You either rob or you find a job. He took up employment, and was arrested for it.
協助Dilan的Vision First總裁Cosmo Beatson，指目前難民每月只收到$1200租務援助，另加每日$30食物費用。他反問：「你可以用三十蚊生存到一日嗎？如果你唔夠錢用，一係去搶、一係去打工。他們選擇了去打工，為什麼咁都要被人拉？」義工Lai Win Phyu，記述陪Dilini去醫院照超聲波。同是來自斯里蘭卡，Dilan的太太Dilini已懷孕。患有糖尿病的她，一個人帶著兩歲大的女兒滯留香港。Dilini的孩子天生心漏，即心裡穿了一個洞。她們去醫院，是為了尋找證據，證明Dilini的危險情況，希望可以讓醫生在法庭的求情信中寫一段，說明她需要人照顧，求法庭不要判她的丈夫入獄，或起碼上訴期間可以保釋。沒有香港人身份，令她在香港求診極度困難，到終於有醫生好心為她寫了報告，Dilini滿懷希望來到法庭，法庭卻對內容不屑一顧，認為她只須向坊間協助難民的NGO求助，孩子無需爸爸。即使到入境處見主任，入境處的保安對著她這樣一個孕婦，亦如見乞兒見狗一樣呼喝。義工記述，曾見過法官向一個難民父親大喝：「你的妻子為何懷孕？你不應該在這裡有孩子！你們這些人，就是香港的負累。」
打一日工 14個月監禁 上訴期間不准保釋
每天$30食物費，每個月$1200租津，不准打劫，更不准打工。打劫會拉，打工也會拉，判刑分分鐘可能差不多。程序就是，無身分證所以孕婦也不可以看醫生；法律就是，無家難民唯一的收容所，便是監獄。Dilan被關之後幾晚，懷孕Dilini在家中穿了羊水，身邊無人，只有兩歲的女兒。她失去知覺了幾個鐘，又或者一晚，但無人知曉。最後她終能叫了救護車，但到達醫院時，她子宮的感染已危及嬰兒安全，醫生必須為兩條命施以緊急手術。義工Lai Win Phyu的記述中，最後並沒有說到孩子最後怎樣。法庭記者沒有問。我們也許亦不想知道。
To the media: Robert Tibbo is not talking to the press at the moment. You are welcome to email your requests to email@example.com. Tibbo is a remarkable human rights lawyer who treats each of his clients with the deep respect and consideration. We have no doubt he gave Edward Snowden no special treatment while offering him the best legal advice in his darkest days.
To understand his work and spirit, please read this Vision First article. On 18 June, Vision First lead 40 refugee and family members to support Tibbo at the high court. Regrettably his bail application for a Srilankan refugees – arrested for working illegally when he had no means to survive – was inexorably dismissed. Nevertheless, it is significant in a media storm over one VIP client, Tibbo fought the court’s intransigence and prejudice against a nameless refugee with maximum conviction. We were indeed privileged to witness a human rights fighter stepping into the river of injustice just to be pummelled by the system of oppression that shows no leniency or understanding towards those seeking international protection in Hong Kong.
Despite greater preoccupations, Tibbo inspired us with his tenacity, the one attribute that sets true advocates apart from those who abuse this title by siding comfortably with the establishment. Fighting for justice takes courage and determination, attributes that Tibbo has in spades. It’s no surprise that Edward Snowden chose Tibbo from among 7,000 solicitors and barristers in Hong Kong. At Vision First everyone knows that he will compromise nothing to safeguard the rights of those fighting for their rights. We couldn’t be prouder to have him on the Vision First board of directors, tirelessly advising and strengthening our pursuit of justice to improve refugee conditions in Hong Kong. This is the spirit that animates Vision First and forges our friendship with Robert Tibbo – thank you.
Lana Lam writes for South China Morning Post on 23 June 2013
Two lawyers specialising in human rights cases – including the secret 2004 rendition of a Libyan man and his family from Hong Kong to Tripoli by US and British spies – have revealed themselves as Edward Snowden’s legal team in Hong Kong. Barrister Robert Tibbo and solicitor Jonathan Man confirmed they were brought in to represent Snowden about two weeks ago and were kept in close contact with the whistle-blower during his stay in Hong Kong. On Sunday night, as Snowden was due to land in Russia, Tibbo spoke for the first time about the high-profile case. “Snowden left Hong Kong today through legal, legitimate means and the proper immigration channels,” he told the South China Morning Post.
