|
Navigation: Previous Page | Contents | Next Page
Chapter 5 - Mr Chen's claims and support for them
Mr Chen's claims
5.1
On 26 May 2005, Mr Chen left two letters at the DIMIA
security desk outlining the reasons for his request for political asylum and
detailing his claims. A summary of the claims is as follows:
- In his role as Consul for political affairs, Mr
Chen has been in charge of implementing the PRC Central Government policy in
relation to the Five Poisonous Groups (Falun Gong, pro-democracy movement
activists, pro-Taiwan independence force, pro-Tibet separation force and
Eastern Turkistan force). In particular, he has been required to persecute
Falun Gong practitioners overseas;
- While in Australia, Mr Chen has assisted Falun
Gong practitioners to avoid persecution in China;
- He is fearful that these activities undertaken
over the last 4 years and 1 month will be discovered by his successor at the
PRC Consulate-General in Sydney;
- Mr Chen has assisted Falun Gong practitioners to
avoid persecution because the PRC Central Government's policy is against his
conscience and will. Mr Chen believes that Falun Gong is a vulnerable, innocent
social group in need of help, not persecution;
- Mr Chen is distressed that he has been working
for an authority which has unjustifiably placed Falun Gong practitioners in
labour camps, jails, forced re-education courses and put un-cooperative
practitioners to death; and
- Mr Chen fears that should he return to China, he
may continue to be asked to assist in the persecution of Falun Gong. He could
not do this, even under pain of death.[268]
Persecution in China
5.2
According to the Falun Dafa information centre, 'Falun
Gong (or Falun Dafa) is an ancient form of qigong, the practice of refining the
body and mind through special exercises and meditation. Since being introduced
to the general public in 1992 by Mr Li, Falun Gong has attracted tens of
millions of people in over 60 countries'.[269]
This issue is surrounded by intrigue and claim and counterclaim. The Committee
did not examine “Falun Gong” in any thorough sense and heard evidence on the
periphery of a term of reference directed to Mr Chen. The minority senators
consider it inappropriate to reach any conclusions or to offer any opinion on
this subject without a considerable body of evidence being examined.
5.3
The Chinese government does not see the Falun Gong in
the same light that its practitioners portray. It has made clear it regards the
Falun Gong as an evil and intemperate cult.
Our struggle against Falun Gong is protracted, acute and
complicated.[270]
5.4
In 2002, the Chinese Foreign Minister indicated that in
the government's view 'there has been a tendency within the Falun Gong that
merits our attention and alert, that is it's turning increasingly violent'. The
Chinese government has taken measures to deal with Falun Gong but it states
only legal means have been used.[271]
Although the government has said any measures they are taking are lawful, Falun
Gong practitioners do not accept this view.
5.5
The minority reiterates that this is a matter largely
relevant to a foreign government and therefore inappropriate for comment in the
circumstances of this term of reference without considerable further evidence
and investigation.
Spying in Australia
Mr Chen also sought to support his application for asylum
with allegations of an extensive spy[272]
and information gathering and monitoring network in Australia:
I got the number of 1,000 secret agents and informants from a
document and I know that there are two systems operating in the Chinese
missions overseas in some important cities like Canberra and Sydney. One is the
diplomatic system; the other is the information collection system reporting to
the intelligence service of China. When I was working in the Chinese consulate
in Sydney, I often accessed reports from Beijing, China, about some activities
of dissidents that even we in Sydney did not know about. These were from
certain intelligence services that indicated that they were very active in
Australia, especially when there was a very senior official or leader visiting
Australia including Chairman Li Peng in the year 2002, President Hu Jintao in
the year 2003 and, this year, Chiarman Wu Bangguo. They gave all these
information alerts. That made it very clear to me that there must be a network
operating in Australia.[273]
5.6
Mr Chen repeated these allegations when invited to
speak to a US House of Representatives Human Rights Committee:
According to my knowledge, the persecution on the Falun Gong by
the Chinese Communist Party is a systematic campaign. All the authorities
especially of public security, state security and Foreign Affairs are involved
in the persecution...In each Chinese mission overseas, there must be at least one
official in charge of the Falun Gong affairs, and the head and the deputy head
of the mission will be responsible for the Falun Gong affairs. I am aware there
are over 1000 Chinese secret agents and informants in Australia, who have
played a role in persecuting the Falun Gong...[274]
5.7
These claims were supported indirectly by other
witnesses although, save for Mr Chen,
there was virtually no direct evidence of such matters.
Government response to allegations
5.8
Mr Downer has quite properly and reasonably refused to
comment on the spy network claims saying that 'it is a time-worn tradition of
Australian governments over many years not to get into any discussion about
that aspect of intelligence matters'.[275]
5.9
ASIO advised that 'Mr Chen has made allegations in the
media that the PRC government has been engaged in foreign interference and
espionage in Australia. These allegations are being looked at closely and the
Government has given Mr Chen the opportunity to bring forward any information
he wishes'.[276]
Harassment of Australian citizens
5.10
Mr Chen's allegations went beyond spying activities to
the harassment and intimidation of Australian citizens.
