ISS-HK fails to meet basic needs of shelter and food
Apr 19th, 2014 | Advocacy, Food, Housing, VF Report, Welfare | Comment
Complaint One
Refugee Bobby lives in a converted pig farm and collects food rations at the Nepali shop in Yuen Long. He has to buy groceries when the 10-day ration runs out in 6 to 7 days. Every day is a struggle to make ends meet. A far cry from the comfortable life he had in Africa.
Bobby explains, “My family was prominent and we lived well. Because my father opposed the government everything fell apart and we were persecuted. I left to save my life. You think I come here to beg for this rubbish food ISS gives me?”
He continues, “A few months ago I went to collect food with a friend. At the shop I saw that he was getting more food than me. I said, ‘Wait a minute. This is not right’. We are both refugees. We are the same age and the same hungry. Why he get more?”
Later Bobby complained to his ISS-HK case worker Mary Lee. Mary opened his file and said, “Let me check if you used all your money.” She made some calculations and exclaimed, “You can add a few chickens and take more food.”
The hungry and destitute refugee was speechless realizing that, a) Mary had cut short his food allowance, b) Mary was fully aware how much value he was getting, c) Mary had not provide the full 1200$ food allocation when needed, d) Mary provided more food after he complained.
Bobby was furious and shouted, “Give me all my money (food value) and stop this! Bring me to the top (of my food allowance) and it is finished. This is the way we do it!”
He reported to Vision First, “Some refugees don’t complain, but if you do then ISS gives them the full amount? The problem is if you come new (new-arrival), and you don’t know, they don’t give you all the money. It is later when you complain that they give you more to shut your mouth. This is wrong!”
Complaint Two
Refugee Raja lives in an ungodly slum without clean running water, kitchen plumbing and toilet sewerage. It is no mystery that many tenants suffer from chronic gastroenteritis. He has been losing weight since he arrived in 2009 and is skin and bones now.
Raja reports, “Really this food is not enough. They say it is 1200$ a month but they are lying. Two chickens and two (pieces of) mutton for ten days is not enough. Then I must go buy (more food). Three tomatoes and two onions they want us to eat (for) ten days? I ask my friend, please give me some vegetables, (because I have) not enough.”
The distraught refugee points at a countryman writhing in pain, “Look at my friend. Look at his photo when he arrive in 2008. He was strong man. Very handsome. Before he is 68Kg and now he is 40Kg. He has so much pain (in the stomach), but hospital never give him good medicine. He suffer much. Look at him now … dying man!”
Raja cannot hide his anger, “Maybe next year he die. Then ISS is responsible. The food always make us sick. The food is expired. The vegetable is, how to say? … Bad, very bad … cannot eat it! We are sick from ISS food. We have pain (in the stomach, then) we are hungry but cannot eat. So much pain!”
He continues, “I am from India but only in Hong Kong I (have been) hungry! So much pain. I complain to (case worker) Felicity Wong, but she don’t listen. I say to her my food is not enough, my food is 250$ not 400$, but she don’t care. Who make inspection of this problem? Me not (allowed to) working. I have no money for buying food. This veeery big problem. Where the money coming???”
Complaint Three
Refugee Ali is a respected leaders of the Pakistani community in asylum. He speaks with self-assurance and brings to the debate the experiences of many suffering individuals and families. That the Pakistani shop in Yuen Long last week gave him a can of baby formula with 19 days to expiry will be overlooked for now (Shops buy close-to-expiry supplies to maximize profits).
Ali explains another widespread trick ISS-HK adopts to manipulate food, one reported by many. Case workers and refugees select the food items by ticking a food collection sheet monthly. As prices are not indicated, refugees have no assurance the total is worth 1200$. But refugees appraise value upon collection.
Problems arise when case workers call refugees to say, “Sorry your choice of X is cancelled because you are OVER BUDGET.” There no point protesting over the phone as ISS-HK controls distribution.
Hundreds if not thousands of refugee complain about the “Over Budget Problem” that deletes essential items previously confirmed. It remains to be seen if the food sheets were subsequently amended and, even if they were, the system is inefficient at best.
Ali explained that in early April his case worker Mary Lee called to again reduce his allocation. Mary Lee, a veteran staffer who should know better, keeps getting prices wrong because the price list is hidden.
The “Over Budget Problem” makes victims of refugees who have no control. Vision First is concerned that ISS-HK shop do not provide a copy of the food collection list to refugees as standard practice. This means that refugees denies refugees to keep the system in check.
It should be noted that unilateral alterations are the norm, not the exception. Refugees lament the “Over Budget” phone calls that frequently deprive them of necessary items. Vision First is concerned about the discrepancies between the food selection sheets and the rations refugees take home.
