Citizenship, economy and social exclusion of Chinese immigrants in Hong Kong

Journal of Contemporary Asia      May 1, 2006

Lee Kim-ming

"We asked for workers but human beings came.'" Max Frisch (quoted in Hollifield, 2000: 149)

In May 1999, the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (SAR) government requested a reinterpretation of certain provisions of the Hong Kong Basic Law from China's National People's Congress in order to prevent a flood of immigration of Chinese children born to Hong Kong people. The reinterpretation of the Basic Law stirred up great contention within Hong Kong about the legal system and the autonomy of Hong Kong governance. But this controversy of the right of abode (ROA) is not purely an issue of "constitutional crisis," More seriously, it is an indication of social exclusion that has been constituting and reconstituting Hong Kong society since the late 1970s.

Hong Kong is often viewed as a society of Chinese immigrants. Why, then, could the early migrants be easily included into Hong Kong society, but not the later migrants? (2) In this article, the social exclusion of the "new" Chinese immigrants is discussed in three interrelated dimensions. First, given that an economy, at different developmental stages, demands different types of human resources; any viable economic strategy to boost or transform the local economy cannot ignore the composition of different types of human capital embodied in the local population. As economic globalisation has triggered intense rivalry among cities in terms of becoming the commanding and coordinating nodes of the global economy, these global cities are undergoing economic restructuring that creates what commentators call "dual cities" or "divided cities" (Mollenkopf and Castells, 1991; Fainstein, Gordon and Harloe, 1992) in which social, political, and economic polarisation are very serious. Accompanying economic globalisation are the massive waves of migration of people, skilled and unskilled labour, professionals, and others, from economically backward places to these cities. However, not all migrants are considered valuable for the "importing" countries, depending on the economic strategies the countries are employing. Under global restructuring, low-skilled migrants are often considered as a burden to the host society and as competitors of the local working class people. All these precipitate the social exclusion of these migrants.

Second, the political attempts of territorial states to establish their own legitimacy and build up their governing capacity are major catalysts that induce the social exclusion of immigrants. Migrants or minority groups often become scapegoats responsible for a state's failure to boost the local economy as well as its failure to resolve increasing social and political problems. In addition, migrants are also "victimised" when they become the focus of political debates, especially those concerned with immigration policies, among different political groups competing for power. These political debates inevitably stereotype new immigrants, and the media very often helps promote the biased images.

Third, the nature and strength of local place-based social identity or citizenship determines how difficult it is for the new immigrants to be included in the host society. In general, the stronger and more homogeneous the local identity is, the more likely that the new immigrants are socially excluded. However, social identity is often formed with references to other groups, foreign and local, in everyday life. As a result, the local economic conditions as well as state policies, which affect people's life world, inevitably, shape the local social identity that may inhibit new immigrants to be included in the local society.

The article is divided into four sections. The first part will briefly recount the history of Chinese immigration. The second part will describe the profile of recent immigrants. The third section is about the relationships between Hong Kong's economic development and the state's immigration policies, while the final section will discuss how Hong Kong's state policies helped form a particular Hong Kong identity vis-a-vis Chinese. These two sections aim at drawing out the mechanisms that determine the social exclusion of the new immigrants since the 1990s.

A Brief History of Chinese Immigration to Hong Kong

Hong Kong is a unique immigrant society made up of several waves of migration. When Hong Kong became a British colony in 1842, it was essentially a small fishing village, with a local population of no more than a few thousand. Since neither the Chinese government nor the British colonial government limited population mobility across the China border, free migration from China, mainly from villages in South China, occurred whenever there was political and social unrest in China. The first wave of refugees was caused by the Taiping uprising in the early 1850s. The second wave occurred during the 1911 Revolution. The third wave happened in 1938, when the Japanese attacked Guangdong. After the Second World War, the first big wave of immigration occurred, around the period during which the Communists took over China (Podmore, 1971 : 23-5).

The Hong Kong population was around 500,000 to 600,000 in 1945. It jumped to 1,168,000 in 1946 and reached 2,050,000 in 1953 (Szczepanik, 1958: 153). This huge increase in population created serious shortages of housing, food, clothing, and other necessities. As a result, a stricter immigration policy was implemented. When the Immigration Control Ordinance of 1949 was put into effect, entrants had to possess valid documents, and the Ordinance criminalised non-compliance. The control on immigrants was supplemented by another regulation, the Registration of Persons Ordinance of 1949. The Registration introduced a comprehensive system of registration for all persons who resided in the territory, exempting only travellers in transit and children under 12 years old. It also regulated the introduction of identity cards and requested all of the adult population to register. However, these measures had little effect on the huge influx of immigrants crossing over the border since the Chinese authorities provided no legal control on, and appeared to encourage, the immigrants that poured into Hong Kong in the early 1950s (Destexhe, 1995: 25-6).

In May 1950, the colonial government implemented a quota system to restrict the entry of Chinese citizens. But the effectiveness of the system depended upon the willingness of the Chinese authorities to limit the exit of the migrants. After negotiation, the Chinese and British government reached an agreement. The Chinese government would decide on the number of entrants to be allowed to enter Hong Kong from China and would vet and approve the applications for entry into Hong Kong. The Hong Kong colonial government would accept all Chinese citizens who had been issued exit permits, the so-called "One-Way Permit" (OWP), by the Chinese government for entry into Hong Kong for residence. However, in recognition of Hong Kong's population pressure, the Chinese government would restrict the number of people granted exit permits. With the exception of two brief periods of suspension in 1955 and 1956, this quota system has continued until today (Lam and Liu 1998: 9).

In the early 1960s, another wave of immigration happened. China's Great Leap Forward and the collectivisation movement in agriculture during the late 1950s led to widespread starvation. Consequently, a large number of immigrants who did not have valid exit permits issued by the Chinese authorities, illegally fled to Hong Kong. This was the first wave of illegal immigration from China into Hong Kong since the imposition of immigration control by quota in 1950. From the 1960s onwards, until the 1980s, immigration was mainly illegal because Chinese had great difficulty obtaining exit permits, especially after the beginning of the Cultural Revolution (Lam and Liu 1998: 9-11). Even with the large inflow of illegal immigrants, Podmore (1971: 25) has contended that Hong Kong's population increase was mainly due to natural causes rather than immigration. According to the 1961 Census Report and the 1966 By-Census Report, the proportion of the population born within Hong Kong in 1921, 1931, 1961, and 1966 were 26.7%, 32.5%, 47.7%, and 53.8%, respectively (Podmore, 1971: 37). These figures show that by the 1960s, Hong Kong had become a more localised society, with more than half the population locally-born.

As will be discussed, although the natural increase rate was quite high between 1950 and 1970, there was still a serious shortage of unskilled labour because of rapid labour-intensive industrialisation. Though the state indeed policed the Chinese border to reduce illegal immigration, the government exercised discretion in allowing these illegal immigrants to register and stay in Hong Kong whether they had been apprehended by the police or not. As Destexhe (1995: 28) remarks, "Hong Kong's model for discretionary immigration control resembles that of countries which do not officially admit that they take worker migrants, but do so in practice." Nonetheless, the control was tightened from 1974 onwards. The Hong Kong state discontinued its actual practice of allowing all Chinese immigrants to stay in Hong Kong and replaced it with the "TouchBase Policy" in 1974. According to new policy, those arrested illegal immigrants were repatriated to China and those who successfully evaded capture and subsequently established a home with relatives or found accommodation in urban areas (i.e. "touched base") were allowed to stay (Lain and Liu 1998: 13).

