As far as Hong Kong population statistics are concerned, the nearly 300,000 foreign domestic workers (284,901 as of November 2010) who live and work here are counted as 1) part of the Hong Kong population and 2) as part of the Hong Kong workforce. They are among the 3,710,400 female residents, and 3,763,000 total workforce in Hong Kong (as of mid-2011).
Thus they represent 7.5% of our whole workforce, about 15% of our female workforce. Does Hong Kong society give them equal protection for their safety as women, compared to the rest of the female workforce? How do we ensure this? The Hong Kong government and conservative groups in Hong Kong proclaim what great benefits we give them ‘already’ – i.e., the minimum salary (which in reality tends to be the maximum salary) – HK$3,740 per month, and ‘so many other things’: food and lodging, a return air ticket and one day off per week.
Putting aside whether the workers who get these great things (what kind of typical food? What kind of room? Do they always get full salary?) are really so privileged, it’s worthwhile to look solely at the aspect of the personal safety of the working women.
Let’s compare with the situation of the census takers who visited many of our homes in July 2011.
I myself received a visit to my home in July from a pretty shiny-faced young woman who was probably 18 years old, wearing a census taker polo shirt. She came into our living room, helped fill out the census form as we answered her questions, and then went on her way. I was slightly surprised that she was alone.
Later in the media, there were reports that some of the census takers who had visited homes alone, had been sexually molested! In one case, on July 16, an 80-year-old man had allegedly touched the breast of the census taker. Another indecent assault allegedly happened on July 17, the details of which have not been shared. (http://topics.scmp.com/news/hk-news-watch/article/Census-takers-team-up-after-sex-scares)
Then from July 26, the government Census and Statistics Department announced it would ensure a male worker accompanies the female workers to take the census. In a mere ten days, the government took action to assure the public that the women workers among this total team of 18,300 temporary workers hired for the 34-day census would be safe, based on the assaults of 1-2 victims.
Now, consider the typical Filipina or Indonesian domestic worker newly arrived in Hong Kong. They come alone, to work alone for two years at a time once they have been admitted. What is their safety situation? When assaults happen to them, what is the response of the Hong Kong government?
The domestic workers, especially the Indonesians, are often quite young. It is a known secret that some of them even falsify their age in order to work, and are in fact as young as 16. They do not always have full grasp of the Chinese language, despite the fees they have paid for training that includes language lessons. They have typically entered a debt of 4 to 7 months salary as recruitment fee, in order to get the job. They often have their passports confiscated upon arrival in Hong Kong, and in many cases are even forbidden to use their own mobile phone, much less the landline phone of their employer. In other words: the young women who have newly begun their job in Hong Kong are extremely vulnerable to any form of abuse; due to their deep indebtedness, they are compelled to tolerate great abuse rather than be terminated and sent back home, with their debts still there and no money. Furthermore, the young women workers often are quite unaware of whom to reach out to for help; and worse, even if they pursue a legal case, they find the punishment of violators is difficult and hardly any deterrent to employers. Under present Hong Kong policies, forcing the domestic worker to sleep in a room with male children as old as 18 years old is not a 'serious violation'.
With agencies actively promoting a paternalistic and superior attitude of employers towards the rights and welfare of the domestic workers, cases of violations of the workers’ rights are very common and continue, even getting worse: forced enclosure (not being allowed out of the home); physical beating; verbal abuse; deprivation of food; surveillance; sexual harassment......
I have heard one case of a single male employer, who is a police officer, who forces his domestic worker to perform hand sex on him. Why was a single male employer allowed to hire a single domestic worker? Why are there no safeguards to prevent this situation?
I have met a young Indonesian who was able to sleep only 3-4 hours a night, and for months was kicked in the back by the employer to be woken. She only left when she could not tolerate her injuries anymore. What makes a domestic worker tolerate abuse so long, even when it is so severe, so humiliating? Of course they are not free, like the young census takers, to call police in their own language, to walk out of a situation they don’t wish to tolerate – they have enormous amounts of debt before arrival, and hardly anywhere to turn for help. It takes huge courage and confidence for isolated foreign workers to escape the situations they are placed in by their work – placed in by their own government, the Hong Kong government and the recruitment agencies – and fight against those authorities for justice and their own dignity.
In Hong Kong the responsibility for such continuing rampant abuses of the safety of the women migrant workers fall squarely on the Hong Kong government, which has shown utter indifference, in comparison to the response time of 'only ten days' for the sexually assaulted census takers.
There are migrant domestic shelters and advice centres, like Bethune House and Mission for Migrant Workers, which can provide the evidence that rapes, suicides, cases of severe physical abuse leading to mental illness and grave injuries, are regular occurrences, year after year. They are certainly a serious occupational hazard for domestic workers in Hong Kong. They are not merely the result of ‘a few bad employers’ who are ‘everywhere’ and can’t be avoided. No. It is the result of a government which looks lightly on the dangers they face, and avoid responsibility and serious protection of the workers.
For instance the Mission for Migrant workers, which served a total of 1,245 migrant workers including phone consultation, had 614 ongoing cases in 2010. It faced an increase from 2009, when it had 547.
Of those 614 cases:
· 7% of MFMW Clients report physical assault, physical abuse, sexual assault, or sexual abuse.
· 7% of MFMW Clients face ill-treatment from their employer. This includes constant yelling, shouting, and criticism by the employer to the worker.
· 16% of Mission Clients report not receiving enough food to eat.
· 23% of Mission Clients do not have a private room. This means they sleep in the living room, dining room, kitchen, laundry room, bathroom, or share a room with someone else.
· 28% of Mission Clients are required to work on their rest days.
· 72% of MFMW Clients sleep less than 8 hours each night.
· 7% of Mission Clients are required to work at another place besides the location listed in their contract (which is illegal). They are told, for example, if they do not work at the employer’s family’s house or in their shop, their contract will be terminated.
23% do not have a private room to sleep in, much less a room with a lock! For two years of their contract while working for Hong Kong employers. Yet these abuses are categories of abuses that occur year after year, and as reported cases, form only a small portion of the actual cases that must be occurring during the year in Hong Kong.
The Hong Kong government has the obligation to ensure the safety of the women workers whom it has given legal permission to enter Hong Kong for work purposes, including suitable punishments for violations.
While commentators such as Mike Rowse and others claim the workers ‘know in advance’ that they will not get the right of abode, and many would even say they know they will work without privacy, without any time of their own, without a say in their sleeping hours or their work tasks… as a humane society, we must not accept that women workers must compromise their safety and dignity as the basic condition of their work. The live-in requirement is one of the policies that contributes the most to the vulnerability of the migrant women workers.
The Hong Kong government should: 1) again allow live-out as an option for migrant domestic workers; 2) explore establishing dormitories for migrant workers, as exist in many other societies that systematically hire migrants for work, and 3) ensure fast and effective deterrent punishments to employers that inflict physical and mental harm to their domestic workers. Without policies such as these, we can expect that thousands of migrant women are paying a deep price of their mental and physical health, for working in Hong Kong as domestic workers. With conscience we cannot allow this to continue; it has continued and even worsened, long enough.
* ‘Ain’t I a woman?’ was the famous question and title of a speech by Sojourner Truth at a women’s convention in 1851. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ain%27t_I_a_Woman) Sojourner Truth was a black anti-slavery activist, an escaped slave, and women’s right activist in the United States. In her speech she argued that while women were claiming rights as equals to men, it was still only for white women, and she argued against the racial inequality that left black women out of those rights. This fight was fought in the 1800s. Where are we now in Hong Kong? For the past several decades, the rights and privileges of Hong Kong women have rested on the sacrifices of and continued discrimination against, the differently coloured women of Philippines, Indonesia and other countries, whom we have relied on to do the work that as women, Hong Kong women would otherwise have to do. It is long overdue to make the struggle of the migrant domestic workers, the struggle of all women and women workers in Hong Kong, and the struggle for real racial and sexual equality.
www.opendoor.hk
