Philippine immigrant maid wins landmark Hong Kong case Options

[Mid-Night_Sun]

Hong Kong's War against Domestic Helpers
Written by Philip Bowring
Saturday, 01 October 2011


Despite a court ruling against it, the government appears intent on making sure no brown-skinned Asians get right of abode

The Hong Kong government seems set on ensuring that its ethnocentric instincts trump the rule of law.

Following a court decision that gave right of abode (permanent residence) to a maid from the Philippines who has been living in the territory for 25 years, the government has indicated that it would not only take the case to the Court of Appeal and, Hong Kong’s Court of Final Appeal but if necessary to Beijing to have the judgment overturned by the National People’s Congress. No Communist government imagines that it should be subservient to constitutional process interpreted by judges so the NPC would rubber stamp the Hong Kong government’s preference for putting its decisions above the rule of law.

Meanwhile the government is drumming up populist opposition to the grant of abode for long-resident maids by suggesting that they will be a huge flood which would swamp the territory and bring with them their families, undercut wages and inundate schools and hospitals. There are some 300,000 foreign domestic helpers, as the maids are technically known, of whom about 100,000 have been there for the minimum seven years required before they might become eligible for abode. Most are from the Philippines and Indonesia with a few from South Asia – only brown Asians apparently qualify to be maids.

In reality the legal position is much more nuanced than indicated by the government’s scare tactics. The judgment in no way implies that all those who had been resident for seven years or more are entitled to abode. It simply declares that the Immigration law excluding domestic helpers from applying for right of abode is illegal as it is contrary to the Basic Law, Hong Kong’s mini-constitution. The Basic Law Article 24 (4) states very simply that permanent residents include:

“Persons not of Chinese nationality who have entered Hong Kong with valid travel documents, have ordinarily resided in Hong Kong for a continuous period of seven years and have taken Hong Kong as their place of permanent residents”

The immigration law sought to prevent this applying to one class of persons, the domestic helpers, although the Basic Law made no such provision. But clearly there is scope for interpretation of the phrase “have taken Hong Kong as their place of permanent residence” and most helpers might well fail to satisfy this.

In reality the Hong Kong government has been happy to hand out right of abode to almost anyone else who has fulfilled the seven years residency and renews such rights for them so long as they visit occasionally even though their actual home is in Canada or wherever. Thus foreign bankers, teachers, journalists, traders etc are never questioned about whether they have actually made Hong Kong their home rather than simply been living there for a number of years. Permanent as opposed to temporary residence conveys rights to remain unless convicted of a major crime and have access to public amenities and welfare.

The government could well argue that few helpers, regardless of their length of stay, have actually made Hong Kong their home. But to do would imply that they would have to apply the same criteria to the bankers, teachers etc, most of whom keep their main residence in Europe, North America. Not being low-paid brown Asians, these people get a free pass on what constitutes “home”.

It is also questionable whether many helpers would actually want to stay permanently. They are there to earn money for their families back home and if they want permanent migration, most aspire to Canada or Australia. But such issues do not concern an unpopular government desperate to find a populist cause to latch on to.

There is certainly a groundswell of popular sentiment against the helpers getting abode, much of its created by the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment of Hong Kong (DAB) the Communist party’s local surrogate. It plays to a real concern that Hong Kong is too crowded already and that low-skill migrants from the mainland are already are a burden on the territory. But instead of arguing that low-paid helpers are undercutting the wages of low skill local people – which is obviously the case – the DAB and other pro-government politicians make what amounts to a race-based case against the helpers. The reality is that Hong Kong’s middle class (and lower) wants it both ways. It wants access to cheap and disposable foreign labor without having to grant these people normal rights. Helpers now constitute 7 percent of the Hong Kong workforce.

Hong Kong may think that this is just a local matter. But it should not be surprised that its racist assumptions are now getting international exposure. Even without the helper issue, Hong Kong has a poor record of treatment of minorities other than whites and those from “Confucian” countries such as Korea. Permanent identity card symbols in practice discriminate between ethnic Chinese and others. Hong Kong is forever alert to the slightest suggestion of discrimination, past or present against Chinese in the US or Canada, and justifiably condemning anti-Chinese policies in Malaysia. But its own dubious practices are now beginning to get some attention just at a time when suspicions of Beijing’s assumptions of superiority are increasingly troubling its southern neighbors.



http://www.asiasentinel.com/index.php?opti...&Itemid=204

This post has been edited by Mid-Night_Sun: Oct 1 2011, 02:04 PM

[richasiankid]

IQ


GDP (Darker the blue, Higher the GDP)


It's because The Philippines is a third world country. They don't have the same education, health care, literacy rates, nutrition etc. as a lot of the more developed countries. IQ tests are infamous for being culturally biased. A tool in an insidious caste system to make those on top can have a clear conscience about why they have so much more than the "stupid darkies". It cracks me up, people complain night and day about "Whitey" and then use a test designed to prove White Supremacy to spout racism as facts about other Asians. A lot of people sound like white supremacists on a tangent about racial hygiene

IQ is rooted in American Eugenics

Race and Intelligence OR Class and Intelligence?
Did you know Jews scored low in the early 1900's? They score the highest now @ 113 average.. Did they somehow increase their innate intelligence in just 100 years by 20 points? They either climbed the social ladder or ate a whole lot of brain food.
Both points can be debated for days and days, it's really which side you choose to believe.

