Letters to the Editor, April 22, 2013

I refer to John Shannon's letter ("Strange silence on right of abode ruling", April 16) in which he stated that the decision in the foreign domestic helpers' right of abode case was unjust.

I don't think the Court of Final Appeal's decision can be rightly criticised as unjust; the court only did what it is meant to do: apply the law to the facts in order to reach a decision.

In the ordinary course of matters, the Court of Final Appeal does not make or change the law; that is the responsibility of the Legislative Council.

If there is to be any criticism of unjustness in relation to the immigration status of foreign domestic helpers, it should be directed at Legco, not the court. That said, I still doubt that the exclusion of foreign domestic helpers from right of abode in Hong Kong can be considered unjust in any way.

Leaving aside the technical arguments about what "ordinarily resident" means, foreign domestic helpers are aware before arrival in Hong Kong that they are expected to return to their country of origin once their contract is completed.

This awareness comes from, among the other restrictions placed on them, their express undertaking to the Immigration Department that they have no intention not to return to their respective home countries and that they will depart Hong Kong upon completion of their contracts. There is nothing unjust in requiring them to keep their word.