Captain:

Today, I shall talk about two things: firstly, the mechanism of our side of the motion, and secondly
why is it principally justified to do give domestic helpers the choice of whether they will stay or not
stay with their employer.

The model we are going to propose today gives domestic helpers the choice to choose whether they
will live with their employer of not whether they will or will not is purely defined by the contract
whose terms are decided between a consensual agreement between the employer and the
employee.

Because of how this decision must be consensual, helpers and employers will be given a more
informed, fairer choice under our paradigm. Because helpers and employers can now reject and find
the client that satisfies each of their requirements.

Why is this principally justified? The contractual obligation of a helper is to basically fulfil her job of
serving the role of helping with common household chores and to take of minors when the
independents, on other words the parents, are not around. Since fundamentally whether the
helper lives with or without the family does not infringe upon her effectiveness of doing her job, we
see no problem with allowing this to pass. Additionally, as we have emphasized, this is a choice: if
the parents so desire a helper who will live with the family because of convenience, economical or
safety reasons, then the family have the ability to look for a helper who will satisfy that requirement,
and vice versa.

Secondly, what this motion does is that it opens up doors of possibilities that would vastly improve
the conditions, well-being and efficiency of both the helper and the employer. For the helper, he/she
now has the option to move away from the employer: what this grants, for helpers that desire it,
free time and social interaction. By moving away from the strains, pressures and isolation of the
their workplace, helpers can now sustain a relatively more healthier and socially active lifestyle.
What this does is that their quality of life is increased, and also their general work attitude is
improved: a helper who has friends, and social gatherings to look forward at night, is a better and
more zealous helper compared to a lonely helper constantly perturbed by the screams of a child she
has to take care of.

Employers now also have the option to not live with their helpers, which, under the status quo, is a
must, for under the current Hong Kong law there is no CHOICE, and employers must provide leaving
spaces for their helpers. Land is a precious and expensive commodity in Hong Kong many families
may not have the ability to provide a special room for a domestic helper. Some may also want to
spend quality time with their own family, in the absence of a helper, and in both cases, by providing
a choice, the relationships between the employer and helper are improved greatly, and the liberty
this choices provides only contributes towards changes for the better.

Hence, because of the reasons above, this motion must and will stand.