自由論題［投稿論文：実践報告］

Comparison of Support for Refugees
from Private and Public Organizations inHong Kong
The Role of the Intimate Sphere in Support for Refugees

香港の民間団体と公的団体による難民支援の比較

難民支援における親密圏の役割

Daichi Ishii
Master’s Program, Graduate School of Media and Governance, Keio University
石井 大智
慶應義塾大学大学院政策・メディア研究科修士課程

Abstract:

The author did the internship to support refugees in Hong Kong. Based on
the internship experience, this paper compares private organizations that attempt toform the intimate sphere and public organizations that are required to care everyone.
Considering limitation of both entities due to resource limitations and social demand,
it is suggested that they should collaborate to sustain an intimate sphere, which can beconverted to counter the public sphere, in private organizations.
筆者はインターンとして香港で難民支援を行なった。そこでの実態を通して、難民支援の文脈で親密圏を創出しようとする民間団体と難民全員のケアが要請される公的団体による支援を比較した。リソースと社会的要請による双方の限界により、民間団体で親密圏を維持し対抗的公共圏を形成するために両者の協力が必要である。

Keywords: Hong Kong, refugees, asylum seekers, intimate sphere
香港、難民、庇護申請者、親密圏

1 Introduction
According to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees(UNHCR), refugees are generally defined by the Convention on the Status
of Refugees in 1951, as people who “owing to a well-founded fear of
being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of312

Comparison of Support for Refugees from Private and Public Organizations in Hong Konga particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his
nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himselfof the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and beingoutside the country of his former habitual residence as a result of such
events, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it”.�1)
Public protection systems for refugees �2) are established in many
developed countries. However, there are some cases in which these systems
do not function well in an area or a country where the government is not
actively accepting refugees. Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of thePeople’s Republic of China is one of these areas with problems in accepting
refugees, and is particularly focused in this paper.
There are many asylum applicants in Hong Kong, but it seems very
difficult for them to acquire refugee status. According to the Immigration
Department of the Hong Kong government, 3838 torture and nonrefoulement claims were submitted in 2016. There were 8205 applicants
waiting to be admitted at the end of June 2017, and many of them have been
waiting for the results for many years. Despite a large number of applicants,
only 99 people were recognized as refugees by the Hong Kong Immigration
Department between the end of 2009 and July 2017 when the new screening
system USM (Unified Screening Mechanism for claims for non-refoulement
protection) was introduced. Lai & Kennedy (2017, p. 206) describes it bystating, “there is a deliberate policy of not settling refugees, irrespectiveof the validity of their claims, and where minimal support is provided for
claimants waiting to have their claims assessed”.
Although there is an insufficient academic discussion on this issue as
illustrated later, some newspapers have described the current situation of
refugee policy and people’s perspective towards the refugees in Hong Kong.
For example, South China Morning Post published on December 23rd, 2017
said “pro-Beijing lawmakers have lobbied against so-called “fake refugees”,
whom they accuse of abusing the system” and “Public opinion on refugees
KEIO SFC JOURNAL Vol.18 No.2 2018

313

自由論題

and asylum seekers is often negative in Hong Kong” to inform the readers
about the disregard refugees in Hong Kong. The South China Morning
Post published on February 28th, 2016 also said that many asylum seekers
were arrested by theft and illegal work. It reflects the economic difficulty of
the asylum seekers due to a lack of support as explained later. The author
observed many kinds of problems during the internship concerning things,
such as housing, educational, and language issues. Housing issues are
particularly severe because of the increasing cost of house rent in Hong
Kong and a small amount of support. Many asylum seekers live in tiny
rooms without air-conditioners and some people are forced to live on streets.
In short, Hong Kong has not shown positive attitudes towards incoming
refugees. This attitude is also reflected in the public support for refugees
as described later. In areas where such public institutions are not active in
accepting refugees, private institutions may play another important role asdifferent stakeholders. These areas can be understood as an intimate sphere,a space allowing people to be considered as an irreplaceable individual as
Saito (2000) defines.
This situation is caused by the characteristics of public institutions andprivate institutions rather than individual differences among institutions.
Public institutions just provide limited uniform support, but private
institutions provide more than that by forming the intimate sphere. This
study clarifies the features of public institutions and private organizations inHong Kong’s refugee 3)�support by comparing them with the notion of theintimate sphere.
This paper does not critique the presence of public support or lack thereof
without any realistic solutions. Although that is one of the main issues about
refugees not only in Hong Kong, this paper attempts to critically assess theconcrete function of the intimate sphere, which emphasizes individual needs andcan be converted into the counter public sphere (Fraser, 1997).
After describing the author’s research field in section 2, section 3

