A Serial Report on the Marriage Migrants in Hong Kong Ⅰ: Employment and poverty

A Serial Report on the Marriage Migrants in Hong Kong Ⅰ:

Employment and poverty

Written by Lola Chih-Hsien Huang 黃芷嫻

I. Waiting for working permit

Under the current policies, China marriage migrants (CMMs) are not allowed to work until they get One-Way Permit (OWP) to legally settle in H.K.. In other words, all household expenses and the costs of family reunions only rely on one side of families during the waiting time: 4 years at least. It makes the China-H.K. families (CHKFs), not quite rich and living in such a high-level consumption society in H.K., get worse. As Mei[1] and Wan mentioned, they either “have ate the seeds of grains” or only ate “small hollowware of rice (interview with CMMs, 2011).”

Not allowed to work not only causes heavy burden in household economies but further strengthen the existent social stigmas and stereotypes of being “sponging off men” and “doing nothing” on them, and it affect their self-confidences to: “…down in the dumps, no self-confidence and I am in the fear of looking down on me, “freeload”. I would think about that…I feel mother in law looks down on me because I don’t have a job (interview with CMMs, 2011)”.

Most marriage migrants embrace the simple hope: to get OWP and look for jobs to contribute to household economy. Nevertheless, we will find as below that this reality is due to policies and structural constraints such as hard to find a job, low salaries, no working choices and other difficulties that forcibly weaken up their sweet dreams back to the ruthless reality of being CMMs.

II. Hard to find a job

Majority of CMMs who face the household economic burden want to work to share to the household costs or at least ease up the burden of securing a family. However, the roads to employment or finding jobs are blocked by the existing anti-CMMs policies.

i. To take care of families

According to 2006 census of population it pointed out that labor force participation rate (LFPR) of women who came from Mainland (have stayed in H.K. less than 7 years) is 41.5%, and the low LFPR is attributed to the fact that 71.2% of female are new arrivals from Mainland who took up the role of housewives and home makers (Census and Statistics Department, 2006). More than half (54%) population of new arrivals from Mainland who are in working ages and settled in H.K. is not engaged in economic activities(Panel on Financial Affairs, 2007).

New arrival women, especially CMMs, are in “sandwich-generation” family structures. Even if CMMs live awayfrom the mother and father in law, they also have to shoulder the responsibility to take care of children. According to the statistics, the household members of from the Mainland having resided in Hong Kong for less than 7 years (PMR[2]s) were 3.8 members on average which were larger as compared to the 3.0 for all households, and female PMRs were living with spouses and/or children (82.3%)(Census and Statistics Department, 2006). Taking care of families takes most of their time and it is difficult for CMMs to satisfy their family’s needs and work at the same time. It is even more difficult for them to find stable jobs consistent with their allocation of time because CMMs cannot abandon their families.

ii. Lack of children-care services

Most CHKFs worry that no one is available to take care of their children. It is not only restricts CMMs’ mobilities but also reduces their opportunities to work outside. One of the difficulties that some CMMs encountered is once they have babies and then they lose their jobs. Such situations worsen the condition of many single parents and low-income CHKF. CMMs are in urgent needs of earning money to get rid of poverty, it is also the expectation of their families and community which they belong: to not only take care of family well but also to share in household expenses and contribute to society economically. However, CMMs are in dilemmas such as candles burning at ends, works and families.

The statistics Society for Community Organization (SoCo, 2009) showed that the most frequent problem CMMs encountered is children caring (66.7%) when they looked for jobs. Someone is able to take care kids for them is the most important prerequisite for working outside, but H.K. society still lacks of kids caring services. For examples, Child care centers or kindergartens charge the fees monthly varied from 1100HKD to 7700HKD and according to the whole-day or half-day courses (Social Welfare Department, 2011), and the time of the class is from 8:00AM to 7:00PM on every Monday to Friday (Legislative Council, 2006). The families who are not affluent or unable to pay the charges have no choice to nurse children by themselves to decrease household expenses. Furthermore, CMMs are in needs of working outside and they also need to bring kids home by themselves at the same time. CMMs probably can’t look for the child care centers or kindergartens which fees are cheaper and near their place in the considerations of the restrictions of the fee exemption quota, areas, and accommodation of the child care centers or kindergartens.

