You cannot apply justice selectively
I fail to understand why Andrew Nunn ('Interest of locals must come first', October 28) declined to declare his position on the right-of-abode issue for foreign domestic helpers since he made it abundantly clear in his letter where he stands.
He acknowledges that domestic helpers have been a significant benefit to the city and that 'under normal circumstances' he 'would welcome any success in achieving equal rights'. But he then suggests that their rights are outweighed by the potential negative consequences, for example, costs. He says 'the government has a duty to do what's best for the overall population of Hong Kong', indicating he does not consider domestic helpers among them.
I am an American who moved to Hong Kong with two young children 18 years ago. I had another child and all my children were raised here. We've utilised all those elements Mr Nunn fears would be 'costly' to Hong Kong if foreign domestic workers are granted right of abode, namely, housing, employment and public services. My children also received their education at a government subvented school, the English Schools Foundation.
We applied for and were granted right of abode. Two of my children are over 18 and now in the US and despite the fact that they have not contributed to Hong Kong even 1 per cent of what any foreign domestic worker has, they will each receive HK$6,000 under Scheme $6,000.
Why is it that I, having come from another country to work here, should be granted right of abode when other foreign women, that is, domestic workers, have not been given the same right? What are the 'normal circumstances' we should wait for? Fairness and justice cannot be applied selectively.
How would Mr Nunn feel if the government decided to exclude non-Chinese males from applying for right of abode? He wants the government to continue the discrimination it has practised for years.
