4 June 2001
Sarah Yeh

It was unfortunate that the Conservative candidate Mark Field was unable to make the Election Hustings in Chinatown. Therefore, Dimsum took the opportunity to interview him in order to find out what the Tories think about the needs of the Chinese community.

Due to Fields' tight schedule, we were unable to have little more than a hasty telephone conversation. Nevertheless, that conversation managed to sum up the flavour of Tory views on election issues such as ethnic minorities rights, racial discrimination, immigration and asylum seekers.

Field is known for his pro-Thatcher and hard right viewpoints. Writing in Crossbow (1991) he said, "Many charitable trusts set up to help counter Aids in the mid-1980s became little more than a gay rights front." I was therefore curious to see how the Chinese community would fit into his ambitions for the constituency.

Field has been the Conservative candidate for the City of London and Westminster for the last eighteen months. During this time, it appears that he had not had much time to consider the needs of the Chinese community. He felt that he has supported the Chinese community by attending the various Chinese events and festivals. However, the fact that he failed to make an appearance at the crucial inaugural London Chinatown Hustings or to even send a representative seems to indicate the nature of his support.

Furthermore, he showed little understanding of the needs of the Chinese community beyond the 'small business'. But even his ownership of a small consultancy (with a turnover of £2 million) will be unlikely to equip him with the insight about racial and cultural issues that are unique to the Chinese catering industry.

When asked about the foot and mouth controversy, he blamed "one or two spin doctors from the Labour party". He had written letters of condemnation to the Chamber of Commerce, as well as David Yip and members of the Chinese Conservatives in London Chinatown.

On how he would deal with racism, and police incompetence, he responded that these "were quite isolated incidents". When I pointed out, that such incidents were occurring up and down the country he answered that "we need to retain police and employ more police".

He was concerned mainly that there be more affordable housing so to encourage younger police. He made no comment on recruiting more ethnic minority police or communicating with minority groups to gain a more accurate insight into their specific needs.

On the question of education to promote Chinese culture and uphold Chinese traditions Field was in favour of supporting 'initiatives from the Chinese community', but did not verify that the Conservative party would be able to invest or initiate any projects in this area. His was more concerned that ethnic minorities learn the 'official language' of Britain and therefore be able to engage in British culture more readily.

Although he was strong in advocating 'freedom of the individual' to uphold their own culture and traditions, he was of the opinion that all immigrants should conform to 'Britishness'. In this sense, his view was similar to his colleague Townsend, that the sense of British national identity was being eroded and immigrant conformity was the solution.

On the asylum question, I asked him if he supported Hague's asylum policy which is to 'round all asylum seekers up and put them into detention centres'. As evidenced in his recent 'Foreign Lands' speech. Hague had consistently used negative terms such as 'flooding' and 'swamping' and 'out of control' to describe asylum immigration and reiterated the slogan 'Give us our country back'.

Field avoided directly answering this question by explaining that his own mother had been made a refugee twice in Eastern Europe before the age of fifteen, and therefore could empathise with those that where trying to enter the country as asylum seekers. He went on to say, "I think the question has to be asked - where are these immigrants coming from?" He felt that people were using routes through France and the rest of Europe to get to the UK.

On the obvious failures of the asylum dispersal policy he was against areas being ghettoised and believed in limited dispersal of Chinese to existing Chinese communities such has Manchester and Liverpool. He felt that there needed to be a voluntary system set up that would be able to provide the necessary community and legal aid that would be supported by resources from within existing Chinese communities.

Finally, he accused Labour of playing the race card in this election, and felt that people should not be penalised for expressing their viewpoints. He felt that there was a need for open debate to inform people on asylum, race and immigration so that informed opinions could be made.

This seems a reasonable proposal except that the Conservatives have themselves been accused of heightening racial tension throughout the country, particularly in the recent Oldham riots. Open debate of this nature may simply be a smokescreen for the expression of emotive racist views in public. The Police have admitted that there is an increase in racial abuse after politicians make racialised statements, and as we saw during the Foot and Mouth controversy, there was an increase in racial attacks and abuse towards the Chinese catering community. With tensions mounting in the Northwest, surely this is the wrong time for 'open' debate.

Mark Fields seems to be the most likely successor to Peter Brooke at City of London and Westminster. It is a shame that his brusque manner during the interview, his responses and his absence at the Chinatown hustings go some way to show that he has not thought about issues that concern the Chinese community and other minority groups. Although Fields is in regular contact with the Chinese Conservative group, how much of this participation gives him any real understanding of the Chinese community is anyone's guess.