1500274 (Refugee)

[2016] AATA 4065

1500274 (Refugee) [2016] AATA 4065 (7 July 2016)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

CASE NUMBER:  1500274

COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                   China

MEMBER:Gina Towney

DATE:7 July 2016

PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney

DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a Protection visa.

Statement made on 07 July 2016 at 4:25pm

Any references appearing in square brackets indicate that information has been omitted from this decision pursuant to section 431 of the Migration Act 1958 and replaced with generic information which does not allow the identification of an applicant, or their relative or other dependant.

statement of decision and reasons

application for review

1. This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration to refuse to grant the applicant a Protection visa under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).  The applicant, who claims to be a citizen of China, applied for the visa [in] April 2014 and the delegate refused to grant the visa [in] December 2014.

2. Evidence before the Tribunal shows that the applicant made an application for Refugee status [in] September 2002. The claims related to the applicant’s involvement with and practice of the Falun Gong movement.  The applicant claimed that he had been targeted, detained, mistreated, and forced to sign a document that he was not have further involvement with Falun Gong, and on this basis he feared persecution if he returned to China.

3. [In] October 2002 a delegate for the relevant Minister refused to grant the visa, and this decision was affirmed by the Refugee Review Tribunal (differently constituted) on 26 September 2003. [In] December 2002 the applicant applied to the Minister for Ministerial Intervention, but this was declined.

4. In the current application before the Tribunal the applicant recorded that he had operated a successful [products] business which supplied government enterprises in China. The applicant submitted that he was denied payment of goods by government authorities and then had to turn to creditors/loan sharks, who he could not repay. The applicant claimed that if he returned to China both the local government authorities and the creditors would locate him and he would be harmed.

5. The applicant also claimed that he would be forced to live in substandard dwellings because his household registration (Hukou) had been deregistered by the authorities, and he would be denied the right to social and civil benefits.  The applicant also recorded the authorities would be unlikely to protect him.

6. The applicant attended an interview with the Department, and the Tribunal has listened to a copy of the interview recording. In a decision dated [in] December 2014 the department refused to grant the applicant the visa. In making this decision the department found the following (in summary):

   ·During the Protection visa interview (in relation to the claim made [in] April 2014) the applicant stated he did not have any fear in relation to Falun Gong, and/or the claims made [in] September 2002. Asked why he did not pursue his current claims in his original Protection visa application, the applicant said he was advised the claims would not be covered by the refugee category;

   ·The delegate accepted at face value that the applicant’s had difficulties with corrupt local Chinese officials, as country information indicates that this can occur in China.  The delegate also accepted that the applicant may owe money to a loan shark, despite the lack of independent evidence, and that the applicant omitted to raise these claims in his previous Protection visa application;

   ·The delegate found that there was no Conventional nexus for the claims, and therefore they would not be accepted under the Refugees Provisions. The delegate then assess the claims under the Compliment Protection Provisions;

   ·In relation to the applicant’s claims involving corrupt officials, the delegate found that the information before the Department did not indicate that the corrupt official’s influence would extend to prevent the applicant from obtaining protection from an authority.  The delegate also found that, while government corruption is ongoing in China, country information indicates that authorities are taking action against it and there are official channels to turn to for those who are affected by it;

   ·In relation to money allegedly owed, in December 2011 the Supreme People’s Court issued a notice whereby disputes between parties over private lending agreements, where the interest rate was less than four times the bank interest rate, shall be protected by law and may be heard by the District Courts. Also private lending activity that involved organised crime, criminal gains or violence, were to be handled strictly in accordance with the relevant laws and regulations to protect the personal security and property of people;

   ·The delegate also found that the applicant’s legal departure from China indicated that he was not of adverse interest to the Chinese authorities, as country of origin information recorded a citizen exiting lawfully from China provided a strong indication that they were not of adverse interest to the authorities;

   ·In relation to state protection, country of origin information satisfied the delegate that the applicant could obtain protection from the authorities in relation to local corrupt officials and loan sharks, and although it may not be absolute protection, information indicates that the authorities would take reasonable measures to protect the lives and safety of its citizens, and these would meet the level of protection required international standards;

   ·In relation to the applicant’s claims to live with the deregistered hukou, the delegate found a hukou does not expire so there is no need for it to be renewed, and there was no evidence before the department to indicate the hukou had expired or is no longer in effect.  The delegate also found that if the applicant needed to make any changes to his hukou he could do so at the local police station, as it has been found his not of adverse interest to the Chinese authorities.

