By Daisy CL Mandap
 |
| Letter sent by Immigration telling Ludy she must go back home |
Two days before Hong Kong
Immigration announced that it was reverting to its policy of allowing
terminated foreign domestic workers to remain for only 14 days, a Filipina was told she needed to go back home
after being terminated twice in six months.
Ludy C., 56, was set to leave for Manila today, Jan 3, after more than two months of trying to get another
employment contract approved by Immigration. But as (bad) luck would have it, her Philippine Airlines flight was cancelled at the last minute, so now she's back to worrying about where to get the money to sustain her needs while she remains stuck in Hong Kong.
Ludy was terminated for a second
time this year on Oct 27 and managed to get another employer to sign her up,
but apparently because she fell into the “job-hopping” category, Immigration rejected
her bid to secure a new employment visa.
In line with existing practice, FDWs
whose contracts are terminated repeatedly with no valid excuse are deemed as
job-hoppers, and as such, are denied the chance to remain and secure a new job.
On Dec 30, Immigration tightened the
restrictions further by announcing that it was reverting to its standing policy
of allowing all terminated FDWs to stay for only two weeks after termination. Exemptions
will only be allowed in “exceptional circumstances,” such as when the employer
dies, relocates, or runs into financial difficulties.
This so-called 14-day rule, which
has been in place since 1987, was relaxed for the first time this year amid the
pandemic, which left many FDWs stranded in both Hong Kong and their home
countries because of travel restrictions.
Ludy said that after Immigration’s
initial advice to her that she would no longer be allowed to stay and wait for
her new employment contract to be processed, she managed to ask for a
reconsideration.
She got herself a new employer, who
unfortunately, was stuck in China so could not attend a pre-employment interview
scheduled by Immigration. In the end, the employer decided to just back out of
their contract, which could have amounted to a third black mark in Ludy’s
employment record.
Subsequently, Ludy received a letter
from Immigration dated Dec 21 in which she was told that that she could only
stay another week.
The letter read: “Having considered
all the circumstances of the case and all available information, the Director
of Immigration is not satisfied that you have met all the eligibility criteria
given in the “Guidebook for the Employment of Domestic Helpers from Abroad.
Your application is therefore refused.”
She was told to leave “on or before
Dec 28”, but when she tried to book a flight home, Ludy found out that because
of the busy holiday period, the earliest she could depart was Jan. 3.
She went to Immigration on Dec 27
and asked for another visa extension, bringing along her new plane ticket as
proof. To her dismay, not only did the immigration officer who interviewed her
denied her application, he also reportedly shouted at her in front of a lot of
people.
After her repeated pleas that there
was no way she could go home by the following day, the officer ordered her to
go to the Consulate and ask for a letter certifying that there were really no
flights immediately available.
Ludy then reached out to Rain Tuando,
an administrator of the Facebook group Domestic Workers Corner, who lost no
time in relaying her request for urgent help to Consul General Raly Tejada.
The next day, Ludy was given a
letter written by Consul Paul Saret, head of the assistance to nationals
section, requesting Immigration Commissioner Au Ka-wang, to extend her visa long
enough for her to get on a plane back to Manila.
 |
| Saret asked Immigration to give Ludy time to get on next available flight home |
On
the eve of her supposed departure, Ludy could only express regret at how her first job termination
in April this year had led to a series of misfortunes that ended with her being
told to leave Hong Kong.
She
said she first came here to work in 1990, then decided to go back home for good
after nine years. But with her two kids about to start college, she decided to
come back in early 2016, and ended up looking after an elderly male employer
for four years.
When
she was released in December last year, a month away from finishing her second
contract, Ludy was signed up to look after an elderly woman who lived alone. But
an accident that led to her elderly ward getting operated on for a bone
fracture that was left untreated for two months, led to her termination on Apr 3.
She
then managed to secure another job, but for reasons Ludy says she is not clear
about, Immigration rejected their employment contract.
Luckily,
because of the relaxed rules amid the pandemic she managed to stay on and got
herself a new elderly employer. But her luck again turned when her prospective
employer suddenly passed away while her employment visa application was already
being processed.
She
remained jobless until October, when she was signed up by a new employer. But
this time, Ludy said she had to do house chores and attend to the needs of a
couple, their baby, an elderly parent, and a dog.
She
said she got so tired that when she was asked to wash dishes after taking her
day off on Oct 25, she begged off. In an act of pique, she sent her employers the
part of the Employment Ordinance that stipulates the penalty for employers who
make their FDWs work on their day-off.
The
next day, her male employer terminated their contract and asked Ludy to leave their
house. He reportedly cited as reason her having failed to meet the employers' expectations.
Ludy
said she wants to come back to Hong Kong to work, as she is still sending her two
children through college. But given her age, her having been sent home for
repeated terminations, and the continuing travel restrictions because of the pandemic,
there’s just a slim chance that will happen, at least not anytime soon.
