Job Discussion Forums

[bliksem]

hi there - someone mentioned this in another thread but I had some questions and thought I'd get a few more responses this way.

The law basically says that anyone coming in after 1 Jul 2003 won't be abe to work on a dependency visa.

First question is - would this mean that anyone coming into HK on a DVisa [although the term would be obsolete...] would only be allowed to work via a permanent employer/sponsor [as I don't see many PTime employers offering sponsorship - actually none]?

Would this also mean that the only people allowed [legally] to take up PT jobs would have to be the ones who had a DV before Jul 1, as I believe that you are only allowed to work for your sponsor?

If this is the case I see some interesting times ahead for the various centres and tutoring schools scattered all over HK who depend on people who are able to work for them and a few others, a few hours a week and in doing so build up their total amount of hours.

I also see the whole thing going more underground than it already is at present - at the moment only the agencies offering $50 - $120 per hour [yes there are a few!] don't really mind who they get and don't ask too many questions about visas.

The ones who pay around $300 per hour do care - or so it seems, maybe they just take your word, I don't know - so for these it would seem that their supply of legal PTimers will decline rapidly in the coming months.

Are these assumptions correct? If there is anyone with an opinion [or some concrete info on this] I would really like to know as it seems we're in for some interesting times ahead -

which brings me to the whole article 23 thing and if were going to have a load of people working borderline illegal within the next few months and the bill goes through - there are going to be a few doors kicked in in the middle of the night

Disclaimer: My knowledge of article 23 stretches as far as a pub conversation during happy hour - so basically I think it is China going back on their word of leaving HK be for 50 years and wanting control now. What most people agree on is that there is so much room for interpretation that anything seems to be possibly seditious.

Basically what I would like to know is what is going to happen in your opinion -
everyone goes illegal PT because the supply and demand will stay as is [or increase]
or they clamp down and the centres have to hire Ftime - but this is something they can't do at present as most PTimers would not qualify for a work visa anyway?

The whole dilemma seems very Chinese now that I think about it...

[dandan]

I'm glad you put in the disclaimer about not knowing what you're talking about! Article 23 is not China going back on it's promise before the handover, the introduction of anti-sedition legislation was part of the handover agreement. The debate is about whether now is the right time to introduce it and the details of the legislation and whether it leaves too many grey areas which the HK govt. could abuse if it wanted to (and whether it would). I personally am against Article 23 as it stands.

As to your fantasy about Article 23 being used in respect of hunting down rogue NETs and kicking your door down in the middle of the night I think you have a rather exagerrated view of your importance in the world! The Article 23 debate is about freedom of information and expression not about your mates' visas.

As far as the regs for dependant visas is concerned I have no idea, but perhaps a call to immigration might furnish the info?

[Roger]

A note just on the margin of this lively debate:
Hong Kong's cops already have the power to search flats, and they do make good or bad use of it as they deem fit! I know this because they came several times to the flat I lived in in Causeway Bay before the end of 2000; they normally arrived at 5 a.m.
And I experienced it in cheap guesthouses too!
In this regard, they even have more power than their mainland counterparts! They have for decades been hunting down illegal immigrants. SInce 1997, this has become one of their priorities.
As for the dependent's visa: no clue!

[dandan]

Next time you come to HK Roger, don't rent a flat above a brothel again. I know it's convenient for you but it ain't worth the hassle!

[Marcoregano]

Back to the Dvisa issue....I've not heard of these changes. Presumably they only relate to NEW arrivals? I've been working here on a Dvisa (through my wife's NET contract) for the last 4 years, and it's up for renewal this summer. If my Dvisa isn't renewed....I'm in *beep* street.

[bliksem]

Yes MarcoR, I think if you received your DV before July this year you are kind of grandparented and should not have any problems - then again this was someone's opinion of a fact they might have heard from someone who knows....all said in a pub....so...

If that is true I'm fine as well - that's why I'm wondering about what will happen - will this mean that we as DV-holders will be the only ones in HK who can work PT legally?

As I have done my fair share of illegal work in some countries I have no problem with someone doing the same - it just interests me that now if someone advertises for a PT job only people who have been here after July this year would be able to apply for it - [strictly speaking of course].

But then again - as someone pointed out, the powers that be have bigger fish to fry than a few people trying to bring the joy of English to the good people of Sheng Shui on a Saturday morning...

Just out of curiosity, are there any NET's coming over with dependents who would have changed there mind knowing this in advance?

When we came over in January we didn't even bother to check that I would be able to work on my wife's visa - that would have been a nice surprise at the Twin Towers

[Roger]

Dandan,
this remark of yours was totally unwarranted and a total disservice to anyone who comes to Hong Kong! I have posted my former landlady's address on request by people who were interested in a nice temporary shelter in Hong Kong, and when they did take up residency with this lady, they also posted their kudos on Dave's. My former landlady certainly does not deserve to be slandered this way, mate!
Her guesthouse is in a 10-floor Causeway Bay block, a most respectable environment with interesting tourist sites and excellent shopping malls in the vicinity.
I can take your blow, but this totally defenceless woman can't, and that's why I deem you an immoral moron!

[Marcoregano]

Bliksem....many part-timers in HK are on work visas directly sponsored by their employer. I imagine that this will continue....as will a fair number of those who work here illegally. Mind you, quite a few 'illegals' have left over the last few months....the first 'employment victims' of the SARS/economic crisis.

[dandan]

Well I thought it was funny! Guess I'd better stick to the melon jokes in future.

[Gilly23]

so your saying that if i get my dependant visa now i wont be able to work!