Search This Blog

Sunday, 24 December 2017

A spy in the Beehive part II: further dodgyness from Jin Yang

Christmas came slightly early this week when further revelations about National MP Jin Yang surfaced in the media.

And wouldn't you know it but Yang deliberately tried to subvert a SIS security vetting in an attempt to get an individual with a Chinese background into the NZDF.

Matt Nippert's article in the NZ Herald has the better depth on things and from that its clear that Yang sought to overturn the vetting outcome so that the individual could get a job in the NZDF in a position requiring a Secret level security clearance.

Yang, of course has claimed that he was merely "seeking answers" for his constituent but Nippert's article goes on to note that the letter of response to the constituent by the then minister for defense Jonathan Coleman noted that Yang "approached the office" on his constituents behalf.

And while we can get hung up on the definitions of what "forwarding correspondence" vs "approaching the office" means the real issue is that Yang sought to question a failed security vetting and get it overturned because that's what people go to their MP for.

People don't go to their MP to just find out whats going on, both the SIS and the NZDF are very clear about the minimum requirements for a security vetting and general queries about such matters can be made via the Inspector general of Security and Intelligence, so Yang going into bat on this individuals behalf means that the individual was seeking to use Yang's influence as a MP to overturn the findings of the vet.

Add to the issue is that Yang has further sought to obscure his background with the Chinese Military and Spying establishments (as the article notes) and you have an individual with a highly questionable background and blurry backstory seeking to subvert a security vet so another individual, who would not normally get into the NZDF, in a high security role, could bypass those checks and get in.

So at what point do we say that Yang is a spy and be done with it because as I said in my last post on the issue I would not be surprised if he was found to be a spy and none of those actions make Yang, or his behaviors, look credible, believable or trustworthy and in fact make Yang look dodgy, dubious and traitors in regards to that charge.

If Yang was just another MP without all the other issues then we could probably put those actions in context of a MP acting on the behalf of a constituent (even if challenging a security vet is a rather unusual action for a MP) but with all the extra information about Yang and little or no info to mitigate things its harder and harder to believe that this is just another unrelated action.

And with questions about Chinese influence abounding at the moment Yang is probably hoping that all of this will just go away but I don't think kit will as if previous Chinese National MP scandal of Pansy Wong was enough to get her removed I fail to see why Yang gets to stay in his job when issues of trust are one of the foremost things about being a MP or member of government.

So far Yang has tried to play the race card (which failed) and has now sought to issue a single statement on the matter and say nothing more, in the hope that this will all go away but my guess is Nippert has the scent of a story in his nostrils and wont be giving up on things that easy when who knows what further OIA's might bring to light.

18 comments:

  1. Seems like you've come down pretty firmly on the "he's a spy" side of this argument.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I don't see why the SIS should not be challenged on any of its actions or decisions, and who better than a Member of Parliament to ask the questions? The SIS has no respect for the law, for fairness or natural justice, and the vetting process has become nothing more than a means to impose the invidious political agenda of the SIS on the state and the nation as a whole.
    I started my working life as a forest labourer, paid my way through a university degree in Forest Science, came top of my class with a 1st Class Hons degree and then could not obtain employment in the New Zealand forest industry because the SIS had labelled me as a political dissident. I ended up as I started out, working as a sawmill labourer.
    So now the SIS, which didn't want political dissidents in the New Zealand Forest Service, doesn't want Chinese New Zealanders in the NZDF.
    I am fine with that. I would be worried if our Chinese brethren were allowed to serve this ugly colonial regime. I would much rather they used their skills, strength and courage in the battle to once and for all overthrow British colonialism in Aotearoa.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. E.A. believes that Chinese people are riskier. Sorry, not Chinese people, people from China. (According to E.A, that's a difference which means he's not a racist)

      Delete
    2. Hi Geoff:

      I can see you have an issue with the SIS and I don't disagree with your felling in that regard but Jin Yang is not a dissident and he is not going for a position where he has no influence or effect on national security.

      Also the Inspector General of Intelligence and Security is the proper and best mechanism to challenge a security clearance matter (I know this for a fact as its how I changed mine) and not going to your MP.

      Nowhere do I argue that the SIS can not be challenged but people go to their MP usually as a last resort and when all other mechanisms are exhausted AND when their is a genuine reason to do so.

      Yang in fronting for a constituent was trying to do what?

      And the issue is not the NZDF per-se but that the requirements to get a security clearance to a certain level in the NZDF are clear (whether we agree with them or not) and Yang was trying to bypass those.

      There are plenty of people of Chinese origin and background working in government in NZ and some who I have met hold clearances to some level but the NZDF (and the SIS) has a higher criteria and Yang sought to lobby for his constituent to not be subject to those.

      If there were no other issues with Yang then it would just be a case of an MP going a step to far but this is Jin Yang we are talking about and he is a walking ball of issues and concerns in just those areas.

