TNAG-2318-FCO40-3362-Petitions-from-members-of-the-public-regarding-Hong-Kong-1991 — Page 133

3

ENG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL

香港立法局

28 November 1990

18

·九九0年十一月二十八日

SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION AND MANPOWER: Sir, as regards the first part of the question, the Immigration Department is responsible for enforcing what has come to be known as the "two-week rule". At the present time, a foreign domestic helper is allowed to work in Hong Kong For a specific employer under an approved contract of employment. The duration of these contracts is normally two years. On arrival in Hong Kong, the domestic helper's passport is endorsed with a condition which allows her to remain in Hong Kong for 12 months or for two weeks after the termination of her contract, whichever is the earlier. At the end of the first 12 months, so long as the domestic helper continues to work for the same employer, her stay will be extended for another 12 months. At the end of the two years, the domestic helper may choose to enter into a new contract with the same employer or with another employer, or return to her country of origin.

Problems may arise if the contract of employment is terminated prematurely. If the contract was terminated by the domestic helper herself, the "two-week rule" would apply unless the Director of Immigration is satisfied that she has a good reason for staying longer. In that event the Director would normally grant her an extension of stay. Similarly, if the contract was terminated by the employer under certain circumstances, the domestic helper may also be granted an extension of stay.

Sir, as regards the second part of the question, the Government has recently reviewed the "two-week rule". We are aware that foreign domestic helpers have argued that the existence of this rule inhibits them from making complaints about bad treatment by their employers, and that two weeks is in any case too short a period of time for the purpose of finding an alternative employer. We have examined these criticisms carefully, and have reached the conclusion that there are insufficient grounds for modifying the "two-week rule". In all cases where sufficient and self-evident reasons have been advanced in support of an extension of stay, permission is always given. Moreover, the "two-week rule" was never intended for the purpose of enabling domestic helpers to find alternative employers. It was introduced in 1987 as a necessary form of control against job-hopping. If a domestic helper has a valid reason to seek an alternative employer, she should go to the Labour Department for counselling, and to the Immigration Department to ascertain whether she may be permitted to find an alternative employer and granted an extension of stay. In the circumstances, the Government considers that the "two- week rule" must be maintained.