The "Touch-Base Policy" finally came to an end when China adopted the "OpenDoor" policy in 1978. China's economic reform gradually eroded social and political controls at the local level, especially through the relaxation of the household registration (hukou) system, thus making population movement easier (Siu 1996: 340). Consequently, Hong Kong was again bombarded by an onslaught of illegal immigration that was even more massive than the one in the early 1960s. The state recognised that the existing immigration policy could no longer control the influx. Thus the Hong Kong state announced the abolition of the Touch-Base Policy on 23 October 1980; all illegal immigrants were subject to repatriation (Lam and Liu 1998: 14-5). Besides, the Immigration Ordinance was amended with urgency on the same date of the announcement. The amended Ordinance required all people residing in Hong Kong to carry identity cards or some other acceptable proof of identification at all times, otherwise, a maximum fine of HK$1,000 would be levied. Moreover, the new law also imposed heavy fines, the maximum of which was HK$50,000 or imprisonment for one year, on employers who hired illegal immigrants (Destexhe 1995: 29). Accompanying the amendment of the Ordinance, the Hong Kong government and the Chinese government reached an agreement to restrict the issuance of OWP to 150 a day. This daily quota was subsequently revised downwards to 75 in 1983 and remained the same for ten years (Lam and Liu 1998: 16-7).

After the abolition of the Touch-Base Policy, the only way for Chinese to migrate to Hong Kong was to obtain the OWP. Even so, it remained common for illegal immigrants to cross the border. There are two forms of illegal immigrants. Besides OWP, the Chinese authorities can issue an unlimited number of Two-Way Permits (TWP), which allow holders to visit Hong Kong for the purpose of visiting family or doing business but require that they return to China after a designated period. However, the two-way permit system creates a loophole for illegal immigration. There are numerous overstayers. For instance, in 1991 there were 22,566 Chinese, 5% of which were TWP holders who overstayed. Many of the female overstayers aimed at giving birth in Hong Kong so that their children would be Hong Kong residents. Another mode of illegal immigration is the illegal entry by sneaking into the territory by land or by sea. Although the Hong Kong government has tightened border control since the 1980s, many illegal immigrants were successfully smuggled into Hong Kong by well-organised criminal networks to labour in construction sites, factories, and service establishments like eateries (Kwong, 1993:169).

The problem of immigration through illegal entry, which can be approximated by the declining figures of the number of illegal immigrants arrested as shown in Table 1, has been greatly reduced in the 1990s. In the 1990s and 2000s, the most hotly debated issues concerning immigration are the labour importation policies and the ROA of spouses and children of Hong Kong residents who stay in China. Hong Kong's labour importation policies can be dated back to the late 1980s and early 1990s when Hong Kong experienced acute labour shortages in many sectors. The General Labour Importation Scheme was introduced in 1989 on the basis of an industry quota system. In light of the rise in the unemployment rate the government terminated the General Scheme in October 1995 and replaced it with the Supplementary Labour Scheme. But in July 1990, the Special Labour Importation Scheme was introduced to facilitate the timely completion of the new airport. These labour importation policies, though welcomed by business, have been condemned by labour interest groups for creating unemployment among Hong Kong's workers as well as lowering the wages.

Although about 60% of Hong Kong's population is locally born, as an immigrant society, many Hong Kong residents have family ties in China. Indeed, most legal immigrants and overstayers come to Hong Kong for family reunion. The large number of overstayers is basically caused by the daily OWP quota system. The processing of applications for OWP has been poorly managed by the Chinese authorities: corruption has been widely reported; eligibility criteria are not applied consistently; and some eligible applicants have to wait for a very long time for approval. Most importantly, the Chinese authorities treat applicants individually rather than treating a family as a whole. As a result, there have been many young children being issued OWE but not their mothers. This creates numerous single-parent families, and defeats the purpose of family reunion (Lam and Liu 1998: 29-34).

Dreams of family reunion were greatly stimulated by the Chinese annexation of Hong Kong in 1997. According to the Basic Law (Hong Kong's constitutional document), Article 24 para 2(3), children of permanent Hong Kong residents have the right of abode in the SAR. Just after the annexation ceremony, a number of children of permanent Hong Kong residents who "illegally" stayed in Hong Kong went to the Immigration office to claim their ROA. As a result, on 9 July 1997, the Provisional Legislative Council quickly amended the Immigration Ordinance in a way that Chinese are required to hold OWPs, which are issued by the Chinese authorities, before they could exercise their ROA in Hong Kong. As for children born in China to the people of Hong Kong, one of their parents must be a Hong Kong permanent resident at the time of the birth. The amendment made a lot of ROA claimants who had "illegally" re-united with their families confront the fate of repatriation to China.

After numerous ROA court cases, on 29 January 1999, the Court of Final Appeal (CFA) gave a landmark judgement that these Chinese claimants were eligible for ROA. Nevertheless, the government immediately released an estimated and exaggerated figure of 1.67 million people in China who were eligible for entry, and threatened that if the CFA ruling were to be implemented, it would have great negative impact on Hong Kong's overall economy, employment, and various social services and facilities, like housing, education, medical, and health and welfare services. As a result, public support and sympathy for the claimants on their right of abode collapsed almost overnight.

Nonetheless, OWP is not the only way that Chinese can gain residence status in Hong Kong. For a privileged group of skilled workers, professionals and overseas Chinese originally from China, they can migrate to Hong Kong by employment through various channels. One such method is to stay in Hong Kong continuously for seven years. Once they have done so, they are eligible to apply for permanent resident status. Various schemes have promoted this.

First, because of the "brain drain" in the late 1980s, (3) in September 1990, the colonial government and the Chinese authorities reached an agreement that Chinese citizens who had resided overseas for two years or more could enter Hong Kong with employment visas. Presumably, those persons are high level talents with overseas exposure and are desirable to Hong Kong during the "brain drain" crisis. Second, Chinese enterprises established in Hong Kong are allowed to recruit employees from China without any quota limitation (Lam and Liu 1998: 34-5). Third, in March 1994, a Pilot Scheme for the entry of 1,000 Chinese professionals was introduced. Entry was restricted to graduates of China's 36 key tertiary institutions who also had relevant working experience (Education and Manpower Bureau, 1998). Later, an Admission of Talents Scheme was carried out after the new Hong Kong SAR government decided to promote Hong Kong's technological development. The scheme is quota-free and non-sector specific, and the successful candidates can also bring along their families to Hong Kong. (4)

The Social Exclusion of the New Chinese Immigrants

Even though the ROA issue clearly indicates that the right of many new immigrants to family reunion, which is granted by Basic Law, has been denied, it constitutes only a small part of the social exclusion experienced by new immigrants. By the time of the Chinese annexation of Hong Kong in 1997, Hong Kong people had been deeply divided, despite the fact that these social divisions were temporarily submerged by the economic boom in the 1980s. And, with the impact of the Asian Economic Crisis, and the end of Hong Kong's economic bubble, divisions were exacerbated.

