Was Maurice right?
October 8th, 2010 at 1:00 pm by David FarrarThe Herald has reported on a poll done by Curia for Natural Dairy, who are bidding to buy the Crafar farms. They have placed online the full results.
The results were pretty interesting. There were three main things we were trying to ascertain:
- The instinctive view of foreign ownership of farms
- How that view may change under various scenarios
- Whether the nationality of the foreign owner matters
The answer to (1) was pretty clear cut. 65% said that farms should only be able to be sold to NZ residents, with only 28% disagreeing.
With (2) three different scenarios were put about only employing NZ workers, paying tax in New Zealand and increasing exports. All of them reduce the level of opposition to some degree. Only 40% said the location of the owner matters if only NZ workers are employed. On the tax issue, only 42% said the location of the owner matters if tax is paid in NZ. But 52% would still be against foreign ownership even if the extra investment could triple output and exports.
So it showed that the level of opposition can reduce under various scenarios, but it still remains controversial.
The final aspect was finding out the level of comfort or discomfort based on the nationality of the intended buyer. In an ideal world, there would be no difference. So the first thing I looked for is how many people said they had the same level of comfort or discomfort for all five nationalities. It didn’t matter whether they were hostile to all five, or relaxed about all five – it was whether they treated them the same.
Only 42% rated all nationalities the same. 58% said that their level of comfort or discomfort varies by nationality.
We used a five point scale. If you define the net comfort result as the two most comfortable response options less the two most uncomfortable response options, then the net comfort results were:
- Australian +31%
- British +16%
- American +1%
- French -9%
- Chinese -25%
This suggest to me that Maurice was not entirely incorrect when he said some opposition to foreign investment is fueled by racism. Certainly not all of it,m but for a fair few people, they are happy to have foreigners own NZ farms – so long as they are Australian and British, not Chinese.
Related posts:
- Are farms different from other property?
- Dom Post on Crafar
- Allan Freeth on foreign investment
- The Fay strategy
October 8th, 2010 at 1:10 pm
Racism is an over used word.
Vote:How about New Zealanders dont want their land owned by evil despots
October 8th, 2010 at 1:14 pm
minto57 – I don’t think the average Kiwi thinks that much. I think there is a simplistic resistance to Chinese based on centuries of experience and bigotry.
Vote:October 8th, 2010 at 1:17 pm
What a shame people weren’t asked to distinguish between the Chinese race and the Communist Chinese government.
I don’t think the objection is racial as much as an objection to a communist superpower which has shown contempt for the West and is happy to steal whatever it can from it, owning our land.
Vote:October 8th, 2010 at 1:26 pm
Some scenarios you could investigate instead:
1. You are a farmer, you have land for sale. A NZer offers $1 million, a foreigner offers $1.2 million. Would you accept the $1.2 million?
2. You are a citizen with an interest in sale of farm land. Your neighbour has been offered $1 million by a NZer, a foreigner offers $1.2 million. Do you think your neighbour should accept the $1.2 million?
3. You are a citizen voting. Would you vote for a party that passed a rule such that a farmer selling their land is unable to sell to foreigners. Would that policy favourably influence you to vote for that party?
4. Do you have any understanding of economics at all? What do you think happens to the $1.2 million once the farmer accepts it? All we’ve done here is swap one asset worth $1.2 million (the farm) for another asset worth $1.2 million (the cash). NZ as a whole is no worse off, and there are just as many assets in NZ as there were before.
Vote:October 8th, 2010 at 1:27 pm
Another great post. And I love the question on nationality.
This suggest to me that Maurice was not entirely incorrect
Very tactful.
Vote:October 8th, 2010 at 1:32 pm
Let the Chinese buy whatever bits of NZ they want. Land, people, pollsters, politicians. No-one’s gonna call me racist.
Vote:October 8th, 2010 at 1:36 pm
We are not racist, say Kiwibloggers.
We are not racist, say kiwibloggers.
We are not racist, say Kiwibloggers.
Hmm, somehow repetition does not improve the (lack of) accuracy.
John Gibson:
.
A grand inversion of history. Go to top of the class for fraud.
John Ansell:
As the man who created probably the single most racist political billboard in New Zealand’s history, one can hardly take you as an authority on absence of racism in the New Zealand psyche.
I presume you also think China “stole” it’s trade surpluses from the poor, defenceless United States?
Sheeesh
Oh, and Paul Henry is not racist, of course…
Vote:October 8th, 2010 at 1:37 pm
Is the fact that foreigners can’t buy land in China (among other places) indicative of racism, or xenophobia at least?
Vote:October 8th, 2010 at 1:41 pm
Beware of posters using words like bigotry,racist, hypocrits for they are running dogs
Vote:October 8th, 2010 at 1:41 pm
John Ansell has it pretty much dead right.
Vote:October 8th, 2010 at 1:43 pm
OK, I’ll grant you the score for France is ethnic bigotry. The score for China though is just good sense – does anyone think there’s really no difference between NZ land being bought by Australians and by people from a totalitarian dictatorship, who are almost certainly pursuing political ends on behalf of their ruling party? No difference my arse.
Vote:October 8th, 2010 at 1:48 pm
The poll played the racist card as a ploy to distract NZers from the main objection to the Natural Dairy bid for the Crafar farms, IMHO. Shame on thick Maurice Williamson for being the front man in the racism claim. Bill English was dead right about Williamson when he back-benched him in an earlier Parliament.
More important in many NZers’ opposition is the standing of some of the principals associated with the Natural Dairy Bid. Also on links to NZ’s two main political parties.
For example:
Chen Fashu, one of Natural Dairy’s main principals, and China’s 11th richest man, according to Forbes, has been accused of not delivering on a a promise to establish China’s biggest private charity, a Chinese version of the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation. Chen reportedly had offered to contribute $2 billion worth of shares from his own portfolio to the charity. (NZ Herald11 Aug 2010)
His right hand man, Tang Jun, former head of Microsoft in China, claimed to have a Ph. D. from the renown California Institute of Technology (Caltech). He has now admitted that his Ph. D. in fact comes from a dispreputable, unregistered American institue since closed for selling degrees. It was a diploma mill. The Shanghai Daily has also made more serious allegations against Tang.
Karyn Scherer reported in the NZ Herald on 11 Aug that the two men visited NZ in APril and met members of the Chinese Business Roundtable Council, founded by one Jack Chen. Scherer reported that Labour leader Phil Gaffe was patron of the council, and Labour MP Raymond Huo was a member of its executive.
On August 27, Adam Bennett reported in the NZ Herald that Chen was the self-described driving force behind the Natural Dairy bid for Crafar farms.
Scherer reported in her August 11 piece that Chen in 2004 was found guilty of “serious breaches” of the Chinese securities regulations. Scherer also reported that in 2004 he founded a business called New Zealand Pure and Natural with former National Prime Minister Jenny Shipley and Sammy Wong, busband of Ethnic Affairs Minister Pansy Wong. (In his August 27 piece, Bennett reported that Chen had recently severed his links with Shipley.)
On August 20, Bennett reported in the NZ Herald that an Auckland Chinese woman whose husband was an adviser to the Chinest Business Roundtable Council had given $200,000 to the NZ National Party.
Then of course there is May Wang, the front woman for Natural Dairy bid. She has been trying to fend off bankruptcy with a 6c-in-the-dollar offer. She alsohas faced caharge under Companies Act for allegedly failing to keep proper books and records,one of failing to provide information to the liquidator and one of leaving New Zealand without advising the liquidator.
Vote:October 8th, 2010 at 1:49 pm
“What a shame people weren’t asked to distinguish between the Chinese race and the Communist Chinese government. ”
More to the point, why is that aspect of the deal being DELIBERATELY PLAYED DOWN..????
Even by our erstwhile host it would seem.
This “racist” crap is just what I would expect from Phil Goff and goes to show again that as I have always claimed, there is no real difference in political ideology between Labour and National. They’re both far left.
Vote:October 8th, 2010 at 1:53 pm
Luc H[a]nsen 1:36 pm,
Heh – you have to laugh at the hypocrisy of Luc reflecting on repetition not improving accuracy.
Vote:October 8th, 2010 at 2:00 pm
FWIW a lot of the feelings about farmland in particular revolve around perceptions of how it may be farmed. Generally we would prefer to see the farmer (ie the guy with muddy boots and dirt under his nails) working the land and get a bit of a shudder on at the thought of faceless foreigners making farming decisions in far-off boardrooms.
To me this is a much more important test yet as a trained agricultural economist I can’t explain a rationale behind it apart from the fact that there is some family history of farming that has gotten disconnected in the past 2 generations.
I have watched a Chinese guy from Taiwan come here after selling his 20 cow herd for a mint in the early 90′s. He had enough to but a 450 cow dairy farm and put a sharemilker on while he lived in Hamilton and spent his time supplying undersize fish to the local Chinese takeaway. Drove the Sharemilker nuts because he had no concept of the New Zealand farming system so I don’t know how he would have got on if he had bought cows and tried farming here himself.
So do we want people who will care for the land, respect clean water requirements and the downstream neighbour’s right to expect it also, do we want farmers who integrate, become part of the small town PTA and get involved in their industry politics especially where Co-ops are involved, do we want them to have strong sons who will become future All Blacks. You betcha I do so it comes down to stereotyping certain races as not generally fitting that profile and counting against all from one place or another.
If you asked me whether I would prefer a Chinaman or a Dutchman to own the next door farm I would probably choose the Dutchman if I had no other information even though I have met some pretty mean individuals from the Netherlands in my time. If you ask if I would prefer a foreign corporate or a “hands-on” farmer, I would choose the farmer every time.
Vote:October 8th, 2010 at 2:05 pm
Could it not be that when it comes to ownership of NZ economic assets people prefer foreigners with some measure of shared cultural values, including attitudes towards stewardship of the land, working and environmental conditions, child labour, animal husbandry, gender equality, corporate responsibility, political transparency and representation, etc, etc.? Given that some foreign cultures have demonstrably different values on matters such as those mentioned, is it simply racist to be concerned about the long-term impact foreign ownership of important NZ assets will have on the socioeconomic, cultural and political systems?
It might be wrong to assume shared values leads to “better” foreign ownership, but it is not necessarily racist to express the preference for culturally-kindred foreigners.
Having said that, I am not sure that explains the low French vote….
Vote:October 8th, 2010 at 2:06 pm
Remember the Rainbow Warrior gnadsmasher
Vote:October 8th, 2010 at 2:07 pm
New Zealanders can live and own land in Australia with no restrictions.
Foreigners are not permitted to purchase land in China.
Surely that accounts for some of the difference in attitudes to Aussies and Chinese buying land here.
Vote:October 8th, 2010 at 2:07 pm
david: if I was the farmer with the land for sale, and you asked me whether I thought it a good idea that the govt introduce rules about who I could sell to that weren’t based on who would pay me the most money….I’d probably say that didn’t sound like a good idea. I’d be all in favour of you having rules about what the purchaser can do with the land – land use rules for example, water use rules, pollution rules, plenty of those already. But not so much in favour of pre-judging someone based purely on their nationality, and deciding that some nationalities shouldn’t be allowed to buy land.
Vote:October 8th, 2010 at 2:14 pm
As others have said, I also believe this has very little to do with racist attitudes to the Chinese. This is simply being promoted as a smokescreen to move the debate away from what is really going on here. Typical Marxist methods of smearing your detractors and therefore invalidating their expressions of concern or opposition.
As Jack5 just outlined in his 1:48 pm comment – there are more than enough questions surrounding those Chinese nationals inolved in this proposed deal to question it, without even getting into the issue of China essentially buying up much of the global resources and/or prime land wherever it can. My personal view is that NZ land should only be owned by citizens/residents full stop. And certainly not companies, etc which may sound very New Zealand, but are anything but.
Vote:October 8th, 2010 at 2:15 pm
PaulL
Vote:Once you had sold your land and invested elsewhere, and over time your land (and much of the rest of available land) changed hands due to stronger and more plentiful foreign currency, to the point where you could no longer afford any land even if you wanted to buy – would that be acceptable?
October 8th, 2010 at 2:21 pm
>> if I was the farmer with the land for sale…
The Crafar situation is not a farmer selling his/her own land.
It is Australian banks who want to sell New Zealand land to Chinese investors (via the receivers).
Vote:October 8th, 2010 at 2:27 pm
This is a bit of a worry.
Most “greenfield” land in New Zealand is farmland of one kind or another.
So if a foreign university or school wants to come to New Zealand and buy some land for a University or school or technical institute or whatever it is likely to want to buy a farm.
Are New Zealanders saying they should not be allowed to?
What if they wanted to buy a farm to set up a Luxury Health Spa like Golden Door in Australia, or a Technology Park or other major industrial operation.
Vote:If they cannot buy a farm how can they buy land?
October 8th, 2010 at 2:30 pm
FFS…!!!
Its not who buys the land, its selling parts of NZ to totalitarian communist governments.
