Sunday afternoon saw Auckland subjected to a mass display of ugly Chinese nationalism. Thousands of Chinese gathered in Aotea Square for what was billed as a ‘celebration’ to ‘support the Beijing Olympics’ and promote ‘peace and harmony’. In reality the event was clearly a political rally. Olympic references were drowned out by nationalistic flag waving and chanting. The chauvinistic demeanor of the majority, coupled with a lack of policing, encouraged a large and hostile minority to indulge in physical intimidation and random violence. Within a few minutes of arriving at the event I was assaulted and abused, getting rescued from the hostile crowd by a protest marshal. The marshal then politely asked me to leave, because the event was, in his own words, “not safe for New Zealanders”.

So what exactly happened here?

You know that ‘Sacred Flame’ that’s been tying up the world’s police resources for the last several weeks? What say we bring it to New Zealand?

I first heard about this event on Thursday evening. I had been reading about how the Australian leg of the Olympic torch relay had seen pro-Chinese demonstrators rampage through Canberra assaulting pro-Tibetan demonstrators. The police were so busy protecting the Olympic flame (the ‘sacred flame’ to the Chinese) that protecting Australian citizens from violent Chinese students took a back seat. Finishing that article I breathed a sigh of relief that the Olympic torch would not be coming to New Zealand. Shortly afterwards though, while browsing the New Zealand Herald website, I read that groups within the Chinese community in Auckland had decided to organize their own “Olympic Torch Relay”, as part of a rally to support the Olympics. In the words of Lincoln Tan from the New Zealand Herald:

“Encouraged by organisers to wear red – China‘s colour – participants, expected to number more than a thousand, will wave Chinese flags and do a mock run with a replica Olympic torch in Aotea Square on Sunday”

I was stunned. Given the trouble associated with the Olympic torch elsewhere in the world (see here, here and especially here), why would the local Chinese community choose this moment to organize a nationalistic flag waving rally centered around a “mock Olympic torch”? The event was not even organized by radical students. It was organized by numerous Chinese community groups, and following consultation with the Chinese consulate.

I have nothing against Chinese community events to promote the Olympics. China is the Olympic host. New Zealand has a large Chinese community. New Zealanders are enthusiastic about sport. There should be huge potential for the Chinese community in New Zealand to organize Olympics related events. Such events could have all sorts of positive spin-offs. But was this event really going to be about the Olympics? Was it going to be a positive Olympic promotion or a negative nationalistic display? It sounded like the latter.

Chinese Rally to “Celebrate the Olympics”

Sunday arrived and I headed to Aotea Square to see things for myself, reaching the square just after midday. I was not surprised to find a noisy crowd of several thousand people waving big People’s Republic of China flags; they had been audible as far away as Albert Park. The crowd was almost exclusively ethnic Chinese. A full range of ages was represented, from children to the elderly. However, the majority were young Chinese from the PRC, many of them students. I could surmise this from languages spoken, accents, dress, use of simplified characters on their banners, etc. I saw no Hong Kongese or Taiwanese flags. Nor did I see any flags of the South East Asian nations that contribute to Auckland’s diverse Chinese population – places like Singapore, Malaysia and Indonesia. There were a few New Zealand flags, but virtually no non-Chinese participants. This appeared to be more a People’s Republic of China event than a wider Chinese community event. There were occasional Olympic flags, but essentially the flags were all national flags of the People’s Republic of China. There appeared to be no presence of Tibetan demonstrators, and nor were there any police.

Many people carried banners. The banner messages were mixed. There were many pure Olympic slogans. There were also many nationalistic and chauvinistic slogans that alienated certain groups and made them feel unwelcome at this “Olympic Celebration”. Some slogans were alienating even to other ethnic Chinese. “One World, One Dream, One China” is a strange and contradictory slogan that links the Olympics to militarism. Until Beijing renounces the use of force to impose its “One China” ideology on Taiwan, banners reading “One China” will be read as threatening. Blame Beijing for this unfortunate situation. “Oppose Tibetan Independence” is a political slogan that would make some ethnic Tibetans feel unwelcome and uncomfortable. “The Dalai Lama is a Liar!” is hostile, offensive to followers of Lamaism, and has nothing to do with the Olympics. “Seeing China’s powerful position, do you feel trepidation?” is unrelated to the Olympics or any current issue and can only be read as an odd attempt to intimidate non-Chinese. “Oppose Western Media Distortion!” sounds angry, inconsistent with a “celebration”, and unrelated to the Olympics. “Don’t politicize the Olympics” is a tricky one. Beijing boycotted every Olympics prior to 1979 over the Taiwan issue and currently humiliates Taiwanese athletes by preventing them from competing under their own flag. For as long as the ritual humiliation of Taiwan continues it seems ironic for citizens of the Peoples Republic of China to call for a non-politicized Olympics. I am not certain, but I believe the PRC has boycotted more Olympics than any other nation. Could there be a dash of hypocrisy here? The mixture of positive Olympics slogans and chauvinistic negativity was bizarre.

I snapped a couple of pictures of Aotea Square filled with red flags and political banners. Unfortunately, unbeknownst to me, my camera was in the process of dying, meaning my pictures did not turn out.

“Tibetan Splittists” threaten the fun! Vigilant patriots save the day!

Taking the scene in, I saw somebody was addressing the crowd from the Aotea Center. I was about to move in that direction, but then I realized that the focus really seemed to be outside the Town Hall. The words of the speaker at the Aotea Center were drowned out by the crowd near the Town Hall chanting “Go China!” (?????). The national anthem of the People’s Republic of China was being sung. People appeared more densely crowded near the Town Hall than anywhere else. That area was the focus of something important that I could not see. I briefly saw a Tibetan Snow Lion flag flash through the Chinese ones, carrying writing too small to read. No Tibetan demonstrators were visible though. What was happening? Perhaps the demonstrators were about to burn a Tibetan flag? Perhaps the Tibetan flag was held by Chinese and carried a pro-China message? Maybe a Chinese demonstrator was making some kind of conciliatory gesture*?

I went to investigate the Town Hall area before venturing across to the Aotea Center. Rather than approaching directly and getting stuck in the mass of people I took a circuitous route through the thinner parts of the crowd, trying to get a clearer view of the situation. My route took me into the middle of Aotea Square and then towards the back of the Town Hall. From my new vantage point I saw that pro-China demonstrators were using their flags to cover a small group of pro-Tibet demonstrators. I still could not actually see the pro-Tibet demonstrators, but people around me were shouting “Cover their flags!”, “Good job!” and so on. This was not an organized chant, just many people shouting more or less the same thing. I now partly understood the situation.

I still had many questions though. The focus of this drama was a raised stone platform suitable for addressing a crowd, displaying flags, and so on. Why were the Chinese all crowded around this platform when the speaker and main stage were on the opposite side of the square? Had the organizers arranged things so that the rally had two separate focal points? Were different Chinese groups simultaneously organizing different activities in competition with one another? Maybe the ‘Olympic flame’ was about to be carried from this point to the main stage? Why had the Tibetan protesters climbed onto the platform that was the focus of the Chinese rally? Couldn’t they have politely protested somewhere around the edge of the crowd instead of rudely pushing their way right to the middle of it? I wanted to ask the Tibetan protesters what was going on but there was no way to get close. I also wanted to ask a Chinese demonstrator how the Tibetans had got there, but it seemed imprudent to try questioning the hostile and excited individuals around me. I assumed there would be an opportunity to ask later.

Things got more intense as I watched. The Tibetan flags disappeared completely. The crowd cheered. People shouted things like “Drive them away! Beat them up! We don’t want them!” I saw a Tibetan protester for the first time. He was a shaved headed westerner, squatted on the ground, either with his fingers in his ears or using his hands to protect his head. The crowd surged around him and he disappeared. In the brief second he was visible I did not see him get hit. He did not seem to be crouched down in pain, just in reaction to a hazardous situation. I saw no more Tibetans and things up on the platform calmed down slightly. I assumed that the Tibetans had somehow left the platform (driven away, leaving themselves, or rescued by police). I was concerned for their safety, but since the dynamic of the crowd on the platform became less violent after the Tibetans vanished (changing from struggling to flag waving) I assumed they had escaped and were not somewhere in the middle of the crowd getting bashed.

