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.

Section 92A is alive again

Earlier today, Ministry of Economic Development has released a Review Policy Proposal Document, highlighting recommended changes to the older version of the section.

It is significantly improved, according to many sources. A copyright tribunal is proposed to deal with the judicial and punishment issues, and alhtough the three strikes policy is still there, the details are quite different now. I've reduced it two three steps, for details, see the excellent analysis from the Creative Freedom Foundation.

Phase 1 - First Infringement and Cease and Desist Notice Procedure

Phase 2 - Obtain Copyright Tribunal Order to get infringer's details

Phase 3 - Copyright Tribunal decision

Creation of the copyright tribunal significantly improves the fairness of the whole process, however, I am still very disappointed that termination of Internet access remained as a punishment.

Access to Internet, in my opinion, is a fundamental human right in this digital age, people who lacks the full and free Internet access will be significantly disadvantaged in the society.Internet access should be regarded as part of the freedom of communication, which is a concept in many written constitutions.

Such termination is not in the spirit of a free, democratic society - This is why we are so against Internet censorship, especially the Great Firewall. The termination is even worse than that, which the citizens' right to communicate is not just being impeded, but denied in full.

The document is open for consultation, submissions are open until 5pm Friday 7 August.

Xue's side of story

Yesterday's Chinese Herald published a long interview with Xue Nai Yin, the man convicted of killing his wife and abandoning his daughter in Melbourne.This was a high profile case and it still attracts my attention even in today, therefore it's good to see that the paper did a follow up story.

In the interview, Mr Xue, now resides in Mt Eden Prison waiting for the sentencing, still insists his innocence and  believes someone else killed his wife, Anan Liu. During the interview he described the NZ police as "stupid" and "inefficient" for the obvious reason, which I kind of agree.

There was a lengthy conversation on His life with Anan Liu.  Xue  insists that he loved Anan Liu, and thinks she is still alive and dreamt her a lot even after he was arrested.

However, one specific part caught my attention - Xue mentioned an incident where he "accidentally"  threw a cellphone at her caused her nose to bleed. Liu immediately fled and reported to the police from her neighbour's house.  Xue "hated" what she did because he thinks that was "nothing big", and she lied to the police saying Xue abused her frequently. Mr Xue says "it happens in Chinese families everyday", and New Zealand "over-protected" women's rights.

What do you think? I know what I think, now I really don't have any sympathy left for him.

The rest of the conversation included details of his life in U.S. and in the cell, check the Chinese script if you are interested. I cannot translate the whole article due to copyright restrictions.

Stunned

Thinking about voting in the child discipline referendum ? Don't know how to decide? This elegantly produced flow chart will help to make the right decision (warning: large picture).

The related story can be found here.

Michael Jackson Dies at 50

I have to admit I'm not a very die hard fan of his (I was too young to do that), Jackson is more of a mystery to me. From a child star to the king of the pop, then to an alleged child abuser,  his 50 years of life was full of surprises and mysteries.

He was a loner in later part of his life, but it's not entirely his fault, a childhood full of unhappiness and sorrow, behind the shine of a star, I don't think he had a fortunate life, and that incomplete life eventually leads all the weird things happened at the later stage.

Death is not an end, as Madonna says, his music will live on forever. It's also kind of relief for him, he is now free from encumbrances in this world.

Rest in Peace, Michael Jackson.

If you enter this world knowing you are  loved & you leave this world knowing the same,then everything that happens in between can be dealt with.

Michael Jackson

Corporal punishment referendum

I supported the amendment on section 59 of the Crimes Act, or commonly known as the "anti-smacking bill" . New Zealand is far from a safe heaven for children to grow up, although a change in law would not solve the problem our society is facing in a split second, but you always need to start on something.

The fundamental problem of child abuse is the parents, not the law nor the children. I could still recall that some of people who oppose the bill even made a personal threat to the Green MP Sue Bradford: that left you wondering, if they don't even treat a human being, an adult in a proper manner, how do you expect them to take care of their children?

However, for this referendum, there is another problem, the question used for voting:

Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand?

I'm not quite sure who was behind the basis of this question,  Clerk of the House finalised the question but I guess the basis of the question was the work of  some Christian fundamentalists, but I mean, can it get any more stupid  than this? This question carries a clear presumption that smacking (at least some kinds of smacking) is "good parental correction" - well if so, then what heck we are debating about? Should a good thing be criminalised? It's a no brainer question, even I can write something better than that:

Should the Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Act 2007 (Commonly known as the "anti-smacking legislation") be repealed?

That's the root of all the fuss is it?

I (and many others) actually believe that smacking is not a tool parents should be used to teach their kids as it is inherently bad,  but if the currently adapted question is being asked in the referendum, there is no way I could tick either yes or no. For that reason, I will not be voting in this referendum.