A war of attrition: precarity and paucity for refugees and asylum seekers in Hong Kong
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hong Kong has not signed the UN Refugee Convention, however, approximately 14,000 refugees and asylum seekers claim protection within its borders. Due to the lack of protections under the UN Refugee Convention, the only rights afforded to Hong Kong’s refugees and asylum seekers is that of non-refoulement, meaning that they cannot be returned to a country where they risk facing persecution. They are provided with minimal welfare assistance on humanitarian grounds, which is dispensed via statutory agencies, and denied access to the majority of social welfare support. Hong Kong has a small number of NGOs and churches that provide additional support, however they receive no governmental funding for, and minimal cooperation with, their endeavours. This paucity of support leaves refugees and asylum seekers in a state of precarity. This thesis aims to provide an understanding of the support currently provided at three levels- the macro level of the state sponsored institutions, the mezzo level of the NGOs and churches, and the micro level of the refugee community itself, in order to ascertain the current level of assistance available to maintain the welfare of refugees and asylum seekers. This thesis also aims to provide descriptive accounts of the lived experiences of refugees and asylum seekers in seeking support and gather the experiences of front-line workers in offering support in order to provide an understanding of not just support itself, but the practicalities of trying to access it. A systematic review of the literature examines the status and conditions of refugees and asylum seekers in current times, and provides a particular focus on racism, precarity, social exclusion, othering and other social factors, as the defining factors in governmental and non-government policy responses. This thesis examines the effects that the level of statutory support available to refugees and asylum seekers has on their day-to-day existence, as well as the barriers to actualising multiple levels of support through the theoretical framework of precarity. Methodologically, this thesis employs a qualitative approach in order to examine the lived experiences of both asylum seekers and refugees and those who work with them, in receiving or delivering support services. 12 semi-structured interviews with substantiated refugees and those seeking asylum looking at the practical realities of obtaining housing, food, education and other necessities of life are explored and discussed. The data also includes interviews with six front line support workers regarding the practicalities of their provision of additional support, such as inter-agency cooperation and funding. The data is analysed in relation to the social determinants of health and evaluated against two frameworks of support, the World Health Organisation’s Ottawa Charter on the pre-requisites for health and Ager and Strang’s Indicators for Integration, in order to evaluate whether the provisions of support in Hong Kong meet these internationally recognised standards. This thesis analyses and discusses the implications of decisions regarding the quantity and quality of the support for this vulnerable population and provides new concepts to describe the socio-political environment in which refugees live, including hierarchies of refugeeness influencing the distribution of support, the difference between allowing and facilitating, and a funnel of enforced criminality. The thesis argues that the minimal support provisions and prohibition from accessing vital services are politically induced, leading to precarity and a paucity of support for this vulnerable population.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".