Blog

Warning email to Lands Department

Feb 1st, 2015 | Housing, VF Opinion, Welfare | Comment

Warning email to Lands - 1Feb2015

Sri Lankan fatally burned in Hong Kong refugee slum

Feb 1st, 2015 | Crime, Housing, Media | Comment

The Sunday Times - slum fire - 1FEb2015

TVB news on the fire in the slum

Jan 30th, 2015 | Crime, Housing, Media | Comment

TVB news report on the slum fire

Asylum seeker dies in village blaze

Jan 30th, 2015 | Crime, Housing, Media, Welfare | Comment

VF is amused by the factious reporting of a tragic event in words that seems to exculpate those responsible for authorizing the disbursement of government funds for the renting of unauthorized and deadly dangerous structures. Further VF questions the knowledge of purported experts asserting refugees choose to live in converted pig farms because rooms are bigger and anyway they see Hong Kong as a temporary stopover. Undoubtedly Hong Kong is a stopover. Who would want to live an entire life in squalid slums?

The reporter seems tainted by the same government propaganda that once proudly resonated from ISS-HK spokespersons, who interestingly were neither at the accident site to explain their role, nor later explained to the public their questionable relationship with the purported landlord who settled dozens of refugees into death traps.

The Standard on slum fire - 30Jan15

Who is responsible for Lucky’s death?  

Jan 30th, 2015 | Crime, Housing, Legal, VF Opinion, Welfare | Comment

Vision First exposed ‘The Slum On Two Storeys’ in August 2013 when we reported that an unscrupulous owner constructed a dangerous dormitory on two levels, where ISS-HK colluded to settle over 25 refugees. Evidence revealed that the Lands Department once authorized the construction of three pigsty and two chicken sheds on the lot, though licenses had been revoked.

A year and a half later only the names of some of the refugee tenants had changed as new-arrivals moved in. No government department seemed interested to address the problem of illegal structures that, in our view, constituted veritable ‘death traps’ owing to overcrowding, substandard construction, illegal electrical wiring, gas cooking in confined spaces and alarmingly a lack of firefighting equipment.

In a 28 January 2015 meeting, we brought to the attention of Lands Department officers that the slums generally constituted a fire hazard and it was only a matter of time before one would go up in flame, possibly with loss of human life. We remarked that the Fire Services Department had seen the photos of the slums and were keen to take coordinate action with SWD and Lands.

One day later we received an SMS from a Bangladeshi member, “Kam Sheung Road have refugee house burning. One man die just before”. The Refugee Union swung into action and photos spread on social media a few minutes later. A violent fire was raged out of control. Firemen from 18 trucks with two breathing apparatus team took 40 minutes to douse the inferno. Too late for Lucky!

He was known by the nickname “Lucky”, which didn’t protect him as he burnt to death in a tin shed. Lucky often complained about faulty electrical wire that gave shocks. It is reported that his ISS case worker visited his shack and looked into the problem a few days earlier. A friend explained that refugees often wire the slums with two-face system that can short-circuit and catch fire.

Vision First was familiar with Lucky’s hut and the others lining the path to the ‘Slum on Two Levels’. There was nothing legal there. Every part and material raised alarming concerns. In the slums there is imminent danger of collapse, flooding, gas explosion, lightning strikes and – most frightening – FIRE! Had it been nighttime with most residents at home sleeping, the death toll would have been high.

We can only hope that Lucky’s tragic death will not have been in vein. It was disappointing to witness the sudden media frenzy drawn by the excitement of a raging fire and a gruesome death. Why were the refugee slums not newsworthy yesterday? Why did it take a death to draw media and public interest? Lucky’s death was entirely avoidable if the authorities had taken action in August 2013. 

Refugee dies in a slum fire

Jan 30th, 2015 | Crime, Housing, Media | Comment

Vision First is encouraged that most news reports mentioned the UNAUTHORIZED STRUCTURES that contributed to this tragic fire. Several reporters interviewed the Lands Department who confirmed that the registered owner of this slum had been served with written notices that went ignored. Lands Dept. then registered encumbrances with the Lands Registry and planned enforcement action.

