Today, public perception and treatment towards foreign domestic helpers are accepting and relatively more inclusive in many households of Hong Kong. However, this has not always been the case in history. Subtle social norms deter the helpers from being assimilated to the Hong Kong local communities. In particularly, in 1998, there was a call from the public that demanded Central, the Causeway Bay park of the old days, to be “cleaned up” (Law 9). In particular, South China Morning Post, a local newspaper, published a letter from Chulani that noted, “Thanks to the Filipino maids who practically monopolize all the open areas and roads in Central, I now hate to come down to Central on Sunday…I would suggest that the Government immediately implement the following measures: prohibit squatting, hawking and eating in public areas; open normal traffic on all roads in Central so that the Filipino maids have no place to sit, squat, and sleep…” (SCMP 14). This newsletter drew a cynical and racist view towards foreign domestic helpers that was similar to many letters featured in local newspapers at the time. In fact, it was a reminiscent of the 1992 proposal that encouraged Filipino women to gather in underground car parks instead of public areas during their weekly holidays (Law 9). There was a general sentiment of “out of sight, out of mind”. While the 1992 proposal did not pass in the end, it was a reminder of subtle oppression, pressure, and stereotypes the local Hong Kong communities have put on the foreign domestic helpers.         Most recently, after the Manila Hostage Crisis in 2010 in which Hong Kong passengers were hijacked by a former police officer in the national capital of the Philippines, resulting in eight deaths, stereotypes towards Filipinos were further reinforced. According to an analysis of 5000 messages online, the public viewed Filipinos as “dogs” and too talkative. They also commented that the Philippines was a backward country that was incapable of comparison with Hong Kong and required “forgiveness” from the “superior” Hong Kong. (Yu 9). While some Filipino workers expressed sympathy towards the Manila Hostage Crisis, the public took anger out on them. Reports about being discriminated and verbally abused also rose in households in light of other similar news. Some viewed the relationship as a “master and servant” one and justified the discriminations with an argument that the workers voluntarily looked for jobs in Hong Kong and are compensated “properly”. This perception hinted a more serious macroscopic phenomenon.

In that sense, the perception and treatment towards foreign domestic helpers fit the idea of social oppression in which a “dominant group benefits from systematic exploitation and injustice directed towards a subordinate group” (Johnson). While other foreign domestic workers, like those from Indonesia and Sri Lanka, did not face as much public outrage, the public sentiment towards migrant workers overall is distinct and stereotyped. The sociologist, Law, noted that the gathering on Sundays was “clearly an example of the fascination that the symbolic spaces of power exert on those excluded from them. The powerless are allowed to see Central – like looking at so many goods through a shop window – but not to touch it” (Law 9). In Hong Kong, there is a subtle division between the locals and the foreign domestic workers in terms of both identity and physical space. These have showcased that there is a subtle form of social oppression in the attitude towards the foreign domestic helpers. If we look closely to individual treatment, abuses at home are more obvious than common belief. The power dynamic between the helper and employer is highly skewed towards the employer. I would like to introduce you to the case of Mary in order to help you grasp the conflict of maltreatment experienced by some foreign domestic helpers.

Consider the case of Mary: Mary arrived in Hong Kong from a village of about 5,000 close to the Java Sea in 2011(Price, Deb, Yung, & Schonhardt). In hopes of finding a well-paid job on a two-year contract in Hong Kong, she entered a training center regulated by the Indonesian government before she flew out. In return, she was required to repay the cost and other expenses including medical examination that would be a total of the first seven months of salary to the Indonesian recruitment agency. While she arrived at Hong Kong, she was sexually abused by her employer who lived under the same household. After much frustration and attempts, she gathered proof of the sexual abuse and handed them to the police and the court for judgment. During the times of her trial that expanded for two years, she was not able to be employed somewhere else and it meant a period of economic struggle for her and her family as well as an emotionally draining process. Eventually, the employer was sentenced to the prison for more than seven years and she was able to find another employer, an elderly woman.

Mary’s case is not unique. The scale of similar events is far more prominent than popular belief. The Mission for Migrant Workers, a Hong Kong-based advocacy group, released a survey to more than 3,000 live-in maids. The results showed that 58% of them experienced verbal abuse, 37% said they worked 16-hour days, and 18% claimed that they were physically abused, and 6% said they were subjected to rape, touching, or sexually harassed. Some reported that they had to sleep in the bathroom or kitchen  (Price, Deb, Yung, & Schonhardt). These are all alarming figures and indications of injustice, harmful, and abusive treatment towards many foreign domestic helpers. Some may argue that the definition of “abuse” differs person by person. However, reports and tracking records of the complaints are in file and show supporting evidences towards these self-reported figures. These complaints’ investigations often prolong for a long period of time and eventually are left unnoticed unfortunately. Now, the questions arise: why are these complains not properly addressed? Why don’t these workers switch their jobs and find other employers in the labor market?