Vote:October 8th, 2010 at 2:33 pm
Sadly all DPF has done here is perfectly demonstrate how limited his comprehension of the word ‘racism’ actually is. His left wing roots are really showing here, as many people on that side of the political spectrum are equally misguided.
Racism is about being prejudiced against someone based on their RACE, not on the country they live in, or their religion.
Now if you look at the poll results, you’ll see the the top 4 options are actually all the same race – ie Caucasian. And yet they all earn vastly different ratings. What this ironically proves is that the respondants to the poll actually aren’t very racist at all, infact quite the opposite.
They are making a judgement based on the country the potential buyers hail from, and presumably that judgement largely is linked to what kind of relationship that particular country has with New Zealand. As an extention of that are making the assumption that the closer the working/historical relationship between the two countries, the more likely the potential buyers of the farm will act in the best interests of New Zealand.
This is, in my view, is a very understandable assumption, and it certainly explains the poll results quite well.
Skin colour doesn’t really come in to it, unless DPF is going to argue that French and American people are somehow not quite as Caucasian/white as their Australian counterparts…lol.
I really wish people like DPF wouldn’t immediately drag out the racist card when, on issues such as this, the majority of New Zealanders happen to hold a view which doesn’t coincide with their own.
It looks cheap and usually ends up damaging their own credibility more than the people they are attempting to besmirch.
This could also lead me to go on about a story involving a little boy who cried wolf, but I’m sure the readers of this blog are very familiar with that story already…..;)
Vote:October 8th, 2010 at 2:39 pm
Fox lives up to his reputation
Cunning as…
But maybe DPF should have included Singaporean or Filipino as a control.
Vote:October 8th, 2010 at 2:43 pm
Not so, I think it’s far more likely they are judging English people rather than England. French people rather than France, Chinese people rather than China.
It would be interesting to know what the response would be to a Morrocan from France, or an Indian from England.
Vote:October 8th, 2010 at 2:55 pm
How about we throw in the Italian Mafias and Ex Russian KGBs to the mix?
How would the results be… hmmm…
And how about Australian Chinese?
Vote:October 8th, 2010 at 3:03 pm
Generally, Mafia and KGB types are Christians, so that would be all OK on here, NoCash.
Vote:October 8th, 2010 at 3:16 pm
Comment removed by author.
Why worry???
Vote:October 8th, 2010 at 3:18 pm
Luc Hansen suggests:
That’s an excellent suggestion, and one I’d strongly urge DPF to consider if ever the opportunity arises to survey on this question again. Because as Fox points out above, there are widely different responses to different nationalities of the caucasian race. And I’d predict there’d be an equal divergence over Asian races.
The issue isn’t race but more, as others have raised, around shared values and practices. And that’s perfectly reasonable.
Vote:October 8th, 2010 at 3:25 pm
Luc Hasbeen is always there with a warped view. Time to get a reality check. Just try and actually buy that little wee flat in Shanghai that your Masters have promised you.
Vote:October 8th, 2010 at 3:54 pm
Ok if it’s Harvard, obviously.
Vote:We have some very successful farms in private overseas ownership that are usually big innovative enterprises employing large numbers of NZers.
Perhaps the point is that we are too poor a country to turn away foreign investment. Like the Sallies, I don’t care where the money comes from, I just want this country to be prosperous and able to afford good education (for boys and Maoris too) and healthcare.
It’s sad so many are so hung up on race.
October 8th, 2010 at 4:06 pm
I am actually amazed that the French got such a high score.
Vote:October 8th, 2010 at 4:11 pm
The word racism/racist has been rendered meaningless in recent years, it is now merely a term of abuse, loved by the political left as a simple way to close debate.
Vote:Yesterday in The Australian was an article by Kevin Rudd’s brother Greg which succinctly described what dealing with the Chinese involves.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/chinese-way-is-here-to-stay-so-get-used-to-it/story-e6frg6zo-1225935112902
Quote “And doing business in Asia is different to doing business in Australia. A rich Asian friend once roguishly told me: “Show me a rich Asian and I’ll show you a thief.”".
Bluntly people ( the Chinese way), the Chinese are NOT like us – so much of what we take for granted is alien to them, and they do not respect it.
The table mentioned above reflects that – doing business with people who are “Caucasian” is ‘easier’ because we have shared cultures and values.
The Chinese have lots of money to invest elsewhere, and will always do it on their terms in their way, if they can achieve it.
So the results of the survey are as expected, and are reasonable, and the sooner Mr Williamson and his ilk accept OUR ways the better. And the sooner Chinese investors realize it, the sooner their approval ratings will rise.
For the Chinese, China and Chinese interests are paramount – this is as it should be, and this as it should be for us – NZ interests must be paramount.
October 8th, 2010 at 4:47 pm
Very interesting poll DPF, and very, very sad results. This country thinks it can maintain its hospitals and education system by becoming Samoa.
Vote:October 8th, 2010 at 4:49 pm
BeaB at 3.54 harps on about race….
No it’s not alright if Harvard buys productive land. I’m at least one poster who has criticised this on Kiwiblog.
Company farming has been unsuccessful long term in NZ, as has been pointed out before. Even farm-owning companies set up and run by locals like the late Howard Paterson have performed relatively poorly. The family farm system is much better at absorbing the knocks in downturns.
In dairying, our system of employees, then various tiers of share milking provides an excellent ladder in which new eneregy and expertise is constantly fed into our farming, with retiring farmers often, perhaps even mostly, leaving capital invested in for a time.
BeaB, if it’s racist to oppose sale of Crafar farms to the murky Natural Dairy with all its questionable characters and political links, was it also racism for Helen Klark to block the sale of a stake in Auckland International Airport to a Canadian pension fund which undertook to take no part at board level? This at the same time she gave the green light for Vector to sell the Wellington power-line network to Chinese investors?
“Racism” is a red herring in the Natural Dairy quest to buy the Crafar farms. IMHO, if there is racism, it’s in trying to silence New Zealanders from questioning sale of an NZ asset to a murky entity from totalitarian, communist China. “Don’t question me or criticise me – that’s racist. We’re from the Middle Kingdom, the land of smiles and wisdom and any criticism of us by non-Chinese is racist.” Actually that’s unfair. It’s not the Chinese who are saying this, but the PR flacks and their gullible targets who are uttering the words. But the intent is the same.
The real issue is the standing and quality of Natural Dairy and its leaders and associates, and, IMHO, money flowing from Auckland Chinese to our main political parties. It needs to be established this money is at arm’s length from the Natural Dairy bid.
As for Berend. You mean that by selling our assets we’ll be as poor as Samoa?
Vote:October 8th, 2010 at 5:08 pm
@ adze
Well, if I sold my farmland and bought something else, it’s presumably because I wanted that something else more. Maybe I decide instead to start a manufacturing business, and I make my fortune. So would I be upset that I had an opportunity cost? No.
Basically your argument is that NZers are too stupid to make investment decisions, and the government should decide for them that they’re better to invest in land than anything else they might like to invest in. And I don’t see that to be a good idea.
Vote:October 8th, 2010 at 5:13 pm
Luc, you’re always keen to play the race card, and frankly it’s pathetic.
But your suggestion of including Singapore and the Philippines in the survey is a good one.
I don’t know that the Philippines would be widely admired, but I think people would have been very happy to have had Singapore take an interest in Air New Zealand when they had the chance.
Why? Simply because the Singaporeans know how to run things.
On the other hand, as Jack5 says, the Chinese people behind this deal – and the totalitarian government who are behind all such companies – have a far from impeccable track record.
So get off your high horse and look at the facts.
You say the Iwi/Kiwi billboard was the most racist billboard in NZ history. I suppose it was in that no other billboard has ever tackled the Treaty issue.
But racist? Please explain to me how Beaches/Iwi/Kiwi implies that one race is inferior or superior to another.
If you want to examine political advertising history, the Dancing Cossacks TV ad with the red wave spreading across the countryside is a more apt analogy for the Chinese farm buyup.
I’m torn between two points of view: on the one hand, supporting the traditional free market position of allowing anyone to buy anything anywhere, but also mindful of the danger of a totalitarian regime establishing a foothold on our shores.
Our governments have always been keen to suck up to Communist China, which as the husband of a Taiwanese I have always found offensive. How much more craven will we become once China owns large tracts of our countryside?
I don’t have nearly the same problem with the Canadian Pension Plan owning Auckland Airport and it’s not because they’re whites, but because they’re from a free, likeminded country.
Similarly, I’d have no problem if it was the Singaporean Pension Plan or (to use the nationality of the moment
) the Indian Pension Plan.
Where John Key sits, however, it must be difficult to tell the Bullies of Beijing that we’re going to impose a special exclusion just for them.
Since he’s shut the door on most of the other strategies for catching up with Australia, selling lots of milk to newly-enriched Chinese obviously appeals. So to save having to admit that it’s really only the communists that he’s got a problem with, he’s banning everyone.
I would have thought he could just ban this particular company for now, since they’re obviously shonky. I’ve also heard they have a reputation for collapsing the value of companies they buy, so it was interesting to read Jack5′s comment.
I’m pleased people here seem to be getting to the heart of the issue, which is certainly not race.
Vote:October 8th, 2010 at 5:17 pm
Re PaulL’s 5.08 post.
So the Crafar farms deal is about the owner’s right to sell. Crap. This is a receivership, the receivers are obliged to take the highest price, and I understand one of the two receivers was chairman of Vector when it sold the Wellington power-line network to a Chinese company, so he won’t be ideologically opposed to Natural Dairy buying the farms.
There are always limits on property rights. Try setting up a P lab in your house and see what happens.
What about quid pro quo? Try buying a farm in China, Paul.
Do you think we should sell a good natural asset to anyone, regardless of their bona fides? Might as well sell the Mackenzie Country to Al Qaeda then for a training ground.
Vote:October 8th, 2010 at 5:18 pm
richgraham:
Yes the Chinese are not like ‘us’. The Chinese did not invade, conquer and exploit half the world.
The Chinese did not invade Britain, France, Germany, Russia, Japan, Austria-Hungary, Italy, and the United States, to force on them an ‘Open Door’ trading policy.
Rather it was the other way round.
The Chinese have never gone to other countries asking to be completely exempt from local laws. The British and French and Americans did. Extraterritoriality was only abolished in 1946.
The Chinese have never gone to war against a Western country to force them to accept importation of narcotics to reverse an unfavourable trade imbalance. This is exactly what Britain and France did to China.
China has never demanded control of the custom’s service of any Western country in order to ensure minimal tariffs for her own goods. This is what Britain did to China for decades.
China has never tried to carve up any Western country – as Western countries and Japan have carved up China (including trying to hand German possessions in China over to the Japanese after WWI).
And China offers market value or in excess of market value prices for overseas land purchases. Europeans historically just came and took what they wanted, drove the indigenous off the land, and handed out a few small poxed blankets and an axe or two (this is not ancient history – the Brits were doing this to Africans after WWII).
Yes. The Chinese really are the Chinese are NOT like ‘us’
Vote:October 8th, 2010 at 5:22 pm
Hey Zhumao-
You’re an apologist for a totalitarian tyranny that refuses to allow its people to elect its own leaders. You represent a gang of crooks and corrupt army generals who rule by force of arms. Who gained power by mass murder and retain that power by threat of more mass murder.
Why should anyone take your words with more than a grain of salt??
You’re not like us because we are a democracy.
Vote:October 8th, 2010 at 5:23 pm
Is the fact that foreigners can’t buy land in China (among other places) indicative of racism, or xenophobia at least?
China is a socialist country. There is no private ownership of land. Neither Chinese nor foreigners can own land. This is perhaps the defining legacy of the communist revolution.
Natural Dairy however is a Hong Kong based company.
In Hong Kong foreigners have exactly the same investment rights as locals.
The most expensive real estate in Hong Kong, swanky Lan Kwai Fong, part of Hong Kong’s Central District is owned by a German Jew called Allan Zeeman. A foreigner up until two years ago.
Vote:October 8th, 2010 at 5:26 pm
Zhumao (5.18 post): you might like to consider that NZ was one of the few who supported China under attack in the days of the old League of Nations. If NZ has ever gone to war against China it was as part of the UN force in Korea. Despite earlier prejudices and injustices against Chinese settlers, such as the despicable poll tax, most NZ people these days like Chinese and respect China for its spectacular economic development and look forward to the day when it will shake off the vestiges of communism.
However, why doesn’t China sell agricultural land to NZers if it wants to buy agricultural land here?
And let’s not talk about colonialism in light of Chinese colonisation of Tibet. THe brutal treatment of Tibetans by some Chinese far exceeds ill behaviour by NZ colonists. No Waitangi Treaty for Tibet, or for Sinkiang, or for Inner Mongolia.
IMHO, the issue with the Natural Dairy bid for Crafar is the standing of Natural Dairy and of its principals and associates. What do you know about these people Zhumao. Would you stake your life on them? Give them your last yuan to look after?
