There are some things I write about here that I really don’t care that much about.

But this isn’t one of them.

Yesterday at the start of Parliament’s sitting day, the prayer was read in Chinese by Labour MP, Raymond Huo.   This was apparently in recognition of the PRC-government sponsored Chinese language week.

There are three “official” languages in New Zealand: English, Maori, and sign language.  Chinese is not one of those languages, so why is it being used as an official part of parliamentary proceeedings in this country?

There are, of course, migrants from the PRC (and other Chinese-speaking countries/territories), as there are migrants from many other countries.  But when they come to New Zealand, and participate (as they should) in our political processes, they should do so speaking one of our languages.  As a migrant you might, to some extent hold on to your birth culture, but you made a choice to come to New Zealand, and part of that choice should be to adopt New Zealand ways and laws.   We are not some PRC colony.

I noted that Chinese language week is a PRC-government sponsored event.  The patron is Her Excellency, the PRC’s ambassador in New Zealand.   Among the trustees are Raymond Huo himself, the president of the New Zealand China Friendship Society, well-known for its close associations with the regime, the chair of the Victoria University (PRC-funded) Confucius Institute (and a senior consultant to the PRC government around Confucius Institutes) and the chief executive of the local branch of one of the Chinese banks.   (On this occasion, former PRC intelligence offical Jian Yang  – who misrepresented his past to get into New Zealand – is only an honorary adviser.)   And who do we find among the “sponsors” and “partners”?  Listed first in Hanban, the PRC government agency behind that network of Confucius Institutes around the world.   In the same top-tier is one of the Chinese banks (recalling that all Chinese corporates are seen, by the Chinese government, as arms of the PRC party/state).  Just behind, are the New Zealand government propaganda arms –  the China Council (from whom never a sceptical word is heard) and the Asia New Zealand Foundation –  the individual Confucius Institutes, the Wellington City Council (wasting my rates again) and various businesses and universities that want to keep on side with Beijing.

This is, overwhelmingly, a PRC promoted and sponsored body/event.  Any serious observer would recognise that, and the propaganda win involved in allowing the parliamentary prayer to be said by Huo, in Chinese.   No wonder Huo could talk of a record number of people watching Parliament TV from abroad (assuming there is any data to support such a claim).    Could one imagine a member being invited to open the day’s session of the PRC legislature with a prayer in English?   Silly me.  Legislature, in the PRC.  Ritual rubber-stamp more like.  Prayer?  Why, it is an avowedly atheistic regime, uneasy about anything or anyone that claims a higher allegiance than the Party.

Being a fairly open-minded place, where our leaders are largely heedless –  and careless –  of our heritage, it might have been one thing if Chinese language week had had as joint patrons (evil as her regime is) the PRC Ambassador and the Taiwanese government’s representative in New Zealand.    Or if the key figures were not political at all.  Or if the ethnic Chinese MP reading the prayer had a track record of standing up, and speaking out, against the evils of the totalitarian regime that brutally rules the land of his birth.  Or had originally from another Chinese-speaking country.

But, of course, none of these things held.    What do we know of Raymond Huo, senior Labour backbencher (presumably hoping for higher office before too long) who – remarkably (or perhaps not given the carelessness of our MPs) – chairs the Justice select committee in Parliament.  A man who has never once that I’m aware of, in his years in Parliament, uttered a single word critical of the PRC regime.  A man who openly defends the Chinese conquest of Tibet, and the brutal suppression of the people and their identity.   And here is what Anne-Marie Brady wrote about him in her Magic Weapons paper last year.

Even more so than Yang Jian, who until the recent controversy, was not often quoted in the New Zealand non-Chinese language media, the Labour Party’s ethnic Chinese MP, Raymond Huo霍建强 works very publicly with China’s united front organizations in New Zealand and promotes their policies in English and Chinese. Huo was a Member of of Parliament from 2008 to 2014, then returned to Parliament again in 2017 when a list position became vacant. In 2009, at a meeting organized by the Peaceful Reunification of China Association of New Zealand to celebrate Tibetan Serf Liberation Day, Huo said that as a “person from China” (中国人) he would promote China’s Tibet policies to the New Zealand Parliament.

