I think a lot of opinions are not focusing on the real underlying issue but instead on what we should call it.
LEPs and those expats in support of LEPs striving for better conditions, but oppose to LEPs receiving a 'housing allowance', are essentially in favour of the same thing: to narrow the gap in money earned over a 20-30 year career. It just so happens that the difference in the amount we earn IS the housing allowance expats receive. If the company agrees to pay LEPs an amount of money which would fully or partially narrow this gap but on the condition that it must be called something other than a 'housing allowance', I'm quite certain no LEPs would object to it. We are not demanding to be treated as 'expats', we just think the company should not pay us so much less than some other employee who is making the same amount of contribution throughout our careers.
I think it is exactly the company's strategy to tie up all arguments to the term 'housing allowance'. Instead of addressing the issue of whether a 70% gap (60%, 80%, whatever) in money earned over 30 years is equitable or not, the company as well as colleagues wishing to maintain this disparity simplistically brand this difference the cost the company needs to pay in order to attract expats.
To my colleagues who argue that the housing allowance should just be for HK based expats and seem even to be offended by the LEPs' quest for better pay, the question I would like to put to you is: Is it the amount of money the company pays you which persuades you to continue working here, or is it the knowledge that you are paid a certain amount more than LEPs which convinces you that you are paid what you are worth?