********************************************************
Following is a reply by the Secretary for Security, Mr Ambrose S K Lee, to a question by the Dr Hon Margaret Ng in the Legislative Council today (April 29):
Question:
It was uncovered recently that an Under Secretary only submitted his business card bearing his office title when he was required by the Immigration Department (ImmD) to provide the proof of his financial position in respect of the application for his foreign domestic helper (FDH) to continue to work in Hong Kong, and ImmD subsequently approved the application. The incident has aroused the public's grave concern about the conduct of that official and ImmD's way of handling the application. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council whether:
(a) the employer of a FDH must submit the proof of his financial position to ImmD before ImmD approves the application for his FDH to continue to work in Hong Kong; if not, of the reasons for that, and the channels through which ImmD verifies whether the employer's financial position meets the application requirements; and
(b) ImmD will accept the business card of the employer of a FDH as the sole proof of his financial position; if so, how ImmD verifies the information of the employer as stated on the business card?
Reply:
President,
If a foreign domestic helper wishes to renew the employment contract with the employer, the employee must lodge an application with the Immigration Department (ImmD). In assessing such applications, ImmD normally requires the employers to furnish relevant supporting documents, including the employment contracts notarised by appropriate consulates in Hong Kong (if so required by the relevant consulates); proof of the employers' residential addresses; and financial proof of the employers. In certain cases, officers at or above the rank of Senior Immigration Officer of ImmD may exercise discretion to waive a particular documentary requirement, after having fully considered the available supporting documents and supplementary information of individual applications, and are satisfied that the applications meet all the essential assessment criteria.
I must emphasise that the premise for the exercise of the discretion is that, the applicants must satisfy ImmD the relevant applications have met all the essential criteria, including that the employers are financially capable to fulfill the employment contracts.
I will not comment on the details of individual cases. Nor do I wish to spell out on behalf of ImmD what constitutes an acceptable supporting document or supplementary information. Some Members have misinterpreted this remark. What I intend to point out is that in exercising discretion, ImmD officers will make their professional judgment in individual cases as to which information can satisfy them that the applications meet the relevant requirements. But I trust that ImmD will not rely solely on the employer's name card to decide whether the employer's financial position or other circumstances have met the essential assessment criteria. As I have just explained, officers conferred with the authority to exercise discretion will carefully consider the circumstances of each application before they exercise discretion to make final decision.
Ends/Wednesday, April 29, 2009
Issued at HKT 18:17
NNNN