Huo works very closely with the PRC representatives in New Zealand. In 2014, at a meeting to discuss promotion of New Zealand’s Chinese Language Week (led by Huo and Johanna Coughlan) Huo said that “Advisors from Chinese communities will be duly appointed with close consultation with the Chinese diplomats and community leaders.” Huo also has close contacts with the Zhi Gong Party 致公党 (one of the eight minor parties under the control of the United Front Work Department). The Zhi Gong Party is a united front link to liaise with overseas Chinese communities, as demonstrated in a meeting between Zhi Gong Party leaders and Huo to promote the New Zealand OBOR Foundation and Think Tank.

It was Huo who made the decision to translate Labour’s 2017 election campaign slogan “Let’s do it” into a quote from Xi Jinping (撸起袖子加油干, which literally means “roll up your sleeves and work hard”). Huo told journalists at the Labour campaign launch that the Chinese translation “auspiciously equates to a New Year’s message from President Xi Jinping encouraging China to ‘roll its sleeves up’.”   However, inauspiciously, in colloquial Chinese, Xi’s phrase can also be read as “roll up your sleeves and f..k hard” and the verb (撸) has connotations of masturbation.  Xi’s catchphrase has been widely satirized in Chinese social media.  Nonetheless, the phrase is now the politically correct slogan for promoting OBOR, both in China and abroad. The use of Xi’s political catchphrase in the Labour campaign, indicates how tone deaf Huo and those in the Chinese community he works with are to how the phrase would be received in the New Zealand political environment. In 2014, when asked about the issue of Chinese political influence in New Zealand, Huo told RNZ National, “Generally the Chinese community is excited about the prospect of China having more influence in New Zealand” and added, “many Chinese community members told him a powerful China meant a backer, either psychologically or in the real sense.”

and

During his successful campaign for the Auckland mayoralty, in 2016, former Labour leader and MP, Phil Goff received $366,115 from a charity auction and dinner for the Chinese community. The event was organized by Labour MP Raymond Huo. Tables sold for $1680 each. Because it was a charity auction Goff was not required to state who had given him donations, but one item hit the headlines. A signed copy of the Selected Works of Xi Jinping was sold to a bidder from China for $150,000.  A participant at the fundraiser said the reason why so many people attended and had bid strongly for items was because they believed Goff would be the next mayor.

and

In June 2017, at the Langley Hotel in Auckland, the State Council Overseas Chinese Affairs Office hosted an update meeting to discuss the integration of the overseas Chinese media with the domestic Chinese media. In attendance was Li Guohong, Vice Director of the Propaganda Department of the State Council Overseas Chinese Affairs Office, and other senior CCP media management officials, representatives of the ethnic Chinese media in New Zealand, representatives of ethnic Chinese community groups, and Labour MP Raymond Huo.  Update meetings (通气会) are one of the main ways the CCP relays instructions to the domestic Chinese media, in order to avoid a paper trail. Party directives are accorded a higher status than national law.

There is no sign at all of Huo putting any distance between himself and one of most repressive totalitarian regimes on the planet.  If anything, he only seems to want to hug the regime, and Xi Jinping, closer.  No wonder former diplomat and now lobbyist Charles Finny told a TVNZ Q&A interviewer last year that he was always very careful what he said in front of Huo.

And since this was a prayer being said, what about the religious dimensions?  Parliament’s prayer is an odd sort of beast, made odder by the current Speaker who rewrote the prayer to remove any distinctive Christian aspects, while keeping it distinctively monotheistic (references to Almighty God –  and not to localised tree gods or other minor deities).  As a Christian, I’d be happy enough (would probably prefer) Parliament dropped the prayer altogether: even if hypocrisy is the tribute vice pays to virtue, I’d rather MPs just recognised that the dominant “religion” of New Zealand (and every society has one, defined broadly) isn’t theistic at all.

But, for now, Parliament is opened each day with a monotheistic prayer, some vague nodding reference to our heritage, but vague enough that the small numbers of Muslims and Jews in New Zealand can probably nod along.

