It is an interesting rule: from time to time we are treated to a rousing speech about the importance of an independent and fearless judiciary, and the good fortune we enjoy because of our possession of such a thing. Uncannily the appearance of such a speech is followed by a judicial decision that has you reaching for the airsick bag.
The decision of the Court of Final Appeal on domestic helpers rights to apply (not to enjoy, just to apply) for permanent residency is manifestly unfair. Of course judges may argue that the law has nothing to do with fairness, but in that case they can hardly claim, as they often do, to embody and preserve our most cherished values. The decision is also objectionable because it panders both to official paranoia and public racism.
It also appears to have been based on a misunderstanding of the facts. It is simply not true that domestic helpers are required to return home at the end of their contracts. This rule floats around in the contract verbiage somewhere, but it has not been enforced for 30 years. A helper who reaches the end of one contract can simply start another with the same – or another – employer the following day. Her accrued holiday rights can be exercised at a time convenient to both parties. Only those employers who are very picky about their pound of flesh insist on the helper working for two years before she has a chance to go home. Many helpers go home every year. These are perfectly sensible arrangements and it is a bit of a puzzle that the judges were misled about them.
Perhaps the Department of Justice needs to spend less time throwing old ladies into jail and more pondering the finer points of forensic ethics.
tim's experiment 
Not so. Bear this in mind. The general scheme for immigration into Hong Kong, like many other developed economies, is to attract people who are thought to be in a position to contribute to the long-term development of the place with a skill not easily obtainable domestically. FDHs are an exception to that rule and that features in the plain terms of which they are familiar when they choose Hong Kong as a place to build some savings. Put it this way: if we did not need the home help, would we deliberately go and seek out 300,000 people, most of whom have no special skill or experience, and invite them to come and stay as PRs? Obviously, we would not and don’t. And if we did, why should we particularly favour Filipinas, Indonesians and Sri Lankans? Why not all the other economically disadvantaged peoples throughout the world? To waive the general rules and let them stay looks like a virtuous act of charity superficially but it would be nothing of the sort. If, as we plainly should, our role as a wealthy world citizen is to extend a helping hand to our neighbours in need, we should do so in a sensible and structured way by setting aside a sizable chunk of our fiscal excess for aid programmes instead of selfishly guarding it. Add to this that we have a terrible shortage of decent housing in Hong Kong for the people who already have the right to live here permanently; how on earth would we be able to house these 300,000 here if they weren’t living in our kitchens, living rooms and child’s bedrooms? Finally, bear in mind that the FDHs are by and large NOT the most needy members of their community at all. They are generally of above average education and relatively well-off because they are generally the more enterprising, go-getter members of their communities. They are not the downtrodden victims of discrimination and exploitation many make them out to be. Finally finally, the court worked within the framework of the Rule of Law. That principle means, to a large extent, that the court is required to turn a blind eye to moral arguments such as yours and keep its focus clearly on the papers. The CFA appears to have done that pretty religiously in this case which is good for our system of law, not deserving the sort of criticism you are levelling at it on this occasion.
Thank you for a prime collection of red herrings. Hong Kong’s immigration policy, such as it is, has nothing to do with it as the plausible claimants are already here. Also irrelevant is the question whether the Phillippines is a poor and deserving country or migrant workers are the poorest and most deserving members of its population. An issue of fairness requires only that the potential victim is a human being. Workers are imported to Hongkong by many employers, who only have to demonstrate that they have a vacancy which local workers are unqualified or unwilling to fill. Such workers can seek permanent resident status after seven years. An exception is made for domestic helpers. The only relevant thought on the subject in your comment is the supposition that domestic work and childcare are uniquely undemanding activities which require no skills or personal qualities. This is a male prejudice which should have no part in policy-making.
All countries/territories of course have the right to make their own immigration policies. It still behoves them to come up with arrangements which are fair.
This issue can’t be argued on principle alone. Taking an absolute humanitarian/equality standpoint is admirable but pointless. You can’t house these people. You have made the point correctly in your blog about the dire housing problem we have in Hong Kong. So you a line has to be drawn on pragmatic lines somewhere. Your absolutes can’t deal with that reality. So come down off the high horse and recognise that a trade off is inevitable and ask yourself whether people who came here on a clear, unequivocal restricted footing might not be the ones who can fairly and properly told they can’t stay. And, yes, a distinction can and should be made between the ability to wash and iron clothes and providing nursing care or open heart surgery.
I fear we are not going to achieve agreement. The choice between principle and pragmatism is a matter on which views rarely change.
I hope the person who takes care of your children is not reading all this.