WE, cannot help but be shocked and dismayed over the decision of Hong Kong’s Labor Department to peg the new Minimum Allowable Wage (MAW) at HKD4,010 a month, and the new food allowance at HKD920.
These amounts are much lower than what we have asked from the government and clearly show the HK government’s discriminatory bent against foreign domestic workers (FDWs) despite its pronunciations to the contrary.
Since early this year, migrant organisations under the Asia Migrants’ Coordinating Body (AMCB) have asked for an increase to a monthly of HKD 4,500 from the last year’s HKD 3,920. Based on recent studies by market analysts on wage movements in Hong Kong, local wage rates have been increasing by 6-8%, and the current 90-dollar hike on the MAW amounts to a mere 2.2%. In the 15-year span between 1998-2013 moreover, increases of FDWs’ wages have averaged only some HKD10 annually.
The social discrimination inherent in Hong Kong’s wage policies becomes all more evident when one considers that the HKD4,010 MAW breaks down to only $11/hour for FDWs who work an average of 12 hours, and only $8.2/hour for those working 16-hours a day. This is a far cry from the Statutory Minimum Wage (SMW) of $30/hour mandated by the Labour Department for local wage earners since last year. Clearly, the Hong Kong government does not see migrant work as deserving of the same remuneration as those of locals; nor does it see domestic work as work that should be covered by the ILO’s core labour standards.
These discriminatory policies also exist with regard to the determination of the FDWs’ food allowance. The demand of HK migrant organisations for a $1,600 monthly food allowance for FDWs who do not get food provisions from their employers was disregarded by the government, despite the fact that this has been computed as the monthly minimum food expenditure for Hong Kong local individuals based on government statistics in 2006.
As the $920 is still way below the local per capita food expenditure, FDWs are again treated less favourably and unfairly. Many migrant domestic workers are left with no choice but to opt for the inclusion of their food expenditures in their employers’ household budgets, and thus merely reinforces the condition that restricts on FDWs’ dietary choices especially for Indonesians.
Despite these paltry increases in both the MAW and the food allowance for FDWs, the AMCB is still heartened at the effectiveness of grassroots migrant organisations in campaigning for their rights and welfare in Hong Kong. It is due to their determination and unified stance that concrete gains have thus been made in the wage fight. We see this an as indication that the stronger our organisations become, the bigger chances we have of making maximum headway in our struggle for higher wages and better working conditions for all migrant workers in Hong Kong.
Asian Migrants Coordinating Body
20