Let’s heed HK refugee mistakes
The head of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) is due to meet the Thai government to discuss the protection of refugees today at a time when Thailand is taking the huge step of assuming responsibility for screening refugee and asylum claims.
In establishing its own screening process, Bangkok should learn from Hong Kong’s mistakes.
There are currently 3,600 asylum seekers and 4,000 refugees registered with the UNHCR in Bangkok. Because Thailand is not a party to the Refugee Convention and does not have a domestic mechanism for screening refugee claims, the UNHCR has traditionally filled the gap by screening claims within its Refugee Status Determination (RSD) process.
However, while the Thai government has shown no willingness to join the convention, it is currently designing its own refugee screening mechanism to replace — at least in part — the UNHCR’s RSD process, which the government complains is too slow.
The government has taken an important step in assuming responsibility for refugee protection. However, its goal should be to create a screening mechanism that is not only fast, but also fair. This means a mechanism that respects the rights and dignity of asylum seekers and efficiently determines whether they are refugees in need of protection.
Such a mechanism will require time and resources, and the government should work closely with both the UNHCR and civil society to share the burden. This includes asylum seeker and refugee-community based organisations, relevant non-governmental organisations, and members of the legal and medical communities.
These organisations and individuals currently play an essential role in the UNHCR’s RSD process and will be key to the success of the new screening mechanism. Indeed, to not include them in the design and implementation of the new mechanism is a catastrophic mistake. This is Hong Kong’s tale to tell.
Like Thailand, Hong Kong is not a party to the Refugee Convention and for many years allowed the UNHCR to conduct RSD. However, in 2013, Hong Kong’s highest court found inadequacies in the RSD process and ruled that the Hong Kong government must create its own screening mechanism. With lightening speed — only a year later — and with very little consultation with civil society, the Hong Kong government introduced the Unified Screening Mechanism (USM).
At face value, the USM is admirable. It offers asylum seekers access to free legal representation and monthly food and housing assistance. It also provides protection to asylum seekers who may not meet the legal definition of a refugee but who are at risk of torture or “cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment”.
However, beneath the surface, the USM is neither fast nor fair nor even cheap. Indeed, it is in most ways worse than the UNHCR RSD process it replaced. UNHCR expertise and resources are almost absent, immigration officers deciding refugee claims are inadequately trained and routinely misapply legal standards, and few legal representatives have the skills or resources to provide effective representation.
As a result, an unnecessarily high number of asylum seekers are forced to appeal. The drawn-out process is exhausting for asylum seekers and expensive for Hong Kong.
The Hong Kong government blames asylum seekers and refugees, accusing them of abusing the USM and hyping them as a threat to Hong Kong’s security. This is both irresponsible and unhelpful. The USM’s failures are systemic, and many could have been avoided if the Hong Kong government had worked closely with the UNHCR and — as importantly — with civil society to design and implement the USM.
Hong Kong’s mistake should not be Thailand’s, too.
While the Thai government is working with the UNHCR and should continue to do so, it should also be working more closely with civil society.
The UNHCR has limited resources and will not be able to provide long-term support to the new screening mechanism. The same is not true of civil society. There are civil society organisations in Thailand with the resources to be long-term partners and the expertise to make the new screening mechanism a success.
The Asia Pacific Refugee Rights Network (APRRN), for example, is a network of individuals and non-governmental organisations with expertise providing legal, social, educational and health services to asylum seekers and refugees across the region and beyond.
APRRN can help train immigration officers and lawyers and share best practices for addressing the needs of asylums seekers and refugees in Bangkok.
Additionally, there are civil society organisations able to provide direct services — medical or legal, for example — to asylum seekers and refugees and reduce the cost to the Thai government.
There are also organisations — particularly those led by asylum seekers and refugees — that can help foster communication and trust between the Thai government and asylum seeker and refugee communities.
Communication and trust are the Thai government’s best strategy for finding positive solutions to the challenges accompanying refugee protection, including resource shortages and security concerns.