And what is the status of religion in the People’s Republic of China?   The Communist Party, which runs the state, is avowedly atheistic.  Religous believers, of whatever stripe, aren’t allowed to join the Party, as a matter of ideological commitment.    And both the Party and state are threatened by any sense of higher loyalties, not just theistic ones –  witness the extreme measures they’ve taken to suppress Falun Gong.   And what of theistic religions?    In the case of Islam, consider the extreme repression now in place in Xinjiang province, where some estimates suggest more than a million people may be in concentration and indoctrination “camps” (prisons), the surveillance state is taken to extremes, kids are taken from imprisoned parents, declared orphans, and then retrained to forget the identity, or even the existence, of their parents.   No New Zealand public figure –  no minister, no MP, and certainly not Raymond Huo (former countrymen of these victims) –  has spoken up, or spoken out, against that almost unbelievable persecution.     What you don’t speak up about –  when you in a position to be heard – is what you tolerate, what you really don’t care much about at all.  And yet Raymond Huo has the cheek to accept the offer to utter the prayer to this monotheistic Almighty God.

What of Christians?   They’ve had an uneasy relationship with the PRC over recent decades.   There are tame churches, in the Three-Self Patriotic Movement (Protestant) and a parallel with Catholics.  In many respects, they are orthodox, and yet they allow themselves to be placed under the thumb of the party-State (as for example, much of the Lutheran church in Germany did during the Nazi era).  But those churches who won’t bend the knee to the party-State are subject to increasing persecution in the Xi Jinping era, and attempts to suborn them and their leaders.  One large independent church in Beijing recently closed –  went to operating in small groups and by podcasts –  after the authorities insisted on the right place surveillance cameras in their buildings.  In response to growing repression and threats more than 100 pastors recently signed a declaration ending this way (emphasis added)

Christians are obligated to respect the authorities, to pray fervently for their benefit, and to pray earnestly for Chinese society. For the sake of the gospel, we are willing to suffer all external losses brought about by unfair law enforcement. Out of a love for our fellow citizens, we are willing to give up all of our earthly rights. 

For this reason, we believe and are obligated to teach all believers that all true churches in China that belong to Christ must hold to the principle of the separation of church and state and must proclaim Christ as the sole head of the church. We declare that in matters of external conduct, churches are willing to accept lawful oversight by civil administration or other government departments as other social organizations do. But under no circumstances will we lead our churches to join a religious organization controlled by the government, to register with the religious administration department, or to accept any kind of affiliation. We also will not accept any “ban” or “fine” imposed on our churches due to our faith. For the sake of the gospel, we are prepared to bear all losses—even the loss of our freedom and our lives. 

The situation has got consistently worse under Xi Jinping – who Raymond Huo holds close –  who is reported to regard churches as “severe national security threats”.

And yet Raymond Huo is invited by the Speaker of our Parliament –  presumably with the acquiescence of other party leaders, including the Prime Minister and the Leader of Opposition – to utter the daily prayer to the monotheistic Almighty God?   It is shameful.

But also telling.  After all, Simon Bridges last year signed up to the idea of a “fusion of civilisations” with this evil totalitarian regime.  Party presidents, Haworth and Goodfellow, head up to Beijing and sing the praises of the party/State and of Xi Jinping himself.

And just the other day, the chief executive of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade  –  about to become head of the PM’s department, and so we can presume was assuredly on-message –  gave a rare published speech.     In it he articulated New Zealand foreign policy, including among his ten basic principles this one

Second, be deliberate in supporting New Zealand’s values, speaking out in defence of them when required, even where that might put us at odds with others.

In fact, he quoted the Prime Minister from a speech earlier in the year

“In this uncertain world, where long accepted positions have been met with fresh challenge – our response lies in the approach that, with rare exceptions, we have always taken. Speaking up for what we believe in, standing up when our values are challenged and working tirelessly to refurbish rules and build architecture, and to draw in partners with shared views.

And noted

I can say with confidence that all of the Governments for which I have worked would hold these things to be true. 

In which case, I guess we must be able to deduce the real values of our leaders –  ministers past and present, and MPs –  but what they do and don’t say.    After all, they speak up for what they believe in, or so we are told?

When our Parliament invites a CCP-affiliated MP, who champions the interests of the atheistic PRC regime, and has his own party campaign under a Xi Jinping slogan, to open the day’s parliamentary sitting in prayer, in Chinese it seems unlikely that any of them care much about anything other than trade deals for big corporates and their donors, and none of them has the slightest regard for our own heritage, our own values, or for the freedom (including to worship, or not) of Christians, Muslims, and others in China.   There are, so we are told, Christian MPs in our Parliament.  But apparently not even a single one of them was willing to speak up, or speak out.

