Chinese Communists Want Special Treatment For Christchurch Quake Victims

Associated Press is reporting that the Chinese Government has asked the NZ government for extra compensation payments because the Chinese citizens that died in the Christchurch earthquake were “only children”. Meaning the one child permitted to be born to husbands and wives under the Chinese government’s “one child” policy.

A Chinese official said Monday that New Zealand should consider special compensation to parents of Chinese students killed in an earthquake last month because their loss was magnified under the country’s one-child policy. Seven students from China have been identified among the 166 confirmed deaths in the quake that devastated Christchurch city on Feb. 22, and as many as 20 others are still missing. Chinese Embassy official Cheng Lei said Monday that Chinese quake victims had lost not just their only child, but also a future breadwinner. He said New Zealand should consider providing additional financial assistance to those families.

Hey Cheng Lei- one child is your government’s policy. You provide the extra compensation. In fact, I don’t see why your government shouldn’t pay all of it.


22 thoughts on “Chinese Communists Want Special Treatment For Christchurch Quake Victims

  1. I disagree there. First these Chinese were in that building in a commercial context as paying customers. Earthquake or not, in every country in the world but NZ this could spark litigation (given the emotional nature of the harm it actually still might), based on some allegation that this building was not up to scratch, there was no warning system/procedure, whatever. (I haven’t looked up the ACC implications of this but they may well be entitled to something anyway) Second, we are dealing with a culture where these things are approached differently, and if we want to sell them our education services we should keep in mind that this is but a part of “customer satisfaction”. Third, don’t shoot off your mouth without knowing what we are actually talking about, both money wise and what can be done about the whole “face saving” thing that’ll get involved by too bluntly dismissing what only amounts to suggestions at this point.
    Fourth, note the reference to “extra” compensation payments. “Extra” to what, one wonders. Fifth, it’s better to contemplate how this can be turned to advantage rather than creating an unnecessary stink. Reality is that the Chinese are the economic powerhouse in waiting, like it or not. While we should never buckle at the knees out of fear or deference, we should be smart rather than stubborn.
    While I agree with Keith that Key will give in to any silly demand, I don’t think that your hawkish approach would be a good idea either.


  2. These people are gangsters suppressing their people. They have worked hard to put down pro-democracy protests over the last few weeks. Just like Gaddafi, Castro and other dictators who remain in control by force of arms.

    How would you feel about supporting the regime when they are eventually over thrown and replaced? What are you going to say to those who overthrow their oppressors? That you willingly helped them stay in power by recognizing them as a legitimate government when they are nothing of the sort?? They are a gang of vicious murdering armed thugs.

    My POV is that every Chinese government official is a thug and we shouldn’t have anything to do with them on a trade basis or any basis. I do not give a damn how big they are or how much power they wield. They are criminals. Should governments have curried favour with Hitler and his henchmen?

    From another perspective, I don’t believe that governments should be paying out “compensation” anyway. To NZers or Chinese. But for the Chinese to demand extra money from NZ because of the damaging affects of their own policies is just too much. If they can afford to spend $100 billion beefing up their armed forces with nuclear subs, aircraft carriers and various other modern and sophisticated warfare technology, they can afford to pay their own compensation to these poor people.


  3. I think this constant refrain that China is the economic powerhouse in waiting is bollocks. It’s a huge fucken powder keg in waiting and the Communist Party knows it.They arte desperate to hold the whole thing together and perhaps post Tien An Men realise that they can’t shoot one billion people. So they have to keep the masses happy. This is what will eventually get them though,The Chinese people will eventaually rise up and then it will be a bloody,chaotic mess.
    Chinese communists have always been bullies and the west has taught them that we will respond to their bullying.Giving them the seat at the UN was a bad start.
    Remember how demonstrators in western countries are dealt with when exercising that “sacred right ” to freedom of expression and assembly near any Chinese PM or President.? Here in NZ Jenny had them blocked from sight by a bus,in France(home of Liberte,Egalite,yeah right) they piled them onto the bus!
    This will have been done at the instigation of the Chinese. They dictate to the west. We no want to see or hear these people……go fixee or else. And we jump.

    Remember the act of kowtow. It’s very much alive and well.


