Editor's Note |
20 years of service to the community
|
Time flies.
Exactly 20 years ago this month, The SUN shone for the Filipinos in Hong Kong. It was
the fulfillment of a dream that took shape years earlier, or shortly after I arrived here in 1987 and
realized there was no reliable information channel serving the community.
But turning that dream into reality proved to be difficult. Several people offered to fund
the publication of a news-paper, but everyone wanted a business model different from what we had
in mind.
Details...
|
Anak Araw |
Pagpapabaya
|
Nitong nakaraang buwan ay naging saksi tayo sa nangyari kay Manang Gloria Ortinez,
ang OFW na biktima ng tanim-bala sa Manila airport. Halos buong araw kasi ay naglagi siya sa
opisina ng The SUN, kasama ang mga naghatid sa kanya na sina Susan "Toots" Ople na tagataguyod ng
mga OFW, at ang abogado niyang si Atty Spocky Farolan, kaya nasaksihan namin siya nang malapitan.
Details...
|
Migrant's Forum |
Nanay Gloria's journey to HK
|
President Benigno Simeon Aquino III recently told the media that cases of tanim-bala
were sensationalized, citing figures to prove his point. As an OFW advocate, I respectfully
disagree. Looking at this from a purely numbers perspective could lead one to overlook the deep trauma
that such incidents have caused its innocent victims.
Had he met and spoken to 56-year old OFW Gloria Ortinez, our President would have
learned the following:
Details...
|
Know Your Rights |
The Mission
|
This was the speech delivered by the Mission for Migrant Workers' general manager,
Cynthia Tellez, at the launch of the 10-year Impact Evaluation Report of the Mission's work held on
December 5, 2015 at the Li Hall of St. John's Cathedral.
Details...
|
|
With at least one -- and possibly two disqualification cases in the presidential race --
the Supreme Court has assured the nation politics will not dictate its decisions.
See this month's stories...
|
|
|
|
|
Staff and volunteers at the Mission for Migrant Workers had reason to celebrate when
they launched the non-government organization's 10-year Impact Evaluation Report at Li Hall of St
John's Cathedral on Dec. 4. Nearly all, or 97% of migrants who sought assistance said that they were
helped by the Mission, and more than half of them (57%) said they would recommend the NGO to others.
See this month's stories...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
October 2014
|
Migrant's Forum
|
|
|
Assistant Professor, Department of
Philosophy at Lingnan University
There are times in history when legislatures come
together and somehow manage to enact
good laws. These are the kinds of laws that tend to make
society a better place for all. These are the
kinds of laws that create conditions of greater safety, fairness
of equality for all persons in society.
One distant example of this would be the Civil
Rights Act of 1964, in which the US
Congress made it not only illegal to discriminate against
people due to their race or ethnicity but for the
first time provided truly equal rights for women. Additionally,
there are other times when judges
make important judicial decision which also serve to make
societies fairer places in which to live.
Sadly however, on September 18, 2014, Hong
Kong's Court of Final Appeal made a
decision that did not do justice on any level.
This decision by the CFA didn't do justice for the
applicants who had brought the case. It
didn't do justice for the 300,000 migrant workers who live in
Hong Kong (or for their children) and for
that matter, it didn't do justice for the people of Hong Kong.
For the applicant, Joseph Gutierrez,
it placed a bright, hard-working young man in a more
precarious position than he was previously
in. For the 300,000 migrants in Hong Kong, the decision of
the court makes Hong Kong's
discriminatory laws and immigration policies even more clear,
and for the people of Hong Kong, the
court's decision has contributed in diminishing Hong Kong's
much touted "rule of law."
In the case of Gutierrez v. Registrar of Persons,
the CFA ruled that Joseph Gutierrez, a 17
year old son of a foreign domestic worker who was born in
Hong Kong and has spent virtually his
entire life in the territory, could not claim the right of abode
in Hong Kong. The reasoning in the case
of Gutierrez v. Registrar of Persons was based in large part on
a previous decision in another of
the "right of abode" cases, that of Vallejos v. Registrar of
Persons which was decided by the Court
of Final Appeal in March, 2013.