I don’t suppose New Zealand ranks very high among the issues that concern Beijing, but it must have been a good day in the relevant corners of Beijing officialdom yesterday –  bonuses for the Ambassador perhaps –  as they looked at the useful idiots masquerading as leaders in the New Zealand Parliament.

As a matter of urgency, we need someone –  some party –  to stand up for taking back our country, for asserting the values, traditions, and liberties of its people, the self-respect that (among other things) was presumably part of what attracted some ethnic Chinese to move here in the first place.  As for the present leadership, heedless, careless, and useless……selling out their country (mostly not for personal enrichment) whether by their indifference or their active involvement.

Yes, it will have been a good day in Beijing.  If the butchers ever take time to chuckle, yesterday might have been one of those days.

It was a year ago today that the Financial Times and Newsroom told us that we’d had a People’s Republic of China spy in our midst….well, in our Parliament actually.   Unknown to the voters – but presumably not to the National Party hierarchy, which must (presumably) have done its candidate vetting – for six years Jian Yang had sat in our Parliament, had sat each week in the governing party’s caucus, had spent several years on Parliament’s Foreign Affairs committee, and been part of official government delegations to the PRC.  And, so this joint FT/Newsroom investigation revealed, Jian Yang –  who had only moved to New Zealand in his 30s – had  (in the words of the FT article)

….spent more than 10 years training and teaching at elite facilities including China’s top linguistics academy for military intelligence officers, the Financial Times has learnt. Since being elected in 2011, Mr Yang has been a big fundraiser for the National party. He has consistently pushed for closer ties with Beijing and for international policies and positions echoing those of China’s Communist party.

He’d been a member of the military intelligence system of the People’s Republic of China….in colloquial terms, a spy.

The story sparked no action from the National Party –  other than the then Attorney General and minister for the intelligence services attempting to tar the stories as “racist” –  and Jian Yang was duly re-elected to Parliament ten days later, where he sits still.  Doing little (search Hansard, and you’ll find  – for example – that, despite being a third term Opposition MP, he has asked only two oral questions this Parliament).  And explaining less (he has refused all media comment to English language media for months, while apparently being quoted regularly in the PRC-dominated Chinese language media).  He has been fully backed by both the previous and current National Party leaders.

The story unfolded further.  Having initially claimed he’d been fully open about his past –  while explicitly asking the FT not to report it –  Jian Yang eventually acknowledged that he had withheld information about his PLA background when he had lodged residency and/or citizenship applications to New Zealand.  Extraordinarily, he told journalists that he had done this because the PRC authorities had told him to –  this even though by the time he was applying to New Zealand he hadn’t lived in China for some years.  But nothing seemed to happen as a result.   A few weeks earlier, the Green Party leader’s acknowledgement that in her youth she’d lied to claim welfare benefits, had (rightly in my view) cost her her job, and a full MSD investigation supposed to result in a refund.

It also emerged that Jian Yang had been a member of the Chinese Communist Party –  only a small minority of PRC citizens are members –  and although he claimed no longer to be a member, China experts say that from a CCP perspective no one leaves the Party unless they are expelled.   And Jian Yang had clearly been in favour with the Party, regarded as politically sound etc, or he’d never have been allowed  –  with his background in the PLA system  – to leave the country to study.

Various observers have noted the way in which Jian Yang prominently and frequently associates with the PRC embassy in New Zealand.  It was noted that in Jian Yang’s maiden speech –  where MPs often talk about the things that shaped them, their values etc –  he couldn’t bring himself to condemn the Tiananmen Square massacres.  In fact, in now seven years in Parliament it isn’t clear that he has ever said anything critical about the Party-state he chose to leave –  one of the most evil and repressive on the planet.

Even a doyen of the establishment –  former diplomat, current member of the board of the Contemporary China Research Centre, Charles Finny –  who claimed to have known for years of Jian Yang’s intelligence background was moved to comment in a TV interview that he knew that Jian Yang (and Labour MP Raymond Huo) was close to the PRC embassy, and that he was always careful what he said in front of either man.   The (unstated) implication was that he was worried that anything he said might well be passed back to the PRC Embassy.  It was an extraordinary admission, that he didn’t feel comfortable being fully open to people serving in New Zealand’s Parliament, who have sworn allegiance to New Zealand.

