A Home Seeker for eight years
Dec 2nd, 2013 | Media, Personal Experiences | Comment
Raquel Carvalho writes for West HK Stories on 19 November 2013
Ibrahim Adjouma, 43 years old, recalls the sea and the lakes of his hometown, Aného. He talks loudly and excitedly about the big and tasty fishes that he used to eat back in Togo. He hasn’t tasted anything to equal this since he arrived in Hong Kong, on 8th February 2005.
“When you protest, your life is in danger,” he says, explaining why he had to leave Togo, in West Africa. After demonstrations against the 2005 presidential elections, Ibrahim never saw his younger brother again.
However, he didn’t give up until his own life was also in danger. “I’m sure they killed him and they didn’t want any questions. A best friend of mine, who was a high official, called me saying that they had decided together to arrest me, torture or kill me. He said I had to leave the country soon.”
When Ibrahim got his friend’s call, he was in a mosque praying for the days to come. From that time on, he would need more courage than he could ever imagine. He travelled in his friends’ car, crossed a lake by boat, and hid himself in a village lost on the map until he got a passport and a flight ticket in his hands. He would land in Kong Kong, not by option but by fate.
A guesthouse in Chungking Mansions was his roof for a few weeks, but soon he ran out of money. The Star Ferry Pier became his new home for six months until he was arrested. “After four months in detention, because the Hong Kong Government didn’t recognize the asylum seek card certificate, I had to file a torture claim at the Immigration Department,” describes Ibrahim.
While he is still waiting, he holds a document that doesn’t allow him to work in Hong Kong. His wife, Ally, left Togo in 2008, after being threatened by the police, and she is now in the same situation.
According to an article published in the South China Morning Post on December 2012, there were last year 5,200 torture claim cases pending assessment at the Immigration Department.
Although the couple’s two children, Adam and Marian, were born in Hong Kong, they were not granted resident cards. “Their situation is not established. And if they go to school we have to pay fees,” says Ibrahim, worried about the next few years.
Without sources of income, the family relies on support from the International Social Service, which is commissioned by the Hong Kong government, and from charity organizations. “The government gives us 3.600 HK dollars for the rent. But how can we find a flat for this price in Hong Kong? We are now in a temporary shelter and we have to find a house, but we don’t have any money for the deposit.”
To have food on the table is also a daily struggle. “We get about 4.000 dollars per month for the family. But that’s what they write in the paper….We don’t get the cash, we have to go to a store and collect the food. The prices are not fair,” Ibrahim complains.
His greatest wish is to get a piece of the life he once had in Togo, where he was a businessman with a house and a backyard. “I don’t see any future for me. I am already 43. All I want is to change my children’s future.”
click above to play the video
Waiting in Limbo: Hong Kong’s asylum seeker crisis
Nov 29th, 2013 | Media | Comment
Tim Yu writes for The National Conversation, the Asia Pacific Memo and Embassy News
For William*, a refugee recently recognized by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), the journey to Canada has been rather unusual. What began as an escape from political persecution in his native Uganda had unfolded into six unexpected years of desperate inactivity in the streets of Hong Kong.
Deprived of legal status and protection, he briefly sought refuge on the upper-floors of Hong Kong’s infamous Chungking Mansions, living off what little he was given in government assistance. Prior to being granted refugee status, it had appeared as though he had virtually exhausted all his options. Several weeks dragged into months, and then years, of exhaustive rounds of screening procedures, only to be repeatedly rejected at the hands of Hong Kong’s foot-dragging bureaucracy. No matter how credible the evidence was, or how convincing his personal testimonies were, it seemed to have little effect on the application process. Barred from pursuing any form of work, he was left to depend upon government handouts and local charity – and, on the worst of occasions, he was even reduced to begging as he held onto the slim hope of one day reuniting with his family abroad.