Getting assaulted ‘Olympic Celebration’ style

At that moment I spotted a Tibetan flag on the ground a few meters from me. Presumably it had just been stolen from the Tibetan protesters. People were pushing forward to trample on it. I followed the press, holding back somewhat, and pulled my camera out to snap this image, an obvious focus for anyone holding a camera – others around me were using mobile phones to snap the same photo. As I tried to take my photo somebody kicked me from behind. I also felt I was punched. Somebody seemed to be trying to snatch my camera. Events were confused, with various people grabbing and shoving me. A Chinese marshal of some sort intervened and started to pull me out of the demonstration. I am confused about exactly what happened, but the marshal’s intervention in itself confirmed that I was a focus of hostility and at physical risk.

As the marshal pulled me out I became surrounded by people screaming “Fuck off!”, “Fuck you!”, “Fuck your Mother!” etc. The abuse was in non-native English and Chinese. The abusers must have been relatively recent arrivals from China. I tried asking in Chinese for everybody to calm down, hoping that using their own language might make them see me less as an ‘enemy’ and more as a human being they could converse with. This had no effect though. The marshal had steered me up against the wall of the Town Hall, protecting our backs and preventing the crowd from surrounding us. He then moved me along the wall and out of the crowd. There were big cheers as the marshal finally led me away from the crowd and towards the back door of the Town Hall. The marshal told me not to go back into Aotea Square because it was not safe for ‘New Zealanders’. I guess he really meant ‘non-Chinese people’.

Media stardom and meeting my fans

The attack was partly caught on film by a cameraman (Aaron Huang) from SODE Productions (a local Chinese media company). The cameraman then continued filming me after I was driven out of the crowd. He filmed me answering questions from a couple of concerned passers by, then phoning police to report the assault. Although the assault was minor in the sense that I was not hurt, it was significant in that it indicated an aggressive and out-of-control crowd. Therefore I wanted to report it officially. No police were available at the time though. The cameraman turned out to be quite amiable, and we chatted while I decided whether to continue waiting for the police or just give up and leave. The footage he took may appear in a documentary about the event.

After maybe ten minutes the cameraman suggested going back to the crowd to attempt a “reconciliation”. I had mixed feelings about this. There was a safety issue, an issue of disobeying the marshal, and questions about the real purpose of it all. In the end I decided there was no harm in going along with his proposal. I doubted we would achieve much, but assuming I didn’t get assaulted again it seemed as good a way as any to spend my time. Many attendees had previously been passionately ‘communicating’ with me. Perhaps I should give them the opportunity to express themselves more calmly?

The ‘reconciliation’ never quite got into gear.

To get things rolling, I had to demonstrate that I was not a “Tibetan splittist” by letting everyone see that the T-shirt beneath my (buttoned) leather jacket was not the dreaded Snow Lion Flag. Making things interesting, my T-shirt turned out to carry the equally alarming Republic of China (i.e. ‘Taiwanese’) flag [NOTE: In response to some comments made below I should emphasize that this t-shirt was never visible prior to my unbuttoning my jacket and showing it to the cameraman. There was therefore no connection between this t-shirt and my being assaulted. I was not "asking for trouble" as some have suggested. I had in fact done the opposite and covered up a potentially sensitive article of clothing.]. Adding to the confusion, the T-shirt itself was purchased at the Flying Tigers Museum in Chongqing, China, and carried text from a pilot’s blood chit that specifically asked Chinese people to assist this foreign ally (you can see the design on this page). Clearly I was not a member of the mysterious “Dalai Lama Clique”, but was I some other, equally pernicious, variety of “splittist”? Would the Flying Tigers Museum really dare hatch an audacious plot (albeit doomed) to split the motherland through subversive t-shit designs? Could I merely be a souvenir buyer? How much assistance should they give me anyway? Somehow they accepted the T-shirt and a fresh round of anti-splittist violence was averted. We were making progress.

Unfortunately, those who had earlier been most eager to communicate with me (i.e. those who had abused me the loudest), were uninterested in civilized communication. I only remember one of them, a middle aged man, asking me a question. His question was “Have you ever even been to Tibet?” I tried to explain that although I had not been to the Tibetan Autonomous Region, I had visited ‘Greater Tibet’, the culturally Tibetan area that extends into Gansu, Sichuan, and Qinghai. The man scoffed and turned his back before I could finish my first sentence. Another individual, a woman of around 50 years old, notable earlier for her passionate screams of “Fuck your mother!”, offered a small Chinese flag as a sort of peace offering. I declined the flag**. Interestingly, neither of these individuals were fiery young students. They were both middle aged – old enough to have little excuse for their earlier lack of self control. There were too many people to interact with simultaneously. They were also all holding back and fairly uncommunicative, presumably out of embarrassment, hostility, nervousness at being on camera, or the dynamics of them being a ‘crowd’ while I was an individual.

I have probably missed some things that were said, but the reconciliation attempt did not achieve much beyond letting them see I was not hiding a Tibetan flag under my jacket. Of course, so what if I had been? Anyway, it was good to have at least tried to talk. Personally I could have tried harder, but given the hostility I had just experienced I was not feeling particularly sociable. I more or less just put myself in front of them, put the ball in their court, and let them do what they wanted. They offered nothing much in the way of an apology, interest in me quickly died, and after a couple of minutes I left. The group I spoke with was not identical to the group that attacked me, though it included at least three individuals from the earlier attack.

The Aftermath

Saying goodbye to the cameraman I walked away via the back of the Town Hall and towards Mayoral Drive. This route took me away from where I was ultimately headed, but it seemed foolhardy to go back through the square alone. A solitary policeman came hurrying down from Mayoral Drive as I left. I asked if he could take my assault complaint. He told me that he had more urgent things to do and jogged towards the crowd looking stressed.

I headed home. Unfortunately I did not get a chance to hear the speakers or see the ‘Olympic torch’. I guess I was in the square for less than ten minutes before getting attacked. Walking home I avoided eye contact with Chinese people, not wanting to get involved in further trouble.

After I reached home a friend of mine called, wanting to meet up and get something to eat. I took the car out and drove along Queen Street to meet him. It was after 2.00 pm by this stage. Queen Street was filled with convoys of Chinese in souped-up cars, blaring their horns, waving flags, screaming, disobeying police directing traffic, and generally creating a disturbance. Chinese pedestrians occupied the pavement, waving flags and cheering the disruptive behavior of the convoys of cars. I was happy to be alone in my car and not sharing the pavement with the flag wavers. I picked up my friend on Queen Street and we went off for lunch.

Violence

Based on news reports, posts on Sky Kiwi, and my own experiences, the day was marred by multiple instances of violence. The following is a quick summary:

- Violence against the small group of four Tibetan protesters. There was clearly a lot of shoving and physical intimidation. One Network News showed a Chinese protester swinging punches at a Tibetan protester. However, no Tibetan protesters were reported to have required medical treatment. Overall it seems Chinese marshals prevented the violent crowd from causing serious harm. There were no arrests.

- Unprovoked violence against myself as detailed above. There were no arrests.

- An incident reported by and involving a non-Chinese builder. Details are not clear but it seems the builder intervened to stop protesters attacking a car (they were rocking the car and pushing flag poles through the windows). The builder and his car then became victims of an attack. There were apparently no arrests.

- An attack by a Chinese female on a taxi. This seems to be a separate incident to the above. In this incident a taxi driver shouted comments in support of Tibet and in response his car was attacked and apparently damaged by a Chinese female. The assailant was detained by the police and released with a warning. The driver was not compensated for damage to his car.

- An assault on a non-protesting Tibetan sympathizer. A man called into a radio station and described being shoved around and struck in the face with flag poles when he attempted dialog with Chinese protesters. There were no arrests.

- An incident outside McDonalds on Queen Street, in which Chinese protesters were verbally harassed and physically assaulted (having their glasses knocked off) by two or three female Polynesians. The Chinese on non-Chinese violence was ostensibly political. This incident sounds racist, probably an ugly reaction to all the Chinese flags. A European man participating in the Chinese protest (his face painted with Chinese flags) intervened by physically assaulting the Polynesians. Read translations of Chinese accounts of this incident here. Two of the three arrests made on the day were for this incident, and seem to have involved the Polynesian assailants. The assailants were charged with assault.

- There seems to have been a third arrest, involving a non-Chinese person, for disorderly behavior. I can find no details on the incident involved. It may or may not have been connected to one of the above incidents.