7. The applicant appealed against this decision to the Tribunal, and provided a copy of the Departmental decision.

8. The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 4 July 2016 to give evidence and present arguments.  The Tribunal hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Mandarin and English languages.  The applicant was represented in relation to the review by his registered migration agent, although the agent did not attend the hearing. The applicant was accompanied by his friend, [Mr A], who remained in the room throughout the hearing.

9. The Tribunal has not recorded a transcript of the hearing, as it outlined issues it considered most relevant to the decision. A recording of the hearing is available.

10. When questioned by the Tribunal, the applicant gave evidence that he his name and date of birth were genuine, and he had never been known by any other name or date of birth. Asked about his personal circumstances, the applicant said he was married and has one adult child, both living in China. The applicant said his spouse applied for and obtained a divorce in December 2015.

11. Asked about his living circumstances in China, the applicant gave evidence that he had always lived in the one address in China, he had never lived anywhere else, this was the address he was born into, and this was where he was formerly registered for his hukou.  The applicant said his parents previously lived at the address, it was acquired by the government and apartments were built, and they were given a premises equivalent to their previous premises at the same address. The applicant also said that his wife had continuously lived there since he left China, and his daughter previously lived there but now rented an apartment. The applicant said his daughter was married with [children].

12. The applicant said his wife worked in China to support herself, and now obtained a pension. The applicant also said he would sometimes make remittance to China, being anywhere between [salary range]AU per month, but could not remember when he last sent money to either his ex-wife or daughter.

13. Asked about his circumstances in Australia, the applicant said he previously worked but had been unable to work since the beginning of 2015 due to restrictions on his visa. Questioned further, the applicant said he currently rented a room for $[amount] per week, and had approximately $[amount] in the bank. Asked how he supported himself, the applicant said he previously had savings and he borrowed money from friends, and that his friend worked in a restaurant and was able to bring food home. The applicant mentioned his license, and when questioned by the Tribunal, said that he had bought a [vehicle] for approximately $10,000 from a previous employer.

14. When the Tribunal raised concerns regarding credibility, as the applicant claimed he had not been employment for approximately 18 months, had $[amount] in the bank, and had to borrow money from friends, but also owned a $10,000 car, the applicant said he had had to buy the car from his previous employer. Asked why he still owned the car, more than a year after his previous paid employment, the applicant said his previous boss said he would not be paid unless he bought the car, and it was not relevant to the current application.

15. Asked about his involvement with Falun Gong, the applicant said he continues to practice Falun Gong every 1 to 2 weeks. Asked where he practised, the applicant said the park with the gate near his house. Asked for further information about the park, the applicant said he could not provide any. Asked when he did his practice, the applicant said it was mostly in the morning. Asked if he practised with anyone, the applicant said he sometimes practised by himself and sometimes with other people. Asked if he knew the other people he practised with, the applicant said yes. Asked who the people were, the applicant said they were Chinese.

16. On two occasions the Tribunal asked the applicant if he would like to demonstrate any Falun Gong movements or exercises during the hearing.  The applicant remained in his chair but imitated holding a ball in his hands. The Tribunal asked the applicant if he would like to show the sequence of Falun Gong exercises. The applicant said he did not understand, and he holds a ball in his hands, and it is good for his health. The Tribunal raised that it was difficult to accept that the applicant was a Falun Gong practitioner or follower, as he had claimed in his application in 2002 and again in 2016, as he appeared to know very little about the sequence of exercises. Asked if he would like to respond, the applicant said he had nothing to say.

17. Asked about his business, and problems with the authorities, the applicant said he operated a restaurant, but it was more like a hotel where people attended conferences. The Tribunal raised this appeared to contradict his earlier submissions, which was that he ran a [products] business. The applicant said there had been a misunderstanding and he ran a [products] business which supplied [products] for a government run restaurant or hotel.