As Hong Kong's economy has become "post-industrial,"just like other global cities, income distribution has become increasingly unequal, (5) In 1986, the lowest decile group earned only 1.6% of total household income. The figure decreased to 1.1% in 1996. The highest group, however, earned 35.5% of total household income in 1986, a figure which increased to 41.8% in 1996. During the same period, the Gini Coefficient increased from 0.453 to 0.518, indicating the widening income gap between rich and poor (Telephone interview, Hong Kong Census and Statistics Department, 5 May 2000). The income gap continued to widen during late 1990s. In 1999, the 200,000 families in the lowest income bracket earned an average income of HK$3,000 per month, while the average family income was HK$70,000 per month for the top 200,000 families with the highest income. The high income bracket average is 23 times that for the low income bracket, as compared to having been only 13 times as much in 1996 (Hong Kong Social Security Society, 2000). The 2001 Population Census shows a wider gulf between rich and poor. The percentage of poor families--those earning less than HK$6,000 a month--rose from 10.8% in 1996 to 12.5% in 2001, while only 24.9% of households made more than HK$30,000 a month in 1996, rising to 29% in 2001. Meanwhile, families in the middle range of incomes fell from 64.4% in 1996 to 58.6% in 2001 (South China Morning Post, 21 October 200l. p. 1).

New immigrant families constitute a major proportion of Hong Kong's impoverished underclass. Newly arrived families earn much less than the average income of Hong Kong families. As indicated in Table 2, the median monthly family income for new arrivals is about 34%-46% of the overall Hong Kong median household income for years from 1998 to 2003. Over half of the new immigrant families have an income that is less than half of the overall Hong Kong median family income.

Other than lower family income, the educational level of the new arrivals is also, on average, lower than that of the Hong Kong population. Table 3 shows that about 90% of Chinese children aged 15 and over only attain secondary school educational level or below. Almost 30% of them have only primary school education or below. Comparing those entitled to ROA and those not entitled to ROA (after the re-interpretation of the Basic Law by China's National People's Congress in 1999), it is found that the latter have lower educational levels than the former. That means the latter group is even more vulnerable to economic disadvantages. This was one of the main reasons why the SAR government resisted granting ROA, claiming that ROA for poorly educated Chinese would increase Hong Kong's unemployment rate by 2%, and would threaten Hong Kong's high-tech and high value-added industrial development strategy (see Baark and So, 2006). Henry Tang, then Executive Councillor and chairman of the Hong Kong General Chamber of Industry, estimated that unemployment would double if the government failed to stop the "flood" of poorly educated Chinese children born to Hong Kong people (Hong Kong Commercial Press, 30 April 1999, p.B01). (6)

The trend for new immigrants to be mainly of people with lower educational attainment still continued. In 1996, only 10.7% of new immigrants have tertiary education, while the figure for their local counterparts was 15.2%, about 40% higher than the new immigrants.' Five years later the proportion of new immigrants with tertiary education dropped to 5.7%, while the figure for locals was three times higher than that (Table 4).

The new arrivals' disadvantages in the labour market are shown by the sectors in which they work and by their skill levels. From the 1996 data, presented in Tables 5 and 6, new arrivals are mainly concentrated in either the sunset industries (such as manufacturing) or the low-paid and low-skilled service sector (wholesale, retail, import/ export trades, restaurants and hotels). Their most frequent occupations are low-skilled ones; nearly half of the new arrivals are elementary workers, service workers, and shop sale workers. However, less than one quarter of the overall Hong Kong population works in these occupations. Moreover, almost 30% of the whole population are managers, administrators, professionals, and associate professionals, but only 15% of the new arrivals are in this category.

Table 7 shows an obvious income inequality between the new arrivals and the whole working population according to their highest educational attainment; as the educational attainment gets higher, inequality becomes more serious. Indeed, as Siu (1999: 220) observes, the disadvantaged labour market position of new arrivals is due to local people's discrimination against their educational attainments. According to a survey conducted by Human Resources Management Association in 1997, 65% employers admit that new arrivals were employed mainly due to their lower pay in comparison with locals (Ming Pao, 29 September 1998, p. A04). This result is confirmed in another study (Society of Community Organization [SoCO], 2001 : 24); 40% of the new arrival respondents report lower wage and poorer welfare than their local counterparts. Even worse, 26% of the respondents have experienced rejection from employment simply due to their status as new immigrant.

The 2001 Population Census further demonstrates that the labour market situation of new arrivals are worsening. One reason for this is the decline of Hong Kong's manufacturing sector. The percentage of the labour force in manufacturing shrank from 47% in 1971 to 14% in 1996, and has continued to decline. Few capitalist economies have experienced such a rapid decline in the size of their industrial labour force (Lang et al. 2001: 110). However, this decline has been even quicker and has had an even more drastic impact on new immigrants. In 1996, manufacturing was still the second largest employment sector for new immigrants (25.3%). By 2001, the percentage shrank to 10.4%. Even if new arrivals can retain their jobs, these jobs are now concentrated in the low-skill, low-paid, and unstable service sector (e.g. retail, catering, and shop sales). There has been an increase in the proportion of the new arrivals working in those sectors, rising from 42.9% to 51.9% between 1996 and 2001. These rates have been greater than for the Hong Kong population as a whole. The declining situation for new immigrants can also be seen in the decline in the percentage of the new arrivals working as managers and professionals. The figure declined from 10.3% in 1996 to merely 3.9% in 2001; there has been no significant change for the overall Hong Kong population over the same period. On the other hand, the percentage of the new arrivals working in elementary occupations and working as service workers and shop sales workers rose rapidly from 47.3% in 1996 to 65.6% in 2001. It may be inferred that Hong Kong's economic restructuring towards a post-industrial economy and a global city has meant both structural downgrading and marginalization for new arrivals.

The issues of social exclusion and mobility do not just impact on recent migrants. As can be seen in Tables 5 and 6, Hong Kong residents who marry Chinese face these issues, having rather low socio-economic status when compared with the whole population. As most new arrivals migrated to Hong Kong for family reunion, as the spouses or children of Hong Kong residents, it is not too surprising to find such similarities. As Siu (1999: 226-7) argues, as most of the new immigrants who came in the late 1970s were from the rural areas, and lacked adequate education and skills, they could only take up low skill occupations. Only a few of them can climb up 'he social ladder and escape the lower strata of society. As a result, many of the new male immigrants cannot get married in Hong Kong, and take wives from China, reinforcing a cycle of economic disadvantage. Indeed, the current social exclusion of Chinese immigrants has its roots in the late 1970s and early 1980s.

The new immigrants are not only disadvantaged in terms of income, education, and labour market opportunities, they are also disadvantaged in terms of housing. The quarterly surveys on new arrivals conducted by the Home Affairs Department show that their living environment is often very poor. Between 37% and 41% were living in sub-let rooms, bed-spaces, cocklofts, or temporary housing, or as squatters (Table 8). (7)

Most of the new arrivals reportedly face adaptation and integration problems. According to surveys conducted by the Home Affairs Department through the years 1998 to 2003, about 70% to 78% of new arrivals report difficulties in adapting to Hong Kong's way of life (see Table 9). (8) In the late 1990s, the most frequently faced problem was the living environment, affecting over 50% of the new immigrants. (9) From 2001, the most encountered problem was finding a job. The third most encountered problem is family finance; more than one-third report this problem. The survey results again show that new Chinese immigrants are disadvantaged in their housing, labour market conditions and subsistence living (see Table 10).

Finally, examining Table 11, while more than 50% of the new immigrant families have a household income that is less than half of the overall Hong Kong population median income, for the years 1998 to 2003, only about 11% to 13% applied for Comprehensive Social Security Assistance (CSSA), the only public assistance available in Hong Kong. In 1998, CSSA cases constitute about 10.7% of the Hong Kong population, (10) meaning that there is no difference between new arrivals and Hong Kong natives in applying for public assistance.

