Archive

SCMP: Time to sign the UN Refugee Convention

Mar 3rd, 2012 | Advocacy | Comment

“Seeking physical security from persecution as well as
economic opportunities in a country of destination can
hardly be regarded as incompatible objectives for
people forced to leave their country of origin” - Thielemann

Refugees left with HK$300 a month after subsidy cut

Feb 26th, 2012 | Advocacy | Comment

John Carney writes on Feb 26, 2012 for the Sunday Morning Post  (circulation 80,000)

To view Front Page click here + Third Page click here

The lives of refugees residing in Hong Kong have been thrown into further turmoil after the UN abruptly slashed the monthly allowance they receive to HK$300 – an 80 per cent cut. Despite receiving generous financial support from donors in Hong Kong, the cash-strapped United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees decided last month it could no longer afford to pay the HK$1,500 that 180 refugees living in the city were getting to help pay expenses. The Hong Kong government has stepped in to provide the recipients with HK$1,200 worth of food each, but refugees say the remaining cash payment falls far short of what they need to pay for rent, clothes, utilities and other essentials. Refugees, who spoke to the Sunday Morning Post on the condition that their names or countries were not identified, say the allowance cut has left them in a struggle to survive.

“I’m a recognised refugee and I will lose my room this week,” said one man from North Africa. “What can I do? Who can help me? I’m not a beggar.” Another refugee from central Asia said he was unable to pay his electricity and water bills and was “very, very desperate”. Activists’ anger over the cuts has been stirred by the fact that the UNHCR’s own website shows it received private contributions of HK$20 million from Hongkongers in 2010 and HK$16 million as of September 19 last year. “What matters for refugee families is `dollars in hand’ – nothing else,” said Cosmo Beatson, executive director of Vision First, a non-governmental organisation working with local refugees. “The problem is not fund-raising, but the allocation of money trustingly donated by our fellow citizens. The big picture remains disingenuous.”

The UNHCR said funds raised in Hong Kong were used to support its humanitarian work around the world, which have stretched the body’s financial resources to the limit. It was therefore unable to continue its “material assistance” for refugees. “My office had to secure an alternative source of support to refugees and approached the government for assistance,” said Choosin Ngaotheppitak, head of the UNHCR’s Hong Kong office. “This [humanitarian assistance] programme is in line with the standards set by the government.” He said the government programme would also give refugees access to allowances for rental, utilities and clothing. These welfare services, however, were already available to refugees when the UNHCR was still paying them the full allowance.

Human rights lawyer Mark Daly believes the UNHCR is not doing enough. “They’re effectively caving in to a government programme here that doesn’t meet the standards that the UNHCR themselves think other countries should be meeting elsewhere,” he said. “You have to ask: what are they thinking?” The UNHCR’s global budget for this year will be a record US$3.59 billion and 93 per cent of its funding comes from government sources. It serves some 10.5 million refugees, half of them in Asia.

Who gets what

• Number of recognised refugees in Hong Kong -€“ 180
• Number of (UNHCR) asylum seekers in Hong Kong -€“ 486
• Amount donated to the UNHCR in Hong Kong in 2010 -€“ HK$20 million
• Largest private donor – the Hong Kong Buddhist Association with US$271,337
• Cut to refugee’s HK$1,500 monthly payments -€“ 80 per cent
• Saving to the UNHCR – HK$2,592,000 (paid by HKSAR for food rations)

UNHCR Hong Kong is a donation black hole

Feb 19th, 2012 | Advocacy | Comment

Version Française:  Lettre Ouverte au HCR – 19 Feb 2012 
English Version:      Open letter to UNHCR 19Feb2012
Chinese Version:     Open letter to UNHCR 19Feb2012 – Chinese

Open Letter to the UNHCR Sub-Office at Hong Kong SAR: 

Attn. Mr. Choosin Ngaotheppitak (Head of Sub-Office)

Dear Mr. Ngaotheppitak–

While we represent different organizations, our mandates are the same: to protect some of the most powerless and abused people on Earth – refugees. As a representative of Vision First in Hong Kong, but also as one human being to another, I ask you to consider this letter with your full attention and care.

