The recent riots in Tonga highlight the dangers of liberal immigration policies in non-democratic states. In the recent rioting eight Chinese immigrants have been killed and large sections of the capital, Nuku 'alofa, burnt down by elements of the native Tongan population.
According to the Taipei Times, over 1000 Chinese took refuge in police stations and The Chinese Embassy from the rioters. This unrest follows rioting against Chinese immigrants in the Solomon Islands capital Honiara. However, it the first time that such violence has been seen in a Polynesian city.
Although low-level corruption is a prominent feature of Polynesian politics, ethnic violence represents a new and disturbing development.
Over the last decade the Chinese population in Tonga has grown rapidly and Chinese businessmen now own 72 percent of businesses in Nuku 'alofa. On this poor island state, where the main source of income is remittance money from New Zealand and Australia, there is considerable resentment against highly successful Chinese immigrants.
The dangers associated with economically successful East Asians moving into economically backward states are highlighted in Amy Chua’s best selling book World on Fire. In the case of Tonga, the recent surge in Chinese immigration has been promoted by certain members of the Tongan Royal Family who are desperate to attract foreign investment into the near bankrupt country.
However, since Tonga is a non-democratic monarchy, ethnic Tongans have been unable to voice their growing unease at the rapid pace of Chinese immigration. Subsequently, this resentment has exploded in the form of serious rioting, and the resulting destruction will only add to the country’s economic woes.
As Chinese immigration has increased, native Tongans have become increasingly angry that Chinese merchants have bought in Chinese labourers to do labouring work instead of employing locals. Unfortunately though, in countries with corrupt unstable governments such clannishness is par for the course, since people can only trust those with which they have strong informal ties.
In New Zealand, the liberal left often criticises New Zealand First for tapping into popular discontent with expansive immigration policies - particularly when this discontent is reflected in opinion polls.
However, it doesn’t seem to dawn on these critics that “populist” parties like New Zealand First provide a barometer for the government to gauge the public’s mood over immigration. This allows the state to temper its policies and avoid the kind of ethnic conflict that is occurring in the South Pacific.
New Zealand First’s strong showing in the 2002 election directly influenced the Government’s decision to temporarily reduce immigrant intakes and set tougher English language requirements for perspective Asian immigrants.
Sunday, November 26, 2006
Thursday, November 23, 2006
Martim Hames on Winston Peters
I’ve just been reading Martin Hames 1995 book on Winston Peters, Winston First. Although the book is written from a neoconservative perspective in which Hames, rightly or wrongly, dismisses Peters as an irresponsible populist, the book does show the noticeable pro-immigration bias in New Zealand’s media.
Hames argues that from 1984-1990 Winston Peters had a very cosy relationship with the country’s media. Almost all Peter’s numerous corruption allegations were taken seriously by the media even though a number clearly lacked substance. By 1990 Peters was riding high in the opinion polls and looked to be a serious contender for the National Party leadership.
However, after 1993 Peters’ relationship with the press took a nose-dive when he began to criticise immigration policy. National’s radical decision to open up immigration to wealthy East Asians in the early 1990s initially failed to attract much media attention. However, once Peters began making outspoken comments about Asian immigration the media turned the subject into a liberal morality play in which he was cast as an evil “right-wing populist” and “anti-immigrant”.
The use of the term “anti-immigrant” is a clear example of media bias since a more accurate and neutral term for someone wanting to reduce immigration would be a limited immigration supporter. You can only call someone an “anti-immigrant” if they advocate widespread repatriation of immigrants or discriminatory policies against immigrants that have already been allowed in the country.
The national media’s penchant for emotive terms on immigration issues is highlighted by conservative journalist Ian Wishart, who mentions an example of an immigration opinion poll (see here) by a leading New Zealand newspaper that deliberately led interviewees with loaded terms - ignoring one of the key rules in conducting opinion polls – that questions are phrased in neutral terms.
Today Peters can hardly manage to conduct a one-minute interview without losing his temper at the media. Although his skills and patience with the media appear to be waning as he ages, it is likely that at least some of his contempt for the media is due to the mauling he has received over immigration.