Can it be the case that new arrivals are really just as likely as locals to receive the CSSA? In reality, the figure for those receiving the benefit is surprisingly low when quite a number of new immigrant families are highly impoverished. Indeed, a majority of new immigrant families live mainly on their wages. Only a few of them have financial assistance from relatives. This can be interpreted that most new arrivals are self-reliant, despite poverty. However, it can also be interpreted that their resources, in terms of both public and private supports, are very few. Thus after looking at the new immigrants' income, labour market situation, education, and public and private support, we see that they are multi-dimensionally disadvantaged, often for a long duration. This disadvantage involves dissociation from the major social and occupational milieus of society. The following sections will try to delineate the mechanisms that create social exclusion of the new arrivals from a historical perspective.

Immigration Policies and Economic Development

According to Brochmann (1999a: 12), there are two kinds of immigration control: external and internal. External control refers to the measures of visa restrictions, legislation against illegal trafficking and clandestine immigration, information campaigns designed in major emigration regions to inform potential migrants of the minimal chances of entering countries, and negotiating with the authorities of emigration countries for controlling the exit of potential immigrants. Internal control includes the requirement of residence and work permits, the use of ID cards, employer sanctions, and inspection of work sites or of public places. Immigration control is a mixture of external and internal controls. The following will discuss how Hong Kong's immigration control has been related to its economic development.

Immigration and economic development are inseparable in Hong Kong. Historically, border controls between Hong Kong and China were loose, often absent. In earlier times, the migration pattern can be described as circular. A lot of young men from the rural areas of southern China came to Hong Kong looking for work. When demand contracted, or when they earned enough money, these men would go back to their Chinese homes. However, when they experienced economic hardship or political turbulences in China, they would again migrate to Hong Kong. In other words, Hong Kong always maintained a flexible pool of migrants who provided sufficient and politically timid labour essential for establishing Hong Kong as the major trading port in the "Far East."

Since Hong Kong's economic development up until the 1960s was contingent upon low labour cost, a constant flow of Chinese from China was required, and it can be argued that a more permanent Chinese population might have posed social problems for the colonial state, including the potential for increased service provisions. The colonial authorities might also have encountered political challenges as the Chinese immigrants became more concerned about local affairs. Adopting a hands-off immigration policy ensured that most migrants' main social and political concerns lay in China.

The situation changed dramatically after the Communist takeover of China. Most immigrants preferred not to return to China and settled in Hong Kong. According to Hambro (1955: 185, 188), over half of the post-war migrants preferred to remain in Hong Kong, while two-fifths preferred emigration (although just 16% had attempted to emigrate. In other words, the transient nature of the Hong Kong migrant population ceased. As suggested above, this created some concerns for the colonial administration. It was estimated that at least half of the migrants had incomes below the minimum subsistence level. Only a quarter of them lived in a flat or a house, most lived in huts or cubicles (Hambro, 1955: 173-6).

Nonetheless, even under these poor circumstances, the immigrants rarely challenged colonial authority. Instead, they dealt with poverty, crowded and unhealthy living conditions, long working hours and low-paying jobs and raised few political demands. It is usually said that this lack of political activism was due to the migrants being pragmatic, for among the post-war immigrants, 53.2% left China for political reasons, 37.2% for economic reason and 8.5% for both (Hambro, 1955: 152). Since most migrated to escape China's Communist regime, and did not have anywhere else to go, they had to accept colonial authority and endure economic hardship. So, again, the colonial state gained a cheap workforce at minimal political cost.

These immigrants provided the reservoir of cheap unskilled labour necessary for the manufacturing takeoff that took place from the 1960s onwards. At this time, relatively low wages in Hong Kong spurred labour-intensive industrialisation. The fact that low wages could be maintained during the industrialisation period, to a large extent, can be attributed to the several major waves of Chinese immigration both legal and illegal, which boosted the population and hence the labour supply. This explains why, before 1974, nearly all immigrants were allowed to stay in Hong Kong, even though a number of internal control measures were implemented, including the use of ID cards and the amendment of immigration ordinance (Zheng and Wong, 2003).

During the 1970s, the colonial state attempted to launch welfare projects in order to legitimise its authority, which had been challenged in the 1966 and 1967 riots (discussed below). Dramatic population increases meant more resources had to be put into these welfare projects. Nevertheless, population increases also meant labour force expansion, which could maintain the low-wage level necessary for the manufacturing sector's international competitiveness. It was against this economic and socio-political background that the "Touch-Base Policy" was designed. The Touch-Base Policy had two distinct advantages. Firstly,
its discretionary basis allowed the authorities to exercise flexible
immigration control, in terms of both numbers and quality of new
entrants. As long as new immigrants were needed, less forceful
implementation would allow candidates for regularisation of stay
simply to move into Hong Kong. Should the figures go out of control,
stricter border controls would enable the authorities to put a
firmer check on illegal border crossings and increase the number of
persons subject to repatriation. (Destexhe 1995: 28)


Secondly, the Policy was used to demonstrate the state's willingness and ability to control the inflow of illegal immigrants, thus silencing the critics who charged that immigrants were causing social problems, like crime and prostitution, and creating shortages in the provision of social services.

However, this internal control mechanism could only work when the inflow of illegal immigrants was stable. It proved to be ineffective when large numbers of immigrants sneaked into Hong Kong at the same time. This happened right after China's open-door policy was launched. The abolition of the Touch-Base Policy coincided with the economic difficulties faced by the Hong Kong economy in the late 1970s, when the textile and clothing industries, the major exporting industries at that time, were encountering increasing Western protectionism as well as keen competition from other industrialising countries. The voices urging the colonial state to initiate a structural transformation of the economy were widespread in the industrial communities. Consequently, in 1977, the government appointed a high-level commission, the Advisory Committee on Diversification to study the possibility of future industrial development. To facilitate the economic transformation, professionals, technicians and skilled workers were needed, instead of the unskilled cheap Chinese immigrants. Consequently, the Touch-Base Policy was abolished.

While strengthening its internal control, the colonial state also recognised that these mechanisms were doomed to fail without corresponding cooperation from China. As a result, the colonial state began to negotiate with the Chinese authorities on the introduction of controls within China. In order to increase flexibility in controlling the inflow of Chinese immigration, the OWP quota system was further institutionalised in 1980 by fixing the number of permits issued each year.

Although illegal immigration should have been reduced after the abolition of the Touch-Base Policy, the hiring of illegal migrant workers was still pervasive on construction sites, fish farms or fishing vessels, and in businesses like restaurants, factories, and goldsmith workshops. Since there is no control on the wage levels of illegal migrant workers, the scope for exploitation is high. It becomes very profitable for the small businesses to risk employing illegal immigrants. Within the construction industry, the demand for labour was continuously rising because of the rapidly developing property market from 1984 onwards. While there have been booms and busts during the period, labour shortages occurred frequently. The government had difficulties in monitoring the employment of migrant workers in construction. The only way to monitor migrant workers is to inspect individual construction sites regularly, but resources did not permit this. In addition, because of the pervasive subcontracting system in the construction industry, it is lower-tiered subcontractors rather than the principal contractors who are responsible for construction operations. This complicates the processes of inspecting malpractices. However, in 1990, stricter legislation was introduced. The aim was to make the principal contractor responsible for the presence of illegal immigrants on his/her site and liable to substantial fines. To further guard against employment of illegal workers, the state legislated to require employers to inspect the job seeker's ID card or travel document in 1996. (11) Even with these tighter controls, the state continued to tolerate the employment of illegal migrant workers simply because of the labour shortages encountered in various business sectors.

