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.
With kisses from Vision First
Nov 29th, 2013 | Advocacy | Comment
The South China Morning Post reports that a resident living in an 80 square foot cubicle took the government to court over insufficient welfare assistance. His subdivided room cost 1700$ a month, but his rent allowance is only 1440$. The amount was adjusted last year for the first time since 2003 and 11,800 households are demanding the government offer support that relates to market prices.
This court action is of great interest to refugees who are seeking High Court leave to judicially review the Social Welfare Department’s failure to meet their basic material needs. It is noteworthy that the Legal Aid Department approved the above case that has similarities with the filings Vision First is currently coordinating. We are hopeful that the High Court will intervene where the Legislative Council failed.
Refugees are disappointed that the Legislative Council failed to take timely action in their rescue. Promises were made at the LegCo Panel on Welfare meeting in July that another session would be held two months later and that an enhanced package would be urgently formulated. Nothing happened. Four months later not a word has been heard from the administration that continues studying the obvious.
Conversely, two weeks after lodging applications for judicial review, there appears to be widespread interest in a process that bypasses administrative lethargy to seek court judgment on whether refugees suffer destitution through government malfeasance. The question is simple: Does the current welfare package prevent destitution? Evidence proves the answer is “No” and urgent change are required.
It is reported that ISS-HK is unnerved by the impending legal attack. They know they dropped the ball. Legal Aid is contacting ISS-HK for full disclosure on each applicant. Questions are asked how refugees were expected to survive on so little. Some case workers are offering guesthouse rooms to the homeless. Others are meeting clients at 10am to search for rooms for 1500$, sometimes 1800$.
The rope of retribution dangles from the scaffolding.
The noose will be tightened around the neck of those who failed to carry out their professional duties. Files will be produced in court to show how refugees suffered: rent unpaid, extortionary utility bills, lack of clothes and household items, eviction notices, gold necklaces pawned, photos of refugee ghettos, countless complaint letter to ISS ignored, unanswered, never passed on to the Social Welfare Dept.
2014 will witness the collapse of the SWD-ISS Construct of Oppression. We shall suffer no more!
The wrecking ball will carry KISSES FROM VISION FIRST!
click above to find out what motivates us
When blind prosecution fails
Nov 28th, 2013 | Advocacy | Comment
High Court Judge Stuart-Moore is lauded as a hero in the refugee community. He reversed the conviction of a Vision First member who was charged with, “Taking employment while being a person in respect of whom a removal order is in force”. There Bangladeshi refugees were leaning against sheets of corrugated metal by an abandoned stone house, when police pounced and arrested them for working.
They might have been scavenging for material to strengthen their government funded shacks. ISS-HK settled them, with complete disregard to their health and safety, in appalling ghettos in Ping Che. They had very good reasons to look for something better. They became easy targets for questionable police tactics. Perhaps these officers pursued quick and easy arrests and … Shatin Magistracy readily obliged.
The judgment HCMA 745/2012 states some interesting points of fact and law:
“The facts could hardly have been more straightforward. These arose from the arrest of D1, D2 and two others at the scene of an apparently derelict metal shed close to an abandoned stone house. It was alleged that the four men, all originally from Bangladesh, were removing sheets of corrugated metal and taking them away from the shed in the course of employment.”
“Straightforward though the case was in the factual sense, the way it has been handled in the past reveals a complete shambles. It may be that the prosecution and the courts (Shatin Magistracy Court) must together share the blame for this. I shall not attempt to identify where the blame lies …”
“The learned magistrate decided that “there was simply no good reason for them to be near a lamppost, except to work for money”. She accepted as truthful the observation evidence given by the police and she rejected the claims of the defendants that they were only in the area because “they each had their own reason to move away from their current place, either because of increase of rent or personal preference.”
“Hence, D1 and D2 together with D3 were convicted after the magistrate had referred to the relevant law and had drawn an inference that employment in the legal sense had been established.”
“As if it were not bad enough already that three defendants (D1, D2 and D3) had been convicted on the same evidence that D4 had been acquitted, the case now took a further turn for the worse as it entered the appeal stage.”
“Such a situation can only lead to a deeply felt grievance on the part of D1, D2 and D3 as they will almost certainly realise that, if their trial had come before Mr David Cheung at Shatin Magistrates’ Court, they would have been acquitted with D4.”
“In neither situation, however, would the standard of proof required in a criminal trial have been achieved as possible or even probable guilt is not the same at all as guilt about which there is no reasonable doubt and as to which the tribunal of fact is able to feel sure.”
“Each of these appeals is allowed. The convictions of D1 and of D2 are quashed and so also are the sentences which were imposed on them.”
click above to see why refugee might need metal sheets
No 54 – The slum with gold chairs
Nov 27th, 2013 | Advocacy | Comment
“More than fifteen refugees lived here for years until three months ago. When ISS stopped paying rent, the landlord kicked everyone out!” said our guide as we entered this abandoned refugee ghetto. In a desolation reminiscent of the 2004 Tsunami, the only resident was a barking dog quickly chased away. Where did everyone go? Surely this ghost slum teamed with life before it trashed and destroyed.