The authorities’ slow pace tragically cost the life of a refugee!

http://hk.on.cc/hk/bkn/cnt/news/20150129/bkn-20150129164034341-0129_00822_001.html

http://hk.on.cc/hk/bkn/cnt/news/20150129/bkn-20150129173519678-0129_00822_001.html?eventid=4028828d4b300e64014b33f05a337f0a&eventsection=hk_news

http://hk.on.cc/hk/bkn/cnt/news/20150129/bkn-20150129210513597-0129_00822_001.html?eventsection=hk_news&eventid=4028828d4b300e64014b33f05a337f0a

http://news.now.com/home/local/player?newsId=124517

http://news.now.com/home/local/player?newsId=124554

http://news.now.com/home/local/player?newsId=124569

http://news.now.com/home/local/player?newsId=124571

http://cablenews.i-cable.com/webapps/news_video/index.php?news_id=450960

http://cablenews.i-cable.com/webapps/news_video/index.php?news_id=450983

http://hk.apple.nextmedia.com/realtime/breaking/20150129/53383206

http://hk.apple.nextmedia.com/realtime/breaking/20150129/53386060

http://paper.wenweipo.com/2015/01/30/HK1501300017.htm

http://std.stheadline.com/breakingnews/20150129a164518.asp

http://www.singpao.com/xw/gat/201501/t20150130_546887.html

http://topick.hket.com/article/531972

http://www.881903.com/page/zh-tw/newsdetail.aspx?ItemId=776430&csid=261_341

http://www.881903.com/page/zh-tw/newsdetail.aspx?ItemId=776414&csid=261_341

http://news.tvb.com/local/54c9fda16db28c416a000000

http://news.tvb.com/local/54ca18d96db28ca42f000002

http://news.tvb.com/local/54c9c0096db28c536a000001

http://www.dbc.hk/radio2/news-detail/Id/38328/type/10/%E5%85%AB%E9%84%89%E7%81%AB%E8%AD%A61%E6%AD%BB%E3%80%80%E8%AD%A6%E6%96%B9%E6%8C%87%E6%9C%89%E5%8F%AF%E7%96%91

http://www.bastillepost.com/macau/2-hot-tv/35398-%E5%85%AB%E9%84%89%E7%81%AB%E8%AD%A6%E6%9C%89%E5%8F%AF%E7%96%91-%E9%87%8D%E6%A1%88%E7%B5%84%E5%88%97%E7%B8%B1%E7%81%AB%E6%A1%88%E8%AA%BF%E6%9F%A5?r=w

http://hk.apple.nextmedia.com/realtime/breaking/20150129/53386060

http://news.takungpao.com.hk/paper/q/2015/0130/2906203.html

http://news.sina.com.hk/news/20150129/-32-3589881/1.html

http://inews.stheadline.com/inews-content.php?cat=a&nid=932258

http://news.mingpao.com/ins/%E3%80%90%E7%9F%AD%E7%89%87%E3%80%91%E5%85%AB%E9%84%89%E9%90%B5%E7%9A%AE%E5%B1%8B%E7%81%AB%E8%AD%A6%20%E5%B1%8B%E5%85%A7%E9%A9%9A%E7%8F%BE%E7%84%A6%E5%B1%8D/web_tc/article/20150129/s00001/1422503200536

http://www.orangenews.hk/news/system/2015/01/29/010006043.shtml

http://www.metrohk.com.hk/index.php?cmd=detail&id=265487

Refugee dies in slum fire

VF Report: lease enforcement action to be stepped up

Jan 29th, 2015 | Crime, Housing, Legal, VF Report, Welfare | Comment

On 28 January 2014 senior executives from the Lands Department held a meeting with Vision First and Refugee Union representatives, one of whom has continuously resided in a slums paid for with government funds since he arrived in 2006.

The refugees presented three voluminous bundles of photographic evidence to formally lodge complaints on 69 questionable compounds erected on lots that Lands officers agreed were “mostly for agricultural use, including chicken and pig licenses no longer in use, because the government doesn’t allow [such business] having imposed many restrictions on farmers.”

The delegation was assured that registered owners were in breach of lease covenants for any structures that were not exclusively for agricultural or gardening use. It was brought to attention that the issue is not whether housing was properly constructed, but that no housing whatsoever is permitted on farmland and as such would be targeted for demolition.

It was noted that irrespective of collusion (by way of documentary inspections and site visits), registered owners were ultimately responsible for the existence of structures that third parties allegedly exploited to profit from the welfare program for refugees. The Lands Department did not consider acceptable justifications that ‘primary tenants’ had rented land for purposes landlords were unaware of.

Acting on the above mentioned complaints, warning letters demanding the removal or demolition of unauthorized structures are likely to be sent out copiously, failing which encumbrances will be registered with the Lands Registry and the government will take steps to ‘re-enter the land’.

A promise was made for zero tolerance of lease breaches. An officer explained, “Any conversions that are not designated for agricultural or gardening use are prohibited. Any structures that are not described in the land schedule must be removed”. It was categorically emphasized that settling refugees in these compounds constituted an offense under the law.

The delegation was told: “The government is very concerned. Everyone is concerned with the health of the occupants. We will step up enforcement action, including with estate agents … the Social Welfare Department is concerned with the management and supervision of ISS.”