314

Comparison of Support for Refugees from Private and Public Organizations in Hong Kong

explains the features of public institutions. Pursuing of impersonality andpublicness as a public institutions explains about the current situation thatthe Hong Kong government is not affirmative to provide individual support.
It can assure only needs that can be translated into rights and provide only
service that is equal and uniform for everyone.
Section 4 analyzes a private institution that attempts to create an
intimate sphere. Although intimate relation in modern family is recently
criticized, there is a reevaluation of the context, as Gilligan (1982) points
out, by focusing on care relationship and fundamental support for life. In
this trend, intimate care, though having been regarded as a role of family orother intimate relationship, is redefined as a fundamental right that should be
provided by public institutions (Fineman, 2004). From this point of view, thissection shows how private institutions have tried to form an intimate sphere
for their individual needs.
Section 5 concludes the importance of cooperation between the two
supporting mechanisms with the perspective keeping distant from discussing
the context of refugee support only. Previous sections discuss only in thecontext of supporting them. The sphere that refugees can have is limited anddoes not extend into the general society of Hong Kong since their entity is
not known to the general public. Thus, the intimate sphere should be stablesince it can be a gateway to the public sphere.
This is why this research focuses on refugee support and their limitedsocial space. In this sense, analyzing refugee support is to analyze the space
where refugees live and re-analyze the entity for refugees. This study aims
to explain about the needs of intimate sphere and cooperation of public andprivate organizations.

2 Research Topic and Methodology
2.1 Research Topic and Its ImportanceFor the reasons stated in the previous section, this paper analyzes what
KEIO SFC JOURNAL Vol.18 No.2 2018

315

自由論題

private bodies, compared with the public system, can do, and discusses therelationship between public and private support.
Despite many papers on refugees in Hong Kong published before
2010, there is not sufficient scholarly attention to recent asylum seekers.
Furthermore, a few scholars discussing the current situation, including Jones(2009) and Lai & Kennedy (2017), never mention actual support for themfrom various sectors. This report attempts to clarify how several types ofagencies are working to support them in Asian regions typically associatedwith negativity about receiving refugees.
It is crucial to assess how refugees are positioned in the system, thatis how they are defined in the public sphere. However, the intimate spherebeyond the institution is also critical for them to counter the society as aminority (Hooks, 1990). Nevertheless, refugees have not been studied inthis context so far. It is not researched even in Hong Kong, where both kindsof support exist and the contrast is particularly pronounced. This research
will be noteworthy in analyzing refugee support in the context of an intimate
sphere through an actual example of support.
2.2 Methodology
The author had an opportunity to work as an intern at Christian Action,a Hong Kong NGO that supports minorities. It was an unpaid internshipand the author worked for 8 hours a day for 5 days a week from July 10 toAugust 17. He consulted with asylum seekers about their daily life and held
the summer camp for their children.
Christian Action was founded in 1985, and since then, it has supported
every kind of minorities, including refugees, domestic workers and minority
children born in Hong Kong. There are about 500 full-time staff workers,
along with interns and volunteers, in the organization. Centre for Refugees
is located at Chongqing Mansion in Tsim Sha Tsui and the author worked
there as a trainee from The University of Hong Kong. According to the316Comparison of Support for Refugees from Private and Public Organizations in Hong Kong

