Refugee Union statement on World Refugee Day
Jun 20th, 2014 | Advocacy | Comment
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
The Refugee Union is expanding rapidly
Jun 13th, 2014 | Media | Comment
The Refugee Union for protection claimants is the first of its kind in Hong Kong. Conceptualized at a gathering on 27 January 2014, the Union introduced its increasingly familiar logo on 22 February and is today rapidly gaining acceptance in a once marginalized and fractured community.
In less than five months over 300 members joined the Refugee Union with a record 33 signing up on 12 June 2014 in Ping Che – the epicenter of the battle against the slums that challenged ISS-HK’s housing policy. Incidentally, the worst shacks were either demolished or are no longer approved for refugees.
The advantages of the Union over any traditional NGO are readily grasped by refugees and worth consideration as the community prepares for a rally on World Refugee Day, 20 June 2014.
First, the Refugee Union is as an organization that genuinely places the rights and interests of the community ahead of government policies and other agendas that limit the scope of action of typical NGOs, which often aim to offer charity without addressing the root causes of social injustice.
Second, the Refugee Union puts the needs of refugees before other considerations, which for other NGOs often amount to paying rent and salaries every month. The Union offers an organizational model that puts members’ requirements head of overheads and payroll, because there are none.
Third, the Refugee Union is independent from the government and represents its community without fear or favour and without worrying about losing funding or stepping on the wrong feet. This autonomy guarantees that objectives are prioritized and strategies formulated to benefit the group.
Fourth, the Refugee Union brings together groups traditionally divided along national, ethnic and cultural lines to the detriment of collective power. Members understand that this society belongs to them and that united under one flag they can achieve as a group what is impossible alone.
Fifth, the Refugee Union promotes member participation for the simple reason that any refugee can speak for himself, share information, put forward suggestions, inform other and take the lead wherever necessary. The Union already enjoys a leadership resolved to bring forward change.
As a consequence, the Refugee Union empowers a community of motivated people who individually had no chance of tackling the culture of rejection that silently abuses this population.
Evidence demonstrates that the Refugee Union is a paradigm shift in the asylum arena. The founding members went on a mission to bring hope to thousands of comrades crushed by the institutionalized violation of human rights. Today the word is spreading across Kowloon and the New Territories and refugees are pressing to sign up for membership in an organization that truly belongs to them.
The Union is community-driven and its leaders are selected entirely by vigorous performance and selfless dedication to the common good. This ensures that new bonds of friendship and trust are forged to consolidate a brotherhood that will bring the best out of talented and passionate members.
The experience is as inspiring as it is transformative. A community crushed hopelessly without a future, has proactively united and organized to build the foundation and gather the strength required for the struggle ahead. The union is rising and new members join its ranks daily.
“Human progress is neither automatic nor inevitable … Every step towards the goal of justice requires sacrifice, suffering and struggle; the tireless exertions and passionate concern of dedicated individuals” – Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
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.
