Resisting government labelling and engaging the community: The ‘March For Protection’ in Hong Kong
May 18, 2013
Francesco Vecchio and Cosmo Beatson write for the Oxford Monitor of Forced Migration, an independent, student run publication that moves to engage with various aspects of forced migration through academic scholarship. The original article is available in the Oxford Monitor of Forced Migration, Volume 3, Number 1.
This article intends to analyse an event that revealed new avenues for Hong Kong’s civil society to counter the government’s attempt to negate asylum seekers’ individual agency and the government’s opposition towards a comprehensive asylum policy. This article outlines the context which led to the organisation of the ‘March For Protection’ on 30 October 2012.In doing so, it aims to offer a starting point to explore and debate the march’s rationale, attainments and, more generally, civil society’s relationship with state power.
Asylum seekers in Hong Kong recently grabbed the headlines with a protest march in which they demanded fairer screening and rebuffed official and public views that generally depict them as bogus claimants. In the wake of the ‘March For Protection’ (MFP) and widespread English-language press coverage highlighting the difficulties asylum seekers face in the territory (for example Chiu, 2012a; SCMP Editorial, 2012; Kennedy, 2013; Yeung, 2013), civil society and UNHCR Hong Kong’s head-of-office called forcefully for local authorities to accede to the 1951 Refugee Convention (Chiu, 2012b; Read, 2013) and address current procedural shortcomings (Daly, 2012; Vision First, 2013a).
Hong Kong is a Special Administrative Region of the People’s Republic of China. Under the ‘one country, two systems’ policy, it enjoys relatively broad administrative independence in immigration policy. While it is not our intention to delve into China/Hong Kong relations, we note that although the mainland signed the 1951 Refugee Convention and provisions for refugees were included in domestic law, Hong Kong has instead firmly resisted its extension to the territory (Loper, 2010). Nonetheless, the city is a signatory to the 1984 Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT), and a two-track asylum screening system is available to refugees. On the one hand, UNHCR performs refugee screening. On the other, the Hong Kong Government assesses claims under article 3 of CAT, which prohibits the removal of a person to the country where s/he would face torture or other cruel treatment. In spite of its potential to minimise mistakes, this bifurcated asylum reality has been said to give rise to procedural confusion, delays and a wasteful duplication of resources. In fact, refugees’ concurrent or sequential reliance on both mechanisms, affects the understandings of asylum seeking. Additionally, public policy is shaped by Hong Kong’s memory of dramatic mainlander and Vietnamese refugee inflows in the past (Vecchio, forthcoming). The government has repeatedly asserted that were Hong Kong to accede to the 1951 Refugee Convention, the city would be flooded by waves of illegal migrants posing as asylum seekers to gain entrance and exploit local prosperity (see for example discussions in the Hong Kong Legislative Council, LG, 2011).
There are indications that this and other misconceptions are widespread in the community. A typical statement in this direction was made by scholar Victor Fung (2012), who recently alerted the readers of China Daily that waves of ‘economic migrants’ would inundate the city, working illegally to support their families back home. In his reply to UNHCR’s appeal, Fung warned that were Hong Kong to accede to the 1951 Refugee Convention, the territory would be doomed to ‘sink’ into the harbour and ‘drown’. However, the reasons why such a catastrophic scenario would inevitably unfold were not disclosed. As often happens (see Tao, 2009), the rationale supporting official propaganda on the formation of the Refugee Convention/illegal migration nexus is rarely elucidated, giving us the impression that certain beliefs have become so profoundly ingrained in Hong Kong’s mindset that they amount to tautological truths. While proponents offer no evidence to support the formulation of their views, any attempt to negate them is resisted no matter what evidence is presented to refute their validity.
Click “Read More” below for the full article
University of Hong Kong “Refugee Experience”
May 16, 2013
The University of Hong Kong’s Centre for Comparative and Public Law (CCPL) within the Faculty of Law approached Vision First to organize a real life experiential learning opportunity for their students. Considered “a day in the life of an asylum advocate”, this opportunity is open to LLB, JD and LLM students who want to learn firsthand about asylum seekers and the challenges they face in Hong Kong. This practical experience will introduce law students to the challenges of seeking refuge from the prospective of aid workers, duty lawyers and refugees themselves. The goal is to expose future lawyers to the reality of asylum that for most remains a theoretical concept, far removed from the challenges and hardships of the process. Through this workshop, students will have a better idea of the struggles that refugees/CAT claimants face, as well as the work dedicated advocates do in the areas of refugee support, protection and rights.
