Thank you so much.
Social work is community, both within nation state and beyond nation state. That’s why IFSW, IASSW, ICSW, etc are important. As social work focus on organizing collective efforts to push forward societal transformational change, it implies action taken/not-taken will have an impact within and beyond nation states.
Freedom of expression is precious and we should not take-it-for-granted, as it is a kind of human rights that is the core of global social work definition. Within the global social work community, is it a mutual responsibility to safeguard or push forward the exercise of human rights?
Under authoritarian ruling, make choices with care implies to stand by the side of status-quo, to abandon social justice and human rights that is the core element of global social work definition. If it is so, it is an ethical dilemma to make choice. When social work (some social workers as we know) choose to stand by the side to abandon social justice and human rights, is it still social work? Is it damaging the image of social work?
We need collective power, and we need global social work community power. Maybe one will said, to issue a statement or position paper is useless. However, there is not even a position paper. Choose to voice out for disadvantage group is a choice. Hong Kong social work community is a kind of disadvantage group. We are not enjoying freedom to express opposite opinion anymore, and the situation is getting even worse.
We need collective global social work community power. It’s a kind of choice of global social work community. It’s not a personal choice, I think.