website of Christian Action (Accessed on August 4, 2017), CFR is the only
center providing comprehensive refugee support from meal to third country
resettlement. The author was mainly in charge of administrative tasks,
such as database management and operation of summer school for refugee
children.
The author took advantage of this opportunity to conduct observational
surveys and interviews on the current state of support for the refugees frompublic and private organizations in Hong Kong. The author interviewed
caseworkers at the center that cares for “clients”, which supporters generally
call the refugees visiting their centers or using their aid.
There are two significances to choose the caseworkers for interviewees.
First, considering the privacy of clients, formal and direct interview withthem should be avoided. Many clients are escaping from home country forpolitical reasons and many of them have hesitated to speak about themselvesin public. Therefore, it appears that interviewing caseworkers with knowledge
about the refugees is ideal. Second, it may have involved bias in the survey
to listen to a specific client, when there are various circumstances and people
from various origins. Therefore, it is important to hear about the overall trend
from caseworkers that know many cases.
The details of the interviewer’s caseworkers are as follows (See Table1). Interviews of A, B, C, D were held on August 10th and those of E, F, G,
H were held on August 11th. All interviews were conducted in the officeof Centre for Refugees. Those interviews were semi-structured to ask thecurrent situation of public and private support for refugees and differences
between them.

3 The Problem of Public Support
3.1 Structure of Public Institutions
The Immigration Department of the Hong Kong government determines
the legal status of refugees and the Social Welfare Department (SWD)
KEIO SFC JOURNAL Vol.18 No.2 2018

317

自由論題
Table 1 Details of caseworkers (Created by the author)
Race and Nationality

GenderA PhilippianF

B Indian Hong Konger

M

C NepaliM

D RwandanM

E SwissM

F SwissM

G SwissF

H Chinese Hong KongerF

Note
She is a manager of Centre for Refugees. She
previously worked at the ISA. She speaks English
and cannot speak Cantonese well.
He speaks English, Tamil, and Cantonese. He wasborn in Hong Kong and is not a refugee child.
He previously worked at ISA. He speaks English
and Nepali.
He is a rare example of being a refugee accreditedin Hong Kong and receiving a work permission.
He speaks English, French, some African regional
languages.
They speak English, French. They have been
dispatched from NGOs in Switzerland, a partner ofChristian Action, for about 1.5 years.
She speaks English, Cantonese and Mandarin. She
is a common ethnicity in Hong Kong as a Han andgraduated from a university in Hong Kong, which
is seldom as a caseworker for refugees in the center.

provides them with public support based on the determined legal status. The
SWD outsources the support for various minorities to Hong Kong Branch of
the International Social Service (ISS), which is a private NGO funded by theHong Kong government. Consequently, specific support is provided by theISS, but the policy is determined by the SWD, and the premise of the support
is decided by the immigration office.
ISS itself is a private institution, but with regard to refugee support, it
is fully supported by SWD and can be regarded as a semi-public institution.
ISS uniformly provides financial support for housing and daily necessities:
1200 HKD food coupons per month that can be used in specific supermarkets
and 1500 HKD for life support per adult. Interviewee A criticized that thesegrants are paid to all refugees without considering individual circumstances.
Many issues are pointed out in such assistance 4) by the interviewed
caseworkers. This paper focuses on the uniformity of support and lack of

318

Comparison of Support for Refugees from Private and Public Organizations in Hong Kong

cooperative relationship with other organizations — the problems caused by
the nature of public sectors.
3.2 Uniform Support
Firstly, public support is extremely homogeneous and cannot deal
with individual circumstances. As described above, ISS provides to all
refugees and asylum applicants with the grants under the same schemewithout consideration of individual differences, and in principle, there is no
individual consideration on (A) the timing, (B) the amount of money, and(C) the method.
A. Timing
In terms of timing, refugees cannot receive assistance unless theyreceive “Recognition Paper” at the Immigration Department nor canreserve counseling at ISS to register for assistance as Interviewee A says.
Refugees seeking protection in Hong Kong usually enter the region witha visa that can be obtained at the arrival of the airport. In Hong Kong, aslong as one has a valid visa he/she cannot apply for refugee status, so he/she must first wait for his/hers to expire and become the overstay status
due to the regulation of the Immigration Department. Afterward, he/she
has to finish procedures including the interview with the Immigration
Department and ISS. Interviewee B said that a refugee may have to
wait more than six months to finish all these procedures to get support.
Interviewee D pointed out as a former refugee that it is not easy to live inHong Kong, where the living cost is relatively high, for six months without
any assistance and without any income to depend on.
B. Amount of Financial Aid
The amount is determined uniformly regardless of the family
situation. Interviewee E knew some examples that the amount of money
KEIO SFC JOURNAL Vol.18 No.2 2018