Hong Kong has around 7,000 recognized asylum seekers, with the majority of applicants fleeing religious, ethnic, or political torture in Africa or South Asia. The unique combination of high acceptance rates of asylum seekers and lenient visa-entry policies has led to a large contingent of asylum seekers at Hong Kong’s borders. Upon gaining entry to Hong Kong, asylum seekers turn to either the UNHCR or Hong Kong government to make individual refugee-status or torture claims. While they wait for their claims to be evaluated (a process that can take an average of four or five years) asylum seekers become eligible for temporary government assistance, which consists of an accommodation subsidy of HKD $1,200 (CAD$168) per month, a bag of groceries every ten days, and occasional financial subsidies for transportation fees to attend government appointments.
The underlying hope for asylum seekers arriving in Hong Kong is that it will be a passage to a better life. For the lucky few who do manage to gain refugee status, many choose to relocate to Canada, Europe, or the United States, where they hope to reunite with their loved ones. Others have resorted to an even faster method – marrying a local in Hong Kong – as a way of bypassing the queue to becoming a recognized citizen. But, for those who are unsuccessful refugee or torture claimants, there is little chance of finding refuge elsewhere once their cases are rejected by the UNHCR or the Hong Kong government.
Despite being a signatory of the UN Convention Against Torture (CAT) since 1992, Hong Kong has one of the lowest refugee recognition rates in the developed world. Of the 3,110 torture claims that the Hong Kong Immigration Department has received since December 2009, only five out of 3,110 have been approved. This is well under the annual international average of 13.8% reported by the United Nations, and the recognition rates of 20-38% in other liberal democracies.
Another fundamental problem with Hong Kong’s refugee policies is that the local government has never signed onto the 1951 UN Refugee Convention. Although China has ratified the Refugee Convention, the treaty has never been extended to Hong Kong. Without a recognized refugee treaty, Hong Kong essentially lacks a sufficient asylum policy. The Hong Kong Immigration Department is under no legal obligation to process or admit asylum seekers requesting refugee status, and instead refers all refugee claimants to theUNHCR for evaluation. There are 1,243 claimants currently under the UNHCR system, and another 4,230 under the government-administered torture screening procedures.
Part of the difficulty in the life of an asylum seeker is finding a way to prove the legitimacy behind a refugee or torture claim. Most developed countries have legislation in place to provide asylum seekers with an idea of how long such screening procedures may take. The situation in Hong Kong, however, is the exact opposite. Many economic migrants attempt to manipulate the system by prolonging their stay, and do so by appealing their applications and finding illegal temporary work that is difficult to identify and prosecute before eventually returning home. As for those that cling to the hope of being approved by the UNHCR, asylum seekers may choose to refrain from engaging in illegal work in a desperate bid to avoid jeopardizing their chances of being formally recognized as a refugee. The end result is a refugee policy that has aided those with fraudulent claims who work illegally, while punishing those who present legitimate claims and abide by local laws.
At first glance, the official policies seem reasonable: in theory, the laws are meant to ensure that asylum seekers and refugees are only offered work that cannot be done by a Hong Kong resident. Government officials have repeatedly expressed concerns that, if Hong Kong were to ever sign onto the Refugee Convention, it would become overwhelmed by thousands of illegal migrants posing as asylum seekers who are looking to take advantage of local prosperity and lenient entry-visa policies. Yet, by this same token, Hong Kong is desperate to avoid having a situation reminiscent of the ethnic violence that emerged from the Vietnamese asylum seeker crisis of the 1980s. The other alternative, currently embraced by the local government, is a legal system that offers the bare minimum to those most desperately in need.
Asylum seekers are confronted with the unenviable choice of either living off government subsidies, or working illegally at the risk of being prosecuted with severe penalties. Without the right to work, asylum seekers are caught up in a cycle of economic dependence, and forced to rely upon the meager resources offered by the UNHCR and Social Welfare Department. In more extreme cases, asylum seekers have even resorted to committing suicide in order to avoid being imprisoned or deported to a country where they could be susceptible to torture.
As Hong Kong attempts to grapple with this moral dilemma, it finds itself without a comprehensive strategy in addressing its asylum seeker crisis. The current approach, albeit appearing to be sympathetic, has failed in its commitment to adopting fairer screening procedures. Many of the anxieties about attracting illegal migrants would be resolved if asylum seekers and refugees were equipped with proper legal protections and the right to work in Hong Kong. But, as the months and years pass by, Hong Kong’s asylum seekers continue to wait in limbo.
