cheung wrote in a judgment issued Wednesday by the Court of Appeal.

The lower court’s decision in September would have allowed 117,000, or a third of the maids working in the former British colony, to apply. That polarized public opinion, with the political parties warning an influx might add to the burden on resources in the Chinese city of 7.1 million.

Maids are in the city “to meet society’s acute demand for domestic helpers which cannot be satisfactorily met by the local labor market,” Cheung wrote in his judgment.

“Their stays in Hong Kong are highly regulated so as to ensure that they are here to fulfill the special, limited purpose for which they have been allowed to come here in the first place, and no more.”

Foreign domestic helpers have residence restrictions and can’t accept other jobs. The law mandates a minimum monthly wage of HK$3,740 (US$482). In 2004 the maids contributed HK$13.8 billion to the economy, or 1 percent of Hong Kong’s output, according to a report by the Asian Migrant Centre, a non-governmental organization.

“The government should be very pleased with the verdict,” said Joseph Wong, a visiting professor in public administration at City University of Hong Kong.

“If the foreign maids feel this decision is unfair, they can still appeal this ruling.”

Philippine-born Evangeline Banao Vallejos, who has lived in the former British colony for 25 years, brought the challenge against her rejected residence application. Her lawyer, Gladys Li, argued that other expatriates such as bankers and cooks could gain right of abode after seven years. Li also said restricting maids from applying for residence didn’t fall within the government’s right to control immigration.

In February, the government challenged the September ruling made by Judge Johnson Lam, with its lawyer David Pannick telling the city’s Court of Appeal that lawmakers must be able to define residency requirements in the self-administered Chinese region.

“It is a fundamental principle in international law that a sovereign state has the power to admit, exclude and expel aliens,” Cheung wrote in his judgment. He upheld Lam’s earlier ruling that the case isn’t about discrimination.

Permanent-resident status confers a legal right to live in the city without a visa, take any jobs, study, or establish a business. The resident has access to benefits such as public housing and social security, and can vote. Most of the helpers in the city are from the Philippines and Indonesia.

The Liberal Party and the leader for the New People’s Party, Regina Ip, have previously called on the government to consider seeking an interpretation of the Basic Law. –Bloomberg