In a city that refugees have described as “a prison without walls”, Vision First has emerged as the watchdog for refugee rights. Those who fear harm in their countries, turn to our organization to counter the structures of injustice and abuse that fetter their existence. Vision First’s leadership in advocacy was evidenced by the latest “March for Protection” in which 800 refugees, asylum seekers and torture claimants protested against a .02% protection rate in 21 years since the Convention Against Torture was extended to Hong Kong. With over 500 refugee members, Vision First is a unique organization where programs, classes and services are deployed to assist the most vulnerable individuals in society. Prohibited from working and provided with insufficient in-kind assistance and no financial aid, refugees scrape through to survive in our expensive city. Effectively reduced to a combination of begging (legally) and working (illegally) to eke out an existence, refugees are criminalized by draconian laws and demonized by government propaganda that brands them economic migrants at best, and criminals deserving deportation at worst. We will prove how grossly unreasonable, and therefore unlawful, this is.
The complexity of the refugee experience will be examined over three full days with the equivalent of 1.5 days spent with Vision First.
- 5 JUNE 2013, AM: Vision First’s centre. Students will be introduced to operations that serve over 50 members daily, including: Hong Kong’s only refugee shelter, case work, class schedule, donation networks, community participation programs, as well as paralegal, education, medical and counselling work. Supported by 90 volunteers who provided 15,000 hours of service in 2012, and distributing over 100,000 HKD in financial aid a month, Vision First is a vibrant agency that serves a vital role in the community.
- 5 JUNE 2013, PM: The second part of the day will be directed by a barrister who is well-known for his robust defense of torture claimants. He will expose the shortcomings of a screening mechanism that accepted only four cases in two decades. Examples will be given about duty lawyers who wholly failed their clients due to negligence in terms of legal representation and research. Case history will stress how important COI research is for effective representation and how issues of trust, trauma and PTSD challenge the recollection of events.
- 6 JUNE 2013, PM: A field trip to the shantytowns hundreds of refugees call home. The students will witness the squalid living conditions that are effectively government sponsored. Students will hear firsthand from refugees about the hardships refugees have endured while waiting in limbo for years, even a decade, as a “Culture of Rejection” frustrates their legitimate demands, in hopes refugees will give up and stop bothering Hong Kong’s affluent citizens and their indifferent administrators.
By the end, it is expected that a street-smart, accurate picture will emerge of an asylum process that is at odds with the lofty ideals students encounter in legal textbooks. This program is a valuable experience for tomorrow’s asylum lawyers – and possibly magistrates and judges – to learn how procedural failures tragically affect the lives of those our laws were enacted to protect. The responsibility will then be upon the participants themselves to influence the change they wish to see in our society.
A PDF of this article is available here and the call for application is here.
ISS shares the blame with refugees forced to work
May 15, 2013
Yesterday we visited the Compound under the Tree with a leading journalist and a human rights barrister in preparation for an upcoming high level inspection. We were surprise to encounter a delegation from International Social Services (ISS) who finally deemed an inspection appropriate. These fine social workers asked constructive questions, but we wonder if they asked themselves, “Would I live here? Are these structures legal? What housing regulations do they breach?” Later we took our VIPs to see another compound which we expect ISS will want to visit next week. Our Bangladeshi friends were clearly angry with ISS: they stomped the grounds expressing pent-up frustration and disappointment for being ignored for years. The tide is turning and ISS is now treating them with respect, knowing full well their salaries depend on how they treat clients who are effectively effects guest of Hong Kong government.