Vote:October 8th, 2010 at 5:31 pm
Re Zhumao’s 5.23 post….
Natural Dairy may be listed in Hong Kong, and may have an office there, but it’s big shareholders are in “Mainland” China. One of them is China’s 11th richest man.
As for China not allowing any private ownership of land: well why should its citizens be allowed to own land elsewhere if they can’t own it at home?
Vote:October 8th, 2010 at 5:33 pm
Similarly, I’d have no problem if it was the Singaporean Pension Plan or (to use the nationality of the moment
) the Indian Pension Plan.
Yes of course. Singapore has a far higher execution rate than China. And of course the Indian ‘democracy’ where 400 million people go hungry every day.
‘Totalitarian’ China is consistently praised for bringing people out of poverty and reducing hunger. Whereas ‘democratic’ India does nothing for its poor.
In 1976, the time of ‘mass murderer’ Mao’s death, China’s life expectancy was already higher than what India’s is today.
Life expectancy, literacy, infant mortality, childhood stunting, – -over a whole host of indicators of well-being, ‘totalitarian’ China has a huge lead on ‘democratic’ India – even though both countries are of similar size and have had about 60 years of independence.
But of course to rich spoilt Westerners, several hundred million people on the verge of starvation is less important than a a couple of hundred jailed dissidents (many of them rightly jailed) out of a population of 1.3 billion.
Vote:October 8th, 2010 at 5:35 pm
Zhumao, you’ve sidetracked the debate about the bona fides of the Natural Dairy people…
But if you must talk about China’s political system, what about the Great Leap Forward? How many dead? Forty million?
Was Mao always insane or just at the end?
Is the return to Confucianism admission that Marxism is a mirage and a trap? (Didn’t the Red Guards burn Confucian books and ancient sites?)
Vote:October 8th, 2010 at 5:37 pm
Zhumao- every statistic you present here is produced by corrupt government agencies led by Communist Party sycophants who would lose their lives if they said anything that damaged the global image of Red China. Why should any intelligent person accept these stats as true?
Vote:October 8th, 2010 at 5:37 pm
Jack5: what do you think they’re going to do, having brought the Crafar farms? If they’re incompetent and corrupt, then surely they’ll end up losing money. And eventually sell at a loss. How is that bad for NZ? If they run the farms at a profit (more than the profit that Crafar made), how is that bad for NZ? They’ll end up employing a bunch of NZers on said farms.
Vote:October 8th, 2010 at 5:40 pm
“If they’re incompetent and corrupt, then surely they’ll end up losing money. And eventually sell at a loss. How is that bad for NZ? If they run the farms at a profit (more than the profit that Crafar made), how is that bad for NZ? They’ll end up employing a bunch of NZers on said farms.”
Pity Black Power didn’t have the money aint it?
Typical unprincipled Nat party approach.
Vote:October 8th, 2010 at 5:41 pm
As for China not allowing any private ownership of land: well why should its citizens be allowed to own land elsewhere if they can’t own it at home?
That is as ridiculous and illogical a comment as I have read on the internet for a while.
Countries should make laws to benefit and suit themselves. For example in New Zealand, you are not allowed to smoke cannabis – no one is. Does that mean New Zealanders should not be allowed to smoke cannabis in Holland?
Because New Zealanders are allowed to own guns without a licence in some parts of the US does that mean NZ should reciprocate and allow Americans to own guns without a licence here?
Because China would execute a NZ drug trafficker, does that mean NZ should execute Chinese drug traffickers?
And if you let me smoke in your house, does that mean I should let you smoke in my house? Of course not. You have your house rules, I have mine.
If every country went around making laws with only reciprocity in mind with foreign lands things would get into a hopeless tangle.
The one type of consistency that is reasonable to demand is this. Foreigners obey the laws of New Zealand when in NZ, and New Zealanders obey the laws of foreign countries when they are over there. Simple.
Vote:October 8th, 2010 at 5:47 pm
@PaulL
“Basically your argument is that NZers are too stupid to make investment decisions, and the government should decide for them that they’re better to invest in land than anything else they might like to invest in. And I don’t see that to be a good idea.”
No, my argument is that there is no benefit in allowing unrestricted “investment” in NZ land, a) because we will never have the same purchasing power as certain other nations, so we would risk being priced out of the real estate/farmland market, and b) because land – unlike companies or products – once sold, you can’t make some more (unless you have billions of dollars lying around, live in Dubai and fancy making elaborate sand islands).
Vote:October 8th, 2010 at 5:50 pm
Re Zumao at 5.41:
Exactly, and frequently these are reciprocal. Free trade, customs, commercial law harmonisation (as NZ with Australia).
We thus have absolutely no obligation to sell our land to Chinese companies, just as they are not allowed to sell their land to us.
AND, re Paul L at 5.37:
It’s not a question of whether they can make a go of it, PaulL, but why they should get the chance.
We need to be sure the Natural Dairy mob aren’t flakes before they even open the farm gates.
You didn’t respond on what’s your view about offering the Mackenzie Country to Al Qaeda?
Vote:October 8th, 2010 at 5:51 pm
And let’s not talk about colonialism in light of Chinese colonisation of Tibet. THe brutal treatment of Tibetans by some Chinese far exceeds ill behaviour by NZ colonists. No Waitangi Treaty for Tibet, or for Sinkiang, or for Inner Mongolia.
Really? When did Tibet’s population sharply increase? Do some research. What was Tibetan life expectancy at the time of returning to China, and what is it now?
How many Tibetans are in Tibet now and what is there proportion of the population of Tibet.
How many Tibetans still speak Tibetan compared to Maoris who speak Maori?
How many Tibetans still wear ethnic costumes and openly practice their religion and customs compared to Maori?
How long has bilingual education been provided to Tibetans by the state, compared to NZ for Maori education?
(this is confirmed by a US State Dept report)
Of course the same could be asked in respect of the Inner Mongolians and the Uighurs.
And of course we could compare Tibet with the situation in Australia or the US and the differences would be even more glaring. If one visits Tibet it is majority Tibetan. If one visits Xinjiang it is 50% Uighur. Similarly the case for Inner Mongolia.
I have been to Brisbane, and I can honestly tell you that I saw not one person who was obviously of aborigine descent.
Vote:I suspect the situation would be similar in the US or Canada.
October 8th, 2010 at 5:51 pm
@Zhumao
I take it you are against trade agreements then?
There are other elements at play but they too are based principles of reciprocity.
Vote:October 8th, 2010 at 5:53 pm
We thus have absolutely no obligation to sell our land to Chinese companies, just as they are not allowed to sell their land to us.
Where did I say NZ did have an obligation to sell land to the Chinese? I never said such a thing.
If the Crafar sale is rejected, China will not punish NZ. China will not land troops on Mission Bay and threaten to bombard the Beehive.
Unlike how the West treated China for well over 100 years.
In fact as an article in the Herald yesterday revealed, NZ farmland is not even that much in demand.
Vote:October 8th, 2010 at 5:54 pm
Zhumao at 5.51:
You won’t find many Mongolians left in Inner Mongolia, either, about 9 per cent or less I think. They still are plentiful in Mongolia, though, independent still thanks to Russian help.
Also, the proportion of Uighurs in Sinkiang is diving as the Han move in.
Vote:October 8th, 2010 at 5:57 pm
Zhumao: Chinese are right to be aggrieved about the actions of the West in China in past centuries. It was shocking.
As for recent times, the West is right to be suspicious of the actions of China against her own people and others.
The Tibetans and Taiwanese have a different view of China’s territorial ambitions, though thankfully its sabre-rattling towards Taiwan does seem to have eased in recent times.
Yes, their embrace of capitalism has lifted hundreds of millions of people out of poverty. And yes, judging by the Commonwealth Games, the communists do seem to be able to run things better than chaotic, democratic India.
It’s quite possible that we have nothing to fear from China. It could be that China has no intention of using its newfound economic power to avenge its past humiliations by the West.
But they might. Can you blame us for being cautious?
Vote:October 8th, 2010 at 5:58 pm
Jack5: Al Queda are an illegal organisation in NZ. So no, I wouldn’t sell them anything. I would, however, be OK with selling some currently private land in the McKenzie to some nutjob people from the Middle East who wanted to use it to set up a training ground (for purposes that weren’t illegal). So long as they’re prepared to pay more for that land than anyone else, and their use of that land is within the law, I don’t see why it’s the government’s business to decide that their use is less valuable than someone else’s.
My basic problem here is that I like small government. I don’t like the government getting to decide that this is a “good use” of land, and that is a “bad use” of land. Once you let them start doing things like that, you end up with the government having far too much power over what people can and can’t do, and making decisions based on the proposition that govt knows best what is good for us. And they simply don’t, once you let the govt start making decisions you both lose freedom, and you get poor outcomes. The loss of freedom is the more important one to me.
Vote:October 8th, 2010 at 6:00 pm
I take it you are against trade agreements then?
There are other elements at play but they too are based principles of reciprocity.
But the overriding objective is still self-interest.
If the Crafar deal is bad for NZ then by all means reject it.
If it is good for NZ then it should be accepted.
But the decision should be made in terms of what is in NZ’s best interests. Not based on whatever landownership laws the Chinese have in China. That would be counterproductive.
Imagine if the Chinese did allow private and foreign land ownership in China –should NZ then allow the Chinese to buy land here –even if it is not profitable for NZ? That would be ridiculous.
And if the Chinese do not allow any ownership of land – NZ should reject out of hand the Chinese offer – even if it is proven to have massive benefits for NZ? That would also be ridiculous.
The decision should be made solely on what benefits NZ. Period.
Vote:October 8th, 2010 at 6:04 pm
“The loss of freedom is the more important one to me.”
Selling parts of the country to overseas totalitarian thugs is going to assist your freedom?? FFS what lunacy. One of government’s primary responsibilities is the security of the realm. That doesn’t include allowing foreign totalitarian thugs and criminals a foothold in our country or our society.
Vote:October 8th, 2010 at 6:06 pm
Can you blame us for being cautious?
Of course not. China is a big unknown. So it is understandable to be cautious.
But some of the self-righteous moral grandstanding betrays an ignorance of history, and indeed reeks of prejudice.
But caution. Of course. Because China is an unknown quantity to most New Zealanders.
But to me, a Chinese, I know that as long as China professes Marxism Leninism, she will be far less a danger in terms of throwing her weight around than if under any other system.
Based on the historical record, the Chinese actually have much more to fear from the West.
And the Chinese record in Africa, so far, is a win-win for both Africa and China. The Chinese are dealing with the Africans fairly. Unlike the West.
So based on the record, both historical and what is happening in other places around the world, China should be trusted a lot more than the US or Britain.
Vote:October 8th, 2010 at 6:17 pm
“as long as China professes Marxism Leninism, she will be far less a danger in terms of throwing her weight around than if under any other system”
Why?
Vote:October 8th, 2010 at 6:23 pm
You make some valid points Zhumao.
Vote:October 8th, 2010 at 6:23 pm
The Tibetans and Taiwanese have a different view of China’s territorial ambitions, though thankfully its sabre-rattling towards Taiwan does seem to have eased in recent times.
It is quite wrong to describe China’s claim over Taiwan in terms of territorial ambition. It is not that. Because China has always claimed Taiwan to be part of China. And just as importantly the Taiwanese not only consider themselves part of China, but also claim that they should be the rulers of all of China. Thus they call themselves the Republic of China (as opposed to the Peoples Republic of China – mainland China).
So there is mainland China and Taiwan. Both part of some greater China in exactly the same way both East and West Germany were part of some entity called Germany – event though at the time there was not an established polity called Germany.
The dispute between the PRC and Taiwan is one over who is the legitimate government of China. It is an ideological dispute. Not, strictly speaking, a territorial one.
Interestingly in the recent dispute between China and Japan, China claims that the Diaoyu islands are part of Taiwan (which is part of China also). And the Taiwanese agree.
The Western media of course portrays the situation differently. As if the Taiwanese already consider themselves a separate country. They do not. But of course saying they are is a way of portraying the Chinese as an aggressive power hell-bent on territorial aggrandizement.
As for Tibet, it is well known that Tibet has been part of China for way longer than the entire history of say the United States. Furthermore the legal status of Tibet, aside from all the media distortions, is not disputed.
Every single country in the world, all Western ones included, recognize Tibet as a completely legitimate part of China. Furthermore the US explicitly recognized Tibet as part of China in 1943, fully seven years before Tibet’s peaceful liberation.
And Taiwan (the Republic of China) not only claims that Tibet is part of China, but all of Mongolia is as well.
What the Taiwanese claim is China is far bigger than what the PRC claims is China.
So in theory a Nationalist (KMT) China, would be revanchist in a way the current PRC government not even tries to be.
The Taiwanese (Republic of China) map of China (note includes all of Mongolia).
http://tinyurl.com/35roh9s
Territories claimed by the Peoples Republic of China is significantly smaller.
Vote:http://tinyurl.com/23gempv
October 8th, 2010 at 6:27 pm
Zhumao, I think you argue well and I regard many of your points as fair.