- There were probably other incidents in addition to the above. It would be unlikely for me to have found information on every single incident of violence.

So what to make of all this? First, there was far more violence than occurs at most political protests, yet this was supposedly a peaceful “Olympic celebration”. The numerous posts on Sky Kiwi denying that the event was a “protest” or “violent” are simply untrue. Second, the level of violence was astonishing given the near absence of opposing views at the event. Tibetan protesters were outnumbered 1000 to 1. One would have thought Chinese attendees would have been delighted at the huge turnout in support of the Olympics and the near absence of critical voices. It is difficult to understand why they began assaulting bystanders who expressed pro-Tibetan views (e.g. the taxi driver), or who they thought might be pro-Tibet (e.g. myself). The number of violent incidents, all occurring in separate locations, indicates a substantial minority of violent and aggressive ‘Olympics supporters’ who were thirsting for conflict.

Policing

So where were the police? The real Olympic flame has created mountains of policing work around the world, yet when the Chinese community decides to import this style of fun to New Zealand by organizing a nationalist rally with accompanying “Olympic flame” there is not a policeman in sight. The lack of a police presence made an odd contrast to the recent protests against the Electoral Financing Act, which saw a huge police presence line Queen Street to control a docile gaggle of retirees.

The timing of the rally could hardly have been more sensitive. The event was being held months before the Olympics (making it hard for many to appreciate the Olympic connection), weeks after the signing of the controversial Free Trade Agreement with China (opposed by many New Zealanders), and just days after the Canberra torch relay (which saw numerous assaults by aggressive Chinese students). There was clearly huge potential for trouble.

A private company called The Edge, which manages the Aotea Center and Aotea Square, was responsible for the event. I have spoken with their security manager. Apparently they were not expecting such large numbers, and on seeing the turnout they requested police backup that never arrived. At least one of the Edge security personnel was in Aotea Square throughout the event and says he never saw a policeman.

The Edge may have failed to arrange police assistance, but the police themselves were also at fault. On the Friday before the protest the police were quoted as saying that they were aware of the protest and had “contingencies in place should there be any trouble”. The police knew the event was happening and knew what had just occurred in Canberra. The police know the Auckland CBD has a huge population of Chinese students. The police have personnel monitoring websites like Sky Kiwi and presumably sensing the anger and extremism of Chinese students in New Zealand. There was plenty of trouble and the police were absent. The police and the mayor of Auckland failed to do their jobs.

The only security personnel that I saw were Chinese marshals, though personnel from The Edge were apparently also present. The marshals did a good job in terms of protecting targets of violence, but of course had no power to arrest perpetrators. Their actions prevented things from escalating further and nobody suffered serious harm. However, the message seemed to be that pro-China thuggery was acceptable within certain limits.

Criticisms of the Event

Overall, I think the event was an embarrassment to citizens of the People’s Republic of China in New Zealand. Rather than feeling proud of attracting a large crowd, the PRC community should feel ashamed at the nature of the crowd. The crowd was chauvinistic, and many were disruptive, aggressive and violent. Imagine thousands of Korean students descending on Tiananmen Square for a display like this and you will understand how it looked to outsiders.

Some people will be reading this and thinking I have been biased by my own negative experience. Of course that experience has influenced my thinking. However, I am not too concerned about what happened to me; it involved only a small segment of the crowd and would not have been noticed by most attendees. I am more concerned with how the crowd behaved towards the Tibetan protesters.

Admittedly, I do not really know what happened here. However, looking back, I doubt the raised platform on which the Tibetans were standing was being used in the formal proceedings of the Chinese event. My guess is that Chinese attendees crowded towards that area in response to the Tibetan presence. I may be wrong, but my reading is that hundreds of Chinese ignored invited speakers at their own event in favor of taunting and assaulting four Tibetan protesters. The official speakers were made inaudible by the people screaming at the Tibetans. I do not understand this behavior. The protesters were positioned such that anyone focused on the stage would have had their backs to them “they were at the ‘back of the hall” so to speak. Why were hundreds of attendees incapable of just ignoring them?

The organizers should be embarrassed at the conduct of this very large group. Why bother with speeches if nobody wants to listen? Why not just bill the event as “Smash up the LV store to celebrate the Olympics” and be done with it?

Discussion of the event on Chinese websites

Much of the online discussion of the event on Sky Kiwi (New Zealand’s leading online community for Chinese) has been concerning. There have been calls for larger and more extreme actions, celebrations of the violence that occurred on Sunday, and plenty of hostility towards New Zealand. Nationalistic extremism was the dominant voice in the lead up to and immediate aftermath of the event. To be fair, more moderate voices are emerging now that several days have passed. People have perhaps had time to do some thinking and realize that things got out of hand.

Alongside the calls for more violence, there has been some “anti-violence” rhetoric. For example, users have been asked not to post photos of scuffles and assaults. The purpose of the request is unclear though. Is it to hide previous violence (and perhaps protect the perpetrators) or discourage future violence? An acquaintance of mine went on to Sky Kiwi to question the violent nature of the rally (I am banned from the site ever since I questioned an earlier demonstration, as you can read about here and here). Initially most respondents either told him there had been no violence, or that the violence was “Chinese expressing themselves” and locals should shut up and accept it. Slowly, he started to attract some supportive or at least sympathetic responses.

Scofflaws have celebrated their actions online and received unanimous praise. For example, the female who attacked a taxi and apparently damaged its door is being treated as a hero. She has attracted dozens of messages praising her patriotism and holding her up as a role model. Not a single person has suggested she overreacted and broke the law. However, one or two people have hinted at tracking down the taxi driver and taking further action against him.

Hopefully an opinion shift is occurring towards less violent attitudes. You seriously have to wonder if New Zealand needs this type of minority community.

Positive Comments about the Event

A few comments on a more positive note:

- Apparently attendees were very efficient in cleaning rubbish up.

- Everybody seemed to know the words to the Chinese national anthem, yet even the All Blacks mumble their way through the New Zealand anthem. I am not sure thousands of people gathering in one place to sing the anthem of a foreign country for no obvious reason is a good idea, particularly when the anthem involves “rising up” to “brave the enemy’s gunfire” – but least they sang it well.

- Despite all the trouble large numbers of people managed to ignore the Tibetan demonstrators.

Suggestions for Future Olympic Events

Before making any suggestions I should first note that I am not very interested in the Olympics. My lack of creativity below can be attributed partly to this. For what it is worth though, here are a few ideas:

- Far fewer Peoples Republic of China flags: Large groups simply should not wave national flags in other people’s countries. The smaller the group the more acceptable the behavior. The behavior is more acceptable from visiting sports fans since their presence is temporary and their intent non-political. For similar reasons the behavior is more acceptable for short events like football matches. The Olympics do not lend themselves very well to flag waving. The competition continues for weeks, and the emphasis is supposed to be on individual competition, not national rivalries. Even were the Olympics in progress, Sunday’s display would have been over the top, but the Olympics are still months away. Large numbers of New Zealand citizens or permanent residents gathering to wave foreign flags is rather odd. International students doing it is just rude.

- Far more non-Chinese attendees: Achieving this might be very difficult. How many locals would want to be part of an event like that on Sunday? Were they even invited? Would they have been welcome? I have no concrete suggestions on how to achieve larger numbers of non-Chinese attendees. Obviously the key is a more welcoming attitude and less alienating behavior. If more non-Chinese attendees could be attracted it would create a better impression and help keep the focus on the Olympics rather than politics. Also, if politics really must be involved in an Olympic event, surely the clever way of winning support from the wider community would be to attract non-Chinese to the event and then gently try to influence their opinions (e.g. distribute leaflets, through speeches, etc.).

- Creative choice of ‘Chinese’ flags: Huge numbers of People’s Republic of China flags can appear alienating, but there are lots of other ‘Chinese’ flags to choose from. Examples include Qing dragon banners, and flags of the Hong Kong SAR, the 1911 Republic, and the Republic of China (i.e. ‘Taiwan’). Banners of Chinese sports groups are another idea. Even the Snow Lion should not be a problem for people that genuinely believe Tibet is part of China.

- Get rid of the ?????(Go China!) slogan. In the absence of any obvious focus (what exactly is China being encouraged to do here?) it sounds hostile.

