Does an Expat Package Indicate Racism?
Calling a law that requires employers to justify what they are offering to overseas employees an “anti-racism” law has me confused. Anything that benefits one race over another is by definition racist. The proposed law would not allow an employer to offer generous benefits such as housing, education, etc. unless they can prove that such expertise is not available locally. It is obviously aimed at U.S. and European and perhaps Japanese, companies that want to bring in their own people and have traditionally offered them certain benefits to make the overseas posting attractive.
It appears to me that the assumption behind this law is that the company in question would rather pay a “white” person more money than an equally qualified local person. This is, on its face, a ridiculous assumption. How does it benefit a company to pay more to someone who is their own race or nationality if they can get the same job done locally for less? Therefore, the people behind this bill are racist in their assumptions. They assume that Western Companies would rather hire a “white” person or Japanese companies a Japanese than a local no matter what the cost to their budget and profits. What happened to the free market here in business-friendly Hong Kong?
More on this tomorrow.