We find the recent UNHCR documents deeply disturbing. In particular, we draw your attention to the following article (http://visionfirstnow.org/2012/01/29/where-did-these-unhcr-millions-go/) published on our website, which details the substantial sums raised by UNHCR from Hong Kong residents and yet also details UNHCR’s stunning reductions to the day-to-day financial aid of refugees in Hong Kong. The many comments that follow this posting are mainly from the people directly affected by UNHCR’s painful cuts, the refugees themselves.

A second, also disturbing, report is available at http://www.unhcr.org/4df1d0449.html. It is entitled, “Contributions to UNHCR for Budget Year 2011 as at 31 December 2011” and offers updated and relevant information about the UNHCR global receipts of USD 2.1 BILLION.

With the above in mind, the question rises: How can UNHCR so drastically reduce its support for refugees in Hong Kong (by a staggering 80%!) at such a difficult time for refugees while the UNHCR global receipts are at such high levels?

More to the point, and please correct me if I am mistaken: is it not true that the High Commissioner for Refugees (to whom you answer) should be working for the 193 United Nations member states? Since China, including the Hong Kong SAR, is one of these member states it follows that UNHCR carries out its operations also on behalf of the citizens of Hong Kong. Consequently, we, the staff of Vision First, our volunteers, supporters and donors, who are citizens of Hong Kong, have both the right to ask questions and the legitimate expectation to receive answers from your office.

Further, as refugees in Hong Kong were told their allowance was cut by 80% due to budget constraints, it is vital for us to understand clearly what financial difficulties UNHCR is facing that would force it to make cuts in aid to those who need it most desperately. We trust you will answer the following questions:

1. UNHCR has a global budget of USD 2,132,351,419 (received 2011); what is the Hong Kong budget spent for the well being of refugees?
2. China contributed USD 250,000 to UNHCR but Private Donors in China contributed USD 3,468,084 – how much came from Hong Kong donors? We assume the majority, as refugee concerns are not known to be a high priority for wealthy Mainlanders.
3. This page (http://www.unhcr.org/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/page?page=49e488026&submit=GO) reports donations from HK Private Sector as USD 2,140,421 as at 19 September 2011 – what was the total figure for last year?
4. Why aren’t the “Private Donors in Hong Kong” listed separately in the 2.1 Billion reported above? Are they aggregated with the “Private Donors in China”?
5. What was the fundraising target for Hong Kong UNHCR in 2011? What total amount was raised? These are relevant questions as your staff told refugees their allowance was cut “because we [UNHCR] didn’t receive enough donations in Hong Kong due to the economic crisis”. Isn’t either USD 2.1 million (if we accept the lower figure) or up to USD 3.4 million enough?

The following comments reflect our experience of UNHCR staff as they relate to refugees here in daily encounters.
6. Many times needy refugees have been told by your staff that they should seek aid rather from Christian Action and Vision First. Why does this happen? Speaking for Vision First, we received about USD 150,000 in donations or about 5% of your collection. In other words UNHCR Hong Kong is 20 times larger than Vision First: with greater funding for refugees goes the greater responsibility and capacity to help them.
7. In our experience, often members of your staff have told refugees, “Go sleep in the street!” (and have made other unacceptable comments). Do you know this is common practice? Do these staff members really represent UNHCR’s spirit and practice of care in Hong Kong?

