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.

Is Australia any better internationally?

Comments on Matthew Stevens “Grumpy dragon rears its head”, 14/07/2009, http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25778651-5013894,00.html

The US has been a model of democracy and freedom in West countries. What happened under the US system?

The US, against the opinions of the international community represented by the UN, initiated and led the pre-emptive invasion of Iraq with the pretence of WMD which has been proven to be false, if not fabricated by the West. The US locked up hundreds people, the so called terrorist suspects, in the Guantanamo Bay prison camp for a long period without charges against many of them and some are still be detained there now. The US has used tortures in the last few years. Do those accord with acceptable international rules?

Australia has been proud of its alliance with the US and has been a member of the coalition of the willing in invading Iraq. So who are responsible for the so many lives of the innocent Iraqis who were killed by the invasion forces including Australian troops? And those who have been killed in US subsquent air strikes? Were those an acceptable international rule?

Aren’t we hypocritical in accusing or intimidating the Chinese when at this stage they are using their law? China has prosecuted many of its own citizens using the same law for bribery. Why should it be treated differently if an Australian businessman breaches that law inside China?

Let’s not be hypocritical. Let’s not be advocating Australians should be above the Chinese law. Let’s respect others, if we want to be respected by them.

No one should be hypocritical Australians included

Comments on ABC news report "Rudd won't rule out Rio intervention", 10/07/2009, http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/07/10/2622168.htm?section=justin and some of the comments related to that report.

I just wrote some comments and sent them to the ABC.

I copied my comments but lost them in the process. I will try to find them if the ABC publish them.

Mr Turnbull is rushing again - this time on the detention of Mr Hu and on international affairs

Comments on the news report “China accuses Rio Tinto's Hu of bribery during iron ore negotiations”, 10/07/2009, http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/Hu-accused-of-bribery-during-negotiation-TT7D5?OpenDocument

Mr Turnbull is acting irresponsibly now. He says “Mr Hu deserves to be protected, he deserves the protection and the intervention of the Australian prime minister.” What if Mr Hu really violated Chinese laws? If that is the case, why should he deserve protection and protection of Australian prime minister? Isn’t it a ridiculer argument? What nonsense is that?

You say that “It is completely unacceptable”. What is acceptable to you? Do you want China not to prosecute any person who breaches its laws? Do you also want that to be applied in Australia?

Mr Turnbull says “He (Mr Hu) was arrested by the Chinese secret police, taken to an unknown location, and is being held there without access to his family, his employers, to a lawyer or to consular officials ... an extraordinary denial of human rights”. Mr Hu was arrested in China presumably according to Chinese laws. There are agreements between Australia and China on reporting of detetion of each other’s citizen and the time within which consular access must be given, as the Australian foreign minister has said. So far it has not been reported that China has breached those agreements. So why was the matter an extraordinary denial of human rights, Mr Turnbull? Doesn’t it show you violate the rights of others by wrongfully accusing China, by asking for special favour for an accused person without knowing if those accusations are correct or not? Isn’t this another of your acting in a rushed, emotional and unchecked and unbalanced manner as you did in accusing Rudd misleading the parliament for that you have been burnt severely?

As the opposition leader of this country, you should act responsibly and reasonably. Political opportunistic actions are unlikely to earn you the respect you seek. If you continue act like this, your position as the opposition leader is unlikely to last long. You shouldn’t be hypocritical in talking about human rights by denying the rights of a nation!

Don't bully, Mr Sheridan

Comments on Greg Sheridan “Big risk in nasty business”, 10/07/2009, http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25759154-5013460,00.html

Mr Sheridan, do you believe in the rule of laws at all? What evidence do you have that the arrest does have no basis and is what you said is “Cold War rhetoric and indeed Cold War impulses”? Shouldn’t you at least allow the event to play out and show that the arrest was not done according to the rule of laws?

You are spreading the fear that this arrest will do lasting harm to China's interests, not only in Australia, but throughout the Western world. From your attitude, why do or should you need to worry whether China’s interest is to be harmed or not? It that your business?

It is true that Rio is a large mining company. But does that mean that if any of its employees has done something unlawful they should not be dealt with by the law? What logic is yours on this?

You say that “there is an air of contempt in the way the Chinese authorities have failed to respond to Australian government requests for information and for consular access to MrHu until today”. Did the Chinese violate any agreement with Australian on this?

I don’t know what Mr Hu has done in terms of the Chinese accusations (for that matter you are unlikely to know either), but they did say something about it. Given the matter should be dealt with properly according to the law, why should the Rudd government secure Mr Hu's release within a few days? Would that be an act in the spirit of the rule of laws?

Don’t you need to reflect on what your bully tactics to other nations you don’t like?