In recent months the government has waged a war of words against asylum “abuse” in general and claimants arriving from India in particular.
Hong Kong might not be a city “of extraordinary compassion”, as Prime Minister David Cameron said about Britain, but crucially the High Court requires that, “a refugee claimant deserve sympathy and should not be left in a destitute state during the determination of his status. However, his basic needs such as accommodation, food, clothing and medical care are provided by the Government.”
Further, the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance unequivocally prescribes that, “No one shall be subjected to torture or the cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment” (Art. 3).
Despite such exquisite guarantees of refugee rights and government duty, in the evening of 22 August 2015, a destitute, starving, homeless and sick refugee collapsed in the streets of Jordan and was rushed unconscious by ambulance to Queen Elizabeth Hospital where he was treated for 18 days. The diagnosis was loss of consciousness, sepsis, psoriasis and alcohol dependence.
“I lost consciousness and hit my head,” recalls Singh, “Someone called an ambulance and I woke up in the hospital. I drank beer for the pain and itchiness of these sores covering all my body. It started small but got very worse [in the] six months [that] I waited for Immigration to give me new immigration paper. I had no help, no food and could not go to the clinic. For long time I sleep in the streets.”
In 2010 the Marine Police arrested Singh as he entered illegally from China. He was released from Immigration detention after lodging a torture claim based on his fear of death threats which has not yet been determined under the Unified Screening Mechanism (USM). Around May 2012 he lost his Recognizance Form 8 and stopped reporting to Immigration for fear of being deported.
A refugee friend recalls the night in March when he encountered him, “It was freezing cold. I saw a man shivering on a bench in the park. I asked where he was from and what happened. He told me he was from India. He was sick and very desperate. I offered him food and the next day I took him to the Refugee Union. Two days later I took him to Immigration to apply for a new paper.”
According to Singh and his friend, who speaks fluent English and assisted him throughout, Immigration was fully informed about Singh’ predicament and especially about his medical condition that an officer agreed “was very critical”. And yet Mr. Singh was told to wait “one or two weeks”, repeatedly, until he grew the suspicion that Immigration planned to arrest and deport him.
Ignorance of his rights exacerbated the suffering Singh endured until he lost consciousness. The asylum process however showed little sympathy and did not prevent destitution by providing essential shelter, food and, most critically, medical treatment. On one occasion Singh says, “My officer told me that if I want to go back to India they will arrange the ticket immediately.” Yet his request for a replacement Recognizance Form has been ignored since March 2015.
Queen Elizabeth Hospital compounded Singh’s ordeal by demanding $25,870 upon discharge and withholding essential medications until the bill was settled. The penniless and despairing refugee had no option but to walk out of the hospital in shame. “They told me to go to the clinic in Jordan for treatment, but first I must pay the hospital bill. How can I pay? I have no money,” he laments.
Paranoid by fears of abuse and anxious to reduce the number of asylum seekers, Hong Kong Government is waging a war of attrition against refugees with forced hardship deployed as the main weapon. This approach is deeply regrettable as the effect on asylum abusers is questionable, while the impact on the weakest refugees is obvious. The time has come for the authorities to look in a mirror and figure out why the asylum process is failing everyone – vulnerable refugees especially.
UPDATE – The day following this blog, Singh was issued with a new Recognizance Form and collected medication from Queen Elizabeth Hospital that waved all charges.
The summer of 2015 will be remembered for the unprecedented European refugee crisis that, at the cost of more than 3000 lives, galvanized public attention, prompted alleged policy changes and caused an apparent although inconsistent and perhaps short-lived shift from apathetic indifference. “There is an enormous response from the public,” said an aid-worker in Malta, “The tide of indifference is shifting.”
Faced with extraordinary challenges, some European leaders are offering support and money they should have pledged earlier. Although the effectiveness of such emergency expenditures remains to be seen, European heads of state appear to be cognizance of the moral imperative of doing what is needed irrespective of financial cost and socio-cultural ramifications.
Chancellor Angela Merkel pledged 10 billion euro over two years to settle a record 800,000 refugees representing a one percent population growth that will profoundly impact German society. She remarked, “The fundamental right to asylum does not have a limitation. As a strong, economically healthy country, we have the strength to do what is necessary and ensure that every asylum seeker gets a fair hearing.”
After criticizing rescue operations in the Mediterranean, Prime Minister David Cameron confirmed that the UK will receive 20,000 Syrian refugees over the next five years and pledged millions of pounds to assist frontline countries in the biggest, yet repeated, refugee crisis in decades. Speaking to the House of Commons he remarked, “In doing so, we will continue to show the world that this country is a country of extraordinary compassion.”
President Francois Hollande offered 11 million euro and stated that France will take 24,000 refugees over the next two years. He urged the European Union to make a collective effort to ensure that the European ideal of open borders would continue to be respected. Facing strong right-wing opposition, Hollande wants the French to accept a shift in policy regarding migrants.
