Is race discrimination creeping into Hong Kong's Immigration process?

Pepito Mamaril, a 60-year old Filipino man, flew into Hong Kong on 2nd November to mourn the death and attend the wake of his sister-in-law. For an already emotionally fraught visit, what happened next was both traumatic and unnecessary.


The old man was detained in an Immigration cell for hours and deported the same evening to Manila. The grieving Pepito Mamaril was doubly distressed by being treated as a criminal. Hong Kong Immigration is not obliged to give reasons for its decisions. 


Racial discrimination on the streets is one thing. Having that infect official discharge of duty by the uniformed services raises serious questions about where we're heading as a society. Hong Kong has always prided itself on strict observance of the letter and spirit of the law. 


Pepito was not here to join anti-Beijing rallies or to participate in a Falun Gong collective breathing exercise. Philippine nationals are usually granted a 14-day visa free stay in Hong Kong.


HK Immigration declared that Pepito "did not have a valid reason to be granted an entry visa". The 500 Peso (HK$90) cash that Pepito had was also inadequate for his stay in Hong Kong. 


All of those assessments were made by immigration officers despite Pepito's niece Mary Ann (daughter of the deceased) faxing through the death certificate of her mum and rushing to Chek Lap Kok to provide surety for his care and return. 


If the situation were reversed, and a Hong Kong man was refused entry into Manila to attend the funeral of his close relative, one can imagine the outraged calls to the HK Government and the China Embassy to remonstrate with the Philippine authorities for insensitive high-handedness.


The farce was further compounded by an immigration officer speaking on the phone to Pepito's older brother (husband of the deceased), a HK permanent resident, in Cantonese, to which the hapless man at the other end could not respond. 


Was the officer incapable of seeking clarification in English? If not, what is he doing in a public service whose role is to process international visitors? What was the point of querying a Filipino in Cantonese? 


To top it all, the final official justification was a declaration of classic bureaucratese: "The deportation order has already been made. This is just a one-off. If your uncle wants to come back, he can always come back to Hong Kong." 


To which Mary Ann's sad riposte was "I've only got one mother to bury". She lamented that her uncle was the closest friend her mother had on her father's side of the family and the only one who could make it to HK for the funeral. 


HK Immigration made sure he didn't.


Ethnic minorities constitute 5% of HK residents



Hong Kong is a city of 7 million, 95% of whom are ethnic Chinese. The minority 5% comprise Europeans, South & South East Asians and about 250,000 domestic helpers (largely Filipinas & Indonesians). 


Hong Kong has never been known for crass and overt racism. If at all, it is subtle. It takes the form of some landlords denying people of dark skin housing, some taxi drivers refusing to take such passengers and refusal to employ non-Chinese in white collar jobs for which they are eminently qualified or in under-paying them. 


It shows at restaurants where a family sits to lunch excluding the domestic helper who has to manage unruly children but is not invited to share the communal meal.



Domestic helpers do all the trashy tasks at home and clean-up after children and adults alike. They are considered inferior. They have no fixed hours of work. The children take on the haughty attitudes of the parents and have them at their beck and call. This seems a common phenomenon in Malaysia and Singapore too where foreign domestics with little legal protection have to earn a living.



Hong Kong's police and immigration officers are by and large respected for their courtesy, helpfulness and correct adherence to process. There is never an instance of having to bribe them for facilitation of their duties which is endemic in Indonesia, The Philippines and all the South Asian countries.


It is therefore all the more worrying that this high standard of professional conduct by the uniformed services may be eroding.


Economic Woes and 'Right of Abode' scare


Recently there has been heightened public anxiety about the prospect of 'right-of-abode' being extended to domestic helpers who were previously excluded from such benefits despite meeting the 7-year residency window. Domestic helpers are also excluded from HK's minimum wage law.


Crafty politicians jumped on a public anxious about economic contraction and high inflation, to scare-monger shamelessly. There is no faster way to project political credentials than by frightening locals about the threat of job losses and school and hospital facilities being swamped by an immigrant horde waiting at the gates. It is a well proven trick practised by cynical politicians everywhere.


The HK government provided no leadership in clarifying the administrative tools already available to the Immigration Department to control permanent residency on several criteria. It allowed disinformation to reach hysterical levels and for opportunistic politicians to fuel paranoia. 


It suited the HK government and pro-Beijing compatriots that the Civic Party and Democrats sympathetic to the legal challenge were politically disadvantaged before the imminent District Council elections.


Regina Ip, who peddled the seriously flawed Article 23 Security Bill under the Tung Chee-hwa administration, made a dramatic visit to Beijing to lobby the Standing Committee of the National Peoples Congress to rule on the right of abode question raised by domestic helper Evangeline Vallejos, who sought a review having lived continuously in HK for 25 years.


Evangeline Vallejos was granted leave to apply for right of abode by Hong Kong's Court of First Instance which held that the Immigration Ordinance which excludes domestic helpers is illegal as it contradicts the Basic Law, HK's mini-constitution, which makes no such discriminatory provision. 


The government expressed disappointment and is appealing the High Court's decision. It has declared that after it exhausts all avenues within the HK Justice system, it can ask Beijing to rubber stamp what it wants. It has done that before. Party bosses in Beijing have no problem with that.


The DAB (Democratic Alliance for the Betterment & Progress of Hong Kong) put it about that if 125,000 eligible domestics were granted Right of Abode, unemployment would soar from 3.5% to 7% and if spouses were allowed in, it would rocket to 10%.


HK Govt passes token Race Bill & exempts itself


Hong Kong is obliged by China's ratification of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD) to introduce specific legislation to curtail racial discrimination.


The UN Committee on Economic, Social & Political Rights has criticized Hong Kong's lack of legislation prohibiting racial discrimination in the private sector, as a breach of its obligations.


After a decade of laggardly discussion in the Legislative Council, the government finally introduced a Race Discriminatory Ordinance in July 2008 which came into effect in 2009.


It excludes new immigrants from the mainland and exempts the administration itself from the provisions of its own law designed to criminalize race discrimination!


The government maintains that as mainland immigrants are Han Chinese, the same as HK residents, they cannot technically suffer race discrimination. That can only be classed as 'social' discrimination which is outside the definition of the new law.


The most virulent discrimination visited on any group by HK society is on mainland immigrants in housing, schools, hospitals, employment and through exclusion from social interaction. 


These are the voiceless poor. China's new rich can buy their way past HK's underclass without depending on local goodwill.


By excluding new mainland immigrants from anti-discrimination protection, the HK government allows the continuation of such uncivil treatment. It defeats the intent of the law. It makes a mockery of calls for 'patriotic' education by sycophantic politicians.


And the logic for the administration exempting itself from the law is to prevent 'frivolous claims' for compensation from minorities seeking to 'make money' by suing the government for alleged discrimination! 


All of which sums up the lackadaisical attitude of the HK administration about ethnic and social discrimination in Asia's 'World City'. 


Race prejudice reinforced at home & in Kindergarten


Earlier this year the Equal Opportunities Commission commissioned the HK Institute of Vocational Education to undertake a survey of the very young.


152 youngsters aged between 3-6 years were shown pictures of dark skinned, Chinese and Caucasian adults and asked for their responses on a range of perceived attributes.


Professor Wong Wan-chi of the department of educational psychology of the Chinese University of HK was alarmed at the results: "Children usually do not by nature have discriminatory attitudes at an early age. It is learned. It has to do with what they pick up from adults."


This points to a critical need for anti-race discrimination education of the public and formalized programmes in schools - neither of which is on the cards in Asia's World City.


ENDS