Letter to Security Bureau on slum crisis
Jan 19th, 2015 | Crime, Housing, VF Opinion, Welfare | Comment
VF Opinion: It’s time for temporary work permits
Jan 16th, 2015 | Housing, VF Opinion, Welfare | Comment
Vision First was informed that on 15 January 2014 a delegation of refugees protested at the Social Welfare Department head-office against unrealistic rent assistance levels that pushed their backs against the ropes.
As many refugees are now forced to relocate from slums in which they lived for years, these same refugees face a compelling dilemma. With rental market prices on the rise and government rent assistance generally no more than $1500, where to find affordable rooms?
“ISS gave me a list of estate agents who showed me small rooms as big as a single mattress with prices between 3000$ and 4000$ a month. Also many wanted cash payment because they don’t want to work with ISS”, lamented an irate refugee who has lived in Hong Kong for 8 years.
Vision First expects that, since reliance on refugee slums has come under fire, the housing crisis will rapidly deteriorate as hundreds of claimants are forced into homelessness by failed welfare policies.
Besieged SWD officers listened carefully to the refugees, though clearly out of their depth as far as solutions were concerned. An SWD officer confirmed that, “in the past few months ISS was trying to resolve the slum problem”. A senior officer repeated a canned defense line, “We will raise your concerns with ISS and ask them to mobilize all their resources to find a solution.” But what resources are available to constrained caseworkers?
Fresh solutions are required to resolve a matter that brings great shame to Hong Kong. It is time for Hong Kong Government to pragmatically acknowledge the absurdity of so-called humanitarian assistance that fails to adequately house refugees in our expensive city. This utterly disappointing and unpleasant situation created by unrealistic rent levels ought to be urgently reviewed.
Vision First strongly recommends that refugees be allowed to work for the years it takes Immigration Department to determine asylum claims. It is sadly pathetic that every two years refugees must protest to raise welfare levels that fall hopelessly and predictably behind inflation. Further, temporary work permits would certainly benefit Hong Kong, as research demonstrates that refugees do not steal jobs from residents, but rather contribute extensively to raising their income.
Let’s be honest. If it is policy to hold thousands of refugees in limbo while claims flounder in bureaucracy, then it is only fair that claimants be allowed to earn a living to supplement unacceptably low assistance levels. This wouldn’t be inconsistent with the token welfare safety-net that forces destitute, old and needy citizens to eke out a subsistence living on their knees.
The Refugee Union presented this protest letter to SWD and Security Bureau
Mother and baby abandoned in the street
Jan 15th, 2015 | Housing, VF Report, Welfare | Comment
12 January 2015. It’s a cold night! Single mother Siti endures the worst case scenario. She lost a friend’s support and ISS-HK failed to assist. She is in Fung Cheung Road Garden, near Yuen Long MTR. Her 5 month daughter cries. She prepares to sleep on a concrete slab. Nearby is a public toilet she uses to care for her baby congenitally sick since birth.
Vision First was informed that mother and child are service users of ISS-HK and their emergency situation was brought to the attention of their caseworker (name withheld) over several phone calls that afternoon and evening. Siti had been homeless for several weeks, because she is unable to secure a room for the 2250$ budget she offered. A refugee family supported her until the landlord complained.
The mother reports she called her ISS-HK caseworker for emergency assistance. She suggested that a room in a guesthouse be provided for a few nights as she continued the challenging search for a permanent home – prices for single room 3000$ and up. Apparently her request was turned down. She said she was told that guesthouses are for men only. Gender discrimination?
Siti reports that the caseworker offered assistance at the ISS-HK shelter in Central instead. However, the mother lamented she had no money for the MTR fare, about 27$ and pleaded in the name of her sick baby. Regrettably her implorations fell on deaf ears and the caseworker hung up the phone. Mother and baby then slept rough on a very cold night.
Disappointing it is when those assisting the vulnerable come short on empathy and compassion. There might be stringent welfare rules against settling women in guesthouses, but surely they are overridden by civility rules against abandoning mothers and babies in the street in winter. Personal discretion and concern, if not professionalism, should prevail.
Caseworkers may possibly find themselves overwhelmed by crises that don’t neatly follow the service arrows in the colourful flow-chart before their eyes. Calling friends is often suggested as an alternative to destitution, but is it right to expect destitute others to provide aid? What if they are not available, or phone are off because they are not afforded credit? Public shelters in winter might be full or closed. Transportation money is not provided even when a solution might be in sight. Then perhaps frustration prevails before pressing demands that have become all too common.
