A court Monday began hearing a Philippine maid's bid to live permanently in Hong Kong, in a landmark case that is inflaming debate over how the city treats its army of domestic helpers.

Most foreigners can apply to live permanently in Hong Kong after seven years of uninterrupted residency. But the wealthy financial hub's 292,000 domestic helpers are specifically excluded from that right.

Activists said a successful legal challenge would entrench domestic workers' right to equality, but opponents say it would open the floodgates to immigration from the Philippines, Indonesia and other labour-exporting nations.

The cast was brought by Evangeline Banao Vallejos, who has lived in Hong Kong since 1986 but has been repeatedly denied permanent residency by immigration authorities.

Vallejos was not present in the High Court, but scores of her supporters rallied outside before the start of the hearing, which is expected to last two days.

"We are not asking for extraordinary privileges, we are only after equal treatment," said Eman Villanueva, the vice chairman of the Filipino Migrant Workers' Union.

The hearing was preceded by clashes on Sunday, when scuffles broke out during a march by some 300 people opposed to permanent residency for foreign domestic helpers and a rival group. Police arrested 19 individuals.

The case has implications beyond Hong Kong for other Asian economies that rely heavily on cheap imported labour, but also for the territory's semi-autonomous system of government under Chinese rule.

Vallejos's lawyers said in opening arguments that the authorities' refusal was discriminatory and unconstitutional.

"There is no criteria (in the constitution) that any group must satisfy certain higher standards (for permanent residency)," counsel Gladys Li told the High Court, which was packed with journalists, lawyers and activists.

"There is no exclusion based on race, religion, nationality... or place of birth."

If Vallejos wins, the biggest pro-Beijing party warned of an influx of as many as 500,000 people -- including children and spouses of foreign maids -- and extra costs of HK$25 billion ($3.2 billion) in social welfare spending.

Vallejos's lawyer rejected that argument.

"It doesn't mean if the bar is removed, then everybody will suddenly become entitled to permanent residency," Li told the court, noting that other immigration requirements need to be met apart from the seven-year stay period.

David Pannick, a lawyer representing the Hong Kong government, argued that the immigration provision excluding domestic helpers did not contravene the territory's mini-constitution, known as the Basic Law.

"The Basic Law allows the legislature to define and refine the concept of 'ordinary resident'," he told the court.

The case has also attracted arguments on the city's judicial independence from Beijing, after some lawmakers called on the Hong Kong government to refer it to mainland authorities for their interpretation of the Basic Law.

Foreign maids in Hong Kong have relatively better working conditions than in other parts of Asia -- they are guaranteed one day off a week, paid sick leave, and a minimum wage of $480 a month.

But rights groups say they still face general discrimination and a lack of legal protection. A maid's visa is tied to a specific employer, leaving her vulnerable to domestic abuse, the activists say.

And without the right to permanent residency, she must find another job in domestic service or leave Hong Kong within two weeks if let go by her employer.

Another four Filipinas have filed similar lawsuits to Vallejos's. Their cases are due to be heard in October.

Tweet

Related Links China News from SinoDaily.com