But like reid, I’m somewhat mystified by your defence of Marxism/Leninism. History shows that system to be far from benign, and to have cost tens of millions of lives.
I look forward to your answer to reid’s question.
Vote:October 8th, 2010 at 6:30 pm
“Every single country in the world, all Western ones included, recognize Tibet as a completely legitimate part of China. Furthermore the US explicitly recognized Tibet as part of China in 1943, fully seven years before Tibet’s peaceful liberation.”
WWII exigency couldn’t have had anything to do with that, could it? Has that recognition since been superceded? When did NZ do this?
If this is the case then how come the “don’t mention Tibet” syndrome is so much part of Sino-international diplomacy with just about any Western country?
Vote:October 8th, 2010 at 6:31 pm
Zhumao suggests:
Tell that to the Australians. When the GFC struck, the Chinese steel companies swooped down and tried to buy outright several Australian ore miners. Australia refused. China responded by trying to convince other ore importing countries to collude to force the price down and destroy the Australian economy (whose prosperity, rightly or wrongly, has been left to depend almost completely on exports of minerals).
China is a ruthless totalitarian state which will arrest foreign nationals (such as Rio Tinto’s Stern Hu, an Australian), subject them to a behind-closed-door “trial” and imprison them for decades when it doesn’t get its own way.
I’m quite sure China wouldn’t land troops in NZ… that might attract the attention of our allies (including the Australians, who see China as so benign that they’re now openly conducting war games to the north of the country assuming China as the aggressor). Instead they’ll do it by trying to destroy us economically. It appears they learned something from their communist brothers in the Soviet Union… much easier, and less bloodier, to bring about the economic ruin of a country – as Reagan did with Russia – than to go to war.
Vote:October 8th, 2010 at 6:31 pm
adze>so we would risk being priced out of the real estate/farmland market
Farm land is priced based on the output that it can support and the rate of return that a potential purchaser demands. If a Chinese purchaser is able to increase output then that is a good thing for NZ. If a Chinese buyer is willing to accept a lower rate of return then a NZer then why should we be worried about their lack of investment judgment?
To be honest, I’d rather a Chinese person owned a farm than an Allan Hubbard-worshiping SCF-investing Timaru-dwelling SFO-lobbying South Islander of the type we’re bailing out at the moment. At least they might run it as a proper business.
Vote:October 8th, 2010 at 6:35 pm
Zhumao: “But of course saying they are is a way of portraying the Chinese as an aggressive power hell-bent on territorial aggrandizement.”
The hundreds of nuclear missiles China points at Taiwan don’t do much to dispel that view.
Vote:October 8th, 2010 at 6:41 pm
If overseas investors want to invest in productive
Vote:activities in nz then what is the problem provided they pay fair wages, compete fairly and respect the environment?
Oh and is china socialist or capitalist?
October 8th, 2010 at 6:50 pm
John A>The hundreds of nuclear missiles China points at Taiwan don’t do much to dispel that view.
None of the Taiwanese people I know have any desire to be reunited with China, and would happily declare formal independence if it weren’t for the threats from China. One particularly close friend gets quite freaked out about Chinese intentions… she told me one day that she’d been chatting to a Chinese national who had said she’d always wanted to visit Taiwan, knew that she wasn’t allowed, but that was okay because they’d soon be in charge again. Which isn’t too different to a German telling a Polish person that western Poland will be part of Germany again soon.
China has also invaded Vietnam, fought a border war with India, fought along the Russia border, and has territorial disputes with Japan, the Philippines, Vietnam, Brunei, and Malaysia. For a country that isn’t intent on “territorial aggrandizement”, that’s a lot of border trouble.
Vote:October 8th, 2010 at 6:54 pm
The hundreds of nuclear missiles China points at Taiwan don’t do much to dispel that view.
There are influential forces, mainly supported by Japan, who would want Taiwan to break away from China. Not of course the Taiwanese government which wants reunification in the distant future.
If these forces were to gain significant traction – and Taiwan suddenly said they were not part of China – then even the distant prospect of reunification is lost, and China is split forever.
That is what the PRC missiles are there for. But is this any different from Lincoln wanting to retain the US as a single country (the moral dimensions of the Civil War aside – which only came to the fore well into the war – and was a tactical measure).
And if we look at what the Russians did to Chechnya, a tiny enclave, to force her to stay in line – the Chinese look like pussy cats.
China, to my mind, has every right to fight against separatism. China is a huge multinational state. Even among the dominant Han group there are distinct linguistic and cultural cleavages. If one part goes, and China does nothing, there is every risk of the whole thing unravelling.
Remember for a century China was basically in the state that Somalia is today – only 100 x as bad. It was only by enormous sacrifice in human lives that she was pulled together.
If China unravelled it would result in chaos and conflict on a massive scale – something like the former Yugoslavia x 100. And the pieces may never be put back together again. That of course would also have horrendous impact on the rest of the world.
The suffering, human rights problems arising from such a scenario simply dwarf any injustices, real or perceived, perpetuated today in order to preserve national unity.
Vote:October 8th, 2010 at 7:06 pm
Dead simple, for me.
I don’t like Chinese in numbers greater than 2 at any one time.
Chinese are filthy, just walk through any part of a city where Chinese businesses dominate – Upper Riccarton, Melbourne’s “China Town”, the south end of Colombo St. Chinese business owners don’t care about keeping their area clean.
Chinese are greedy, grasping, no thought for tomorrow rapacious destroyers of natural resources. Take a walk along any pier or jetty and look in the buckets of the Chinese fishers, fish way too small, smaller than any greedy pakeha or maori would take,
Chinese stink, they don’t seem to understand the concepts of personal hygiene, are yet to discover “maori shower” and reek of day old garlic. Getting in to the spa at Centennial Pool, is like sitting in a rice cooker.
So, does that make me a racist? I don’t fucking care, China for the Chinese, I say.
Vote:October 8th, 2010 at 7:08 pm
Zhumao how about answering my question @ 6:17?
Lest some think you’re simply dissembling.
Vote:October 8th, 2010 at 7:10 pm
I forgot, best reason of all to hate Chinese – Cactus Kate.
Vote:October 8th, 2010 at 7:10 pm
None of the Taiwanese people I know have any desire to be reunited with China
Well that is hardly a scientific poll you have there. The elected government of Taiwan now is officially pro-reunification. And they call themselves ‘Republic of China’
Of course most Taiwanese do not want reunification now. I don’t deny they are deeply anti-communist. But that does not mean they consider Taiwan not a part of China.
In any case you overstate the differences between Mainland Chinese and Taiwanese. The Taiwanese presence in mainland China is simply huge – they are considered ‘tung bao’ and marry mainland women, and raise families there. I know one such family myself.
China has also invaded Vietnam, fought a border war with India, fought along the Russia border, and has territorial disputes with Japan, the Philippines, Vietnam, Brunei, and Malaysia.
Disputes with Japan, the Phillipines, Vietnam —of course. But everyone is involved in the dispute and all are against each other. It is over some small islands that everyone wants a piece of. How do you know China is in the wrong?
Brunei and Malaysia????? – please elaborate.
The border war with India was provoked by India. And the situation was created by the British defined McMahon line forced on Tibet’s rulers, which was in favour of Britain at the time. In any case it is India which now occupies the disputed territory, Arunachal Pradesh, not China. Of course the Taiwanese also claim the same piece of territory.
China’s problems with Russia occurred in the late 1960s. Anyone familiar with history will note that huge chunks of land were stripped from China by the Russians in the 19th Century. Khabarovsk and Vlaidisvostok were originally Chinese. China has now accepted these losses.
But the dispute was over Zhenbao Island – a tiny bit of land – now recognised as Chinese and handed back by the Russians to the Chinese. Treaties signed in the late 90s have settled the border problems with Russia.
In terms of Vietnam – China fought an ideological war with Vietnam – but them withdrew its forces. It is not illegally occupying Vietnamese territory.
But of course China is a huge territory – some minor border contretemps would be expected. That does not make her an imperial power. Just as no one would consider Britain to be an imperial power had all she ever taken of someone elses was Gibraltar.
In fact, as I have already mentioned, if the Taiwanese KMT government ruled China, there would be a lot more border conflicts than what the case is now.
The Taiwanese would claim all of Mongolia (long independent) as well, and parts of Russia.
Vote:October 8th, 2010 at 7:25 pm
Zhumao how about answering my question @ 6:17?
Lest some think you’re simply dissembling.
Marxism Leninism is an internationalist ideology. All communists who are true communists should be internationalists, in that they do not selfishly put national interests over the rightful interests of other nations.
During the Cultural Revolution in particular outright nationalism, or national chauvinism was discouraged.
And the Chinese have consistently stated that they want China to never be a hegemon – in the way the Soviet Union and the USA were. Hence Mao’s famous three world’s theory in which China was and always will be in solidarity with the Third World. The first world were the two hegemons of the time, the Soviet Union, and the United States. The second world were the allies of these two respective powers. And the Third world was China and most developing countries. Thus China eschewed big power status and forswears never to seek hegemony over others.
This is a just Marxist Leninist stance. Marxism Leninism has always opposed national chauvinism and racism. Communists all over the Western world were the first to accept blacks and other non-whites as equals, (as in South Africa). Communists in the US were perhaps the earliest to get involved in the Civil Rights movement.
In the writings and utterances of all of China’s leaders from Mao to Deng to the current leadership, there is actually very little jingoism that can be detected, and in fact a lot of humbleness. Racism, national chauvinism are explicitly rejected
Compare say to the fascist Japanese, the Nazis. or even the KMT (the Nationalists). Race and cultural superiority and ethnic uniqueness are all part of the equation when it comes to tying the country together. In this context such countries are far more likely to attack others and to oppress others.
Whereas the Chinese government at least even now, if not individual Chinese, profess solidarity still with the Third World, are against big power hegemony, and proclaim to be a just power (which all Marxist Leninists are wont to do).
Now you may argue – what one says is not necessarily what one does. Which is true. But publicly professing something is in itself a type of restraint on ones actions. Look at the case of the US. It does many bad things. But because they proclaim to be good and just – they have to behave in a way that appears, at least as much as possible to be virtuous, not only for an audience, but because they believe it, partly or wholly to be true.
But a Chinese government without Marxist Leninist ideology, which defined virtue as what is in the national interest, would surely be a more dangerous proposition than even a Socialist China – even if only nominally socialist now.
Vote:October 8th, 2010 at 7:34 pm
Wonderful posts from Zhumao (the meaning to your nom de plume?) including this:
This is also largely the case in the country supported by most here, defending the indefensible, Israel – from memory, 96% of the land is held by the state or by the Jewish Agency for Israel.
Vote:October 8th, 2010 at 7:53 pm
“…a Chinese government without Marxist Leninist ideology, which defined virtue as what is in the national interest, would surely be a more dangerous proposition than even a Socialist China – even if only nominally socialist now.”
There’s not a lot of difference between a Marxist Leninist ideology and a socialist ideology Zhumao. One of my lecturers once said re: a paper on Communist Russia, that they will prosecute a thousand people in order to catch amongst them the one guilty person. OTOH, the West will allow a thousand guilty to go free, in order to avoid prosecuting the one innocent.
That still seems to me to sum up the basic difference between a constitutional democracy and a Marxist-Leninist or Socialist state.
Which is, I guess, what is more important? The State, or the individual who makes it up?
Why does China treat the Falung Gong so harshly? Is it just propaganda? Why are these seemingly harmless individuals, such a threat?
Vote:October 8th, 2010 at 7:55 pm
John Ansell’s 5:13 comment that he would welcome Singaporean investment betrays ignorance, hypocrisy or both. SIngapore and the PRC are both one party state capitalist authoritarian states, in each case founded by ruthless charismatic leaders who imprisoned and killed political opponents. The main difference between the two regimes is one of scale. Singapore is successful because it is small, strategically located and founded on a British colonial heritage that left infrastructure and administrative bureaucracies (to say nothing of Singaporean elite education) in place at the moment of independence in 1965.The political opposition was small and easily defeated. It geographic location made it important to the West so it was always treated with deference by Western powers, which have poured resources into its modern development (or do you really think that a 4 million population on a tropical island could by itself develop into the mega-city state it is now).
China is huge,with dozens of ethnicities embedded in the billion plus population, and saddled with a bloody revolutionary socialist legacy that has made it a late entrance into the global market. But as far as the nature of political rule is concerned, and even though Singapore is further down the road in its liberalisation process (including the use of elaborately gerrymandered voting schemes as a democratic facade), both countries are remarkably similar to the point that even Lee Quan Yew (who started his career as a socialist union lawyer) admits the similarities.
All of which means, Mr, Ansell, that you can be an authoritarian whore or a democratic preacher, but not both.