iii. Educational certifications are not recognized

In addition to the restriction on employment due to family concerns specifically of taking care of children/ families, CMMs get caught in heavy beatings again because of refusal to recognize the educational certifications that they’ve got from Mainland China. CMMs are forced to accept the worse working conditions and setting. 77.1% PMRs were in a junior high school level or higher level (Panel on Financial Affairs, 2007), but “not recognize educational certifications” forced them “start everything from “0”, and (I) may not be able to find a job that I am expert in” (interview with CMMs, 2011). As Din’s experience, her educational certification is higher than junior high school level and owned several salons in China but she is still hard to find a suitable job. Din only relied on odd jobs because of nursing kids and not being recognized educational certifications.

iv. The Failure of proper town planning

CMMs have had the working door slammed in their faces. Such experiences are not due to “inability” or “less education” but actually those experiences are related to the social structures like for instance the failure to implement a proper town planning and imbalance of development between the city and urban areas that caused structural constraints.

According to statistics, more than half (52.4%) PMRs lived in public houses, and 50.9% of them lived in New Territories and Marine (Census and Statistics Department, 2006). To live in New Territories is the first choice for CHKFs who are not rich because the housing rent is relatively cheap. On the other hand, it is very difficult to get the chance for CHKFs to live in the public houses in Hong Kong and Kowloon area not to mention the period of waiting before such application have been approved by the HK government. CHKFs are compelled to live in the public houses in New Territories which are far away from the town or cities but easier to obtain in the considerations of economic reality. However, as we all know job opportunities are few in New Territories and CMMs are experiencing such difficulties in finding jobs in N.T. They are forced to pay a huge transportation fees as a result of an imbalance development between the urban and rural areas.

Besides, basic social services are lacking in some areas where shops and restaurants available are catering to visitors’ need coming from outside instead of serving the needs of locals in the area, like the Tin Shui Wai area: how can the locals who are in the low-level income can cope-up with prices of basic commodities that are relatively expensive for them?

If the imbalance development goes with other structural constraints, for example, taking care of kids, CMMs will be further confined in the abysmal condition where they are hard to find jobs, suffering from durative poverty and hard to break the constraints forced on them as being imprisoned in the ”besieged city”.

III. No working choice

CMMs, who are unable to have full-time jobs due to many structural constraints we mentioned above, can only rely on part-time and odd jobs to survive, but they cannot get the basic workers rights and welfares as well as benefits. Although more than half CMMs, new arrival women, are in the educational level of junior high school or higher than this level, they only are employed as low-technique and low-salary job such as washing dishes, cleaning and charring (Dajiyuan News, 2001). According to the statistics from SoCo(2009), CMMs’ monthly wage was less than 4900HKD on average, and the lowest wage was 800HKD. Approximately 30% CMMs only employed as part-time jobs, the median of the wage per hour was 24.25HKD, the lowest wage per hour only was 16HKD, and the working hours per month were 167 hours on average.

In fact, they don’t have many choices. CMMs, who want to work to improve families’ condition are confronted with the difficulties in finding employment due to take care of families, lacking of children care services, non-recognition of their educational certifications, and failure to implement a well-balance development in many areas and lack of guarantees to be hired in the labor market. They are mainly in employ in low-wage, low-technique and low-guarantee types of jobs.

IV. Why employees retraining are inefficient?

We must recognize that not all CMMs are lacking in having the working experiences and techniques in order to find jobs. As Din, Mei and Wen, Din is an expert in hairdressing and salon, Mei is good at accounting, and even if Wan doesn’t have any professional skills but she have almost 20 years of working experiences in many companies in China. The fundamental problem that many CMM face is that their educational certifications or professional qualifications that they got in China are not recognized by H.K. government. Although, the Employees Retraining Board (ERB) has some skill- training courses and issue certifications, but these courses are limited by reasons of CMMs’ independent needs, such as charges and time constraints.

Like for an instance a placement-tied Courses, there are full-time and half-time courses and “applicants must go through an interview during the enrolment process”. The purpose of the interview is to allow staff members to know more about the applicants and “can ensure the applicant has the qualities required and is interested in the industry concerned” (ERB, 2011). Moreover, the retraining allowance is not available for the half-time courses of placement-tied Courses. Leaving aside the qualities which CMMs are required, CMMs restricted by the time of nursing kids are hardly to choose the full-time courses and get the allowances. Furthermore, the allowances are released after finishing the courses in 1 or 2 months. It goes against going out to work for CMMs in consideration of kids-caring and transportation fees.

The last, although ERB provides various certifications and “Competency Cards”, all of these are not guarantees for jobs or employment: there are cases that many CMMs who live in remote areas are still hard to find jobs even if they had many certifications and “Competency Cards” issued by the training programs of HK government.

