Conference on the Representation, Rights and
Migration of the UK Chinese Community
16th March 2010, House of Commons
Foreword
By Bobby Chan, Chair of The Monitoring Group Min Quan
Min Quan, a project of The Monitoring Group, is a human rights group for the BritishChinese community. Established in 1999, we remain actively involved in providing
casework and advocacy support to the Chinese community who suffer from racial violence
and also racial discrimination. In recent years, we have broadened our work with the BritishChinese community by finding a collective voice to enable us to be better represented in the
wider social-political arena.
In “Hidden From Public View? Racism against the UK’s Chinese Population”, a 2009 report
commissioned by us found that Chinese in the UK are subject to “very substantial levels of
racist abuse, assault and hostility” and are let down by service agencies and the police.
Following the publication of its landmark report, officials from the Communities and Local
Governments will respond to the report today.
Besides hearing the government’s response on this report, this conference also will explore
the main issues faced by the British-Chinese community in the areas of Representation,
Rights and Migration. We aim to provide a platform for the Chinese community, as British
citizens, to engage effectively with British society in socio-economic and political arenas;
explore the main issues faced by the British Chinese population in the areas of
Representation, Rights and Migration; identify what changes need to take place and to
ensure that the Chinese community is consulted throughout government policies.
With an upcoming election, what are the political parties doing to ensure that the BritishChinese community’s voice is heard by them and reflected in their policies?
We wish to thank Virendra Sharma MP and John McDonnell MP for providing us the
opportunity to host this conference. We would also like to thank our volunteers for making
the smooth running of the conference possible.
The Monitoring Group Min Quan Conference
Representation, Rights & Migration of the British-Chinese Community
16th March 2010, House of Commons
Programme
11am
Registration & reception
Welcome by Virendra Sharma MP.
11.15am Opening speech by Bobby Chan, Chair of TMG Min Quan
Panel on Representation
11.20pm Panellists are Dr Rob Berkeley, Director of Runnymede Trust;
Dr Sylvia Sham, Director of Wai Yin Chinese Women Society; and
Chi Chan, Advisor of TMG Min Quan, also moderator for this panel.
Panel on Rights
Panellists are Selvin Brown, Deputy Head for Race Equality Diversity Division,
Department of Communities and Local Government;
Sally Sealey, Senior Policy Advisor on hate crime, Department of Communities and
12.00pm Local Government;
Paul Giannasi, Race Confidence and Justice Unit at Criminal Justice System;
Dr Ping Hua, Chair of Chinese Association of Southampton also Advisor of TMG Min
Quan;
Suresh Grover, Director of The Monitoring Group, also moderator for this panel.
1.00pm
Lunch
Panel on Migration
2.00pm
3.00pm
Panellists are Ruth Grove-White, Policy Advisor of Migrants’ Rights Network;
Dr Robin Pharoah, Founder of Ethnographic Social Research Options;
Wai Har Lam, Vice Chair of Min Quan; and
Bobby Chan, Chair of TMG Min Quan, also moderator for this panel.
Closing speech by Wai Har Lam, Vice Chair of TMG Min Quan.
Panellists
Panel on Representation:
Dr Rob Berkeley
Director of Runnymede Trust
Rob Berkeley has been Director of the Runnymede Trust, an independent policy-research
organisation focusing on 'race' and social policy, since January 2009. He was Deputy
Director of Runnymede between 2005 and 2009. His doctoral studies focused on
exclusions from school. He is Chair of governors at a South London primary school, Chair
of Naz Project London (which provides sexual health and HIV prevention and support
services to various minority ethnic communities), and a Trustee of Stonewall. He is a Senior
Adviser to the British Council, and a member of the Commission on 2020 Public Services.
Dr Sylvia Sham
Director of Wai Yin Chinese Women Society
Sylvia Sham has been Director of Wai Yin Chinese Women Society since 1998, during
which time she has led the continuous development of the organisation which now employs
over 50 staff and delivers 11 services to over 500 people each week from Greater
Manchester’s Chinese Community and beyond. She is particularly interested in
encouraging Chinese people living in Britain to take an interest in social & political issues
affecting their lives. Outside of the organisation, Dr Sham contributes to many national,
regional and local advisory groups, health and social care organisation to BME business
issues.
Chi Chan
Advisor of Min Quan
Chi Chan is an advisor for Min Quan. In the early 1980’s as a community activist he cofounded the Chinese Information and Advice Centre (CIAC). CIAC introduced a number of
new approaches to community services into London’s Chinese community. He worked at
the Daily Telegraph for 12 years until 2008 and was deputy FOC for the NUJ chapel at the
Telegraph. In 2008 he worked as Communications officer of Chinese Immigration Concern
Committee. He organised the first ever mass rally, in London, of the British-Chinese
community. He also organised a mass protest and lobby of parliament by the Ethnic
Catering Alliance, which saw a cross community alliance of catering workers and employers
from Chinese, Bangladesh and Turkish communities.
Panel on Rights:
Selvin Brown MBE
Deputy Head of Race Equality and Diversity Division, CLG
Selvin Brown is a career civil servant, with over 18 years service across three Government
departments. He is currently responsible for driving forward the Government's agenda to
reduce race inequalities and tackle discrimination; he is leading on the cross-Whitehall
Strategy for Race Equality, as well as Tackling Race Inequalities Fund. He is also a key
partner in shaping the Single Equality Bill. Prior to this role he led a programme at CLG on
mainstreaming equalities within the Department. He also has practical experience as a
volunteer in the third sector for over four years. Selvin was Named Civil Servant of the Year
2009, at the GG2 Leadership Awards; and awarded Membership of the British Empire
(MBE) in the Queen’s Birthday honors 2009.
Sally Sealey
Policy Advisor of the Department of Communities and Local Government
Sally Sealey is a senior policy advisor on tackling hate crime and all other forms of hatred
and intolerance at the Department of Communities and Local Government. CLG is
responsible for preventing hate crime before it happens. Prior to this Sally held a number of
posts in South Africa including an amnesty investigator for the South African Truth and
Reconciliation Commission (TRC) and head of community policing in one of South Africa’s
key provinces Gauteng in the first post-apartheid government. During apartheid Sally
worked for the Independent Board of Inquiry which was formed by the trade union
movement and churches to investigate post-judicial executions and torture by the South
African police and security apparatus.