The psychology of criminal offenders is predictable: when caught, escape and try to destroy traces of wrongdoing. The committal of offenses is only viable in secret. When exposed, criminals severe relations, run for cover and hastily dismantle the enterprise. Just as in a CSI show, evidence can be found in draws, suitcases and clothing pockets. The documents we collected prove a fruitful collaboration.
“I want to help these people because they have nowhere to stay. There is nothing they can rent for 1200$” is often the justification slum lords offer when their motivation is questioned. That would be true, if they acted with compassion. Inspecting abandoned sites like this one, there are reasons to believe that landlords are only after easy tax dollars, paid without due diligence by ISS-HK.
Each room still expresses the character and personality of its departed tenants. There are guitars, bicycles, stereos, tool-boxes, TV sets and unopened bottles of vodka. There are clothes, blankets and shoes strewn around – too many belongings for a homeless person to cart around. There are documents, personal photos, school books and DVDs scattered everywhere. People left in a hurry!
Every item speaks of shattered hopes and broken dreams of owners who left in despair.
Vision First shares the burden for this suffering. Hadn’t we exposed refugee ghettos, these residents would have been here to greet us. One cannot speak of collateral damage in humanitarian work. It breaks the heart to witness the harmful effects of hopeful advocacy. A process that attempts to improve collective wellbeing should not bring additional suffering to any single individual. That’s just not right.
Considering the ample government resources, financial and professional, why weren’t contingency plans made to avoid this crisis? Should human beings suffer because ISS-HK admits guilt by clamping down on its own slums? The damage is done and offenses are being documented. Why do refugees have to suffer twice, first when segregated in slums and then when thrown out in the streets?
Who’s in charge of this crisis? Will somebody step up and show leadership?
click above to see what happens when ISS-HK drops a refugee ghetto
No. 53 – The slum with the big shed
Nov 26th, 2013 | Advocacy | Comment
In and around 2009 there were over 10,000 refugees seeking protection in Hong Kong. By early 2013 the number had halved and today it is close to 4,000. After exposing over 50 heavily-inhabited slums, we wonder how ISS-HK settled the additional 6,000 service users they previously managed. It is reasonable to speculate that a third of them were forced to live in refugee ghettos that have since closed down.
This is a distant location: over a half hour bus ride from Kam Sheung Road MTR and a half hour walk through junkyards, up a hillside to the border of Lam Tsuen Country Park. It is hard to believe that refugees moved so far out to secure rooms cheap enough for rent assistance. But again they were exploited. Rooms this small in animal sheds, in such primitive conditions, should cost 300$, not 1200$
According to our guide, there was a time when over twenty refugees lived in this ghetto. His wife and daughter lived here for three years, until they were suddenly removed to Indonesia without his consent and against his will. The loss of his loved ones, the painful separation from his baby girl caused a distress that Immigration policies never take into account. The right to family union is often callously violated.
Stories are still told about a winter night when seven police vans were deployed to this ghetto to quell the anger against a ‘crazy’ landlady who had pushed it too far. She charged more than refugees could afford for rent and utilities. When bills were not paid on time, she cut water and electricity leaving everyone in the dark and forcing families with young children to put up with unbearable conditions.
On another night the entire community of twenty refugees moved to the Pat Heung police station and apparently spent the night there, as they refused to stay in dark, cold huts any longer. The police had to mediate and talk some sense into the slum lady who failed to understand her hardline tactics were bad for her illegal rental business. Merciless exploitation is encountered in every ghetto to different degrees.
click above to see where 20 refugees lived in a remote hillside ghetto
Report on fraudulent food assistance to refugees
Nov 25th, 2013 | Advocacy, Food, VF Report | Comment
Reflection’s of a volunteer – Kenny
Nov 23rd, 2013 | Personal Experiences | Comment
My name is Kenny and I attend Renaissance College
It was my first time being a volunteer and helping refugees. We saw a lot of refugees from different parts of the world. I learnt about how Vision First works. There were different tasks assigned for us to work on. We were involved as assistants in some of the teaching lessons. There were maths, English and mandarin class. We prepared some worksheets for the refugees to complete.
On Tuesday, we went to visit their slums. They are located somewhere in Kam Sheung Road. It was my first time seeing an actual slum in Hong Kong. I find it very heartbreaking for the refugees to live in these kind of places. There were no proper doors, furniture, floor, roof etc. It didn’t look like a normal house to live in. There were nothing around the slums, they have to walk for a long time to reach transportation.
We were told that the slums are not a safe place to live in as there might be snakes outside. We also went to visit another slum located up the hill. It took a long way before we reached there. Those slums were just a metal cage and there was no electricity. The place was small and there were 8 people living in there.
We also took part in a playgroup on Thursday where we played with the children of the refugees while their mother listened to a presentation about children care. I think it was a great experience volunteering in Vision First and we get to learn more about refugees. There were lots of fun for both of us and the children. I met some new people such as Frank who is a friendly refugee, he also volunteers there. We also gained more experience about what is happening around the world and I find myself very fortunate to be able to live safely in Hong Kong.