At the same time, there were important structural changes taking place within the Hong Kong economy as it deindustrialised. The moves of the state to further formalise and tighten the regulations regarding the internal control of the low-skilled migrant workers can be attributed to the decline of manufacturing as firms relocated to low-waged zones in southern China from the mid-1980s. Unskilled migrant workers, who have contributed much to Hong Kong's industrialisation, were no longer in great demand. This relocation meant unemployment for manufacturing workers, and some social discontent, which led to demands for restrictions on the inflow of unskilled and low-skilled workers.

Deindustrialisation signifies Hong Kong's transformation to a post-industrial economy, where producer services become the major engine of growth. However, numerous studies show that a global city still requires low-paid and low-level service jobs, such as catering, retailing, construction and cleaning services, created as a result of the expanding high-level services (Mollenkopf and Castells, 1991 ; Fainstein, Gordon and Harloe, 1992; Sassen, 1991, 1998). Hong Kong is no exception (see Skeldon, 1996). Nonetheless, the wages of these low-level service jobs were pushed up by inflation from the mid-1980s to the late 1990s. Consequently, the colonial state faced pressure from business to again relax its immigration policies.

Being torn between labour and business interest groups, the government launched the labour importation scheme in 1989, while at the same time strengthening the implementation of controls to check illegal immigration. As shown in 1994 figures released by the government, a majority of the applications by employers to import migrant workers under the scheme were concentrated in catering, retail and construction, and the applications greatly outnumbered the actual quota allocated (Skeldon, 1996:191). These figures indicate that demand continued for the cheap migrant service workers.

Although many low-level service jobs were opened for Chinese migrants, the government refused to allow Chinese maids to be included in the Labour Importation Scheme (SCMP, 19 November 1994). This was because the government feared that Chinese domestic helpers would be difficult to police, and that many would change jobs and disappear easily into the local community (Skeldon, 1996:189).

There were few limits or restrictions on the numbers of foreign professionals, managerial or high-level technical personnel staying in Hong Kong so long as they remain employed (Skeldon, 1996: 186). In addition, the rise in educational qualifications of the local population provided an adequate professional workforce for Hong Kong's further development. Thus, Hong Kong's professional labour market was seldom a problem before mid 1980s. The immigration of skilled personnel only became an issue when the "brain drain" caused by the 1989 Tiananmen Massacre created a serious shortage of highly skilled people. This caused the colonial state to relax rules on immigration of Chinese professionals. After the Chinese annexation of Hong Kong, the new SAR government attempted to initiate a number of measures to push Hong Kong toward becoming a competitive global metropolis through developing and applying state-of-the-art technology (see Baark and So, 2006). Under this new economic policy, "Chinese sourcing," attracting overseas and domestic Chinese "knowledge workers," became a major strategy to enlarge the pool of technical human resources necessary for creating new competitive edge. Corresponding to the Chinese sourcing strategy, the Admission of Talents Scheme was announced in 1999. (12)

In short, Hong Kong's immigration control regime has changed in accordance with the development of the economy. Under the pressure of keen competition among global cities triggered by globalisation, the government actively seeks Chinese talent that might help transform the economy into a knowledge-based metropolis. At the same time that the government is relaxing immigration controls for this group, it is tightening them for unskilled Chinese workers.

State Building, Citizenship and Identity

Society can be considered a status hierarchy bound together by sets of mutual rights and obligations that are rooted in a broader moral order. Each citizen has the right to a basic standard of living and to participate in the major social and occupational institutions of the society. Social exclusion is a process of becoming detached from this moral order. This means that the social rights of the socially excluded are denied. As a result, they will tend to suffer processes of generalised and persisting disadvantage and their social and occupational participation will be undermined (Room 1995: 6).

What causes social exclusion? Berghman (1995: 19) argues that social exclusion occurs when one or more of the following systems fail to function: (a) the democratic and legal system, which promotes civic integration; (b) the labour market, which promotes economic integration; (c) the welfare state system, promoting what may be called social integration; and/or (d) the family and community system, which promotes interpersonal integration.

All these four systems fail to promote civic or social integration in Hong Kong, and indeed, many of the state policies within these systems are/were (unintentionally) designed for system integration at the expense of social integration. The Hong Kong political and legal system exhibit aspects of British heritage and tradition, but in practice, the colonial state had enormous autonomy in designing its political system and policies. The result was that Hong Kong remained an authoritarian state, only recently and partially democratising.

How does the political and legal system of Hong Kong affect the social exclusion of new Chinese immigrants? Drawing from the experience of European countries, Brochmann (1999a: 16) argues that the state's "control culture" has a great influence on the policy outcomes of immigration controls. Control culture refers to "traditions in terms of humanitarian values, cultural openness towards the outside world, and legitimacy as to using economic conditions as a premise for policy-making in relation to immigration control."

The Hong Kong state has a long tradition of using economic conditions as the most important premise for policy-making, not merely in relation to immigration control, but to nearly all aspects of public policy-making. Economic prosperity is regarded as the cornerstone of the state's legitimacy. Humanitarian values have seldom occupied a significant place in policy-making. Under this control culture, Hong Kong's population tends to resist anything that is construed as endangering economic prosperity. Once Chinese immigrants are perceived as an economic burden, discrimination and resentment becomes obvious. Within this system, the social inclusion of immigrants is highly contingent upon economic conditions, especially labour market conditions, and public perceptions of their economic contribution.

It is also clear that historic labour market conditions have been a major determinant of social inclusion. As outlined above, cheap unskilled labour was essential for Hong Kong's early economic development, up to the late 1970s. Thus, the colonial state was very "open" to Chinese immigrants, and the migrants could easily find jobs without being seen to be threatening local jobs. In these periods, the labour market could actually promote the economic integration of the Chinese immigrants.

However, the scene changed rapidly at the time when Hong Kong was further strengthening its regional role and gradually developed more economic integration with China, especially after China's open door policy was inaugurated. The structural transformation of the labour market that followed began to differentiate immigrants into two categories, the unskilled and the professional. Correspondingly, state immigration policy has changed. Unskilled immigrants who are legally granted ROA and come for family reunion are subject to strict immigration control, while Chinese professionals are invited to come. This odd policy outcome is a product of the interplay of Hong Kong's state control culture and the labour market transformation under global restructuring.

Besides the state's control culture and labour market condition, Hong Kong's welfare system is also conducive to discrimination to new immigrants. Hong Kong has never been a welfare state. However, welfare provision and administration became an important means by which the colonial state secured its legitimacy (Law and Wong, 1997), although social welfare was never a major financial investment before the 1970s. Even though there were a huge number of Chinese migrants who fled to Hong Kong after the Second World War, as aptly described by Welsh (1994: 454), "the colonial authorities' attitude toward refugees was likened to that of a railway station's employees towards the passengers; their responsibility was to look after the permanent staff, and not 'to shower benefits on passengers merely passing through'." The state-society relation was basically a minimally-integrated one (Lau, 1982).

As rapid industrialisation proceeded, the Hong Kong economy grew affluent, but the working conditions and standard of living of workers did not greatly improve. As a result, signs of discontent surfaced, and in 1956, 1966 and 1967 there were riots. The 1966 riots originated from a protest against ferry fare increase. The rioters were mainly poorly paid young workers. The 1967 riots were precipitated by labour disputes and influenced by China's Cultural Revolution. The riots led by the pro-Communist Federation of Trade Unions were a frontal attack on the colonial government and its capitalist system. The riots were later interpreted by the colonial state as originating from the failure of bridging the gap between the state and the Chinese population and addressing grassroots grievances (Leung, 1996: 22). This precipitated a series of statebuilding projects aimed at constructing a society that would enhance the colonial state's legitimacy. Sir Murray MacLehose, Hong Kong Governor in the 1970s and early 1980s, was the designer of these projects, and social welfare reform was one of these projects.