The three families (A, B and C) below are known to both UNHCR and Vision First.
8. Family A: why did you cut this family’s budget from HKD 5,500 to HKD 1,200 knowing they are bound to a tenancy agreement and risk being evicted now?
9. Family B: why did you cut this family’s budget from HKD 4,250 to 1,200 when they have rent, household expenses and three children’s education to support?
10. Family C: the same damage was inflicted on this family, whose support was dropped from HKD 5,250 to 1,200 with no concern for how they might survive. Replacing food for cash doesn’t work, particularly when the food is worth half the price and is not what these families eat customarily. Don’t you realize the cash is always used for more than food? What do you think will happen to these families?
11. Where do you think these families and dozens of other refugees are going for help? How can NGOs even start to fill in the new shortfalls that your cuts have now created?
12. Why did your staff say all refugees agreed to the food-not-cash change after the November and December (2011) meetings when everyone there protested strongly?
13. Why does your staff appear to spread this kind of misinformation to those it is mandated to serve?

The forced choice of food over cash…
14. What was the point of your staff telling refugees that they had a choice between food and cash when you forced them to take food and refused providing funds in any case?
15. Do you realize that refusing funds to penniless refugees, while giving them unwanted food, can force them into the difficult situation where many are compelled to sell the food at perhaps a quarter of its price to unscrupulous operators?
16. Do you realize that refusing funds to penniless refugees may compel them to break the law in desperation by seeking black market work to provide for their families? Do you realize that there may be legal ramifications here for UNHCR?

And, if the relevant funds have gone, where have they gone?
17. What cost-saving measures were attempted in your office before you ordered your staff to resort to this drastic and potentially dangerous policy of cost cuts?
18. Were there salary increases in your office this year?
19. What happened to the USD millions you raised in Hong Kong?
20. Please publish an audit if UNHCR has nothing to hide.

As we all have the same objective – although you pursue yours as a duty to the member states of the United Nations and we pursue ours voluntarily out of compassion – I urge you to address the above questions in good faith. I hope we can overcome the difficulties that, we feel, have prevented UNHCR from serving the refugees Hong Kong in accordance with its mandate.

Sincerely,
Cosmo Beatson
Executive Director
Vision First

A personal story (Chinese)

Feb 18th, 2012 | Advocacy | Comment

This video tells the story and shares the thoughts of an asylum-seeker, in Mandarin and Chinese.

Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MMv-8k4cIpw&context=C3743d43ADOEgsToPDskLyxAqekDOn7Ep7LqhQiYga

Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j3C3lixEHtQ&context=C3743d43ADOEgsToPDskLyxAqekDOn7Ep7LqhQiYga

Part 3: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LrSgzZeetWc&context=C3743d43ADOEgsToPDskLyxAqekDOn7Ep7LqhQiYga

The economics of asylum

Feb 12th, 2012 | Advocacy | Comment

I came to seek asylum in 2009, leaving behind a comfortable life after my home was sprayed with machine-gun fire one night. It was a deadly warning my journalistic reporting wouldn’t be tolerated by the authorities any longer. I escaped to Hong Kong and when cash finished, I had no choice but ask Hong Kong Government for assistance to keep alive. There has been much discussion lately about the Economics of Asylum. Many want to know how refugees survive. My life was upper-middle class in the capital city, with a large home, a car and four children in university. Having lost all of this, put my wife and family through misery and stopped my children’s education, please believe I’m speaking the truth. I am the most senior VF member. I asked for my name to be published, as I’m not afraid of speaking out, but they refused knowing how vindictive the asylum system is.

Before I start, allow me to quote article 14 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: “Everyone has the right to seek and enjoy in other countries freedom from persecution.” I fled my country in clear and present danger. It was a matter of hours before I would have died, like four colleagues blown up the following week. Without the protection Hong Kong is providing, I would be dead, so thank you from the bottom of my heart! While it is true there are those who abuse the system, there are also many in genuine need of protection. We have strong claims of persecution and are in urgent need of international security. I speak in the name of these people, those who wouldn’t be alive today without the support of Hong Kong. That being clarified, let’s see how our financial struggle unfolds:

(more…)

