Responses to Abuse against Domestic Migrant Workers in Hong Kong, Shanghai, Taipei: A Comparative Study

1. A multi-scalar comparison of responses to abuse against domestic migrant workers in Hong Kong, Shanghai, Taipei Andre Laliberte University of Ottawa, School of political studies Presented at the ILO 4th RDW Conference Geneva, Swizerland July 9, 2015

5. Research design • Most similar conditions • Large urbanized area; • Importance of wealthy middle classes • Significant number of migrant domestic workers • Increasing demand for care-givers service since 1990s • Key differences • Political and legal regimes/rule of law • Levels of governments: the focus of this research • Funding for the research: • Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada partnership grant on ‘Gender, Migration, and the Work of Care in the Asia-Pacific’ (File No: 895-2012-1021), under the direction of Ito Peng, PI.

6. Shanghai special municipality6,340 km224.5 million Taiwan 36,193 km2 23.7 million Hong Kong special administration region 1,104 km2 7.2 million

7. Levels of government • Higher tier of government: greater state capacities • Taiwan (Republic of China): top tier • Central level of government, 4 lower levels below • Sovereignty except for universal recognition at the UN • Hong Kong special administrative region: hybrid • One country two systems: large degree of autonomy • Full responsibility except for defense and foreign affairs • Shanghai special municipality: second-tier • Mayor’s power equivalent to that of provincial governor • Implementation of decisions made at the center

9. Migrant Domestic workersin local labor force • Taiwan (ROC Ministry of Labor, April 2015) • Foreign (223,072) and local (?) caregivers • Foreign (+ 577,811)/local workers (11.599m) • Hong Kong(HKSAR Labor Department, April 2015) • Foreign (+ 320,000) and local (?) domestic helpers • Foreign (FDH+SLS?)/ Local (3.907m) workers • Shanghai • Domestic helpers, nannies, housekeepers (+ 490,000 (est. 2014, Insight Magazine)) • Local Migrants from other provinces (39% of Shanghai’s total population (est. 2010, Shanghai Bureau of Statistics)/local labor force (Data from Shanghai Human Resources and Social Security unavailable)

11. Origins of FDW in ROC and HKSAR,MDW in Shanghai • Taiwan (MOL, 2015) • Indonesia 179,270 • Philipines 25,595 • Others 20,172 • Hong Kong (LD, 2015) • Philipines 166,743 • Indonesia 140,720 (98 % of total) • Shanghai: (Shanghai Bureau of Statistics, 2011) • Anhui 29 %; Jiangsu 17 %; Henan 9 %; Sichuan 7% • 79 % from rural area

13. Main forms of abuse faced by domestic workers • In all cases: • Vulnerability to employers’ abuse because domestic workers are excluded from labor legislation: their work is not considered labor • Brokers, placement agencies ask for fees ‘training’, placement, etc. • Lack of oversight • In Taiwan and Hong Kong: • Live-in requirements leads to lack of privacy, 24 hrsworkdays • Right to choose place of work curtailed by employers • Taiwan: • Restrictions on type of employment allowed • Hong Kong: • ‘2 weeks rule’: expulsion even if employer was faulty • Shanghai • Limited possibility for media to report on cases of abuse

15. Variety of sources of abuse • Taiwan and Hong Kong • Abusive employers • Placement agencies in sending and receiving countries • Complicit governments guilty by omission • Politicians have other priorities and/or populist politicians • Popular biases against ‘alien’ migrant workers’ morality • Outright patriarchal attitudes that look down on work traditionally performed by women • Shanghai • Same as above • Additional difficulty of the obstacles imposed on civil society mobilization

17. All is not lost!NGOs supporting migrant domestic workers • Taiwan • Awakening Foundation, TIWA • Protestant and Catholic church-based NGO, Garden of Hope • Hong Kong • Lawyers offering pro bono services, • HKCTU and other unions: FADWU, UNIFIL-HK, etc • Church-related NGO: Open Door, Helpers for Domestic Helpers, Pathfinders, Mission for Migrant Workers • Shanghai • ForNGOs, Little Bird Hotline, Youdao • GONGOs: YMCA, All-China Federation of Women

19. Limited success in attempts at redress in Taiwan • Civil society initiatives • Initiatives from churches and related organizations on a quotidian basis • Migrant empowerment network in Taiwan (MENT 台灣移工聯盟): Petition declaring support for legislative protection of domestic caretakers and house workers • Weak government response • Domestic Worker Protection Act promoted in 2003, passed in Spring of 2015, but in a watered-down version • ROC MOL last week refusesdtogrant pay raise to foreign domestic workers because their employers offer them housing • Taiwan’s lack of diplomatic recognition complicates possibility of reaching agreement with sending countries

21. Tepid government responses to attempts at redress in Hong Kong • Vigorous civil society initiatives • Importance of litigation • Militancy of Hong Kong trade unions movements • Constant activism and emergency relief provided by churches and affiliated associations • 2015 Roundtables on foreign domestic workers involved NGO, local and foreign politicians and shamed authorities to act • Main obstacles caused by the status of the HKSAR • Limitations imposed by the limitation to the sovereignty of Hong Kong serve as a convenient excuse for inaction on the welfare of foreign domestic helper/workers • Populist politicians who are otherwise unpopular play on nativist sentiments

23. Heroic and unheard of attempts at redress in Shanghai • A few brave civil society initiatives • ForNGO: brave initiative but limited resources • Others have to ceased activities: current context of China is not conducive to mobilization by grass-root NGO • Main challenges: • An oligopolistic group of powerful employment agencies with official support through a licensing system that coexist with an unfettered and unregulated market of small agencies • Blurred boundaries between some NGO and government: Church-related organizations such as YMCA are part of the state-sponsored official church and CCP United Front • Lack of media attention limits popular awareness

24. Does level of government make a difference? • A conundrum of comparative politics: dissimilar conditions that have led to a similar outcome • Similarities in outcomes that trump differences in level of government and differences in political regimes • Similarities of interests among brokers and agencies appear more determining than political differences • Similarities in choices made by different governments for an approach to social policy that favors a minimal welfare state likely to be a crucial independent variable • Research strategy will seek to test the latter hypothesis • Process tracing of the public discourse that seek to naturalize policies premised on the necessity to deliver care with live-in-caregivers, not in publicly-funded institutions