Kidnapping allegations
5.11
Mr Chen alleged that people have been kidnapped from
Australia and cited a particular case of Lan Meng. According to the press, Lan
Meng was kidnapped by Chinese agents which forced his father Lan Fu to return
to China.[277] This case was referred to the AFP
for investigation on 9 June 2005 and they were asked to conduct inquiries to
establish whether any criminal offences occurred in Australia regarding the
allegations of abduction.[278]
5.12
Ms Russ, Manager Economic and Special Operations,
Australian Federal Police, informed the committee that the person who was
alleged to have been abducted, Lan Meng, was located and interviewed. Following
the completion of inquiries, the AFP concluded that there was no substance to
the allegations.[279][12]
Notwithstanding that, Ms Russ confirmed that Lan Meng's statement could not be
released to the committee because it contained important and sensitive
information obtained during the interview.[280]
This would tend to suggest that Lan Meng was forthright and fearless in “naming
names” and tends to refute any suggestion that he was intimidated or fearful
and therefore was unlikely to substantiate the kidnapping allegation. The clear
and salient point in this substantial allegation is that it was investigated
thoroughly by the AFP and found to be baseless.
5.13
Nothwithstanding, when Mr Chen was told of the AFP
findings, he expressed surprise and questioned whether they had checked all the
details. He thought that Chinese secret agents may have threatened Lan Meng. Mr
Chen told the committee that Lan Meng's father is still in prison in China
serving a life sentence.[281]
Other issues raised with the committee
Treatment of Chinese nationals
applying for protection
5.14
The minority is however concerned about a number of
cases of Chinese applying for protection visas who experienced some delay
before being granted the visa. For example, Mr Hao Fengjun, who arrived in
Australia and applied for a protection visa in February 2005, was not contacted
by any government agencies until he went public on 7 June 2005.[282] Professor Yuan Hongbing, a well
recognised participant in the pro-democracy movement, had to wait 12 months to
get a protection visa.[283]
Notwithstanding, there is no evidence of them being declared unlawful
non-citizens and this provides some comfort that whilst delayed, the cases are
nevertheless being dealt with sensitively.
Questioning of Chinese nationals by
Chinese officials
5.15
Mr Deller,
brought to the committee allegations that a number of Chinese nationals had
been questioned by Chinese officials at Sydney's
Villawood detention centre in June 2005. He raised the issue that the Migration
Act or Refugee convention may have been breached by these actions. Mr Deller
told the committee that they have raised the issue with the Minister for
Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs on 31 May 2005 but have
not yet received a reply.
5.16
In response, Mr Hughes, DIMIA, informed the committee:
There was a group of people at Villawood detention Centre many
of whom, I am not sure if it was all, had been through visa processes and found
not to be owed protection by Australia, so therefore the process was completed.
However, they either did not have travel documents that were available to the
department or were not cooperating with their removal. So in order to obtain
travel documents for them, the removals area of the department has to liaise
with the government of their home country about the issuing of travel documents
so that the people can travel home. In some circumstances, the government of
that country, as in this case, wants to actually be certain that the people are
nationals of that country before issuing travel documents and so that is what
that particular process was about. Otherwise, the people concerned would be
potentially faced with very long-term detention. Having completed their visa
possibilities and not got visas, if arrangements were not made to get them
travel documents, they would face prolonged detention.[284]
I am advised that we do not give any information about the
nature of any application to remain in Australia. We provide the source country
with very limited biodata that may help them identify whether or not the person
is a national of that country...We have a name and date of birth and some other
basic details...but we tell them nothing about any applications that person may
have made to stay in Australia or the content of those applications.[285]
5.17
Responding to a question regarding whether people who
had applied for asylum were interviewed by Chinese officials, Hughes further
stated:
I think the statement in the press at the time was that no-one
who had not completed the asylum process was interviewed. That turned out to be
wrong or partly wrong in one case, where I believe a person was subsequently
found to have been finally determined in terms of a departmental and RRT
decision but was still in litigation of some form, and the minister intervened
to allow that person to stay.[286]
5.18
In additional information provided by DIMIA to the
committee on 16 August 2005, Mr Hughes sought to clarify his answer and advised
'the interviews were conducted by three officials from relevant provincial
areas in the PRC. The role of the officials was to assist the PRC Embassy in
Australia in verifying the nationality and identity of those persons in
Villawood Immigration Detention Centre who may be from the PRC and who are to
be repatriated'.[287]
Conclusion
5.19
Minority senators acknowledge that these issues are of
considerable sensitivity but also note that the allegations are broadly within
a particular context. The context is one of a political asylum applicant
seeking to advance his application “beyond the point of no return” so to speak.
It is clear to the minority that at all times Mr Chen understood the need to
render his position so prejudiced as to preclude his repatriation to his former
country. It is the fact that he has been successful in that regard, save for
the technicality of him being afforded a grant of asylum.
SENATOR
DAVID JOHNSTON
DEPUTY CHAIRMAN
Navigation: Previous Page | Contents | Next Page
|