After his Orewa speech earlier this year, National leader Don Brash attracted unwarranted media criticism for stating, not unreasonably, that perspective immigrants adhere to “enlightenment values”. On Television One, 'nice but dim' Susan Wood, looked at Brash like he was some sort of war criminal as she demanded that he explain himself for his insolent remark.
As the Australian media tentatively begins to talk about immigration in a less biased manner it will be interesting to see if the New Zealand media will follow their lead.
Hames argues that from 1984-1990 Winston Peters had a very cosy relationship with the country’s media. Almost all Peter’s numerous corruption allegations were taken seriously by the media even though a number clearly lacked substance. By 1990 Peters was riding high in the opinion polls and looked to be a serious contender for the National Party leadership.
However, after 1993 Peters’ relationship with the press took a nose-dive when he began to criticise immigration policy. National’s radical decision to open up immigration to wealthy East Asians in the early 1990s initially failed to attract much media attention. However, once Peters began making outspoken comments about Asian immigration the media turned the subject into a liberal morality play in which he was cast as an evil “right-wing populist” and “anti-immigrant”.
The use of the term “anti-immigrant” is a clear example of media bias since a more accurate and neutral term for someone wanting to reduce immigration would be a limited immigration supporter. You can only call someone an “anti-immigrant” if they advocate widespread repatriation of immigrants or discriminatory policies against immigrants that have already been allowed in the country.
The national media’s penchant for emotive terms on immigration issues is highlighted by conservative journalist Ian Wishart, who mentions an example of an immigration opinion poll (see here) by a leading New Zealand newspaper that deliberately led interviewees with loaded terms - ignoring one of the key rules in conducting opinion polls – that questions are phrased in neutral terms.
Today Peters can hardly manage to conduct a one-minute interview without losing his temper at the media. Although his skills and patience with the media appear to be waning as he ages, it is likely that at least some of his contempt for the media is due to the mauling he has received over immigration.
After his Orewa speech earlier this year, National leader Don Brash attracted unwarranted media criticism for stating, not unreasonably, that perspective immigrants adhere to “enlightenment values”. On Television One, 'nice but dim' Susan Wood, looked at Brash like he was some sort of war criminal as she demanded that he explain himself for his insolent remark.
As the Australian media tentatively begins to talk about immigration in a less biased manner it will be interesting to see if the New Zealand media will follow their lead.
Sunday, November 19, 2006
Climate Change and China
In a Southland community newspaper Invercargill MP Eric Roy highlights one of the crucial flaws in the Kyoto protocol - its failure to take account of industrial pollution in China.
Since 1990, Southland’s Tiwai Point Aluminium Smelter has managed to reduce its CO2 emissions by 40 percent. As Mr Roy points out:
“For every ton of aluminium that is produced there is two tons of greenhouse gases, but in China it is eight and half tons of greenhouse gases per ton (of aluminium produced) ” .
He then states that: “In the last 15 years China has opened 15 new smelters”.
In New Zealand, many on the left believe that the Tiwai smelter should be closed so that emissions can be reduced to 1990 levels. It doesn’t seem to dawn on these softheaded do-gooders that closing the smelter would actually lead to increased CO2 emissions at the global level.
Population growth and easy credit that are the main factors behind New Zealand’s increasing CO2 emissions, not industrial activity. Either rapidly developing countries should be compelled to comply with the Kyoto Protocol, or it should be replaced with something else.
At present all it seems to be doing is accelerating western de-industrialisation.
Since 1990, Southland’s Tiwai Point Aluminium Smelter has managed to reduce its CO2 emissions by 40 percent. As Mr Roy points out:
“For every ton of aluminium that is produced there is two tons of greenhouse gases, but in China it is eight and half tons of greenhouse gases per ton (of aluminium produced) ” .
He then states that: “In the last 15 years China has opened 15 new smelters”.