      I think in this case he actions are suspect given his failure to be clear with the truth on other matters and the risks attendant to him.

      As for any accusations of racism from other parties: that argument has no legs and is either deliberately ignoring Yang's background and behavior or simply working off the assumption that any form of National security is racist, which in some ways it is as it preferences those of the mother country over all else but not as some sort of racial matter (see my bit above about people of Chinese and other backgrounds working in govt with security clearances of some sort).

      And for the record I do believe that China is a security risk. I may not like the path that America is taking these days but if forced to choose between the pretense of democracy and no democracy I will always choose the pretense but none of that is based on issues of race rather politics and ideology.

      Delete
    3. E.A, when -do- you think it's appropriate for someone to ask their MP to appeal an institutional decision?

      Because the objections you're making to this appeal (the requirements are clear, the decision was made in good faith, etc etc) could apply to any other institution, be it the Ministry of Transport, Land Information NZ, a parking warden, whatever.

      You keep insisting "this has nothing to do with race", but it's hard to take your own description of your motives at face value. Most racists claim they're not concerned with race but with culture, values, security, crime, etc etc. If we accepted all "I'm not concerned with race" declarations, we'd have to conclude that racism doesn't exist. What makes your own description of your suspicions as unfounded on race credible to a third party?

      Delete
  3. Not only E.A. but also the SIS would have us believe that all former Chinese nationals present a risk. However it is blindingly obvious that the real threat to our people comes from secretive non-elected government organisations which control public access to employment and information, determine the direction and limits of political discourse, and claim the right to dictate the nation's security and foreign policy.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Matt Nippert may have the scent of a story in his nostrils, but I doubt that he will have any need to make an OIA request.
    There is a story behind this story, which involves Nippert and David Fisher from the "Herald", Jamie Smyth from the "Financial Times" and NATO-sponsored Canterbury university academic Anne-Marie Brady.
    Three "investigative journalists" who have no need to investigate, and a "researcher" who has no need to research, because the "investigation" and "research" has all been done for them by the kind folks at the SIS who are using them as a front for the on-going anti-China campaign.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I have done further research using published sources which show the Jian Yang affair in a quite different light. My conclusions and source materials can be found in the post "What is the SIS up to now? or Jian Yang, the New Zealand Dreyfus" on www.republican.co.nz (Sorry, it would not be practical to post all the findings and source material here on kiwifirewalker).

      Delete
  5. Jeez EA, I've been away so long you have dissidents here now who want Chinese Spies in politics, and the defence force, obviously bloody socialists and communists, yes thats it. One rarely hears the name John Key any more, and soon enough too Bill English.. Now my debt to you from wagre is the only debt I have, now inflated to $60 , please give name of charity here so I can square that, otherwise I will be miserable.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What's your beef with socialists Paul

      Delete
    2. HI Paul:

      Give my winnings to the Christchurch City Mission. I have donated to them in the past and they need all the help they can get.

      If your interested in what is next for Bill English, stay tuned for an upcoming post on the future for National in 2018 (hint, it aint pretty)

      Delete
  6. Paul, if you comment is in reply to mine, please note that I am not advocating that Chinese, spies or otherwise, should participate in New Zealand parliamentary politics or serve in the New Zealand Defence Force.
    It is for the monarchist regime itself to decide whether it will be open to all ethnic groups, and representative of the New Zealand population as a whole. If it were to go that route, it would become easier for such as myself to co-exist with the regime. If, on the other hand, the regime holds fast to its racist imperialist origins, it will be all the sooner overthrown and replaced with a regime more in keeping with the values and aspirations of our people.
    I know what I would do if I was making those decisions on behalf of the regime, but I will be relaxed about the matter regardless of which path the regime actually chooses to take.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. How soon do you expect the regime to be overthrown?

      Delete
  7. Before we can answer the question "When?" we need to ask ourselves "How?" and as I intimated there are two processes taking place which together will dictate the pace of change. One is the moral and political degeneration of the present regime and the other is the restoration and rejuvenation of indigenous institutions. It may seem like a trite answer, but all I can say is that I expect the regime to be overthrown once the institutions which will replace it have developed to the point that they are able to provide an adequate degree of moral leadership and material security for our people. Because that happens at a local level and can only slowly progress to the national level, the answer must be that the regime is being, and will be overthrown wherever the alternative institutions (both new and old) are functioning effectively, but it may be a long while before we see the butterfly emerge from its chrysalis at the national level.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. How much progress do you think the development of indigenous institutions has made, at the local level, over the last few years?

      Delete
  8. In our rohe there has been enough progress to make me feel positive for our future, although we still have big challenges in front of us, particularly drug and alcohol problems. What is happening in your rohe? Are you able to contribute something of value? Do you feel that you are building a better future for your tamariki and mokopuna?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I would really prefer not to discuss my personal life in this context, if that's OK

      Delete
    2. Sorry, I prefer not to discuss my personal life here if thats OK

      Delete