18. Asked which authorities owed him money (which had led to his difficulties) the applicant said it was the local city government and they owed him [amount] RMB.  Questioned further, the applicant said he supplied [products] to the government authority and they stopped paying him in January 2001, and he then stopped the supply in March 2001.  The applicant also said that his life had been threatened by members of the authority, and he then travelled to Australia in 2002. The Tribunal raised that [amount]RMB worth of [products] appeared a lot to supply within a three month period (being from January 2001 until March 2001), the applicant said this was not a big business and it was usual. 

19. Asked why he would have ongoing problems with the government authority if he returned, the applicant said because they did not pay him, and he could not supply them with further [products], and they lost face.  The applicant said he thought the authority would pay him, but they did not and he needed money to continue his business, pay his workers, and keep his other shops opened. The applicant said as a result he had to borrow [the same amount] RMB from a local loan shark.

20. The Tribunal raised that it seemed unlikely the applicant’s problems with the local authorities would continue over the 15 year period that he has been outside China, and it asked the applicant why the local authorities would have any ongoing interest in him. The applicant said because he borrowed money from a loan shark. 

21. The applicant also submitted that the local authorities would be looking for him. The Tribunal raised that, according to the applicant’s earlier evidence, he had always lived in the one residential place in China, he was formally registered at the address, and his wife and daughter continue to reside there after the applicant left China. The Tribunal raised that this indicated the authorities would be able to find the applicant if they had so wished (before he left China). The applicant then said there had been a misunderstanding, and he had not been living at the address since the incident. The Tribunal reminded the applicant that earlier in the hearing he had given very clear evidence that he had only ever lived at the same address in China. The applicant reiterated that there had been a misunderstanding.

22. In relation to the loan shark, the applicant said he borrowed [a smaller amount] RMB. Asked who the loan shark was, the applicant said he was introduced by a friend. Again asked who the loan shark was, the applicant said he was in China. On the third occasion the tribunal asked the applicant who the loan shark was, he said he was introduced by his own friend called [name].  Again asked who the loan shark was, the applicant said the loan shark’s surname was [Mr A].  Questioned further, the applicant said the loan shark belonged to an underground Society and lent money at a high rate. Asked what the interest rate was, the applicant said [rate]%.

23. Asked whether he had had any contact with the loan shark since leaving China, the applicant said he does not dare as the loan shark would kill him. Asked whether he had made any attempts to repay the loan shark, the applicant said he did not have the means to repay him because the amount increased every year. The Tribunal raised that according to the applicant’s evidence he had sent remittance to his family, and asked why he had not passed any of this on to the loan shark. The applicant said he had enough money to make remittance but not to repay the loan shark, and confirmed that he had never made any attempt to repay the loan shark.

24. The Tribunal raised that according to the applicant’s own evidence his wife and, previously, his daughter, continued to reside in the same residential address, and raised that it was unusual the loan shark did not approach them despite the fact the applicant allegedly owed [the amount] RMB. The applicant said he was the one that owed the money, and his daughter now rents her own property. Questioned further, the applicant said the loan shark had attended his wife’s premises but the wife had told him not to come back or she would call the police.

25. The Tribunal raised that the applicant’s evidence indicated that the loan either never existed, or the loan shark is not very keen to recoup his loss, as according to the applicant’s own evidence the loan shark had attended the wife’s premises but did not pursue the money when she threatened to call the police. The tribunal said the applicant’s evidence brought his credibility into question. The applicant responded by saying the Tribunal did not need to raise this question, as he owed the money, and the Legal Division would assist his wife if approached.

26. The Tribunal reiterated that according to the applicant’s own evidence the loan shark would kill him if he returned, he owed the loan shark [amount] RMB (which equated to approximately $[amount] Australian) without adding any interest, yet the loan shark had not pursued this when the wife threatened to call the police. The applicant said he could not describe what happened because he was not there.

27. The tribunal asked the applicant if he left China using a genuine passport via legal channels. The applicant said he did. The Tribunal raised that Country of Origin information indicated that if a person was of interest to the Chinese authorities they would not be able to exit. The applicant said the authorities did not know he was going to leave so he was able to go. The Tribunal raised that the applicant had been issued a passport, which indicated he was interested in leaving the country. The applicant said he applied for his passport from a different government department, and they were separate from the other authority who wanted to find the applicant, and he was not on a broad wanted or warrant list.