An April demonstration by asylum seekers and their supporters added to the pressure on the Hong Kong government to produce a workable policy for screening refugees.
Transgender asylum seeker says she turned to prostitution to survive
Nov 17th, 2013 | Media | Comment
Government increases rent to 1500$ with deposit
Nov 15th, 2013 | Advocacy, Media | Comment
當局傾向增難民及酷刑聲請者津貼
政府早前表示檢討對難民和酷刑聲請者的援助水平。據了解當局初步打算將租金津貼水平跟貼綜援，
同時提供同等水平的按金。自由黨反對增加津貼，但社協認為可以改善那些人的生活。
本港有五千多名難民申請人及酷刑聲請者。當局正檢討援助水平。據了解，
初步傾向將租金津貼水平，由現時每名成年人每月1200元增至約1500元，
加幅約兩成半，亦傾向提供同等水平的按金津貼,
即再多1500元，協助難民尋找合適居所。
至於現時約1000元的實物食物援助，則傾向不調整。初步估計毋須向立法會追加撥款。
但自由黨反對增加津貼。
協助運作計劃的香港國際社會服務社認為，關鍵在於當局審批申請的時間能否縮短，
不會造成大量難民滯留本港。
English translation by Matthew
The government announced that they are going to review the assistance for refugees and torture claimants. The authorities will preliminary increase the rent assistance so that it can match the Comprehensive Social Security Assistance (CSSA). At the same time the government will provide the same level of deposits.
The Liberal Party rejected the rent increase. The Society for Community Communication believes that it will help to improve the living conditions of these refugees.
Hong Kong now has more than five thousand individual with either refugee or torture claims applications. The government intends to increase the rent assistance from $1200 to $1500 for each adult. The increase rate is 25%.
The government also intends to increase the rent deposit to $1500 (per person) to assist the refugees in finding an appropriate living place.
With regard to the $1060 food assistance, the government intends to keep it unchanged. The government foresees no need to ask the Legislative Council to allocate extra funding. But the Liberal Party clearly expresses their objection.
The ISS-HK, who is assisting the operation, said that at issue right now is to shorten the time of verification so that a lot more refugees will not have to overstay in Hong Kong.
Vision First statement
In early 2013 VF members demanded that action be taken against the rent stranglehold. Vision First organized the first action in February 2013 when over 100 refugees wrote protest letters to ISS-HK demanding an increase in rent. It is regrettable that nobody was dignified with a written reply, despite empty expressions of concern.
This campaign was followed by 200+ letters to the LegCo Public Complaint Office. This advocacy triggered and emergency meeting of the LegCo Panel on Welfare on 22 July 2013. The panel concluded with a promise that the overall welfare package would be increased in a couple of months. It is now four months later.
Vision First expresses deep dissatisfaction with this palliative solution that does little to alleviate the suffering of refugees denied the right to work in one of Asia’s most expensive cities. If the government thinks there are basic, legal rooms in the market that rent for 1500$ a month, it is clearly living in the past decade.
We will not stop our hardline action until we achieve our objective of ensuring that the basic material and financial needs of refugees are met in full, or they are allowed to work.
This belated, insufficient and short-sighted adjustment of the failed welfare provision is a sure indication that the Government does not take its constitutional obligations seriously. We shall strive, united, for meaningful changes as we safeguard the rights of those we care for.
Government will increase refugee rent from 1200$ to 1500$ a month
RTHK comes slum hunting
Nov 14th, 2013 | Media | Comment
RTHK followed photographer Billy H C Kwok’s work in the refugee ghetto
Homeseeker – A Torture Claimant in Hong Kong
Nov 12th, 2013 | Media | Comment
by Raquel Carvalho
The cultural differences between Togo and Hong Kong can be greater than the miles between both places. Ibrahim and his wife Ally were forced to leave their home country. Now living in Hong Kong, they struggle to survive with little hope in the future.
Ibrahim Adjouma, 43 years old, recalls the sea and the lakes of his hometown, Aného. He talks loudly and excitedly about the big and tasty fishes that he used to eat back in Togo. He hasn’t tasted anything to equal this since he arrived in Hong Kong, on 8th February 2005.