V. Get rid of poverty? As difficult as reaching sky

The structural constraints we mentioned above make or worsen the CMMs’ poverty experience. According to the new population policy in 2004, Social Welfare Department (SWD) limited the qualification of CSSA from 1 year to 7 years. It has further deteriorated CMMs’ situations and alleviating themselves from of poverty impossible. More than that persons that ranges 15~59 years-old should be issued with healthy applicants by CSSA if their “monthly income is not less than 1685HKD and their working hours per month are not less than 120 hours” since February 1, 2011.

It is very difficult for CMMs, especially those who need to nurse their kids, to find a job with monthly working hours of more than 120 hrs. According to regulations, the applicants who are in unemployment or monthly income/ working hours are substandard have to participate in Support for Self-reliance (SFS) Scheme to get CSSA (LC Paper, 2007). In other words, CMMs, who are in effort to find jobs but restricted by structural constraints, are required to looking for jobs constantly to provide how “active” they are for jobs and report their duty to SWD. Undoubtedly, it created CMMs’ extra burden because they always bring kids with them.

CMMs were labeled as occupants of the social resources due to their application for CSSA. However, the population of CMMs who applied for CSSA’s support was very small proportion compared to the population of all applicants in H.K., and those CMMs were still hardly free themselves from poverty even if they got CSSA’s support for reasons and factors that we mentioned above. The data of SWD in 2005 showed that there were 42000 applicants of CSSA, new arrivals’ application were only 1580 cases, and 198 applicants of them were approved from 2004 to 2005 (LC Paper, 2006). In other words, the proportion of new arrivals’ applications was 3.7% of all applications, and approved cases actually were 0.47% of all cases.

VI. Conclusion

CMMs are not allowed to work before they get One Way Permit, and then other factors such as lack of kid-caring services, non-recognition of educational certification, the failure to implement a well balance development in town planning resulted to none working choices for CMMs but to be employed in low salary, technological, and guaranteed type of jobs. On one hand, ERB has its limitations and are unable to provide a guarantee for employment. On the other hand, there are many barriers for CSSA application and these cause burdens for CMMs or further aggravate the already wrong stereotypes about CMMs and it worsens their situation in public. CMMs plug in such vicious cycle without exit where they experience hardships in finding jobs and getting rid of poverty because of the existing policy and other structural factors. Unfortunately, the general public attributes these structural factors to CMMs and blames them for failures of getting rid of the structural constraints by themselves.

Reference

Interview with CMMs, 2011

Panel on Financial Affairs, 2007. 《2007年半年經濟報告》

http://www.legco.gov.hk/general/chinese/panels/yr08-12/fa.htm

Society for Community Organization ,SoCo, 2009. 《新移民婦女就業情況及困難調查報告》

Census and Statistics Department, 2006. “Thematic Report: Persons from the Mainland Having Resided in Hong Kong for Less Than 7 Years”, 2006 Population By-census.

Social Welfare Department, 2011

http://www.swd.gov.hk

Employees Retraining Board, 2011

http://www.erb.org

Legislative Council, 2006. Paper No. CB(2) 1852/05-06(01)

, 2007. Paper No CB(2)1007/06-07(05)

Dajiyuan News, 2001, ＜新來港婦女求職難＞

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:5u3q5IJll_QJ:www.epochtimes.com/b5/1/5/21/n90680.htm+%E4%BE%86%E6%B8%AF%E5%A9%A6%E5%A5%B3+%E5%AD%B8%E6%AD%B7&cd=5&hl=zh-TW&ct=clnk&gl=hk&source=www.google.com.hk

---

[1] All CMMs’ name quoted in this research are not real names in order to protect them.

[2] PMRs we used in this research as below means persons who (i) were born in the Mainland of China; (ii) were with nationality “Chinese (place of domicile – Hong Kong)”; and (iii) had stayed in Hong Kong for less than seven years.