A refugees who spearheaded the anti-slum campaign remarked, “The government accepts there is a huge problem. Last week my officer said ISS only approves the houses after getting approval from the Lands Department.” Vision First is hopeful that the tide is turning on the reckless practice of settling destitute refugees in dangerous and unhygienic slums away from the public eye. At what price? 

Lease enforcement action to be stepped up
A Bangladeshi refugee climbs into what he sarcastically calls his tree house. He was content living there from May 2005 as ISS paid rent for it, but today he is concerned because, “My officer said to me that the structure below is not safe and it could collapse. Every night I cannot sleep because I am very scared.”

Web launch of slum update

Jan 22nd, 2015 | Crime, Housing, VF Report, Welfare | Comment

Website launches slum page

Stop forced cohabitation

Jan 21st, 2015 | Housing, VF Report, Welfare | Comment

Under the heading “WE BELIEVE”, our website defines a key principle held for its fundamental and universal value. It is worth repeating, “Vision First is a proponent of the view that every asylum claim must be approached on the premise that it is genuine … No adverse inferences must be drawn … asylum seekers should benefit from the rights and privileges enjoyed by all citizens – as economic expectations are hardly incompatible with seeking asylum.”

In 2012 and 2013 Vision First was informed that hundreds of Bangladeshi refugees in remote slums were forced to choose between “rent assistance” and “food assistance”. Refugees were informed that they could not have both and should therefore share huts and emergency rations with conational.

Before learning about human rights and state duties, uninformed refugees didn’t know any better and such a shameful arrangement was regrettably widespread. In our experience other nationalities were not subjected to this biased treatment that apparently did not occur in urban areas.

Today Vision First reports that refugees are sometimes being forced to cohabitate in Kowloon where the lousiest, cheapest subdivided rooms cost more than 3000$. In principle there is nothing wrong with refugees living together, a practical solution to mitigate welfare constraints when friendly cooperation exists.

The process however degenerates into cruel and inhuman treatment when cohabitation is coerced. “Find a friend to share a room or ISS will not pay rent” is hardly a solution. Several refugees reported requesting assistance to avoid being homeless in winter nights only to be told to find somebody to share a room with. They emphatically informed caseworkers that they knew nobody suitable and were sleeping on the street around the Cultural Centre.

How does a government contractor ignore the plight of certain refugees when rooms in guesthouses are available to other nationalities? Besides, homelessness is terrible for anyone, irrespective of country of origin.

A referral from SWD for a non-refoulement claimant should only be considered by the state of destitution, connections and resources of the person concerned. Other factors would shift public welfare into a highly undesirable form of migration control.

A refugee homeless since 22 December said, “I told my officer that I am sleeping next to pillar number 2 at Star Ferry. Several times I told him that I am homeless. I and freezing because I don’t have a blanket. I begged for a guesthouse but was told that I should find somebody to rent a room together. But I don’t know anyone and even if I start looking for a room it will take several days … and nights!”

There are good reasons why we shudder at caseworkers uttering the words “on a case by case basis” that generally signal an abdication of duty and shunning of responsibility on the one hand, and on the other a failure to have regard of the best interest of refugees with reasonable consideration of their means.

Vision First will report several incidents of forced cohabitation to the Social Welfare Department in hope that recommendations will be made to stop such shameful practices. For those we encounter in outreach the problem will be solved, but how about those we don’t?

Later we can only shake our heads when egregious treatment is excused with the other highly abused expression, “It was a misunderstanding!” Refugees are annoyed by this excuse and underline that honest misunderstandings work both ways – sometimes you should get too much!

Stop forced cohabitation
A service user of ISS-HK since August 2014, this refugee has been homeless for a month because he is expected to share a tiny room with somebody he does not know. While this might work for friends who choose to share, refugees are persons in vulnerable mental and physical circumstances who should not be coerced to choose between homelessness and loss of privacy.

 

Parameters must change to tackle the housing crisis

Jan 20th, 2015 | Housing, VF Opinion, Welfare | Comment

Over the past few days Vision First inspected rooms available at several real estate agencies in Yuen Long, presumably a cheaper district than Kowloon. At one such agency a veteran estate agent lady asked “Why so many refugees come here?” That’s a legitimate question.

Suddenly evicted from slums where they lived for years, refugees are hopelessly touring agencies recommended by caseworkers to find alternative accommodation. Vision First accompanied them on visits to the cheapest units (locally called “tou fong” – suite-room), subdivided bedrooms with a minuscule toilet and a shelf for sink and kitchen top. For the purpose, older 500 s/f apartments are remodeled into four 100 s/f units accessed through a shared corridor. Such small units are generally clean and at 3500$ are acceptable bachelor flats for those who can afford them.