In New Zealand, many on the left believe that the Tiwai smelter should be closed so that emissions can be reduced to 1990 levels. It doesn’t seem to dawn on these softheaded do-gooders that closing the smelter would actually lead to increased CO2 emissions at the global level.
Population growth and easy credit that are the main factors behind New Zealand’s increasing CO2 emissions, not industrial activity. Either rapidly developing countries should be compelled to comply with the Kyoto Protocol, or it should be replaced with something else.
At present all it seems to be doing is accelerating western de-industrialisation.
Wednesday, November 08, 2006
Binge-Drinking Culture
Northern Europeans has long had a penchant for binge-drinking.
Whereas Southern Europeans tend to be bought up to drink alcohol in moderation, North Europeans have long preferred to bloater themselves on pints of beer before stumbling home to await the next morning’s hangover.
To people of North European origin, food takes up valuable stomach space that could be productively filled with Guinness or Lager.
Scientific studies are now showing that Mediterranean people may well have genetic traits that make less prone to binge-drinking, since alcohol has been widely available in the region for thousands of years.
Since the late 18th century, North European countries have applied heavy taxes on alcohol to control drunkenness, which reached its most infamous excesses in England during the era of ultra-cheap gin, depicted in Hogarth paintings.
Subsequently, Anglo-Celtic colonies like New Zealand and Canada have long had strong temperance movements and strict government regulations on the use of alcohol.
In 1999 New Zealand’s socially liberal Labour Government decided to lower the drinking age to 18. However 7 years later it now seems that Parliament is set raise it back up to 20 again. According to Police and Hospitals, levels of anti-social behaviour, hospitalisations and attacks on police have increased significantly since the drinking age was lowered.
However, two other factors are also playing a part in drunkenness – credit and modern “ladette" culture. Until recently, few people under 21 had access to enough money to be able to go out and get drunk on a regular basis. Now thanks to credit cards and student loans the young party hard (as the young do) and pay later.
While it is common knowledge that women can’t alcohol as well as men, the media loves to project images of leather clad, high-kicking females that can do anything men can do. Meanwhile back in the real world, alcopop guzzling young women are more likely to be seen floundering in high heels, puking in gutters and being sized as prey items by rogue taxi-drivers (often with dubious immigration papers).
This trend is already starting to impact on long term health outcomes with an increasing number of women suffering from alcohol related medical problems (see here).
Although their may be a good case for raising the drinking age, it would be nice if the country could start discussing some of the deeper causes of excessive binge-drinking like genetics, feminism and easy-credit. However, at present all these topics are largely no-go areas for the liberal media and its neo-conservative puppet masters.
Whereas Southern Europeans tend to be bought up to drink alcohol in moderation, North Europeans have long preferred to bloater themselves on pints of beer before stumbling home to await the next morning’s hangover.
To people of North European origin, food takes up valuable stomach space that could be productively filled with Guinness or Lager.
Scientific studies are now showing that Mediterranean people may well have genetic traits that make less prone to binge-drinking, since alcohol has been widely available in the region for thousands of years.
Since the late 18th century, North European countries have applied heavy taxes on alcohol to control drunkenness, which reached its most infamous excesses in England during the era of ultra-cheap gin, depicted in Hogarth paintings.
Subsequently, Anglo-Celtic colonies like New Zealand and Canada have long had strong temperance movements and strict government regulations on the use of alcohol.
In 1999 New Zealand’s socially liberal Labour Government decided to lower the drinking age to 18. However 7 years later it now seems that Parliament is set raise it back up to 20 again. According to Police and Hospitals, levels of anti-social behaviour, hospitalisations and attacks on police have increased significantly since the drinking age was lowered.
However, two other factors are also playing a part in drunkenness – credit and modern “ladette" culture. Until recently, few people under 21 had access to enough money to be able to go out and get drunk on a regular basis. Now thanks to credit cards and student loans the young party hard (as the young do) and pay later.