3~4月工作報告

圖/文 黃芷嫻 Lola Chih-Hsien Huang

(一)移工活動紀事： CORDILLERA DAY 光榮鬥爭的歷史~為土地、生命及榮耀而鬥爭

Cordillera Day是紀念菲律賓原住民追求公平、正義社會的光榮歷史。1980年4月，菲律賓政府軍朝Bugnay, Tinglayan, Kalinga發動攻擊，主要目標在殺死反對獨裁政府及由世界銀行資助興建的Chico水壩的二位領導人：Ama Macliing Dulag 與Pedro Dungoc。Ama Macliing Dulag死於這次的軍事主義暗殺行動，但其為原住民人民權利及民族自決所流的鮮血，進一步加強了人民的團結，爭取土地、生命及榮耀的光榮歷史由此展開。4月3日，在「活出我們的光榮鬥爭歷史！爭取土地、生命及榮耀」的口號下，中環的渣打道舉辦了第31年的CORDILLERA DAY 活動。當天的渣打道被6個特色帳棚所包圍，每一個帳棚都代表不同地方的原住民特色與文化，他們在香港再現了當地盛產的食物與產品。一位菲律賓原住民向我展示一條不是皮製的「皮帶」：除了布織圖騰外，上面還綁了許多個貌似「貝」類的裝飾，整個重量應該有超過二公斤。她向我解釋，這是野生動物的骨頭所製，現在因為動物保護已經無法取得。

當活動正式開始，參與遊行及慶典的移工，身穿原住民傳統服飾在渣打道上展現他們的傳統音樂及舞蹈，吸引了不少本地人及外國觀光客的圍觀。來自澳門的菲律賓移工團體，藉由舞蹈呈現當地男性追求女性的傳統文化，一位年紀超過70歲的香港老先生，也跟著加入舞蹈。這是我在香港第一次看見有香港民眾--那些原本未有機會涉入移工議題，或甚至是不想關心、冷漠以對的多數大眾---投入移工活動的行列。當下，現場移工的歡呼聲四起，我和另一位Mission For Migrant Workers的夥伴(香港人，是MFMW的實習生)相視而笑，我們同時表示：「好感人，第一次有這種場面」。雖然我們很清楚，這樣的投入與參與，並無法讓人真正了解移民工議題或讓社會大眾少一點偏見與歧視(當然，老先生聽不懂英文)，但在香港，被一般民眾對移工的冷漠與敵視所包圍的我，竟然非常感動！

每一個表演，都揭示了菲律賓奮鬥的歷史及其現實處境，不只為了圍觀的本地人或外國觀光客對菲律賓多一點認識，也讓未被組織的菲律賓移工重新回顧這段被壓迫、爭取原住民權利的光榮歷史。許多戲劇呈現了外國投資者/公司如何在菲律賓開發礦產、榨取當地資源、破壞當地環境的歷史。

抗爭並沒有結束，如同歷史沒有完結。

在菲律賓，由於1995年通過了The Mining Act(Republic Act 7942)，及前總統Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo的National Minerals Policy，及Aquino有關礦業開採自由化、公辦民營的政府，都惡化了菲律賓無地老人的問題。2005年，允許開採的總面積為515,000公頃，2009年則上升到782,000公頃，到2010年上半年則一舉超過1,042,531公頃，這已經佔國家總面積的3%。在Cordillera地區，截至2011年1月，在Cordillera地區有215起的各種待決的採礦申請案，覆蓋120萬公頃(66％的土地總面積)。愈來愈多的跨國採礦公司企圖進入Cordillera地區。跨國公司高舉「協助發展」的旗幟，搶攻菲律賓豐富的礦業市場。然而，跨國採礦公司並無法兌現其對人民的的美好承諾，現實狀況是更多採礦區的菲律賓人民仍舊必須流離至海外謀求工作。即使是開採歷史已超過一世紀的本格特省，至今仍是菲律賓最窮的省份之一，當地因為沒有發展農業，人民必須到其他省份工作或成為海外移工。

雖然，自1977年開始，The Indigenous Peoples Rights Act(Republic Act 8371)要求所有影響原住民祖傳領地的公共及私人方案都必須先保護該社區的自由，需事先知會並經過其同意。但實際上，一些政府機構，像是National Commission on Indigenous Peoples(NCIP)、Mines and Geosciences Board of the Department of Environment and National Rescoures(MGB_DENR)等，至今仍然透過誤會、威脅、賄賂、暴力等方式操控社區，讓一切成為空談。對於身處異地的香港移工而言，CORDILLERA DAY的意義絕不僅止於嘉年華式的慶典，而是在艱難的鬥爭路上鞏固行列，繼續為所有身在母國的同胞及那些被迫流離至他鄉的移民工人的權利奮鬥。

在香港的CORDILLERA DAY，我腦中一直回想起小時候周圍大人的某些對話：「台灣人再這麼懶惰、不知努力工作，將來就跟菲律賓人一樣變得那麼窮，才會成為菲傭」。作為無知的受害者，往往很容易成為暴力的加害人。