  4. The NZ government is also suppressing its people, the only difference is the tools in use, in China raw power, in NZ PC correctness, ridiculous taxes, an army of grey ones with books full of rules and discretion to make more rules, relentless brainwashing and structurally dumbing down the population, together with a sustained attack on norms and values. It’s how you define “thugs” that creates the only difference. Don’t suggest to me that things like corruption are any different here than in China, the only difference is the way it is set up, and perhaps the blatant nature of it and the scale. Don’t think that we don’t have an “elite” just like in China, to whom different rules apply. Again, the only difference is the scale, but that is a function of the size of the country and the economy, not a difference in principle.

    By the same token, the Chinese have an approach to some issues that you would actually subscribe to, dealing with real criminals being one. (This again of course turns on the definition of criminals, but I can run that argument in the NZ context just as simply).

    I agree by the way with the principle that no government should ever pay compensation for a natural disaster, there simply is no rational argument for such a thing. Private insurance is as always the solution, and I for one wouldn’t be surprised if the education institute in question might have actually had some liability insurance for exactly this kind of thing (especially following the recent disasters with other students).

    You ask what I would say to the people if they finally overthrow their oppressors? Simple, that by engaging and trading with them the economy could grow to the point that they actually had the health, wealth and means to actually overthrow the oppressors, as opposed to having been kept in subsistence in a rice field ala the North Korean example. If the Chinese do overthrow their oppressors (and I think that it is much more likely that this will be a gradual process, whereby I am not at all convinced that the current protesters would actually represent a better alternative at this point, a bit like the Egyptian situation, there isn’t enough info), they are likely to come out with a reasonable economy in a country with a reasonable infrastructure, standard of healthcare and so on, especially as compared with other former dictatorships. All of that is the result of trade and political engagement as opposed to taking the approach you are advocating. In the end it is economic prosperity that inevitably will induce an unstoppable desire for individual liberty, and the need for individual liberty to sustain the economic growth they must have to prevent huge unrest. In other words, they are on a track that undeniably leads to greater freedom, whether the current ruling lot like it or not. That track they are on is by the way the opposite of the one we are on here, were our liberty is continuously eroded and the economy is consequently tanking as well.

    In twenty years time, it may well be that you’d rather be in China..


  5. No I am sorry. You cannot say that the tyranny that applies in NZ is the moral equivalent of or in any way the same as that which applies in China, because when you do that, you overlook the part that terror plays in keeping the population subdued.

    The Chinese government, as with all such thug governments has a network of informers and spies whose job is to locate and eliminate anyone who looks like generating any firm resistance to the regime. This makes people fearful, and it means one has to have an immense amount of courage to stand up and speak out.

    Here, we face a cultural offensive designed to marginalise and render us otherwise ineffective. It is lies, propaganda, ridicule, outcasting but so far, we do not experience real fear.

    In China, rule by the current regime is underpinned by naked terror. Murder and torture and not only of the offender but of his/her family as well. There is a stark difference between the two situations. You must acknowledge the terror factor, and that is the factor all totalitarian tyrants use to maintain power. It is not just the force, it is the force of terror.

    (BTW, my solution to events like the Christchurch quake is charity, but of course insurance should be part of living in any earthquake prone region.)

    “In twenty years time, it may well be that you’d rather be in China..”

    Maybe even sooner.. 🙂


  6. Ok, I grant you it’s not quite the moral equivalent (from our perspective, mind you). On the other hand, you’d probably be surprised about what the government even her keeps tabs on, and more surprised by how far they’d go in the event you’d cause some serious upheaval. I am not going to argue for the Maori/leftist cause of the Urewera “terrorists”, but have a good look at all the details of how the state dealt with that situation and its aftermath, and you’ll see it’s not that far removed from what a much more repressive regime would do. Obviously there is a large difference in the amount of physical violence involved, but one could validly argue that that is primarily a cultural difference. In some cultures hard violence is seen as the norm, while the psychological abuse that we are very susceptible to, would there be seen as sissy stuff.


  7. By the way, isn’t it interesting that the Chinese are pushing a system whereby the children are directly responsible for the retirement etc of their own parents.
    Mind you that is effectively the same as what we have here, but it is personalized, instead of intermediated by the state. Personally I wouldn’t mind such a system here, whereby one organised for their own retirement in some form of agreement with one’s children as the default option. Imagine also what the effect of that approach is culturally, namely that it is in the best interest of parents to have a good relationship with children and to set them on the best course possible, while children learn to look at long term beneficial relationships with parents. Quite different from the procreation for immediate cash from the state that is prevalent in the NZ society.