Paul Giannasi
Police Superintendent
Paul is a Police Superintendent working within the Office for Criminal Justice Reform, he is
the project-lead for ‘Race for Justice’, the cross-governmental hate crime programme,
owned by the Attorney General. The programme will improve the way we respond to hate
crime from the call-taker through to the courts. It also has influence over hate crime
prevention and offender management policy. Race for justice has gained agreement across
the Criminal Justice System to monitor five ‘strands’ of hate crime. It is working to reduce
the under-reporting of hate crime and to improve the service to victims. Paul is also a
member of the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) Hate Crime Group and is
coordinating the refresh of the ACPO hate Crime Manual which will guide all UK police
officers and partners. Paul is the UK point of contact on hate crime to the Organisation for
Security and Cooperation in Europe and has worked to share good practice within the
OSCE region and within Africa.
Dr Ping Hua
Chair of the Chinese Association of Southampton
Dr Ping Hua is the Chair of the Chinese Association of Southampton. The aim of the
association is to improve social inclusion for the Chinese community and to offer important
and much needed services to the community. In 2006, the association started working in
partnership with Min Quan-The Monitoring Group, on the issue of racial harassment in
Chinese restaurants, takeaways and students, helping Chinese victims in the community.
Ping was awarded the BBC South Community Champions Awards 2007 in Racial Harmony
and Understanding for her outstanding efforts in her local community.
Suresh Grover
Director of The Monitoring Group
Suresh Grover has been active in the civil rights field for over thirty years. The Guardian
Newspaper has described as one of the hundred most influential people in Social Policy in
the UK. He is the leading exponent of family led empowerment and justice campaigns in the
UK. He led the campaigns to help families of Stephen Lawrence, Zahid Mubarek and
Victoria Climbie – all these cases led to Public Judicial Inquiries and consequent changes in
legislation, social policies and practices. Since the London Bombings he has worked with
victim families of the carnage as well as Black Minority and Ethnic and Muslim groups and
individuals affected by indiscriminate state-led policies in London, Midlands and the North.
Panel on Migration:
Ruth Grove-White
Policy Officer of Migrants’ Rights Network
Ruth Grove-White is MRN's Policy Officer, responsible for developing the network's
responses to Government policy and legislation, producing information bulletins and
supporting the Director in representing the organisation. Ruth graduated with an MSc in
Political Sociology from the London School of Economics in 2004. Since then she has
worked as a Project Coordinator at the International Organisation for Migration in BosniaHerzegovina and as the Programme Manager of European Dialogue, an organisation
working with traditional travelling communities in the UK and across Europe.
Dr Robin Pharoah
Founder of Ethnographic Social Research Options
Dr. Robin Pharoah is the founder and director of the independent research agency, ESRO.
He founded the company in 2004 to bring the thinking and methods of academic
anthropology, and especially ethnography, to the world of applied research. Robin studied
for his PhD at the London School of Economics, looking at Chinese cultures of leadership
and authority. Fieldwork for this PhD involved living and working in a central Chinese
township for 2 years. At ESRO, Robin has worked on a variety of projects with the public
and private sectors both overseas and in the UK. Recently Robin launched a major report
on the issues facing new Chinese migrants coming to live and work in London. The project
was carried out in partnership with the Chinese in Britain Forum and the Big Lottery Fund. It
follows a smaller piece of work conducted in partnership with Westminster Council on
'Hidden Populations' of migrants (including Chinese) living in the borough.
Bobby Chan
Chair of Min Quan
Bobby Chan has been the Chair of Min Quan since its inception in 1999. He was an
executive member of the UNISON Metropolitan District Black Members Group. Bobby was
involved with the New Diamond 5 campaign in London Chinatown, which founded the
Chinese Monitoring Group project Min Quan back in 1999. He has nearly 30 years of
experience at the Central London Law Centre as an Immigration Caseworker and he is the
only Chinese Immigration Caseworker within the Law Centre movement since the 1960s.
Bobby has represented victims’ families during Dover 58 (2000), Morecambe Bay (2006) on
their immigration issues. Bobby is a civil rights activist and is well-recognised for him work
with the Chinese community throughout the UK.
Wai Har Lam
Vice Chair of TMG Min Quan
Wai is a solicitor and the Vice- Chair of The Monitoring Group Min Quan and has been with
the organisation since 2001, starting with the Foot- and- Mouth Campaign, which sought to
clear the name of the Chinese catering community within which the outbreak was alleged to
have started. Since then, she has worked on most of the campaigns undertaken by Min
Quan and is a familiar face amongst the activists in the Chinese community. She
has worked on matters of racial and sexual orientation discrimination in Hong Kong setting
up a non- profit organisation to deal with racial discrimination in the educational
system. Currently, Wai advises on the legal aspects of Min Quan's work working closely
with the Chair, particularly on issues of immigration, criminal and human rights matters.
Conference on the Representation, Rights and
Migration of the UK Chinese Community
Discussion paper on the UK Chinese Community and Representation
Prepared for Min Quan by Chi Chan
The UK Chinese community is an established community of generations. It includes UK born
Chinese and migrants. The image of our community, the way we are represented from the outset is
very different from how we see ourselves individually and as a community.
Who are we? How are we viewed?
Although we are often spoken of as one group - placing us under the generic term of “a community”we are in fact, as many communities are, a community of groups with diverse social and economic
interests. Many are closely tied to the community by work and other interests while just as many
only have a tenuous link to the core of the community. What pulls us together is of course our easily
identifiable ethnic origin. Regardless of how settled, or integrated we are in the UK (or in the case of
the so called BBC (British Born Chinese), we can always be marked out as different, as belonging
to the other group by the “host” community. It is perhaps easy for some in this country to forget that
a community such as ours is an integral part of the wider British community.
Today, UK is still largely divided into the white host community and black and minority ethnic
communities. The way the host community sees herself and her place in the globalised world, and
how she sees the Chinese and other communities, through and lenses of popular culture and media
representation, affect the way we interact with each other and consequently hinder any efforts of at
engagement or integration by our communities with the wider British society. The British-Chinese
community is often characterised as insular and hard to reach. The 2001 census shows that 71% of
Chinese in the UK are self-employed, the majority of whom are in catering or related industries. This
may be the reason why most members of the community have little or no dealing with people and
agencies from the outside. We engage more often with people within the community by necessity
than with those from the outside.