The current arrangement brings the system into disrepute and could be easily remedied by publishing a price list for case workers and refugees to calculate openly and transparently.
Global wealth meets its refugee nemesis in Asia’s World City
Apr 18th, 2014 | Advocacy | Comment
ISS-HK denies rent assistance to this refugee
Apr 16th, 2014 | Advocacy | Comment
ISS-HK subvents slums with inadequate evidence of ownership
Apr 15th, 2014 | Advocacy | Comment
Prompted by a high level police visit to a notorious refugee slum in Nai Wai, Vision First led the media to document the site and examine the ISS-HK contracts that drew the suspicion of the authorities. Could there be fraudulent elements associating ISS-HK case workers to this slum?
Vision First exposed this slum in August 2013 emphasizing that since 2006 ISS-HK had channeled rent from the government purse to this slum lord. Eight months later over a dozen refugees still reside in these illegal structures with tenancy agreements and ISS-HK contracts bearing questionable data.
Generally speaking, it is our understanding that if the Building Department does not approve premises for residential use, owner are not allowed to rent such locations to anyone – citizen or refugee alike. The fact that literally thousands of ISS-HK contracts show inappropriate home addresses raises suspicion.
It is noteworthy that ISS-HK sponsored and subvented this particular slum since September 2006 and for over seven years arranged monthly payments to a farmer who undoubtedly was not licensed to rent pig sheds for human habitation.
Either due diligence was neglected, or it was expressly decided to avoid carrying it out.
ISS-HK frequently offers the excuse that “99% of service recipients choose their own accommodation”. While this claim is arguable – as certain slum lords claimed to have established ghettos on the suggestion of ISS-HK staff – in the event it were true, such a claim is far from satisfactory.
The case of Madam Lama, reported in previous weeks, demonstrated that most refugees are not helped to find accommodation when they request such assistance. Many case workers refuse to flat-hunt, even for sick, pregnant mothers. Other case workers dispatch refugees to ghettos, the only choices available for such low rent assistance (currently 1500$ a month).
Vision First has formed a reasonable suspicion that the documentation relating to slum dwellings contain fraudulent elements. It is simply impossible for slum lords to provide genuine proof of ownership for tenantable premises in abandoned fish, chicken and pig farms. For reasons that are hard to fathom, ISS-HK turned a blind eye to a crucial contractual element.
The attached document shows ISS-HK housing procedures requiring landlords to provide:
- Landlord’s HKID copy / Company Business Registration copy
- Landlord’s bank book copy
- Completed Landlord Notification Letter
- Tenancy Agreement between landlord and service user
- Evidence of ownership: Rates paper/ Solicitors letter/ Land Register …
A cursory look of any one of the 65 slums exposed by Vision First casts serious doubt on the effectiveness of such requirements and, equally, on the SWD’s oversight of ISS-HK and SWD’s scheduled and unscheduled inspections of refugee accommodation.
Vision First is extremely concern that ISS-HK case workers – who applied their signature on thousands of ISS-HK contracts bearing false information – might be responsible for misleading the government at best, and breaking the law at worst. Could the chickens be coming home to roost?
Over the months we have accompanied lawyers, journalists, lawmakers and academics to uninhabitable refugee ghettos where nobody but coerced individuals, without money or right to work, would reasonably “choose to live” as discredited by ISS-HK justification.
From the evidence collected and the testimony of hundreds of refugees, it appears that ISS-HK, its management and case workers are treading on dangerous ground. Since August 2013 both international and local media have paid considerable attention to a scandal that is expected to deepen this year.
ISS-HK obstructs Madam Lama’s attempt to secure a home
Apr 2nd, 2014 | Advocacy | Comment
As 2nd Defendant in Ms. Lama Inu’s High Court case for damages and cruel inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment (CIDTP), the Social Welfare Department (“SWD”) submitted a sworn affirmation that includes these three statements:
SWD claim 1: “There is no monetary-equivalent ceiling on humanitarian assistance, including rental allowance”
VF comment: This is a big lie. Thousands of refugees can testify that 1200$ was an absolute ceiling for more than 99% of refugees for years. Only a tiny number with serious medical problems received 1500$ after struggling with their case workers. To dispel doubts, ISS-HK must produce tables showing how many refugees received 1200$ and 1500$ between 2010 and 2014.
SWD claim 2: “There is no monetary-equivalent ceiling on how much an individual service user in genuine need may receive”
VF comment: Another big lie. First, all refugees are in desperate need no matter whether healthy or sick because nobody has savings or can work. Second, employing ‘genuine’ in this context is vastly misleading. SWD is not the Immigration Department and as such cannot distinguish genuine from non-genuine cases. Third, thousands of refugees can testify to the 1200$ rent assistance ceiling prior to the February 2014 enhanced welfare package.
