Bear's Blog New Zealand (Beta)

Last comments

Although I did not give my party vote to Labour yesterday, I still consider the party the lesser of two evils- in last years New Zealand enjoyed a continuous stability and economic growth. And most importantly, the growth was enjoyed by all New Zealanders regardless of their gender, ethnicity or social statues, it was a sustainable growth, not the kind of growth achieved at the expense of part of our society.

It's also because I can never forget and forgive the massive incompetence of the last National Government and how that was ended nearly in tragedy.

Helen Clark and the Labour Party have done a good job in last nine years. There were downsides and unpopular movements, but if you look back, most of them were from Green politics.

I personally admired Helen Clark's strong leadership, a courage to do what's best to the country, not what electorates want. History will prove this.

She was also a great ambassador of New Zealand, she won respect for herself and New Zealand when she said no to invasion in Iraq. In China, many of my friends admired New Zealand's dignity, impartiality and selflessness as Clark first tipped the milk scandal in China.

And I'm glad to have her as my local MP for the last 27 years. She fought tirelessly for the benefit of the local community, and helped me during my hard time.

There was no doubt that National is on the road to form next government, but as I marked in my twitter, no matter who wins, it will sure be a sad turning point of New Zealand politics. As New Zealand First gradually fades away, New Zealand departed from centrist route, becoming vulnerable to irresponsible acts done by either extreme right wing like ACT or extreme left represented by Greens.

I consider myself pretty centred so it was a hard choice for me.  But when I looked at the current economic crisis, I had to come to the conclusion that John Key might be a better choice - there's no doubt that bankers and capitalists like John Key are responsible for the current world economic crisis, so he should know how to manage New Zealand through it. Why? Arsonists are usually the best fire-fighters, because only they know where the fire started.

It must be warned that John Key needs to be strong enough to resist temptations from old guards inside the National Party. I don't know much about John Key, but most of us know fairly well about old faces like Bill English, a guy like him should never be left in charge of anything alone.

John Key was also given a mandate to keep National as a centrist party and not influenced by 5 ACT MPs especially Roger Douglas otherwise he risks to become a one term PM.

Finally, just a condolence to Labour party and last nine years, it has been good nine years. Brooke Fraser, arithmetics(although it is actually a Christian song):

A note to myself

Note - I didn't win that 30 millions jackpot so I still need to go to work tomorrow.

Nah that's just joking, the real note is ...

While most of the contents in this blog are about politics, I actually prefer to remain as apolitical as possible in my real life. That's one of the reasons why I did not promote my blogs to my friends.

The reason's quite simple. I've always found very difficult to have any real discussion or debate on political issues with some people, especially my fellow countrymen. If you oppose their views, the trend is, they will try to win the debate by putting all sorts of labels on you. In that way they would feel like they are on the moral high ground, or what we Chinese call Ah Q - well in fact, I feel quite sorry for them.

But the even sadder thing is, some searches have found that personal ideology to overrules facts is more like a fact of life, and we may just have to live with them.

So I'll still remain as apolitical as possible in my life.

Just one quick point

Environment is an important issue to me. After seeing the debate tonight, I just got one question: "if we don't have an environment that is able to sustain our life, will we still be there to enjoy the economic development?"

New Zealanders are always proud of their progressive, sometimes radical social values. They are part of our nation's identity. We cannot compete in economy with countries like USA, but we can lead the world in social issues.

We did not seek a balance between rugby matches and our value, we also shouldn't do like what Mr Key said, "a balance between environment and economic development". Mr Key also should not be hesitate to answer the question on the 1981 Springboks tour, I agree the past has no value in order to help us solve our current issues, but Mr Key's personal values are  important though, for me, to assess whether he's the right man. His hesitation to answer that question, shows me that he got no social value at all - that was the defining moment of our country and yet you have no opinion on that?

For that reason, National is definitely off my list for now - if we lose our identity, New Zealand will no longer be New Zealand.

--------

In terms of the debate itself, both did fine. But clearly John Key is more energic and won the debate. After 9 years of Helen Clark, you can even tell what she's going to say before she actually says it.

And it's quite weird that John Key didn't mention the phrase "national party" a lot in the debate ...probably only once or twice.

Just a thought

Labour want you to save money, so it set up the KiwiSaver and people praised for that;

Nats need money to fund their tax cut,  so they slashed the government contribution and reduced employer contribution into the fund; some people praised for that as well.

But wait a minute  -  for us, especially ones who joined the KiwiSaver, isn't this just politicians play your money around? give you a $1,000 tax cut, and take out $1,000 government contribution from your KiwiSaver?

Em....

4 dead, director arrested.

Questions still remain for the contaminated milk powder scandal. How melamine got into the baby milk powder is still a bit of mystery, although Chinese police has arrested several dairy farmers, alleging them of adding that chemical to the raw milk.

But melamine is almost insolvent to water. If it was added in the raw milk stage, it is hard to believe that San Lu does not have any knowledge on it, as the precipitation will almost occur in the milk.

San Lu, the producer has a motive to add melamine to the milk in the production stage because it gives the end product a false high protein reading. But this possibility is not publicly investigated at the moment.

Just some facts you may be interested to know ...

• Melamine was later found in varies milk powder products, including some reputable Chinese brand.
• However, San Lu's product got an extremely high reading (2000+ mg/kg), compare with 100 or less mg/kg in other products)
• Only one type of  San Lu milk powder product was found to be "contaminated".  It is the cheapest of its type in the market.
• San Lu products were granted exemption from state quality surveillance inspection because of its "excellent performance".

So did San Lu or dairy farmers deliberately added melamine into the milk powder? In my opinion, the short answer is yes, with a long answer "no". San Lu, like nearly everybody else, adds bit of high tech stuff like melamine into their products. But there's no need to boost protein % by add 2000+ mg/kg melamine, so something must gone wrong in the process, which probably San Lu's QCs have no knowledge of.

none of them is/are?

This phrase jumped out of my mind twice today, one in my last blog: (earthquake) none of them was/were destructive, and one in my assignment: none of them is/are up to the standard.

Asked several native speakers and non-natives, none of them (damn again) was/were certain on this, but most people preferred the "are" option.

... which I don't agree with. It just sounds strange, at least I think the word "none" just means "not one", so in "not one of them", "not one" is the subject?

But Google seems to be in favour of the "are" option as well. "none of them are" returned 5,150,000 results, compare with 805,000 results from the phrase "none of them is".

Well I'll follow the crowd then. But I agree with this thread, "none of them is" is the correct way (grammatically); when people say "none of them are", what they really mean is "not many are".

----------

UPDATE

Another person pointed out a different way of look into this issue. In the example of "none of them is/are the prime minister of New Zealand", "is" is clearly the right answer. But if you change that example to past tense - "were" seems to be the right answer.

I guess it really depends on what follows after that phrase?