In the UK, our community is indeed known first and foremost for our cuisine. Our catering industry is
the foundation stone on which our community is built. It also binds all members of the community
into a monolithic group, in the minds of many from outside our community. Food, Kung Fu, and
ping-pong are some of the short hand codes for us in the British popular imagination. Also in
popular culture and media our community is often associated with: immigration (numbers),
criminality (Triad), education (high achievement) and the economic dominance of China (threat).
Our community is often stereotyped and is seen and understood in terms of labels. Few from
outside the community acknowledge that the Chinese community is heterogeneous – economically,
socially and geographically. Within this community there are UK citizens from China, Vietnam,
colonial Hong Kong, Malaysia and Singapore. There are established citizen groups who have
children who are UK- born, there are the sojourners: workers, students, undocumented migrants,
and asylum seekers.
There is little doubt, in our view, that we are a community in transition, and that its form and shape
will be determined by many factors including how we interact with an active civil society. Recent
research by the London School of Economics and Ethnographic Social Research on Chinese
Migrants in London (Migration, Integration, Cohesion New Chinese migrants to London, 2009)
concludes that our community is undergoing some major changes, which will throw up a new set of
problems and challenges both to the community and to our political representatives.
Political Representation
In order for anyone to represent the interests of our community he/she has to go beyond a
superficial understanding of what our community is about. Without this and with only the heavy
mixture of half-understood stereotyping, myths and envy, the main concerns and interests of our
community will always be overlooked by the very people who should pay close attention to such
matters. The way we are presented and represented in popular culture, the media and in the minds
of those who are outside our community, deeply affects the way we and our interests are
represented in the political arena.
Our parliamentary democracy is deemed as a system of participation, representation and
accountability. In order for it to function well there is the need for the individual to be part of the
democratic process, which at the simplest level is to vote, to choose our representatives. The
process also demands whoever is chosen will represent and protect our common interests, and be
accountable (to us) for his/her political actions.
Politicians often say that regardless of party affiliation our political representatives represent all of
her/his constituents. Given that in an average constituency there are diverse and sometimes
conflicting interests, the ability (and willingness) of any councilor, or MP to represent us, to speak
‘on our behalf’ must depend on many factors not least on the political standpoint of our
representatives, and the political constraints (often party led) to which they are subjected. In short
we cannot assume that any of our representatives are bound to have his/her voters’ interests at
heart in a paternalistic way – for good or ill.
Lack of resources
Early generations of the British-Chinese community draw largely from the former British colony of
Hong Kong where democracy was not practised. It is unsurprising that being part of the process of
electing political representatives, and any kind of political activities, however minor, are not within
their immediate experience. Adding to this lack of practice is the deep dislike of all things political,
which is borne out of our own collective social historical experience. We prefer to circumvent and
adapt to problems rather than enter into the esoteric world of politics and push for change. Above all
there is the belief that those who govern us should protect our interests. After all we are all tax
paying, hard working citizens, are we not? This simple belief in our political representatives (doing
the ‘right thing’) may of course be a reflection of our lack of understanding of the process by which
our lives are governed by those we elected to rule over us. It is also an indication of the extent of
our community’s failure to properly engage with the wider social-political world beyond our own
community.
The reason for this failure is quite simple. In order to participate in the democratic process in a
meaningful way one needs to understand the process and how it can best serve us and serve our
community and act accordingly. It is a time consuming business that is beyond most people in a
community where long hours of work is not uncommon. Few in the community have the time, the
inclination, or the resources to help the community to make the connection between what our
representatives do (and how it is done) and the real effects their action may have on all our daily
lives. More importantly we have yet to appreciate how to bring our political masters to account and
make them carry out their true elected function as our public servants.
There are some within the British-Chinese community who feel that with a few more Chinese faces,
so to speak, in local councils and Parliament somehow our community’s interests will be better
looked after. This is a misunderstanding of the nature of representative politics, which is dominated
by political party lines. Regardless of the ethnic origin of the elected person he/she is bound by the
political interests of his/her party first and foremost. This said the lack of visible political
representatives from our community, at local and national levels, has contributed to the impression
that our community is insular and distant. The lack of activism, lack of pressure from our community
on the mainstream also paints a picture of an inert, acquiescent community. It certainly means that
whenever issues, such as the recent migration and work permit law changes, are discussed our
collective view has not been adequately expressed at crucial points throughout the passage of such
laws. Our failure to express a collective view against laws that adversely affect us has often left us
to reap the inevitable consequences. In short our political voice is muted at every turn.
There is also the need to analyse another equation. A new group of Chinese individuals, emanating
form Mainland China and other regions of South East Asia (including Malaysia, Singapore and
Vietnam) bring with them different, parallel and contradictory traditions to the UK. Groups
represented by students and white collar workers, are more affluent and better educated, their
aspirations for achievement and therefore equality are high and some are determined to developing
a more robust self-organisation models of activism and representation. The dynamic, however,
remains incomplete unless we include the demands placed on UK body politics by the arrival of
undocumented workers from the same region. They have been forced to migrate due to
globalisation. Their experiences of the UK are bleak and dangerous and they are destined to remain
vulnerable unless a active civil society emerges from within the Chinese community.
Lack of government engagement
To the outside community, in particular among government agencies, there is a general view that
the UK-Chinese community does not engage enough, and that we are insular. One is bound to ask
the question: Doesn’t engagement imply a dialogue between two parties? For those in the UKChinese community who often act as the go-between of our community and the wider British
community (especially the state apparatus) it is not just an issue of lack of engagement, rather it is a
lack of understanding, on the part of our community, of socio-political development. Equally on the
other side we see that there is an unwillingness to see us as a community of citizens who are an
integral part of contemporary British society. Of course this is not unique to our community, but a
common experience of a number of established black & minority ethnic communities in the UK.
However, irrespective of decades in this country we continue to be seen, and dealt with, as minority
first and citizens second. At the very best we are accustomed to mainstream politics treating us,
individually and collectively, in a tokenistic way that reduces our community interests to the margin.
