After many years of fighting by the labor groups and debate among various political parties, the Hong Kong government finally agreed to enact a minimum wage legislation recently. In the annual policy address on October 15, 2009, the Chief Executive of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Mr. Donald Tsang Yam-kuen announced that a cross-sector minimum wage bill will be drafted and introduced during the current 2009-2010 session of the Legislative Council. This is indeed a positive step in upholding labor rights. However, if the bill is to be made in a way which can really protect the livelihood of low-income class and lead to lives of dignity, at least two factors must be considered carefully. One is the level of the minimum wage; the second is the target to be covered by the bill.
Firstly, setting an appropriate and reasonable level of minimum wage is a must if we don’t want to see the new minimum wage law in Hong Kong become a facade of labor rights. Many labor groups and non-governmental organizations support an hourly rate of no less than HK$33 (about US$4.3), which means a 3-person family’s monthly income is about HK$6,100 (about US$780). This is about 60% of the median wage. Setting the minimum wage at this level means that about 20% of the working population will benefit.
This figure is proposed according to the international standard of minimum wage in which a living wage is employed as a criterion. This is indeed a reasonable demand in the face of the present living standard. A Living wage affirms the principle that income should be able to support the basic living of family members, as well as to provide other kinds of basic protection and development. In this way, workers can improve their family lives through work and help the next generation to come away from the existing environment of poverty.
However, the business sector and the Hong Kong government opine that a minimum wage is not intended to cover basic living standards. The business oriented Liberal Party once stated that the minimum wage does not aim at eliminating poverty, but it provides basic protection. The Chief executive Donald Tsang even said that the minimum wage does not necessarily support a family. In his policy address, when talking about the level of minimum wage, he considers more the factors such as existing wage levels of different sectors, employment statistics, business operation costs and the competitive ability of Hong Kong. Rather than emphasizing the basic needs of the vulnerable workers and their family members, it is obvious that the overall economic development of the city is more important to Mr. Tsang. Maybe he still believes naively that the wealth in the society can trickle down from the top strata to the lower strata of the society despite so many years of failed experiences.
With such a mindset of endless pursuit of economic growth, it is not a coincidence that the city of Hong Kong has repeatedly won two number ones in the world -- the freest economy in the world voted by the neoliberal US think tank Heritage Foundation, and the biggest wealth gap among all the advanced economies in the world as shown in the United Nations Human Development Report. The most recent 2009 UN report shows that Hong Kong’s Gini coefficient
[1] of
43.4 surpasses the 42.5 of Singapore and the 40.8 of US among the most developed economies. Behind this statistic is the reality that there are 19 tycoons in Hong Kong who each own over ten billion Hong Kong dollars of wealth whereas there are more than one million people, regarded as the population in poverty, whose family income cannot support a decent life.
It is this background that makes me really concerned about whether the minimum wage can help the workers to lead a decent living standard. At present, the business sector and the government incline to set the wage at a lower hourly rate level of HK$24 (US$3), the amount was equivalent to HK$4,992 (US$640) a month for someone working an eight-hour day, 26 days a month. This wage level is about 50% of the median wage and only about 8% of working population will benefit from it. This level is even lower than the welfare assistance level provided by the government. Many workers prefer to earn a low income rather than applying for welfare assistance because they do not want to be labeled by the society as dependents or lazy people. As a result, they fall into the abyss of working poverty.
Furthermore, Mr. Tsang neglects the fact that money, of which the main source for most workers is their wages, apart from allowing people to consume basic necessities, also provides social meanings of belonging, standing and identity in a society. In a market-oriented society like Hong Kong, the ability to consume becomes a symbol of being a full member of the society. People living in poverty may be discriminated against and despised by other people. In order to avoid the cold shoulder and disdainful look of others, they avoid social and community life, thus creating the effect of a devalued citizenship or unequal membership in society.
In his book Spheres of Justice, political philosopher Michael Walzer argues that “unless we can spend money and deploy goods at level beyond what is required for subsistence, unless we have some of the free time and convenience that money can buy, we suffer a loss more serious than poverty itself, a kind of status starvation, a sociological disinheritance. We become aliens in our own homeland—and often in our own home.” He further contends that economic failure should never have the effect of devaluing citizenship, in either the legal or the social sense. If it does have that effect, remedies must be seeked for, that is to redistribute money, such as through medical care, guarantee jobs and a minimal income. In view of this, a reasonable level of minimum wage which can uphold dignity is of utmost importance.