While it is common knowledge that women can’t alcohol as well as men, the media loves to project images of leather clad, high-kicking females that can do anything men can do. Meanwhile back in the real world, alcopop guzzling young women are more likely to be seen floundering in high heels, puking in gutters and being sized as prey items by rogue taxi-drivers (often with dubious immigration papers).
This trend is already starting to impact on long term health outcomes with an increasing number of women suffering from alcohol related medical problems (see here).
Although their may be a good case for raising the drinking age, it would be nice if the country could start discussing some of the deeper causes of excessive binge-drinking like genetics, feminism and easy-credit. However, at present all these topics are largely no-go areas for the liberal media and its neo-conservative puppet masters.
Monday, November 06, 2006
Population and the Environment
Although New Zealand First has often pointed out the economic and social problems with the immigration-based economic policies of National and Labour, it hasn’t really highlighted the adverse environmental impact of rapid immigration.
When the population grows rapidly there is great stress on water, electricity and sewerage infrastructure and an inevitable rise in bio-security problems. With increasing urban sprawl the quantity of good arable land around Christchurch, Hamilton and Auckland is rapidly decreasing and this is encouraging more intensive agricultural practices on the remaining land. Subsequently, pollution of drinking water supplies to these cities is an increasing concern.
The New Zealand Green Party is strangely silent on immigration matters and this casts doubt on its real commitment to the environment.
For information on the link between rapid immigration and the environment the Australian organisation “Sustainable Population Australia” is a good source. SPA also highlights some of the muddled, Marxist thinking in the policies of the Australian Green Party.
When the population grows rapidly there is great stress on water, electricity and sewerage infrastructure and an inevitable rise in bio-security problems. With increasing urban sprawl the quantity of good arable land around Christchurch, Hamilton and Auckland is rapidly decreasing and this is encouraging more intensive agricultural practices on the remaining land. Subsequently, pollution of drinking water supplies to these cities is an increasing concern.
The New Zealand Green Party is strangely silent on immigration matters and this casts doubt on its real commitment to the environment.
For information on the link between rapid immigration and the environment the Australian organisation “Sustainable Population Australia” is a good source. SPA also highlights some of the muddled, Marxist thinking in the policies of the Australian Green Party.
Words of Wisdom (sort of)
Confucius say - A wise man keeps a copy of his template modifications, a fool must go back to square one.
Sunday, November 05, 2006
New Zealand Politics since 1984
Prior to 1984, New Zealand Governments followed post war Keynesian economic policies, favoured by both main political parties, and progressive social policies initiated by the centre-left Labour Party.
However, by the early 1980s, excessive subsidisation of the declining farming sector, and over-investment in ambitious infrastructure projects, had created major structural problems than could no longer be contained by conventional Keynesian policies.
With the centre-right National Party dominated by the imposing personality of Keynesian interventionist Robert Muldoon, economic libertarians decided to infiltrate the centre –left Labour Party and quietly began to steer it in a neo-liberal direction.
In the 1984 election, the new look Labour Party was aided by a one-off protest party, The New Zealand Party, created by Bob Jones, a highly successful property speculator. Jones captured many votes from disgruntled National Party supporters than were unwilling to vote for the socially liberal Labour Party. With National out, Jones then promptly retired from politics - his mission accomplished.
Once in power, Labour’s economic libertarians then set about moving economic policy to the right, while its centre-left leader David Lange, began implementing a programme of left-liberal social and foreign policy initiatives, such as banning US worships from visiting New Zealand ports and legalising homosexuality.
The combined bombardment from neo-economic restructuring and liberal social reform disorientated working class white voters who turned on the traditional ‘party of the working class’ in 1990, and elected a reformed National Party that had adapted to the new neo-liberal orthodoxy.
National new neo-liberal economic programme, was opposed by a number of National MPs, the most prominent being Winston Peters and Michael Laws, who seized on the opportunity presented by the introduction of MMP (mixed member proportional representation) to form a breakaway party, New Zealand First.
New Zealand First were rightly concerned that State assets were being sold off too cheaply, and that Labour and National had gone too far in terms of removing support for manufacturing and farming - by 1990 New Zealand had one of the lowest levels of state support for research and development in the developed world.