Later in the evening shocking news circulated: Dadu was arrested in the afternoon working in a nearby warehouse. A Bangladeshi father of two, Dadu sought asylum in 2007 with solid grounds for a torture/CIDTP claim. In fact, he would certainly win protection with the right lawyer. Occasionally he is forced to breach his conditions of stay to earn money he needs to live. Critics might argue that there is never a justification for breaking the law, but we can reasonably contend the opposite. Forced to live in a squalid shack – where snakes slither uninvited – Dadu is a victim of unreasonable, and therefore unlawful, policies that strangle his existence. It is our opinion that ISS is equally culpable for his troubles, as they are mandated to execute the government’s asylum strategy. Let’s examine the financial reality Dadu shares with some 200 refugees living in Ping Che rural area:
- to keep a shantytown roof over their head they are charged 1400$, but ISS only pays 1000-1200$. These are the cheapest rooms anywhere, but without income, how does ISS expect them to pay the balance? Would ISS staff please show refugees where and how to collect the difference?
- to keep utilities running landlords extort 800$ a month, but ISS pays them nothing. Note that all refugees in Kowloon receive 130$ for electricity and 60$ for water every month. Why does ISS discriminate against rural refugees living in shacks? What does ISS do to counter these extortionary, undocumented utility bills?
- to collect government food in Yuen Long they spend 28$, but ISS refunds 10$ expecting them to walk through fields for thirty minutes to catch a cheaper bus in another village, rain or shine. Why does ISS impose unnecessary hardship by demanding unreasonable routes? Would ISS staff like to hike to a distant bus terminal with these refugees?
- to attend Immigration at Mataukok they spend 45$, but ISS refunds only 35$ (one guy only gets 33$). No explanation is given. No alternative route suggested. Months of pleads fall on deaf ears. Why does ISS deliberately throw roadblocks in their way? Would ISS staff like to cut 10$ from their commute to work?
- to cook their food they need a gas cylinder ever two months, but ISS allows the purchase every four months (one guy gets it every five months). Note that all refugees in Kowloon are paid every two months. How does ISS expect them to cook and eat? Would ISS staff like to demonstrate how to cook for five months with one cylinder?
- all ISS clients lament that refunds are made the subsequent month, if not later, so refugees must pre-pay essential needs while barred from working. While receipts are understandably required, why doesn’t ISS prepay once so that clients have cash on hand?
These examples demonstrate that Ping Che refugees are discriminated against by ISS. They should receive adequate social provisions that prevent destitution. They are not economic migrants who work to send money home. They are refugees seeking international protection who are forced to raise the money needed to survive. Dadu barely eked out an existence. He took the risk of 15 months jail (22 months for pleading non-guilty and 15 for guilty) to keep a roof over his head because he simply HAD NO ALTERNATIVE. The government will enter his details in statistics misconstrued to prove refugees are economic migrant, but truly what choice did he have? Dadu is older than average, smart and thoughtful. He is not a reckless individual. By going to work yesterday, he lost his freedom for 15 months in an attempt to pay his bills. Nobody who understands his living conditions could ever say that his motivation was profit, or greed.
If ISS provided adequate support – instead of depriving Ping Che refugees – it is likely that Dadu would be sleeping in the government sanctioned shantytown - not in jail. The asylum support system is rigged against refugees who are forced to work by the financial pressure imposed on them. One could argue that current social provisions are intentionally designed to force illegality, to criminalize and trigger deportation orders before genuine claims are determined. In other democracies one is fined for working in breach of conditions of stay, not jailed for over one year for a day’s labour. It is our opinion that ISS is complicit. Their policies impose a hardship that can only be countered by earning wages. ISS is therefore accessory to Dadu’s crime, having generated the conditions that contributed to his decision. They might not have been present at the commission of the offence, but are guilty as participants, as their negligent, harmful policies push refugees over the edge. Refugees united, look forward to the day when ISS is summoned to a Legco panel and to the high court to explain the rationale behind their inhuman policies.
We expect ISS to scramble their staff to inspect this compound next week
Border Criminologies: reporting from Hong Kong
May 13, 2013
Border Criminologies reports on the March for Protection 2
On 27 April 2013 about 800 asylum seekers and torture claimants marched through the streets of Hong Kong to protest the government’s failure to recognize their claims for protection. Pointing out that the current .02% recognition rate of torture claimants lags behind that of liberal democracies with similar refugee demographics, protesters demanded fair screening. They also criticized other socio-legal barriers that asylum seekers face, challenge and clash with on a daily basis while their cases are under review.
