The Living Ironies in “Asia’s World City”

Jade Poon (GSIS) Artwork by Jaclyn Solomon (STC)

For decades, Hong Kong has built up its reputation as a free and dynamic society of modernity, creativity, and entrepreneurship. And just as its standing as a global city has steadily grown, foreign domestic helpers (FDHs) have become an integral part of day-to-day life in the bustling streets of Hong Kong. But despite their vital role in society, FDHs face constant discrimination and even abuse within their own households, to the point where a sense of personhood is lost.

Three key points will be analysed: one, cases of employers controlling almost every aspect of a domestic helper’s life; two, acts of resistance against employers that allow FDHs to maintain a sense of personal agency and identity; and three, the unfair trials and specific laws in Hong Kong that actively oppress FDH rights.

The abuse and controlling behaviour that FDHs endure can be viewed in two main ways: physical punishment and the act of controlling their appearance. Parallels may be drawn between FDHs and *muijais (妹仔) in Hong Kong society prior to the 1920s. Like muijais, FDHs are often forced by employers to engage in illegal activities or overwork to the point of exhaustion, and may frequently be beaten, starved, or locked inside rooms for days on end, while also facing physical assault. This can be interpreted through Foucault’s theory of power, in which discipline is a form of power that indicates how people should act and produces obedience. The use of physical means to assert dominance is one of the most direct forms of discipline, using pain and the fear that comes from it to school FDHs and muijais into obedience, making them docile bodies. It’s important to note that muijais were treated not as people, but as objects owned by employers. Their social identity consisted purely of being a commodity for employers to use, especially since they had been taught and treated to be servants to carry no will of their own. Comparatively, FDHs possess a contract meant to preserve their rights, and more importantly, a life outside Hong Kong, where they act as breadwinners for their families elsewhere; though to the employer, the FDH is still seen as someone who serves them. This is where Foucault’s theory of resistance comes into play: where there is power, there is resistance. The very thought of opposition, be it feeling of frustration, anger, or discontent towards the employer, is a show of resistance: the muijai and the FDH are not simplified to the social persona of a docile servant, but they also possess a personal face that acts to disagree with their position and their employer. In the case of the FDH, she also holds the persona of being a mother, a daughter, a wife, and/ or a breadwinner, all of which extend beyond the assigned persona of being a domestic helper within Hong Kong society.

Another way to understand an FDHs’ personhood is through acts of resistance. The three main ways that may be used to analyse this is through power in numbers, public transcripts, and hidden transcripts. Before FDHs, Chinese amahs were frequently employed. Like FDHs, they had less economic power than their employers, yet were able to resist abuse through sisterhoods. If women who belonged to sisterhoods were maltreated, “sisters” lent them economic and emotional support and helped them find new jobs, and other sisters refused to work for the offending employer. Similarly, “sisterhoods” may be formed between FDHs in places like Central, where many FDHs bond over shared hardships and a culture and environment similar to Manila, or in places like church. Emotional support, and at times, economic support, is provided to “sisters” in need of assistance. This showcases Weber’s theory on collective agency, where power in numbers acts as a form of resistance. The support of others provides a community in which a sense of belonging is restored, giving an FDH a place where she does not need to portray the image of a docile domestic worker. Resistance is also shown in subtler forms by contesting ‘public conscripts’, i.e. making use of prescribed roles and language to resist the abuse of power. When an FDH faces criticism, she has long grown used to condescending attitudes and takes such insults in strides. With friends, a Filipino FDH may crack jokes and poke fun at Chinese passersby, insulting them in a language the Chinese can’t understand. The power that a shared language holds provides a mutual sense of belonging amongst FDHs, giving them comfort and closure; for all the times they have been reprimanded, they hold power in such a way that others who supposedly have higher social power cannot respond to.

Unfair trials and laws that constrict agency are the third way in which power is used to “control” the personhood of an FDH. This may be divided into three categories: trials, the Contract, and the two week rule. In terms of court trials, most FDHs don’t have the financial resources, time, or confidence to pursue clams through the Labour and Immigration Department. Even when FDHs do ask for trials, HK laws and policies deter workers from pursuing their rights. An example of this is when an FDH successfully charged her billionaire employer with 5 cases of sexual assault, yet the punishment was a small fine of around 5000HKD. Placing FDHs at a lower status in legal situations deters them from a position of whole personhood they ought to possess as a full member of society, affecting their rights and power to pursue such liberties. In terms of the con-tract, the FDH’s personhood is once again under-mined. Supposedly, the contract guarantees certain human rights, but a major issue is that many of its conditions are difficult to implement, and are often interpreted to favour the employer. For in-stance, the Contract states that FDHs “must only perform domestic duties” but the vagueness of the said “domestic duties” means that FDHs may be forced to do work that takes place within the household of an employer’s business. In terms of the two-week rule, FDHs’ financial security is directly challenged. When a contract is terminated, FDHs must either leave within 2 weeks or before the date of expiration of her visa if it falls shorter than 2 weeks. Many FDHs thus do not report complaints to Labour or Immigration Departments, for fear that they will be forced to return home, instead choosing to endure poor working conditions, physical and emotional abuse, and maltreatment. This can be seen in cases of an FDH complaining to her friends, where she will be reminded to be thankful to even have a job. This may be seen as an abuse of structural power, where the FDH’s inferior economic position is used as a means to prevent her from speaking out against abuse and abide to the supposedly fair laws.

The situation that FDHs face today is still undoubtedly unfair, but we, as a society, are making slow steps to improving it. Even speaking out against active discrimination on the streets to acts of abuse within a household can make a difference, and perhaps one day, Hong Kong can live up to the ethical expectations of its international reputation as Asia’s world city.