SWD claim 3: “Assistance recipients who are in need of rental allowance higher than the amount in the grid …” could apply for and receive it.
VF comment: Thousands of refugees can produce evidence proving that demands for rent assistance were systematically refused. We invite SWD to hold a press conference and publicly state these affirmations to 5704 clients currently mishandled by ISS-HK.
Noting that perjury is a criminal offense, the SWD is invited to reconcile the above three sworn affirmations with the facts contained in this email sent by Vision First to SWD Assistant Director Mr. Fung Man-Chung and Deputy Director Mr. Lam Ka-tai on 1 April 2014.
Dear Mr. Fung –
The High Court injunction was lifted because the judge trusted that the SWD contractor ISS-HK would performs its duties towards and stop discriminating against the plaintiff family. That might have been the SWD’s intention and understanding as 2nd Defendant.
Mr. Justice Au would be unpleased to learn that this is not the case. While it is unlikely that he will hear the damage and CIDTP claim that Mrs. Lama Inu and family will bring against your department, the following developments will be brought to the Court’s attention in due course.
Prior to the injunctive hearing, ISS case worker Ms. Helen Lee misled the plaintiffs, and in some measure the court, by offering Ms. Lama a 6000$ monthly rent budget and a two-bedroom flat in Cheung Sha Wan that was to be viewed on Monday, 31 March 2014.
Once the hearing was over, Ms. Lee reverted to her old ways and ceased being proactive, helpful and supportive of Ms. Lama. It is noteworthy that such an about-face was entirely predictable.
Most observers would agree this is spiteful and vengeful behavior from a woman who fails to understand her role in the upcoming damage and CIDTP claim, in which her attentive care would be a mitigating factor.
At this stage, we draw your attention to these facts:
– Ms. Lee failed to show a two-bedroom flat to Ms. Lama on Monday, or today;
– Ms. Lee withdrew the 6000$ rent assistance budget, reducing it to the 4500$ that led to the original injunction;
– Ms. Lee made no effort to identify a suitable flat for the family;
– Ms. Lee told the family to find a new home themselves when they have no resource or connections or to do so;
– Ms. Lee advised Ms. Lama to seek further rent assistance (above 4500$) from NGOs, in contravention of the Court of Final Appeal “Madam Kung” judgment;
– Ms. Lee refused to support Ms. Lama with two months security deposit, stating there are no rules on the matter, in contravention to the SWD letter to ISS on the Enhanced Welfare Package;
– Ms. Lee advised Ms. Lama to seek further deposit assistance (above the first month) from NGOs, in contravention of the Court of Final Appeal “Madam Kung” judgment.
It appears that after the High Court injunction was lifted, Ms. Lee reverted to harmful, discriminating tactics to further humiliate and torment a fragile lady for whom she never had any sympathy.
Ms. Lama may be reached at 54074415
We would be grateful for your urgent attention to this matter repeating our advice to change Ms. Lama’s ISS case worker in view of the upcoming damage and CIDTP claim.
Sincerely yours,
Cosmo Beatson
Vision First
Injunction lifted but ISS-HK warned against dereliction of duty
Mar 29th, 2014 | Advocacy | Comment
The Refugee Union showed big support for Madam Lama in her fight for justice against ISS-HK and SWD in breach of their duties. The Union pushed back against an oppressive and abusive welfare system that fails to meet their most basic needs and leaves them destitute.
Madam Lama was represented pro bono by barristers Robert Tibbo and Mark Sutherland. Mr. Tibbo reminded the court that it is the government responsibility to meet asylum seekers and refugees’ material needs as they are prohibited from working.
Concerns were raised that without the injunction being extended, ISS-HK and SWD would fall back towards the dereliction of duty and egregious behaviour that made Madam Lama and family homeless twice in ten days. ISS-HK has lost all credibility with the refugee community.
These are issues of security of the individual, of both physical and psychological integrity, as refugees are marginalized and discriminated against as a clearly defined social group based on immigration status. As such Hong Kong government violates their rights to security.
Madam Lama and family required certainty that they will not be mistreated, mishandled and end up back on the street. It was noted that ISS-HK and SWD were in breach of fiduciary duties towards this vulnerable family.
Drawing attention to Madam Lama’s affirmation, Mr. Sutherland pointed out the absence of harmonious, uninterrupted welfare over three years of assistance that portrayed troubling gaps in services.
