The Plight of Refugees in Hong Kong

Author: Justin Cheng (DBS); artwork by: Joy Chen (HISHK)

In a time when Hong Kong is embroiled in crises like the COVID-19 virus, it is easy to overlook the struggles of a class of people so disenfranchised that they are pushed to the sidelines. And no, it isn’t people at the very lowest echelons of society, people living in literal cage homes or street dwellers, it is people that live in the shadows of legitimate society. These people are refugees, feeing from oppressive places across the globe; stretching from the mountainous region of Kashmir, which has seen constant militant activity to the blood-infested plains in Rakhine State, Myanmar to the poverty-stricken favelas in Indonesia as they try to strive for a better life in the city that we call home.

Hong Kong has always had an intimate relationship with refugees. The aftermath of the Chinese Civil War sent many individuals and families to seek better lives in the former British colony, with its population growing from 600,000 to 2.1 million between 1945 and 1951. However, the administration’s treatment of refugees changed starkly in the Vietnam War, which saw the vast majority of the refugees either resettled in third countries (around 43,700) while 67,000 were deported back to the Southeast Asian country; only 1,000 individuals were allowed to stay. Furthermore, it is important to indicate that Hong Kong is not a signatory to the 1951 UN Refugee Convention, meaning that the only claims made were “non-refoulement”, simply stating that the administration would not return the refugees to their countries of origin. By extension, many rights and access to employment are withheld from them, an aspect which will be investigated later.

Despite this, a series of government actions seemed to provide hope for those seeking refuge in our city: since 2004, a series of rulings by courts which stipulated that immigrants could not be removed when they were waiting for their claims led to an influx of refugees, as well as a 2013 Court of Final Appeal holding, stating that determination of refugee claims is subject to judicial review. To facilitate the process, a Unified Screening Mechanism was formed a nd t his prompted a further surge: the number of claims has soared by 70% from early 2014 to mid-2015.

However, this optimistic outlook is vastly unrepresentative and even borderline misleading. Hong Kong has one of the most stringent policies against refugees: with an acceptance rate of 1 percent, the city ranks significantly lower than the global average of 30 per cent and the European average of 60 per cent. According to statistics from the Hong Kong Immigration Department, between late 2009 and June 2019, there were 29,571 “non-refoulement” or torture claims, and out of that number, only 172 were accepted by the government. While the government’s major justification is that it feared potential abuse, it is critical to note that there are other much more nuanced factors at play.

Furthermore, many of these screenings can be stretched out for years or even decades, signalling that these asylum seekers’ suffering is visceral and seemingly unceasing. Apart from not being able to work, these people have to rely on social welfare stipends, including a housing allowance of just $HK1,500 and charity donations. However, the persecution they live under might inhibit them from working even if they had the choice to: these refugees have often escaped violent oppression before the bureaucratic nightmare they have to endure: Anita, a 62-year-old asylum seeker from South Asia was brutally tortured by the military in her home country, remarking how she “can’t sleep, can’t eat.” Apart from not having adequate resources to treat her PTSD, her insecurities are magnified as she constantly struggles with her decision of coming to Hong Kong several years ago in the first place.

Her fears are only compounded as she is one of many disenfranchised individuals embroiled in the current coronavirus crisis, all due to intensifying paranoia and xenophobia. A chart created by the aforementioned Hong Kong Justice Centre in 2015 analyzes the government’s correlation between refugees and words relating to security, which corresponds with the government’s long-standing position of refugees: despite recent developments, an Immigration Department spokesperson stated that Hong Kong had a “long-established policy of not granting asylum and we do not admit individuals seeking refugee status”, fearing that asylum seekers would jeopardize the city’s prosperous economy.

The civil unrest spurred on by political resentment has further pushed the refugee community to be subject to discrimination, as many netizens accused members of the ethnic minority community of being involved in the infamous July 21 attack in 2019. Brown-skinned men were depicted to be assaulting protesters inside Yuen Long MTR, and since many refugees are ethnically South Asian, African or Middle Eastern, misjudgement has run rampant, especially in Hong Kong which is composed of a vast majority of Han Chinese residents. This sentiment is best encapsulated in a West African asylum seeker’s statement- an 42-yearold known by the name Anthony- “Many asylum seekers are afraid of leaving their home, they’re scared of being targeted and accused of attacking civilians.”

The impact is that these beleaguered individuals either fall into a vicious cycle of disenfranchisement, or stage protests and sometimes resort to crime. In 2019, five protesters from activist group, Our Lives Matter, gathered outside government headquarters in Tamar, Admiralty, believing that they were ‘wasting their lives’ as they are in a state of legal limbo. An asylum seeker who wanted to be known only as Mr K, drew a comparison between his situation and awaiting trial, stating that he did not know how long after he would be free. And while instances of refugees committing crimes are elusive, allegations have spread in the community: cases of rape were propagated most prominently in June 2013 where an Indian asylum seeker allegedly raped another guest in Rhine Guesthouse, situated in Chungking Mansions.

While these crimes must be dealt with and the perpetrators must be held accountable, it is integral to note that firstly, these are uncorroborated allegations and even if they do commit them, it might be out of disillusionment caused by the convoluted asylum system. When these individuals are so locked out of normal Hong Kong society and when they struggle to survive in the world’s most expensive property market, shackled by other issues such as persistent discrimination and xenophobia, it is not far-fetched to foresee some of these asylum seekers turn to crime. This is by no means a justification for these atrocities, but it is critical to note once again that these cases are nothing more than baseless allegations, propelled by xenophobic media outlets. Therefore, rather than focussing on unfounded accusations, it is far more critical that we concentrate on these individuals’ other parts of life, and try to propose solutions to alleviate their plight.

The fact that several aforementioned court rulings have renewed confidence is already a precedent that the government can enact policies for asylum seekers, and it is prime time to demand change. The obvious criticism is the lack of a public database on the Unified Screening Mechanism: as the most direct avenue of being recognized as a refugee, it ought to be more transparent so the public could direct their scrutiny at the horrific waiting times these individuals have to endure. Secondly, the ridiculous regulation that prohibits refugees from working when their applications are screened should be scrapped, and more job opportunities - especially ones that best suit their needs and do not have inflexible language barriers - should be made available. Thirdly, more facilities ought to be provided for these asylum seekers, such as shelter and food to safeguard their fundamental rights. While the above is by no means an exhaustive list of policies, it is meant to spark discussions on how these people could come out of their state of cyclical coercion.

Ultimately, if Hong Kong wants to stand up to the inclusive and multilateral title of “Asia World’s City” that it has brandished upon itself, the members of its community - us - must change. We must set aside the xenophobia that the media and certain institutions may want us to be indoctrinated with, and urge for immediate reforms in the system. After all, the fundamental principle of human rights is that they ought to be universal, and it is integral that Hong Kong upholds the rights of refugees as well, especially in an increasingly polarized society.