Nansen Refugee Award: The flowers of Afghanistan

Feb 10th, 2012 | Advocacy | Comment

A third of all the world’s refugees are from Afghanistan. The Russian Occupation, Warlordism, Taliban rule and the War on Terror have left an estimated five million people displaced beyond the country’s borders. Three decades of conflict have left a shrinking humanitarian space and as poverty and insecurity in the region worsen, a new generation is looking further afield in search of a better life. Growing numbers of vulnerable Afghan youths continue to make the difficult and dangerous overland journey to Europe. Last year saw a 64% increase in unaccompanied minors from Afghanistan arriving in the European Union who applied for asylum, the average age being just 14- 15 years old. Traveling alone they are exposed to abuse and exploitation by criminals or by the very smuggling networks in which their lives are placed. Ten years on from 9/11, the surge in the numbers of children entering Europe should be cause to reflect on the plight of Afghanistan’s youth in the shadow of war.

As the recipient of the 2010 UNHCR Nansen Refugee Award for her work documenting the often-overlooked humanitarian consequences of war, photographer and author Alixandra Fazzina’s reportage portrays the individual stories of Afghan children on the move. Following the flowers of Afghanistan on their clandestine routes from Asia to Europe, the work intimately explores the motives, paths and consequences of this new exodus.

Immigration Department year-end briefing 2011

Feb 10th, 2012 | Advocacy | Comment

This extra on Torture Claim Assessment is taken from the Immigration Department website. To read more about operations, arrested illegal workers, CIC, bogus marriage and more please click here: http://www.immd.gov.hk/ehtml/20120120.htm

Pursuant to court rulings in the past few years, the Administration has enhanced the administrative screening mechanism for torture claims and an enhanced mechanism has been relaunched since December 24, 2009. In 2011 a total of 1432 new torture claim cases were received – down 20.8 per cent compared with 1 809 cases in 2010. The majority of the claimants came from South Asian countries. As at December 31, 2011, the Department had processed over 2 182 claims under the enhanced mechanism, of which 92 per cent were provided with publicly funded legal assistance. Of those, decisions were made on 1 146 claims. At present, the number of outstanding claims is 6447.

During the year, some legally aided torture claimants launched various legal challenges against enforcement actions and policies of the Administration. There were judicial review applications challenging, inter alia, the Administration’s policy of not granting extension of stay to torture claimants and not allowing the screened-in torture claimants to work in Hong Kong. The ruling of the court upholds the Government’s policy of not granting extension of stay to torture claimants and not allowing screened-in torture claimants and mandated refugees to take up employment generally. Furthermore, the new Section 38AA of the Immigration Ordinance, which came into effect on November 14, 2009, provides that it is an offence for any illegal immigrants or any persons under a removal order or a deportation order to take any paid or unpaid employment, or to establish or join in any business. As at December 31, 2011, 2311 torture claims had been withdrawn and the subjects had voluntarily requested repatriation to their places of origin.

In addition, the Administration introduced the Immigration (Amendment) Bill 2011 to the Legislative Council on July 8, 2011, to underpin the enhanced screening mechanism in the proposed legislation in order to maintain high standards of fairness and to help reduce procedural abuse (e.g. claimants deploying delaying tactics by spreading out submission of evidence over a long period of time, repeated absence from interviews, reopening of claims after withdrawal, making subsequent new claims before removal, making false representations, etc), thus reducing the chances of legal challenges and abuse in the mechanism.

(more…)

FCC club lunch with Mark DALY

Feb 7th, 2012 | Advocacy | Comment

Mark Daly discusses strategic human rights litigation including aspects of the recent case that restrictions on domestic workers applying for permanent residency in Hong Kong are unconstitutional. He also talks about refugees and convention against torture law, and the limits of Hong Kong’s judicial review process.