  8. So if we compensate the Chinese for the loss of some of their citizens will they compensate Fonterra for loss of face. A couple of hundred million was paid as compensation for the deaths of some of its children and for the defence of the Fonterra brand. It was after all Chinese citizens that poisoned their own not Fonterra. Seems to me these commie bastards are quick to try it on, perhaps Shonkey should tell the pricks the bill has all ready been paid.


  9. Bez, that is how it is done in Singapore. The parents are financially maintained (well) by the children who do so with affection and without any chagrin at all. It is traditional. (Well, among Malays anyway, not sure about the Chinese.) Plus they have their super.


  10. “If you want Chinese students to keep coming to NZ,”

    I don’t care, and I certainly would not yield to blackmail to keep it happening. And why the hell should this be anything to do with the NZ government? They were here attending a private school. You Sinner are the socialist automatically assuming that this is something “the government” (ooh wow, the gummint) should be responsible for. If Chinese parents want to send their children to school in an earthquake prone city then the risk is down to them and their children. Not I or any NZ taxpayer, and not the NZ government.


  11. In the interview this morning it was stated that the students were required to have insurance before doing the education courses.


  12. So Sinner how many millions are paid to Chinese parents who lose children in Chinese earthquakes………………………… Yeah thought so, sweet piss all.


  13. Side show Bob, you hit the nail on the head. May 12, 2008, a 7.9-magnitude earthquake hit Sichuan Province, killing about 70,000 people. How much did the Chinese Government pay the survivours for families that lost their only child? Until that is answered I’ll refrain from saying anything other than I don’t like special treatment on the basis of nationality.
    Sinner, I don’t think it cost anywhere near those amounts you’ve invented to send a kid from China to NZ for a couple of years of english language education.


  14. The demands from China are outrageous. Their one child policy, their consequences. What was the government thinking, sending them to dangerous earthquake prone NZ?

    Sinner, the Chinese people do not have property rights. The Government has property rights, and rights over the lives (one child policy is just the tip of the iceberg).

    The Chinese are just extorting us, and we can diplomatically tell them to allocate the millions in foreign aid they were going to undoubtedly send to NZ as a goodwill gesture, to instead divert it to the families of the victims.

    Problem solved, and they don’t lose face. At least until the victims families suddenly say “hey, my government didn’t come through for me”.


  15. “Not even in Hellen’s dreams.”

    You overlook the very important point that the money is not redistributed. There is no way Kullen or Klark would have allowed numbered accounts. Your attempt to draw a parallel doesn’t work. In fact it doesn’t even come close.


  16. Are you really arguing NZ’s unproductive bludger & bennie & wffer & codger & etc “community” deserves property rights? the right to vote? the right to life? the right to a benefit for life?

    What part of “the Chinese people do not have property rights” leads you to make stupid statements about what you assume I might think about NZ people?

    Property Rights in China are proven to be inconsequential when the Chinese Government simply turfs people out of their homes or from their land to build something that interests them more. “Productive” doesn’t actually mean those Chinese people willing to pay bribes to the government. “Property Rights” doesn’t mean taking from others by force.


  17. Hey Bez- (and others) Good read on issues connected to this here-

    Prepare to be horrified.

    Red, from your link:

    Based on his own writings, Obama would dearly love to implement China’s policies here in America. In China, citizens are forced to place fealty to the state over fealty to God. In China, the state rules with an iron hand, and those who dissent are silenced. No need for national conversations on vital issues. No Fox News or Glenn Becks. No pesky Christians advocating morality and adherence to God’s word. Just absolute obedience to the state. In all things. This is the utopia the left yearns for. This is the path Obama wants America to take. A path strewn with the dead bodies of babies, dissidents and anyone who dares question the supremacy of the divine leader.

    American’s beware. And to all you young Americans who dream of having large families, you’d better hurry up.

    And not just in the States – this is the aim of the Progressive Left in ALL Western nations: Godless, amoral societies with no voice of dissent, and where individuals are simply viewed as “worker units”. George Orwell must be spinning in his grave!


Comments are closed.