Facts are Facts.. Science can't be racist right.


That's a fair depiction if I've ever seen one.

There are a few inconvenient facts however and I ask posters not jump at reflex conclusions:

1. Is it conceivable that "a test designed to prove White Supremacy to spout racism" could end up with North East Asians (Chinese/Koreans/Japanese) consistently at the top? Even so called "white nationalists" are forced to admit this (a recent conference in September 2011 in Washington touches on this point [read first two paragraphs of this review from a leftist perspective]).

2. Is IQ merely a test? It correlates with a whole slew of biological variables, one being brain size. And brain sizes are not identical between various population groups.

3. Importantly, people chant, oh, it's poverty that drives low IQ. Well, why not the other way round? Low human capital may also drive poverty, poorer health care, lower literacy rates, malnutrition etc etc. as mentioned.

So how do we untangle this mess? Easy. Look at cross-sections. In the context of East Asia, look at China versus Japan. On a per capita basis, China is still much poorer than Japan. And though mainland Chinese may not be happy to hear this, a most recent study demonstrates that an average Japanese is about 70 times as wealthy as an average mainland Chinese. And yet, Chinese IQ and Japanese IQs are commensurate with each other (see below). That is a very astonishing thing. Likewise, Hong Kong (commensurate with Japan in per capita economic prowess) in spite of being much richer than mainland China does not have a significant IQ advantage over its mainland Chinese counterparts.

4. And then, look at trends. Why is it that North East Asia never had a 70 IQ to begin with, when in the 1960s and 70s China and other parts of East Asia were in even more dire straits than some African countries?





No, IQs have been remarkably consistent across time in spite of interim economic growth.

5. Back to the original question of population IQ differences:



Looking at the above, I ask a much simpler question ("Occam's razor") and if not in irony: should we even be surprised about population inequality in the first place? Why the fuss by white liberals? Why the hysteria from blacks?

If the data is so wrong, quite simply, where is evidence to suggest equality in the first place?

This post has been edited by richasiankid: Oct 1 2011, 03:50 PM

[zoopiter]

It is people like you that inflame the perceived Chinese-Filipino racial tension where there is none.

I'm surprised by the amount of racism here

[richasiankid]

Hong Kong's War against Domestic Helpers
Written by Philip Bowring
Saturday, 01 October 2011


Despite a court ruling against it, the government appears intent on making sure no brown-skinned Asians get right of abode

The Hong Kong government seems set on ensuring that its ethnocentric instincts trump the rule of law.

Following a court decision that gave right of abode (permanent residence) to a maid from the Philippines who has been living in the territory for 25 years, the government has indicated that it would not only take the case to the Court of Appeal and, Hong Kong’s Court of Final Appeal but if necessary to Beijing to have the judgment overturned by the National People’s Congress. No Communist government imagines that it should be subservient to constitutional process interpreted by judges so the NPC would rubber stamp the Hong Kong government’s preference for putting its decisions above the rule of law.

Meanwhile the government is drumming up populist opposition to the grant of abode for long-resident maids by suggesting that they will be a huge flood which would swamp the territory and bring with them their families, undercut wages and inundate schools and hospitals. There are some 300,000 foreign domestic helpers, as the maids are technically known, of whom about 100,000 have been there for the minimum seven years required before they might become eligible for abode. Most are from the Philippines and Indonesia with a few from South Asia – only brown Asians apparently qualify to be maids.

In reality the legal position is much more nuanced than indicated by the government’s scare tactics. The judgment in no way implies that all those who had been resident for seven years or more are entitled to abode. It simply declares that the Immigration law excluding domestic helpers from applying for right of abode is illegal as it is contrary to the Basic Law, Hong Kong’s mini-constitution. The Basic Law Article 24 (4) states very simply that permanent residents include:

“Persons not of Chinese nationality who have entered Hong Kong with valid travel documents, have ordinarily resided in Hong Kong for a continuous period of seven years and have taken Hong Kong as their place of permanent residents”

The immigration law sought to prevent this applying to one class of persons, the domestic helpers, although the Basic Law made no such provision. But clearly there is scope for interpretation of the phrase “have taken Hong Kong as their place of permanent residence” and most helpers might well fail to satisfy this.