Finnish Prime Minister Juha Sipila went a step further by offering his second home to a refugee family, as he no longer used it after moving to the capital. Meanwhile a German daily ran a popular article with advice on how to take in refugees, following the lead of lawmaker Martin Patzelt who hosted an Eritrean family. Patzelt wrote on Facebook, “I am trying to do my part … by giving a home to refugees and helping them to integrate into our country.”
Meanwhile Pope Francis invited every parish, convent and monastery across Europe to open their doors to homeless refugees who are “fleeing death from war and hunger and are on the path towards a hope for life.” He remarked, “Faced with a tragedy of tens of thousands of refugees, it is not enough to say ‘Have courage, hang in there.’” And the Vatican will welcome two refugee families.
Not without a hint of hypocrisy, riding the wave of public opinion distraught by photos of a dead toddler (hardly a unique occurrence), many European leaders have sprung into action. Citizens of Austria are sending convoys of private cars to assist refugees stranded at the Hungarian border. The first arrivals in Vienna were greeted with warm meals, blankets and shopping carts of food, water and hygiene products. Spaniards have gathered in street protests urging a better reception of refugees in Spain. A demonstration is planned this Saturday in London in solidarity for refugees.
In Hong Kong however refugee discourses hinge on securitization patterns. Death is a potent wake up call for the public. Does Hong Kong need to see some toddler dying in this city’s streets to finally question Hong Kong Government’s abysmal track record. Reports reach Vision First of asylum seekers engaging in the perilous journey to cross the sea between Hong Kong and China. Like Europeans a few days ago, these travelers are called migrants, or more precisely “illegal economic immigrants”. What will it take to shift for Hong Kong’s negligent indifference to refugees?
Hello, I am Outsider reporting again on the experiences of refugees in Hong Kong.
Recently there have been many news reports about criminals who lodge Unified Screening Mechanism (USM) claims with the Immigration Department, but might not have legitimate grounds for protection. This is an issue which deserves to be discussed. It raises the question: Who allows wolves in sheep’s clothing to hide among refugees?
Immigration officials recently informed journalists that several hundred USM claimants broke the law: since the beginning of the year 113 claimants were arrested for working illegally and 515 were involved in other crimes, amounting to about 6% of 10,000 outstanding claimants.
Conveniently no explanation was provide about the different backgrounds of the so-called criminals with asylum claims who were arrested. At a risk of oversimplification, I believe there are three major groups: 1) destitute USM claimants who perform legal work without permission; 2) impoverished migrants and troubled traders who cannot renew/obtain visas; c) gangsters abusing asylum to avoid removal and engage in criminal activity.
For the first group, government press releases and news reports are biased and unbalanced as they failed to make relevant distinctions. It is suggested that many USM claimants are criminals and troublemakers, yet the unfair reporting lacks context. For instance, we refugees rent subdivided rooms costing $2500-3500 (the cheapest are windowless 2x4m cubicle with shared facilities), but receive just $1500 in rent assistance since February 2014.
For subsistence reasons, including keeping a roof over our heads, many refugees are obliged to work. Any refugee stuck in Hong Kong more than six months, has probably worked here and there. Of course few dare to admit it. We simply have no choice. The government is mocking readers by calling us ‘criminals’, which brings to mind dishonest individuals breaking the law for easy money.
The reality is refugees do hard work in construction and recycling for 10-12 hours a day in very dangerous conditions for a rip-off $200-300 without insurance or medical cover. That is neither desired nor easy money. We must work to pay for ours and our family’s daily needs, in particular for our children. Don’t let the government fool you, it is the failed asylum policy that forces refugees to work without permission.
For the second group, there are several nationalities who enter Hong Kong with visitor or work visas which eventually expire. Previously they would leave and return with another visa which was problematic, expensive and time consuming. After discovering that USM allows them to remain for years with some assistance, they stop leaving and returning. They are not to blame. They probably suffer unbearable poverty without social services in their country and, after discovering a benefit, naturally seize the opportunity.
For the third group, there are hardened gangsters who resist deportation by lodging USM claims to avoid removal/detention and persist in their criminal ways. A few characters frankly explained to me that this was the only exploit to remain in Hong Kong. These abusers are thumbing their noses at a system that allows them to stay unchallenged for years. Their pockets lined with the real easy money, they entice dispossessed refugees to join their gangs.
Entering Hong Kong just to be an asylum seeker is not attractive. In fact, asylum seekers face years of intolerable hardship. Instead abusers and criminals are attracted by a failed asylum system that remains open to and indeed welcomes exploitation. These individuals find an open and unguarded environment in which they can achieve goals not related to asylum.
It appears that the government is deceptively singling out a minority 6% of arrested refugees to criminalize and degrade the law-abiding majority. A careful review of recent news reports suggest that the Government is blaming everyone – refugees, smugglers, lawyers and interpreters – without considering its responsibility towards a policy that fails refugees. The USM appears not to benefit society (tax-burden and security risk), while it allows the government to maintain an established policy of not granting asylum.
Dear readers, if the USM processed asylum claims credibly and fairly within 6 months rather than the claimed average of 2-3 years (more like 5-10), would it be approved by refugees? Would it benefit society? Would it limit the cost and social risk? Would it continue to harbour wolves in sheep’s clothing?