28. The Tribunal raised that the applicant had applied for and obtained a new passport from the Chinese authorities whilst in Australia, and this indicated he was not afraid of and did not fear approaching the authorities.  The applicant said he spent $[amount] on an agent to obtain the passport. When the Tribunal repeated that this indicated the applicant did not fear the Chinese authorities, the applicant said the department that issued the passport was not the government authority that he supplied the [products] too, and that his mistakes were not serious enough for a warrant to be issued or for him to be wanted across China.

29. At the conclusion of the hearing the Tribunal raised that it had difficulty accepting the applicant’s evidence as credible, and had raised issues of concern throughout the hearing. Asked if there was anything else he would like to say, the applicant said he had nothing else to add in everything he said was true.

    CONSIDERATION OF Claims and evidence

30. The criteria for a protection visa are set out in s.36 of the Act and Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (the Regulations). An applicant for the visa must meet one of the alternative criteria in s.36(2)(a), (aa), (b), or (c). That is, the applicant is either a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under the ‘refugee’ criterion, or on other ‘complementary protection’ grounds, or is a member of the same family unit as such a person and that person holds a protection visa of the same class.

31. Section 48A imposes a bar on a non-citizen making a further application for a protection visa while in the migration zone in circumstances where the non-citizen has made an application for a protection visa which has been refused. The Full Federal Court in SZGIZ v MIAC (2013) 212 FCR 235 has held at [38] that the operation of s.48A, as it stood at the time of this visa application, is confined to the making of a further application for a protection visa which duplicates an earlier unsuccessful application for a protection visa, in the sense that both applications raise the same essential criterion for the grant of a protection visa. The Federal Court in AMA15 v MIBP [2015] FCA 1424 upheld the Tribunal’s approach of considering only claims in relation to the complementary protection criterion in s.36(2)(aa), where the applicant had previously been refused a visa on the basis of the refugee criterion in s.36(2)(a). In light of these authorities, the Tribunal has considered the applicant’s claims only in relation to s.36(2)(aa).

32. If a person will meet the criteria for the grant of a protection visa if he or she is a non-citizen in Australia in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the Minister has substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the applicant being removed from Australia to a receiving country, there is a real risk that he or she will suffer significant harm: s.36(2)(aa) (‘the complementary protection criterion’).

1. In accordance with Ministerial Direction No.56, made under s.499 of the Act, the Tribunal is required to take account of policy guidelines prepared by the Department of Immigration –PAM3 Refugee and humanitarian - Complementary Protection Guidelines and PAM3 Refugee and humanitarian - Refugee Law Guidelines – and any country information assessment prepared by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade expressly for protection status determination purposes, to the extent that they are relevant to the decision under consideration.

2. The issue in this case is whether or not the applicant is owed protection by the Australian authorities. For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the decision under review should be affirmed.  The Tribunal finds the applicant has not established any of his claims.  The reasons for this decision are outlined below.

3. In relation to the applicant’s claims to follow Falun Gong, and to fear persecution on this basis, the Tribunal finds the claims have not been established. This finding is based on the applicant’s lack of credible knowledge of Falun Gong.  That is, the applicant claimed that he had been a Falun Gong follower since before he entered Australia in 2002, and that he continued to practice Falun Gong every week or fortnight in a local park.  That is, the applicant claims he has been practising Falun Gong for at least 13 years. The applicant also claimed that he was arrested, detained, and beaten in China on the basis of being a Falun Gong practitioner, and that he feared returning to China on this basis. 

4. Despite this, the applicant could not give a demonstration of the Falun Gong exercises, (these are copied at the back of the decision record).  The Tribunal finds even a basic demonstration of the Falun Gong exercises would be considered reasonable for an applicant who claimed to have such long term and detailed involvement with the movement.  In addition, despite claiming he practised at the local park near where he now lived, the applicant could only give very general evidence, in that he could not name the park or any of the local Falun Gong practitioners.

5. In relation to the applicant’s claims regarding issues that he previously owning a business that supplied local authorities, the failure of the local authorities to pay him, and problems that resulted from this, the Tribunal again finds the applicant’s claims have not been established.  These findings are based on the applicant’s contradictory and somewhat incoherent evidence, as although the applicant gave broad evidence that the members of local authorities had threatened him, he failed to provide any specific evidence such as what the who actually threatened him and/or when it occurred.

6. Against the applicant’s claims, the applicant gave evidence that he had always been known by the same name and date of birth, he had always resided in the same address whilst in China, the address was where his hukou was listed, and his wife (and initially his child) had continued to reside at the same address when the applicant left China. Also, the applicant had been issued a genuine passport and exited China via legal channels, and then been reissued with a passport by the Chinese authorities whilst in Australia. The combination of this evidence indicates to the Tribunal that the applicant was not, is not, and will not be of interest to the Chinese authorities upon return, either locally or more broadly.

7. In relation to country of origin information regarding people exiting China, the tribunal relied on contemporaneous evidence from the time of the applicant’s exit, being CHN13262 of 8 December 1998, which provided information on the then current procedures regarding passports and exit permits for the PRC; and information provided in May 1993 by the then-Australian Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (DIEA) outlined the procedure for the issuance of exit permits for non-government sponsored students, private and joint venture employees, and private travellers. (DIEA 1993, Exit Permit Issuing Procedures, 12 May (CISNET - CX11912)). 

8. The Tribunal also referred to two later sources which then quote other reputable sources.  These are Tribunal documents titled ‘China – CHN37292 – Court of People’s Prosecution – Record of Convictions – Departure – Criminal Offences’ and dated 17 September 2010, and ‘China – CHN35881 – Local Church – Fujian’ and dated 10 January 2010. 

9. The Tribunal has taken into account the applicant’s evidence that he only had problems with the local government authority, and that he had not done enough to be on a general alert or warrant list, however, in light of the applicant’s overall evidence and the lack of detail in the applicant’s claims, the Tribunal does not find this evidence to be credible.

10. In relation to the applicant’s claims to owe money to a loan shark, the Tribunal again finds these claims have not been established. This is based on the lack of coherent and feasible evidence.  That is, the applicant claimed that he had never made repayments to the loan shark, that the loan shark would kill him or harm him upon return, and that he continued to owe money plus interest.  Despite this, the applicant was only able to name the loan shark after being asked to do so on several occasions; and gave evidence that the loan shark had attended his previous address (where his wife, and previously his child, resided) but had left when the wife threatened to call the police.  The Tribunal does not accept this evidence on face value.

11. The Tribunal also considered the applicant’s claims that his hukou had been deregistered, and that he would have difficulties in China if he returned, and that he would be forced to live in sub-standard dwellings and denied the right to social and civil benefits, but again finds this claim has not been established. This is based on the lack of credible evidence provided by the applicant in the issues above, and findings by the delegate that a hukou does not expire and there is no need for it to be renewed.

12. As the tribunal could not reconsider the applicant’s claims under the refugee criterion in s.36(2)(a), the Tribunal has considered the alternative criterion in s.36(2)(aa). However after considering all of the evidence before it the Tribunal finds there are not substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the applicant being removed from Australia to China, there is a real risk that he will suffer significant harm.  Therefore the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s.36(2)(aa).

13. There is no suggestion that the applicant satisfies s.36(2) on the basis of being a member of the same family unit as a person who satisfies s.36(2)(a) or (aa) and who holds a protection visa. Accordingly, the applicant does not satisfy the criterion in s.36(2).

    decision

14. The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a Protection visa.

    Gina Towney

    
    

    Member

    The Five Sets of Exercises (The Falun Gong)

    The Falun Gong, which translates as ‘Wheel of Law Practice’, refers to the five sets of exercises held to be the defining practice of Falun Dafa.[1] Some sources refer to the Falun Gong as four exercises and a meditation. Master Li, however, refers to all five elements of Falun Gong as ‘exercises’ in his book Falun Gong, noting that the fifth set of exercises has a meditation component.[2] The five sets of exercises are in turn broken down into specific physical movements, which are detailed in Master Li’s book, Falun Gong.[3] According to Master Li, these sets of exercises form the physical component of Falun Dafa’s ‘mind-body cultivation system’.[4] The importance of the exercises is underscored by Master Li, who notes that they are required to increase a persons’ gong (cultivation energy).[5] Each set of exercises has its own verse that must be recited once, in Chinese, before they are performed.[6] In 2001, Dr. Penny (a Research Fellow at the Australian National University)[7] advised that many practitioners do not recite the verses as they ‘generally’ listen to a recorded version.[8]

    [1] UK Home Office 2002, Revolution of the Wheel – The Falun Gong in China and in Exile < > Accessed 10 December 2002; Falun Dafa Information Centre 2008, Falun Gong: The Practice, 17 May < Accessed 14 November 2011

    [2] Hongzhi, L. 2001, Falun Gong, Translation of Chapter 1,2 and 3 (Updated in April 2001), pp. 74-86 < Accessed 15 June 2005

    [3] Hongzhi, L. 2001, Falun Gong, Translation of Chapter 1,2 and 3 (Updated in April 2001), pp. 52-86 < > Accessed 15 June 2005

    [4] Hongzhi, L. 2001, Falun Gong, Translation of Chapter 1,2 and 3 (Updated in April 2001), p. 47 < > Accessed 15 June 2005

    [5] Hongzhi, L. 2001, Falun Gong, Translation of Chapter 1,2 and 3 (Updated in April 2001), p. 47 < Accessed 15 June 2005

    [6]Hongzhi, L. 2001, Falun Gong, Translation of Chapter 1,2 and 3 (Updated in April 2001), p. 52-73 < > Accessed 15 June 2005

    [7] Dr. Benjamin Penny is a Research Fellow at the School of Culture, History and Language within the College of Asia and the Pacific at the Australian National University. Dr. Penny’s research interests include Falun Dafa and he has provided several presentations to the tribunals on the topic.

    [8] Penny, B. 2001, ‘The Past, Present and Future of Falun Gong – A Lecture at the National Library of Australia, Canberra’,< Accessed 27 October 2008\

    In Falun Gong, Master Li describes the five sets of exercises as:

    1. Buddha Showing a Thousand Hands (Fozhan Qianshou Fa)

    2. The Falun Standing Stance (Falun Zhuangfa)

    3. Penetrating the Two Cosmic Extremes (Guantong Liangji Fa)

    4. Falun Heavenly Circulation (Falun Zhoutian Fa)

    5. Way of Strengthening Divine Powers (Shentong Jiachi)[9]

    [9] Hongzhi, L. 2001, Falun Gong, Translation of Chapter 1,2 and 3 (Updated in April 2001), pp. 52-73 < > Accessed 15 June 2005

    It is noted, however, that some Falun Dafa organisations describe the five sets of exercises using different names.[10] In a submission to the tribunals in 2006, the Falun Dafa Association of NSW indicated that one reason for such discrepancies is that not all practitioners read Master Li’s Falun Gong book which explains the sets of exercises.[11] Master Li’s Falun Gong provides images of the physical movements required to perform each set of exercises.[12] This paper will use one image to represent each set of exercises.

    [10] For examples of variations on how the exercises are interpreted, please see: Falun Dafa Organisation (undated), Exercises, < Accessed 14 November 2011  Clear Wisdom 2011, Audio Materials: Falun Dafa Exercise Music, 13 November < Accessed 14 November 2011

    [11] Falun Dafa Association of NSW 2006, Submission from Falun Dafa Association of NSW Inc – Response to Questions from Refugee Review Tribunal Members, 22 June, p. 5

    [12] Hongzhi, L. 2001, Falun Gong, Translation of Chapter 1,2 and 3 (Updated in April 2001), pp. 52-73 < Accessed 15 June 2005

    First Set of Exercises - Buddha Showing a Thousand Hands (Fozhan Qianshou Fa)

    According to Master Li’s book, Falun Gong, this set of exercises is the most basic of the Falun Gong and is usually done first. It is one of the methods to strengthen cultivation.[13] Falun Dafa Australia defines cultivation as the practice of improving ‘one’s heart and mind’ through the study of Truthfulness, Benevolence and Forbearance.[14]

