Politicians hear a new voice in Chinatown.
4 June 2001
Sarah Yeh

The first electoral hustings in London's Chinatown proved to be a real insight into what politicians think are the needs and the concerns of the Chinese community in London. The meeting was attended by a cross section of the Chinese community, and, of course, Dimsum. Sarah Yeh reports on how the fight went down.

Chinatown. A bustling area of commerce and catering for the Chinese community in the heart of the West End. Many that work here do not live locally, and therefore will not have a vote in this constituency but this didn't stop them attending what turned out to be a fascinating and wide-ranging electoral debate.

The City of London and Westminster seat is traditionally a Conservative seat, and the constituency is believed to be generally very prosperous, although there are pockets of lower economic status remaining. In the last 24 years it has been represented by Peter Brooke a Conservative member,'a friend of the Chinese community'. This year he is stepping down leaving candidates from all parties competing for his seat.

The political parties at this hustings were represented by:

• Hugo Charlton (Green);
• Mike Katz (Labour);
• Martin Horwood (Lib Dem); and
• Lawrence Wong (Socialist Alliance)

Unfortunately Mark Field for standing as the Conservative candidate was unable to attend due to a prior engagement.

The unfolding debate came as something of a surprise to politicians who had not expected a community so politically aware. What follows is a report on the questions asked, and the answers given by each candidate.

Foot and MAFF

An immediate issue raised by all candidates was the recent the foot and mouth controversy. All candidates were quick to point out the failures of MAFF and the Labour party, and Mike Katz immediately disassociated himself from MAFF over this issue.

Nevertheless, it was going to be one of the key issues raised at the hustings. It was highlighted that in five weeks, after the meeting with representatives of the Chinese community, Nick Brown had failed to fulfil any more than one out of the seven during the agreed timescale of three weeks.

Unfortunately, Mike Katz had failed to do his homework on this subject. In defence, he could only offer that he 'didn't expect to talk about the Ministry of Agriculture in the middle of London'. He did not know of the terms of the agreement made with Nick Brown and could only excuse the failings of MAFF because of Parliament dissolving for the general election. He blamed the press for the manner in which the allegations had been reported but offered to write to Nick Brown on behalf of the Chinese community.

This was not an adequate excuse for Jabez Lam who stressed that although Parliament had been dissolved, it was an issue that still needed to be addressed particularly at election time. Hugo Charlton indicated that the policy of New Labour was to have a 'tinge of xenophobia and a tendency to isolate minorities'. He mentioned the animal activists as one of the minority groups that had also been blamed for the outbreak.

Jack Tan raised that Mike Katz's opening speech had denied institutional racism within MAFF, although it waited for thirteen days before denying such allegations against the Chinese community, and when the same finger was pointed at the MOD, the allegations were refuted the next day. To this Katz replied that he was not in favour of MAFF and said he was 'not sure that it was so much institutionally racist, as institutionally derelict'.

Race and Immigration

The candidates were then asked why a member of an ethnic minority would choose to vote for the parties. All candidates condemned the hard line on race and immigration taken by the Conservative Party and advocated that their own parties were against this approach. Martin Horwood highlighted that both Brunell and Gordon Selfridge who were from minorities, had contributed enormously to the British economy.

Horwood also believed that the Lib Dems had a long background of supporting anti-racism and minorities. They had supported acts such as anti-apartheid in the past, and today had a strong stance in issues over immigration and asylum: they supported a diverse community rather than fearing it.

Glenys Roberts, a Conservative councillor and a Daily Mail journalist defended the Conservative party, saying that Hague was not racist and remarks he made were not racist. She referred to the much debated remark'Give us our country back', which she felt to be aimed at the policies over Europe and was met with much derision from the audience.

On the question of illegal immigration, she also mentioned the tragedy of the 58 Chinese found dead in Dover and felt surprise that 'after such a tragedy surprise that anyone could be for it'. 'Some sort of control' had to be enforced over people coming into the country and believed that it was 'not a racist control', but 'a control over proper justification for coming'.

To this point Jack Tan questioned 'how could this not be a racist control when people were weeded out'?. In accordance with the 1981 Nationality Act and according to the idea of patriality, Jack defined it as racist control highlighting that there were no controls over South Africans or Australians or people who could prove they had white parentage. To this, Roberts had no answer.

David Tang, a Chinese solicitor asked the panel what Jack Straw meant when he said he is going to get tough on immigration. Did he intend to break up families? How would this affect asylum seekers and what would the Labour party do?

Asylum

Mike Katz said that the Labour party would put £1.6 billion into asylum seeking in order to process the forms and appeals faster and more efficiently. He did not agree with the voucher policy and wanted a review. He said that the Labour government had helped people coming over through the abolition of the PrePurpose rule whereby people can't come over to marry. He was sorry that the debate over economic migration and asylum seekers could not be discussed in a more temperate climate, but added in response to the asylum question that: 'We're not a soft touch'. He added that gaps could be filled in the skills market through people coming into the country.

Hugo Charlton defined the reality of the problem by questioning the distinction between asylum seekers and economic migrants. He defined the word 'bogus' as term created by Jack Straw, and pointed out that 'people don't really want to come here because they want to, but come here because their conditions are so bad, whether it is political or economic.' They are more efficient because if immigrants don't fill in their forms within fourteen days, they are immediately rejected'.

Horwood questioned the terms 'cracking down ', 'bogus' and 'soft touch', and reiterated his point that immigration brought expertise and initiative. He promised 'faster and fairer' rather than the Labour policy of just'faster'.

Lawrence Wong highlighted that certain categories of immigrants, including the Chinese were open to further questioning on arrival to airports and ports. He said that there are always movements of people, and that things have been improved by this. Migrants have helped build the railways and been fundamental to the health service. He accused the existing parties of cherry picking over skills and highlighted the poorly paid labour for many immigrants without and security.

Police Attitudes

On the question of racist police attitudes towards Chinese, particularly in the light of the Stephen Lawrence enquiry, Hugo Charlton defined it as a staffing problem. Katz noted the recent police putting cameras to record racism and wanted to communicate with the Chinese more readily. Horwood noted the police had a general problem with a fully independent police authority to deal with such matters. Wong felt that police were part of the problem and not part of the solution.

Westminster Issues

The debate did not simply cover current race and asylum issues, however. On issues more specific to the Westminster area, Susanna Yau asked the panel whether they knew and what they would do about the Shaftesbury PLC decision to raise rent in Chinatown between 30% to 50%. She wanted to know how the Chinese community could meet that raise in addition to the present economic pressure of competition and high rent.

Unfortunately, the candidates once again seemed ill prepared. Mike Katz said that he wanted to work with Chinese community, but did not know that it was a commercial and not a housing problem. Once informed, he was able to mention the Small Business Service that had been initiated by the Labour Government.

Martin Horwood advocated a different approach, through the Uniform Business Rate and Site Value Rating: rating property in accordance to the value of the land. Lawrence Wong wanted to campaign, and the Green party adovcated protecting local businesses and local communities.

Are the Chinese in London finally getting noticed?

This meeting was exercised in an informal and congenial atmosphere and it was interesting to see varying party views on issues that are so important to the Chinese community. The meeting was called by Martin Horwood, and it is encouraging to see that some parties are taking a greater interest in the minority vote.

However, most questions were asked about general policies,and it was disappointing that some politicians tackled these issues often without a Chinese or even minority perspective. It was also disappointing to note that often some candidates did not appear to understand or even know about immediate policies that affected the Chinese working and living in their consituency.

The Chinese have a tradition of perceived as being non-political, but the candidates often seemed to have failed to realise that some of the first and many of the second generation are taking an interest and are finding their voice within politics. Some politicians may not appear to be interested in the Chinese vote, but as we become more prominent within society, they will need to take note.