But then the whole situation is extraordinary:

• we’d never have tolerated a former Gestapo official, who later acknowledged he’d lied about his background (on the instructions of his German masters) to get into the country, and who didn’t (once) have a bad word to say about the Nazi regime, to have served in our Parliament,
• we’d never have tolerated a former KGB/GRU official who’d……..to have served in our Parliament, especially while the noxious Soviet regime was still in power,

And yet, even if Jian Yang won’t say so, that is the sort of regime the People’s Republic of China and its CCP rulers actually is.

In truth, there would probably be outrage (reasonably and understandably so) if someone with a background in US military intelligence lied about their background to get into New Zealand, and somehow got into our Parliament, refused ever to say anything critical about the US, and still spent lots of time close to the US Embassy.  And, for all its faults, the US is a long-term military and intelligence ally of New Zealand.

But about Jian Yang….nothing.  No investigation into those applications for residency/citizenship  –  by contrast, didn’t we turf out Indians on student visas who had (perhaps unknowingly) misrepresented their finances?   And not a word now from any member of Parliament, or any political party (there were a few comments suggesting unease from Winston Peters, but that was before he took office).

I’m sure there are decent people in Parliament, but none –  not one – seems to have any moral courage when it comes to this issue.   Don’t upset Beijing, don’t upset the donors, don’t upset that handful of big businesses that have chosen to make themselves highly exposed to the wrath of Beijing.

But then why would we really be surprised.  As Anne-Marie Brady’s paper –  released just a few days after the initial Jian Yang revelations – highlighted, the presence of someone like Jian Yang in a prominent place in New Zealand public life is just the tip of iceberg when it comes to the way in which the PRC has sought (successfully it seems) to seek influence in New Zealand (and a range of similar countries).  Little of it appears to be illegal, and perhaps little of it even should be (although tightening up, and closing some of the loopholes in, our electoral finance laws has merit, as would stronger rules on post-Parliament employment opportunities for former ministers).   The issue is more about political will.

And the political will is clearly to keep the New Zealand public in the dark as far as possible (did National advertise in 2011 their recruitment of an uncritical Communist Party member and former member of Chinese military intelligence?), play up spurious –  well, simply wrong –  arguments about New Zealand’s reliance on China for our economic fortunes, and do all they possibly can to play nice (and more) with Beijing.  Both National and Labour party presidents have been on record in the last year praising Xi Jinping and his regime, even as he has assumed more power, and the regime has become more repressive.  It is sickening.  But keep the money flowing, and simply set aside any values New Zealand governments once stood for seems to be the approach of all our political leaders, and their underlings.

Not a word, for example, has been heard from the Prime Minister or the leaders of the Green Party.   Given that Jian Yang is a member of an opposition party –  whom normally they would have no interest in protecting –  that suggests they think it is just fine to have a former member of Chinese military intelligence, who acknowledges he lied to get residency here, and who simply never says anything critical about Beijing, as a member of Parliament.   In my book, that makes them at least as bad as the current National Party leadership and MPs.

It is shameful.

A couple of weeks ago, ministers of the Five Eyes group issued a declaration about foreign interference in domestic politics, and wanting more surveillance powers etc.  Andrew Little, our justice minister and minister responsible for the intelligence services, was part of that grouping.   There were some fine words

We condemned foreign interference, being the coercive, deceptive and clandestine activities of foreign governments, actors, and their proxies, to sow discord, manipulate public discourse, bias the development of policy, or disrupt markets for the purpose of undermining our nations and our allies. Foreign interference threatens a nation’s sovereignty, values and national interests — it can limit or shape the polity’s ability to make independent judgements, erode public confidence in our political and government institutions, and interfere with private-sector decision making. We agreed the five countries would work collectively to counter foreign interference, protect our individual sovereignty, and ensure our values and interests are upheld.

But it is all a bit meaningless when successive New Zealand governments are so utterly supine around China, unbothered by the (plain as day) presence of Jian Yang in our Parliament.  Political leaders, cheered on by elements of big business, voluntarily assuming some sort of quasi-vassal status also sacrifices the nation’s values and the interests of its people.  It should erode public confidence in our leaders and our institutions.

Of course, the current government –  or at least elements of it – would have you believe that it is different.   And I was pleased to see them committing to purchase the P8 patrol planes-  even if the PRC threat to New Zealand isn’t really military, there is a military dimension to the threat to other free societies nearer the PRC.  And there are relationships to maintain with Australia (in particular) and the US, for non-PRC issues.  And they do seem rather worried about the activities of the PRC in the South Pacific and Melanesia –  potential debt-traps, potential military bases, and so on.

But they won’t name the evil.  They won’t speak openly about the character of the regime.  They won’t even call out the unacceptability of Jian Yang’s position.

There was a story on Newsroom the other day, clearly sourced directly from the Prime Minister, in which the message was supposed to be that the government was speaking up (“an increasingly frank New Zealand line on China”) –  including when a member of the Politburo came through Wellington last week.

“We acknowledged of course we are both countries on different development paths, that the nature of our political systems, but that we’ve always as our two countries found ways to discuss those differences in a way that works for our relationship, and I put human rights under that category,” Ardern said.

The detention of Uighur Muslims in Chinese “re-education camps”, the subject of concern by a United Nations panel, was raised under that banner, Ardern said.

 But that first paragraph is what all New Zealand politicians always say: we find ways to “discuss these differences”, but never actually mention them openly.  I’m sure the PRC leaders get used to those private ritualised conversations, which make no difference to anything.  Since they happen in private among “men or women of the world” they probably don’t even make anyone uncomfortable.  Couldn’t have that of course.

This time, it seems, there was some mention of the Xinjiang situation.  I guess that is better than no mention, but where is the moral leadership of the Prime Minister in shaping New Zealand perceptions of the regime she is dealing with?

Thus, having given lots of time to a New York Times columnist for a puff piece, a serious New Zealand journalist notes the continued refusal of the Prime Minister to engage seriously on issues around the PRC and New Zealand.

We hear nothing from our political leaders about:

• the growing Chinese threat to a free and democratic Taiwan,
• nothing about the ongoing militarisation of the South China Sea,
• nothing about the debt traps associated with much of the PRC “aid”
• nothing about the outrageous evil being perpetrated by the regime in Xinjiang (perhaps a million people in concentration camps),
• nothing about new threats to religious liberty for Christian Chinese (“install surveillance cameras or close down”),
• nothing about organ donor abuse,
• nothing about new PRC laws to essentially require all Chinese companies to act as agents of the Party-state (including ones that operate here, notably Huawei),
• nothing about the growing attempts to treat all ethnic Chinese abroad as forever part of the PRC

And, of course, nothing about that very visible tip of the iceberg Jian Yang.

The Xinjiang situation has been getting more attention internationally recently, including a searing report from Human Rights Watch.   One academic observer who read the report in full drew up a lengthy list, from the various interviews HRW did, about things that get you locked away.  Here are the first 10 –  the complete list is here.

Things which may cause you to detained without trial and locked away in an education camp indefinitely, in Xinjiang, China, 2018:

• Owning a tent
• Owning welding equipment
• Owning extra food
• Owning a compass
• Owning multiple knives
• Abstaining from alcohol
• Abstaining from cigarettes
• Wailing, publicly grieving, or otherwise acting sad when your parents die
• Performing a traditional funeral
• Inviting more than 5 people to your house without registering with the police department

But our political leaders show no sign of caring.  Actually caring, when you hold positions in government that enable you to do and say things, implies more than a quiet, and no doubt very very muted, pro forma word to your CCP peers when, at the same time, you are trying to negotiate new deals with them.

How about levelling with the New Zealand people about the nature of the regime – the Nazi Germany of our day, if (so far) with more staying power.   How about bringing even a modicum of a moral stance to politics, not subordinating everything to the business interests of a few firms, and the fundraising imperatives of the political parties?   Yes, it would require some courage, and some rare honesty.  But it would be much truer to the values most New Zealanders uphold.   Perhaps there would be a price –  there almost always is for things that matter, things that are worthwhile –  but if tiny Palau can stand up for itself (though for how long?) surely distant, diversified, New Zealand could?

Saying “enough” and refusing to any longer tolerate Jian Yang in our Parliament would be a (pretty modest but) telling start.  More likely, a shameful anniversary will pass in embarrassed silence…and again next year.

Late last week the New Zealand China Council released its first Perceptions of China survey.  The China Council, you will recall, was established by the previous government, largely paid for with taxpayer money, with boards and advisory committees stuffed full of retired and current politicians, heads of government agencies, even an active journalist, and business people with interests in China to try to keep public opinion on side, and not worry their heads about the way successive governments cosy up to a heinous regime in pursuit of another dollar, another deal.  They have a hired gun –  a former MFAT diplomat – as Executive Director, who is never shy of articulating a pro- (People’s Republic of) China story, or of downplaying or attempting to trivialise any concerns about the nature of the regime, or its activities in countries like New Zealand.  I attempted to unpick one of his speeches a few months ago.   The PRC embassy in Wellington must regard him as a considerable asset, speaking in a New Zealand idiom to normalise the abnormal, downplay the risks, ignore the evil, and so on.

But survey data are usually interesting, and if the China Council is going to have a claim on our taxes, a decent survey is less bad than some of things they could spend money on.  There were a few interesting snippets in this one.    The first question asked “Would you say your general opinion of New Zealand’s relationship with these countries is positive, negative, or neutral”

The China Council was, of course, keen to highlight that 43 per cent of respondents answered “positive” and only 14 per cent “negative”.    But I’m not at all sure what to make of the results, partly because I’m not sure what to make of the question (I’m not sure how I’d answer it) and partly because of the cross-country comparisons.

For example, who is “New Zealand” here –  the government or individual citizens?  And, on the same note, who is “China”?  And is one being asked to describe or evaluate?  From what we see and hear, the New Zealand government and the People’s Republic of China have a generally good relationship (Comprehensive Strategic Partnership and all that), but that is something that I think is inappropriate and not in the interests of New Zealanders.

But I also found it striking that the results for China were so similar to those for Japan and for Fiji.  Japan is now a stable democratic prosperous First World country, no longer any threat to anyone.  Fiji is a semi-free small state, perhaps a nice place for a holiday, but poor and also no real threat to anyone other than its own people.   And then there is the People’s Republic of China – expansionist, aggressive, brutally suppressing the freedoms (political, religious or whatever) of their own people, without the rule of law,  engaged in economic coercion of any country that gets offside with them, and so on.  But, I suppose, there is a fair amount of trade between New Zealand firms and PRC ones.      Survey responses are what they are, and readers can only try to make sense of them, but on this occasion I suspect they can’t mean much.   Perhaps much of it is just about trade.  Perhaps the China Council has just been doing its propaganda job very effectively.

These were the results of the second question

I found these results interesting, and more than a little surprising (in fact, they go against the idea that trade explains the China answers in previous question).  But again, how would I answer?   Since trade is usually (not always) mutually beneficial, that would incline me towards “equally”.  And I put no weight on the spin, beloved of the previous government, that China had somehow “saved us” during the last recession.  I suppose I would answer “China”, but that is because I think New Zealand governments are excessively deferential, scared of their own shadows when it comes to China, and are selling out the interests of New Zealanders as a whole (around the integrity of our system, and the sort of values most New Zealanders espouse) for the business interests of a handful of firms (that somehow convince governments that what is good for them is good for us).  That’s my view, but it is a bit puzzling why the survey respondents both think China does best from the relationship, and that the relationship is positive.

There are some questions about trade, in which it turns out that people are aware that, for the moment anyway, China is our largest trading partner (well, Chinese firms and New Zealand firms –  trade isn’t government to government), and know that dairy is the largest export from New Zealand to China.  More New Zealanders want trade with China to increase than want it to decrease (and I’d probably be one of them – if China were to finally remove restrictions on services exports etc it would be particularly welcome).  But then there was this surprising (to me) result, in which respondents were asked about individual export sectors.

My own view would be almost exactly the opposite of this.  Export education is substantially a rort, cross-subsidised by access to work rights and immigration points, and it and tourism are two types of exports particularly vulnerable to the sort of economic coercion the PRC is now establishing a track record for.  By contrast, if firms can sell more fruit or fish to China, good luck to them (so long as they aren’t bending the ear of government – to go quiet on the PRC –  to do so).  Slightly off-topic, it is perhaps a telling reflection on New Zealand’s overall economic underperformance, what sorts of products aren’t on the list at all (eg advanced manufacturing).

What of foreign investment from the PRC in New Zealand?

Most respondents are only happy with foreign investment from the PRC with “strict vetting or controls”, and an overwhelming majority want restrictions to prevent majority ownership from the PRC.   I’m generally much more open to foreign investment than the median New Zealander, but regard PRC-sourced investment (where all firms have to be treated as, in effect, arms of a hostile state) as different.   But even so, I can’t see a case for (say) preventing majority PRC ownership of an office block in Queen St or The Terrace, or a hotel in Queenstown, or even a milk powder plant in Canterbury. On the other hand, allowing Huawei a role in New Zealand telecoms infrastructure seems reckless.

And then, presumably in the cause of defending Confucius Institutes in New Zealand (something the Executive Director has previously championed), there was a question about languages in schools.

I was mostly surprised that Japanese still scored so highly (a language spoken in only one, large but shrinking, country).  Whether Mandarin is really more “useful” than French or Spanish is anyone’s guess –  and how one defines “useful” is surely wholly in the eye of the respondent –  but learning a foreign language, whatever it is, is generally a useful discipline.  On the other hand, very few people who do several years of language study at high school ever emerge with much more than the ability to read a menu.  But the bigger point remains the one I made in a recent post on Confucius Institutes: when we teach foreign languages in our schools we should pay for, and resource, that ourselves, just as we do with maths and science teaching, not rely for support on foreign aid from a considerably poorer country, pursuing its foreign policy agenda.

Overall, some interesting data, with a few surprises and quite a few questions. It will be interesting to see how responses change, if at all, over coming years.

As for the China Council itself, the full prostration seemed to be on display late last week when they (a body largely funded by New Zealand taxpayers) held a “Gala dinner” to welcome the new PRC Ambassador to New Zealand.   I’m sure our authorities need to have formal, but distant, diplomatic relations with the PRC, but the “gala dinner” (not even just a “dinner”) is sickening to contemplate: people apparently so willing to set aside any values, any decent morality, any hardheaded assessment of the nature of the regime, to celebrate the arrival of today’s equivalent of the ambassador from the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, late 1930s imperial Japan, Mussolini’s Italy (or a host of smaller, more modern, examples).    New Zealand once had the decency and moral sense to take some sort of stand against these regimes and their activities.  But…there is a dollar to be earned no doubt.

As often, one turns to the Chinese Embassy website for more information than one gets from the China Council.  There is no record of the speeches of the China’s Council Executive Director (or any other “worthy”), but the Embassy published the Ambassador’s speech.   Here is part of it

While we celebrate our achievements, we should also be sober-minded that the world is undergoing profound and complex changes. We need to deal with the economic and social divide in many countries, address the international divide between the existing powers and the emerging countries, and to handle the divide between 21st century realities and outdated policies. How do we respond to these profound challenges we face? What kind of vision should we have for our two countries and for our relationship? The choices we make today will not only influence our own development, but also have an impact on the long-term development of our relations and even the evolution of the world order.

China has made its own choice. The 19th Party Congress held last October drew a new blueprint for China’s development for the decades to come. China will continue to follow the path of socialism with Chinese characteristics. China’s development has entered a new era with the main task of addressing imbalances and inadequacies of our development, in order to meet growing needs of our people for a better life. China will continue to maintain a strong economic growth, guided by the new vision with greater emphasis on innovation, coordination, green growth, openness and inclusiveness.

This year marks the 40th anniversary of China’s reform and opening up. Tremendous achievements have been made over the past 40 years. As put in his keynote speech at the annual conference of the Boao Forum for Asia last April, President Xi Jinping reaffirmed that China would adhere to its fundamental national policy of opening-up, and pursue development with its door wide open. President Xi also announced a series of major measures for further opening up.

A stronger and more confident China will be able to make even greater contribution to the international community. China will stay as determined as ever to build world peace, contribute to global prosperity and uphold the international order. China will continue to follow the path of peaceful development, implement a strategy of opening for mutual benefit and win-win outcome. What China seeks is global partnership, instead of global dominance. Our aim is to build a new model of international relations and a community of shared future for mankind.

(That last phrase is apparently one of Xi Jinping’s specials.)

Presumably the audience lapped it up or (if ever inclined to a little scepticism about this rose-tinted, not to say tendentious, description of the world as seen from Beijing) said nothing.  This the regime that is today’s Soviet Union, today’s Nazi Germany –  whether in the way it treats its own people at home, lays claim on the loyalties of ethnic Chinese in other countries, pursues expansionist agendas abroad, seeks to silence critics and so on.

Gala dinner indeed…..