    [13] Hongzhi, L. 2001, Falun Gong, Translation of Chapter 1,2 and 3 (Updated in April 2001), p. 52 < > Accessed 15 June 2005

    [14] Falun Dafa Australia (undated), Introduction, < Accessed 14 November 2011

    Figure 1: Buddha Showing a Thousand Hands (Fozhan Qianshou Fa)[15]

    [15] Falun Dafa Organisation (undated), Exercises,< Accessed 14 November 2011

    Second Set of Exercises – The Falun Standing Stance (Falun Zhuangfa)

    Master Li describes this set of exercises as ‘a tranquil standing exercise composed of four wheel-holding positions’.[16] The duration of each movement differs from person to person: the longer, the better.[17]

    [16] Hongzhi, L. 2001, Falun Gong, Translation of Chapter 1,2 and 3 (Updated in April 2001), p. 58 < > Accessed 15 June 2005

    [17] Hongzhi, L. 2001, Falun Gong, Translation of Chapter 1,2 and 3 (Updated in April 2001), p. 58 < > Accessed 15 June 2005

    Figure 2: The Falun standing stance (Falun Zhuangfa)[18]

    [18] Falun Dafa Organisation (undated), Exercises, < Accessed 14 November 2011

    Third Set of Exercises – Penetrating the Two Cosmic Extremes (Guantong Liangji Fa)

    This set of exercises is designed to ‘channel the cosmos energy and mixes it with the energy inside one’s body’, with the purpose of enabling a practitioner to ‘purify’ their body in a very short time.[19]

    [19] Hongzhi, L. 2001, Falun Gong, Translation of Chapter 1,2 and 3 (Updated in April 2001), p. 61 < > Accessed 15 June 2005

    Figure 3: Penetrating the Two Cosmic Extremes (Guantong Liangji Fa)[20]

    [20] Falun Dafa Organisation (undated), Exercises,< > Accessed 14 November 2011 

    Fourth Set of Exercises – Falun Heavenly Circulation (Falun Zhoutian Fa)

    Master Li describes these exercises as an ‘intermediate-level’ cultivation method.[21] Master Li does not define in Falun Gong or Zhuan Falun what is meant by an ‘intermediate-level cultivation method’ and whether beginners can perform such an exercise. This set of exercises is intended to enable the body’s energy to circulate over large areas: energy circulates from the Yin side of the body to the Yang side[22] repeatedly. According to Master Li, the movements in this exercise set must be repeated nine times, however, once practitioners reach a ‘certain level’, they no longer need to count the number of times they perform the exercises.[23]

    [21] Hongzhi, L. 2001, Falun Gong, Translation of Chapter 1,2 and 3 (Updated in April 2001), p. 65 < Accessed 15 June 2005

    [22] Master Li describes Ying and Yang as both the front of the body and the back of the body, and as the body’s interior and exterior. Please see: Hongzhi, L. 2001, Falun Gong, Translation of Chapter 1,2 and 3 (Updated in April 2001), p. 82 & p. 93 < > Accessed 15 June 2005

    [23] Hongzhi, L. 2001, Falun Gong, Translation of Chapter 1,2 and 3 (Updated in April 2001), p. 83 < > Accessed 15 June 2005

    Figure 4: Falun Heavenly Circulation (Falun Zhoutian Fa)[24]

    [24] Falun Dafa Organisation (undated), Exercises,< > Accessed 14 November 2011

    Fifth Set of Exercises – Way of Strengthening Divine Powers (Shentong Jiachi)

    Some Falun Dafa organisations refer to this element of the Falun Gong as the meditation component.[25] In Falun Gong, Master Li refers to it as both an exercise and a meditation and notes that it is a ‘high-level cultivation practice’.[26] Practitioners are required to sit with both legs crossed: the full lotus position is preferred though the half-lotus position or a cross-legged position is also acceptable.[27] This set of exercises focuses primarily on meditation: practitioners are said to gradually enter into the state of ding (deep tranquillity).[28]

    [25] Falun Dafa Information Centre 2008, Overview of Falun Gong, 30 April, < > Accessed 14 November 2011;

