The slum in the three sheds

Jun 17th, 2014 | Advocacy | Comment

Most can appreciate that the housing policy for refugees is hardly fair or reasonable. Refugees find it extremely hard to secure accommodation for 1500$ a month, the current rent allowance. Banned from working, 6000 men and women can be said to be forced into the same state of destitution that this policy should prevent – a state that ordinary citizens cannot possibly grasp without visiting the squalor in which refugees live.

Anyone can appreciate that refugees are provided with rent assistance that is considerably below market prices in the cheapest of tenantable buildings. This compels the majority of claimants into a desperate situation in which they either beg for assistance, or work illegally to survive.

At the fringes of society are the most indigent refugees who receive no support from charitable organizations or faith groups. They are condemned to a state of hopeless illegality by policies that deny sufficient assistant, most likely with the aim of deporting those who are arrested working while fostering assumptions that refugees come to Hong Kong to work.

No right-minded person would find this arrangement anything but cruel and inhumane.

Vision First takes the view that a fair asylum policy must deal efficiently with claims (that shouldn’t be dragged on for 5 to 10 years), while offering sufficient support that removes the need to beg or work. We warned that increasing the rent assistance – without paying basic, legal rents in full – would not solve the slum crisis, but lead to inflation in the slums, as unscrupulous landlords reaped greater profit.

That is exactly what happened since early this year. Four months after the enhanced welfare package for refugees was introduced, rent has increased in all the slums from the previous 1200$, or more, to the current 1500$, or more, as evidenced by numerous tenancy agreements signed under duress by refugees.

One year after the refugee slums were exposed, it appears that authorities have no interest in resolving this shameful situation. While two of the worst slums exposed by Vision First were closed down, the illegal rental business is as prosperous as ever in the other 63 locations.

Interestingly, it is worth noting that none of these dangerous, unhygienic slums hosts Hong Kong citizens on welfare assistance. To the contrary, a refugee who married a local wife recently moved with their baby son into a public housing flat in Tsing Yi, that he said is, “so big, brand new, with a great view … and only costs 700$ a month. Can you believe it?”

At the opposite end of the spectrum are the unwelcome asylum seekers misleadingly depicted as abusive economic migrants who actually responded to Hong Kong’s offer to grant asylum to persecuted people. They came to our city seeking safety and justice, but found instead discrimination and humiliation. The offer for protection here was less than sincere.

In the hundreds they find support in communities of countrymen who preceded them and they invariably end up in the slums that Hong Kong is doing a great job at turning a blind eye to. These men, women and children suffer daily in crushing poverty through no fault of their own, but having mistakenly believed they would be treated fairly until their asylum claims were determined.

Last week, invited by Refugee Union members, we came across a distant cluster of derelict sheds where ISS-HK settled about 15 refugees with government funds. There are no Hong Kong citizens living in these illegal sheds and it is hard to imagine there ever will be. It is hard to understand how this location was ever approved for human living.

World Refugee Day belongs to refugees

Jun 15th, 2014 | Advocacy | Comment

Failed intake system alienates new arrivals

Jun 12th, 2014 | Advocacy | Comment

We report the story of Fred, a refugee from West Africa, who surrendered to Immigration at the airport and was held in administrative custody at Castle Peak Bay Detention Centre (CIC) for 70 days, despite notifying authorities he fled persecution and was seeking asylum.

Released from CIC, Fred was not told of the ISS-HK or the SWD, but was advised to approach a charity in Chungking Mansions for help. Here, a member of staff registered him, photocopied his papers and notified him that his case officer was busy. Subsequently, he was told that he could not be offered immediate assistance.

Hong Kong is bewildering for any tourist venturing into the streets for the first time. For indigent refugees it is far worse. Fred explains, “My real problem is that I know nobody, there are no people from my country and I need help. This charity told me that they cannot help me. They said that they only help old people, sick people and families with children. I don’t have a place to stay. I don’t have anything to eat …”

Fred reports that staff dismissed his plea for help by explaining that he was a strong man, and thus could survive by himself.

Fred was upset, “Maybe I look like I am strong, but I have no money, no support, no friends and Immigration told me that I will be sent to jail if I work. Strong or sick makes no difference I am still homeless and hungry. What I am supposed to do.”

Fred says a second case worker asked, “Where are you from?” and Fred invited him to look at the papers they had copied. He was then asked what his religion was, and bewildered Fred replied he was Muslim, though he didn’t understand why he was asked such a question. He was then told he should seek help from the mosque.

Fred was confused, “Since I came I didn’t go to the mosque. That would be hypocrite to go when I need help. I came here for welfare as you help refugees.”

Fred felt victimized and humiliated. He realized there was neither sympathy for his case, nor an intention to refer him urgently to the government for assistance.

Fred got the message that he was unwelcome and resolved to close his file at this Christian charity.

He asked them to give back the documents they had copied, but a case worker said he needed to write a request to close his case. Fred wasn’t amused, “When I registered you didn’t ask me to write. Now that I want to close my file I have to write a paper? Why do I have to register if you cannot help me?”

His last words there were the strongest, “No matter what happens to me, I will never come here! Just because I am strong and Muslim I should go to the mosque. I cannot accept this!”

Discussing the incident later with the Refugee Union, Fred lamented that he was discriminated against twice: first for his physical appearance, judged to be ‘physically fit to sleep in the streets’, then on religious grounds.

What is important to note is the expectation of new arrivals that they will be helped, as the name of this charity has been passed down from refugees to new arrivals. However, new arrivals are faced with the grim reality of a failed government assistance mechanism, for which new arrivals unreasonably need to wait weeks, sometimes several months, before being interviewed by the ISS-HK

The few charities that attempt to fills this obvious gap with limited resources, appear to relieve the government from its responsibilities towards new refugee arrivals, while also promoting stereotyping about who better fits the ‘vulnerable’ refugee image.

Refused assistance at the charity, and still unsure when the ISS-HK would ever call him, Fred approached the Refugee Union protest camp in Central where he was warmly welcomed.

The Refugee Union wrote a support letter for Fred and accompanied him to the Social Welfare Department head-office in Wanchai to advocate for an urgent registration with ISS-HK.

He was given an appointment with the ISS-HK on the following day.

Donors must think outside the orthodoxy box

Jun 11th, 2014 | Advocacy | Comment

World Refugee Day in Hong Kong used to be dominated by activities arranged to fundraise for refugees in far and dispersed regions of the world. Vision First lamented this hypocritical arrangement, when local refugees were inadequately met with their protection needs.

In the wake of legal and social change occurred and exposed in recent months, Vision First is of the opinion that donors should reconsider their approach to charity. ‘Think Global, Act Local’ is perhaps a priority, whereby humanitarian crises rage worldwide, but careful consideration should be given to who best can serve charity purposes to solve the many problems refugees face in this city.

Closer to home, donors are encouraged to find out how their money is spent and why.

Vision First takes the view that most NGO activities are theoretically redundant and harmful. It is unquestionable that it is the Hong Kong Government’s duty to meet refugee needs. Anything that falls short of this commitment should not be met by NGOs as a sort of filling the gaps.

In this light, NGO donors should consider whether their donations are unwittingly perpetuating an undesirable environment in which the government avoids its duties and non-profits assist only a fraction of a vulnerable, marginalized group.

Further, as these donations are hardly significant to meet the needs of the whole refugee community, consideration should be given to the impact that donations have on competition for resources among refugees. In this respect, donations are often just a drop in the bucket.

In short, while NGO work can reach only a small minority of refugees, certain refugees are silently privileged, while most are ignored, based on assumptions that in fact reiterate government propaganda about genuine and abusive refugees.

Let’s introduce an example. For years NGOs fundraised to pay kindergarten fees and other school costs. Donors enjoyed a feel good factor knowing they assisted disenfranchised children with vital education.

However, they might not have considered that for every child blessed with their donation there were possibly ten more whose parents risked 15 months jail for unlawfully working to pay school fees. Law enforcement arrest daily refugees who simply try to make ends meet in a caustic environment.

Pressure should be put on the government to meet in full its obligations towards people seeking protection in Hong Kong. Since kindergarten fees were advocated for, change became possible, and the government recently began to meet what always was its legal obligation towards the rights of a child.

Vision First believes NGO donors should think outside the orthodoxy box and spare a thought for the men, women and children their donations do not reach, whether their charity is self-interested and, in case they are genuinely concerned with the livelihoods of refugees, how their donations can be more effective.

Conflicts of interest undermine ISS-HK’s credibility

Jun 8th, 2014 | Advocacy | Comment

Following this article, Alex Lo commented in the South China Morning Post, “It has long been an open secret that the government-friendly DAB often coordinates with officials about to appear in the legislative to face lawmakers’ grilling. But it often goes beyond that, such as proposing questions and answers to help the government get its message across …”

It is worth repeating that International Social Service (ISS-HK) are directly connected to the government through Mrs. Regina Leung, wife of the Hong Kong Chief Executive, and Mr. Tam Yiu Chung, chairman of the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong (DAB).

ISS-HK is obviously not in a position to safeguard the rights and interests of refugees.

Vision First urges the patron and board members of ISS-HK that have government interest to immediately resign from ISS-HK as clearly there exists both conflict of interest and bias.

Patron Mrs. Regina Leung evidently does not oppose and cannot be seen to oppose Hong Kong Government policies and practices towards refugees. Mrs Lung is conflicted as a patron and leaves ISS-HK as a complete extension of the Hong Kong Government with no independent views.

Director Mr. Tam Yiu Chung has a clear conflict of interest with his party DAB colluding with the Hong Kong Government to manipulate lawmakers’ views on the refugee community. Manifestly Mr. Tam should not be on the board of ISS-HK as his party’s interests are adverse to those of asylum seekers and he is in no way independent from government policies and practices.

Mr. Tam works with the Security Bureau and the wife of the Hong Kong Chief Executive and thus has apparent bias in favour of government policies. This situation is completely unethical and such serious conflict of interests undermine any credibility the ISS-HK board has and the credibility of ISS-HK.

Further, Mr. Tam is the Legislative Council representative for the geographical constituency of New Territories West. This jurisdiction is the region in which landlords and agents have contracted with ISS-HK to put asylum seekers in illegal structures developed into refugee slums.

For eight years, since refugee welfare services started in 2006, ISS-HK’s questionable housing policies brought, and continue to bring, great financial benefits to the voting base and constituency of legislator Mr. Tam Yiu Chung. Time will tell whether this is just a coincidence.

Mr Tam Yiu Chun should clarify his position and resign as director of ISS-HK.

Refugees will break the “Lockdown Mentality”

Jun 7th, 2014 | Advocacy | Comment

In the United States, African Americans were slaves to White Americans who held them in chains and subjugated their minds. On 1 January 1863, President Abraham Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation declaring freedom for slaves in the states that violated their human rights.

Prior to the Proclamation, 4 million African Americans had been owned as property and brainwashed into accepting the authority and superiority of their masters. They had been generally submissive to arbitrary and unfair rules devised by people who exploited their existence by dominating their minds.

In Hong Kong, many Refugees are slaves to a repressive ideology that controls them by brainwashing into submission. This mental slavery results from propaganda that disempowers refugees by deemphasizing their rights and homogenizing their status as illegal economic migrants.

Vision First was informed by refugees that new tactics are consciously and unintentionally deployed every day to compel them to perform as either abusive characters or a burden that should be grateful to society for being allowed to stay and receive help.

A “Lockdown Mentality” is the latest of complaints raised by refugees, who say they are taught  to be grateful to Hong Kong for the safe place they are offered, despite the humiliating conditions in which this supposed ‘safety’ is provided.

This mentality makes no reference to the government’s duties and obligations towards refugees. Instead it enslaves refugees by instilling fear such as warning that it could be worse, cautioning that the police could arrest and Immigration deport them, threatening cuts to essential services and the arrest of undeserving protesters.

Unaware of their fundamental rights, some refugees lose the ability to think critically and accept as unavoidable conditions that are orchestrated by those people who face-to-face profess to have their best interest at heart, but in fact, let’s believe unintentionally, perpetuate policies aimed at controlling refugees into poverty.

The lockdown mentality teaches refugees that they should not fight for their rights, because they are not citizens; that they should not protest or else they might be deported; that they should not ask for adequate welfare, as conditions are worse in their countries; that they should not demand more rent assistance, because it was recently raised to 1500$ (despite rooms in subdivided flats costing much

Some refugees voluntarily submit to a lockdown mentality perpetrated by the government and its supporters to pursue objectives incompatible with human rights and refugee rights. This mental slavery achieves the surreptitious social control of an undesirable group the authorities want to keep ignorant of their rights and freedoms.

Referring to locked-down refugees, a Refugee Union member commented, “Their brain is gone. They cannot think with their own mind and they believe what they are told. Their eyes are closed and they cannot see what is happening around them. They think NGOs are helping by buying them lunch. Refugees don’t need more food, they want their rights!”

An emancipated refugee remarked, “They treat us like nothing. They treat us like insects. But I don’t agree. We are warned that we don’t have rights, that there will be trouble, but we know they are lying.”

There is much to learn from listening to refugees.

Refugee Union: The struggle continues

Jun 4th, 2014 | Advocacy | Comment

An Octopus-like food assistance scheme

May 31st, 2014 | Advocacy | Comment

Vision First proposes the following to partly address some of the most hideous problems refugees have identified in the system that supports their livelihood. We propose the following in the hope of sparking discussion in view of the imminent review of the contract with which the government outsourced its responsibilities in the care of refugees.

If we are to objectively judge the problems of the current system, we should acknowledge the fact that 80% of refugees sell substandard food rations for cash and a large percentage sell it back to the shops in a fraudulent practice reminiscent of what is generally called “The Revolving Door”.

The Revolving Door allows shop-owners to repeatedly resell the same food rations to refugees who take 40% of the cash value without physically collecting any groceries. This illicit arrangement maximizes shops’ profit by reducing purchasing cost, inventory, manpower and overhead expenses to the detriment of Hong Kong Government and tax-payers.

When the shops are not giving cash in-lieu of rations, unscrupulous middlemen, often asylum seekers themselves, purchase the rations to sell them back to the ISS-HK shops under cover of night, or to other food businesses or resident families.

Vision First is of the opinion that it is vitally important to expose such pervasive practices, not so much as to encourage law enforcement actions, and certainly not to increase stereotyping about cunning refugees selling their food as a demonstration that they don’t need further assistance.

We believe this practice must be exposed especially to counter widespread public and official misconceptions that refugees should not be trusted with cash or coupons to purchase their food. This is because they are erroneously believed to be, or depicted as already abusing the system.

In our opinion, however, it is the refugees themselves who are being cheated.

The point is that whether Hong Kong Government agrees or not to provide cash-for-food, 80% of 5700 refugees are cashing in food rations monthly. But in so doing they enrich the grocery shops arranging the scheme and other parties exploiting an utterly failed system.

By monetizing just 40% of a 1200$ food allowance, refugees only actually receive 480$. The government should be concerned about 49,248,000$ of tax-dollars vanishing yearly (i.e. 720$ x 5700 refugees x 12 months). There is little logic in continuing a fraudulent system that causes such an unacceptable loss.

The refugees are the first to lament this monumental failure in which many dishonest people are dipping their hands. And Vision First join them by urging the government to stop the embarrassment of the current misconceived system.

Vision First urges the government to give due consideration to a coupon system, or an Octopus-like card that is recharged with the food allowance when refugees report monthly for recognizance at the Immigration Department.

In addition, we propose that Social Welfare Department officers be seconded to the Immigration Department, where the Octopus-like cards would be topped up. At this “one stop” office for refugees, SWD case workers would expand their role to enquire about refugees’ wellbeing and ensure that cases of destitution and homelessness are avoided.

A scheme jointly operated by the SWD and Immigration would eradicate fraud while return purchasing power to refugees, who would appreciate the respect and responsibility with which they are treated.

This, of course, in the event that a welfare system predicated on deterrent purposes is not aimed to foster refugees’ subjugation to a faulty mechanism.

Illegal activity at the ISS-HK appointed Safwan Provision Store

May 30th, 2014 | Advocacy, Food, VF Report, Welfare | Comment

Reliably sources close to the ISS-HK food team, informed Vision First that in late 2013 Hong Kong Customs mounted a special operation to combat the cross-boundary smuggling of illicit cigarettes and distribution of cigarettes in the Yuen Long area.

Customs agents raided Safwan Provision Store, one of the ISS-HK appointed shops in Yuen Long, where it is reported that they seized 500,000 cigarettes smuggled into the city without payment of stamp duty.

Vision First was also told that a shop partners was convicted for the offense and jailed for 2.5 months, as well as fined 1.8 million dollars. It is rumored that only one of the two partners took the fall for the illegal merchandise stacked in the storage, while the other continued to run the business.

The refugee community reports that illicit cigarettes are currently available at the same location, and from there allegedly distributed to numerous ethnic grocery shops across the territory.

Vision First was further informed that ISS-HK, claiming that contraband cigarettes are not related to the food business, did not terminate Safwan’s contract for the distribution of food rations to approximately one thousands refugees.  We hope this decision was well pondered and wisely made.

However, Vision First has been informed by the refugee community, that the same shop is distributing milk that many refugees believe to be smuggled. It is indeed plausible that a trading company that smuggles one product might also be smuggling others.

Thoughtful consideration should also be given to the 1.8 million dollar fine, a loss that owners would seek to recover most rapidly, perhaps even cutting corners in food related services.

Refugees informed Vision First that Safwan is distributing smuggled milk to ISS-HK clients.

SAFA Milk is produced by Gulf & Safa Dairies Company in Dubai, UAE. Informed sources told Vision First that this brand of milk is currently being provided to refugees, a brand of milk that we have researched is not licensed for consumption in the territory.

Information on the package obtained by Vision First is problematic: the 3.0g fat content is lower than the minimum 3.5g required by law; the address of the Hong Kong distributor is missing; the nutritional information does not comply with the Hong Kong “chat ga yat” or “seven plus one”.

Our research confirms that reconstitute SAFA milk from dairy cows in the desert country of the United Arab Emirates is not licensed for importation, distribution or consumption in Hong Kong. This situation raises a red flag not only about Safwan’s business methods, but also about the SWD and ISS-HK welfare practices.

Further and in addition, the refugee community is concerned that ISS-HK selected SAFA milk for the food rations distributed by all three ISS-HK branches to refugees requiring emergency provisions. Could this relate to the fact that it might be the cheapest milk as it bypasses regular import channels?

It is assumed that management of the ISS-HK food team is fully aware of irregular labels on SAFA milk packaging that would manifestly strike any professionally trained eye at first glance.

In this regard, we can only hope that no offence has been committed by ISS-HK and the refugee community is not again object of unscrupulous exploitation. However, the evidence seems to indicate otherwise.

Vision First urges relevant government departments, including Hong Kong Customs, to urgently investigate these allegations and ensure that the health and safety of refugees is not compromised by prohibited practices.

Complaints mount against Safwan Provision Stores

May 30th, 2014 | Advocacy, Food, VF Report, Welfare | Comment

Vision First received numerous complaints against Safwan Provision Store, appointed by ISS-HK to provide food rations, paid by the government purse, to approximately 1000 refugees who live in the Yuen Long area.

It is unclear why more complaints are raised against Safwan than the other six ISS-HK stores. Perhaps this relates to the Pakistani proprietors refusing to address complaints and instead exasperating refugees with taunts like, “Go and complain to the Refugee Union, see if I care!”

Provided with two rotten apples for a ten day period, a refugee lady protested, “You see, it is black. How do I eat this?” The shopkeeper taunted her, “OK, this apple, you give it to the Refugee Union and complain! What will the Refugee Union do to me?”

The rations supplied are of such substandard quality that reportedly half of the refugees take cash instead. The transaction is arranged by first signing collection notices at the designated shop at Chun Chu House, and later getting cash at another Safwan store in the Hope Yick Commercial Center, also in Yuen Long.

This arrangement defrauds Hong Kong Government by discounting 10-day food rations, originally valued at 400$, to approximately 160$ depending on items selected. This results in 1200$ monthly food rations being worth 480$ in the hands of refugees, with a 720$ mysterious loss to tax-payers.

Only a voucher system guarantees the eradication of fraud in the food distribution system.

Sources familiar with ISS-HK food distribution informed Vision First that Safwan doesn’t provide refugees with traditional basmati rice (13$/Kg), but instead mixes Pakistani ‘PK365’ rice (9$/Kg) with a cheap Vietnamese variety (3$/Kg). This is done when repackaging rice into 5Kg bags for ISS-HK clients.

A refugee mother complained, “This is old rice. It smells like cooking gas [methane]. After cooking it smells very bad and taste bad. The colour is very white, as it is bleached again. The package says Basmati Rice, but it is regular rice. We know the difference because we eat rice since we are babies.”

The quality of the bread is equally dreadful and packages are often distributed 2 days before expiry dates for a 10 to 12 day period. Perhaps refugees are expected to gorge themselves and then starve until the next collection. On 15 May 2014, Safwan gave a refuge mother a bag of bread that had been chewed through by a rat.

The majority of refugees cannot read English and are unable to verify what items are delivered by the shop. This explains complaints whereby refugees might collect “Fish” instead of “Halal Chicken”, because collection notices are typed in English and claimants are too shy to ask for help.

The best many refugees can do is count the items on the collection notices and ensure they correspond numerically to the items collected. Any discrepancy in foodstuff is ascribed to case workers having mixed up the order and unscrupulous shopkeepers can swap items with impunity.

With regard to the unlicensed Safa Milk, refugees noticed that other legitimate brands are kept on the shelves in view of CCTV cameras, while cartons of Safa milk are placed into the grocery bags at the time of collection. The construction of the shelving unit is such that video cameras, viewed by ISS-HK through web connections, are unable to record the entire transaction.

It is hard to understand why ISS-HK is unwilling or unable to monitor dodgy practice at Safwan.