But if we take one step back, and consider the matter rationally, we should ask whether this belief stands up to scrutiny? Of course, no-one would argue that foreign domestic workers are well off. It cannot be easy to leave home and family to work in another country for relatively modest pay, involving long hours and little free time. However, criticism seems based on a false premise. We are not talking here about a salary tax that you and I pay to the Inland Revenue Department. The $500 monthly deduction - if the suggestion is accepted by the government - will be a levy on employers for new or renewed contract. It should not affect current contracts. It will be similar to the system in Singapore, whereby anyone intending to employ a foreign domestic worker must apply for a permit, and pay a levy to the government.

Employers in Hong Kong will have to pay this levy themselves, and the minimum wage will be adjusted downward, from $3,670 to $3,170. Of course, if employers can afford to pay above the minimum, we encourage them to do so.

Even with a $500 deduction, this is still the highest pay in Asia. That is why Hong Kong is a magnet for foreign domestic helpers, and why we employ 240,000 of them. In Singapore, the monthly wage of Filipina maids is around HK$1,400, in Malaysia it is HK$1,130.

However, there is another aspect to this question, namely: are these workers any worse off than the 351,400 Hong Kong citizens (out of a working population of 3.2 million) whose monthly earnings amount to about $4,000. Surely this is the most disadvantaged section of our society? These people must pay rent, feed and clothe a family, pay electricity, gas, telephone and water bills, and somehow find money for travel expenses, school books, shoe repairs, replacing worn-out household equipment, and so on.

An amah working for an affluent Hong Kong family may keep virtually all of her pay and send it to an extended family in the Philippines, Indonesia, or Thailand. But she is able to do that because almost every dollar she earns can be saved. She has no household bills to face in Hong Kong. No rent to pay. No food to buy. Medical facilities are available to her at the same nominal cost we all pay in the public sector. In that respect, she is often better off than some of our own residents, who struggle to balance the household budget on a similar income.

Although foreign domestic wages have been trimmed after the economic crisis, the drop in pay is more than offset by changing economic conditions. In the past 5 years, this city has undergone a 12 per cent deflation, 12% of $3,670 amounts to $440 per month.

Moreover, countries such as the Philippines have suffered severe currency depreciation. The peso has depreciated by 50 per cent relative to Hong Kong currency in the last five years. Put another way, on the 1st of November 1997, HK$1 was worth PHP 4.5811, on the 1st November this year, $1 was equal to 6.8273 PHP.

Also, in the Philippines, median annual family income in 1997 was 74,146 pesos, in 2000, it was 88,782 per annum. With 88,782 pesos per year, the Philippines-based family has to pay all living expenses, and overheads.

Put another way, if the $500 levy is imposed, the annual income of a Filipina working for a Hong Kong employer - converted to her native currency - will be PHP 259,000 - or three times the median annual income of her compatriots at home. Can it really be called heartless to pay migrant workers three times what they earn at home? Coupled with Hong Kong's 12 per cent deflation, even a maid's local purchasing power is greater than it used to be. So I entirely reject the accusation that the Liberal party is taking advantage of the poorest members of the community.

On the contrary, those guilty of exploitation are the owners of unscrupulous
employment agencies who rake in huge commission for minimum effort, sometimes claiming as much as six months salary. This problem is widespread, but particularly acute among Indonesians, who are defenceless against appalling treatment, because they do not have vocal self-help groups to defend their interests.

These issues should be taken up by the consular staff who are in Hong Kong to promote the interests of their nationals. They have been far too lax up to now. The HKSAR Government too must do a lot more to prevent employers from taking advantage of their helpers. There are too many cases of employers paying only $2,000-$3,000 per month, less than the stipulated minimum, or hiring household help and making the maids also work in shops, or offices. This must be stamped out, and the Liberal Party is fully committed to seeing that foreign domestic workers rights are protected.

Yet in spite of this exploitation, thousands are still eager to come here. Does that not speak for itself?

Therefore we should not be denigrated for this proposal, which is also supported by over half of the members of the Legislative Council, the DAB, the Breakfast Group, the HKPA and many independent members. The HKPA, in fact, wants to see the levy raised to $750 per month.

The Liberal Party view is that the 240,000 foreign domestic workers are an integral part of the community. They add to the atmosphere of the city, and to its multinational ethos. We have reason to be grateful for the contribution they have made to the prosperity of Hong Kong, by releasing wives and mothers to work, knowing their children are cared for, and their household duties taken over. In Liberal Party eyes, they are not a group apart, and we very much want them to stay. But they must appreciate that if Hong Kong is in crisis, we sink or swim together.

If maids want to be able to come here in future, to find work which will help their own families to flourish, they should be prepared to make a sacrifice, in order to safeguard their own long term interests. If we do not work our way out of our present financial difficulties, fewer families will be able to afford the luxury of an fdh, and a much sought-after Asian centre for migrant employment will simply decline.

There is already pressure to admit workers from the poorer regions of the mainland, who are urgently in need of work for whom this level of pay is real luxury.

I said at the outset that this recession would involve hard choices, some pain, and quite a lot of sacrifice from us all. No-one can be exempt from this - not even guest workers. Their labour has helped Hong Kong but in return it offered them work and freedom in a city with a high living standard and many useful facilities which have been freely available.

They have the very best of medical care at a nominal cost, they can spend their free time in the many parks and gardens which are provided out of city coffers, and after their weekly gatherings at various meeting places, an army of street cleaners work extra hours to clean up the debris - again, courtesy of the Hong Kong taxpayer.

By all means let us have a vigorous debate on this proposal, but unemotionally, taking into account the above statistics. So far, there has been a knee-jerk reaction which either ignores, or is unaware of the facts. That gets us nowhere. We should discuss whether society supports such a proposal. If no, it should be shelved. If yes, whether it should be $750, $500? Or maybe less?

Whatever the outcome, this is a time when everyone should be working with the same aim - namely to get Hong Kong back on its feet, with a healthy and growing economy which can bring benefits to us all.

Close Window| Print this page