    [26] Hongzhi, L. 2001, Falun Gong, Translation of Chapter 1,2 and 3 (Updated in April 2001), p. 84 < Accessed 15 June 2005

    [27] Burgdoff, C.A. 2003, ‘How Falun Gong Practice Undermines Li Hongzhi’s Totalistic Rhetoric’, Novo Religio: The Journal of Alternative  and Emergent Religions, Vol. 6, No. 2, April, p. 336 < > Accessed 15 November 2005

    [28] Hongzhi, L. 2001, Falun Gong, Translation of Chapter 1,2 and 3 (Updated in April 2001), p. 69 & p. 84 < > Accessed 15 June 2005

    Figure 5: Way of Strengthening Divine Powers (Shentong Jiachi)[29]

    [29] Falun Dafa Organisation (undated), Exercises,< Accessed 14 November 2011

    Practicing the Sets of Exercises (The Falun Gong)

    ‘Adequate’ Knowledge and Performance of the Exercises

    Practitioners should have a minimum level of knowledge about the five sets of exercises. In 2006, Dr. Penny advised that all practitioners should know of the five sets of exercises and should be able to perform them confidently, allowing for physical disability, age and clumsiness. Practitioners, however, may not be able to give the names of each set of exercises or Master Li’s rationale for performing them.[30]  Notwithstanding this, in a submission to the tribunals in 2006, the Falun Dafa Association of NSW indicated that a person’s ability to correctly perform the sets of exercises is not a reliable indicator of whether they are a Falun Dafa practitioner, giving the example of several long term practitioners in NSW who, despite being well known, diligent and experienced, cannot perform some of the exercises properly.[31] Similarly, during a member seminar held at the tribunals in 2006, Jane Sun, a member of the Falun Dafa Association of NSW, indicated that practitioners differ in their expressions and understandings of the sets of exercises.[32]

    [30] Penny, B. 2006, ‘Falun Gong Seminar Melbourne’, 26 July, pp. 20-21  

    [31] Falun Dafa Association of NSW 2006, Submission from Falun Dafa Association of NSW Inc – Response to Questions from Refugee Review Tribunal Members, 22 June, pp. 2-3

    [32] Zeng, J., Deller, J. & Sun, J. 2006, ‘Transcript of RRT Members Seminar “Falun Gong: A Practitioner Perspective: Held at Sydney RRT/MRT on 22 June 2006’, 22 June, p. 16

    Where to Practice

    In his book, Falun Buddha Law (Essentials for Further Advances), Master Li encourages Falun Dafa practitioners to practice their exercises in groups, stating ‘I ask you to go to the park and practice the exercises together.’[33] In the same book, Master Li discourages hiding the practice of Falun Dafa. Further, in Zhuan Falun, Master Li indicates that social contact is essential for the practice of Falun Dafa, noting that it should be practiced among everyday people rather than in isolation.[34] Although Master Li advocates practicing in public, this is not possible in China. Since the crackdown on Falun Dafa in 1999 (see Section 4) practitioners in China have been prohibited from practicing the sets of exercises in public or meeting publicly. Outside of China, practitioners are not subject to such restrictions and may choose to practice in public groups or alone at home.[35]

    [33] Li Hongzhi, Falun Buddha Law (Essentials for Further Advances), Falun Fo Fa Publishing Co, Hong Kong, 1998, p.122. A copy is available upon request from the library.

    [34] Hongzhi, L. 1998, Zhuan Falun, English Version, Internet Version, Third Translation Edition (Updated March 2000), The Universe Publishing Company, New York, p. 182 < > Accessed 29 January 2011

    [35] Falun Dafa Association of NSW 2006, Submission from Falun Dafa Association of NSW Inc – Response to Questions from Refugee Review Tribunal Members, 22 June, p. 3. Also see: Wen, Q. 2000, Email to RRT Country Research Section ‘Re: Falun Gong’, 12 January ; Clear Wisdom (undated), Falun Dafa – What is it & Why Chinese Government Outlaw it?, < Accessed 14 November 2011

    
    

Falun Dafa Australia (undated), Introduction,< > Accessed 14 November 2011