(一)移民工作概述

在香港三個月，我持續透過各種抗議活動、課程(例如中文課與電腦課，及還在規劃的民眾劇場課程)，與相關民間團體及新移民會面。一方面撰寫婚姻移民的研究報告、生命故事，一方面也在思考如何進一步組織並培力當地新移民。這段日子以來，我發現某些香港特有的情境，限制並阻礙了組織新移民的工作。

一、複雜的政治關係

基於香港特殊的政治關係，透過修法而直接改善移民處境難上加難。一來，香港的政治體制中，立法會六十名議席，其中三十席經地方分區直選產生，其餘三十席為功能組別，據消息指出，2004年有11位的功能組別議員(已佔三分之一)非透過選舉選出，2008年亦有14位，功能組別代表了既得利益者的勢力，使任何弱勢議題的法令推動慢如牛車或胎死腹中。二來，與中國婚姻移民有關的部份政策(如，單程證制度)，卡在中國與香港政府之間，無人關心與聞問，新移民夾在中間而成為兩邊政府展現權力、相互卸責的政治受害者[1]，對於特殊境遇的新移民來說，處境更為艱難。在這樣的情境下，部份親中政黨或某些組織，利用中國婚姻移民想趁早拿到單程證的弱點---因為單程證的取得與家人團聚及工作許可綁在一起---加以威脅利誘，一方面禁止她們參與任何其他抗議活動及組織活動，一方面承諾以「走後門」的方式幫助「聽話」的新移民取得單程證。

二、缺乏資源

在香港，願意服務新移民的草根型的移民團體往往面臨沒有經費來源、缺乏志工的困境。與台灣不同，香港並沒有「外籍配偶照顧輔導基金」可以申請經費，也鮮少願意投入組織服務的香港本地青年志工。同時，各地綜合家庭服務中心或由民間團體委辦或由社福署直接辦理，成為處理新移民問題的主要窗口。狀況有時是，新移民家庭的特殊個案被家庭服務中心有意無意的忽視，而未觀照到新移民在香港的特殊處境。因此，當我聽到遭受家暴的新移民前往家庭服務中心求助，得到「那是你家裡的是事，你自己解決！受不了的回就回大陸去」時，一點也不感到意外。此外，某組織的工作者亦告訴我，政府撥款成立家庭服務中心後，吸納了某些原本在民間團體服務新移民的社工，這些社工在「飯碗」的考量下從激進轉向保守，對於新移民的組織工作也造成不小的打擊。

三、APMM的限制

在APMM內部亦存在著組織新移民的困境，主要因素即為語言障礙。APMM工作夥伴並無法以廣東話或普通話與新移民溝通、接觸，而中國婚姻移民多數不諳英語，語言成為組織工作的首要障礙。這也是APMM希望我能協助的部份。目前的狀況是，一來，APMM無法觸及或處理新移民的個案，二來其對於新移民政策尚不熟悉，再者，其與多數當地新移民相關服務組織並沒有往來。不只新移民不認識APMM，多數新移民服務組織亦對APMM缺少認識。無法以個案服務的方式觸及新移民，增加與新移民建立信任基礎的難度，同時，也必須謹慎於其他新移民服務團體的觀感：是否認為我們搶奪他們服務的新移民。因此，我必須奔走於各民間團體與新移民之間，一方面獲得有關新移民的生命故事、移民處境等更詳細的資訊，一方面也必須保持與相關團體的聯繫或安排進一步會面，為未來APMM與之合作的可能性舖路。

四、新移民服務團體對新移民的客體化現象

APMM在新移民服務工作上受限於語言溝通及其與相關團體的疏離關係，但更讓我驚訝是香港某新移民服務團體，竟存在著以協助新移民之名義，實則行操弄、控制新移民的狀況。當我初來香港時即「聽過」該組織的大名：因為在香港與新移民相關的新聞報導中，該組織總是獲得媒體青睞，記者要不引用該組織所公佈的數據，要不在抗議行動中捕捉由該組織所動員的新移民的畫面。但據消息指出，該組織「要求」新移民在出席抗議、遊行、記者會等活動時，「不准」載口罩或遮住臉，並用撒狗血的方式---讓新移民在公開場合「淚流滿面」的說出自己的故事---確保能掌握所有記者的鎂光燈。更有甚者，利用新移民家庭經濟狀況不甚富裕的條件，「鼓勵」新移民出席這樣的場合並依出席次數記分，達到合格分數者即可獲得包包、衣服等獎品。不用多說，此舉無疑對新移民的主體性及組織工作造成沉重的打擊。