As for Zhumao–you are your own worst enemy mate. That Chinese authoritarian apologist arrogance comes through loud and clear. You are also wrong in your interpretation of Marxism-Leninism and your claim that no one, including foreigners, can own land or assets in China is just plain wrong. With or without state co-ownership, foreign entities can and do own assets in China. As far as China not wanting to be a hegemon and always siding with the 3rd World–bwaaaahhhaaahhaaa. Tell that to the Vietnamese, Malaysians, Indians or any other party that has an interest in the South China Sea.
Vote:October 8th, 2010 at 8:00 pm
Zhumao>Well that is hardly a scientific poll you have there. The elected government of Taiwan now is officially pro-reunification. And they call themselves ‘Republic of China’
It would be hard to do a scientific poll. How would you word it: “China has vowed to destroy you with nuclear weapons if you declare independence. Now are you in favour of independence?” China is sort of like an abusive husband who has vowed to kill his wife and children if his wife ever leaves him. That may have been acceptable in the 1860s, as you pointed out with your US example. But it wouldn’t be acceptable in the modern US, certainly wasn’t acceptable in Chechnya, and isn’t acceptable with regard to Taiwan. Altho if your standards are those of the brutal Putin and his genocide in Chechnya, then I’m probably not going to change your mind.
Brunei and Malaysia both claim some of the Spratleys that are on their continental shelf. China claims all of the Spratleys. It isn’t up to me to determine who is in the right, but the continental shelf claims seem to be based on pretty good principles while China’s claim to the Spratleys seems to be based on some ambiguous historical maps and the fact that Chinese ships were occasionally wrecked on some of the islands. Oh, and the fact that China has by far the biggest military in the region and is happy to kill Vietnamese who are defending their claim.
One of your themes seems to be that because other countries have behaved badly in the past (and particularly because other countries have behaved badly towards China in the past) then China has some sort of right to “heavy” its neighbours and regions who would prefer independence. The world has moved on. If China wants respect then it has to start acting like a modern country rather than a 19th century imperial power with a grudge. Seriously… If the South Island voted for independence then they’d be welcome to go. The North Island certainly wouldn’t nuke them or carry out some other sort of scorched earth policy. Those of us in the North Island don’t threaten South Islanders. That’s how civilised people act, and I’d respect the Chinese government more if they acted more civilised and less threatening thug.
Vote:October 8th, 2010 at 8:20 pm
“or do you really think that a 4 million population on a tropical island could by itself develop into the mega-city state it is now”
Yeah well that’s the same for the whole world isn’t it, gnad.
We are all connected. This thread and many others, is about the way we inter-operate and given hardly any of us are really truly evil and actually thirst for death and destruction, how we achieve that, without conflict, is the question before us.
Vote:October 8th, 2010 at 8:51 pm
gnadsmasher, you seem to have forgotten another important difference between China and Singapore.
Chinese people have a choice of one party.
Singaporeans have a choice of more than one party, but keep preferring one because they like its policies.
Singapore is a democracy. China is a dictatorship.
As for the glorious Marxist-Leninist peaceful tradition, was it not Marxist-Leninist states that invaded South Korea in 1950, Hungary in 1956 and Czechoslovakia in 1968?
Was it not two Marxist-Leninist states that brought the world to the brink of nuclear war in 1962?
And those external adventures were nothing compared to the hell they visited on their own people in the Soviet Union, Eastern Europe, China, North Korea, Cuba etc., etc.
Whatever the sins of the West, they pale into insignficance compared to the inhumanity of Marxist-Leninist governments.
Now would you please answer reid’s question about Falun Gong?
And I do like davidp’s analogy about the husband threatening to kill his wife if she ever leaves him. A perfect description of the Bullies of Beijing’s treatment of Taiwan.
The communists had never occupied Taiwan, yet seem to regard it as their own. Why?
Vote:October 8th, 2010 at 9:22 pm
John Ansell said:
Sure John, I really accept that coming from you.
Iwi/Kiwi was inherently racist because it sought to define a legal issue on the basis of race rather than principles of law. This is the basis of my statement (and those of many others at the time) that your billboards were racist and National was playing the race card.
If, in fact, National had won the ensuing election, Brash’s racist policies (like English’s “One Law for All” before him) would have been an aberration. Luckily for racial harmony, pretty much normal business has resumed, but with the added sweetener for Maori that UNDRIP will increasingly come in to play.
Now, with that settled, I would like to offer you an opportunity to utilise your undoubted talent to perform an honourable public service. I remember you saying something like an issue can be redefined with one billboard. Give us the billboard that redefines the Climate Change debate, puts the deniers to shame, and show why we all need to put huge pressure on our leaders to lead us into a low carbon future. If capitalism is the answer, then we obviously need a price on carbon, but I do wonder if there is another way, a moral pathway, if you like.
And just to get the thread back on topic, my thoughts are that opposition to any and all overseas ownership should be based on what’s best for NZ with due regard to our responsibilities as global citizens, not on the country of origin of the overseas purchasers. The answers to the poll should all have been neutral in that respect. The sovereignty/economic case is the base issue, not country or race.
Vote:October 8th, 2010 at 9:23 pm
Ansell@8:51 PM “Singapore is a democracy. China is a dictatorship.”
With that line and the one preceding it you have revealed yourself to be a selective authoritarian whore who just does not like to be penetrated by mainland Chinese. Out of 200 members of parliament in Singapore 6 are in the opposition and they are all “nominated MPs” vetted and approved by the PAP. Electoral districts that vote PAP get preferential benefits; districts that vote for the opposition are cut off from said benefits. Anyone who says anything remotely critical of the regime or its leaders are subject to costly defamation lawsuits that, surprise surprise, over its 45 year history the regime always wins. The Singapore Internal Security Act allows indefinite detention for anyone “promoting dissent,” and the definition of sedition includes “promoting disharmony.” So much for freedom of speech, and as for freedom of assembly, all political agtherings must be sanctioned in advance by the government less they be liable to criminal prosecution. Then there is the caning for minor offenses…
And, as I said in my comment, PAP gerrymandering is rife so that it can hold onto its supposed large majority when in truth there is much simmering discontent beneath that placid surface you so admire. Once LKY dies it will be interesting to see if the pot boils over.
BTW–none of this excuses the PRC. But it does call you out on your hypocrisy (I say that because you surely cannot really believe that SIngapore is democratic. FFS–even LKY admits its an autocracy!
You are obviously spend too much time with corporate bankers and too little time living with locals on foreign streets. As for Iwi/Kiwi not being a race-baiting ploy–yeah right.
Vote:October 8th, 2010 at 9:36 pm
Luc H>Brash’s racist policies (like English’s “One Law for All” before him) would have been an aberration
1984:
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH
Luc H:
Vote:EQUALITY IS RACISM
October 8th, 2010 at 9:37 pm
“Iwi/Kiwi was inherently racist because it sought to define a legal issue on the basis of race rather than principles of law.”
Luc as you know I have a lot of time for your arguments but not this one, mate.
Iwi/Kiwi was, IMO, in response to, not in promotion of, a proposed race-based division promulgated by the govt of the day, at the time.
Did it resonate?
The people spoke, and it was so bloody close, on the eve of the election when it was too late to counter it, Hulun had to promise a significant part of OUR money went to a small group of Liarbore supporters: students and their parents and grandparents, simply so she could win.
The fact it can’t be safely reversed, is not a testament to the wisdom of the policy, but rather to the love of many parents and grandparents and the naivity of 20-somethings who actually, really, truly, don’t yet understand, that money doesn’t grow on trees and someday, they’ll be asked to fund it themselves.
Those billboards mate, were the best most effective political campaign we have ever seen, bar none. And it didn’t even need paid advertising in order to make it national headlines, all the time.
Vote:October 8th, 2010 at 9:50 pm
In this case, davidp, yes.
Our law is the law of the colonist, not the colonised, but we have not conquered to the extent that Maori have been silenced or relegated to insignificance, as, say, in the US. This matters.
All over the world indigenous people are recovering power from the colonists, often in the face of opposition by the West. Think South Africa and all over South America. Even last year, the US basically supported a coup against an elected president in Honduras.
The racist strand to our thinking will gradually be overcome by this movement.
Vote:October 8th, 2010 at 9:53 pm
reid
“The People” know fuck all. We, The People, are not experts in anything other than our own, increasingly narrow, area of expertise.
The billboard was dog whistle politics at its most brilliant, I agree, but that doesn’t make it right (in the moral sense of the word).
Vote:October 8th, 2010 at 10:00 pm
I don’t see how this poll can capture the many facets of the debate.
To suggest that if #3 is not equal then those subjects are racist is absurd.
Shows how poor polling helps to polarize a debate however.
Vote:October 8th, 2010 at 10:08 pm
The question of who we should sell land to (NZers, foreign nationals etc..) only exists because (a) we lack the national sources of wealth to pay international market rates for our own assets and (b) because we fear we’ll never be in a position to do this in future.
It’s an admission that decades of vote-buying socialism have squandered our future.
Vote:October 8th, 2010 at 10:08 pm
Ah Luc,
In fine form tonight I see…
“Iwi/Kiwi was inherently racist because it sought to define a legal issue on the basis of race rather than principles of law.”
“Our law is the law of the colonist, not the colonised, but we have not conquered to the extent that Maori have been silenced or relegated to insignificance, as, say, in the US. This matters.”
So what’s it to be Luc? Rule of [colonial] law or rule of the colonised (which by your own definition is therefore racist)? In the first quote you argue that something was racist because it wasn’t based on the principles of law. In the next you criticise the very thing you accused something else of being racist because it was not based upon it.
Luc, that is just plain contradiction – contradicting yourself. Do you actually know what you think?
Well, actually no you don’t do you? Because your next rant is how “”The People” know fuck all.” That includes you Luc. Now you admit you know little after having tried to lecture on the (contradictory) rights and wrongs of the country.
You really are a complete mess
Vote:October 8th, 2010 at 10:15 pm
“The billboard was dog whistle politics at its most brilliant,”
I’ve heard this term before but don’t know to what dynamic it refers.
Could you elucidate? Seriously.
It’s just, if you’re saying: “pandering to the people’s prejudices,” then which political party, in all of history, hasn’t done this, ever?
So I assume this isn’t what it means. So what does it mean?
Vote:October 8th, 2010 at 10:23 pm
Of course many Kiwis are racist. Just read the comments anywhere lately about the Commonwealth Games or anything involving Asians and you’ll find a redneck Kiwi who has probably never set foot anywhere offshore in their lives.
I agreed with Maurice then and still maintain that many Kiwis are downright awful when it comes to Asians. It’s embarrassing.
Vote:October 8th, 2010 at 10:25 pm
Sure it can be pandering to prejudices, but it is just an offer of a short, sharp and above all simplistic solution to a complex problem. Like “One Law for All.” It’s nonsense, but hits all the buttons and your mates, The People, lap it up.
I’m not saying it hasn’t been done before and by others, it has, although seldom better, but that’s irrelevant. It’s still deeply dishonest.
But I would love John to give me a dog whistle for a low carbon future, as I asked above! (I guess none of us is perfect).
Now I’ve gotta catch up on my shows before bedtime: O’Reilly, Democracy Now! and Rachel Maddow. Might have to the short versions.
Vote:October 8th, 2010 at 10:35 pm
“All over the world indigenous people are recovering power from the colonists, often in the face of opposition by the West. Think South Africa and all over South America.”
Yes but what about all the good that colonialists did or doesn’t that count. Legal systems, political and governance frameworks, benevolent institutions, infrastructure. That’s not to defend how they treated natives as savages but remember, if you judge history, you have to do so in the context of the social thinking and state of science at the time those decisions were being made, otherwise you’re just making naive worthless 20/20 hindsight judgements that don’t mean anything.
I personally don’t see any point nor value in using 20th/21st century values as a basis toward evaluating what happened when those values didn’t exist widely across society. It just encourages people with vested interests to proclaim that what happened to their dead ancestors directly affected them and therefore they require compensation from us, who had nothing to do with it because we weren’t even born. Where’s the justice in that?
There are exceptions where justice is served in addressing general historical trends, such as the treaty process we have and what has happened to all the tribal people in almost every country, but I’m fucked if I’m ever going to feel personally guilty for what my distant relatives did, just the same way I imagine, today’s aggrieved parties don’t feel guilty about the raping and ax-murdering that their dead ancestors did.
Or do they have problems that other races might be better equipped
Vote:October 8th, 2010 at 10:35 pm
No, bhudson, look up the Fallacy of the Excluded Middle, principium tertii exclusi.
Of course I am one of The People, and that is why I urge our political masters to use the best talents and knowledge to seek the truth. The conundrum for them is they need our vote to do that and increasingly politics is dominated by self-interest on the part of voters, which is where democracy falls down. And that self-interest is often driven by fear, as generated by the likes of John Boscowan and John Ansell. Another term for The People is Lowest Common Denominator (Rob’s Mob).
Vote:October 8th, 2010 at 10:39 pm
Does anyone notice how its only other people who are assumed to be self-interested?
Vote:October 8th, 2010 at 10:40 pm
No reid, I never said that. Check out my reply to bhudson, above, re fallacy.