“When you protest, your life is in danger,” he says, explaining why he had to leave Togo, in West Africa. After demonstrations against the 2005 presidential elections, Ibrahim never saw his younger brother again.
However, he didn’t give up until his own life was also in danger. “I’m sure they killed him and they didn’t want any questions. A best friend of mine, who was a high official, called me saying that they had decided together to arrest me, torture or kill me. He said I had to leave the country soon.”
When Ibrahim got his friend’s call, he was in a mosque praying for the days to come. From that time on, he would need more courage than he could ever imagine. He travelled in his friends’ car, crossed a lake by boat, and hid himself in a village lost on the map until he got a passport and a flight ticket in his hands. He would land in Kong Kong, not by option but by fate.
A guesthouse in Chungking Mansions was his roof for a few weeks, but soon he ran out of money. The Star Ferry Pier became his new home for six months until he was arrested. “After four months in detention, because the Hong Kong Government didn’t recognize the asylum seek card certificate, I had to file a torture claim at the Immigration Department,” describes Ibrahim.
While he is still waiting, he holds a document that doesn’t allow him to work in Hong Kong. His wife, Ally, left Togo in 2008, after being threatened by the police, and she is now in the same situation.
According to an article published in the South China Morning Post on December 2012, there were last year 5,200 torture claim cases pending assessment at the Immigration Department.
Although the couple’s two children, Adam and Marian, were born in Hong Kong, they were not granted resident cards. “Their situation is not established. And if they go to school we have to pay fees,” says Ibrahim, worried about the next few years.
Without sources of income, the family relies on support from the International Social Service, which is commissioned by the Hong Kong government, and from charity organizations. “The government gives us 3.600 HK dollars for the rent. But how can we find a flat for this price in Hong Kong? We are now in a temporary shelter and we have to find a house, but we don’t have any money for the deposit.”
To have food on the table is also a daily struggle. “We get about 4.000 dollars per month for the family. But that’s what they write in the paper….We don’t get the cash, we have to go to a store and collect the food. The prices are not fair,” Ibrahim complains.
His greatest wish is to get a piece of the life he once had in Togo, where he was a businessman with a house and a backyard. “I don’t see any future for me. I am already 43. All I want is to change my children’s future.”
Work ban on refugees could bring danger to society
Nov 9th, 2013 | Media | Comment
Thomas Chan writes for South China Morning Post on 9 November 2013
Denying refugees and asylum seekers the right to work reduces them to “animal-like status” that risks creating serious social problems, human rights activists say. Fugitives who have fled their home countries wind up in Hong Kong largely by force of circumstance, not by design, and keeping them unemployed is bad for them and society. While the government fears that making it easier for such people to work would open the floodgates to more, rights lawyer Mark Daly said the system was turning otherwise intelligent and productive people into beggars.
“The worst case scenario is that they start to get mental problems because of the desperate situation and become a worse danger to society,” he said. The comments come ahead of a landmark case in the Court of Final Appeal in January in which three designated refugees – including a qualified lawyer – and a successful torture claimant are seeking the right to work. Asylum seekers awaiting the outcome of their claim with the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), recognised refugees awaiting resettlement to another country and torture claimants are banned from doing paid or unpaid work.
Julee Allen, manager of Christian Action’s humanitarian services department, said being unable to occupy their time meaningfully and productively damaged refugees’ mental health and added to feelings of social isolation, depression and hopelessness. “People feel they have been reduced to animal-like status,” she said. “All they can do here is sleep and eat and nothing more.” Mr A, a lawyer who fled political persecution in Africa and is one of the litigants in the Court of Final Appeal hearing, said he felt worthless. “My feeling is that I am a useless person without any dignity at all. I am just somebody who comes by the name only.”
The Immigration Department says 3,800 torture claims have been determined since the commencement of a new screening mechanism in December 2009, and only 10 have been substantiated. The UNHCR said 3,022 asylum seekers had lodged claims from 2009 to August 2013. As of August, there were 100 recognised refugees in Hong Kong, and 73 were of working age. Extraordinary temporary permission to work may be issued at the discretion of the Director of Immigration on a discretionary basis, but it is rarely granted. So far, only Mr A and a substantiated torture claimant have received such permission.