Very briefly, in that previous case, the CFA ruled
that Ms Evangeline Vallejos (a
domestic worker who had lived continuously in Hong Kong
since 1986) was not eligible for the right
to permanent residence (the right of abode) under Article 24
(2)(4) of the Basic Law.
Even though the Basic Law of Hong Kong
purports to extend this constitutional right to
persons who are not Chinese nationals but who have
ordinarily resided in Hong Kong for over 7 years
(and have taken Hong Kong as their place of permanent
residence), in the case of Ms Vallejos, the
CFA ruled that she had not in fact "ordinarily resided" in the
territory during those 27 years. In its
decision, the judges of the CFA ruled that since there are
"special conditions" put on the stay of
Ms Vallejos and other migrant workers she could not be
considered as being ordinarily resident
under the meaning of the Basic Law.
So, what were those "special conditions"? As
anyone who has worked as a migrant in
Hong Kong will know, there are many of these including the
discriminatory manner in which
domestic workers are recruited, as well as the other
restrictions on their stay in Hong Kong such as the
"two week rule" and the "live in rule". So in effect, the court
in the case of Ms. Vallejos ruled that
since migrant workers face discrimination imposed by the
state, they cannot avail themselves of the
rights that are supposedly guaranteed to all under Hong
Kong's Basic Law.
In Joseph's case, he had in fact been born in Hong
Kong and had lived his entire life in
the territory (except for brief visits to the Philippines). The
court ruled that there were two questions
to answer on the part of the applicant. Firstly, the question of
whether Joseph had taken Hong Kong
as his "permanent place of residence." Secondly, the court
posed the question, "under what
circumstances a person who has been given permission to
remain in Hong Kong may become a visitor
and enjoy the freedom to travel abroad."
In answering these questions, the CFA accepted
the Hong Kong Government's arguments
that as a child of 10, Joseph could not have formed the
intention to take Hong Kong as his place
of permanent residence, even though he had lived here his
entire life and had known no other place
of residence. As for the second question, the court ruled
against the applicant's case on the grounds
that he had only ever had been granted temporary visas during
the time he has lived in Hong Kong
(in this case, 17 years).
In jurisdictions all over the world, judges and the
courts are given the power and the
responsibility to interpret the meaning of the laws as well as
to rule on the decisions made by those
who implement policies of the government. Their main duty
of course, is always to do justice under
the law. As such, the courts have a great responsibility to the
people who live under those same
laws. But then, just what is a just law, and what is an unjust
law and why is this decision both unjust
and wrong? It is argued that this decision is unjust because it
treats migrants (and their
dependants) worse than it does other foreign workers.
Furthermore, it discriminates in a de facto manner
against the two largest ethnic minorities in Hong Kong;
Indonesians and Filipinos. Finally, this decision
is unjust because it arbitrarily treats migrant workers, not as
persons who possess dignity and
autonomy, but as mere things, the subjects of exploitation and
control.
In 1963, Dr. Martin Luther King argued that the
true criterion of a law is not merely
formal legal authority or threat of force that may enforce it,
but rather that the same law is also just.
For Martin Luther King, a just law was what he termed,
"equality made legal", as opposed to unjust
laws which were as he put it, "difference made legal". He
argued eloquently to his generation and to
ours, that there is a moral obligation to obey just laws and at
the same time to disobey unjust laws.
His argument that the segregation laws that once existed in
the US were in fact unjust rests on the
damaging effect that these laws have on people. Laws that are
just, King argues, uplift the human
personality. Conversely, laws that are unjust degrade the
human personality (leaving scope for
legitimate disobedience).
This is a crucial period in Hong Kong's history; a
time in which many people from a wide
range of backgrounds and perspectives are asking hard
questions about the nature and legitimacy of
their government and the manner in which it is chosen, as
well as the content of justice found in their
laws and policies. At the same time, legitimate questions and
concerns are being raised about the
manner in which the courts are able or willing to do justice
according to law.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Listen to:
View print version
Microsoft VBScript runtime error '800a0005'
Invalid procedure call or argument
/RightbarAd.asp, line 18 |