In reality the Hong Kong government has been happy to hand out right of abode to almost anyone else who has fulfilled the seven years residency and renews such rights for them so long as they visit occasionally even though their actual home is in Canada or wherever. Thus foreign bankers, teachers, journalists, traders etc are never questioned about whether they have actually made Hong Kong their home rather than simply been living there for a number of years. Permanent as opposed to temporary residence conveys rights to remain unless convicted of a major crime and have access to public amenities and welfare.

The government could well argue that few helpers, regardless of their length of stay, have actually made Hong Kong their home. But to do would imply that they would have to apply the same criteria to the bankers, teachers etc, most of whom keep their main residence in Europe, North America. Not being low-paid brown Asians, these people get a free pass on what constitutes “home”.

It is also questionable whether many helpers would actually want to stay permanently. They are there to earn money for their families back home and if they want permanent migration, most aspire to Canada or Australia. But such issues do not concern an unpopular government desperate to find a populist cause to latch on to.

There is certainly a groundswell of popular sentiment against the helpers getting abode, much of its created by the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment of Hong Kong (DAB) the Communist party’s local surrogate. It plays to a real concern that Hong Kong is too crowded already and that low-skill migrants from the mainland are already are a burden on the territory. But instead of arguing that low-paid helpers are undercutting the wages of low skill local people – which is obviously the case – the DAB and other pro-government politicians make what amounts to a race-based case against the helpers. The reality is that Hong Kong’s middle class (and lower) wants it both ways. It wants access to cheap and disposable foreign labor without having to grant these people normal rights. Helpers now constitute 7 percent of the Hong Kong workforce.

Hong Kong may think that this is just a local matter. But it should not be surprised that its racist assumptions are now getting international exposure. Even without the helper issue, Hong Kong has a poor record of treatment of minorities other than whites and those from “Confucian” countries such as Korea. Permanent identity card symbols in practice discriminate between ethnic Chinese and others. Hong Kong is forever alert to the slightest suggestion of discrimination, past or present against Chinese in the US or Canada, and justifiably condemning anti-Chinese policies in Malaysia. But its own dubious practices are now beginning to get some attention just at a time when suspicions of Beijing’s assumptions of superiority are increasingly troubling its southern neighbors.



http://www.asiasentinel.com/index.php?opti...&Itemid=204

Well - if HK/Chinese people are such incorrigible perps of distress, Filipinos and others should much more easily stay home.

Period.

They don't have to go to HK in the first place; it's not like, say, America which forcibly brought black slaves onto their soil for example.

Guilt?

Read title itself: "Hong Kong's War against Domestic Helpers"

I humbly suggest an alternative one: "One domestic helper's war against Hong Kong's majority"

[foi2]

There are a few inconvenient facts however and I ask posters not jump at reflex conclusions:

1. Is it conceivable that "a test designed to prove White Supremacy to spout racism" could end up with North East Asians (Chinese/Koreans/Japanese) consistently at the top? Even so called "white nationalists" are forced to admit this (a recent conference in September 2011 in Washington touches on this point [read first two paragraphs of this review from a leftist perspective]).

2. Is IQ merely a test? It correlates with a whole slew of biological variables, one being brain size. And brain sizes are not identical between various population groups.

3. Importantly, people chant, oh, it's poverty that drives low IQ. Well, why not the other way round? Low human capital may also drive poverty, poorer health care, lower literacy rates, malnutrition etc etc. as mentioned.

So how do we untangle this mess? Easy. Look at cross-sections. In the context of East Asia, look at China versus Japan. On a per capita basis, China is still much poorer than Japan. And though mainland Chinese may not be happy to hear this, a most recent study demonstrates that an average Japanese is about 70 times as wealthy as an average mainland Chinese. And yet, Chinese IQ and Japanese IQs are commensurate with each other (see below). That is a very astonishing thing. Likewise, Hong Kong (commensurate with Japan in per capita economic prowess) in spite of being much richer than mainland China does not have a significant IQ advantage over its mainland Chinese counterparts.

4. And then, look at trends. Why is it that North East Asia never had a 70 IQ to begin with, when in the 1960s and 70s China and other parts of East Asia were in even more dire straits than some African countries?





No, IQs have been remarkably consistent across time in spite of interim economic growth.

5. Back to the original question of population IQ differences:



Looking at the above, I ask a much simpler question ("Occam's razor") and if not in irony: should we even be surprised about population inequality in the first place? Why the fuss by white liberals? Why the hysteria from blacks?

If the data is so wrong, quite simply, where is evidence to suggest equality in the first place?

You just stirred the hornet's nest. In any case, I wouldn't use a hate site like vdare to support your cause. They will do more to damage your credibility than to enhance it.

IQ certainly is strongly correlated with GDP (on a group level) and life outcomes (on an individual level). There can be no debate on this, because thousands of studies bear this out every single year. People who are blind to this are burying their head in the sand. Here's the bottom line: Smart people make more money. People instinctively know this and agree with it. The question here is, are there differences across groups?

It certainly is possible. Certain groups of people are taller than others, and certainly the athletic prowess of certain african countries in sports like sprinting and long distance running bear out the possibility of genetic differences in physical ability. So if physical ability can differ across groups, why not mental ability? There are quite a number of studies out now that suggest differences in psychometrics across ethnic groups. The evidence holds across all fields and almost all tests (pisa scores, IQ studies, national math and science competitions etc). IQ is strongly correlated with economically valuable assets like education, health etc.

But lets bring this back to the subject at hand: maids. Well, the whole debate should center around: Are maids a good or poor investment to Hong Kong's long term future? The fact is that if the maids are highly educated and are economically valuable, then they wouldn't be maids in the first place. I don't think Hong Kong, or for that matter any country, needs more maids. They need entreprenuers, thinkers, scholars, engineers, architects. Not maids. There should be immigration policy that encourage skilled labour migration. Unfortunately, maids should not count as skilled labour.

[fireplant]

Hong Kong's War against Domestic Helpers
Written by Philip Bowring
Saturday, 01 October 2011


Despite a court ruling against it, the government appears intent on making sure no brown-skinned Asians get right of abode

The Hong Kong government seems set on ensuring that its ethnocentric instincts trump the rule of law.

Excellent! Congratulations!! HK has guaranteed its future will not be like crappy Western Europe. But why are disgusting white people living in and writing about HK? Kick them all out.

This post has been edited by fireplant: Oct 1 2011, 07:18 PM

[KraterosHellas]

There are a few inconvenient facts however and I ask posters not jump at reflex conclusions:

1. Is it conceivable that "a test designed to prove White Supremacy to spout racism" could end up with North East Asians (Chinese/Koreans/Japanese) consistently at the top? Even so called "white nationalists" are forced to admit this (a recent conference in September 2011 in Washington touches on this point [read first two paragraphs of this review from a leftist perspective]).

2. Is IQ merely a test? It correlates with a whole slew of biological variables, one being brain size. And brain sizes are not identical between various population groups.

3. Importantly, people chant, oh, it's poverty that drives low IQ. Well, why not the other way round? Low human capital may also drive poverty, poorer health care, lower literacy rates, malnutrition etc etc. as mentioned.

So how do we untangle this mess? Easy. Look at cross-sections. In the context of East Asia, look at China versus Japan. On a per capita basis, China is still much poorer than Japan. And though mainland Chinese may not be happy to hear this, a most recent study demonstrates that an average Japanese is about 70 times as wealthy as an average mainland Chinese. And yet, Chinese IQ and Japanese IQs are commensurate with each other (see below). That is a very astonishing thing. Likewise, Hong Kong (commensurate with Japan in per capita economic prowess) in spite of being much richer than mainland China does not have a significant IQ advantage over its mainland Chinese counterparts.

4. And then, look at trends. Why is it that North East Asia never had a 70 IQ to begin with, when in the 1960s and 70s China and other parts of East Asia were in even more dire straits than some African countries?





No, IQs have been remarkably consistent across time in spite of interim economic growth.

5. Back to the original question of population IQ differences:



Looking at the above, I ask a much simpler question ("Occam's razor") and if not in irony: should we even be surprised about population inequality in the first place? Why the fuss by white liberals? Why the hysteria from blacks?

If the data is so wrong, quite simply, where is evidence to suggest equality in the first place?

i completely agree with ur arguments. this gdp-iq correlation doesn't make any sense. i think east asians are just inherently smart. but u can't deny some of this has to come from their rigorous education.

[AnybodyKiller]

There are a few inconvenient facts however and I ask posters not jump at reflex conclusions:

1. Is it conceivable that "a test designed to prove White Supremacy to spout racism" could end up with North East Asians (Chinese/Koreans/Japanese) consistently at the top? Even so called "white nationalists" are forced to admit this (a recent conference in September 2011 in Washington touches on this point [read first two paragraphs of this review from a leftist perspective]).

2. Is IQ merely a test? It correlates with a whole slew of biological variables, one being brain size. And brain sizes are not identical between various population groups.

3. Importantly, people chant, oh, it's poverty that drives low IQ. Well, why not the other way round? Low human capital may also drive poverty, poorer health care, lower literacy rates, malnutrition etc etc. as mentioned.

So how do we untangle this mess? Easy. Look at cross-sections. In the context of East Asia, look at China versus Japan. On a per capita basis, China is still much poorer than Japan. And though mainland Chinese may not be happy to hear this, a most recent study demonstrates that an average Japanese is about 70 times as wealthy as an average mainland Chinese. And yet, Chinese IQ and Japanese IQs are commensurate with each other (see below). That is a very astonishing thing. Likewise, Hong Kong (commensurate with Japan in per capita economic prowess) in spite of being much richer than mainland China does not have a significant IQ advantage over its mainland Chinese counterparts.

4. And then, look at trends. Why is it that North East Asia never had a 70 IQ to begin with, when in the 1960s and 70s China and other parts of East Asia were in even more dire straits than some African countries?





No, IQs have been remarkably consistent across time in spite of interim economic growth.

5. Back to the original question of population IQ differences:



Looking at the above, I ask a much simpler question ("Occam's razor") and if not in irony: should we even be surprised about population inequality in the first place? Why the fuss by white liberals? Why the hysteria from blacks?

If the data is so wrong, quite simply, where is evidence to suggest equality in the first place?

Like I said, we can do this for days, though this will be my last post on it because this is not what the debate is about and I've already done way too many of these.. There's plenty of evidence on both sides, it's really about which side you believe.. Also nothing you posted is anything that I haven't discussed with others with your same viewpoint, the only difference is I was debating with white supremacists.

1. Jews actually have the Highest IQ at 113 average. Yeah, and whites also say Chinese manipulate the test results and that you are actually either the same or lower intelligence on Stormfront and such sites. "It would be easy to report that a test was conducted a certain way, when in reality it was executed in a totally biased fashion, especially in a Communist country. In order to believe the validity of a study, you have to trust the people conducting it" (heard the like from eurocentrists on many an occasion to justify why Asians are "smarter".)

2. Nutrition, Healthcare, Education, Cultural values definitely do factor in to IQ.. It's undeniable. IQ studies done in China often do not factor in rural or slum areas. (I can't read Chinese, but I'd really be interested to read some if someone could direct me to one in English.). Also as someone else pointed out, your sources say a lot, It's what I expected.

3. Exactly the viewpoint I'm talking about it my first post "Why are the darkies so poor? Because they're mentally inferior". I have a feeling you didn't grow up in a diverse environment. I assure you that there are African-Americans and Australoids who are smarter than you or I. (India's IQ average is 81!!! I know we all know some smart Indians)
IQ and the Wealth of Nations

4. The average IQ used to be 80.. Did everyone just get that much smarter or did we just get better at taking tests?

5. The evidence to me is being from a multicultural environment and seeing the "Caste System" first hand. I remember seeing black kids being treated like dumb niggas, and moderately intelligent whites being praised. I remember the teachers disapproving, begrudging eyes giving me a high score on my tests. Teachers trying to say Asians aren't creative and the like. Also, Blacks IQ is climbing as they are being more socially accepted in the US over the past 10 years. Coincidence? I think not.

I'm done with this though, believe what you want. One day us "darkies" might surprise you however. IQ measurements are needed to produce a self fulfilling prophecy mechanism in the lower classes... basically "See you N*ggas are dumb, don't even try. We're genetically better than you, it's scientific fact. " I've seen this play out first hand in the US public school system. It's real.

History of Race and Intelligence
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_racism

more to take into account

This post has been edited by AnybodyKiller: Oct 1 2011, 11:37 PM

[Mid-Night_Sun]

Well - if HK/Chinese people are such incorrigible perps of distress, Filipinos and others should much more easily stay home.

Period.

They don't have to go to HK in the first place; it's not like, say, America which forcibly brought black slaves onto their soil for example.

Guilt?

Read title itself: "Hong Kong's War against Domestic Helpers"

I humbly suggest an alternative one: "One domestic helper's war against Hong Kong's majority"

let me ask you, what is your opinion on the actual issue? as far as the law is concerned?

[MiCC]

When you got couple white people sitting as judge in HK's court, of course they are going for the liberal mult-culturalism approach, it's time for HK kick out the colonialists.

[fireplant]

^screw the wigg heads. Just change the law.

[KraterosHellas]

When you got couple white people sitting as judge in HK's court, of course they are going for the liberal mult-culturalism approach, it's time for HK kick out the colonialists.

that is cool

[zoopiter]

When you got couple white people sitting as judge in HK's court, of course they are going for the liberal mult-culturalism approach, it's time for HK kick out the colonialists.

overzealous changes to the hk culture and infringement of thoughts and values in hk from outsiders can cause increased repulsion instead of being accepted as the drift. it will be better to let nature takes it course, since hk is already returned to china and there is no hurry of integration.

besides things are going OT. the topic is over the issue of the need for dosmetic helpers in highly urbanised places with small nuclear families and the need for women to work. having to pay for domestic helper is not exactly a luxury but rather a necessity to some families, and if these families are not that well off, then any pay increment to the domestic helpers would add a further strain. on the other hand, the plight of foreign domestic helpers are also worth some empathy. they had very low pay, had to work very hard, for very long hours, limited interaction from personal associates and long term detachment from family. and some subjected to abuse, many subjected to discrimination and lack of respect (where the perpetuators should not be proud of, but must be ashamed instead).

issues with overseas helpers will also include helpers who run away causing the family to lose the deposit, helpers who had develop medical problems and the ownership of medical care bills, helpers who got to know bad parties (such as boyfriend) and engagment in theft, helpers who had personality issue or coping problems and resorted to abuse of kids or old people to vent frustrations, helpers who got emotionally attached to the kids they brought up and the relative detachment of the kids from their mothers, these being issues that made owners having to watch over and guard against the helpers. there is no great solution since increasing pay strains the owner's finance, allowing for more free time or break for the helpers will cause lapse in needed care for the family, and good helpers after staying for long and getting familiar with the work, will still miss home and need to return.

reasonable solutions do not come easy as well. that being getting to the root of the problem, having extended family who lives together or very near each other (will require ease and affordability of getting nearby accomodation), having low cost of living that will allow a single male breadwinner to support the family expenditure with ease and comfort, and the market providence of part time job that may allow some females to work partially and take care of the family partially.

the problem of allowing families of these domestic helpers is that while it eases the comfort of these helpers to serve a family that she had become familiar with, without breaking with her own family, these invites more issues. first of all, many of these helpers families may not contribute economically at all. and secondly, the magnitude of the number of people coming from a single country and being able to stay long terms generations after generations is too big over a short duration. this causes social problems due to rapid change of demographics and increased/undeserving expectations of incoming population who may forget about the grace of the accepting country after taking things for granted. these are problems that are shared not only by hk but also by other affluent and competitive countries.

and instead of relevant inputs, i would safely say most of the replies over here lacks reasonable depth of perspective into the actual issue, and are bordering over unnecessary or even ignorant xenophobism, most probably becos the socioeconomic and cultural environment that some forumers stayed in are different from hongkongers.

This post has been edited by zoopiter: Oct 2 2011, 09:09 AM

[fireplant]

ok, outsiders. buuut, as Chinese territory please follow central policy - no immigration.

[Mid-Night_Sun]

Hong Kong split over historic maids residency case

By Beh Lih Yi (AFP) – 7 hours ago

HONG KONG — Every Sunday, the public spaces and walkways of Hong Kong are jammed with Filipina and Indonesian domestic workers using their one day off to gather with their friends and fellow countrywomen.

The gleaming skyscrapers of the financial hub are a far cry from the often poor neighbourhoods they have come from.

Now a landmark court ruling has given them a chance to apply for permanent residency -- but the decision, which has polarised opinions in the southern Chinese city, has also prompted different reactions among maids themselves.

Newspapers are filled with opposing arguments and rival protests were held in the run-up to the case hearing. About 500 people held a protest on Sunday against the court ruling.

For some maids, the ruling represents the hope of a better future. Lannie Hubag, 45, a Philippine domestic helper in Hong Kong since 1998, said she would consider applying for permanent residency.

"I would like to try because if I get it, my husband and two daughters in the Philippines can join me in Hong Kong and my daughters could get better education," said Hubag.

"We're happy with the court decision because it means the discrimination has been removed," she added.

But costs and family ties are a deterrent for others. Speaking in her native Indonesian, Asriyatun, 34, said: "I would like to go back" without hesitation, after working for six years in Hong Kong.

Foreigners can seek permanent residency in Hong Kong after seven years of uninterrupted stay, gaining rights to vote and to live in the city without a work visa.

There are as many as 292,000 foreign maids in the city, but they were specifically excluded from being allowed to apply. In the first case of its kind in Asia, the city's High Court ruled on Friday that the provision was unconstitutional.

Permanent residency would mean a domestic worker was no longer tied to a single employer, but could take any job and access benefits such as public housing.

According to a pro-government political party there could be an influx of as many as 500,000 people -- including children and spouses of foreign maids -- costing HK$25 billion ($3.2 billion) in social welfare spending.

Unemployment could jump from the current 3.5 percent to 10 percent, the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong claimed.

Following the ruling, currently about 117,000 foreign maids are entitled to apply for permanent residency in the densely populated city of seven million, where rents are sky-high and the income gap widening.

"I love Hong Kong, it's a great city and we are treated better here," said Asriyatun, wearing a black Islamic headscarf and chatting with a group of other Indonesian maids in Victoria Park, their regular meeting spot.

"But I have no plan to apply for permanent residency when I become eligible next year. I'm here to work, I have a family in Indonesia, I want to go back."

Others in her group agreed.

A single mother, Asriyatun left East Java when her son was eight months old to become a domestic helper in Singapore, and later moved to Hong Kong. She works for a German banker's family and her contract will expire in 2013.

