tim's experiment

Many years ago in the UK there was a lady called Mary Whitehouse. Mrs Whitehouse was frequently quoted in newspapers and invited to appear on television to comment on media matters. This was because she was the spokesperson of a thing called the National Viewers and Listeners Association. Whenever a reporter was looking for someone to give a view which could be presented as that of the consumers of radio or television, Mrs W was the person to call.

Actually it was widely known in media circles that this was a con. The National Viewers and Listeners Association was not national. Mrs Whitehouse was a member of a nutty religious group and the NVLA drew most of its members, who only numbered a few hundred anyway, from the same Godsquad. Its claims to speak for anyone but a few Puritans were minimal. But it had no competition, so the phone calls kept coming.

Mrs Whitehouse’s counterpart in Hong Kong is Joseph Law, who rejoices in the title of Chairman of the Hong Kong Employers of Overseas Domestic Helpers Association. With this on his business card he is routinely wheeled out to pronounce on matters like the minimum wage for helpers or the requirement that they leave town in two weeks if dismissed. Mr Law’s opinions on these matters are entirely predictable. Whether they are typical is another matter. I have been an employer of an overseas domestic helper for many years. I have never been invited to join Mr Law’s association. I have never met anyone who has, though many of my friends also employ domestic helpers. The association has, it seems, no function other than allowing Mr Law to parade his greed and insensitivity in public and foist it on the rest of us. If the association has meetings they are not reported. If it has other useful and constructive activities they also remain below the public radar. If it has a website the Google machinery has so far failed to find it. Next time a reporter is tempted to ask Mr Law for a quote it might be a good idea to insert a request for his membership figures.

Mr Law’s latest public outburst showed that he is moving on from offering mean quotes about matters concerning domestic helpers to things which have nothing to do with his members, if any, at all. Wednesday’s papers were full of the DAB’s latest campaign, which is a disgraceful attempt to influence the court which will shortly be considering a request for judicial review of the rule that overseas domestic helpers do not qualify for the right of abode after being here for seven years. As this is in marked  contrast to the treatment of overseas bankers – and for that matter butchers, bakers, candlestick makers etc – there is some reason to suppose that the plea will succeed. That is no excuse for campaigning for a particular result. Does the DAB beieve in the rule of law? Of course not. Stupid question.

The party’s spokespoodle, one Starry Lee, explained that the DAB was publicising its spectacular predictions of social doom if helpers were allowed the right of abode because it was “only putting forward an estimate of the possible consequences and remind the government to be prepared for all possible outcomes.” Cobblers. The DAB is putting forward its lurid lies in an attempt to broaden its electoral prospects by appealing to racism and snobbery in the middle classes.

I am a little puzzled as to why Mr Law felt called upon as an employer’s spokesperson to join in this particular row. After all from the employer’s point of view it makes little difference whether maids qualify for the right of abode or not. Some may leave the business when they qualify for the ID card.  But if Hong Kong offers the additional attraction of the right of abode then no doubt replacements will be easier to come by. So as employers we may be attracted or appalled, but this is nothing to do with us.

Nevertheless Mr Law sailed in with the promise (threat?) that “If they rule in favour of the maids, I will ask the Hong Kong Government to seek an interpretation of the Basic Law from China. We cannot accommodate such a large influx into the population.” This suggests two possiblilities. One is that Mr Law erroneously supposes that any domestic helper who is awarded the right of abode will be able to claim a permanent home with her current employer. The other is that Mr Law is not really interested in labour issues at all, he is just another left-wing loony who thinks the world will end if the Basic Law is criticised in any way.

Or perhaps he’s just thick.