From 1993-1996 New Zealand First developed a policy platform based on increased R and D spending, export incentives, compulsory savings and an end to state asset sales.
Meanwhile, National had responded to record unemployment and early 1990s economic stagnation, by starting a radical new wealth-based immigration initiative designed to attract wealthy East Asian Immigrants. The policy was modelled on similar immigration measures introduced in Canada.
New Zealand First, with its focus on productivity based growth, subsequently became the main advocate for limited immigration and drew criticism from the mainstream press for being xenophobic and populist.
In the 1996 election New Zealand First held the balance of power and decided to form a Government with National. However, although the two parties had similar social policies their differences on economic policy proved to great to reconcile, and the coalition collapsed 12 months out from the 1999 election.
In 1999, Labour came back into power with a Blairite economic programme based around increased education spending, investment in areas like arts, culture and tourism, and a relatively expansive immigration policy with a greater focus on British and Sub-Continental immigrants.
Labour's shift to the centre has now put New Zealand politics more closely in line with other English-speaking countries like Canada and the United Kingdom. New Zealand First survives as a vehicle for the public to intermittently voice their opposition to expansive immigration initiatives.
However, by the early 1980s, excessive subsidisation of the declining farming sector, and over-investment in ambitious infrastructure projects, had created major structural problems than could no longer be contained by conventional Keynesian policies.
With the centre-right National Party dominated by the imposing personality of Keynesian interventionist Robert Muldoon, economic libertarians decided to infiltrate the centre –left Labour Party and quietly began to steer it in a neo-liberal direction.
In the 1984 election, the new look Labour Party was aided by a one-off protest party, The New Zealand Party, created by Bob Jones, a highly successful property speculator. Jones captured many votes from disgruntled National Party supporters than were unwilling to vote for the socially liberal Labour Party. With National out, Jones then promptly retired from politics - his mission accomplished.
Once in power, Labour’s economic libertarians then set about moving economic policy to the right, while its centre-left leader David Lange, began implementing a programme of left-liberal social and foreign policy initiatives, such as banning US worships from visiting New Zealand ports and legalising homosexuality.
The combined bombardment from neo-economic restructuring and liberal social reform disorientated working class white voters who turned on the traditional ‘party of the working class’ in 1990, and elected a reformed National Party that had adapted to the new neo-liberal orthodoxy.
National new neo-liberal economic programme, was opposed by a number of National MPs, the most prominent being Winston Peters and Michael Laws, who seized on the opportunity presented by the introduction of MMP (mixed member proportional representation) to form a breakaway party, New Zealand First.
New Zealand First were rightly concerned that State assets were being sold off too cheaply, and that Labour and National had gone too far in terms of removing support for manufacturing and farming - by 1990 New Zealand had one of the lowest levels of state support for research and development in the developed world.
From 1993-1996 New Zealand First developed a policy platform based on increased R and D spending, export incentives, compulsory savings and an end to state asset sales.
Meanwhile, National had responded to record unemployment and early 1990s economic stagnation, by starting a radical new wealth-based immigration initiative designed to attract wealthy East Asian Immigrants. The policy was modelled on similar immigration measures introduced in Canada.
New Zealand First, with its focus on productivity based growth, subsequently became the main advocate for limited immigration and drew criticism from the mainstream press for being xenophobic and populist.
In the 1996 election New Zealand First held the balance of power and decided to form a Government with National. However, although the two parties had similar social policies their differences on economic policy proved to great to reconcile, and the coalition collapsed 12 months out from the 1999 election.
In 1999, Labour came back into power with a Blairite economic programme based around increased education spending, investment in areas like arts, culture and tourism, and a relatively expansive immigration policy with a greater focus on British and Sub-Continental immigrants.
Labour's shift to the centre has now put New Zealand politics more closely in line with other English-speaking countries like Canada and the United Kingdom. New Zealand First survives as a vehicle for the public to intermittently voice their opposition to expansive immigration initiatives.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