The idea of citizenship, rooted in the British colonial administration, was not nurtured in Hong Kong until the 1970s. Chinese immigrants in Hong Kong seldom identified themselves as "Hong Kong yan" (Hong Kong people, or Hong Kongers), but rather by their places of origin. However, under MacLehose, governance aimed to produce a civil society and an ideal citizen (in its own terms). This was the first time that the colonial state attempted to imagine a local society and a responsible citizenship (Jacquet, 1997). From the 1970s, the government and the mass media contributed much to the promotion of the ideas like "citizens", "community" and "Hong Kong yan". A unifying concept like Hong Kong yan was an attempt to respond to the riots and to strengthen the government's legitimacy.

The projects concerning social welfare were of paramount importance in shaping Hong Kong identity. While people in the 1970s were not much concerned with politics, in part this was because the colonial state depoliticised policy-making (King, 1981). The state's welfare project was built upon "four pillars": housing, education, medical and health care, and social welfare (in the narrow sense of public assistance, caring for the elderly and disabled, and the provision of recreational facilities). This project touched many aspects of everyday life. As Brochmann (1999a: 15) noted, social redistribution requires more restrictive territorial closure. Thus the concept of Hong Kong yan (which is basically a spatially fixed construct) was created and reproduced repeatedly when Hong Kong people used their identification cards (IDs) to access social or welfare services. Some internal controls create administrative barriers that limit poor immigrants' access to housing and social benefits so as to discourage further legal and illegal immigration. For instance, only those who have resided in Hong Kong for more than a year can apply for public assistance; concerning housing, only those households in which more than half of the household members aged 18 or above have resided in Hong Kong for more than seven years can apply for public housing. It is not difficult to understand why 58% of the new arrivals who are CSSA applicants think that they are racially discriminated against by Hong Kong yah (SoCO, 2001: 50).

When considering social exclusion, the question of spatiality or territory cannot be avoided because detachment from labour market and community are territory-based. From Table 12, we can see that for many years, most of the new arrivals' residences have been territorially assembled in the poorest districts (either in terms of the "poverty rate" or the median monthly household income); that is, in Sham Shui Po, Kwun Tong, Yuen Long, and Tuen Mun. The latter two districts are remote from the job locations where newly arrived migrants are usually employed. They are also areas where the social service provisions for the unemployed, poor, family (especially for single-parent family), child-care and women are inadequate. Lack of community support and care in these districts crafts a more difficult territory for them to be socially included (Leung, 2004a). Sham Shui Po and Kwun Tong, while close to the central business district, are also notorious for their poverty, slums, environmental problems and law and order problems. New arrivals in these districts are often stigmatised by their territorial location. As a result, the stronger social identity associated with territory makes the inclusion of immigrants even more difficult.

Discrimination against immigrants does not always stem directly from deliberate state policies, but is generated and regenerated through stereotyping and labelling within everyday conversation and social interaction. In Hong Kong, stereotypes of people are coded in terms of place of origin, like Guangdong yan, Beijing yan and Shanghai yah and the like. Thus the emergence of the concept of Hong Kong yah is a pre-condition for differentiating Hong Kongers and Chinese. Nevertheless, the differentiation does not directly correspond to the social division of Hong Kongers and Chinese immigrants, though locals will think that Chinese immigrants are most different from Hong Kong yan in terms of living habits and thought/conception, even more "different" than those from South Asia. Locals also believe that Chinese immigrants are the weakest ethnic group in political and economic arenas (Wong and Wan, 2001: 446-50).

Restrictive immigration controls contribute to the stigmatisation of immigrants as "unwanted" (Brochmann 1999b: 318). In Hong Kong, immigration controls after the 1980s, coinciding with economic restructuring, were the major causes of unfavourable stereotypes and the stigmatisation of Chinese immigrants. This has especially been the case for illegal immigrants. When some are apprehended, the Immigration Department assiduously constructed a causal relationship between the existence of illegal workers and then prevailing high unemployment rates. In fact, however, when the unemployed numbered more than 240,000 in 2004, only 5,000 suspected illegal workers were arrested during 7,659 "anti-illegal workers" inspection actions (Hong Kong Economic Journal, 29 January 2005, p. 4). Obviously, the handful of illegal workers who were apprehended were scapegoats for the broader unemployment problem.

The media often exaggerates and sensationalises reports on these cases. As the government's Home Affairs Branch (1997: para 6.4) observed, "It is rather common for the media to portray new arrivals as poor, lazy, uneducated, and generally less capable than local people." The stereotyping of new immigrants began in the late 1970s when economic restructuring began. As economic integration between Hong Kong and Southern China began, cross-border communications increased tremendously. As various problems in China were exposed, the tone of the popular Hong Kong media became negative towards China as well as towards Chinese (Cheng, 1990). In a popular TV soap opera broadcast in 1979, a pejorative term "Ah Chan" was first introduced to describe a lazy, uneducated, and incapable new immigrant character. Later, another popular movie described a gang of migrant criminals, nicknamed "Tai Huen" ("Big Circle", an old nickname of Guangzhou City), as greedy, merciless, and extremely hateful toward Hong Kong yan. Such pejorative terms have entered daily vocabulary, and stereotype all Chinese immigrants. Consequently, Chinese, new Chinese immigrants included, are often singled out as a distinct social category with a negative image. The differentiation between Hong Kong yan and Chinese yan, in a negative sense, was completed.

This social differentiation became a social division when manufacturing firms continued to relocate to southern China. As demand for unskilled labour shrank, the state was most reluctant to provide more social welfare to combat growing income disparities. The result was that the living conditions of the lower strata of the local Hong Kong population began to deteriorate. At the same time, capitalists continued to pressure the state to permit them to exploit cheap imported Chinese labour, all the while complaining of the low level of skills of the new immigrants. Top business leaders like Peter Wong, the executive director of the Chinese General Chamber of Commerce, said that the daily quota of 150 Chinese arrivals imposed a "huge burden" on Hong Kong, that their contribution to economic development was limited, and yet they have access to welfare. Mike Rowse, director of Invest Hong Kong, even described the SAR's immigration policy as "madness" as the government had no control over the selection of immigrants:
Hong Kong needs to maintain the upper hand, to make continuous
progress at faster pace such as developing high-tech and high-valued
industries. However, most of the new immigrants are poorly educated
and they do not match our needs and development direction" (cited in
South China Morning Post, 29 April 2002).


A survey conducted by The Hong Kong Psychological Society in 1997 reveals that Hong Kong people consider new migrants from China ignorant, rude, dirty, and greedy, and believe they are introducing evils from China. The newcomers were also seen as aggravating the territory's social problems by increasing competition for jobs, houses, and welfare benefits. Hong Kong people showed little sympathy for Chinese immigrants' plight, felt new immigrants deserved the hardships they experienced and would not make much progress even if given more government assistance (cited in South China Morning Post, 10 March 1997). As Hong Kong's economic recession deepened, Hong Kong people's negative perception towards new arrivals further deteriorated; a 2002 survey showed that, since 2000, the percentage of respondents agreeing that new arrivals were selfish, emotional, greedy, cowardly, annoying, arrogant, isolated, and uncivilized had increased. Such changes were consistent from school students to adult respondents (Hong Kong Council of Social Service, 2003). According to SoCO's survey (2001: 10-11), 82% of new, adult, Chinese immigrant respondents believe that they are racially discriminated against by Hong Kong people, especially by the general public (88.9%), being denounced as "parasites" (78.5%). One of the results of this attitude and strict immigration control is that many of the immigrants of the 1970s and 1980s have been separated from families. Family reunion is often postponed for years and these families face tremendous hardship (Leung and Wong, 2003: 55). Even when there is family reunion, these families have to face discrimination (SoCO, 2001: 7-8).

