Chinese laws and some Australians' reactions to the Stern Hu case

Comments on Peter Yuan Cai “The long arm of the Chinese State Secrecy Law”, 27/07/2009, http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2009/07/27/the-long-arm-of-the-chinese-state-secrecy-law/
It is an interesting piece to have some look at the Chinese State Secrecy Law.

We live in an imperfect world, don’t we? And many people would probably say that it is even much more less-perfect in many respects in China.

Laws are notorious areas of imperfection. Even here in Australia, there is no short supply of examples of this imperfection, with some being very seriously so.

For example, it is often said that the Australian taxation laws are opaque and unnecessarily complex in its totality, even though some may say every bit of it may be simple and understandable if one has the time and patience to study them. Doesn’t it run into thousands (or at least hundreds) of pages, or I got my memory wrong on this?

Australia is an industrialised and highly developed country. Income laws are so important to every taxpayer. Yet we have been and still are resigned to this complexity and obscurity in our lives for many, many years.

The US, the undisputed leader of the free world, has detained so many people without charges in its Guantanamo Bay military prison in Cuba, with suspicions of terrorism, although the new administration has pledged to close that prison camp. I don’t know whether its laws are perfect or not.

Further, it has been reported that the American intelligence agency, the CIA, has used inhuman, outlawed or illegal interrogation methods, with drowning simulation like water-boarding being applied to some people dozens and possibly hundreds times.

China is a vastly different country. It has been undertaking reforms to many areas, including many of its laws. But that reforming processes are far from perfect. It has a long way to go, though its economic reforms have resulted in remarkable economic growth that raised the living standards of many ordinary Chinese. In the interim, it is not only people outside China like us, but also the billion plus Chinese themselves have to live with those applying laws when relevant matters arise, just as we live with the complex and opaque Australian income laws.

Yuan’s argument that “For the time being, Mr. Hu and his colleagues have assumed the unfortunate mantle of being sacrificial lambs on the altar of China’s national security”, may be true in the sense that China’s State Secrecy Law may be different in the future and in a different law they may not necessarily be accused of what they have been now.

Unfortunately, from what the foreign minister here, Mr Stephen Smith said, the Chinese authorities are pursuing other matters than espionage of state secrecy. That is another different area of the Chinese laws that we at here hardly understand.

I'd like to add another brief point about the outages shown by some journalists and politicians here in Australia regarding to the Stern Hu detention case as mentioned in passing by Yuan.

They were understood by many Australians as condemnations for the Chinese authorities’ abuse of Mr Stern Hu’s Australian rights, in the context of a potential retaliation to either the failed Chinalco Rio deal, or the difficulties of the iron contract price negotiations between the major miners including Rio, with China, with Mr Hu as the miners’ chief negotiator.

It may also reflect a poor understanding of the Chinese laws foreign to Australians of course by those people. Further some of those people showed remarkable hypocrisy in the most astonishing fashion. For example, the federal opposition leader, Mr Malcolm Turnbull, has called for the prime minster to personally intervene and phone his Chinese counterpart to get Mr Stern Hu released, because of the detention an Australian executive.

Firstly, are Australians having the same or different rights? Should a business executive be having more rights than other Australians?

Secondly, should Australians be above the Chinese laws and should be released by the Chinese authorities because they are Australians?

Thirdly, should the matter potentially involving serious charges including possibly criminal charges be handled by the interventions by politicians, or should it be dealt with according to the prevailing and residing laws?

Fourthly, Mr Turnbull has been so forceful in condemning the Chinese authorities now, did he mention a word in terms of the US detention of Australian citizens in Guantanamo Bay military prison? Why is he acting so strong and statesman like towards the Chinese and so timid and coward towards the US?

Same person, very different and very interesting behaviours and actions, indeed.

A complex and multiple personalities.

Nothing short of remarkable, astonishing and confounding.

But he is aspiring for the future Australian prime ministership. Good luck to him for his endeavour.