Battle of foreign maids for right to abode in HK continues

The legal battle over whether foreign helpers can acquire permanent residency in Hong Kong continued this week with a government lawyer arguing that maids, convicts, diplomats, and military personnel are not entitled to it. According to a report of China Daily, Hong Kong government lawyer David Pannick said foreign domestic helpers are among a small group of foreigners excluded from acquiring the right of abode in Hong Kong. Pannick said the other groups excluded from the right to abode include prisoners, diplomatic staff, and military officers. The lawyer's statements came on the second day of a judicial review sought by Filipino domestic worker Evangeline Banao Vallejos, who had resided in the city since 1986 and is seeking permanent right of abode, the report said. On the first day, Senior Counsel Gladys Li told the court there is no criteria (under the Basic Law) that any group must satisfy certain higher standards. Li also said foreign domestic helpers fulfill the criteria for permanent residency spelled out in Article 24(2)(4) of the Basic Law. She said they have ordinarily resided in Hong Kong for a continuous period of not less than seven years and have taken Hong Kong as their permanent place of residence. The Basic Law makes no further reference to foreign domestic helpers, and any provisions restricting their rights are therefore unconstitutional, Li argued. "There is no criteria (under the Basic Law) that any group must satisfy certain higher standards ... There is no exclusion based on race, religion, nationality... or place of birth," Li had said in a report of "Radio-Television Hong Kong" on Monday. Not ordinary type of residency However, Pannick, in the Tuesday report of "China Daily" said Hong Kong's Immigration Ordinance explicitly excludes domestic helpers employed from outside Hong Kong because their employment is not considered to be "ordinary residency." Since the Basic Law sets out only general principles, it should be read in the constitutional context as a whole and not in isolation, Pannick explained. On the other hand, Li claimed that the foreign domestic helpers are denied fair treatment because Article 25 of the Basic Law stipulates that all residents shall be equal before the law. Li said Pannick's argument that the Hong Kong government can impose immigration controls based on Article 154(2) of the Basic Law was irrelevant. She asked the judge to ignore the argument, the report said. - VVP, GMA News