The suspended death sentence handed to Australian-Chinese pro-democracy writer Yang Hengjun, announced yesterday, comes amid so far successful attempts to stabilise the relationship between Canberra and Beijing. But it once more demonstrates who has the upper hand in such matters: China.
Yang’s sentence was delivered after eight stalled attempts following a secret trial in May 2021. This in itself — and the five-year wait for a sentence — has illustrated the opacity of the Chinese justice system. Yet the response from Foreign Affairs Minister Penny Wong has also indicated the hypocrisy — or at the very least the fatal lack of self-awareness — of the Australian government.
Wong described the sentence as “appalling” and “harrowing”, saying the government would be communicating its response to Beijing in “the strongest terms”.
“We have consistently called for basic standards of justice, procedural fairness and humane treatment for Dr Yang, in accordance with international norms and China’s legal obligations.”
Chinese ambassador to Australia Xiao Qian has been summoned by the Department of Foreign Affairs chief Jan Adams, a former ambassador to Beijing. Of course Xiao, not known for being shy, may well hold up the mirror and question Australia’s own treatment of its citizens, if it is so concerned with the rule of law and justice.
Though their circumstances are far less severe than Yang Hengjun’s, Xiao might mention whistleblowers David McBride, who was left with no choice other than to plead guilty to leaking classified information to the media, and Richard Boyle, who awaits trial. He may also mention journalist Julian Assange, ailing in Belmarsh Prison in London, with efforts to stop his extradition appear to be too little, too late. There is also former pilot Daniel Duggan, who has been locked up in solitary confinement for 15 months at the behest of the US over accusations of providing military training to Chinese pilots.
None of this will help Yang, and the Albanese government must continue to press for his transfer to Australia to complete his sentence under our treaty with China. Dr Yang (whose legal name is Yang Jun) also has significant health issues that are not being treated, his family said in a letter to the prime minister last year ahead of his Beijing visit. Appeals are available, but they are rarely successful in the PRC, with Yang’s friends and family fearing he will now die in prison.
Such a fate for Yang has seemed likely ever since Chinese security forces arrested him on unspecified spying charges in Guangzhou in 2019. Yang had been living in New York, and at the time of his arrest was with his wife and two children, who only had Chinese passports, on a reported visa run. Yang previously worked for China’s Ministry for State Security — known locally as the secret police — before leaving the country to take up journalism and write spy novels, often in critique of the Chinese government. He lived first in Australia and then the US and was a self-described “democracy peddler”.
Yang’s background and largely undefined charges are starkly different to Australian-Chinese journalist Cheng Lei, who China released last October after she spent nearly three years in prison. Cheng had worked at Chinese state-owned network CGTN when she was accused in August 2020 of “supplying state secrets overseas”, an allegation she rejected.
UTS Sydney professor Chongyi Feng, who supervised Yang’s PhD, explained: “In the eyes of the Chinese authorities, Cheng Lei is not a dissident, Yang Hengjun is a political dissident and opinion leader. So, they have more reasons to keep Yang in prison.”
Regardless of the passport Yang used to enter China, the PRC continues to treat anyone born in the country as a Chinese citizen. We have seen this frequently in the past 15 years with the trial and incarceration of several Chinese-born Australian businesspeople including former Rio Tinto executive Stern Hu, travel entrepreneur Matthew Ng, businesswoman Charlotte Chou and doctor-turned-businessman Du Zuying.
Beyond its continued pressure on China, it’s unclear what more Canberra can do to assist in the release of Yang.
Speaking more broadly about the China-Australia relationship, Wong said in her press conference: “I have said stabilisation means we cooperate where we can, disagree where we must, and we engage in the national interest. I would make the point this is the decision within China’s legal system. Clearly this is an occasion on which we disagree.”
China remains angry with Australia for the AUKUS and the Quad alliance designed to contain it. Yang’s case shows that Canberra cannot have its cake and eat it with the Middle Kingdom. But neither, at least for now, can Beijing.
Should the Australian government be doing more to push for Yang Hengjun’s release, or is it more important that we maintain our relationship with China? Let us know your thoughts by writing to letters@crikey.com.au. Please include your full name to be considered for publication. We reserve the right to edit for length and clarity.
