(For info.; please send comments to Joe Thomas
<[log in to unmask]>.)

Joe Thomas, Ethnocide: A Cultural Narrative of Refugee Detention in Hong
Kong.
Aldershot, UK: Ashgate [Social Political Studies from Hong Kong Series],
1999, xii + 255 pages.

Reviewed by Robert F. Barsky

This study details and assesses the experiences of Vietnamese asylum seekers
in Hong Kong between 1988 and 1995, and along the way offers an analysis of
the
strategies employed by refugee managers to clear the "refugee problem" in
advance of the 1997 transfer of power between Britain and China. The flow of
refugees
at issue started with the clandestine departure of South Vietnamese
following the war and then the unification of the country in 1975, and it
continued until June 5, 1988, when government officials in Hong Kong decided
to implement a refugee screening procedure. This turn of events challenged
the role that Hong Kong had played, as a "harbor of hope," and created the
problem of refugee detention in Hong Kong, because those persons not
considered "genuine" were held, sometimes for long periods of time, and
often in deplorable conditions. The specific task of this book is to address
the socio-cultural consequences of prolonged refugee detention, and, because
the author had direct access to the camps and clear knowledge of the
procedures that led refugee claimants to them, there is also discussion of:
policies of Hong Kong government officials towards asylum seekers; the
conditions of the camps in which they were held, including flare-ups of
violence and persecution; and the role of social service interventions,
including intervention employed to force asylum seekers to return to their
country of origin.

Since the author himself worked in two camps (Tai A Chau and Sek Kong), and
both visited and kept abreast of activities in others, the information he
provides
is literally first-hand, derived from personal interviews, life histories,
personal observations, informant interviews, photographs and even videos,
which is highly appropriate for work of this nature. This leads him to
briefly worry about the "scientificity" of such a personal approach, which
seems to me, and ultimately to him as well, of secondary importance in light
of the nature of the problem described. Nevertheless, it leads him to
reflect, in valuable ways, upon the veracity of the testimony upon which he
has relied. This is always a concern in studies of this sort because it
speaks to the relationship between information employed to describe a
situation, and the motivated nature of those who might volunteer such
information. "My lack of clout and access to resources as a camp worker was
often a standing theme of discussion between the respondents and myself.
Unlike a traditional anthropologist. who can descend into a community with
trappings of power, influence and an image of endless access to resources, I
presented myself as a 'native anthropologist, who lacked resources, clout
and influence. In addition, I could closely identify with the vulnerability
of the population I was trying to study. This approach had certain
advantages. I am sure that the stories they shared with me were genuine.
Most of the respondents knew that that had nothing to gain by telling an
exaggerated story to me" (12). For myself, I think that this personal
framework is entirely legitimate, and doesn't require attempts at assessing
the data as regards the many analytical frames, theories, typologies,
graphs, charts and
concepts, to which Thomas refers in different sections of the book, and
which don't really offer any more than what one might learn from the facts
of the specific cases described. Nevertheless, the reviews of refugee
literature are valuable as a means of situating this study as regards the
vast array of work done in the area, and they do allow him to conceptualize
problems of, for example, ethnocide.

Other useful features of this book include socio-historical data describing
the conditions in Vietnam that pushed people to leave the country, the role
that governments (at different levels) play in determining the way that
refugee policy is formulated and enforced, and the plight of those who were
admitted and then interred in Hong Kong during the period in question. This
portion, which occupies roughly half of the book and which focuses upon
human rights violations in the camps, is the most pertinent and shocking
part of this study, since it shows the relationship between refugee policy
and what became a planned ethnocide. Along the way, Thomas makes some
important observations about how certain groups, -- women, the elderly, the
disabled, the very young - are made to suffer more dramatically from camp
life and from organized attempts at carrying out a process of ethnocide.
Thomas also includes two complete refugee claims, along with a review of the
procedure employed to adjudicate them; this data, like the ethnographic
profiles that Thomas sets forth, of Vietnamese asylum seekers detained in
Hong Kong detention centers, is valuable primary material for persons
interested in related studies.

Given the array of useful information provided in this book, and the
seriousness of the issues discussed, it is regrettable that more attention
was not paid to the form of the book; as a result, persons who rely upon it
for their research may find it difficult to locate the many valuable
insights contained therein (and there is no index). The quality of the prose
often leads much to be desired as well, which means that readers may have
trouble discerning the precise points Thomas is trying to make ("Often the
term 'refugee' is used to refer to a different set of social reality
associated with forced migration" p. 37, or "The people who produced the
crops were not allowed to sell the crops, and violation of this policy would
result in confiscating the entire production and subsequent punishment" p.
51). Nevertheless, this is an important contribution to yet another area of
abuse in the long chain of refugee administration in the world.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Note: The material contained in this communication comes to you from the
Forced Migration Discussion List which is moderated by the Refugee Studies
Centre (RSC), University of Oxford. It does not necessarily reflect the
views of the RSC or the University. If you re-print, copy, archive or
re-post this message please retain this disclaimer. Quotations or extracts
should include attribution to the original sources.