For years Madam Lama had to beg from friends and church to fill gaps that are the government responsibility, which was totally disgraceful. Welfare was sporadic and humiliating. It degraded this family by offering partial assistance, but not enough to switch the lights on.
The court attention was drawn to the government’s failure to meet refugees’ basic needs, an undesirable situation that left people desperately stuck in a corner without options, sufficient assistance or the right to work. Mr. Sutherland concluded, “We are here to seek proper justice in Hong Kong where the rule of law prevails.”
The Honorable Mister Justice Au was not persuaded that the injunction should continue and dismissed the summons trusting that ISS-HK would suitably house Madam Lama and family. It is understood that arrangements have been made for the family to view a two-bedroom flat on Monday.
The Refugee Union filed this High Court writ to warn ISS-HK to conscientiously perform their duty towards their members who will no longer passively submit to abuse and humiliation.
ISS-HK case workers are not likely to forget the lessons learnt from “Occupy ISS” and the High Court injunction. ISS-HK has been put on notice that refugees will strike hard when mistreated and have nothing to lose in the struggle for justice.
The emergency injunction phase of this court action is over. ISS-HK will certainly be more proactive in housing homeless refugees and ensuring that rent is fully paid for the most vulnerable. The case for damages now begins and ISS-HK staff will be made accountable for years of abuse.
The Refugee Union has emerging as a credible force to safeguard rights and interests.
ISS shops are owed millions and might stop food distribution
Mar 27th, 2014 | Advocacy | Comment
Ten months exposing refugee slums since May 2013 didn’t accomplish what the food crisis did in six weeks. While less than one thousand refugees live in slums, over four thousand depend on food distributed by the seven shops appointed by ISS-HK.
Few doubt that fraudulent practices deduct 1/3 value from food allocated monthly to refugees, who are jailed for 15 months if arrested working. Yesterday a Srilankan refugee lady was remanded in custody without bail after being charged with working illegally when ISS-HK didn’t pay her rent for months.
Last night a mother SMSed, “ISS say food per month is worth $1200, but I see my food price have maybe only $900. 5kg rice $55, 1 can milk powder $72, 1 pack Vitasoy $16.90, 1 bottle oil $28, onion $7, tomato $7, potato $7, eggs $10, 1 pack instant noodle $11, 1 chicken $40, 1 fish $30. Total $284 x 3 collections = $852 only.”
The distressed mother continued, “Even after change food [a new system started in February] also still like that. My big baby 4 cans of milk powder $920 + 3 biscuit $30 + juice $69= total $1019. My small baby 3 can milk powder $900. We don’t have $1200 per month each [as per SWD instructions to ISS-HK].
If imprisonment of refugees arrested working is unavoidable, it follows that the government has a moral and constitutional duty to meet refugees’ basic needs in general – accommodation and food in particular.
Vision First is very concerned that the food crisis will escalate. Reliable sources inform that the 7 ISS shops will stop distributing food in April 2014. The shop owners claim that ISS-HK hasn’t paid them for four to five months.
On 14 February 2014, ISS-HK wrote to the Refugee Union, “… all food suppliers are paid by ISS Hong Kong according to the amount of food ordered and dispensed on an actual disbursement basis. Payments to ISS by the Administration are made according to a payment schedule specified in the service contract. Unused money of the service project would be clawed back to the Administration at the project completion.”
In 2013 it was reported that ISS-HK returned to SWD over 60 million dollars unused, i.e. clawed back. Apparently SWD advanced ISS-HK 60 million dollars more than it required on a disbursement basis. That alone might have been financially reckless. These facts raise some red flags:
- ISS-HK operates on a disbursement basis, but in 2013 SWD overpaid ISS-HK about 60 million dollars;
- ISS-HK distributes 4.8 million dollars in food a month, but shops claim to be owed 24 million dollars for the past 5 months;
- ISS-HK distribute 4.8 million dollars in food a month, but 30% fails to reach refugees.
As the SWD-ISS Contract and accounting books remain strictly confidential, a certain degree of speculation is unavoidable. Given the investigation of ISS-HK, it is plausible that SWD froze to its rogue contractor in February.
This would explain why ISS-HK had no liquidity to pay the shops for food distributed in one month. The deepening crisis in March would then explain reimbursements stopped for two months. But why are the shops complaining about not being paid for four to five months?
- Is it possible that ISS-HK didn’t pay millions of dollars to the shops on ‘an actual disbursement basis’?
- Is it possible that ISS-HK didn’t pay millions of dollars to landlords on time?
- Is it possible that ISS-HK didn’t pay millions of dollars owed refugees for utilities, cooking gas, toiletries and transportation?
- If the SWD is not responsible for payment delays and failures, who is?
- Could such payment issues mask serious improprieties?