319

自由論題

does not change even in homes where there are children who needconsiderable transportation expenses and expenses for school supplies.
C. Method of Support
Moreover, the coupon cards can only be used in cer tain
supermarkets. This narrows the range of items they can purchase withthe cards. In addition, as noted earlier, there is basically only financial
support, and soft support is limited. ISS provides counseling according
to individual circumstances, but Interviewee C said, “In ISS there
are too many refugees in charge of one caseworker, so they cannot
respond individually”. For example, refugees must first search for aplace of residence to receive housing assistance. “It is not easy to finda house without knowing the Cantonese language on a limited budget
in Hong Kong”. Interviewee C said, but ISS does not aid them with thesearch for the residence itself.
3.3 Lack of Collaboration
Cooperative relations between public institutions and other privateorganizations have apparently not been cultivated. According to Interviewee
A, ISS tends to act extremely “bureaucratic”, which implies that it basicallyworks only with SWD. ISS tends not to promote further cooperation, forexample, bridging other organizations and the clients. Therefore, refugees
must find their own counselors if anything that cannot be solved by ISS
occurs. For example, Interviewee G pointed out that when the clients wantto find a school for their children, the ISS will not contact the educational
authorities, so in principle, they will have to contact the school bythemselves.
3.4 Support in Public Sphere
Although public support, not only refugee support, is sometimes limited

320

Comparison of Support for Refugees from Private and Public Organizations in Hong Kongby nationality and social position in reality, it should cover all kinds ofpeople from the perspective based on political philosophy. That is why it has
publicness and impersonality. Those situations described are caused by thesenatures of public institutions whose jurisdiction cannot extend beyond the
public sphere.
Caseworkers that previously worked for ISS (A and C) pointed outthat “ISS must support all refugees as public institutions”. Nevertheless,the number of caseworkers is not enough, so the time when a caseworker
can talk to a client becomes short and they may not remember each other.
Interviewee A emphasized, “Because ISS relies on government subsidies,
they do not work with institutions other than SWD who funds them. Thatmakes them very close to the government and work bureaucratically which
creates a boundary”.
These caseworkers also pointed out that ISS’s support can exclude
needs that are difficult to translate into rights such as personal dignity andmental stability even though it covers all refugees who are regarded as a partof “public”. In this context, each refugee and caseworker are replaceable andhas no personality. ISS is strongly willing to treat everyone the same. They
work based on these kinds of rigid publicness and impersonality, and do nothave the flexibility to cope with the individual context.

4 Characters of Support from Private Organizations
This section will describe how private institutions, such as NGOs, workfor refugees’ problems in Hong Kong, taking Christian Action as an example.
The manager of the center (Interviewee A) answered that it does not receive
subsidies from the government regarding refugee support projects. It operates
the center by donations and volunteers from companies and individuals. As a
private institution, it can provide more individual, wide-ranging and one-stop
support than public institutions with the public nature only to those selectedby them. This individual care can be positioned in an intimate sphere as
KEIO SFC JOURNAL Vol.18 No.2 2018