Asylum seekers in Hong Kong are not afforded legal status and are forbidden from working. Yet, they are released in society, provided minimal assistance inadequate for their most basic needs. Tissue, water, diapers and other essentials are not included in government provision, while transportation fees to attend interviews are disbursed in lump sums at the beginning of the subsequent month. Meals are also not provided when asylum seekers are required to wait lengthy periods and attend screening interviews. Most endure substandard living conditions, corralled into Hong Kong’s government-funded shantytowns, have been the subject of numerous visits from a concerned NGO.
The protest in April rejected the presumption that asylum seekers are deviant abusers laying siege to Hong Kong for profit. By pushing human rights issues into the political agenda, protesters identified a series of nodes around which activism and research might coalesce. Specifically, they demonstrated the salience of immigration status in any analysis of social inclusion and exclusion. Heavy criminal sentences face those who work, at the same time that the state provides no viable alternative means to survive or flourish. Such policies, protesters argued, have effectively transformed Hong Kong into a ‘prison without walls’ with minimal public debate. Civil society appears to have yielded to state power, accepting securitization discourses that reduce asylum seekers to deportable, yet exploitable labourers.
The April rally questioned the legitimacy of border control policies and practices that infringe upon state obligations under domestic and international law. By taking action, the men and women involved put a face to the grievances of refugees from two-dozen countries. Finally, by organizing a large public demonstration, protesters showed their capacity to negotiate socio-legal exclusion in an attempt to break free from the structural conditions that strangle their lives in ways those with legal status find hard to imagine. Whether their actions will be successful or not it remains to be seen, however the rally demonstrates that, at the very least, the will to resist border control in Hong Kong exists, and ought to be the subject of further academic research.
For more photos of the rally and information about the organisation supporting it see: http://visionfirstnow.org/advocacy/mfp2/
RTHK Kwok Talk: refugee women and family issues
May 10, 2013
Feeding Hong Kong features VF
May 9, 2013
Feeding Hong Kong charity spotlight – Thousands of people are forced to flee their homes every year, abandoning all they know and love to escape persecution. Scared, traumatised and in desperate need of aid, they arrive friendless in countries around the world, including Hong Kong. Vision First, which is based in Sai Ying Pun, works to ensure that they don’t remain friendless for long, stepping in to help feed, clothe and house these people as, now safe, they begin a new journey to rebuild their lives. Refugees cannot remain in Hong Kong and are resettled in another country once their claim for asylum has been processed. That can take several years and, finding a permanent country to call home, even longer. Refugees are not allowed to work. The government instead provides HK$1,200 for rent that is paid directly to landlords, limited groceries every 10 days and transport money. An additional HK$500 monthly allowance from the U.N. is due to end in June.
“With Feeding Hong Kong’s assistance, we can provide more food support to members,’’ said Cosmo Beatson, executive director at Vision First. “They often joke with reports about how `three tomatoes, two potatoes and a chicken’ have to last them for 10 days. FHK’s assistance helps everyone – and especially families – to supplement the little they receive.” Vision First supports more than 500 of these victims of circumstance, about 10 percent of the city’s refugee community. The charity offers practical aid such as food, shelter in the city’s only emergency accommodation for refugees, and access to doctors. Financial support of over HK$100,000 per month is also offered to families struggling to meet daily living expenses, while skills-enhancing workshops teach Cantonese, English, computing and other subjects to improve education and boost morale.
Volunteers form the backbone of Vision First’s efforts. Some 96 individuals committed their time to the charity last year, giving more than 15,000 hours to improve the lives of refugees. Feeding Hong Kong supplies Vision First and its beneficiaries with a delivery of mixed groceries every two weeks. The food is delivered to Vision First’s drop-in centre in Sai Ying Pun, helping the charity bolster the meals of refugees around the city and those staying in its shelter. “Your supplies provide bread, cereals, canned food and easy meals for those who have nothing but a bag to their name,’’ said Beatson. “When they move on to their own place, we are often told how the shelter was home, a safe place when they had none and a warm meal when they were hungry – FHK helps us make the difference.”