Inevitably many in our community believe that our views are never properly sought, and regardless
that our community interests are inter-related to the common interests of the country at large our
problems are seldom a prime concern of the powers that be. Many of our political representatives,
we believe, tend to see our community only in relation to immigration issues despite the fact that
within our community we have third, or even fourth generation of citizens who are born and brought
up in this country we call home. How can we be properly represented by people who constantly see
us, and speak of our community, as a problem to be resolved rather than citizens to be consulted?
In reality we have the same daily problems and struggles as everyone else in other communities in
the country at large.
The way forward: community engagement and representation
Some within the community, drawing experience from other ethnic communities, see that proper
political representation and activism is vital, perhaps the only way, in safe guarding our community
interests especially when many from outside our community have little, or no idea of the fine
balance of factors that hold the social and cultural fabrics of our community together. By always
taking a passive role and allow others (politicians and other agencies) to act in ignorance, or simple
neglect, we allow others to damage the cultural integrity and social fabric of our community.
We are not a community without resources or talents. In order for us to be better represented in the
social-political arena we have to gather what we have and act accordingly. The time is ripe for our
community to look deep and wide, within our own community, and find a way by which different
groups can come together and work to a common purpose which is to influence our political
representatives in a better, effective way, and beyond the boundaries set by our gatekeepers. We
must aim to give our UK-Chinese community an independent and solid foundation on which future
generations can build and improve upon. To this end activism and engagement (with a purpose)
must be the key.
Many in our community have, from time to time, mused “if only we could be more united”. Now is the
time to go a step further beyond thinking out loud, and take an active part to unite our community.
The UK-Chinese community is one of the smallest ethnic communities in Britain. We are also very
dispersed, which, in term of political influence (in the context of representational politics) places us
in a distinct disadvantage. This means that, like all small minority groups, our collective interests will
need more, and not less, attention.
Soon we shall have a General Election. The new parliament may be very different from the old. Will
the new parliamentarians look at our country, our society and our communities in the same light as
us? Will they indeed pay close attention to the needs and interests of all our communities with
reference to us, to what our community wants?
To our political representatives we would say if democracy holds any true meaning to you at all it
must be measured by the care you take in looking after the interests of the weaker groups in our
society. We need to be seen, spoken of, and treated as citizens. To us engagement means talking
to, and not at, us. Consultation means to listen and take into account our needs in policy terms, and
not to listen and then ignore. Politicians need to understand that when we come and talk we are
speaking as one group of citizens to another – no more, no less. As an established community
many of us have invested our children, our family, and our working lives in the UK: it is the
Establishment’s turn to invest in us as a community of citizens.
Min Quan as an organization will seek to work across groups within the UK-Chinese community.
Our role is to enable different Chinese groups to find ways of cooperating with one another. We also
have a role of actively helping the community to engage with individuals and groups from outside
our community. Equally we ask our political representatives to give us the platform and resources to
help our community to develop into the kind of active civic body that will fully integrate into the
socio-political arena of the British society. If history has a lesson for us it is simply this: you cannot
build a cohesive society unless there is genuine equality.
Conference on the Representation, Rights and Migration of the
UK Chinese Community
Visible responses for Hidden Communities
Chinese people as victims of race crimes in the UK
Prepared for Min Quan by Suresh Grover & Ping Hua
The historical context
In the recent years, official bodies have acknowledged that racism against the minorities in the
United Kingdom is not only a new phenomenon, but it is often linked to the negative stigma attached
to immigration. In 1596, Queen Elizabeth 1 expressed her disapproval of the presence black of
people by ordering their deportation. However it seems that the attempts to expel “dark skinned
people” were largely unsuccessful as she issued a second similar proclamation in 1601. Indeed
BME people have lived in the UK ever since, but their experience of being set apart from the
“indigenous British”, being defined as the “problem”, and often threatened with repatriation are
prevalent and connecting themes affecting race relations throughout history. For instance, the
arrival of the Jews who were fleeing pogroms at the beginning of twentieth century provoked a racist
outcry, led by a virulent media, and resulted in an introduction of the first significant immigration
legislation, the 1905 Aliens Act.
Since the late nineteenth century the migration of Chinese communities has often been referred to
as the Yellow Peril. The term specifically refers to the skin colour of East Asians and the belief that
mass migration of people of Chinese origin (into the USA and Europe) threatened white wages, the
standard of living and imagined harmony of white societies. The Yellow Peril was a common theme
in fiction writings of the period and embedded racist stereotyping of Chinese people in popular
culture. Perhaps the most representative of this prejudice is Sax Rohmer’s Fu Manchu novels.
Another is Li Shoon, a fictional villain created by Irving Hancock in 1916. He is described as being
“tall and stout”, having a “round moonlike yellow face”, “bulging eyebrows” and “sunken eyes”. He
has “an amazing compound of evil” which makes him “a wonder at anything wicked” and “a marvel
of satanic cunning”.
Although there is no consensus when violent racism emerged as a public issue in the UK, there are
reports indicating the existence of racial violence as early as 1919 when British subjects of Middle
Eastern origin were attacked in South Shields and Liverpool. In that same year, Charles Wotton, a
West Indian, was lynched by a mob. According to Peter Fryer: Wotton ran from the house, closely
pursued by two policemen – and by a crowd of between 200 and 300 hurling missiles. The police
caught him at the edge of Queens Dock, but the lynch mob tore him from them and threw him into
the water. Shouting “let him drown”; they pelted him with stones as he swam around. Soon he died,
and his corpse was dragged from the dock. No arrests were made. This lynching was followed by
mass stabbing of “Negroes”, and burning of properties occupied by black people - at least 700 black
people living in Liverpool sought sanctuary in police and fire stations. In the same year three people
were killed in anti-black rioting in South Wales, dozens injured in Newport, Barry, Cadoxton and
Cardiff. In Newport houses occupied by black people, a Greek-owned lodging house, and Chinese
laundries were wrecked by a mob of several thousand.
It would take seventy more years for racial violence to become a serious concern for police, civil
servants and local government officers. The shift in the 1980’s was triggered by activities of the
black and Asian communities and anti-racist organisations , an upsurge in racial activity, the moral
panic about “race”, and the nature of “policing” that resulted in the violent public disturbances in
thirty cities of urban Britain.
The Home Office was the agency to which most criticism of the police was articulated. As the
department responsible for both policing and race relations, it had to react to the pressure by being
seen to attempt to bring about a more effective and better policing. The publication of the Home
Office Racial Attacks Report in 1981 and Lord Scarman’s report into the Brixton “riots” placed the
police in a position where they too had to respond to the issue of violent racism. Indeed the events
of 1981 had brought about huge public focus on the relationship between police and BME
communities, and the public response to racial violence became a political necessity.
Around the same time, the Greater London Council (GLC) began to campaign for an elected police
authority for London. The focus on the failure of the police response to violent racism and the
accusations that police themselves perpetuated “racist acts” forced the GLC to respond to the
unaccountable and discriminatory manner in which Londoner’s were policed. In the 1980’s,
therefore the police, local and central Government took up specific political and ideological positions
on the issues of violent racism and community relationship. As violent racism grew in frequency and
intensity, the “crisis of legitimacy” worsened for both police and local authorities and reproduced a
new discourse of co-ordination and collaboration in the shape of “multi-agency approach”, a model
that they viewed could provide solutions to stem the tide of violent racism.
Indeed the combined weight of the advocacy of co-ordination was considerable. Between them, the
Home Office, the police, local authorities and community relations councils, monopolized financial,
political communication and ideological resources and the view that only a multi-agency model
could tackle racial violence became universally accepted within this terrain. Excluded from this
debate were community groups advocating, supporting and campaigning around victimized families
and communities or groups that criticized its “blinkered” or “colour-blind” approach. Despite the
exclusion, the community groups had built sufficient momentum, through supporting and
campaigning with victimized families, to raise the issue on a national scale. Since the murder of
Kevin Cochrane in 1959, more than ninety people had been killed on British streets, where race was
either perceived or evidenced as a primary factor. Like most other race murders, in the beginning,
the racist and cold bloodied murder of black teenager Stephen Lawrence, in 1993, raised little
attention or alarm amongst British media.
Six years later, in 1999, the name of the teenager hit the world headlines; it dominated terrestrial
and satellite television, radio and print media for several months. In the intervening years the family
based campaign and the family’s lawyers raised the case’s profile by initiating unprecedented
actions, including the historic private criminal prosecution against the perpetrators despite police
(and CPS’s) reluctance to take proper action. The prosecution failed for legal reasons.
Finally, after five years of relentless campaigning, and despite Official denial and indifference, a
Public Judicial Inquiry was announced into the circumstances leading to the murder and the lessons
to be learned. The Lawrence/Macpherson Inquiry took evidence from over 88 witnesses over 69
days of hearing and received over 148 written submissions amounting to over 100,000 pages of
documentary evidence. The report concluded that the failure of police investigation was the result of
“professional incompetence, institutional racism and failure of leadership by senior officers”. The
report made seventy recommendations, which, taken together, amount to one of the most sweeping
sets of proposals for reform in the history of British policing. Its starting point was to embed a
Ministerial priority into building trust and confidence in poling amongst BME communities through
the elimination if racial prejudice and disadvantage and demonstration of fairness in all aspects of
policing. To supplement the change, it envisaged changes to the inspection regimes, race
legislation and the application of the Freedom Information Act to policing. It recommended
improvements to operational aspects of policing that included changes to definitions, reporting,
recording, investigation and prosecution of race incidents; family liaison; training in all aspects of
policing; handling of witness; and the role of schools and education in preventing racism. In an
Action Plan published as Home Secretary’s response to the Inquiry, 56 of the 70 recommendations
were fully accepted, five were accepted in part and seven were subject to further investigation.
Min Quan, a Chinese community’s response to racism in Modern Britain
In 1999, soon after the publication of the Stephen Lawrence Inquiry Report, The Monitoring Group
established a project to help Chinese victims of racial harassment, domestic violence and general
policing problems. Over the years the project, called Min Quan, has supported over 500 victims of
racial attacks. Its casework has revealed gross under-reporting of racist incidents because of the
community’s lack of confidence in the current arrangements, which are sometimes due to cultural
barriers and negative experiences.
The 1985 Home Affairs Sub-Committee Report into the Chinese Community highlighted key
challenges in meeting their needs. But, more than 25 years on, government and statutory
responses have been piecemeal. In 2000, a Min Quan survey of 30 Chinese businesses in
London’s Chinatown revealed that an overwhelming majority had not on only experienced
secondary victimization but their family and friends were also prone to harassment or violence.
In 2003, in an extensive national survey of the Chinese community by Nottingham Trent University,
one-third of the respondents from urban, metropolitan and rural areas said they had experienced
racial harassment and violence.
In 2005, at a Min Quan public meeting attended by over 100 rural residents and businesses in
Devon, the majority said they had experienced racist harassment and attacks. They cited distrust of
the police, a lack of victim support services and fear of reprisals as the key reasons for not reporting
incidents.
The above surveys highlighted an urgent need for culturally appropriate services to meet the needs
of a community whose profile is rapidly changing. The Chinese population grew by 25 per cent
(247,403) in the 2001 Census and continues to grow strongly. Inward migration of legal and
undocumented Chinese workers and students has increased the population further, some estimates
range by up to 400,000.
The Monitoring Group Min Quan’s involvement in supporting victims’ families after the Dover 58 and
Morecambe Bay tragedies, as well as the murder of two Chinese DVD sellers has increased
demand for our services from emerging communities. It is alarming that acts of violence or of a
criminal nature, including robbery and racial discrimination are often not the primary concern of the
statutory bodies’ consideration when these vulnerable victims report them. Instead, the immigration
status of a victim is called into question. How is this question relevant to the fact that they have
been murdered, assaulted or robbed? This kind of attitude only further alienates the same people
who have already been victimized, placing them in an even more vulnerable position, with no
support whatsoever. This sends out a message: that there will be no consequences to someone
who preys on those most vulnerable in our society. A crime is a crime regardless of someone’s
legal status. Their rights as a human being cannot be ignored or forgotten. We believe there is an
urgent need to review ‘the one size fits all’ policy adopted by some public authorities because it is
not meeting the needs of this group.