Another concern of the bill is about the target population being covered. The 265,000 live-in maids who are migrant workers are not included in the proposed minimum wage bill. The government argues that since the minimum wage is based on an hourly rate, it is too difficult to calculate their wages. It also says that domestic workers get accommodation and food as part of a package which is a benefit for them.
However, in my opinion, including the migrant domestic helpers into the proposed minimum wage protection is necessary. First of all, although the migrant domestic workers have a so-called minimum wage now (HK$3,580 or US$462) which is much lower than the proposed wage for the local labor, it is not protected by law and can be changed arbitrarily. They are always the first targets of the government in their “share the burden mantra.” For example, during the 2003 economic recession, the government imposed a HK$400 extra charge on the employers of migrant domestic workers, in the name of setting up a fund to help the local workers to get training and employment. Meanwhile, the government announced the reduction of minimum wage of migrant domestic workers by HK$400. This adjustment of the minimum wage did not require any public consultation and is obviously transferring the burden from the employers to the migrant workers. Later, when the government cancelled the extra tax in 2008, the minimum wage of the migrant domestic workers did not increase accordingly.
Some people may think that the work of migrant domestic workers is simple and easy, and the working condition or the existing minimum wage is much better for them when compared with the lower level wage in their original countries. Thus, no matter how low the salary is, many local citizens think that the wage is good enough to support their families; they gain a lot indeed from Hong Kong already. Under such imagination and simple discourse, in times of economic recession, the migrant domestic workers are regarded as competitors with the local workers and they are seen as robbing the resources of Hong Kong. They are never regarded as part of the local community; they are strangers. In fact, they never enjoy the right to vote or other rights of the citizens, and no politicians will fight for their interests as they do not have voting power. They are not “guest workers” who are invited to help the local people by reducing their burden. As Walzer proposes, in a democratic state, if citizens want to bring in new workers, they must be prepared to enlarge their own membership; if they are unwilling to accept new members, they must find ways within the limits of the domestic labour market to get socially necessary work done. Do Hong Kong people have the openness to treat the migrant workers as real members of our society?
Moreover, many people overlook that these jobs are tedious, demanding jobs that very few local workers are willing to do. The live-in workers are on-call 24-hours a day and usually have to take care of the senior or youngest members of the family. While the existence of the domestic helpers allows many female members of the family to work in the society and develop their careers, the domestic workers themselves are the ones who always face unfair treatment, sexual and physical harassment, and exploitation in terms of money and holidays. In some extreme situations, they are like slaves living in private settings. Representatives of the employers also recognized that the daily working hours maybe as high as sixteen hours; if they share the same hourly minimum wage as local labor, their wages become unaffordable to many employers. The opinion itself indeed reflects the inhumane long working hours and the unfair low income of the migrant domestic helpers. Their race, class and sex make them vulnerable in the working place. Thus, there is an urgent need to enact laws to protect the rights of the migrant domestic workers and the minimum wage is an important step. In fact, foreign domestic helper unions only request a minimum monthly salary of about HK$4,000 to 4,800 (US$520 to 616), and that the daily working hours be confined within eight hours. This is not demanding and worthy to be considered.
Before the minimum wage bill being formally tabled in the Legislative Council, there will be a period of time for the society to discuss it and share opinions. I encourage more employers of migrant domestic workers as well as other local people to think about these two concerns from the standpoints of the local low income class and the migrant domestic workers. We can try to think from their positions. Do we expect to receive such a low income which cannot provide a decent life for our family despite our hard work? If we are the migrant domestic workers, do you want to be excluded from the society? Are we willing to work for such long hours but have the so-called minimum wage for us be reduced arbitrarily whenever the government wants to do so? If the above answers are negative, you should express your opinions to the government to show your concern and care for these most vulnerable members of our society.
note
[1] Gini Coefficient is the mathematical measure of income distribution that uses 0 to indicate perfect equality and 1 to indicate perfect inequality, named for Italian statistician Corrado Gini. The United Nations Development Program ranked countries and regions based on a number of factors, including their Gini coefficient.
(published on newsletter of the Hong Kong Christian Newsletter 2009 Decemeber Issue)