“First I want to discuss a group that remains in quite a desperate situation in Hong Kong, completely unnecessarily in my view. We’ve got asylum-seekers and torture claimants who have been in Hong Kong for ten years. All they want is a fair decision on their case – Yes or No – and they still don’t have it. They are not allowed to work, so the situation that they are in is quite disgraceful for a place as wealthy as the HKSAR. Now there is proposed legislation, for torture claimants only. There is an Immigration Amendment Bill that is going through Legco now, in my view, far too late, better than nothing, but far too late in the day for people whose lives have effectively been in limbo. Being saved from return to torture is the only good thing … their lives have been destroyed in a way for the length of time that they have had to be here. – Mark Daly”

Click here to view it on YouTube

Where did these UNHCR millions go?

Jan 29th, 2012 | Advocacy | Comment

http://www.unhcr.org/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/page?page=49e488026&submit=GO

Please have a look at the right column on this UNHCR link. It shows the “Private Sector Contribution” received from HK donors since 2006. It is undeniably a testament to fundraising prowess – Bravo! UNHCR collected over 20 Million HKD in 2010 and 16 Million HKD till 19 September 2011 (not the full year).While not privy to financial agreements between UNHCR and HKSAR, until December 2011 each adult refugee received a 1500 HKD allowance for groceries, utilities, toiletries and transportation. The money was disbursed by check on the first working day of the month. Let’s do the math: assuming there is a maximum of 150 adults, that is 225,000 HKD a month or 2.7 Million HKD a year. Knowing UNHCR offices are subsidized by HKSAR, other major expenses should be: salary, fundraising, administration, security and refugee programs (few, if any). These items alone surely do not exhaust those many millions. We surmise the surplus is likely transferred to their Beijing Regional Office – not accountable to HK donors – which, let’s make a generous assumption, ensures they are channeled to the most vulnerable refugees worldwide … let’s hope …

Leaving the big picture to those who manipulate it best, let’s return to these recognized refugees, who are struggling to survive day-by-day with handouts from churches and charities. Disturbing news circulated in November 2011, when they were invited to UNHCR; a palpable sense of alarm spread around the community instantly. In typical condescending fashion, they were informed that donations had shrunk in the global crisis and UNHCR had insufficient funds to continue its financial aid. They were sardonically asked if they preferred cash to food rations and even if they wanted to work, a moot question par-excellence! The UNHCR admitted running out of cash and having asked HKSAR for help to continue the financial assistance. Understandably the government prefers to assist with food distribution which is in line with its other welfare policies. While the situation remained murky for weeks, in January a clearer picture emerged when distraught refugees lamented their collective plight. The adult allowance was cut from 1500 to 300 HKD, generating a 2,160,000 HKD saving for UNHCR – Bravo again! This raises burning questions: How did UNHCR spend the more than 36 Million collected in two years? If cash assistance was possible in 2010 and 2011, why isn’t it possible in 2012 after substantial fundraising? If most funds were transferred to Beijing, what guarantees are offered to donors? Did donors ask for a percentage to be devoted to local refugees who assisted fundraising here? Who audits these expenses? Why aren’t they online? What salaries does UNHCR pay locally? What are their priorities? What other cost were cut? Were salaries cutback before imposing a 80% reduction on survival allowances? They could argue the food received is equivalent to 1200$, but actually cash is spent on urgent items besides groceries.

While the community deserves to know how a United Nation office spends local contributions, we realize that would only happen when elephants fly across Victoria Harbour! What matters for refugee families is “dollars in hand”, and today they are suffering additional hardship due to unjustifiable policies. While there might have been a deterioration in worldwide refugee circumstances (questionable since combat ended in Sri Lanka, Iraq, Sudan and Afghanistan), the 16+ Million raised till last September disprove funding was disappointing. Arguably it was a great success. Doubtless the problem is not fundraising, but the allocation of money trustingly donated by our fellow citizens. The big picture remains disingenuous and the reality harsh – refugees are losing their room (one sleeps at our shelter), are depriving children of necessities and are falling into deeper, unwarranted destitution. Where is the protection UNHCR is mandated for? What exactly do 20 Million a year buy for the local refugees? What percentage is earmarked for *tangible* local solutions? If UNHCR’s role is just fundraising in HK, then why even bother with Refugee Status Determination? Why do they abandon those in their care? One evening a refugee complained to his UNHCR officer he had been evicted from his room and was homeless. To his astonishment, he was comforted with a smirk and three insensitive words, “Good luck then!” Another was told, “Don’t talk too much! Why don’t you close your case?” Well, that certainly identifies undeserved salaries best allocated to refugee services!