五、社會歧視與偏見

香港社會大眾普遍存在著對中國大陸來港人士的偏見。舉例而言，前陣子香港網路上出現了一首改編陳亦迅《愛情轉移》的MV《蝗蟲天下》，將新移民及中國大陸來港人士描寫為「過境蝗蟲」，將其污名化為沒有文化素養、霸佔社會資源、降低人口素質的元兇，更直指新移民為「蝗蟲」，她們在醫院產下「蟲卵」，而香港竟讓這些「蝗蟲」拿到公民身份。這次政府「人人派糖6000」的事件中，歧視性的排除中國新來港婦女，社會大眾再次拿此歌曲大作文章，指稱新移民沒有貢獻卻貪得無厭。好笑的是，反種族歧視條例卻在「中國新移民與香港人同屬同一個『種族』」而形同虛設。在如此壓迫性及歧視性的結構下，新移民更畏懼於社會大眾的眼光而選擇噤聲。

破除社會大眾對於新移民的偏見與歧視是條緩慢難行的道路。目前我在居留權大學替香港民眾上普通話課程，試圖透過課程讓香港民眾能多認識新移民議題，例如，我將與新移民有關的新聞報導做成課程講義並與大家討論，或是利用唱歌的方式(例如，分享《日久他鄉是故鄉》這首台灣新移民歌曲)傳達新移民的心聲。雖然我很清楚，同理與偏見的破除無法一蹴可及，也無法有立竿見影之效，但必須有開始才有改變的可能。

我在香港的日子很短，但新移民在香港要奮鬥的路還很長。

---

[1] 詳見筆者有關中國婚姻移民的研究：《One Way Permit makes the China Marriage Migrants Chapfallen and Macerated Mothers》(請見上月工作報告)。

One Way Permit makes the China Marriage Migrants Chapfallen and Macerated Mothers

One Way Permit makes the China Marriage Migrants Chapfallen and Macerated Mothers

Lola Chih-Hsien Huang 黃芷嫻

I. Forced separation: etry to H.K.? “Wait” first and “line up”!

“You can have a cross-border marriage

but that doesn’t mean

you are admitted to reunite with family in H.K.”

According to the statistics, cross-border marriages are around 35000 cases and local marriages are around 29000 cases in Hong Kong in 2006(Bauhinia Foundation Research Centre, 2008). In other words, the amount of cross-border marriages is more than a half of total marriage numbers in Hong Kong in 2006. Hong Kong Economic Trends pointed out that the sum of cross-border marriages between China and Hong Kong is estimated at 22951 in 2008(Census and Statistics Department, 2009).China-Hong Kong families (CHF) play increasingly roles in H.K. CHF, the same as all local families, hope they can reunite with their families and have the happy time together. However, China Marriage Migrants(CMM) who are H.K. citizens’ legal wives, are restricted under OWP policy: some of them are struggling back and forth between China and H.K., some are depressed due to be unable to reunite with their families or have the right of abode. Undoubtedly, OWP causes distresses and throws the unexploded bombs on China-Hong Kong families.

1. The regulation of One-Way Permit(OWP)

Under the current regulations, OWP receives 150 applicants per day and it is allotted for 60 children applicants holding Certificate of Entitlement, 30 spouses applicants separated for 10 years or more and their accompanying children and 60 applicants belonging to other categories. Included under other categories are spouses separated for less than 10 years and their accompanying children, unsupported children who need to join their relatives in Hong Kong, persons coming to Hong Kong to take care of their unsupported aged parents and unsupported elderly people coming to join relatives in H.K. (Immigration Department, 2011). OWP applicants need to wait for at least 4 years[1] before his/ her application have been approved and it is varied according to which provinces of China CMM lives. Further, OWP sanctions interviews with husband and wife in the division of exit-entry administration of Public Security Bureau. Therefore, CMM whose status are widows, divorce or not in good terms with their husbands or their husbands are missing cannot able to get or hardly get an approval of their application for OWP.

For CMMs who are required to spend 4 years to get OWP their marriage are fullof uncertainties and difficulties. They are forced to live in different environments with their husbands and suffer separation from their families in home country.. A harmonious family life which everyone dream of is a faraway from reality and can be considered as impossible dream for them.

Moreover, in a difficult situations like death of their husband or their husband have been found missing in which CMMs have no control about it the waiting period for the approval of their OWP might come to nothing even though they are H.K. citizens legal wives and have children longing for care.

China and H.K. government do not care about the difficulties and sufferings that CMMs experience just to stay with their families.

In addition, other CMMs who fall under other categories or in special situations are not qualified for OWP application and are allowed to stay in H.K. temporarily through “visit relatives” visa and it spells another trouble for them.

2. Harass the people and drain the treasury

CMM with no OWP or not qualified to apply for can able to visit their families through Two-Ways Permit (TWP) which allows them to stay in H.K. for 3 months at the maximum. Some over-optimists persons would say: "Even if CMM did not get OWP, still they can apply for TWP to visit their relatives".

But this argument overlooked the heavy economic burdens that CHF bear in order to get TWP visa.

Many H.K. husbands are forced to quit their jobs or to take on leave in order to take care of their children if their wives didn’t get OWP or/and while their wives are out of Hong Kong just to get TWP visa upon arrival in the country. (Salorio and Casia-Cabantac，2010 ).

It is even more difficult for CMMs because they are forced to resign from their jobs [in the mainland] in order to comply with the requirements of having TWP and upon given the visa to H.K. they are not allowed to work. And once CMMs have found illegally working in Hong Kong , they would go to jail[2] and then be deported back to China.

The CMMs who apply for TWP visa found working illegally in Hong Kong prior to their application would easily rejected afterward by H.K. government.

If CMMs want to reunite with their families and pass through legal processes, their families’ income would be affected and solely depend to their husband capacities to support the families and with economic crisis affecting every family it cannot discount the possibilities that even their husband lost the capacities to support the families during the application for TWP.

CHFs under TWP visa aside from their daily needs such as food, shelter, health, education etc. are oblige to allot expenses for trip from Hong Kong to mainland China or vise-versa every three months and the visa extension fee which is HK$ 160 for 7~14days(Legislative Council, 2010).

Once CMM’s visa expired they cannot get visa extension , and have no choice but to go back China and wait for another chance to apply for entry visa to H.K.

CHFs are constantly on the run and should always extend their already meager budget to pay for fees and requirements that necessitates their stay with their families and yet they do not know when this circle of difficulties and uncertainties would come to an end. Hong Kong policies certainly restrict and oppress the CHF and worse the CMM are stuck in the stigma of “lack of productivity” that Hong Kong government itself are made liable

3. Overstaying

We are not surprised, CMMs who can not get OWP all the times have no ability to get TWP. CMM is the same as with local families here, women are expected to carry the burden of taking care of the family. But the difference between local families and CHF is that CMMs bears the responsibility of family care but have no right to abode in H.K. CMM who can not afford the travelling and visa extension costs so many times have no choice but to overstay and become “residents in the dark”. CMMs who are residents in the dark are H.K. citizens’ legal wives and their children’s mothers have no access to social welfare because they are not permanent residents, and also have no right to medical treatment as “visitors”. They live in the “dark” to avoid being searched. Although they need assistance, they can not come out for fear of being deported.

II. The abuse of administrative discretion

Under the special relation called “one country, two systems” between China and H.K., the sanction of OWP was held by China government. However, H.K. government can not dismiss peccancy and defaults in the name of “no right of the sanction”. China and H.K. government are liable for difficulties that the CHF encounters.

1. Officials are boss: give money, get entry permission!

At the surface, the application procedure of OWP is according to “objective” standards: applicants in different types have different “passing scores”, called “a system of accumulating scores, based on the numbers of waiting days. Nevertheless, under-the-table arrangements are still prevalent: one CMM applied to the OWP and“paid officials 2000RMB totally to get it……officials said they have all kinds of reasons to “charge fees” ” (Ho, 2006:149). In the film “Poverty in H.K.: New Immigrants”, another CMM commentedthat “every time I had to give gifts, and then officials were willing to deal with TWP for me”. The situation of “the higher levels of government have policies while the lower ones find ways of getting around them” gives divisions of exit and entry administration and provide Department of Public Security officials the excessive discretionary powers to sanction an application. .

2. Discretion without transparent standards

As I mentioned above, briberies have undermined the “transparent” and” objective” basic procedures and have given individual officials too much power of discretion. Additionally, government officials in China have sanctioned certain applications without showing us the bases for such sanctions , and applications of OWP submitted to the Chinese government are decided on by divisions of exit-and-entry officials o of the department of public security indifferent provinces in China. Apparently, no modus operandi can be traced.

For the H.K. government, CMMs who are H.K. citizens’ legal wives and children’s mothers should not be seen as outsiders in H.K. Many NGOs have urged H.K. government to accelerate the establishment of communication channels and the improvement of coordinating mechanisms (Legislative Council, 2010a, b), but they do not have specific answers. H.K. government has set no clear parameters and we don’t know exactly what kind of cases they are willing to respond to China that will enable CMMs to gainentry to H.K.

The H.K. government has also failed to create implementing rules and regulations for pertinent laws, in order to respond to the needs of CMMs under particular circumstances. H.K. has been called a democratic society and the relevant laws are essentially similar as in China: public officials have anexcess of administrative discretion over CMM cases. The end-result is that China and H.K. governments can easily respond to the urgent needs of CMMs under the excuse of “discretion case by case” and do nothing or deal with the cases objectively(Legislative Council, 2009; 2011a,b), while those who really need assistance but have no backdoor access are largely ignored.

III. The plight of widowed CMMs

“I was not at fault but I have to bearall the bad consequences …”

This is the best portrayal of a widowed CMM.

In the last phase of OWP application, husbands have to go to China and both husbands and wives are required to sign and be interviewed . Accordingly, unexpected variables such as divorcees, widows, or those with missing husbands etc. decide their futures during the waiting time for 4 years. It was not their fault but they have to bear the negative results. They have to struggle for their rights vis-a-vis the China and H.K. governments and beg them for permits. If there is no prohibitive OWP policy, most CMMs are independent, courageous and strong, just like most H.K. women, and they don’t have to grovel for a family reunion!

One policy separates all hopes of family reunion;

One policy defines the woes of widowed CMM.

Before the age of 60, the widowed CMM needs to raise children on her own but without a working permit, and she only needs to apply the Comprehensive Social Security Assistance(CSSA) under the names of her children. One CSSA covers two persons. Furthermore, the cost of applying for an extension visa make their lives worse. An extension visa costs 160HKD per time for only 7-14 days, and permission is based onthe results of sanctions (Legislative Council, 2010b). This means that a widowed CMM only has 3 ways to reunite with children: 1) to pay 160HKD and get a visa extension every 14 days, if possible; 2) go back to China to reapply. Undoubtedly, they have to pay for all travel and application expenses ; 3) overstay and become “residents in the dark”.

IV. Conclusions

Most CMMs face the same situation as other married women in H.K.,taking care of children and doing the housework, even if they have to exhaust themselves shuttling between China and H.K. However, CMMs fulfill all obligations as “mother” and “wife” but still have no access to social welfare because they are not “permanent residents” under the law, let alone being a CMM in particular circumstances.

One sentence can describe the CHF’s situation: “a permissive marriage without the liberty of family life”. CMMs are victims of the OWP policy, and those in particular circumstances are the “human ball” being kicked out by the Chinese and H.K. governments. CMMs are the legal wives of some H.K. citizens’ and are their children’s mothers, but the H.K. government apparently can not exempt them from the OWP sanction.

Reference

Ho, Kit Mui Juanita,2006, ”Stories of Marriage Migration: Identity Negotiation of Chinese Immigrant Women in Hong Kong”. The University of Hong Kong.

Salorio, Cristal and Vicky Casia-Cabantac, 2010, “Hong Kong”, For better or for worse. Asia Pacific Mission for Migrants(APMM).

Bauhinia Foundation Research Centre, 2008，《從單程證制度探索香港的人口政策》

http://www.bauhinia.org/publications/tchi_OWP_Report.pdf

Census and Statistics Department , 2009,《Hong Kong Social and Economic Trends》

http://www.censtatd.gov.hk

Immigration Department, 2011

http://www.immd.gov.hk/ehtml/hkvisas_9.htm#settlement

Poverty in H.K.: New Immigrants. Part2

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TAHakV2NV9k&feature=related

Legislative Council , 2004, Paper No. CB(2)279/04-05(01)

2009，Paper No. C B ( 2 ) 5 1 4 / 0 9 - 1 0

2010a, Paper No. C B ( 2 ) 5 6 1 / 1 0 - 1 1

2010b, Paper No. CB(2)816/10-11(02)

2011a, Paper No. CB(2)816/10-11(04)

2011b, Paper No.CB(2)816/10-11(02)

---

[1] CMM were waiting for the sanction of OWP for 7 years in Guangdong, others for 5 years around in other provinces (Legislative Council, 2004).

2According to Immigration Ordinance Sect 41, “Breach of condition of stay”: Any person who contravenes a condition of stay in force in respect of him shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction to a fine at level 5 and to imprisonment for 2 years.