However, the arrangement becomes unpleasant when refugees on a 1500$ rent budget are compelled to cohabitate. Couples can cope with tight conditions, though a boyfriend observed, “I can share with my girlfriend, but she is not my wife. If we breakup who pays the rent? How one person can pay more than 3000$ by himself?”

Coping with stringent conditions, a group of five Pakistani share a 400 s/f apartment for 6000$ – two bunk in two tiny rooms, one sleeps in the lounge. But the agent complained, “Too many people! If one man has trouble [arrested by police or immigration] the others cannot pay. If one leaves [removed or deported], it is hard for them to find another [replacement], so always have trouble.”

Another agent went on a rant, “The cheapest room is 3200$ but landlord said no sharing. If too many people stay it is dirty. Many landlords have difficulty to get rent and utilities paid. Landlords are afraid. They don’t want to say why, they just refuse to consider.”

Further, destitute refugees are unable to make repairs and crowded cubicles are subjected to more than the ordinary wear and tear. A landlord complained of a broken sink, door and flooring, though it is hard to imagine high quality fittings are used in super-budget subdivisions. These are not concrete dormitories designed for heavy occupation, but inexpensively cubicles for single occupancy.

“Are you Pakistani? We don’t rent to Pakistani” snarled an agent to some Bangladeshi. Racism apart, when thousands of destitute young men squeeze into the crammed low-end housing market, attrition is unavoidable not only with landlords and agents, but also with local residents.

This leave us to ponder:

First, speaking with several estate agents, it became clear that landlord aversion towards refugees (never identified as such, but rather as ‘foreigners with ISS assistance’) was the principle obstacle. There was no issue renting to Vision First staff, but agents warned, “You cannot cheat. We can rent the room to you, but not to them. If the landlord discover they live there that is not honest for us.”

Second, stigmatization was widespread, agents would phone landlords to inquire about vacant rooms only to be blatantly told that “those black people are not accepted”. It was surprising to hear this repeated again and again. Also in the slums a resident grumbled, “Too many people in one room. It’s too noisy and I cannot sleep next to them. They shouldn’t be crammed together like that. It’s dirty.”

Third, agents showed our group tou fong ranging between 3200$ and 4500$. They were all in acceptable condition, some even nicely decorated. Rooms for 2000$ no longer exist in Yuen Long and even 3000$ rooms are hard to find and none were vacant. The limited supply of 3000-4000$ rooms is insufficient to accommodate the scores of refugees being evacuated from the slums.

Finally, the refugee housing problem cannot be solved without changing parameters. If refugees are to be banned from working, then they are destitute and deserve full support. It is illogical to impose a 1500$ rental ceiling that compels strangers to bunk in cramped spaces, eventually quarrelling and splitting up. This wastes government-funded deposits and exasperates landlords and agents, other than reinforcing the stereotype of refugees as dirty, noisy and foreign to Hong Kong society

It should be accepted that refugees must work to pay rent surplus, utilities and supplement inadequate ‘humanitarian assistance’. There is no point sticking heads in the sand! Raising the rent ceiling to 2000$ would just push the problem a few months forward, without resolution. Vision First reiterates that refugees ought to be allowed to work to make ends meet.

  • An agent offered this small subdivided flat (one flat remodelled into two units) for 7500$. She suggested that five refugee cohabitate which would coincidentally equal 5 x 1500$. It is hard to imagine five adults living together in such cramped quarters. The price was a rip-off because similar small units are offered to locals for 5500$.
  • An agent suggested that two refugees share this minuscule room that was less about 25 square feet. She said "You can put a bunk bed inside", but nobody has ever seen such bed. Prison cells for two inmate are more than double this size.
  • This tiny room rents for 3200$ with a small toilet, but no kitchen. It's hard to imagine two adults cohabitating longterm after placing inside a fridge and a few bags of clothes and belongings. There were no other units in the market for less than 3500$ on 19 January 2014
  • This 100 s/f unit is clean and cozy. It is perfect for a singleton but the price of 4000$ pushes it beyond the reach of refugees. But the landlord categorically refused to rent it to refugees.
  • This unit is offered for 3500$ with a toilet, but again no kitchen. It could be shared by two refugees although the estimated 70 s/f would be challenging over time. Besides, there is very limited supply of units at this price range. This photo is taken from against the opposite wall. It's that tight!
  • This unit rents for 3800$ and a Chinese couple inspected it right after we left. There is great demand for subdivided units that don't remain vacant for long. Two refugees could share but would need to raise a further 800$ a month. Limited supply is the main concern.

Archive