321

自由論題

work to form the community in which refugees and caseworkers attempt
to treat each other as a unique individual. In fact, Interviewee A described
relationships among clients and caseworkers are supposed to be like “family”.
However, this intimate sphere is artificially created regardless of their cultural
backgrounds and social positions, and they often confront have difficulties tomaintain that sphere.
First of all, Christian Action realizes individual and extensive support
by making full use of its characteristics as a private institution. WhileISS cannot choose their clients and has to support all refugees as a public
institution, Christian Action can choose clients on their own basis as acompletely independent institution from any governmental agencies as
Interviewee caseworker A pointed out. Therefore, it is possible for them toreduce the number of clients to be supported, and to provide support only forthe refugees who really need it. For example, as a basic policy, they do not
accept economic refugees. The number of people they support is much lessthan that of ISS, but individual and comprehensive services, including noneconomic support that ISS cannot do, can be offered.
Christian Action aims to solve individual problems by providing
various solutions in one place. For example, they offer classes of computers,
languages such as Cantonese and English. Besides, psychological counselingand introduction of school, and so forth are carried out according toindividual circumstances and language proficiency. Furthermore, they havesucceeded in providing services as a one-stop center in cooperation withother organizations. For example, regarding legal matters, the center lends
a place to Justice Centre Hong Kong, which offers professional lectureson legal issues for refugees. Thus, they try to tackle the situations throughcooperation with other organizations redeeming the limited resource and theframework of collaboration is more flexible than public institutions.
As Interviewee B mentioned in Hong Kong Economic Journal (Walter,2014), the place called Chongqing Mansions, where local Hong Kong

322

Comparison of Support for Refugees from Private and Public Organizations in Hong Kong

people often do not approach and the people with various nationalities andbackgrounds gather, has become the place for them to avoid the public (andsometimes discriminatory) situations. Not only do the caseworkers provide
assistance for the client, but also the community among the clients is formedat the center. Although the center has confronted difficulty in collecting in
obtaining financial resources in order to continue their scheme, the relianceamong the individuals brings out voluntary cooperation between refugees
and various supporters for the operation of the center. They sometimes go
beyond the mere caseworker-client relationship to build up trust. Interviewee
C said, “it never happened in ISS that clients play the video game withcaseworkers and voluntarily go to the airport in order to say goodbye to theleaving caseworkers like us”.
The center also regularly provides lunch and dinner under the support
by local companies to promote interaction among clients. This intimacy helps
them better understand each other and enables the center to find individual
needs.
However, this intimate sphere is an artif icial space that ignores
differences of various backgrounds among people in the center and iscompletely different from the general intimate spheres such as friends andfamily. It is required to prevent fighting to keep that sphere, but it is not easy
to do so in the place that has diverse people with different values. Thus, thecenter sometimes has to exclude some people from there in order to control
the sphere. As Interviewee A and C implied, they sometimes must closethe center and face difficulties in keeping their intimate sphere. In fact,
the author observed an asylum seeker from the mainland of China being
expelled from the center for fighting due to the center’s acceptability ofChinese mainlanders as clients.

5 Cooperation between Private and Public Supports for Refugees
As Kennedy (2014) states, refugees have problems with different
KEIO SFC JOURNAL Vol.18 No.2 2018

323

自由論題

languages, accommodations, discriminatory and psychological stress, whichis also true for Hong Kong. Therefore, it is absolutely necessary to share theintimidate sphere with them, not only the institutional system.
According to the statistics of the Immigration Department in Hong
Kong (2017), many South Asian such as Indian, Pakistan and Bangladesh
nationals can be found when looking at applicants’ nationality. Caseworkers
adverted that although applicants from these three countries alone accountfor more than half of all applicants waiting for their status to be decided,
Africans still accounted for 10% of the total, and there were also applications
from people originating from the Middle East. Rwandans and Sri Lankans(14 people each) were the most accepted applicants, followed by Burundians,
Cameroonians, and Egyptians. Thus, Hong Kong holds refugees speaking
various languages from a vast array of countries.
Refugees in Hong Kong are not limited to a specific nationality or asmall number of people, and diverse support is required for each case. The
uniform support that ignores individual situations does not seem appropriate
in Hong Kong. That is why individual care is needed by forming the intimate
sphere.
However, without the governmental assistance, large-scale economic
support cannot be provided. As the caseworker who used to work at the ISS(A, C) once said that “ISS salary is twice the amount of Christian Action”,
there is a big difference in financial strength between the two organizations.
It supports refugees widely in terms of numbers under the principle ofimpersonality and publicness. Therefore, it is important that the government
conducts basic support for refugees, and the private sector will do further
individual support to share the intimate sphere and reinterpret them
individually, so that both can complement each other’s systems.
Meanwhile, in reality, both are extremely “administrative relationships”.
There is little information exchange and no database is shared even though
Christian Action always asks to sign the agreement to share personal324

