Hong Kong's population policy must keep up with today's realities
Stephen Vines says racial bias has no place in HK's population debate
It is difficult to have a sensible discussion about immigration policy anywhere in the world, yet recent events in Hong Kong confirm that the SAR can still punch above its weight when it comes to sheer idiocy and prejudice.
This week's Court of Final Appeal ruling denying the right of permanent abode to foreign domestic helpers confirms what amounts to official sanctioning of racial prejudice, while a recent government statement affirms a determination to allow the bulk of the SAR's immigration policy to be dictated by Beijing.
The saving grace of the top court's judgment was that it discouraged a reference to Beijing for a reinterpretation of the Basic Law, but it gave sanction to a policy that can only be described as racist.
The judges reasoned that, as foreign domestic workers came to Hong Kong with no intention of permanent settlement and under rigid rules determining their conditions of stay, they had no right to alter them.
However, these conditions can be altered by marriage. And when people who come here to work as, say, university lecturers, apply for changes in their residency status, they do not find themselves being asked why they did not originally intend to settle in Hong Kong.
Foreign domestic workers are largely defined by their gender, class and, yes, let's be blunt, their darker skins. They perform an incredibly useful service while they are here - one which, in many jurisdictions, is acknowledged by the right of permanent residence on a par with other foreigners who come for one purpose and are attracted to stay for other reasons.
Meanwhile, the bulk of immigration to Hong Kong emanates from the mainland, and the SAR government has absolutely no control over who is allowed to come. Under the one-way permit scheme (introduced in the colonial era), decisions over the right to settle are taken by the Beijing authorities without any input from the SAR.