You could read “Waitangi and Indigenous Rights” ISBN 323.1199 442 B120 on this very topic.
Vote:October 8th, 2010 at 10:42 pm
I never said that, either. Self interest is natural and good, but not to the exclusion of the interests of others and the cause of justice.
Vote:October 8th, 2010 at 10:44 pm
Luc “The People Know Fuck All” Hansen:
I’ve taken up your challenge to tell the truth about climate change:
http://johnansell.wordpress.com/2010/03/27/think-tank-teach-tank-sea-change/
Vote:October 8th, 2010 at 11:00 pm
Sorry I was being flippant and ‘self-interest’ has become a very politically loaded term these days depending upon political view.
However throwing in certain members of the ACT party isn’t really too helpful to this debate. The entire spectrum of politics uses fear as a mechanism, always have for millennia and likely will continue to do so in the future
I am somewhat curious about this statement however “political masters to use the best talents and knowledge to seek the truth” It seems a somewhat orwellian and also an oxymoron.
Vote:One could say it is in the self-interest of politicians to be the least interested group in society involved in the quest for truth.
October 8th, 2010 at 11:25 pm
Well done John.
The deleterious effects of some biofuels became well known very early on, and are now taken seriously. But I’m sorry to say that you have fallen into exactly the same trap as other deniers – you avoid the science, preferring to concentrate on red herrings.
The fate of the people pictured in your link is going to be immeasurably worse than that experienced so far with, again, western self-interest at the core of that obscenity.
Vote:October 8th, 2010 at 11:27 pm
“you have fallen into exactly the same trap as other deniers”
So Luc how is this statement not:
“pandering to prejudices, [and] just an offer of a short, sharp and above all simplistic solution to a complex problem.”
??
P.S. “western self-interest at the core of that obscenity”
If someone had to be at the core, I’d rather it were us, than the “developing” world polluters to whom our carbon taxes travel, for little overall benefit.
Vote:October 8th, 2010 at 11:30 pm
V
Fair comment. And I guess my reference to political masters was a bit idealistic, but like Churchill said: Democracy is the worst from of government, except for the alternatives.” (or something like that).
The point about The People is that we generally know very little about complex topics, so we must rely on experts for the information. Climate science is a good example: the scientists can explain what we are faced with but only the politicians can make policies to change it.
And to make another point, I’m not saying The People can never be right – but it does seem to be easy for some to manipulate The People into a misinformed view.
Vote:October 8th, 2010 at 11:32 pm
One of my lecturers once said re: a paper on Communist Russia, that they will prosecute a thousand people in order to catch amongst them the one guilty person. OTOH, the West will allow a thousand guilty to go free, in order to avoid prosecuting the one innocent.
Your lecturer is an idiot. The comment is patently childish. Of course there have been excesses in socialist countries. But most of these occurred in times of paranoia during extreme danger to newly established socialist regimes – surrounded by enemies and threatened with annihilation. Whatever the case I can’t think of any communist leader saying anything nearly as wicked as this:
“Lesley Stahl on U.S. sanctions against Iraq: We have heard that a half million children have died. I mean, that’s more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?
Secretary of State Madeleine Albright: I think this is a very hard choice, but the price–we think the price is worth it.”
Those children didn’t even have the luxury of being suspected of a crime. And they were killed in order to further US foreign policy objectives.
Vote:October 8th, 2010 at 11:35 pm
reid
ETS does not change the science. That’s a political argument.
If you are happy about our self interest causing mayhem and misery for future generation, so be it, that’s an ethical stance you have to live with.
But we, the West, have caused the problem and we must pay our share to resolve it – contraction and convergence is the general principle. It’s the developed nations who are refusing to face up to their responsibilities.
Vote:October 8th, 2010 at 11:40 pm
Zhumao could have added that the facts show that the US currently imprisons 740 citizens/100,000 as opposed to China’s 120/100,000. On that basis, however, there are obviously a lot of guilty people walking free in the US!
You will find, Zhumao, that more liberal economic access for the US in China will lead to increasing US demands to imprison more of your people people so more private prisons can be built to provide Haliburton and the likes with ever higher profits.
Vote:October 8th, 2010 at 11:46 pm
Why does China treat the Falung Gong so harshly? Is it just propaganda? Why are these seemingly harmless individuals, such a threat?
China has right throughout history seen massive upheaval and chaos caused by millenarian sects who start off like Falun Gong. The Taiping rebellion springs to mind – 20 million died in a civil war started by a Hong Xiuquan, a self-styled “Heavenly King” and self-proclaimed brother of Jesus Christ (ok he happened to be on the right side – he opposed the corrupt Qing government – but still….he was a nutcase).
Large parts of the Chinese population are susceptible to manipulation and agitation by all manner of cult leaders – feudal superstitions die hard in a country like China. Remember China has not had a few centuries to modernise – she really only started in 1949. Similarly Christianity also becomes bastardised and you have all manner of heterodox beliefs floating around – with most of these involving someone either claiming to be Christ or related to him.
In the interests of social stability China was absolutely right to crack down on Falun Gong. In fact China has far more justification for stamping out Falun Gong, than Germany does scientology, or New Zealand’s heavy handed overreaction to goings on in the Ureweras two or three years ago.
Any country will take the necessary action to ensure social stability. As has NZ in the aftermath of the Christchurch EQ when government ministers were given extraordinary powers.
And in any case how the Chinese run China is not really the business of any New Zealander. Just as how New Zealand handles the seabed and foreshore question is not the business of some Inner Mongolian goat herder.
Vote:October 8th, 2010 at 11:49 pm
Luc H>Even last year, the US basically supported a coup against an elected president in Honduras.
Your posts are generally only vaguely rooted in the factual world and I generally can’t be bothered correcting them, but I couldn’t let this one pass. The Obama administration actually supported socialist Manuel Zelaya after the military and the courts got rid of him.
Vote:October 8th, 2010 at 11:54 pm
Zhumao>And in any case how the Chinese run China is not really the business of any New Zealander.
Human rights are universal. To be interested in improving human rights in NZ but not China is essentially racist.
Vote:October 8th, 2010 at 11:56 pm
The US is ‘the land of the free’ if one is responsible with that freedom. Otherwise one can enjoy freedom by heading to Nigera which only imprisons 33/100,000. Also, China executes almost four times as many citizens per million than does the US. I guess China’s demand for ‘involuntary organ donors’ is higher.
Vote:October 9th, 2010 at 12:05 am
Human rights are universal. To be interested in improving human rights in NZ but not China is essentially racist.
Even if one holds this to be the case, there is always a trade off between individual rights and the rights of society.
The developed nations of the West tend to tilt towards the former, developing countries the latter.
Partly because the West simply can afford to. And in times of a crisis countries in the west will tilt towards group rights as well.
China at its current stage of development simply must put poverty reduction and national unity as its main goals. All other matters are simply subordinate to these two goals, at least for now.
Poverty reduction and national unity are also the priority of the vast vast majority of the Chinese people. Simply by reducing poverty, vast gains in human rights are achieved for vast numbers of people. And without national unity, China would descend to the type of chaos we see in Somalia today, and indeed was the case for almost a century up until 1949. Perhaps some in the West would like to see China go the way of the former Yugoslavia with the accompanying appalling suffering, only played out on a far greater canvas.
Furthermore it is only with poverty reduction and the establishment of a numerically strong, well-educated middle class, imbued with good civic virtues, that there will ever be any hope of running a well functioning ‘democracy’ in the sense you currently have in Western Europe and the US (if indeed this is a desirable goal).
Without this we get the basketcases of India (simply the fact that almost half of its population goes hungry every day is a crime against humanity), the Philipines, and South Africa (where life expectancy of the black population has actually dropped by 10 years since 1994), and perhaps even Russia during the Yeltsin years, when there was similarly a huge drop in living standards, and life expectancy (things have improved now for them under Putin).
So for the moment, yes, there may be the occassional dissident locked up, which may in future years be judged as unjust. China simply cannot worry about that now. The exigencies of this very moment simply have to take precedent over the wishes and privileges of a vanishingly numerically small number of so called intelligentsia.
Polls have confirmed that the overwhelming majority of Chinese people support the government, and are optimistic for the future (the most optimistic in the world) apparently.
Vote:October 9th, 2010 at 12:14 am
And I do like davidp’s analogy about the husband threatening to kill his wife if she ever leaves him. A perfect description of the Bullies of Beijing’s treatment of Taiwan.
No different from the North preventing the South from seceding. Lincoln fought a bloody war to prevent his from happening. Yes, part of it was to do with slavery. But the main reason was preventing secession:
“My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that.”
Some may see that one part of a country seceding is the business of the people living in that part only. The Chinese don’t see it that way. The status of Taiwan is the concern of all citizens of the PRC as well – not just those people living on Taiwan. Because Taiwan is a part of their nation and thus they all have a claim to it.
Vote:October 9th, 2010 at 12:14 am
http://www.friendsoftibet.org/main/execution.html
http://www.savetibet.org/media-center/ict-news-reports/official-confirmation-execution-tibetans-lhasa
One could go on, Zhumao. For a long, long time in fact and not just about Tibet. So these are recent, and specific only to Tibet. Where’s the existential threat to China, from Tibet, by which you justify what’s in those pictures, during the last few years?
That’s the difference between Western and Chinese thinking on this, the West don’t have a problem with heterodoxy, and it is anaethema to us, to imprison and execute people simply for that.
Indeed we celebrate it as part of the necessary diversity of the gene pool for we believe that from it, sometimes, comes art and genius that would have never arisen otherwise. Apart from the pure humanity of it, as well.
We don’t feel a need to be homogeneous, indeed possibly at the root of the difference between Asia and the West is that we in the West feel a need to be heterogeneous.
It’s a somewhat frightening thought, for it is a very deep-seated difference in that it transgresses national and geographical boundaries perhaps penetrating to our very genetic roots. Perhaps it won’t become a problem, perhaps it will. It certainly makes it very difficult for either side to drop its guard, doesn’t it.
Vote:October 9th, 2010 at 12:15 am
Ansell and zhumao (so kindred, yet so apart):
If an opposition party in Singapore or the PRC attempted to erect billboards on public streets claiming that minority religions, ethnicitiies or nationalities are discriminated against in housing, public and private career advancement and basic medical services, are you prepared to defend the statement that they have free liberty to do so and that Singapore is democratic and the PRC is a benevolent, non hegemonic giant?
Vote:October 9th, 2010 at 12:26 am
the West don’t have a problem with heterodoxy, and it would be and is anaethema to us, to imprison and execute people simply for that.
Neither does China execute people for holding heterodox beliefs – not now anyway.
The situation in China, at this stage of development is simply incomparable with that of the West.
In the West you have stable mature developed societies which have evolved over the past century. The West has had a huge head start on industrialisation. There simply is not the danger to social stability in the West from allowing a few nutcases to do their thing.
That is because the West has a numerically strong, well-educated middle class.
But imagine this. Imagine if in New Zealand the population was changed in such a way that people who believed in witchcraft and burning witches at the stake suddenly made up say 60 or 70% of the population – rather than say 0.5% of the population. And they wanted to change society to reflect their own beliefs. Do you think NZ would with such a population be able to run a run functioning democracy with rule of law?
OK you may still argue that the ballot box still reigns supreme and freedom of religion supersedes everything else. But if you felt that supressing such beliefs in the interests of modernising was justified – I’m sure you would not be alone.
It’s a somewhat frightening thought, for it is a very deep-seated difference in that it transgresses national and geographical boundaries perhaps penetrating to our very genetic roots.
Is that not racism? What I find frightening is the West wanting to invade and change everyone else not like them. Chinese have never done this. Westerners think that simply because another country has a different culture or a different social system that that automatically makes them a threat. And then they make up all sorts of reasons to invade them.
That is what is frightening.
Vote:October 9th, 2010 at 12:28 am
P.S. Zhumao:
I quite agree with you. You’re new here, so you obviously aren’t aware that many times, I have spoken out against such crimes. It’s just I don’t play favourites.
Vote:October 9th, 2010 at 12:44 am
So what does it do to them? Apart from blocking their internet along with everyone else’s?
Yes I absolutely agree Zhumao and please don’t think I’m attacking China for I in fact admire it. I know it has significant issues we don’t have. However there’s a difference between China as a people and China as a government and they are not the same thing. It is the actions of the Chinese govt to which I have been referring all night. I simply don’t believe, even with the issues China has in its society, that they are necessarily the best solution, from a heterogeneous perspective.
Your point about 70% etc is interesting, and I ask is that really, truly the case? I realise China has a tremendous problem with education, or lack thereof but is it that bad that in order simply to govern, China must take the measures it does or does it go a bit further, in the name of stamping its authority on its people?