Social exclusion did not begin with the return of Hong Kong to China. Paradoxically, however, it has accelerated under the SAR government which is both a Chinese and local government. Against the widespread mistrust of first Chief Executive Tung Chee Wah's administration, established after the Chinese annexation of Hong Kong, and the economic downturn following the Asian Financial Crisis, the Hong Kong state attempted to re-establish its legitimacy. The ROA issue presented such an opportunity. By exaggerating the number of potential immigrants and constructing them as an "unbearable burden" for Hong Kong's welfare system the Tung administration successfully gained support (Ta Kung Pao, 15 February 1999). The argument was that immigrants posed threats to employment, housing ("squatters may appear again all over the urban districts"), education and public health (the Secretary of Security Branch reported in Hong Kong Economic Times, 29 April 1999). Ultimately, Tung was unsuccessful in bolstering his government's popularity, but did exacerbate existing social division between Hong Kong yan and new immigrants. (13)

Conclusion

This article has shown how recent Chinese immigrants are socially excluded in Hong Kong. It has been argued that the mechanisms of social exclusion are the result of the interplay of several factors: immigration policies, the stage of the economic development, state-building and local identity formation. From a historical perspective, it is shown that Hong Kong's immigration policy regime corresponds with the developmental stage of the economy. When Hong Kong was industrialising, the colonial state had to initiate a number of state projects in order to establish its legitimation. Against these state projects, Hong Kong identity, in terms of Hong Kong yan, emerged. Later, Hong Kong's economic restructuring, part of processes associated with globalisation and China's open door policy established the differentiation between Hong Kong yan and Chinese yan. As economic restructuring deepened without a corresponding adjustment to state policies, social differentiation became social division. After the Chinese annexation of Hong Kong, the Tung administration further intensified existing social divisions, and created a situation where the social exclusion of recent new arrivals and their families resulted. To the extent that an economic-centric identity remains pervasive in Hong Kong, a more socially minded concept of citizenship is needed. The basic task of reasserting that people living or aspiring to live in Hong Kong have a value beyond their value in markets, is still very difficult (Leung, 2004b: 110).

References

Baark, E. and A. So 2006, "The Political Economy of Hong Kong's Quest for High Technology Innovation," Journal of Contemporary Asia, 36, 1, pp. 102-120.

Berghman, J. 1995, "Social Exclusion in Europe: Policy Context and Analytical Framework," in G. Room (ed.), Beyond the Threshold, Bristol: Policy Press, pp. 10-28.

Brochmann, G. 1999a, "The Mechanisms of Control" in G. Brochmann and T. Hammar (eds), Mechanisms of Immigration Control: A Comparative Analysis of European Regulation Policies, Oxford: Berg, pp. 1-28.

Brochmann, G. (1999b) "Controlling Immigration in Europe" in G. Brochmann and T. Hammar (eds), Mechanisms of Immigration Control: A Comparative Analysis of European Regulation Policies, Oxford: Berg, pp. 297-334.

Census and Statistics Department, HKSAR (1999) Hong Kong Residents with Spouses/Children in China, Hong Kong: Special Topics Report No. 22, July.

Census and Statistics Department (2002) 2001 Population Census thematic report-persons from China having resided in Hong Kong for less than 7 years. Hong Kong: Census and Statistics Department.

Cheng Yu (1990) "Uninvited Guests," in The China Factor in Hong Kong Cinema, Hong Kong: The 14th Hong Kong International Film Festival, Urban Council, pp. 98-101.

Destexhe, J-F. (1995) "Hong Kong and 1997: The facts," in W. Menski (ed.) Coping with 1997." the reaction of the Hong Kong people to the transfer of power, Staffordshire: Trentham Books, pp. 17-56.

Education and Manpower Bureau, HKSAR (1998) "Manpower Programme Highlights: Importation of Labour," http://www.info.gov.hk/emb/eng/manpower/ (accessed 24 December 1999).

Fainstein, S., Gordon I., and Harloe, M. eds (1992) Divided Cities." New York & London in the Contemporary World, Oxford: Blackwell.

Hambro, E. (1955) The Problem of Chinese Refugees in Hong Kong, Leiden: A.W. Sijthoff.

Hollifield, J. (2000) "The Politics of International Migration," in C. Brettell and J. Hollifield (eds), Migration Theory, New York: Routledge, pp. 137-86.

Home Affairs Branch (1997) Equal Opportunities: A study of discrimination on the ground of race A consultation paper, Hong Kong: Government Secretariat, February.

Hong Kong Census and Statistics Department (2005) "Summary statistics published in the report population and household statistics analyzed by District Council district 2004", http://www.info.gov.hk/censtatd/ eng/interest/ghs/ghs_b_index.html, accessed 5 May 2005.

Hong Kong Council of Social Services (2003) "The cross cultural perception and acceptance between local residents and new arrivals, Research Report 2003," (in Chinese), http://www.hkcss.org.hk/fs/er/ Reference/NA03Full.pdf, accessed 25 May 2005.

Hong Kong Council of Social Services (2004) "Annual Submission 2004" (in Chinese), http: // www.hkcss.org.hk/index.htm, accessed 5 May 2005.

Hong Kong Economic Journal (Chinese newspaper, Hong Kong).

Hong Kong Economic Times (Chinese newspaper, Hong Kong).

Hong Kong Social Security Society (2000) Poverty Watch, 10, March (in Chinese).

Jacquet, Raphael (1997) "From Refugees to Citizens: An Identity is Born," China Perspective, 12, July.

King, Ambrose Y.C. (1981) "Administrative Absorption of Politics in Hong Kong: Emphasis on the Grass Roots Level," in Ambrose Y.C. King and Rance P.L. Lee (eds), Social Life and Development in Hong Kong, Hong Kong: The Chinese University Press, pp. 127-46.

Kwong, Paul C.K. (1993) "Internationalization of Population and Globalization of Families," in Choi Poking and Ho Lok-sang (eds) The Other Hong Kong Report 1993, Hong Kong: The Chinese University Press, pp. 147-74.

Lam, Kit Chun and Liu Pak Wai (1998) Immigration and the Economy of Hong Kong, Hong Kong: City University Press

Lang, G., Chiu, C. & Pang, M. (2001) "Impact of Plant Relocation to China on Manufacturing Workers in Hong Kong," in Pui-tak Lee (ed.) Hot g Kong Reintegrating with China." Political, Social and Cultural Dimensions, Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press.

Lau, Siu-kai (1982) Society and Politics in Hong Kong, Hong Kong: The Chinese University Press.

Law Kam-yee and Wong Cheung-wai (1997) "More than a Primitive Imperialism: The colonial government and the social relief of Hong Kong in the early twentieth century," Journal of Contemporary China, 6(16), pp.513-530.

Lee, C.F. (2004) "Importation of Chinese talents: policies and controversies," in K.W. Chan and C.T. Wong (eds), Hong Kong Social Policy Review, Hong Kong: The Chinese University Press, pp. 15-26 (in Chinese).

