My central experience this week was the first Justice Without Borders Healthcheck on Sunday. While my earlier work with migrant domestic workers had largely taken place in structured settings such as the EmpowerU workshop, the Healthcheck gave me the opportunity to hear directly and in greater depth about their experiences. With the help of a translator, the other interns and I facilitated and documented conversations with Indonesian migrant domestic workers about their transition to Hong Kong, challenges in their employment, and whether they felt they were being adequately provided for.
The conversations were much more personal than anything I had encountered during the workshop. Participants described a range of difficult experiences that made some of the structural issues I had been learning about much more concrete. Several described being expected to perform work that was not included in their contracts, including unpaid labor for employers' family members or at other properties. One participant described being responsible for approximately 60 chickens despite her contract referring only to caring for "a couple pets." Others described being asked to perform physically demanding work such as repairing roofs or fixing leaks without appropriate safety protections, or administering medical injections despite having no medical training. Participants also discussed sexual harassment and the lack of privacy created by their living arrangements, including sleeping in extremely small spaces such as bathrooms or on top of washing machines. Some also described financial scams and exploitation by agencies before they even arrived in Hong Kong.
Hearing these experiences directly changed how I understood the issues I had previously encountered through research and legal casework. In a workshop setting, I was focused on providing useful information and helping participants develop practical skills. During the Healthcheck, my role was much more about listening. The experience reminded me that even careful research can only reveal part of a person's circumstances. Direct conversations can expose details, priorities, and forms of vulnerability that may never appear in formal documents or survey responses.
Following the event, we compiled the conversations and findings into a comprehensive report that would inform JWB's broader Healthcheck plan. I was proud that the work did not end with the conversations themselves. Our responsibility was to accurately document what we heard and translate those experiences into information the organization could use to shape its future outreach and advocacy. This required integrity and accountability, particularly because we were representing other people's experiences and needed to avoid simplifying or distorting them.
The value most visible in my leadership this week was Humanity, alongside Curiosity and Humility. Humanity meant approaching participants as people with individual experiences rather than simply as a population being studied. Curiosity allowed me to ask questions and listen to experiences that challenged some of my previous assumptions. Humility was perhaps the most important because the Healthcheck reinforced that I could not fully understand the realities of MDWs simply by researching their legal status or designing a workshop for them.
The character dimensions most tested were humanity, integrity, humility, and justice. Justice was particularly difficult because many of the stories we heard reflected problems that extended beyond what an individual nonprofit could immediately resolve. The experience reinforced the tension I had begun thinking about in Week 4: legal and community organizations can provide meaningful support, but they are often responding to problems created by much larger structural conditions.
My leadership capacities were primarily people and process. Facilitating conversations required sensitivity to participants' comfort and the limitations created by translation, while documenting and organizing what we heard required a careful process. I felt most stretched by the responsibility of listening without immediately trying to solve every problem participants described. Sometimes the most useful thing I could do in that setting was ask a thoughtful follow-up question, listen carefully, and make sure the information was accurately recorded.
Outside of JWB, I also spent more time exploring different parts of Hong Kong. Moving between districts made economic inequality particularly visible to me. In some areas, I could see significant differences in wealth and living conditions within only a few blocks of one another. After the Healthcheck, I found myself interpreting these differences differently. The issues we had been discussing were not isolated legal problems but part of a much broader economic and social environment.
One behavioral adjustment I will make is to listen longer before trying to formulate a solution. My instinct is often to think about what action should follow from a problem, but this experience showed me that understanding the problem accurately is itself an important form of work. Next week, I will intentionally focus on Humanity and Humility, particularly in my interactions with community members and in the second Street Law workshop.
The Healthcheck was one of the most meaningful experiences of my LIA because it changed the way I understood my role. My earlier work had largely involved designing interventions for a community. This week, I was given the opportunity to listen directly to members of that community describe their own experiences. That distinction reinforced for me that responsible leadership begins not with assuming what people need, but with creating the space to hear what they say they need.