I too find this frightening and an anaethema and I don’t, unlike some, deny it happens, even today. However perhaps this is more of a human trait than a purely Western one, albeit Western nations seem particularly enthusiastic. Something that reassures me about this and perhaps it’s my own fantasy, is that when Western nations have done this recently, say in the last 100 years, generally they have withdrawn from the occupied territories and allowed them to continue as they were, and Japan is a good example of that. I think people and times change, and what was good 100 years ago is no longer acceptable now. I hope we are all learning, as we go forward through time.
Vote:October 9th, 2010 at 1:41 am
that link of the execution you posted – the top one anyway is rather gruesome – as all executions are.
However that is absolute proof of the dishonesty of these Free tibet groups. The pictures are well known. They are the executions of a murderers.
http://www.pekingduck.org/2005/02/photos-of-a-chinese-execution/
Note how in the link below the details of the woman’s crime is not blanked out (unlike the link you provided).
Secondly the executed in this case are 100% not Tibetans. They don’t even look Tibetan. And she has a Han Chinese name.
Still gruesome. But many countries execute murderers – the US included.
When the US was at a similar stage of industrial and social development as China is now – the US was far more barbaric.
This is how the US executed there criminals often – by lynching. And the federal governments (and Roosevelt) did nothing about it until the late 1940s. Public executions got huge attendances.
“Washington was castrated, thrown onto the pile, and then doused with coal oil. The chain had then been secured around a tree limb, and Washington, still secured within was hoisted above the flame. He made numerous attempts to climb the now-hot chain, and the crowd cut off his fingers to prevent any further attempt at escape. Three times, the agonized boy was raised and lowered into the flame in front of the crowd of 16,000, and in direct response, three times, further, according to the Cincinnati Freedom Center Exhibit, the crowd cheered and roared.[citation needed] It is not known how long he lasted before he died, but the mob let him burn for over an hour; they then took various body parts, such as his fingers and teeth, as souvenirs. His limbs were separated from his body, put in a bag, and dragged around town.”
Postcards would be sent through the mail celebrating a ‘BBQ’ showing the utter lack of fear of action from the authorities for such atrocities:
http://tinyurl.com/mcnaoa
The whole town would turn out to enjoy:
http://tinyurl.com/2vrzukh
including young kids brought out to watch:
http://tinyurl.com/27x9kay
Some of the victims were guilty. Many were not – killed simply for whistling at a white woman — Emmett Till.
Unlike the Chinese – social stability or national integrity could not even be used as an excuse for such atrocities – and of course there was no fair trial. This type of thing continued up until the late 50s.
Vote:October 9th, 2010 at 2:19 am
John Ansell:
Whatever the sins of the West, they pale into insignficance compared to the inhumanity of Marxist-Leninist governments.
That is absolutely untrue.
The West now has cleaned up its act (but not really- the West has killed more innocents than China and Russia put together these past 50 years). But it is easier to be a nice democracy when you have an educated wealthy populace. And plenty of arable land.
But the process of establishing the West was incredibly bloody. And it all happened under capitalism / imperialism.
Just a few capitalist atrocities off the top of my head.
African slave trade: 15 million
Native American Holocaust: 20 to 100 million
Philippine–American War: 1.4 million (1/6 Filipino population exterminated by American troops).
“The present war is no bloodless, opera bouffe engagement; our men have been relentless, have killed to exterminate men, women, children, prisoners and captives, active insurgents and suspected people from lads of ten up, the idea prevailing that the Filipino as such was little better than a dog..”
Namibian Hereros: 50 to 100,000 (first genocide of the 20th century)
Belgian genocide of Congolese: 10 to 15 million. Also mutilations chopping off hands and feet for failing to meet quotas.
Rudy Rummel (an arch conservative mind you who is stridently anti-communist, who up until recently has tried to deny colonial ‘democide’) has admitted:
“I’ve reevaluated the colonial toll. Where exploitation of a colony’s natural resources or portering was carried out by forced labor (in effect slavery of a modern kind), as it was in all the European and Asian colonies, then the forced labor system built in its own death toll from beatings, punishment, coercion, terror, and forced deprivation. There were differences in the brutality of the system, the British being the least brutal and Leopold and the French, Germans, and Portuguese the worst. We all know what the Soviet gulag was like. These colonizers turned Africa into one giant gulag, with each colony being like a separate camp.
Based on this research, I’m willing to estimate that over all of colonized Africa and Asia 1900 to independence, the democide was something like 50 million . This is way above my original 870,000. Even 50 million may be too conservative.”
Note that the killings above were against entirely innocent populations.
And given the populations victimised were smaller than big countries like Russia, and China, proportionatelyspeaking, that increases the enormity of capitalist/imperialist crimes all the more.
All to enrich the West.
Vote:October 9th, 2010 at 2:25 am
There is also of course a qualitative difference between capitalist and communist crimes.
The socialist countries of course committed excesses, but these were committed in the context of the instability of newly established regimes, subject to ferocious attacks by both domestic and outside forces, and the understandable hysteria and paranoia these would have engendered among the new regimes of the time. Many of those killed were guilty, but even those wrongly killed were at least accused of a crime. And this was often in the heat of the moment when passions were inflamed and the fear was if one did not kill one would be killed by counterrevolutionary forces (barbarities were committed on both sides –the Tsarist leader of the white armies, Kornilov famously said he would be happy to see ¾ of Russia’s population killed in order to stop Bolshevism, and Chiang Kai Shek was completely indiscriminate killing the entire families of communists, Mao’s included). Whereas the communists did not kill those children of counterrevolutionaries, and the orphaned children of Japanese troops captured at war’s end in the communist controlled areas were adopted by Chinese families and raised as Chinese.
Vote:However the victims of Western imperialism included men, women, and children, and their deaths were caused not because they caused fear in the hearts of their murderers, but simply because Europeans saw non-whites as little better than livestock to be exploited for their labour, land, and resources, to be cleared out of the way for white settlement like one would fumigate a house for pests before moving in.
Hitler’s racial ideas, and his plans for Russia, Eastern Europe were in part inspired by the imperialism practised by the other European powers (Germans were a little peeved about getting in on imperialism a little later than the English, French, and Spaniards – Russia instead was to be their area of colonial conquest).
October 9th, 2010 at 2:26 am
Small-minded people in a small nation. Why I left.
Vote:October 9th, 2010 at 2:58 am
Yes unfortunately Zhumao if you track back the source of that peking duck link you gave to those Tibet photos…
http://www.zonaeuropa.com/20041201_1.htm
and
http://www.zonaeuropa.com/20041202_1.htm
it gives a rather more distressing and seemingly realistic view of how the justice system in China functions.
Not quite the way it would work in a Western democracy. Which way, do you think, for you’re obviously educated, is the better way? Or does this all happen because, well, hey.
Vote:October 9th, 2010 at 6:52 am
Jack5: As for Berend. You mean that by selling our assets we’ll be as poor as Samoa?
Foreigners can’t buy land in Samoa Jack5. That’s the point.
Vote:October 9th, 2010 at 6:57 am
John Ansell: Since he’s shut the door on most of the other strategies for catching up with Australia, selling lots of milk to newly-enriched Chinese obviously appeals. So to save having to admit that it’s really only the communists that he’s got a problem with, he’s banning everyone.
The solution would be easy: foreigners get as much access to our land as kiwis get to theirs. Since John didn’t implement that, it simply shows, like in all other instances we’ve seen so far, that he is not running as socialist-lite, he is a socialist. He does not have a free market instinct, and he does not trust free people. He belongs in the current Labour party.
Vote:October 9th, 2010 at 7:03 am
Luc Hansen: Now, with that settled, I would like to offer [John Ansell] an opportunity to utilise your undoubted talent to perform an honourable public service. I remember you saying something like an issue can be redefined with one billboard. Give us the billboard that redefines the Climate Change debate, puts the deniers to shame, and show why we all need to put huge pressure on our leaders to lead us into a low carbon future.
No pressure John.
Vote:October 9th, 2010 at 7:21 am
I just detest Mainland Chinese for all the reasons that the team of Political Cadres posting as ZhuMao remind me of.
Hateful, resentful, and in the main hopeless drug addicts rightfully denied supply by our Glorious ‘Nor for Profit’ free trade associations.
Where are those gunboats when you need them?
Vote:October 9th, 2010 at 7:48 am
Luc,
(Much too late but then I choose not to spend all night in front of a computer screen.)
Fallacy of the excluded middle…
Cute, and half marks for the attempt, but I was not postulating that there are only two options. I was pointing out that you had made consecutive posts on the same topic that are contradictory. First something was racist because it was not based on the law and then that the law was wrong because it was racist.
That is simply circular [lack of] logic Luc. It is not lack of consideration of a middle by anyone other than yourself. (Which also means that you contradicted yourself again when you introduced the fallacy of the excluded middle.)
Vote:October 9th, 2010 at 9:17 am
Zhumao’s posts are pretty disgusting, but perhaps quite revealing how the news about Western countries is reported in China. We haven’t had such a deluge of distortions on kiwiblog ever.
Just for the record, this is what happening in China today: Chinese police force Nobel Peace Prize winner’s wife to leave home:
This is not a country you want to sell your land to. I agree on that. Asians of all free countries: I truly support you buying our land, but I doubt we could sell you much land even if we tried, as other countries offer far better opportunities.
Vote:October 9th, 2010 at 9:42 am
I don’t give a toss about foreign ownership – but it does sit uneasy with me when the owners have strong government links. Perhaps we should put a requirement that no land in NZ can be sold to company’s that are part owned by a foreign government – I may be wrong but from what I understand that would rule out most Chinese company’s.
Vote:October 9th, 2010 at 10:50 am
berend: see my post of 10.44 where I respond to Luc with my climate change poster.
Vote:October 9th, 2010 at 12:04 pm
Settle all treaty claims. Compensate Maori for all the illegal confiscation of lands. Give them back shitloads of land, foreshore and seabed !!!
Then they can cede from NZ and y’all can do whatever the fuck you like with the rest.
Oh and Williamson is a eurocentrically cultural biased dickwad. Foreign ownership isn’t fuelld by racism. It’s fuelled by a fear of being tenants in our own country and becoming a nation of serfs and peasants to overseas interests of whatever ethnicity.
Vote:October 9th, 2010 at 3:39 pm
Maybe people shouldn’t sell land that they own to certain people.
But frankly, that is nobody else’s business but theirs. Stopping people from selling a commodity to others based on race is… well racist.
You old farts can fuck off with your xenophobic bullshit and let me sell my own property to whom I please. Just piss off and vote for NZ First.
Really, do we want NZ to be a third world organic backwater, or do we want to trade with the world and earn ourselves some foreign coin? Do we want to be poor or rich? That’s all there is to it. Leave people and their property rights alone!
Vote:October 9th, 2010 at 11:42 pm
I’M POSTING THIS FOR AMY BROOKE, WHO HAD TROUBLE WITH THE REGISTRATION PROCESS:
“Stupid is as stupid does.” Amy Brooke
“I think the Chinese communists have basically no understanding of human rights, but for sure they understand the language of economics.” — Swedish MP Cecilia Wigstrom.
It’s worrying that so much sheer ignorance and glib clichés like racist and xenophobic are a substitute on this blog for a much-needed intelligent analysis of the issue of Chinese companies attempting to buy up our resources and our land.
It is almost incredible that mainstream media comments, even from the usual accredited commentators, can so triumphantly and ignorantly denounce those looking with concern at what actually is involved in the Crafar dairy farm controversy by saying “they can’t take the land away, can they?”
Professor Li Dong, a former protester at Tiananmen Square, ex-Oxford ex-Harvard, and recently retired as a lecturer in Chinese studies at the University of the Waikato, is almost incredulous at the degree of naiveté, if not insouciance with which too many commentators are pronouncing on this issue.
His concerns were echoed by a recent guest at the University of Otago. Professor David Shambaugh “internationally recognised as an authority on contemporary Chinese affairs and the international politics and security of the Asia-Pacific region,” according to a recent Christchurch Press report ( 3/7/10), speaking at the annual Otago University Foreign Policy School, says that after 72 hours in the country he was astonished by New Zealand’s naiveté about its relationship with China.
“He was particularly amazed by comment from foreign affairs Minister Murray McCully that most countries would give their right arms to enjoy the relationship we have with China.” He warned that New Zealand is walking into its relationship with China with its eyes shut.
Professor Shambaugh is not alone in believing that certain strategic assets should be off-limits to foreign ownership, and warns that New Zealand ought to consider the possibility of China demanding access to extract minerals, if land ownership is granted – and that “New Zealand has not properly considered that China might ask to formally call on Kiwi ports with its naval ships”.
We have already, in fact, had an armed Chinese warship visit our ports, and I recall with some incredulity higher-ranking Communist Chinese government military personnel being shown around our military bases on a number of occasions while Helen Clark was Prime Minister – this while America, which saved this region Pacific region for democracy in World War II, was still being given the cold shoulder by Clark’s socialist government.
New Zealanders are worryingly naive about China’s aggressive push into this part of the world. The Australians, far more aware, fear that China is going to be a military threat within the next 10 to 20 years.