Leung, Benjamin K.P. (1996) Perspectives on Hong Kong Society, Hong Kong: Oxford University Press.

Leung Hon-chu (2004a) "Strengthen the community to support the individuals: discussion and recommendations on social policies related to new arrivals," in K.W. Chart and C.T. Wong (eds), Hong Kong Social Policy Review, Hong Kong: The Chinese University Press, pp. 15-26 (in Chinese).

Leung Hon-chu (2004b) "Politics of incorporation and exclusion: immigration and citizenship issues," in Ku, Agnes S. and Pun Ngai (eds), Remaking citizenship in Hong Kong: Community, nation and the global city, London: RoutledgeCurzon, pp.97-114.

Leung Hon-chu and Wong, Rachel Hiu-kam (2003) "Policy Traps and Injured Identities: The Making of Social Disadvantages in 'The Other' Tsuen Wan," in Ku Hok Bun and Lee Ming Kwan (eds), Social Exclusion and Marginality in Chinese Societies, Hong Kong: Centre for Social Policy Studies, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, pp.49-60.

Ming Pao (Chinese newspaper, Hong Kong)

Mollenkopf, J.H. and Castells, M. eds. (1991) Dual City. Restructuring New York, New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Podmore, David (1971) "The Population of Hong Kong," in Keith Hopkins (ed.), Hong Kong: The Industrial Colony, Hong Kong: Oxford University Press, pp. 21-54.

Room, Graham (1995) "Poverty and Social Exclusion: The New European Agenda for Policy and Research," in Room, G. (ed.), Beyond the Threshold, Bristol: Policy Press, pp. 1-9.

Sassen, Saskia (1991) The Global City." New York, London, Tokyo, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.

Sassen, Saskia (1998) Globalization and Its Discontents, New York: The New Press.

Skeldon, Ronald (1996) "Labour Market Developments and Foreign Worker Policy in Hong Kong," in OECD (eds), Migration and the Labour Market in Asia: Prospects to the Year 2000, Paris: OECD, pp. 183-194.

Skeldon, Ronald (1995) Emigration from Hong Kong: Tendencies and Impacts, Hong Kong: The Chinese University Press.

Siu Yat-ming (1996) "Population and Immigration: With a Special Account on Chinese Immigrants," in Nyaw Mee-kau and Li Si-ming (eds), The Other Hong Kong Report 1996, Hong Kong: The Chinese University Press, pp. 325-47.

Siu Yat-ming (1999) "New Arrivals: A New Problem and An Old Problem," in Larry Chuen-ho Chow and Yiu-kwan Fan (eds.), The Other Hong Kong Report 1998, Hong Kong: The Chinese University Press, pp.201-28.

Society for Community Organization (2001) Hong Kong Racial Discrimination, Stud)' Series I: New Immigrants from China, Executive Report. http://www.soco.org.hk/publication/publication_index.htm (accessed at May 2005).

South China Morning Post (English newspaper, Hong Kong)

Szczepanik, Edward (1958) The Economic Growth of Hong Kong, London: Oxford University Press.

Ta Kung Pao (Chinese newspaper, Hong Kong)

The Washington Post.

Welsh, Frank (1994) A History of Hong Kong, London: Harper Collins.

Wong, K.Y. and Wan, P.S. (2001) "The situation of ethnic identity in Hong Kong: an exploratory study," in Lau Siu-kai and others, Social Transformation and Cultural Change: Comparison of Chinese Societies, Hong Kong: The Hong Kong Institute of Asia-Pacific Studies, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, pp. 434-458 (in Chinese).

Zheng, Victor and Wong Siu-lun (2003) "From the Issuing of an Identity Card to the Transformation of Hong Kong's Identity: A Perspective," Hong Kong Journal of Sociology, 4, pp. 87-114.

Notes

(1.) The authors thank Kevin Hewison and Graeme Lang, not only for their extremely useful comments after reading the drafts of the article thoroughly, but their encouragement during the writing process. The authors also acknowledge the research assistance from Kit Lain and Leona Ng. The usual disclaimer applies.

(2.) Chinese migrants have had different names at different periods. Before the 1970s, they were called "refugees." But in the 1970s and 1980s, they were called "new immigrants" to delineate their nonrefugee status. However, from the 1990s, they were called "'new arrivals" because, after the Chinese annexation of Hong Kong, it seemed inappropriate to call migrants from China immigrants (Siu, 1999).

(3.) Beginning in the mid-1970s, according to official figures, emigration from Hong Kong remained at about 20,000 per annum for the following ten years, then accelerated to reach 30,000 in 1987, and 66,000 (and perhaps more) in 1992. A large number of these emigrants were in the highly educated and highly skilled categories. This acceleration of emigration caught official and public attention and generated the "doomsday interpretation"--the best and brightest were fleeing Hong Kong before the transfer of the British colony to Chinese sovereignty on 1 July 1997, causing the loss of skilled manpower and leading to a decline in productivity and the demise of Hong Kong as a viable industrial and financial center (Skeldon, 1995: 56-7).

(4.) Immigration Department, HKSAR, http://www.infogov.hk/immd/admission/eng_index.htm (accessed 30 May 2000).

(5.) For example, in the US, the wealthiest 20% of households in 1973 accounted for 44% of total income. Their share jumped to 50% in 2002, while everyone else's fell. For the bottom fifth of households, their share dropped from 4.2% to 3.5%. The average income of the top 20% grew to 76% over the 35-year span from 1967 to 2002. For the bottom fifth, meanwhile, grew by 34% (see The Washington Post, 17 August 2004).

(6.) In 2005, Henry Tang was the Financial Secretary.

(7.) Since late 1998, the categories of housing used in the survey have changed, lumping sub-let rooms, bed-spaces, cocklofts and squatters into "private permanent housing." As a result, the subsequent reports fail to indicate the severity of new arrivals' living conditions.

(8.) The definition of new arrivals adopted by the Home Affairs Department (HAD) is quite different from that adopted by the Census and Statistics Department (CSD). In the surveys conducted by HAD, "new arrivals" refers only to those aged 11 or above and arriving in Hong Kong from China in the past year, while "new arrivals" in CSD usage, refers to persons from China having resided in Hong Kong for less than seven years.

(9.) According to SoCO's study (2001: 7, 9), 90% of respondents have applied for housing welfare, but 54.4% of them find that they are hindered simply because of their new arrival status. On the other hand, 35% of respondents have experience of being refused rental of private housing. The major reasons for the refusal were because of newly arrived children or a fear that new immigrants were unable to afford the rent.

(10.) There were 218,400 CSSA cases in September 1998, while there were slightly more than two million households at the fourth quarter of 1998 The figure is from Report on Review of the Comprehensive Social Security Assistance Scheme was released by the Social Welfare Department in December 1998.

(11.) Actually, the amendment of the Immigration Ordinance in 1980 states clearly that employers have to inspect the identity document of "new recruits." The 1996 legislation further requires employers to inspect the identity document of "job seekers."

(12.) The outcome of these measures has been unsatisfactory. Under the Pilot Scheme (1994-97), stringent procedures meant that 80% of the applications were withdrawn by the applicants themselves. Only 60% of the quota (602 cases) was finally approved. Even worse, as a quota-free and non-sector specific scheme, SAR government's Admission of Talents Scheme 1999 had only 111 successful applicants, far below the government's estimation of 2,000 (Lee, 2004: 19-20).

(13.) According to SoCO's survey (2001: 9-10), over 90% of respondents believe that the government's comments on new immigrants triggered greater discrimination.