Comparison of Support for Refugees from Private and Public Organizations in Hong Kong

information with the public institution to support them properly. Clientsare forced to talk about the same tragedy story in two places. This situation
should be addressed immediately by sharing information under thepermission of refugees.
Not only the connection between private and public organizations but
also the foundation of intimate care itself is weak. There are very few private
refugee support organizations and all of them have a rather weak financial
basis to continue their work. In fact, even Christian Action, the only centerto support refugees comprehensively in Hong Kong, has never achieved thebalance in the black since its establishment (Interviewee A). Meanwhile,
Interviewee C pointed out that SWD is focusing on supporting legitimate
residents of Hong Kong and has no incentive to devote more resources torefugees who are not regarded so. Moreover, many NGOs are dependent
on the government subsidies as their primary source of income. Due to thislack of governmental support, NGOs dealing with refugees often struggle
with have financial difficulty even though they are an essential base of theintimate sphere.
However, the intimate sphere should be stable since it might convert
to counter public sphere. Interviewee A emphasized that, as the government
does not regard refugees as residents that can work, they are not includedin public sphere outside the context of refugee support primarily since theirentities are not known in Hong Kong society and the limit of linguistic
resource for discussion (Saito, 2000). At the root of this situation, there is a
low concern for refugees in Hong Kong as Interviewee B emphasized that
it is important to raise Hong Kong people’s interest in refugees through thecounter public sphere that having been converted from an intimate sphere.
The public sphere is where different people connect with each otherthrough common problems. Refugees have to be a common topic to makethem accept in public sphere. Meanwhile, the foundation of the refugees’
intimate sphere to counter the public sphere is still weak and it is difficult for
KEIO SFC JOURNAL Vol.18 No.2 2018

325

自由論題

them to make a claim in the general public. Forming an intimate sphere in aforeign country is not easy work for refugees.
That is why private organizations such as Christian Action have toactively build intimate relationships that public institution cannot form under
the collaboration with public institutions that should be supporting basic
needs.
In fact, Christian Action started to form the counter public sphere by
requesting the Immigration Department with their clients and supporters
together as Interviewee H said in the interview. Christian Action makes
it possible to enable their clients to approach public spheres by setting
opportunities to interact and discuss with various Hong Kong people such asprofessors, students and working people. For example, they hold a political
discussion day every Saturday with a professor at The City University ofHong Kong and Hong Kong citizens who are interested in the refugees.
Caseworker D was a client of the center, but he was successful in getting aworking visa as a staff of the center by active support from the community.
According to interviews with Interviewee A and D, D was the first former
asylum seeker who could get permission to work in Hong Kong. He could
take a step to becoming a member of the public sphere through the power ofthe counter public sphere.
Until the vast majority of citizens recognize the refugees and accept
them in the public sphere, it has to construct an intimate sphere in the context
of refugee support intentionally. Although changing the refugee policy isrequired, it is not easily implemented before forming a public discussion
on refugees. To achieve that, it might be a realistic solution to promoteinteraction between public and private organizations.

326Comparison of Support for Refugees from Private and Public Organizations in Hong Kong

Endnotes
1)
2)
3)

4)

Article 1 (A)(2), 1951 Refugee Convention
In this paper, this term refers to the refugee-supporting institutions utilizing public funds.
This paper will not distinguish refugees and asylum applicants. Although the definition of
refugees is supposed to be determined by international treaties, what kinds of persons arerecognized as refugees can change due to the political situation in the region. In fact, thesubject that judges who a refugee is or not was changed in Hong Kong. The Immigration
Department of the government is currently conducting certification of refugee status inHong Kong. Prior to the introduction of the USM, UNHCR had confirmed their position.
Therefore, it is difficult to separate asylum applicants and refugees certified by thegovernment, and particularly in Hong Kong, refugees and asylum seekers occupy almost
the same position in the society in that neither often have been granted visa-free laborstatus. Hence, hereafter the term “refugee” in this paper includes both certified refugees
and asylum seekers unless particularly mentioned.
The amount of these grants is not enough to live in Hong Kong, considering the expensive
prices there. However, it is not a problem that can happen due to the characteristic of public
institutions. This paper does not deal with it.

References
Chen, L., and Liu, Y. (2017) “Explainer: How Hong Kong Has for Decades Been a Magnet for
Refugees and Migrants”, South China Morning Post. https://www.scmp.com/news/hongkong/community/article/2125451/explainer-how-hong-kong-has-decades-been-magnetrefugees (Accessed on July 27, 2018).
Christian Action “Why Christian Action?” http://www.christian-action.org.hk/index.php/en/whyca (Accessed on August 4, 2017).
Fineman, A. (2004) The Autonomy Myth: A Theory of Dependency, New Press.
Fraser, N. (1997) Justice Interruptus: Critical Reflections on the “Postsocialist” Condition,
Routledge. https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/9781315822174 (Accessed on July 27,2018).
Gilligan, C. (1982) In a Different Voice: Psychological Theory and Women’s Development, Harvard University Press.
Hooks, B. (1990) Yearning: Race, Gender, and Cultural Politics, South End Press.
Immigration Department, HK SAR. “Enforcement | Immigration Department” http://www.
immd.gov.hk/eng/facts/enforcement.html (Accessed on August 4, 2017).
ISSHK “Provision Of Assistance For Non-Refoulement Claimants” http://www.isshk.org/en-us/
services/index/NRC (Accessed on August 4, 2017).
Jones, O. (2009) “Customary Non-Refoulement Of Refugees And Automatic Incorporation
Into The Common Law: A Hong Kong Perspective”, International and Comparative Law
Quarterly. 58(02) p. 443.
Kennedy, K. (2014) Public Policy Research Funding Scheme “Towards A Refugee Policy For An
Inclusive Hong Kong: Enhancing The Status Of China’s International City”, The Education
University of Hong Kong.
Lai, A., and Kennedy, K. (2017) “Refugees and Civic Stratif ication: The ‘Asian Rejection’ Hypothesis and Its Implications for Protection Claimants in Hong Kong”,

KEIO SFC JOURNAL Vol.18 No.2 2018

327

自由論題
Asian and Pacific Migration Journal 26(2), pp. 206–23. http://journals.sagepub.com/
doi/10.1177/0117196817706173 (Accessed on October 17, 2017).
Raquel, C. (2016) “Hong Kong’s Refugee Claim System Leaves Many Tough Questions”, South
China Morning Post. https://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/law-crime/article/1918025/
hong-kongs-refugee-claim-system-leaves-many-tough-questions (Accessed on May 27,2018).
Saito, J. (2000) Kōkyōsei = Publicness, Iwanami Shoten.
Sebastian, K. (2013) “Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ruled on Refugee Law Gateway Issue| OHRH”, Oxford Human Rights Hub. http://ohrh.law.ox.ac.uk/hong-kong-court-of-finalappeal-ruled-on-refugee-law-gateway-issue/# (Accessed on August 4, 2017).
Social Welfare Department “Cross-Boundary and Inter-Country Social Service” http://www.
swd.gov.hk/en/textonly/site_pubsvc/page_family/sub_listofserv/id_2724/ (Accessed on
August 4, 2017).
UNHCR “Refugee Definition - UNHCR|Emergency Handbook” https://emergency.unhcr.org/
entry/114761/refugee-definition (Accessed on April 27, 2018).
UNITED NATIONS “OHCHR | Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees” http://www.
ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/StatusOfRefugees.aspx (Accessed on January 15,2018).
Walter, N. (2014) “Chungking Mansions, Asylum Seekers and an Indian Social Worker”, Hong
Kong Economic Journal. http://www.ejinsight.com/20170426-chungking-mansions-asylum-seekers-and-an-indian-social-worker/ (Accessed on August 4, 2017).

〔受付日 2018. 2. 21〕〔採録日 2018. 8.29〕

328