Reflection’s of a volunteer – Aran
Nov 23rd, 2013 | Personal Experiences | Comment
My name is Aran and I attend Renaissance College.
It is extraordinary and shocking to know that such living environment exist in Hong Kong. The slums are small and uninhabitable. There is no lighting, making it difficult during night times. The slums we visited are made of pieces of sheet metal, as if they are stapled together in some slack manner.
Pieces have to be installed between the sheets to prevent leaking during raining season. They look vulnerable during thunderstorm season, as it is not safe. Refugees suffer from prejudice from the landlord. The ISS-HK (Contracting organisation responsible for refugee’s food and rent for the government) provides a maximum of $1200 dollars to the landlord at the time when we visited the slums.
However, it is actually insufficient as a refugee we visited is charged $1000 for rent on the rent papers, but in reality charged $1500. Knowing that the ISS has increased the rent support recently, landlords are expected to increase the rent to gain most from the ISS policy.
Food is also arranged through the ISS. There is a so called Food Order Sheet given to the refugees, but the price of the food is blacked out, and it turns out the food price are nearly twice as expensive to the local supermarket. This is the same as diminishing the amount of food refugees get each day by half, which is the same as torturing in an indirect manner.
These refugees are not provided with a Hong Kong identification by the government, which means they are not allowed to work, cannot open a phone line, cannot get internet, and many more limitations. In the minds of many Hong Kong people, the stereotypical refugee has no education and lacks working ability, but in fact, many of them are seeking asylum in Hong Kong because their beliefs are different from the ones the government wants people to have.
Many of them are highly educated people, who have been to higher education institution. They definitely have the ability to work in the Hong Kong society with great contribution. In Hong Kong, they are nobody. They don’t just come to Hong Kong to beg for food; obviously there is a reason why they have to flee their own country. They want to start a new life in this town, and why can’t they do so?
Are refugees victims of malicious prosecution?
Nov 22nd, 2013 | Advocacy | Comment
Malicious prosecution denotes the wrongful initiation of criminal proceedings to intentionally and maliciously pursue a suspect without probable cause or sufficient evidence. Law enforcement officers (police, Customs or Immigration) might charge arrested persons with offenses on the basis of circumstantial evidence, i.e., without reliable witnesses, DNA proof or hard evidence. Victims of such prosecution can file compensation claims against the government. Consider these cases:
– Four Bangladeshi refugees searched for cheap rooms in a slum where shacks were being erected. The police pounce and arrest them. They were charged with breach of conditions of stay (working) for being at that location. They plead not guilty and were sentenced to 22 months imprisonment. After 10 months the High Court releases them on lack of evidence.
– Two Pakistani refugees were arrested and charged with robbery after being identified by a Chinese victim in an ID parade (don’t minorities look the same to a non-trained eye?). They pleaded not guilty, refused bail and held 9 months on remand. The victim failed to recognize them at trial. Two other suspects were convicted for the offense. They were released.
– An Indian refugee, with a complicated immigration record, was held at Castle Peak Bay Immigration Centre (CIC) despite having torture and CIDTP claims. He was harassed and attempts were made to remove him. He made it clear that he would rather spend his life in CIC than return to face danger. He was released after one year and two weeks of detention.
– Two Indonesian refugees borrowed money from a friend at her place of employment. Immigration pounces and they were arrested for working. They pleaded not guilty. They were held over a month in prison. They were threatened and promised a 2-month sentence if they pleaded guilty. Under duress they agree and were shocked to receive 15-months instead.
These cases have a few elements in common. The defendants are undesirable South Asians torture claimants. Irrespective of the merits of their case, they were profiled as suspect who fit a certain description: brown skinned, poorly educated, little understanding of English, unassertive and generally subdued in character, easily intimidated by authorities and persuaded under duress, unknown to NGOs and human rights lawyers, unaware of their rights and of little interest to duty lawyers.
Law enforcement might be motivated by performance targets: arrests per month, successful prosecution, guilty pleas and increased crime statistics for torture claimants. Under pressure it is understandable that arrested persons collapse. Another refugee pleaded guilty after a month-long trial and turned down the judge’s suggestions he think about it for two weeks. He had broken down and simply couldn’t take it anymore. He would rather go to jail than be harassed daily in court.
Vision First is extremely concerned about the racial profiling of South Asian refugees, their arrest and prosecution without adequate legal assistance. It is evident from numerous cases brought to our attention that prosecution standards must be raised. Refugees should not be manipulated into crime statistics to prove they are criminally minded and merely motivated by a desire to abuse the system.
We are filing compensation claims for the above cases and welcome inquiries from victims of malicious prosecution and unlawful detention who require legal assistance to seek justice and redress.
Hong Kong citizens believe in justice and expect law enforcement to meet high standards of fairness.
Should refugees be removed as a *sacrifice* to protect Hong Kong’s wealth?