She sees her son Shendy, now 14, once a year.

"I'm here to work for a living and for my son's future so when he grows up, he doesn't have to go elsewhere to work and be separated from his child -- just like me," said Asriyatun.

Dolores Balladares from Asian Migrants' Coordinating Body, which represents 8,000 foreign maids in the city, said: "It's only a main barrier that has been removed, it doesn't mean we get this right automatically.

"The standard of living is very expensive here, it's not easy. After working for many years in Hong Kong, many of the foreign domestic helpers just want to go back to reunite with their family," said Balladares, a university graduate who has been a maid for 17 years.

Hong Kong is known as a better place for domestic helpers than many other parts of Asia. The city's foreign maids are guaranteed one day off a week, paid sick leave and a minimum wage of HK$3,740 ($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 and activists say this leaves her vulnerable.

The government was disappointed with Friday's ruling and said it would appeal.

It is planning to seek the court's permission to not process any foreign maids' residency applications while the appeal is under way, and some lawmakers have called on Hong Kong to refer the issue to Beijing.

"We recognise the contribution of domestic workers and their role in our economy, they free up many local women to join the workforce," said businessman Jeff Lam, who opposed granting maids permanent residency.

"To give them permanent residency however is a separate story," said Lam, who himself has a Filipina domestic worker to help with house chores.

Copyright © 2011 AFP. All rights reserved. More »


http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/artic...ddd4bfda440.751


i dont know why people just assume that domestic helpers are badly treated. they themselves say HK is better than other places. with this view, it makes more sense why they go voluntarily to HK. not the other view that acts like HK kidnaps these women and forced them into slave labour.


"The city's foreign maids are guaranteed one day off a week, paid sick leave and a minimum wage of HK$3,740 ($480) a month."

they get min. wage, they get paid sick leave and they are guaranteed 1 day off per week. it doesnt sound unreasonable at all.

This post has been edited by Mid-Night_Sun: Oct 2 2011, 12:16 PM

[fireplant]

yeah HK is heaven for foreigners, dungeon only for mainlanders.

[Mid-Night_Sun]

LOL that was funny.

only until they become an HKer. even to this day, most HKer know what ancestral village their ancestor came from. mine is Foshan.

[MiCC]

ok, outsiders. buuut, as Chinese territory please follow central policy - no immigration.

You're right, CCP will never allow some HK liberal judge ruling on the decision of immigration.

[Lens]

If things get out of hand I hope Beijing steps in. We dont' want bunch of clowns messing up a Chinese city.

[richasiankid]

Like I said, we can do this for days, though this will be my last post on it because this is not what the debate is about and I've already done way too many of these.. There's plenty of evidence on both sides, it's really about which side you believe.. Also nothing you posted is anything that I haven't discussed with others with your same viewpoint, the only difference is I was debating with white supremacists.

1. Jews actually have the Highest IQ at 113 average. Yeah, and whites also say Chinese manipulate the test results and that you are actually either the same or lower intelligence on Stormfront and such sites. "It would be easy to report that a test was conducted a certain way, when in reality it was executed in a totally biased fashion, especially in a Communist country. In order to believe the validity of a study, you have to trust the people conducting it" (heard the like from eurocentrists on many an occasion to justify why Asians are "smarter".)

2. Nutrition, Healthcare, Education, Cultural values definitely do factor in to IQ.. It's undeniable. IQ studies done in China often do not factor in rural or slum areas. (I can't read Chinese, but I'd really be interested to read some if someone could direct me to one in English.). Also as someone else pointed out, your sources say a lot, It's what I expected.

3. Exactly the viewpoint I'm talking about it my first post "Why are the darkies so poor? Because they're mentally inferior". I have a feeling you didn't grow up in a diverse environment. I assure you that there are African-Americans and Australoids who are smarter than you or I. (India's IQ average is 81!!! I know we all know some smart Indians)
IQ and the Wealth of Nations

4. The average IQ used to be 80.. Did everyone just get that much smarter or did we just get better at taking tests?

5. The evidence to me is being from a multicultural environment and seeing the "Caste System" first hand. I remember seeing black kids being treated like dumb niggas, and moderately intelligent whites being praised. I remember the teachers disapproving, begrudging eyes giving me a high score on my tests. Teachers trying to say Asians aren't creative and the like. Also, Blacks IQ is climbing as they are being more socially accepted in the US over the past 10 years. Coincidence? I think not.

I'm done with this though, believe what you want. One day us "darkies" might surprise you however. IQ measurements are needed to produce a self fulfilling prophecy mechanism in the lower classes... basically "See you N*ggas are dumb, don't even try. We're genetically better than you, it's scientific fact. " I've seen this play out first hand in the US public school system. It's real.