A decisive football victory: VF vs CA – 6:1

Jan 28th, 2012 | Advocacy | Comment

Hello, this is the VF football team captain reporting. Believing our Somali Football Team could beat the fearsome Christian Action side – with years of experience and stronger players – we invited them for a friendly match on the cold evening of January 22. Nobody expected this clash of giants to become historical. The outcome was uncertain from the start with both teams fielding their best players: Vision First 100% “Made in Somalia”, Christian Action a mighty international mix from Africa, Middle East, India and Switzerland. The match kicked off at 9pm in windy weather in Kowloon Park, the spotlights illuminating the field through an indifferent fog. Hearts were pounding; the growing excitement was palpable. Around us supporters gathered on both sides, passionately calling out their favorite names. After twenty minutes, CA scored a contested penalty, after an accidental handball by our defense (0-1). From that moment, CA commanded the game nervously by one point, while the VF boys built up a strong, determined strategy. Our efforts paid off. At the end of the first half a surgical strike from mid-park by M.S. scored an exquisite leveler … GOAL!!! (1-1) and the teams retreated to their corner.

Returning to the battle ground, the CA team gradually lost their nerve and suffered a humbling sequence of thunderous goals. Having dominated most of the first half, they were convinced they would regain control. Little did they know the gods were not on their side, or else, this was their chance to blame the freezing conditions to negotiate a draw. The drama of the second-half has already become stuff of NGO legend. It will be talked about for decades across the internet and across the streets, from Hong Kong to Canada and the USA … and probably even back home in Mogadishu despite the war. With great trepidation both hopeful teams returned to the field to determine their destiny by football skills and these alone. Enough talking! May the best team win! The excitement mounted. The VF side pushed forward without finding the crucial chance to create a winning assist. Then suddenly, M.N. cut loose, evaded the stunned VF defense, and, with masterful ball control, confirmed Somali domination … GOAL!!! (2-1) Minutes later, M.S added his second jewel with a devastating long-range missile which set the fans on fire … GOAL!!! (3-1) These three goals could have been sufficient, but they were followed in rapid succession by another humbling trio ten minutes from time.

By now the devastated CA team was losing leg power and stumbled about in dismal disarray, wondering what train had hit them. Taking advantage of this weakness, a mighty cross found the head of H.A who set the score beyond reach by defeating the outstretched arms of the CA keeper … GOAL!!! (4-1) Ahhh that must have hurt! In the dying minutes, Somali Power grew to its mightiest expression fueling the excitement of mesmerized fans. That’s when another long-range cannon ball from H.A penetrated the helpless CA net … GOAL!!! (5-1) “Mercy! Mercy!” we could hear the CA players scream silently in their devastated hearts. This sadly wasn’t their night! Five seconds before the referee blew the whistle, newcomer A.S had a golden chance to prove what a mighty striker he is. With a close-quarter blast he sealed the game incontestably beyond debate … GOAL!!! (6-1) The shrill of the whistle filled the night and jubilation erupted on the Vision First side. What domination! What mastery was displayed! Disregarding the tears and protesting antics on the defeated side, the Somali boys left Kowloon Park proud of their teamwork and proven skills. In recent days the CA team has – quite understandably – tried to poach some Somali players with enticing offers. However, they fail to appreciate the depth of loyalty these boys have for their flag, their brothers and Vision First.