“We have been acting for Snowden for the past two weeks.” Tibbo would not comment further on Snowden’s plans but it is understood the former CIA technician turned whistle-blower will travel onwards to another country. Wikileaks has confirmed it helped Snowden find “political asylum in a democratic country”. Man, an associate at Ho, Tse, Wai & Partners, is part of the legal team planning to sue the Hong Kong government over its role in the rendition of a Libyan dissident and his family to Tripoli. Sami al-Saadi claims security officials in Hong Kong conspired with US, British and Libyan spies in 2004 to send him and his family to Tripoli where they were tortured and persecuted by former dictator Muammar Gaddafi. Tibbo specialises in human rights with a focus on torture and refugee cases as well as constitutional and criminal law. He is a non-executive director of Vision First, an NGO which advocates for the rights of refugees and asylum seekers in Hong Kong and has been based here for the past 23 years. [erratum: 4 years]
A Bangladeshi refugee rests under an altar for Chinese gods in front of his shack rented from a Chinese landlord inside a quarters at the rural Ping Chi in Hong Kong’s New Territories June 19, 2013. According to Vision First, a local non-governmental organization (NGO) supporting Hong Kong-based refugees, about 150 Bangladeshi asylum seekers and torture claimants reside in that area, suffering one of the worst conditions among thousands of refugees in the territory. Refugees in Hong Kong are not allowed to work, with the government paying HK$1,200 ($154) rent directly to the landlord. - REUTERS/Bobby Yip
Cosmo Beatson and Francesco Vecchio write for South China Morning Post on 20 June 2013
The world is wondering why Edward Snowden chose Hong Kong in his darkest hour. Was this the safest bet? Will he seek asylum? How will this espionage thriller develop? Although Hong Kong is widely credited for its rule of law, there is a rampant divergence between jurisprudence and reality. To illustrate this dislocation, imagine an alien from outer space researching refugee rights here. He would learn about laws that offer protection and would probably admire the justice and human rights enshrined in such legislation. “Here is a place that welcomes refugees!” he would exclaim. Our alien wouldn’t realise that asylum seekers are actually treated no differently than illegal immigrants, endure chronic poverty and are marginalised without adequate social provision. Thousands of asylum seekers denied a fair chance to prove their bona fides in Hong Kong. Lo and behold, an alien has landed and his name is Edward Snowden.
Would alien Snowden’s experience be different from that of thousands of others who wait years for a decision on their asylum claim? Would Hong Kong roll out the red asylum carpet? Perhaps Snowden could peruse newspaper stories for a glimpse of reality. A recent article on refugees’ appalling living conditions in Ping Che was railed at by readers who overlooked such dreadful, government-sanctioned slums, because they label refugees as economic migrants. Regrettably, they also blame organisations like Vision First for advancing refugees’ rights and humanitarian needs. It’s hard to predict what Snowden’s next move might be. If he seeks asylum, he probably won’t be accused of fabricating or exaggerating fears of persecution. Few are as famous, resourceful and articulate. And nobody has unleashed a media storm like this one before. By contrast, the stark reality couldn’t be more different for thousands of asylum seekers denied a fair chance to prove their bona fides in Hong Kong.
The truth is that Snowden is a privileged American, while asylum seekers generally flee developing countries, are penniless and must work illegally to make ends meet. While presumably he has money to pay hotel bills, less celebrated asylum seekers sleep in slum-like conditions – if not homeless at the Star Ferry. Vision First advocates the principle that every asylum claim is genuine until all legal remedies are exhausted. In the interim, asylum seekers should benefit from the rights and privileges enjoyed by all citizens, because economic expectations are hardly incompatible with seeking asylum. Alien Snowden would be dismayed to learn how asylum seekers are trapped in a socio-legal space where their constitutional rights are negated by repressive policies designed to encourage “voluntary” departures. Afforded only minimal assistance, claimants are forced to work illegally, fostering the perception they are criminals rather than victims, untrustworthy rather than credible. Such unjustified misconceptions underplay cases of merit and undermine survival strategies compelled by the lack of legal access to labour markets. Asylum seekers survive with monthly assistance worth HK$1,000 to HK$1,200 for rent and HK$900 for groceries – amounts that haven’t been adjusted with inflation since 2006. For their daily needs, they dejectedly rely on the generosity of friends, but even the kindest supporter will eventually tire of helping the same people year after year. Soon, they figure out that wages earned in the informal economy are the only viable solution.