Hidden From Public View
Following a successful bid to Communities and Local Government to carry out discrete work with
the Chinese community, we secured funding to develop Min Quan’s work in London, Manchester
and Southampton, including funding to produce a research report. In the coastal areas, such as
Southampton, we remain indebted to groups such as the Chinese Association whose local
knowledge, support and commitment to providing core & front line services, and dynamic cultural
programmes remains largely ignored and unacknowledged by official bodies. The overall aim of the
research report was to capture the experiences of the Chinese community in three regions of
England: London, the North West and the South East. In short the objectives of the research were
to report on the prevalence of violent racism on the Chinese communities and business; capture the
impact on the problem on the community and the victim; comprehensively assess the quality of
response by statutory bodies to the problem; and lastly develop a set of recommendations that
could be used to improve services. We conceded that the report, given its scope and lack of proper
funding, could and did not answer all the questions or meet all its objectives. But its primary findings
were ground breaking:
a) The UK Chinese people are subject to substantial levels of racist abuse, assault and hostility.
The types of racist abuse suffered by the UK’s Chinese people range from racist name-calling to
damage to property and businesses, arson, and physical attacks sometimes involving
hospitalisation and murder; The failure of many statistical and research reports to identify the
experience of Chinese people separately from that of ‘other’ minorities has meant that their
experience of racism remains hidden from view.
b) The impact of racial abuse, harassment and attacks on UK Chinese people is significant, ranging
from serious psychological effects, to issues of significant concerns about the safety of their family
members including children, hospitalisation, loss of businesses leading to poverty and even death,
c) Most of the criticisms of the criminal justice system by the Chinese victims were against the police.
This raises serious questions about the effectiveness of reporting arrangements and police
response to Chinese victims of hate crimes. Whereas there is evidence that police forces in the UK
have procedures in place to help victims of hate crime feel more confident to report their
victimisation, there is no evidence that the UK Chinese have been given any priority in this
development.
The report concedes that the government takes hate crime seriously and most criminal justice
agencies have policies in place to encourage victims of hate crimes to report their victimisation and
to support such victims. These policies include engagement strategies, effective delivery monitoring
procedures, outreach, and interpretation and translation facilities. However, the findings indicate
that as far as the UK Chinese people are concerned, these facilities are either not being used
effectively, or they are inadequate or irrelevant to their specific needs and concerns as victims of
crime. Because of their continuing distrust and lack of confidence in the criminal justice system
(particularly the police) and public welfare services, Chinese people depend quite heavily on the
services of voluntary agencies for support. The report made twenty four recommendations, these
were broad and general in character. These ranged from attempting to ensure that the Lawrence
Inquiry recommendations should equally apply to Chinese victims; to increase awareness of the
problem in schools and educational institutions; to developing more resources for and enabling
Chinese led organizations; and the need to develop further action based research on this subject.
What should be done now?
The current Hate Crime – The Cross-Government Action Plan states, “Our Action Plan will take
steps to fill in the key gaps in policy and practice that have been identified collectively by
stakeholders across government, and the criminal justice system and communities affected by hate
crime”. Although there is no reference to our findings contained in the Hidden From Public View in
the body of the report, one of the priorities listed in Annex C is its plan to respond to the
recommendations made in the Hidden from Public View. The desired outcomes listed include: a)
improve relations with Chinese community stakeholders; b) increase reporting of hate crimes by
Chinese community, and c) increase community confidence in the criminal justice system.
Despite the significant findings of the report Hidden from Public View, statutory response remains
static, complacent and operational in character - a sea of institutional indifference surrounds very
small pockets of good response led by caring individuals.
The Government needs to urgently respond to the following critical issues:
1. The Government should respond to each of the recommendations contained in the report, and
when necessary, help develop an inter governmental action plan on the report
2. The government should take urgent steps to fill in the gaps in services identified by the report.
These include improving reporting, recording, investigations and prosecution in race hate
crime cases affecting the Chinese communities. The process of victimization of the Chinese
community is unique, because of its isolated presence across the UK. As importantly most
Chinese take away owners also live on or adjacent to business premises. Consequently the
harassment suffered by victims in these situations has traumatic impact on their lives as
there is no escape
3. The Government should enable and resource Chinese led community organizations and
projects to support victims of hate crimes. Currently, not a single Chinese-led group in the
whole of UK is funded for this specific purpose. The Cross Government Action Plan states,
“Improving services to victims of hate crime is at the forefront of our efforts. The voluntary
sector provides invaluable services to hate crimes victims” It has earmarked a significant
sum for the voluntary sector under the Victims Fund Hate Crime Section to provide such
support to victims. We believe that a significant portion of this fund, given the research
findings, should be made available to Chinese led groups (such as Min Quan, the Chinese
Association of Southampton and Wai Yin) working with hate crime victims
4. The Government should support the establishment of an advisory group of Chinese led
advocacy organizations working on hate crimes to deliver a better service to victims suffering
repeat and secondary victimization; critical and serious incidents; and improving third party
reporting mechanisms. It is essential that we understand the strategic implications of these
issues on the Chinese communities, and if good practices can be identified it needs to be
replicated or transferred
5. The Government should assist Chinese organization to tackle negative and racist
stereotyping of the Chinese communities in schools and the media. Whilst it is true that
Chinese students may excel in education, research indicates that even the most successful
pupil is prone to racial abuse, some of which flows directly from false and exaggerated
media coverage.
END
Conference on the Representation, Rights and
Migration of the UK Chinese Community
Discussion paper on the UK Chinese Community and Migration
Prepared for Min Quan by Bobby Chan
Migration plays an integral part in the British- Chinese community whether it is for economic or
social reasons. Family- life is the backbone of Chinese traditions and the migration of Chinese
coming into this country has been happening for well over 200 years. However despite such a long
presence in the UK, the British- Chinese community continues to suffer from racial discrimination
and is hit hard when changes are made to immigration laws. This decade began with the deaths of
58 migrants at Dover, and the intervening years have proved to be equally challenging, due to the
numerous changes to immigration law and government policy. More recently, we have seen a
number of disturbing trends that are linked to the economy.
History
The history of migration of the British- Chinese community to the UK can be seen clearly through
British Government policy in relation to immigration control. The first main wave of migration of
Chinese into the United Kingdom was during the World War I, under the terms of agreement of the
Anglo-Chinese Convention of 1904. The first contingent of about 1,000 arrived in Plymouth in April
1917 and eventually, there were about 100,000 workers under the control of the British Government.
This group of workers came mainly from the North of China around Shandong province. However,
they mainly worked along the western front and their income was lower than ordinary white workers.
They were the largest contingent of foreign workers during the period which included Indians, black
South Africans, Egyptian and West Indians. Furthermore, they were subject to martial law. By 1920,
the Chinese workers were repatriated back to China. The first main piece of legislation that stopped
the Chinese from migrating into the UK was the Alien Restriction Act of 1914. Initially it was
enacted to restrict the movement of aliens during wartime. However, an amendment to the Act in
1919 was extended into peace time after the World War I. It was used to restrict the entry and
settlement of migrants in the UK. Even though people of Chinese descent were present in the UK
since the 18th century, there were less than 5,000 Chinese present up to the start of World War
II. Permanent migration of Chinese people into the UK came after the end of the World War II. The
initial wave of migrants came from Hong Kong, Malaysia and Singapore. These countries were
either colonial or ex-colonial. Any migrants from Hong Kong had Citizen of UK & Colonies (CUKC)
status. Therefore their status was not affected by the restriction imposed by the Commonwealth
Immigrant Act 1962 and the Commonwealth Immigration Act 1968. Before the end of the World War
II, the laundry industry was the main source of employment for Chinese migrants in the UK and
according to the census, there were over 500 Chinese laundryman working in the United
Kingdom. After the World War II, with the economic boom, and changing political and social
conditions, many Chinese from Hong Kong, Malaysia and Singapore came to the UK to work.
Initially many were intending only to work for a few years and save enough to return to their native
countries. However, there were a variety of reasons for Chinese migrants to travel to the
UK. Among people from Hong Kong, many of the migrants came from the New Territories. This is a
farming area of Hong Kong and the majority of people there had relatively few education
qualifications. With the civil war in China and a large migration of refugees into Hong Kong, the
economic base of the New Territories was eroded away. The price of agricultural products
plummeted and they were unable to compete with products imported from overseas, for example,
rice from Thailand and vegetables from China. They are also unable to compete in the job market
because of their lack of educational qualifications when large numbers of qualified refugees who
also entered Hong Kong. However, their status as native Hong Kong born citizen gave them
CUKC status, and consequently, they were able to travel to the United Kingdom without any
restriction. The push and pull factors forced many male inhabitants of the New Territories to travel to
the United Kingdom to work in the new catering industries.
Another group of migrants from Hong Kong that travelled to the United Kingdom were students.
The movement started in the late 1960s in particular after the 1967 riot in Hong Kong, when many
parents sent their children overseas to gain qualification and possibly, for their safety. Another
significant group of Chinese migrants came from Malaysia and Singapore. Chinese from Malaysia in
particular arrived after the race riot in 1969 when the Malaysian Government imposed positive
discrimination towards the indigenous Malays and consequently, many travelled overseas to
continue their higher education. The 1971 Immigration Act which was passed on 1st January 1973
imposed drastic restriction on the migration of Chinese into the United Kingdom. Primary
immigration was stopped and only secondary immigration (family reunion) continued to flow
inwards.
It was not until the late 1970s that there was another wave of migration when refugees from
Vietnam came to the UK, many through Hong Kong and China. They were mainly Chinese refugees
being expelled by the Vietnamese Government which led finally to a war between China and
Vietnam in 1979. The increase in the labour force allowed the Chinese catering trade to expand
rapidly in the United Kingdom. The inflow of Vietnamese Chinese also allowed new employment
opportunities to develop, for example, the clothing industry. For a long period many opened small
cloth making factories in large cities like London.
However, the Chinese communities and its main employment industry of catering continued to
suffer the twin problems of lack of labour and upgrading skills. It has therefore been essential to be
able to recruit skilled labour from overseas.
Civil Penalties
Civil Penalties were introduced the early part of 2009 and substantially changed the way in which
the authorities dealt with employers who were found to be employing illegal employees. Now
employers found to be employing someone without proper papers is liable to a maximum fine of
£10,000 per person. In effect employers are now forced to act as immigration officers with the
ability to recognize all different types of visas. The official guidance contains over 70 types of
possible endorsements which an employer may be provided with by a potential employee. However
there was no proper training or support made available to these employers. Furthermore, the
dedicated helpline for employers seeking clarification of this guidance is often unavailable or no one
ever answers. Even the Attorney- General, Baroness Scotland, who pushed forward these changes,
fell foul of rules she implemented and was found to have employed someone whose leave had
expired and was fined £5,000. What chance does the average small employer have? Businesses
are facing closure and are struggling to operate in an already difficult economic climate.
High profile raids have taken place within the ethnic communities which have clearly been
engineered to send a particular message to the general public that the government is tough on
immigration. Restaurateurs in Chinatown have complained of heavy-handed tactics in recent raids,
including the use of armed policemen and the presence of news camera crews. This has bred
distrust between the British- Chinese community and authorities and negatively stereotyped the
community further.
Tier System
By way of background, under the government's new points-based System governs the way in which
people, other than visitors, may enter the country. Points are allocated based on the applicants'
education, work experience and even income. Applicants are then considered for visas if they meet
the Home Office's points requirements. The point-based system is intended to simplify the system
and restrict the inflow of “undesirable” migrants entering the United Kingdom. Despite criticism that it
creates tremendous hardship for those migrants who genuinely wish to live and work in the UK, the
Government maintains the system Critics say that it is a confused and chaotic system that constricts
economic growth. With the imposition of the point-based system, the Government has appointed the
Migration Advisory Committee (MAC) to look into the UK's need for skilled migrant labour. Of
particular concern for the Chinese community is the vocation of chef. The British- Chinese
community is heavily dependent on the catering industry and many restaurants recruit chefs from
overseas for the skills and knowledge required in the industry and to keep modernising Chinese
cuisine which is constantly evolving. Not only that, the demographic make- up of the Chinese
community has changed (as above) and so too have the taste buds. Once a traditionally
Cantonese cuisine- dominated industry, the Chinese catering industry has now spread to represent
more regional cuisines found in China and South East Asia. In producing the SOL, MAC has
made continuous requests for in-depth reports (three times in 18 months). It is unreasonable,
unrealistic and unfair to ask the business community to respond to such requests without any
funding or support especially when MAC has not disclosed how much it has spent for the reports
produced so far.
Only in January 2010 Gordon Brown, stated that he was asking MAC to look into removing jobs off
the Shortage Occupation List. There is an underlying implication that a decision has already been
made, regardless of the community’s submissions, making it ever more difficult for the BritishChinese community to make a living. The ways in which skills have been assessed are based on
very academic principles but the real situation is that employees learn on the job and academic
qualifications are not used when considering whether to hire someone. This is a common approach
among ethnic caterers. Under the current system, despite chefs being on the Shortage Occupation
List, chefs entering this country are expected to have a decent level of English. This is not a skill
that is a requirement of the post and simply prevents much needed labour from entering the country.
Most in the community agree that attaining a particular level of English assists with integration and
life in the UK, however, we do not see it as a necessary skill at the entry level. Rather than in a
kitchen full of Chinese- speaking staff, Chinese language skills is essential primarily for Health and
Safety.
After ten years of granting Chinese chefs work permits, the new Tier 2 system and the
Shortage Occupation List (SOL) will prevent the entry of skilled ethnic chefs into the United
Kingdom. Many ethnic restaurateurs are now faced with an acute labour shortage and closure in
recessionary times. Whilst the Government stresses that change is necessary, change takes time
and the government has not allowed enough time or support for a transition which now adversely
affects the whole community.
Earned citizenship
The most current immigration changes that were enacted in July 2009 will impose restrictions that
threaten to destroy the social and economic fabric of the British- Chinese community. For example,
some of the new changes require all spouses seeking entry to the UK to speak a good level of
English prior to their arrival. This is similar to America's racist immigration policies of the 19th
century, which sought to destroy its migrant by restricting the immigration of women wanting to join
their husbands. Two centuries on, this draconian action by the British Government will force the
British- Chinese community to defend their rights in accordance with Article 8 (“Right to Private &
Family Life”) of the Human Rights Act. With the proposed earned citizenship document, the
Government is only now beginning its consultation on the details and its effect on ethnic
communities. The government non- engagement with its resident ethnic communities reflects a
total lack of respect for these communities these changes affect the most.
Criminalisation of the community
There could be up to 1 million migrants within the UK who do not have legal status in the country
(International Organisation for Migration, 2003). It is very difficult to know how many are Chinese
simply because of the difficulty of finding and then counting these people. However, regardless of
the exact number, they remain a problem for the government and repatriating everyone is a totally
unrealistic goal, a fact acknowledged by government. Whilst the government takes its time to find a
solution to this problem, these people are not entitled to work and have no recourse to public
funds. In order to survive, many will be forced to turn to enter the black economy, whether by
working illegally or turning to petty crime. Whilst this may be an uncomfortable reality, what is the
alternative for them? They are rejected and ignored by the authorities and as we have already seen
on issues to deal with rights, this has led to very disturbing outcomes including deaths. But for Min
Quan's intervention, they are likely to have remained hidden from public view and forgotten. The
British- Chinese community is being criminalized, the image is tarnished and the problem
remains.
Failure to consult
The Home Office has never treated consultation with the UK's ethnic migrant communities as a
priority in relation to the new immigration and nationality laws. This has created a "them and us"
sense and a feeling of discontent leading to distrust and anger amongst. Whilst the government
panders to right- wing propaganda, it has achieved little in abating the fears of any of the
stakeholders they seek to appease. The general public believes that the country is rampant with
illegal migrants stealing jobs from British workers and those of ethnic communities feel ignored,
undermined and exploited by this. The only common feeling amongst everyone is frustration.
While accusing the British-Chinese community of not engaging sufficiently, at the same time the
Government has also failed repeatedly to involve the community when it seek to make changes to
immigration rules. No London- based community groups were consulted on the Government’s
Earned citizenship document or on the notion of “volunteering” to qualify for Earned citizenship.
These failures to properly engage and consult the community make many, within the community,
distrustful of the Government’s intentions and further alienate the whole community. By not taking
the community’s views into account, and giving it value, the changes do not achieve what the
Government intends it to do (control migration) and at the same time has a negative impact on the
community’s economic activities.
Immigration policies affect all minority groups, but our community feels that it has been given undue
prominence as offenders. A closer inspection of facts and figures would clearly show that the largest
number of overstayers in the UK is from Australia, New Zealand and South Africa. In fact, many of
the tabloid 'illegals' are EU nationals from Poland. The Chinese community needs to do more than
engage in legal action against the Government. We need to organise around the vital issues of
immigration, and racial and police harassment in order to mount appropriate campaigns. Through
these activities together we will gain the respect and confidence of the Community and then we can
move forward together. The Government must recognise its responsibility to consult the BritishChinese community as citizens during any consultative process but particularly when proposing to
implement changes to immigration laws and policy which affect the Community so deeply on all
levels. We are as much part of this society who abide by the law and have contributed to the
growth of the country. We work and pay our taxes just like other citizens regardless of creed, colour
or race. The government needs to assess the economic, social and cultural impact of its
immigration policies on the UK's Chinese communities.
Registered Participants
ACTAsia For Animals
Bangladeshi Catering Association
Bank of China
BC Project
Bristol Chinese Association
Camden and Islington Crown Prosecution Service
Camden Chinese Community Centre
Central London Law Centre
Chinese Association of Southampton
Chinese Association of Tower Hamlets
Chinese Community Centre
Chinese Embassy
Chinese Information and Advice Centre
Chinese Liberal Democrats
Chinese Mental Health Association
Chinese National Healthy Living Centre
Conservatives Party
Coordinate Technologies Communication Ltd.
Crown Prosecution Service
Crown Prosecution Service London
Devon & Cornwall Chinese Association
Dorset Chinese Community Association
EU Chinese Journal 新歐時報
Federation of Chinese Schools
International Organization for Migration
Leeds Chinese Association
London Borough of Hillingdon
London Borough of Redbridge
London Chinatown Chinese Association
London Councils
Manchester Metropolitan University
Migrant Resource Centre
Migrant and Refugee Communities Forum
Norfolk Community Law Service
Nottingham Chinese Community Association
Pedro Achata Trust
Phoenix Channel
School for Policy Studies, University of Bristol
School of Oriental & African Studies
Sing Tao Daily 星島日報
The Diana Princess of Wales Memorial Fund
TVB, Chinese Channel
UK-Chinese Times 英中時報
University College London
University of Nottingham
University of Roehampton
Ying Lun Zai Xian 英伦在线