Open season for trees

The Resource Management Act (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill is currently in the house. I've spent a bit of time to watch the debate, with particular interest in section 52 of the Bill.

The bill is not finalised so I'm not going to put it here. You can view the most updated version here. In a nutshell, the bill prohibits a district plan that prohibits tree removing, unless the tree is expressively protected in the district plan.

There are at least several concerns for this.

Firstly central government should not intervene local government businesses at such level of detail. District Plans have to give effects or at least have regard to several national documents, is not that enough? Every part of the country has its unique environment and situation, why the central government thinks it knows better than locals?

Secondly, this bill removes an important mechanism to protect urban enviroment. Environment minister Nick Smith argued that 98% of tree related concents are granted, therefore it is just a waste of time. Now here is an example of incompetency, he seems to forgot that consents can be granted with conditions and modifications.

Thirdly, it is likely to add unnessary workload for local authorities. I do expect an increased number of surveying in order to put more trees in the schedule after the law is passed, but happens for an area of unprotected bush? Waitakere is a good example - scheduling each single tree would be a process that you would never want to do it again.

Dates not allowed on Google (.cn)'s Calendar

As you may know, Google's Chinese localised version is heavily censored.  When the search results contain pages you are not allowed to see, Google.cn usually returns a notice on the result page : "据当地法律法规和政策，部分搜索结果未予显示" (Some results are omitted as restrited by local laws and policies).

One curious Chinese bloger wondered, how many days in a year are outlawed by "local laws"? He worte a script and found out that, out of 366 days, 11 of them will result the censorship notice on the search result page, these are:

* 13 January
* 31 May
* 4 June
* 13 June
* 20 June
* 25 June
* 30 June
* 5 July
* 19 September
* 13 Octorber
* 18 December

The rationale behind some of these censored dates are quite obvious, like 4 June is the date symbolises Tiananmen Square Massacre and the recent riots in China's Uyghur dominated Xinjiang Region started on 5 July.

However, even as a politically minded Chinese, I don't quite get why the rest of dates are considered "sensitive". I checked Wikipedia, there are some past events related to China, however, most of them are quite normal and can be hardly considered as sensitive events.

Well, it's not their money they are spending

Kiwi Party leader Larry Baldock  didn't get his the way for the first referendum, so he decides to have another go - this time, it's on whether a referendum should be binding.

I actually agree with him this time. In a democracy people should be the utilmate ruler, and a binding referendum provides a check on politicans, preventing them from forgetting who voted them in the first place.

However, in order to make the referendum binding, there are some criteria the referendum you have to meet first - the most obvious one - people ought to at least know what it binds for. The last referendum question is by no contest, the worst example of this.

It was very clear from the start, Mr Baldock hijacked the smacking issue for his own political gains, and this time he didn't even bother to hide his intention - he wants the referendum to coincide with the next general election.

A sigh of relief ... for now

Almost every New Zealander who used a mobile network oversea agrees that the telco services and charges here are absolutely a disgrace. The competition between Vodafone and Telecom New Zealand never happened, they got about 50% market share each and are pretty happy to stay that way, enjoying a nice duopoly.

That's why a third player is needed.

I just browsed through 2 degrees mobile's pricing plan,  it's clear that they are targeting  low volume users just like me for now, and the pricing is very impressive in most areas, although there is still a gap to catch up with the rest of the world, but hey, somebody has to make a start.

The only downside is the expensive data charge, 50cents/mb. However, I would expect a data plan to come out pretty soon. Before that I'll keep two numbers.

I ordered the  promotional free SIM with $5, and can't wait to have it now.

BTW, The Herald has compiled an excellent table showing duopoly at work(PDF).

Provocation defence

One of the things I don't quite like about this society, is the trend to give over and knee-jerk reactions to a high profile but a single inccident/court case etc, and media are very good at creating a storm out of pretty much nothing.

The Weatherston case is likely to be one of such cases. There is clearly a logical fallacy here, Weatherston used, or abused the availability of  provocation as a defense, doesn't necessarily mean provocation defence  is flawed - in fact, I could argue this in the exactly opposite way, it has  proved that the defense is very reasonable and not accessible to people who want to get away with what they have done - therefore Weatherston failed.

There is no doubt to me that provocation is a geniune defence, I consider myself a pretty quiet and calm person all the time, but just like everyone else, I sometimes can lose my mind too.  Current law requires jury to assess whether the evidence could prove a "reasonable man" could be provoked, I think that's pretty much about right - no person at his/her right mind yell to others "come and kill me", however, imagine if one constantly abuses both physically and verbally, overpowered you,  and protection order does not work, are you still feeling confident that you won't lose your mind?

The defence in the Weatherston case, did not only argue the provocation, but also by paint Weatherston as a person with mental problems. This could be a even stronger arguement, however, 200+ cuts clearly do not qualify as a man who  temporarily lost self control, and that did not pass the jury.

Employing "foreigners"

Many Asians cannot be more familiar with the following situation: they are well or over qualified for a job, but were still turned down by employers because they either lack local experience or their qualification was attained from a university in their country of origin.

This has happened to generations of immigrants, even if they are already a proud NZ citizen - this is one of the things that makes you feel not that proud of your choice.

I don't really want to label it racism, but look at what happens when the tide is turned:  The new "Kiwi first" employment policy means a Japanese restaurant owner cannot recruit chefs from Japan because there already are people with "appropriate" skills available in NZ.  According to the report,  people with "appropriate skills" meaning they need to learn the difference between sushi and sashimi on job.

And yet many "Kiwis" are moaning in the discussion forum, saying people deserve a chance to learn, asking why don't they train kiwis on job?

The rumours that Asian people only employ Asian employees are totally untrue, at least in the Chinese community I know of. There is golden rule for any Chinese entrepreneur who wants to start a business here - a Kiwi receptionist is a must.  This is not because Chinese entrepreneurs cannot pass NCEA leavel 1 English, but people out there just don't want to deal with businesses that are not owned by "one of them".

Any employer would prefer people with local experience and knowledge while having suitable skills, however, if they cannot find any here, they ought to be allowed to employ from oversea. If my memory serves me right, it was this government which wants NZ to increase its productivity and become a global economy - not.