And yet, John Key, with what is increasingly being perceived as his once-over-lightly thinking, advises that ” the Overseas Investment Act won’t stop individual farms being sold, but it can provide some support around very large tracts of land”.
Key is also invoking the concept of xenophobia in a thoroughly superficial fashion. The equally dismissive Tim Groser says that “New Zealanders have to get it because governments can’t control these things”.
Really? On the contrary, New Zealanders expect governments to be able to control these things. The defence of the realm is one of three main duties of government.
And the ridiculous “they can’t take the land away” completely overlooks the fact that if Chinese companies buy up New Zealand farmland they will then actually own New Zealand territory – which can serve as a future base and foothold for the Communist Chinese government.
Professor Li Dong and others have been pointing out that this is by no means a question of ostensibly private Hong Kong-fronted Chinese companies attempting to buy New Zealand land.
What it is vitally important to recognize is that there isn’t one Chinese owned company investing overseas that does so without the permission of and very possibly even the financial involvement of the CCP, the Communist Chinese Party which constitutes the Communist Chinese government.
Not only is Communist China now attempting to buy up, monopolize and stockpile as much of the world’s resources as it can gain, but it is aggressively establishing bases throughout the Pacific, in competition with American interests.
Its activities within Australia are proving controversial and problematic and Australians, far more awake to disturbing developments in the Pacific area with the largest Muslim populated country in the world on their northern doorstep, think that China is going to be a military threat to them within the next 10 to 20 years.
Moreover, China, which at the moment has no excuse for any territorial claim to the Antarctic, is highly anxious to gain a foothold there.
Arguably, as its oppressive totalitarian government is quite capable of taking over at any time an apparently privately-owned Chinese company, and if it was a farmland purchase in this country that it appropriated, i.e. if it then owned a slice of New Zealand territory, it could arguably then claim a “legitimate” right, on the basis of New Zealand land ownership, to a legitimate interest in Antarctica.
China’s historic pattern of following up an economic interest in a country with political interference (we have already seen a taste of this with its bullying over the Falun Gong) and then a military presence – with the excuse of protecting the interests of citizens – should make us very aware that the smile on the face of the tiger – its charm offensive lavished on New Zealanders and our apparently gullible government at the political level – is merely a mask for the tiger still there.
Warnings on China’s directions are already expressed in such outstanding books as The China Threat by Bill Gertz and China – the Gathering Threat by Constantine C. Menges, Ph.D.
It is almost incredible that our politicians can be so utterly naive and under-educated historically as to ignore the reality that “the Western elites persist in taking such a naive and over-optimistic view of the CCP leadership”.
As the Dominion Post recently reported 2/10/10), “the World Bank, usually considered a bastion of right-wing thinking, produced a report this month urging governments to protect local land rights.”
The bank points out that “even apparently economically viable and sustainable projects may have undesirable social consequences”….
“May have” is the understatement of the year.
The Labour Party, together with the Greens, is now far more on the ball eyeing foreign land ownership as a red-hot political issue.
The National government’s naiveté concerning this and other vitally important issues such as the neo-tribal grab for exclusionary control of foreshore and seabed territory is has lost touch with the concerns of heartland New Zealanders.
These are huge issues.
There is no doubt that New Zealanders will be increasingly priced off their own land, and the family farm will disappear, swallowed up in corporate agribusinesses, if the whole question of the downsides of foreign investment is not properly taken on board.
It is not up to any political oligarchy to inflict its own ill-researched choices on the country. As Chesterton said, “we are the people of England and we haven’t spoken yet…”
So too, we are the people of New Zealand and these are our decisions to make.
Amy Brooke
Vote:October 10th, 2010 at 12:15 am
bhudson accuses me of:
bh, although I dispute your take on my comments, I would point out that these two propositions are not necessarily contradictory. In fact, they can both be true in the same set of circumstances.
Vote:October 10th, 2010 at 12:20 am
Blockquote># John Ansell (655) Says:
October 9th, 2010 at 10:50 am
berend: see my post of 10.44 where I respond to Luc with my climate change poster.
And John, as I pointed out to you, a failure in response does not invalidate the original case. You don’t deny the climate change thesis, you just object to it interfering with your very comfortable life.
And, for you, your children and grandchildren and great grandchildren can go suck on the big sav because, to you, the main thing is the main chance – your chance.
Good for you, not.
Vote:October 10th, 2010 at 1:53 am
Amy Brooke makes some ridiculous assertions. Laughable in their absurdity.
Here is a howler:
“and if it was a farmland purchase in this country that it appropriated, i.e. if it then owned a slice of New Zealand territory, it could arguably then claim a “legitimate” right, on the basis of New Zealand land ownership, to a legitimate interest in Antarctica.”
Since when! Does that Israel have a right to a slice of Antartica then on account of Israeli companies owning land in NZ?
When you own land in New Zealand you own in it an economic sense. You don’t have sovereignty over it. That’s pathetic.
And the fact is you don’t have to be close in distance Antartica to lay a claim on it. After all the British have a claim, as do the Norwegians. And they are farther away from Antartica than the Chinese.
The fact is just because NZ is close to Antartica than say, Nigeria, that does not mean we have more of a ‘right’ to make a claim than the Nigerians!
Where on earth did you get the idea that it was about geographical proximity?
In fact anyone can put a claim in. Currently none of the claims are internationally recognised.
Amy Brooke – why get steamed up about the Chinese making a claim when so many others have already done so?
Vote:October 10th, 2010 at 1:57 am
Partially racism, mm maybe, but in reality it’s a gut feeling something is not right here & this is the best post I have seen on the subject ( ok it’s a little higher level than individual farms, but explains I think extremely well the influences ).
In short it’s not racism, it’s China artificially keeping it’s currency low by buying up external assets to subsidise it’s exports, it’s a smart move by them & they’ve managed to gut American manufacturing in the process, but then again the Americans fell for the trap.
From Bernard Hickey
Vote:http://www.interest.co.nz/opinion/opinion-why-china-refusing-let-its-currency-rise-and-what-might-mean-new-zealand
October 10th, 2010 at 2:08 am
“Not only is Communist China now attempting to buy up, monopolize and stockpile as much of the world’s resources as it can gain, but it is aggressively establishing bases throughout the Pacific, in competition with American interests. “
Yes. Where are these ‘bases’. And if you are talking of military bases, I believe China has ZERO military bases on foreign soil. The US has 700. Or could I be wrong here? Maybe Amy Brooke is in the loop and know something even the CIA is unaware of.
And in any case why should the Chinese not be pushing for influence in the Pacific. It is their part of town as well. After all the Americans are already there.
What do you Amy Brooke think the US reaction would be if China set up a single military base in Mexico? Not good obviously.
Yet US ships patrol the Taiwan straits, the US have bases in Japan, in South Korea, they are in Central Asia, Afghanistan, and are even trying to get into Mongolia now.
So based on these facts alone, who is more aggressive in the world? The US or the Chinese?
Vote:October 10th, 2010 at 2:14 am
“China’s historic pattern of following up an economic interest in a country with political interference (we have already seen a taste of this with its bullying over the Falun Gong) and then a military presence – with the excuse of protecting the interests of citizens”
More completely unsubstantiated rubbish from Amy Brooke.
Where is this historical pattern of a ‘military presence’. Can you please name one Ms Brooke?
If you make a claim, you should back it up with facts that can be substantiated. Otherwise you are just producing sheer drivel.
The facts are these. New Zealand currently has more troops on combat assignments in foreign lands, than China.
In fact I believe China has none (I could be wrong here – but I’m sure Ms Brooke will correct me if I am).
Look over the past 500, or even 2000 years. Who have been the most expansionist, aggressive race in world history?
Of course it is Amy Brooke’s forebears. Not mine.
Vote:October 10th, 2010 at 2:37 am
The Australians, far more aware, fear that China is going to be a military threat within the next 10 to 20 years.
This says more about Australian racism than Chinese intent.
China gross military expenditure is about 1/7th the US. Her gross expenditure is a little more than that of inconsequential countries like Britain and France. As a proportion of GDP China’s spending is way way less than that of Britain and France.
http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=47139
For heaven’s sake China does not even have an aircraft carrier. The US has about 10, and even the piss-ant British (the most wicked vile narcotics smugglers in world history) have three.
So where is this China threat?
Australians are however, fully aware however that their economy (and thus NZs economy) is completely tied to China’s. If China goes down, Australia is reduced to the economic stone age (as will be NZ), and for Americans it will be the equivalent of a financial atomic explosion.
(by the way when are the UK and France going to be booted off as permanent UN security council members? Indonesia, India, and Brazil are far more deserving of a place. Britain and France as permanent members is a sheer anachronism. WWII was a long time ago).
Vote:October 10th, 2010 at 3:02 am
In fact Chinese investment around the world, and its overall increasing clout in other areas is seen by many around the world as a positive good.
For example the Chinese in Africa are helping develop the place, building infrastructure, and actually helping many countries on that continent to grow.
“China’s presence has coincided with the continent’s strongest period of economic growth. A McKinsey report in June pointed to average real GDP growth 4.9 per cent from 2000 through to 2008.”
http://tinyurl.com/25jmf8a
For the open-minded, the best study of the Chinese role in Africa, backed up with a plethora of facts and figures is “The Dragon’s Gift: The Real Story of China in Africa”, by Deborah Brautigam.
http://tinyurl.com/y87lm7n
The African people like dealing with the Chinese much more than the West. The Chinese pay for resources. The Europeans just came in and stole the resources, drove the locals off prime land and gave it to European settlers – hence the problems in Zimbabwe today.
Not only are the Chinese welcomed for their fair dealings, but China’s own model of development and political system is attracting more and more interest around the developing world as a way forward.
The Rwandan President on China:
“The Chinese bring what Africa needs: investment and money for governments and companies.China is investing in infrastructure and building roads.European and American involvement has not brought Africa forward.Western firms have to a large extent polluted Africa and they are still doing it”
The South African President on China:
“China is there ….to create a mutually beneficial kind of relationship, which is different from former Western colonialists simply taking things by force.”
The South African president also said:
“The developing world was told that if it did not Westernize and change its political systems to mirror those of the West, they could forget about achieving economic growth and development. Now we are asking what we could learn from other political systems and cultures. Is the political discipline in China a recipe for economic success, for example?”
The Botswanan President on China:
“the Chinese treat us as equals. The West treats us as former subjects.I prefer the attitude of the Chinese to that of the West.”
Ugandan President on China:
“The Western ruling groups are conceited, full of themselves, ignorant of our conditions, and they make other people’s business their business. Whereas the Chinese just deal with you, you represent your country, they represent their own interests, and you do business.”
Enuff said!
I look forward to, but do not expect, a response from Ms Brooke.
Vote:October 10th, 2010 at 4:15 pm
So, just to clarify, we are worried about the Chinese owning New Zealand land because they do not respect property rights? And we are trying to put a stop to this by…. removing New Zealanders’ property rights?!
Okay, I thought so. Just checking. Well ALL the commies can fuck off and let me do what I like with my own land, thank you very much. Chinese Commies like Hu Jintao can fuck off, and so can New Zealand commies like John Ansell. Fuck off, both of you.
Vote:October 10th, 2010 at 5:25 pm
BlairM: perhaps you could stop foaming for a moment and point to precisely where I gave you the impression that I am a communist.
My position, if it’s of any interest to you, is that we should encourage foreign investment UNLESS it comes from a nation that means us harm. Then I think it could be counter-productive.
I believe it’s prudent, as I think Zhumao understands, to consider any evidence that China may be in that category.
The question is whether philosophical concerns amount to such evidence.
Further to that…
Zhumao: I have a message in to Amy Brooke asking her to respond to your points.
Her arguments and those of Li Dong and others have done much to cause my misgivings. Yours have provided a useful Chinese perspective.
I’m now keen to know how Amy rebuts your rebuttal. I, for one, will be following the debate between the two of you with great interest.
Please stick with it and be patient, as I know Amy was going out this afternoon.
Vote:October 10th, 2010 at 6:18 pm
John Ansell. Thanks.
But I would like Amy to carry out a debate based on the facts. Not a whole series of broad unsubstantiated statements. Not a whole lot of appeals to authority, or the simple rehash of anti-China dissidents. Otherwise I might as just use the People’s Daily to back up my points.
In particular again, I ask her to clarify this statement “it (China) is aggressively establishing bases throughout the Pacific, in competition with American interests”.
Where are these bases? If there are none, I would argue that Ms Brooke is either hopelessly misinformed or is being outright dishonest.
Vote:October 11th, 2010 at 2:39 pm
Oh gee, John, that’s a very nuanced sort of stance. I detect no such subtlety in your ridiculous campaign to get NZ First back into parliament. You are an idiot, and a useful idiot at that (no that’s not a compliment).
Commie is as commie does is all I can say.
What part of “this is my property and I will do as I please with it” don’t people understand?!
Vote:October 11th, 2010 at 10:51 pm
Happy to leave it to others to decide who the idiot is Blair.
Vote: