Easing concerns of Hong Kong helpers should start with mandatory code
Following the latest decision by the High Court to uphold the live-in rule, officials must act to address the concerns of groups representing domestic workers
The top court ruled years ago that domestic helpers were not entitled to permanent residence because the live-in rule means they do not meet the requirement of being ordinarily resident in the city. Now, in the High Court, Mr Justice Anderson Chow Ka-ming has upheld the live-in rule, after a judicial review sought by a helper who claimed to be suffering acute stress as a result of her living conditions. He said a helper could always quit her employment.
So where now for helpers who have not only lost the argument that the rule violates their fundamental human rights, but also claim it exacerbates cases of ill-treatment, exploitation by employment agencies and some employers and poor living conditions?
Quitting is a drastic step after having come so far from home for work, and a risky one for those who are sole family breadwinners and have often run up huge employment agency debts.
The live-in rule was introduced in the early 2000s to help prevent job opportunities for local residents being taken by helpers seeking part-time work. But the number of helpers arrested for working illegally has remained small and static while their population has risen from 200,000 to 350,000. That means either the rule is a very effective deterrent or, more likely, unnecessary for the declared purpose.