History of Race and Intelligence
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_racism

more to take into account

The most obvious and simplest answer which cuts thru all the red tape is once again this one: if the data of inequality presented is so wrong, where is counter-data of parity -- across all population groups and countries? All the bells & whistles won't cut it.

Furthermore, there are close to 200 countries. Never mind info and data presented above, a priori, what are the odds that all 200 countries around the world have identical or close to identical human capital?

That eliminates a lot of the side-tracks above, but which I will answer in a minute.

First though, you'd be happy (or not) to know that I used to take your position. I recall in a heated argument with an Indian from India back in grade 10 high school. I was very vociferously arguing the point that population groups are all more or less equal, that IQ is nonsense, that we're all the same etc etc etc, you know, with all the swallowed liberal cliches. He kept saying, no no no, East Asians are the smartest save Ashkenazi Jews (he did say that yes), followed by whites, followed at some distance by browns, and then by blacks. He didn't cite charts and data, but neither did nor could I. In fact I said practically everything you noted above. And it took at least couple years to shed this inculcated illusion of equality. My biology teacher helped (he said Darwin absolutely does NOT apply to human groups, but he was being "open-minded" given religious nuts around and who are merely afraid of the truth and Darwin should not be off limits). And his fav author? Steven J Gould. He couldn't see past his blinders that he was merely another religious nut spewing forth another variation of orthodoxy.

But no, ultimately when I looked deeper I saw the light; it's the equivalent of seeing depth for the first time in renaissance painting after you're thru the Middle Ages; or appreciating polyphony in Baroque music after enduring Gregorian chants. It's seeing just how shallow the white liberal world is with hackneyed slogans and worn-out cliches of "equality" which consists of negating (often angrily) rather than seeing: for once you see the world is round, you'll never go back to flat-earth theory again. Once the illusion (and hence the now necessary dogmatic assertion) of equality is shattered, you'll never look at the world the same again. Once you have tasted a dose of reality, you'll never be content with Alice-in-wonderland fantasy. Your eyes will be opened forever. To the past. And to the future.

But to return and to answer some of your questions: first, on Jewish IQ. Indeed, Ashkenazi Jews (but note carefully not Sephardics) seem to have highest IQ of any group. But that cements just how important IQ is doesn't it? Look at America. Just how over-represented are Ash Jews in universities, academe, politics, the Forbes 400 etc? You can just go on and on and on and they are often the top. White nationalists from Stormfront probably will have problems accepting this fact; I don't. In fact I'm sort of secretly happy that they do not have lower IQs than Asians or whites - else that would deal a blow on the predictability of IQ. That is, if Ash Jews are low IQ and yet are so successful, IQ as a measure for groups would become less predictive.

On the question of bias which is the reason behind high Asian IQ in Asia, wrong. Many of the studies are actually done or at least spearheaded by Western researchers. Yes, local researchers participated, but it's conducted by the West, often by whites. And as aside when Rushton went to South Africa to look at IQs of different groups, he quite specifically recruited black researchers to ensure that this alleged 'bias' was minimized if not weeded out based on your concerns above.

On the environmental factor of IQ, there can be no doubt. Depending on the research, it's probably 20-50%. But - and here's the kicker - most importantly, it's not 100%. Why is this important? Because as environments are equalized, more and more of the residual will come from the biological or genetic component. If biology + environment = outcome, and when you equalize environment, more and more of the differences in outcome will be attributed to biology. And guess what, America is equalizing or attempting to equalize environments every day. Public ed and affirmative action to name but two. The residuals of "inequality" are actually "selected" if you will for inherent if not innate predispositions consciously or not, deliberately or not.

And so in that context now look at SAT scores (which correlate highly with IQ at ~ 0.90). You'll find that Asians (being a heterogeneous group with pacific islanders, SE Asians etc.) consistently outscore whites, which consistently outscore Hispanics, which consistently outscore blacks.



And here's the thing: a decade later, blacks with parents who make over $100K actually score lower than whites with parents who make less than $10K. I quote:

Blacks from families with incomes of more than $100,000 had a mean SAT score that was 85 points below the mean score for whites from all income levels, 139 points below the mean score of whites from families at the same income level, and 10 points below the average score of white students from families whose income was less than $10,000.

Now, that's just scandal.

10x the parental income can't equalize offspring outcome?

Well.

I think environment can only do so much.

Ultimately you (like me before) will have to ask and question no one other than yourself this whole concocted notion of "equality". I did and unblinded myself. You should go through the same process and ask yourself whether what you see and hear or parrot is true or false first and foremost - not whether it fits with your or some others' preconceived worldview, however tempting and appealing they might be. For ultimately I think knowledge is better than ignorance - let alone wilful deceit.

I just wish more would - or could - agree.

Cheers,