The words underlined are surely the most powerful deterrent to refugees seeking a new home for themselves and their children. Indeed, the notice overstates the lack of resettlement places and is actually misleading it is, in fact, likely that an opportunity for resettlement will be forthcoming, although it may take a long time.
Secondly, resettlement from Hong Kong is slower than resettlement from other countries of first asylum, such as Indonesia, Malaysia and the Philippines. Mr Woodhouse told us: "We have a large share of the problem (28% of the regional refugee population), but we are not getting a large share of the solution." The refugees presumably realise
this.
We conclude that there is no clear evidence to prove that the closed camps have in themselves been effective in deterring refugees from coming to Hong Kong.
Having said that, it seems to us that the principle of closed camps is still justified, because of the greater problem posed by illegal immigration from China.
Most refugees from Vietnam and illegal immigrants from China are economic opportunists. Hong Kong cannot accept them. It can repatriate the illegal immigrants but, because of lack of cooperation from the Vietnamese government, it cannot repatriate the refugees and so has to care for them until other countries accept them.
If all refugees were allowed to live and work freely in Hong Kong under an open camp policy there would be widespread public resentment. Every day newspapers carry reports of illegal immigrants being repatriated to China, and troops with tracker dogs are seen on television, patrolling the border. While the government takes a hard line on illegal immigrants from China, it cannot be too soft with refugees from Vietnam.
-17-
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.