Such situations are dangerous failures in service, as well as daunting failures in humanity.
Lawmaker “Longhair” letter to SWD
Jan 15th, 2015 | Food, Housing, Refugee Community, Welfare | Comment
VF Report: ‘Slum like a favela’ hastily dismantled
Jan 14th, 2015 | Housing, VF Report | Comment
Vision First reported on the Slum like a Favela, south of Yuen Long, on 6 December 2013. Here ISS-HK paid from the public purse the rent of dozens of refugees. This compound, that defied belief with its unstable cubicles erected on metal stilts and piping, manifestly disregarded any health or safety standards or concerns.
Adding insult to injury Vision First documented that the purported slum lord recently expanded the compound – to maximize profits from refugees – with additional metal stalls jutting precariously off the second level, two meters over the footpath. It was shocking to see that a crawlspace, previously used as a doghouse, had been converted into refugee bed space! There is no end to this owner’s ingenuity and greed.
Regrettably, there is yet no sign of enforcement action by the Lands Department here.
However, according to initial documents gathered by Vision First, the purported landlord’s gainful collaboration with ISS-HK started in May 2011 and continued till December 2014, when suddenly, and for reason unknown, caseworkers pulled the plug on this compound. Why?
Indicative is that nine present residents displayed leases and ISS-HK contracts stating, “I confirm my address to be at Letter box 224, 18 Shek Tong Tsuen, Au Tau, Yuen Long.” Alarmingly there are other refugees living 15 minutes down the hill with documents showing the same address and signed by the same person. It is reported that many more are on the same books.
A refugee described being visited by an ISS caseworker in December 2014, the first time in three years. The refugee tenant says he was told roughly: “The downstairs structure is not OK. Your room is dangerous. January is last money coming for your room. This is ultimatum and you must leave.”
Not without reason, the refugee rebutted that he had lived in that same room for four years, not by choice but out of necessity, as he couldn’t afford anything better. If his room was deemed suitable for human living and conformed with regulations before, why leave now?
The officer apparently replied that this was not his problem. Rather it was “ISS team problem. They report to me. They said the structure is no good. This place is not safe for you.”
Where shall this refugee go when suddenly deprived of the social relationships he built over four years in the same slum and when not provided with the necessary assistance to find proper housing? Will another similar slum welcome him and the other evicted?
Another refugee commented, “ISS is making big drama for refugees. They want us to leave these rooms and be homeless. They think that stopping the rent solves the problem, but there are no rooms we can rent for 1500$. If I go working and police catch me, I tell the judge that ISS no help me and I have to go working. Then my case-officer come to explain to the judge?”
We can’t but wonder about the reasons why ISS-HK is suddenly keen to close down slums.
The mysterious hut around a tree
Jan 12th, 2015 | Housing | Comment
VF Report: Criminal intimidation and arson in a refugee slum
Jan 12th, 2015 | Crime, Housing, VF Report | Comment
The video below shows thugs threatening refugee settled in a slum in the New Territory and what appear as throwing bricks at an apparently non-compliant refugee tenant. From the video it is understood the registered owner is required by the Lands Department to purge unauthorized structures rented to refugees through the government contractor ISS-HK.
Vision First believes the government should do more to guarantee the safety and protection of refugees caught in the crossfire between slum lords and Lands Department officials. After two years of yawning reactions to our reports on unauthorized structures settling homeless refugees (who are prohibited from working) it appears that lease enforcement officers are taking action.
While the official line remains “… this office is still gathering the necessary information about this case”, Vision First has been informed from refugee sources about increased inspection and enforcement action in several slums south of Yuen Long, from where dozens of refugees were coerced to hastily resettle last week.
This is undoubtedly a welcome development supporting our opinion that refugees were settled in 69 dreadful compounds, as well as dozens of lone huts such as this one ‘around a tree’, with blatant disregard for their well-being, public safety and human rights in general.
A dire warning must be raised. Although refugees lived in slums for lack of earning power and housing alternatives, the responsibility for this crisis falls squarely on the shoulders of SWD officers who failed to effectively monitor their contractor. An officer informally disclosed to Vision First that they still haven’t visited these slums and obtain their principle information from this website.
Vision First obtained copies of documents sent by District Lands Offices to registered owners (critically not always equivalent to the purported landlords in ‘collaboration’ with ISS-HK) warning not to “erect or construct any building or structure of any description on the Lot or any part thereof without having obtained the approval … Breach of the said covenant will give the Government a right to re-enter the Lot.”
