Good job with your shrewd skepticism in support of the narrative!
Daily Telegraph also in on the Chinese conspiracy: https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/nsw/60-minutes-chinese-spy-liqiang-wang-refused-asylum-in-australia/news-story/d9ee85e40bb4e452088221a09a2e4dfd
Also the judges in Australia behind the news story. Conspiracy goes all the way down.
I thought this story seemed awfully familiar but was like wait didn't that so-called Chinese spy turn out to be a total fraud?
Turns out that was the last breathless story about a Chinese spy detector from this outlet: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-11-23/chinese-spy-wang-liqiang-seeks-political-asylum-australia-report/11732174
Turned out to be a fraud but I guess they found a new one to present without questioning or contextualizing with last time: https://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy/article/3206318/chinese-spy-who-claimed-he-undermined-hong-kong-protest-movement-facing-deportation-australia-over
I used to do this. I thought it was awesome but I was literally the only person I ever knew who did this. It was not a popular thing to do.
I didn't link Wikipedia because people like you tend to jump on links to Wikipedia with big brain takes about how the article is probably controlled by whoever their boogeyman is.
Both the articles I linked, SCMP which you dismissed because it has China in its name and Daily Telegraph are from the Wikipedia article references if you care to look.
There is nothing to be skeptical about in terms of my sources. There is at this point no credible evidence he was the high level Chinese defecting spy he was presented as initially (just like they're presenting this one). At this point, it would be incumbent on anyone claiming he is a high level defecting spy to prove it, because even the Australians realized they were had and gave up on suggesting that. Or maybe not so much had as no longer useful for their purpose of pushing a narrative.