Susan Zhu

Ching says not me…look at other Chinese bagmen

Stephen Ching has emailed me a statement for publication.

  1. Today (June 26,2014) the NZ Herald’s report regarding me was incorrect. The Journalist Jared Savage didn’t consult with me before making the story. I don’t know who had made Mr.Liu to buy the wine and book for Labour Party. I reserve my right to sue the NZ Herald.
  2. To my best knowledge I didn’t took Mr.Liu to Labour New Lynn Office seeking  support for his immigration case. It’s better to ask Mr.Henry Mao of MMW Consulting (group) who was his agent in NZ to clarify this matter. He may know who had helped Mr.Liu to donate funds to Labour Party.
  3. After 2005  I was no longer a candidate for Labour, So It’s better to ask Mr.Raymond Huo or Ms.Susan Zhu to understand any details of Chinese community fundraising function.
  4. In April,2007 I was invited to attend a fundraising party as a guest only. I was no longer an organizer for Labour to raise any funds after 2005 election.

This is very, very interesting.

Ching is saying that media should go ask Susan Zhu about Chinese fundraising methods fundraising. Ms Zhu is a lawyer working for Presland & Co. Greg Presland, the donation laundering blogger at The Standard, the very same Greg Presland who set up David Cunliffe’s anonymous, but not really anonymous donations in a secret trust.  Read more »

Cash for Access?

I wonder what Russel Norman will say when he finds out that Botany Labour held a fundraiser at a restaurant…just last week.

Helpfully they have told the world about it (complete with photos), and by all accounts it was a great success.

cash4access

Success of course is measured in funds raised so it looks like this dinner function involved substantial cash donations, access to David Cunliffe, David Parker and Phil Goff at least.

Surely Russel Norman will be against this sort of thing within Labour, after all it has all the same elements as his accusations against National…a restaurant, cash for access, and fundraising donations.

They say it is just fundraising and it probably is technically legal, but it just LOOKS dodgy…right Russel?

Read more »

Long Term Effects of the Tizard Timebomb

The Herald editorial talks about the paucity of talent in Labour’s list:

The Labour Party has 43 seats in the present Parliament. If it wins at least that many at this year’s election it will bring in eight new names from the list it published on Sunday: Andrew Little, Deborah Mahuta-Coyle, Michael Wood, Kate Sutton, Jerome Mika, Josie Pagani, Lynette Stewart and Jordan Carter. If the party maintains its improvement in the latest poll – suggesting pressure on its leader over his handling of Darren Hughes has done Phil Goff and his party no harm – Labour can look forward to many more than 43 MPs.

The names Christine Rose, Glenda Alexander, Susan Zhu, Rino Tirikatene, Sehai Orgad and Megan Woods could be in the House too. There are not many pale males among all those names. Party lists are intended to bring a better gender balance and more ethnic diversity into democratic representation. Labour’s makes a meal of it.

It has also learned from recent experience not to put old names low on its list where they could be next in line to replace any list MP who fails to serve a full term. There are no Judith Tizards in a position to return at the expense of fresh talent this time.

They also note the long term effects of the T-Bomb. There doesn’t appear to be any Tizards lurking down the list to embarrass them after the election.

But the downside of that lesson is that there are no new names high on the list. With few exceptions, sitting MPs occupy all the places down to number 35. Most of them are also standing in electorates, which means that if any are rejected by the voters they will return on the list. The real winners of any party’s list selection, in the public eye at least, are probably electorate MPs who want no place on it.

They go on to commend Lianne Dalziel as I have for her decision to abandon being ont eh List. She knows better than most that scum list MPs are hated.

The list system remains an unsatisfactory element of MMP to members and voters alike. The lists are drawn up by party panels out of the public eye. Electorate candidates are selected in similar secrecy, but at least those selected have to pass muster at public election meetings and voters have put a tick beside their names.

The list system is the single worst aspect about MMP and one of the reasons why it should be chucked aside.