A notice ordered, “I hereby require you to remedy the said breach by demolishing and removing the Structure in all respects to my satisfaction within 28 days from the date of this letter, failing which … the Government’s right to take lease enforcement action against the structures … re-enter upon the Lot … other actions as may be deemed appropriate …”
Problematically, landlords are made aware that they risk losing more than a gainful ‘collaboration’ with ISS-HK. If the Lands Department re-enters the land, owners will be struck off lands registries thereby forfeiting use and enjoyment of properties forever.
Here is where relations deteriorate and get ugly: In the case below, which Vision First has been told is not an isolated incident, thugs were summoned for the dirty work of threating and intimidating refugees to leave in a hurry, or else …
Is it sufficient for ISS-HK case workers to urge refugees to hastily relocate without offering affordable rooms, given they have no money and no right to work? Is it acceptable for SWD to wash its hands of a crisis they failed to avert and was foreseeable two years ago? Why are vulnerable refugees exposed to criminal intimidation of the sort they might have fled in their homeland?
Refugees fight against slum eviction
Jan 9th, 2015 | Housing, Refugee Community, Welfare | Comment
Link to VF report on the Slum in the Honeymoon House closing down
ISS approved this slum for 7 years and now they want us to leave in 7 days. We don’t like to live in these bad conditions, but we cannot work and do not have money to rent good room. Before I tell my (ISS-HK) officer, I say outside homes in Yuen Long are very expensive. Maybe room cost 2000$, so how we rent for 1500$ budget ISS give us? He say to me, ‘Not my matter. Not my problem’ … So what we do? Should we be homeless because Hong Kong Government, Social Welfare Department and ISS refuse to provide home, refuse to increase refugee rent allowance and refuse refugee from working? This is why we come today to protest at the Social Welfare Department main office because this is shameful treatment of refugees.” – Aziz, refugee in Hong Kong since 2006
VF Report: The Slum in the Honeymoon House slated for demolition
Jan 7th, 2015 | Crime, Housing, VF Report | Comment
On 11 September 2013 Vision First reported on the Slum in the Honeymoon House where ISS-HK settled more than 30 refugees, including babies, in wooden shacks and metal containers. In our view, this compound clearly demonstrated the result of unsavory practices between an unscrupulous purported landlord and a government contractor who, at a minimum, failed in due diligence.
Over the past sixteen months, Vision First regularly visited this slum collecting evidence of refugees being housed in dangerous and unhygienic structures that no right-minded person could remotely consider suitable for human beings. A lack of sanitation and sewerage was the least of the problems, as these ramshackle huts seemed on the verge of collapsing under their own weight.
Further, we are alarmed that refugee, some having lived there for 5 years, raise concerns about ownership as they inform about a slum lady who used a company (names withheld) for tenancy agreements to receive rent from ISS-HK, despite the land not being registered in that company’s name. Refugees report that the slum lady sold the property in early 2014 to a distraught new buyer who now faces stringent enforcement action by the authorities.
In the wake of numerous cross-departmental complaints filed by Vision First, the Lands Department is finally cracking down on the unauthorized structures erected in this slum that must be demolished or removed as a matter of urgency. Notices issued on 11 and 29 December 2014 have been retained as evidence that ISS-HK settled refugees in illegal structures not fit for human habitation. Again we wonder what supporting documents were submitted to SWD.
The Lands Dept notices call for demolition and warn “The public should thus stop to purchase or rent or reside in the unauthorized structures erected on the Lot. Otherwise, you may face losses or liability in the event of enforcement action by the Government against unauthorized or unlawful structures.”
The department is taking a surprising step, “Besides, for cases where estate agents have been involved in facilitating sales/rental transactions, the District Lands Office will refer to the Estate Agents Authority for her appropriate action.” We wonder if the fallout will implicate ISS-HK caseworkers who also facilitated rentals.
Recently we have been informed from refugee tenants of caseworkers contacting and urging them to move hastily out of this compound. Further, Vision First has been informed that refugees were told these huts were illegal and they would be settled in guesthouses while they looked for suitable rooms. This came as a shock to a refugee who queried, “Why was this location approved by ISS for seven years and suddenly we all have to leave in one week? If it is not good now for us, why was it good before?”
Lands Department inspectors surveyed every inch of the lot and found that not only the tin shacks, but also the solid brick-and-mortar homes are illegal. In no unequivocal terms, the registered owner was told that the entire lot must be returned to its original farmland condition for the raising of crops, which we presume excludes categorically the raising of refugee children.