It’s unreasonable to expect asylum seekers to beg when it could take 10 years for their case to be determined. There are flaws in a system that purports to meet legal obligations, while upholding policies that appear aimed at discouraging asylum. Is Snowden ready to endure a process that accepted only four of 12,500 torture claims in two decades? We should be concerned about policies that collude with a despicable charade in which the trappings of justice are meticulously observed, while rights are systematically violated. Further, it is wholly unreasonable how the hardship of refugees is exacerbated by draconian prison sentences for working illegally. Punitive laws catch in one dragnet refugees who struggle to keep a roof over their head – often in a slum. The risk of eviction for failing to pay rent and utilities is as real for refugees as it is for everyone else confronted by spiralling costs. Chronic deprivation, however, is more devastating for refugees unable to survive with neither adequate support nor employment rights. Would policymakers please demonstrate how they are expected to survive? Would Snowden care to blow this whistle too?
Hong Kong refugees are both demonised as illegal immigrants and criminalised for eking out a miserable existence. Sandwiched between an effective zero acceptance rate and inhuman living conditions, this gross injustice will eventually shatter Snowden’s illusion that the rule of law still governs the Fragrant Harbour.
Simpson Cheung writes for South China Morning Post on 13 June 2013
Ailing asylum seekers and torture claimants still appealing against their unsuccessful applications to remain in the city say they are turning to hospital emergency services because they cannot get a waiver of their medical fees. They argue that as their applications are still open, they should continue to enjoy the waivers they were entitled to when they first applied for protection in Hong Kong. Otherwise, they can only resort to the city’s hospital emergency services, which treat patients first before asking for payment, they say. John (not his real name), 29, a Pakistani torture claimant, came down with fever last November, after his claim was rejected by the Immigration Department. Denied a medical fee waiver while his application for a judicial review was pending, he queued for hours at emergency services to receive treatment. After he was treated, he had no money to foot the bill, so “for two to three days, they [the hospital] kept calling me, saying, ‘your bill, your bill’,” he said. “Who can pay my bill?” He finally paid the HK$500 he owed the hospital after he was granted legal aid recently.
Mohamed Sultan, 57, a Sri Lankan who is appealing the rejection of his torture claim application, gets a waiver for his diabetes treatment. But he was not granted a waiver for getting his injuries treated after he was beaten up in the street in April. “My case was rejected, but I am still living legally in Hong Kong … Why don’t you give me a medical [waiver]?” he said. Mohamed Sultan has been here for more than eight years while his claim for protection because of torture in his home country is being investigated. He would rather be arrested so that he could enjoy free medical services in jail, he said. He still owes the hospital HK$1,730. Habibur Rahman, a Bangladeshi and father of two, took his son to a doctor last September because of a heart problem. But he was not granted a medical waiver because his torture claim had been rejected. As a result, he had to take the boy to a public hospital for emergency medical services instead. He still owes the hospital HK$600, he said. This year, Rahman applied for the government to reassess his case after a landmark court case last December that ruled officials should give equal weight to the prospect of cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment or punishment – not just torture – if the applicant were returned to his or her home country. But he was not sure whether the application entitled him to a medical waiver. He dared not take his son to hospital again as he was afraid he would be arrested if he could not settle the bill. He had to resort to borrowing money from friends in order to consult private doctors on his son’s condition, he said.
The head of a rights group that helps people seeking protection said the government was putting up roadblocks against such people so that they were denied a normal life in the city. Vision First executive director Cosmo Beatson said: “This is a culture of rejection. They try to make your life so hard that you will just give up and leave. “How can you abandon asylum seekers in the city who are sick or pregnant? This is immoral.” A Hospital Authority spokesman said medical waivers for people whose torture and asylum claims could not be validated followed those of non-residents. To ensure “rational use of limited public resources, their fees generally would not be waived unless there were exceptional circumstances”. Each application was considered separately, he said. The majority of torture claimants in Hong Kong came from South Asia or Southeast Asia, including Indonesia, Pakistan, India, the Philippines, Bangladesh, Nepal and Sri Lanka. Those whose claims are denied by the Immigration Department have a right to appeal to the Torture Claims Appeal Board.