- Don’t overdo the national anthem. Given that the PRC anthem is essentially a call to war, full of references to advancing on the enemy and so on, a little sensitivity is appropriate. There is also a difference between singing the anthem once to mark the start of an event, and singing it repeatedly to celebrate a crowd of four thousand successfully assaulting four lonely protesters.

Concluding Thoughts

I have written quite a lot. Hopefully, most people reading will find something of value. I doubt I will attend future Olympics related events in New Zealand. The politicization, nationalism, and hostility against non-Chinese are far too extreme.

UPDATE (16/06/2008):  Nearly two months have now passed since the incident.  At the time the cameraman who filmed me getting assaulted offered to put his footage online (and perhaps gather other footage) in order to help identify the people who assaulted me.  I took his offer at face value, considering it a kind and genuine gesture.  Unfortunately, despite me gently following the matter up he has never followed through on his promise.  There was always a possibility that the company he worked for would not release the footage.  However, according to the cameraman himself the company agreed to allow the footage to be used but he decided himself against helping me.  His rationale is that the Sichuan Earthquake made it inappropriate.  I don’t quite get the reasoning behind this, though it appears to be another variation on the ‘china as victim’ world view.  An earthquake in Sichuan makes it OK for Chinese (many of them visitors to New Zealand) to assault non-Chinese New Zealanders.  Or if the behavior isn’t quite acceptable it still isn’t appropriate to question it.  He suggested that I attend a Sichuan Earthquake benefit event and ask the organizers there to help me.  Umm. . . I don’t think so.  We either go with the original agreement Aaron Huang or you go fuck yourself.  All of my friends told me not to believe this guy.  I guess I should have listened to them not him.

* The Snow Lion Flag is an ancient Tibetan symbol but variations were used even under Qing Imperial rule. While the present version of the Snow Lion Flag dates from the period of Tibetan de facto independence following the Qing, there is no real reason that appropriate use of a Snow Lion Flag should be inconsistent with being a loyal citizen of the PRC. The flag is illegal in China, but New Zealand is not China. Setting the legality issue aside, how is a Chinese citizen using a Snow Lion Flag any different from a New Zealand citizen using the Flag of the Independent Tribes of New Zealand, or the Tino Rangatiratanga flag? It would be nice if 21^st Century citizens of the PRC could treat the Snow Lion Flag as graciously as the 19^th Century Manchurians did.

** Turning down gifts is rude. However, I felt it would be inappropriate to accept the flag. First, I was at the event to observe only. Given the political nature of the event I was not interested in becoming a participant. Second, there was no need for another person carrying a Chinese flag at that moment. Chinese flags were everywhere! I have nothing against Chinese flags, and in the right circumstances I might carry one (e.g. at a football match where I was supporting the Chinese team). I make an exception to the above for really cool Chinese flags – e.g. Qing battle standards or the flag of the 1911 Republic.

Following up on my earlier post on the Chinese protests in relation to Tibet, there have been some further developments in the whole Chinese protesters and Chinese online media saga.

- After coming home from the protest on Saturday afternoon I rang the offices of Sky Kiwi to try and find out the reasons for my banning. Having had my IP address blocked it was not possible to look to the site itself for help. I was given the mobile number of a Sarah Li, who seems to run Sky Kiwi. I left a detailed message regarding the situation with the man who answered her mobile (she herself was apparently sick). I told him I wanted to know why I had been banned from the site. Had I offended some part of their terms of service? Had there simply been a mistake? I emphasized the irony of the situation and said that I hoped they would get back to me soon. The man promised to have Sarah call me back as soon as possible.

- On Sunday violent threats against me appeared on the site. Netizens talked of tracking me down and arranging to have me “fucked up”. Other netizens discussed my identity, describing the clothes I had been wearing at the protest and thus making me easily identifiable from photographs posted online. Ironically, while some members of the community discussed my identity, potentially with a view to facilitating my assault, other members of the community were very concerned to protect the identity of the Tibetan, in case his family were assaulted. You need to understand that Tibet is an immensely happy place, and things can easily turn violent when a Tibetan who is merely contented encounters a compatriot who is actually blissfully ecstatic.

- I spent Sunday afternoon making numerous phone calls to get the threats removed. Sarah Li never answered her phone, and nor did anyone at the other mobile numbers I was given by the office. The office kept telling me to call back on Monday, but I wanted the material removed before things got out of hand. In an incident a few years back (the China Bounder Affair to be precise) an acquaintance complained people visited his offices in China to make threats over a similar matter. In the end a guy called Wesley decided to help. It took much convincing to get him to speak English, then more convincing (including mention of police involvement if he didn’t act) to get him to actually do anything. In the end though he took action and the offensive material was removed from the site within an hour or so. Great job Wesley! You actually did something to help. Thanks.

- On Monday I had been expecting a call from Sky Kiwi (I had left enough messages by this stage). No call came. I made a reminder call and left another message for Sarah.

- I left another message at the Sky Kiwi offices on Tuesday.

- On Wednesday (today) I called the Sky Kiwi offices again. They told me to call Sarah. I did so. Surprisingly, Sarah answered her phone. I briefly identified myself and asked if she had received my messages. She said she had, and moreover had already returned my call. This was odd since she had definitely not called me. I tried to explain the situation in case she was mistaking my identity. She interrupted to tell me again that she had already returned my call. Then she told me I should not be calling her and that she had no obligation to return my calls. She said I should deal with the matter through the site. I tried to tell her that I could not do anything through the site while my IP was blocked. She hung up. I called back. She hung up again, saying she was “in a meeting”.

- Having had no luck with Sarah I tried the Sky Kiwi offices again. This time they told me to write them an e-mail since they could not deal with the matter by phone. If they could not deal with the matter by phone then what had the last four days of taking messages been in aid of? I told them this. They told me to write an e-mail and that whatever I wrote would be “given to their lawyers”. Really? What is going on here? Should this not be a simple issue of explaining their forum moderation policy to a frustrated reader/contributor. I don’t want to talk with their lawyer. I want to talk with somebody in charge and find out why a site whose members are organizing a protest against ‘media bias’ bans the one member who asks a few thoughtful questions about that protest. How and why does this happen? The answer must : 1 – site moderation policy, or 2 – site bias, or 3 – a mistake. Somebody at Sky Kiwi has the answer to my question. Can we not communicate about this simple matter without going through lawyers?

At this point I have given up trying to deal with Sky Kiwi. From Saturday through to Tuesday they were just uncommunicative and hard to deal with. On Wednesday they turned peculiar, with Sarah lying about having called me and the desk staff talking about getting lawyers involved. I have tried to understand them. There seems to be no point trying any further.

In a side note, a New Zealand journalist told me that he had tried unsuccessfully to contact one of the protesters to follow up on Saturday’s protest. The reason they didn’t want to speak to him? The protester felt that the journalist, as a Singaporean Chinese, was “not a real Chinese”.

Lets finish by analyzing this last matter. A segment of the Chinese community decides to protest what they see as ‘western’ media bias against them, a form of discrimination if you will. The point of the protest is supposedly to communicate their views to mainstream society (‘western’ society, if you like). A journalist approaches them to discuss the protest, but is rebuffed on the basis that, as a mere Singaporean Chinese, he is “not a real Chinese”.

A couple of points. . . First, who is discriminating against whom here? The discrimination within the Chinese community suddenly looks worse than the discrimination they are supposedly facing. Second, how will the protesters communicate with mainstream society if they harbor such bigoted attitudes? Are the protesters trying to engage and influence mainstream opinion (hint: this may require two-way communication), or are they just angry patriots clutching flags?

Gentle readers, it was at that point that your good narrator became involved, with ironic and entertaining results.

I heard that Chinese students in Auckland were planning to protest western media bias, and specifically New Zealand media bias. The New Zealand angle interested me because it was local, and because I had not personally noticed anything remarkable in the New Zealand media coverage*. Therefore I looked around for details on the planned protest, and found them at www.skykiwi.co.nz, New Zealand’s largest electronic media serving a Chinese audience. The protest was to be held on Saturday noon in Aotea Square here in Auckland.

Reading through the site and sensing the anger of these young Chinese I could not help feeling a little unease. I was reminded of the anti-Japanese protests (riots?) that I had attended in Shanghai a couple of years ago. That was the only previous occasion on which I had personally witnessed a protest by educated and privileged young Chinese. The day had ended with the Japanese consulate and numerous Japanese businesses seriously vandalized (in an interesting cultural aside, the mob ignored the beer fridges in the smashed up Japanese restaurants). I asked myself why privileged and educated young Chinese only ever protest foreign things. It appeared to me that they only ever become moved to express their views when the issue is Japan, or Taiwan, or Tibet, or some other perceived slight to China.

Rather than sit there asking myself this question, I went ahead and asked New Zealand’s Chinese netizens. I wrote a post asking a few things. I asked why their protests only ever targeted foreign things and never targeted their own government. I told them that I had attended the Shanghai anti-Japanese protest, and that at times it had appeared like a riot. I noted that Japanese in Shanghai had been too scared to leave their homes on that day and that numerous innocent business owners had suffered mob violence. While nobody had died or been seriously hurt in the Shanghai demonstration, were there not some parallels between the behavior of demonstrators (rioters?) in Shanghai and in Tibet? Somewhat provocatively, I asked if Tiananmen had simply made educated and privileged young Chinese too afraid to protest their own government. Finally, I asked when the Chinese media was going to ask the Chinese government to produce proof to back its allegations that the DL orchestrated the Lhasa riots.

The response was interesting. Various posters attacked me as a “foreign devil” (洋鬼子) and a “foreign pig” (洋豬). Others apparently believed I was a Chinese pretending to be a foreigner and called me a “fake foreign devil” (假洋鬼). The thread I had started was swiftly locked and I received a disciplinary message. The message gave no explanation of why the thread had been locked, but did suggest that I was not welcome on the site and should leave. I do not know if the people who abused me also received disciplinary messages.

I started another thread to ask why my previous thread had been locked. Provoked by this stage, I sarcastically suggested that the protesters were just mindlessly trotting out the party line in the manner of the Cultural Revolution period. Specifically, I took the piss with a wisecrack about them being “good children of Chairman Mao” (毛主席的好孩子們), and suggested the chairman might reward them all with a Popsicle (冰棍) if they organized a good protest. I knew that was likely to get an ‘interesting’ reaction. But really, if netizens call me a “foreign pig” and site administrators lock my threads and ask me to leave, all because I asked a question, how charming am I supposed to be?

The response was more abuse, then my account on the site was deleted and my IP address blocked. I was no longer able to even read the site without using a proxy. Of course having lived in China I am familiar with proxy servers.

I find this sequence of events hilarious. It took less than 12 hours for the NZ Chinese media most instrumental in organizing Saturday’s protest against bias in the western and New Zealand media to ban (probably) its only non-Chinese contributor. The crime was simply questioning the nationalistic tendencies of educated young Chinese. While the online Chinese New Zealand media was busy displaying its massive bias on matters Chinese, the “your views” section of the New Zealand Herald website was allowing Chinese overseas students to engage local New Zealanders in vigorous debate on the China-Tibet issue. I have no idea if the New Zealand Herald censored comments in that debate, but there is no question that the debate occurred.

Could there be a double standard?

Could the irony of this situation be deep enough for a pod of whales to go swimming in?

I attended the protest on Saturday and chatted with a couple of the protesters. The ones that I spoke to seemed reasonable enough, if (in my opinion) slightly misguided. My criticisms would be as follows:

First, they failed to identify any specific examples of bias in the New Zealand media. Yet their protest claimed to be (at least partially) a response to New Zealand media bias.

Second, they shot themselves in the foot by using some rotten examples to demonstrate western media bias. Most notably, one of their leading examples was the Fox News photo of Nepali police arresting a demonstrator, the caption for which read “Chinese troops parade handcuffed Tibetan prisoners in trucks”. It is obvious that the picture was incorrectly captioned and not a serious attempt to mislead. A person who believes the newspaper used the caption to trick its readers into thinking the Nepali police are Tibetan must also believe the newspaper wants to dupe its readers into seeing invisible trucks, parades of prisoners, and handcuffs. None of these things were in the photo. Why did none of these protesters have the mental facility to spot this obvious truth? Spotting this truth requires nothing more than elementary English and an open and critical mind. Do none of them possess this? To somebody like myself who has followed this story closely from the start, they were simply regurgitating the propaganda from the anti-CNN website. I think they could have done much better.  You can find biases in the western media if you look, but few of the examples they presented fitted my definition of meaningful bias.

Third, the English copy of the flier they distributed was extremely difficult to understand and degenerated into illogical rambling in places. This was an unprofessional attempt at communication. Why had a native English speaker not edited it? The copy is almost too lousy to analyze so I am not going to seriously attempt that. Notably though, the flier stated that western news organizations had been unable to report directly from Tibet because of its geographical remoteness. The flier went on to state that the students were committed to ‘Freedom of Speech’, and framed ‘freedom of speech’ as a shared western and Chinese value. How is this professed commitment to freedom of speech consistent with ignoring the Chinese government’s vigorous restriction of foreign media access to Tibet? Why talk about geographical remoteness (surely a side issue), while ignoring tight Chinese controls over media access to Tibet (surely a major issue). Are they genuinely concerned with free speech and the truth, or are they merely concerned with China’s image?

Fourth, a general survey of the discussion on Skykiwi before and after the protest reveals far more discourse on feeling good about China and abusing things foreign than there is discussion and analysis of the issues they say they are protesting. For example, one common theme in the online discussion was to draw a parallel between their protest to the anti-Japanese protests (riots?) in Shanghai. Another characteristic was describing the event as an “(ethnic) Chinese rally” (華人集會), not a protest against biased coverage of PRC government handling of the Tibetan issue by the western media. A further feature has been the protesters publishing long diatribes online that are expressions of Chinese nationalism and anti-western xenophobia, not genuine attempts to address western media biases. The failure of the protesters to identify concrete bias in the New Zealand media, plus their failure to critically analyze the media material presented by their own protest, also support my feeling that the protest was primarily nationalistic. Social anthropologists sometimes say that you should analyze what people do, not what they say they do. The protesters say they are protesting a specific grievance, but their discourse before and after the protest neglected the grievance itself in favor of simple nationalistic fervor. Of course, being motivated by nationalism is not inconsistent with being motivated by real grievances. However, I think a question should be asked about degree. To what degree are young Chinese protesters critical thinkers who analyze issues and respond rationally? To what degree are they uncritical nationalists primed to respond irrationally to all kinds of triggers?

Fifth, there was some odd amateurism, or even the hint of a conspiracy. The online discussion of the protest mentioned that a Tibetan who had recently returned to (or arrived in?) New Zealand from Lhasa came past to offer words of support. The posters mentioned that this Tibetan described Lhasa to them as a thoroughly harmonious place where all Tibetans feel 100% Chinese and are hugely contented with life. He also said he had been present in Lhasa during the riots, and knew for a fact that the disorder had been orchestrated by non-Tibetan speaking agitators from outside Tibet (who were presumably agents of the DL). Having made a special trip to express his support, the Tibetan seemed to then take his leave fairly quickly, maybe without participating as a protester. There was discussion on Skykiwi about how it was not safe to post the Tibetan’s photograph online because doing so could endanger his family back home. I am not quite sure how this works since Lhasa is said to be a harmonious place inhabited by contended people. The really interesting thing however is this. The sentence previous to the one requesting the Tibetan’s photo not be published provided his full name. How can the protesters be such amateurs? Wasn’t the same person who published the Tibean’s name supposedly concerned with protecting his identity? Maybe the Tibetan told them he was happy to be represented by a name but not by a photograph? Maybe he used a false name? But if the Tibetan hid his true identity from the protesters, could his whole agenda in approaching them have been a deceptive one? I assume the protesters are simply amateurs, but the whole scenario is weird.

Well that just about wraps up what I have to say about the matter of bias in the New Zealand Chinese media and the protests against bias in the western media. Comments are welcome. Abuse is not.

Update: Some follow up to all this is here – including death threats!

* Do not take that to mean that i think the New Zealand media coverage has been problem free. I have not even read most of the New Zealand coverage because I prefer to get my news on Chinese issues from specifically China oriented sources. However, I noticed nothing unusual in what I did read. I also note that the New Zealand Herald website appears to have allowed a free debate in its online comments section, which saw an exchange of views between those supporting and opposing the Tibetan protesters (and rioters).

On Saturday I attended Whiskey Live in Auckland. Whiskey Live is a whiskey event that creeps around the globe dousing various cities in whiskey for the day. The Auckland event was mostly about Scotch, with a single lonely ‘Bourbon’ producer, a little whiskey from Tasmania and New Zealand, and I think some Irish whiskey floating around somewhere. In the U.S. there is probably a little more American whiskey. Maybe the Auckland event could have done with some more American whiskey, but perhaps that might have distracted the focus.

At any rate there was a huge range of Scotch whiskey. All the Scotch distilleries I knew of were represented, plus plenty that were new to me. The range of whiskey was impressive enough, but the venue provided the finishing touch. The Civic Theater is a truly amazing piece of art deco architecture and filling a grand old building like that with fine whiskeys and a crowd gathered specially to sample them made for a somewhat magical occasion.

As I walked in a got handed a bag full of goodies, most crucially a tasting glass and a pile of tasting vouchers. I flicked through the guide book to see what was on offer and found way too much information to actually take in. I tried finding a table and looking through the book in detail. This didn’t work either though. A cocktail competition starting up at the bar across from my table threatened to distract me further, the guide book contained too many possibilities to digest, and time was of the essence. I decided to start by sampling the New Zealand ’bourbon’, and use a random wander trying to find it to get my bearings and see what else was out there.

The show was divided into three levels. The circle level of the Civic seemed to mostly be Islay whiskeys, the foyer level offered a cocktail making competition and whiskeys for retail sale, and the lower level contained the main show, comprising a huge range of Scotch whiskeys plus a few from New Zealand and Tasmania. The New Zealand ’bourbon’ was on the lower level so I started there.

The Old Busman ‘bourbon’ came in two varieties, a seven year old black label and a four year old gold label. I started with the black label. I hadn’t been sure what to expect but it was a pleasant enough surprise. It was smooth to a fault with some vanilla and a little bit of tannin. Pleasant if not not very exciting or complex. It seemed like it could make a nice smooth mixing whiskey. The distiller compared it to Gentleman Jack. It has been too long since I’ve tried Gentleman Jack. However, I remember it as being a pleasant enough whiskey that was too smooth for its own good. There may be something in the comparison. After that I tried the gold label. This one was less pleasant, coming across initially with a slightly peculiar whiff of old sock or similar. An odd taste like that could almost be impressive in an Islay whiskey but in a bourbon it was just odd. After a few sips that smell seemed to dissipate. All in all the New Zealand bourbon was nothing I would bother to seek out again. The production methods were also apparently slightly unorthodox, with the spirit being matured in stainless steel tanks and ‘oaked’ using wood chips. While the result was not unpleasant it lacked character.

Next I tried a couple of whiskeys from Sullivans Cove, a Tasmanian distillery. They were both decent if not especially memorable. The second was the show bottling, and was a very light and smooth whiskey. It wasn’t the type of thing I would normally drink but good nevertheless.

After that I headed upstairs to try some Ardberg. The 10 year old was the only variety on offer. Compared to the Islay whiskeys I am more used to drinking (i.e. Laphroaig or Lagavullin), it was anything but peaty – despite the brand rep (who unlike most of the reps there didn’t really seem to be a whiskey person) talking up that aspect of the taste. Still, I had to agree with her that there was something quite elegant about it compared to others from Islay. It was less exciting as some but definitely nice.

I spent a little while watching the cocktail competition, and by that stage it was time for the first of the two master classes I had enrolled in. The first master class was titled Secrets of Scotland and basically introduced five lesser known distilleries. The class was taken by Dominic Roskrow of Whisky Magazine. The session was a little light on solid information about the distilleries and whiskeys but he was an entertaining speaker. The five whiskeys are summarized below:

- The first whiskey was from the Arran Distillery on the Isle of Arran, which is Scotland’s newest distillery. I found it unusual stuff. It reminded me a little of Chinese Baijiu, with some odd fruity flavors. Unlike Baijiu the effect was pleasant. Dominic described it as creamy, something I didn’t pick up myself. Despite this being an island distillery the whiskey wasn’t peated. I guess that was one reason the fruit flavors were so evident. I was not sure how much I actually liked this but it was one of the more interesting whiskeys of the day and one I would definitely like to try again.

- Whiskey number two was a Bunnahabhain from Islay. This one was mildly smoky, rich and sweet. It was extremely drinkable stuff but somehow not a favorite with me. Dominic reckoned it was great stuff for a session. He is right but I found it a little one dimensional.

- Number three was a rare one, a discontinued 15 year old Longmorn from Speyside that had been couriered over specially from Scotland. Apparently Pernod Ricard now owns Longmorn and decided to discontinue the 15 year old and replace it with a 16 year old at twice the price. The result has been that the 16 year old has failed to take off while the 15 year old has become a collector’s item. This one was delicious stuff. It was smooth and rich with caramel flavors, but simultaneously sharp and full of citrus and orange notes. Definitely a stand out. Longmorn shares warehouses with Benreiach, who make some unusual peated Speyside whiskeys (e.g. Authenticus).

- Number four was an independent bottling of Caol Isla. Caol Isla is widely used in blending, especially by Johnny Walker. Apparently Caol Isla only recently started getting promoted as a single malt, in response to the shortage of Lagavulin – supposedly caused because of a miscalculation of barrel sizes when planning Lagavulin’s inclusion in the malts of Scotland whiskey pedestal you see in bars and bottle stores. The whiskey was peaty but pleasantly smooth at the same time.

- Whiskey number five was Ledaig (pronounced le-chig), a peated whiskey produced at the normally non-peated Tobermorey distillery on the Isle of Mull (same side as Islay). Two peated whiskeys in a row may have been too much for me and this one did not come over as pleasantly as the previous one. Once again it was peaty but beyond that it did not make much of an impact.

With the master class finished I went and did some more exploring. I tried one of the Benriach whiskeys. I meant to try the Bunnahabhain Islay on the neighboring stand but somehow forgot to do it. I also tried the Tullibardine port wood finish and didn’t like it that much. It was kind of heavy. Obviously when you taste too many whiskeys in quick succession your perception starts to get a bit out of whack, but I think these dark whiskeys finished in richly flavored barrels are just a bit much for me.

I watched some more of the cocktail competition and saw an English bartender from Sweet (a bar I have been hearing a lot about but have yet to visit) making an interesting drink using Famous Grouse, homemade blueberry liqueur, rosemary flambéd in Grand Marnier, and possibly some other ingredient I have forgotten. It looked impressive and the result had an interesting rosemary flavor. I was not sure if the whiskey carried through very strongly but my taste buds had probably been pretty much desensitized by that point. Upstairs I tried some Laphroaig Quarter Cask and got chatting with a guy who had had been in the previous master class, visited the distillery, and spent the next couple of years flavoring his BBQs with a chunk of peat he cut out of the ground there.

By this stage it was time for the next round of master classes so I headed back for another session with Dominic Roskrow. This session was on the influence of wood on whiskey and was more interesting than the previous one. I guess the nature of the topic lent it to being more informative. In my by that stage somewhat inebriated state, the following bits and pieces struck me as interesting. Apparently around 75% of the taste of whiskey comes from wood. Actually it would have been fascinating to have had the chance to try some fresh, unaged whiskey in this class. That would be the real way to learn the influence of wood on its flavor. I wonder why they didn’t do something so obvious? Apparently wood also takes out of whiskey as well as adding to it, with fatty acids remaining in the wood after it has been used to age whiskey. Interestingly, the ‘ale’ from which whiskey is distilled is a sour ale that is purposefully produced in unhygienic conditions, something like a Belgian Lambic. The strength of that beer is around 7%. Again tasting some of that beer would be a good way to learn more about how whiskey gets its flavor. Never mind. On the subject of caks, apparently Bourbon casks are 1/10 of the price of sherry casks (due to the Bourbon regulations mandating new casks ensuring a continuous supply of used ones). Meanwhile, sherry cask conditioned whiskeys are much darker than bourbon cask conditioned ones. Anyway, on to the whiskeys, of which again there were five:

- Number one was an Auchentoshan Three Wood from Glasgow, matured successively in Oloroso, Pedro Ximenez and Bourbon casks. My notes were getting scanty by this point though I remember enjoying this one.

- I can’t read my own writing to see what the name of the distillery was for number two. It looks like Glenfiddich but that somehow seems wrong. In any case, it was an ‘oak cross’, meaning that it was matured in a mixture of virgin and bourbon oak. I think the ratio was that 1/15 of the whiskey was matured in virgin oak casks and the remainder in the usual bourbon casks. In any event it was tasty.

- Number three was an organic whiskey. It seems I gave up on trying to spell the distillery, though it looks to have been Benromach. This was maybe the most interesting whiskey of the day. I really liked it. It was matured purely in virgin oak casks and as a result had a massive oak flavor. Obviously this made it taste uncannily like Bourbon, but of course it was made purely from barley rather than a corn dominated mixture of corn, rye, wheat and barley. It was like a weird cross-over and was definitely a drink to completely change your perceptions of whiskey. I was so impressed by this one that it ended up being by far the most lasting influence of the whole session. I think I have had a similar whiskey before from Compass Box (or maybe I am thinking of one matured in used chardonnay casks), but in any event this one was a real stand out.

- Number four was an 18 year old Glenmoragie. It was very nice but didn’t leave an especially deep impression.

- Number five was another whose distillery I ended up not noting. I think it was called something like Bira Boonah. The whiskey was very strong (67% I think), very dark, and was heavily influenced by the cask. Despite the intense dark color this one was not at all cloying, perhaps partly because of the high alcohol.

This second class evolved into a pretty lively question and answer session, perhaps another reason why the last couple of whiskeys didn’t get quite the attention they might otherwise have done. Then was some discussion after the class, a little time to race around trying a couple more whiskeys before the show packed up, and then it was time to stagger home. To get more out of the tasting side of things it would probably be sensible to spit the whiskeys out rather than finishing every sample. You just can’t drink that much whiskey and stay focused. On the other hand it seems like a waste to pour the stuff away. I think there were a few spittoons scattered around. I didn’t see too many people using them though. More water stands for rinsing glasses might also have been good.

It was a good event and I’d definitely go again. Next time round it would be good to get hold of the program a little earlier and have more time to read through the material and plan what I really want to sample.

I am sick of reading this garbage so on Friday I shot a letter off to the editor of the New Zealand Herald. Of course my letter was way too long to publish (one of the problems with the whole Taiwan issue is that it is complex and doesn’t lend itself to simple analysis), but hopefully the New Zealand Herald will pass the letter on to Mr. Nadkarni. My letter follows (slightly edited from the original version, which went out unedited and contained a couple of typos).

Dear Editor,

Dev Nankarni’s article on the KMT election win in Taiwan and its implications for Chinese-Taiwanese relations and Pacific diplomacy was ridiculously misinformed. Some quick points follow.

To blandly state that China and Taiwan were united until they “went their separate ways” after the civil war misrepresents history. Taiwan was originally a non-Chinese Austronesian society. Ironically, despite being based in Fiji, Mr. Nadkarni completely ignores Taiwan’s Austronesian beginnings. Permanent Chinese settlement in Taiwan only began during the Dutch colonial period in the early 17^th Century, when Dutch subjugation of the Austronesian aboriginals first made settlement attractive to Chinese emigrants. Taiwan first became part of a China based state only when the Ming loyalist Koxinga (a mixed Chinese-Japanese born in Nagasaki) drove the Dutch from Taiwan in the later 17^th Century. From this point Taiwan evolved as a predominantly ethnically Chinese society.

Koxinga’s government did not represent the Manchurian Qing Dynasty that ruled China at the time though. Koxinga was the head of a small anti-Qing state (little more than a couple of cities) that fell to the Qing armies shortly after he seized Taiwan. The Qing Empire (technically a Manchurian Empire that happened to rule China) then gained control of Taiwan but largely neglected it. While the Qing Empire exerted political control in Taiwan, its control never extended into the mountainous interior or across to the east coast of the island.

In the late 19^th century the Qing Empire ceded Taiwan to the Japanese following a short war, trading Taiwan to keep Japanese influence out of the Chinese and Manchurian heartlands. This trade demonstrated the peripheral importance of Taiwan to China at that time. Taiwan then experienced 50 years of Japanese rule. The Japanese invested heavily in the economy and Taiwan leapt ahead of China in terms of development.

After WWII the Americans handed Taiwan over to the KMT (Chinese Nationalist Party) government of Chiang Kai-shek. Taiwan saw its considerable wealth siphoned off to line the pockets of corrupt politicians and gangsters in Shanghai and the island’s economy collapsed. When the CCP defeated the KMT in the civil war, the KMT fled to Taiwan and spent the next several decades oppressing the Taiwanese population and trading occasional shell barrages with their CCP enemies. The arrival of the KMT in Taiwan was as much another colonization as it was a joyous return of Taiwan to the Chinese ‘motherland’ – a ‘mother’ that adopted it relatively late and never especially cared about it. Hokkien (the Chinese language spoken by the majority of Taiwan’s inhabitants) was banned from education and public life, and Taiwanese school teachers, officials and intellectuals were harassed and murdered and saw their jobs taken by KMT loyalists from China. The situation only improved as democratization was gradually introduced during the 1980s and 1990s and Taiwanese once again got the opportunity to run their own affairs.

Taiwan has spent centuries as the pawn of other nations. In the past decade or two democratization has finally given Taiwanese a chance to chart their own future. It is depressing to see badly informed commentators unquestioningly swallowing Beijing’s rhetoric on the nature of the “Taiwan issue” and thus constraining the space available to democracy in Taiwan. A few points that Mr. Nankarni should take note of:

- The chequebook diplomacy Mr. Nankarni complains about was initiated decades ago by the KMT. It has absolutely nothing to do with the DPP, which has controlled the presidency for less than a decade and has never controlled the legislature, which has remained KMT controlled. There is no reason to assume this chequebook diplomacy will vanish following the KMT’s recent electoral win. The budget for this activity has always been approved by the KMT controlled legislature!

- The DPP actually slightly increased its vote total in the recent legislative election, but the electoral map and electoral rules had changed relative to the previous election. The KMT landslide results from a new electoral environment, specifically gerrymandering of electoral districts and the collapse of the minor parties allied with the DPP (namely the TSU). Vote counts do not indicate a strong shift in public sentiment against the DPP.

- It is ridiculous to claim that Taiwan under a DPP president has not pursued a policy of engaging economically with China. Most of Taiwan’s industries long ago moved their production facilities to China. Some figures rank Taiwan as the biggest foreign investor in China, and however you work the figures Taiwan has a top three ranking. Also remember that a large percentage of Hong Kongese investment in China is by Taiwanese controlled but Hong Kong registered companies, meaning the official figures understate the real level of Taiwanese investment in China. The number of Taiwanese working in China must already exceed a million, with over 300 thousand in Shanghai alone. Taiwan’s total population is only a little over 20 million. How economically engaged with China would Taiwan have to be for Mr. Nankarni to drop this nonsensical claim?

- There has been high dissatisfaction with the poor performance of the Chen Shui-bian presidency. However, much of the poor performance results from obstructionist behavior by the KMT controlled legislature. When Chen Shui-bian won the presidency the initial reaction of the KMT leadership was to seek to have the results overturned. There were even subtle suggestions that a military coup could be an option. Senior KMT leaders commandeered trucks and used them to assault riot police! Since the DPP presidency started the KMT has used its control over the legislature to block huge swathes of legislation, much of it routine and uncontroversial. Economically stimulatory infrastructure spending has mostly been blocked. Unfortunately the presidency is weak in Taiwan so the DPP has been powerless in the face of these obstructionist tactics. Surely the KMT is as much to blame as the DPP for the messy governance?

- Mr. Nankarni claims that people-to-people relations between Taiwan and China have worsened in recent years mainly because of Chen Shui-bian and the DPP. I would say that a larger reason for poor people-to-people relations would be the behavior of China and its people. Lobbing missiles into a Taiwanese harbor to try and influence election results, as Beijing did in 1996, is not a good way to win friends. Encouraging your citizens to harass Taiwanese participants in international events is also guaranteed to escalate a sensitive situation, yet it has become routine to see PRC citizens demand that organizers of international events remove Taiwanese flags. The Chinese government regularly threatens to ban representatives on national teams from attending future events or denies them funding if they fail to prevent the display of the Taiwanese flag. Young Taiwanese computer gamers have seen their awards ceremonies ruined by politics as Chinese boo their flag. Taiwanese beauty queens have been reduced to tears in similar displays of nasty bigotry. I have been harassed myself by Chinese staff in a Foodtown here in Auckland simply for wearing a t-shirt displaying a Taiwanese flag. Ironically the t-shirt was a historical souvenir purchased in a museum in China - the ‘Taiwanese’ flag being the pre-CCP Chinese flag. Blaming Chen Shui-bian for poor people-to-people interactions ignores the real problem. Certain behavior is simply unacceptable regardless of what some democratically elected politician may or may not be saying.

I have no opinion on how to solve the ‘Taiwan question’ other than to urge everyone with an interest to open up their minds, study the facts, and consider the wishes of the Taiwanese people, whatever those wishes may be. Badly researched and misinformed articles are counterproductive. Mr. Nankarni’s piece was extremely disappointing.

Regards,

Seamus Harris

P.S. I realize this is far too long to publish, but please forward it to Mr. Nankarni. If you could distribute it among any other writers on your staff who are likely to write about Taiwan then that would also be greatly appreciated. Thanks.

For the past 24 hours the New Zealand media has been full of tributes, summaries of his achievements, reactions from around the world, various miscellaneous interest stories. Some might call it overdone, but it isn’t like he’s done this before, so lets let the media go to town. If talk-back radio is anything to go by the interest is out there. Since he passed away there has been little else on the airwaves besides people ringing in and sharing stories and thoughts. OK, there has been a little bit of silly stuff (replacing Waitangi Day with Hillary Day can only seem a good idea if harmonious race relations bore you), but mostly it’s been a feel-good media fest.

So far the New Zealand Chinese media is a glaring exception though.

This morning the newspapers got their big chance to run the story. Lets compare today’s New Zealand Herald (probably the closest thing New Zealand has to a national newspaper) with the New Zealand Chinese Herald (its Chinese language sister publication) [UPDATE: It appears the publications are not related. The story seems a bit complicated and I have not bothered to find out the truth.  They may have been related initially, but the New Zealand Chinese Herald is now separate.].

The New Zealand Herald led with the headline story “Happy Ending to a Life of Heroic Feats and Care for Fellow Man”. That was supplemented by an editorial, two pieces by columnists, and something like 13 supplementary stories. This count was based on the paper’s website, and it is possible that one or two of the supplementary stories didn’t make it into print, or that they were put on the site later in the day – it is already Saturday evening now.

The New Zealand Chinese Herald led with the headline story “U.S. Sub-Prime Lending Storm Reaches New Zealand” (美國次貨風暴進襲紐西蘭). The story details the increased cost of borrowing facing home buyers. Honestly. . . What the fuck?

Today’s New Zealand Chinese Herald contains not a single news story on Sir Edmund Hillary. The local news stories are as follows: “Farmers are Prepared to Deal With La Nina”; “Teenage Girl Escapes Abductor”; “Adventure Cavers Criticized for Lack of Professionalism”; “Japanese Tourist Ordered to Pay NZ$10,000 to Family of Deceased”; “Almost 6,000 Dangerous Drivers Still on the Roads”; “Policeman and Superiors Accuse One Another of Neglecting Duties” (a bad translation on that one sorry); and finally and most unfortunately, “Is it Really Possible to get into New Zealand without a Passport?” (不用護照就能進入紐西蘭？).

All of those stories are supposedly written by the publication’s own reporters, of which there are several judging by the various names that appear. This is not a publication that simply lifts the English news from the previous day and translates it into Chinese. Well maybe that is what they do, but it is not how they present themselves.

So the casual reader of the New Zealand Chinese Herald for Saturday 12 January 2008 would have no idea that Sir Edmund Hillary had died, though they may have decided that the rejection of Auntie Liu’s visa application is no biggie after all. More thorough readers would find an obituary for Hillary tucked away on the editorial page in Section D . The obituary took up about a quarter of a page and was a very standard piece, simply listing the main facts of Hillary’s life, without any real thoughts on his significance to New Zealand or other opinions from the editor.

The obituary did contain one detail that I don’t think the English language media picked up on despite devoting far more space to the story. Apparently, a Chinese sculptor named Chen Weiming (陳維明) was commissioned to produce a statue of Hillary over a decade ago. This detail was simply added as a sentence after the obituary. There were no details on where the statue was (it might be the Orewa statue since the one at Mt. Cook is only five years old). The editor hadn’t tried to track down the sculptor to get a comment, mentioned why they got the job, or expanded on who they were. Perhaps Chen Weiming is a household name in China, but I have never heard of him and wouldn’t have minded knowing more. There was nothing about whether the statue had started to attract wreaths or other tributes. By stretching the statue business a little more she could have created a Chinese angle on the whole story; but no, the statue detail just sat there like an incomplete afterthought.

Another more obvious Chinese angle could have been that Mt. Everest is sort of a Chinese mountain. The mountain’s Chinese name is 珠穆朗瑪山, and Everest Base Camp is located in Chinese territory.

Of course the most obvious Chinese angle of all would have been that Hillary’s climbing partner Tenzeng Norgay was not a Nepali, or a Sherpa, but an ethnic Tibetan from what is now China. Tenzeng grew up in a Sherpa region of Nepal after his family emigrated there, but he was an non-Sherpa outsider in that society, having been born in Tibet to Tibetan parents. Given that Tenzeng had grown up a cultural outsider, in a border region before the surrounding nations formalized their borders, he was in a sense stateless. Following the Everest success the Indian PM Nehru decided Tenzeng was the sort of hero who could be useful in building the Indian nation, and offered to formalize his hazy legal status by the grant of Indian citizenship together with generous patronage. Tenzeng thus gained the financial security he desperately wanted for his family, but also had plenty of reasons to keep his ‘Chinese’ origins quiet. He would raise his children (all to Sherpa women) as Sherpas rather than Tibetans.

Admittedly it’s a literal borderline case, given that Tenzeng was born in a remote border region of Tibet, at a time when Chinese control over Tibet was nonexistent, and back when national borders didn’t mean a great deal anyway. However, the Chinese rant endlessly about Tibet being an indelible part of the Glorious Chinese Motherland, the Tibetans being their brother race (subordinate of course), and so on, and therefore I can’t explain why this angle was overlooked in the New Zealand Chinese media. Most nations like to claim their heroes, and Tenzeng was a remarkable partner to Hillary who the Chinese have a claim to.

Much like Hillary, Tenzeng was an ordinary guy who overcame a humble background to achieve worldwide fame through his skills, determination, endurance, and perhaps a spot of luck with the weather. His story is very like that of Hillary, but sort of an Asian version.

The New Zealand Chinese Herald has embarrassed itself badly. After the papers came out this morning it was announced that Hillary would be getting a state funeral. So we now have a state funeral scheduled for Hillary, but the ‘news team’ at the New Zealand Chinese Herald has yet to report the guy dead!

This group of ‘journalists’ have assigned the most famous New Zealander (the only one who features on the currency – how did that one pass them by?) to the ‘irrelevant to our Asian readership’ category, despite his most celebrated achievement being done in partnership with one of the most famous Asians (and arguably ‘Chinese’) of the 20th Century. Incredible. Presumably these guys draw salaries. They don’t deserve them.

When I picked up the Chinese Herald I initially thought that their printing schedule must be too early to run the Hillary story. Or maybe the staff were so out of touch with the rest of society that they were unaware of the news? The journalists at the Chinese Herald can’t spell Dominion Rd. (they favor the more exotic ‘Domainion Rd.’) despite the fact that their readers either rent or own most of it, so nothing is impossible. But the editor was aware that Hillary had died and had sufficient time to write an obituary before she put the paper to press. Her editorial has a note attached saying it was written in the early evening, so the publication had at least half a day to react to the story.

Despite being aware of the news then, the editor was happy to let the Saturday paper go out with a headline on the cost of borrowing? Did she have no sense of her responsibility to inform her readers of the day’s big story? Didn’t she consider that by leading with interest rates when a national hero had just died she might be making the Chinese community look a little insensitive, ignorant, insular, and errr. . . money-obsessed?

Surely a major function (among others of course) of minority language media is to relay current news and help members of minorities understand the societies they live in? How could the New Zealand Chinese Herald treat a major news story, and a very easy one (i.e. uncontroversial and simple to research), so stupidly and unprofessionally? They didn’t even have the imagination to make the story directly relevant to the Chinese community, despite the enormous potential to do so.

I haven’t seen any of the other Chinese papers yet. Hopefully they have done better. You don’t expect blanket coverage, but surely this has to be front page news?