After the Hong Kong government faced criticism for the Social Workers Registration Board being accused of “seriously deviating from the spirit of safeguarding national security,” it proposed amendments this month to reform the Board, with over half of its members to be appointed by the government. Additionally, if a social worker is found guilty of “committing severe crimes against national security,” the Board reserves the right to immediately revoke their qualifications. A survey conducted among Hong Kong social workers and former social welfare sector employees currently residing overseas, including in the UK, US, Canada, and Taiwan, revealed that 96.7% of respondents believed the amendments were inappropriate, while 98.5% thought it would undermine the autonomy of social work professionals and make their practice more challenging.
According to the draft of the “Social Workers Registration (Amendment) Bill 2024” proposed by the Hong Kong government, the number of Board members will increase from the current 15 to 27, with at least 14 members being social workers, 8 elected, and 17 appointed. Additionally, two members will be the Director of Social Welfare and a public officer from the Social Welfare Department. Members are required to swear allegiance to the Basic Law and loyalty to the SAR government. The amendments also mandate the Board to establish a continuous professional development framework and requirements.
A survey conducted online from the 20th to the 22nd of this month targeted 397 respondents currently residing overseas, with over 60% of them having worked as senior social workers in Hong Kong. Among them, 33.8% had served as social workers for 10 to 20 years, and 30.2% had over 20 years of experience. The study was conducted by four researchers, including former professors from Baptist University’s Department of Social Work and the Chinese University of Hong Kong’s Department of Social Work, as well as educators from institutions in the UK.
In an interview with the media, a Hong Kong national residing in the UK stated that the survey was conducted to provide support for those in Hong Kong who may feel hesitant to express their concerns due to the current environment. He emphasized the importance of raising voices for social work professionals and urged legislators to listen to their views.
Regarding the inclusion of national security elements in the amendments, the survey indicated that 85.4% of respondents disagreed with the immediate disqualification of social workers accused of “violating national security crimes.” Only 4.5% agreed. 98.2% expressed concerns that the amendments would make it harder for social workers to engage in activities safeguarding human rights and promoting social justice. The study also revealed that 95.7% of respondents believed social workers could be accused of “endangering national security” at any time following the amendments, with 97.2% fearing they may be denied registration or renewal due to unforeseen reasons.
The respondent from the UK predicted that the amendments would likely pass without modification in the legislature, leading to increased self-censorship among social workers. With the majority of Board members being government-appointed after the amendments, concerns have been raised about the alignment of their thinking with government policies.
The government has continuously claimed that the restructuring is meant to provide a solid foundation for the professional development of social workers. However, 98.5% of respondents expressed worries that the amendments would diminish professional autonomy, 99.2% believed it would lead to government control over the discourse of social work professionals, and 79.3% disagreed that it would enhance the professional standards of social work.
Reflecting on his past experiences, a former registered social worker analyzed that the amendments would enable the government to exert stricter control over the social work sector, facilitating the disqualification of social workers deemed anti-government or associated with the pro-democracy movement, potentially creating an atmosphere of fear that silences dissent and discourages advocacy for public welfare policies.
In response to the initiative to enhance ongoing professional development requirements for social workers, 73.6% of respondents disagreed, while only 15% agreed. This approach was seen as potentially coercive, especially if social workers were compelled to attend national security courses or engage in cross-border exchange programs.
The profession of social work in Hong Kong has undergone significant transformations, with reports of non-governmental organizations receiving favorable treatment for being involved in activities supporting government policies, raising concerns about apparent political screening and bias in the allocation of resources. These changes have sparked debates within the industry about potential political interventions.
Critics of the amendments view the process as coercive and hurried, lacking substantial consultation with registered social workers. They fear that the reforms are aimed at consolidating power and control in favor of the government and pro-establishment groups, potentially disenfranchising voices of dissent and inhibiting genuine advocacy for social welfare policies. They urge the government to uphold the principles of transparency and fairness by engaging in meaningful consultations with stakeholders and respecting the expertise and opinions of social work professionals.
The survey’s conclusions and recommendations highlighted the widespread opposition to the proposed amendments, emphasizing the detrimental impact on professional autonomy and the challenging circumstances social workers may face in their practice. The recommendations underscored the necessity of ensuring that any proposed changes support the independence and integrity of the social work profession while safeguarding the interests of vulnerable communities effectively.
Furthermore, should the government proceed with expanding the composition of the Social Workers Registration Board from 15 to 27 members, the survey suggested that the additional 6 social worker members should also be democratically elected to ensure greater representativeness and maintain professional autonomy.
In conclusion, the survey criticized the rushed and unilateral approach taken by the government in pushing through the amendments without extensive consultation with registered social workers. The lack of engagement and respect for the expertise and perspectives of social work professionals has raised concerns about the erosion of professional autonomy and the potential impacts on service users, particularly marginalized communities.