The department said giving asylum seekers temporary permission to work might create “a magnet effect”, attracting many illegal immigrants to Hong Kong. “This could have serious implications on the local labour market and on our immigration control regime,” it said. It has not been alone in arguing that permission to work would open the floodgates to more fugitives, creating unforeseeable social problems. But another rights lawyer, Patricia Ho, said the government had created a huge social problem of its own making. “In a workable and efficient system, the people who get to work are the people who are accepted,” Ho said. “They can’t be considered scum and extra people that society can have or not have.”
Legally, Daly said the ban infringed various human rights provisions, including the right to privacy, the right not to be subjected to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, and the right to work. He said protection claimants were also entitled to rights under the Basic Law, in particular the right to freedom of choice of occupation. He rejected suggestions that refugees were like economic migrants who came to Hong Kong in search of a better quality of life. “It is unrealistic to say that somebody is going to intentionally come here, put himself through a torture-screening process, and live in limbo for even a few years simply for the chance to eventually find a job,” he said.
Allen said: “If you talk to any recognised refugee, or person who has a protection need … they never thought of Hong Kong before that moment … that pushed them out of their home country.” Questions have been raised over the impact of the court ruling, given the small number of recognised refugees and substantiated torture claimants. “If we win, I believe the effect on respect for human rights and respect for human dignity will be huge, and transformation that it can bring to certain individuals will be huge,” Ho said.
In Britain, asylum seekers can apply for permission to work if they have waited for more than 12 months for an initial decision on their asylum claim, while the Malaysian government said refugees would be trained to seek employment during the time they are awaiting resettlement.
Jack Li’s photo Impressions of Subdivided Flat. He says it shows a distorted future where people have lost their basic rights to securing affordable housing.
Evolve or die, mate
Nov 7th, 2013 | Media | Comment
Vision First firmly reiterates and emphasizes that refugees have an absolute right to be here. They are not guest, illegal immigrants or charity recipients. We were evidently not consulted when the UN Torture Convention was ratified – we would have opposed it – nor do we issue Recognizance Forms. We value each refugee as a human being deserving of the same respect and dignity as every other citizens.
Nobody is in any doubt the current welfare assistance fails refugees at every level. Protection claimants face brutal and unjust hurdles attempting to survive in this opulent city. Forcing anyone to live 37% below the poverty line is as cruel as it is constitutionally illegal. It is a matter that most citizens are unaware of and would consider shameful and unacceptable were they forced to confront its madness.
Every individual with a Recognizance Form was allowed into Hong Kong by the Immigration Department. The government considers it desirable that human beings should receive insufficient assistance, while being banned from working and punished with 15-22 months imprisonmentwhen they break the law. This is unacceptable. This has to stop in the name of the kindness and compassion of the average citizen.
Vision First walks and suffers with refugees. Another year, or day, should not pass without challenging the government’s failure to protect and civil society’s duty to address such glaring injustice. The responsibility and blame must now fall squarely onto the shoulders of those responsible for planning, implementing and perpetuating a mechanism of oppression. It is time to increase the pressure.
To this end, Vision First will close its shelter on 1 January 2014. We will also suspend all financial aid (150,000$ a month) to our 700 members, effective 1 December 2013. There will be no more cash for members who do not take a personal, active part in opposing an unjust asylum policy. The aim is to ensure that we stops filling gaps and lifting a burden that is absolutely the SWD’s responsibility – not ours.
Vision First will share its tactics with those who have suffered enough and dare to fight back. We will organize groups to achieve strategic targets. We will support any (legal) action that will usher in urgent change. Two million dollars of financial aid will be shared among members who are committed, join protests and bring strength to the collective. The first requirement is to produce a “Red Card” from Legal Aid Department for applying to judicially review a failed, oppressive welfare system. We will not fail our objectives. We will never fail the refugee community.
As Charles Darwin eloquently wrote, “Evolve or die, mate!”
click above to see a refugee ghetto in a farm shed