Apple Daily reports on the compound (31,863 online viewers)
May 9, 2013
Click above to read the article online
The compound under a tree
May 9, 2013
In the rural area around Ping Che (Fanling) live about 150 Bangladeshi asylum seekers and torture claimants who have nobody to turn to for help. There are also refugees of other nationalities residing in that area, but this community is suffering the worst conditions. Besides the issue that not a single Bangladeshi has been accepted as torture victim in 21 years, their appalling living conditions are a matter of social justice and human rights. The squalid reality of their shanty homes must be exposed for several reasons:
- Wasted years: some haven’t been contacted by Immigration in 6-7 years. Multiply 12,409 torture claimants (since 1992) by an average 4 year delay = 49,636 years. Divided this by an average lifetime of 75 years = 661 lives wasted waiting for ultimate rejection. The Immigration Department’s strategy is to force claimants to give up and leave in desperation. Justice delayed is justice denied.
- Exploitation: this landlord houses 12 distressed refugees to collect rent of 1200$ a month per person. There are no proper roofs or walls, yet he has installed electricity meters to make sure he earns a profit on their utility bills. Who authorized or allowed this to happen? The Agricultural Department wouldn’t permit a pig farm in these conditions!
- Dangerous conditions: lightning could strike the tree … rain and flooding could spark electrocution … gas cylinders could explode … the shanty homes could collapse in a storm, let alone in a typhoon. These shacks are not fit for human habitation and are infested by cats, insects, rodents and snakes. Yet a mother lives there with a baby! Who approved these homes?
- Unsanitary quarters: there is no plumbing or sewerage. Kitchens, showers and toilets flow into open conduits infested by insects, rodents and … disease. Residents wait for the rain to wash the ducts and outlets clean. Luggage is stored in the rafters, away from the damp floor. Who inspected these premises? Who has a duty to check refugee homes?
- Illegal structures: this yard is not zoned for residential use and the rooms do not meant any safety standard. The dwellings would never pass Land Department certification or Fire Department approval for any kind of use. Why are unscrupulous landlords lining their pockets with government rent assistance? Who authorized renting these rooms to refugees? Does ISS have actual or constructive knowledge of this?
- Public funds: Is this misappropriation of government funds? It appears that SWD (and their agent ISS) is unaware of these deplorable conditions. Is anyone complicit with those who profit from this arrangement? In 2012 ISS received 143 million HK$ to support refugees. ISS rejects substandard rooms in Chung King Mansions and Kowloon, but appear to turn a blind eye in the New Territories. Has ISS visited these homes? Are these inhuman conditions approved by ISS? Could this be a deliberate strategy to marginalize and frustrate refugees?
- Criminalization: fearful of draconian sentences for illegal work (15 month jails for pleading guilty and 22 months for not guilty), the financial tourniquet cripples refugees’ survival strategies. However, we note that seeking physical security from persecution as well as economic opportunities in a country of asylum can hardly be regarded as incompatible objectives for poverty stricken refugees. What options do refugees have? How are they expected to survive?
This compound under a tree is one of several similar structures that house refugees in the Ping Che rural area. There are other shanty complexes scattered across the New Territory, particularly near Nai Wai, Kam Tin and in the Pat Heung hills. These dirty and dangerous shacks are unfit for living. Their use as permanent PAID homes for refugees must be exposed as a matter of social justice. What honour is there in offering protection with one hand, while strangling refugees with the other? Vision First strongly objects to ISS’ decision to limit rent to 1200 HK$, without paying deposits for poverty stricken refugees who are not allowed to work. Critics will argue that residents on CSSA receive similar amounts. However, CSSA recipients enjoy supplement payments and may work any time for a minimum wage of 32 HK$/hour, without fearing imprisonment for a maximum of 36 months and a 50,000 HK$ fine. Refugees - cursed by the Hong Kong reality – are damned if they work and damned if they don’t! Vision First believes this situation is an affront to Hong Kong citizens who have put their fate in the government to do what is right and dignified in refugee policies. Let us not forsake our humanity.
Click the photo to view a visual report on conditions inside the compound