The related story can be found here.

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

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

Rest in Peace, Michael Jackson.

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

Michael Jackson

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

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

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

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

Should the Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Act 2007 (Commonly known as the "anti-smacking legislation") be repealed?

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

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

Nobody believed Nats would actually win this seat, but last night's result was still a surprise for me. Shearer did not just win the seat, but with a huge 63%:17% margin. Percentage wise, Shearer beat his predecessor, former PM Helen Clark and even Labour's performance in safe seats like Mangere.

However, this is not a serious set back for National as well. First Mt Albert has always been a red seat, secondly, the turnout was less than 50%, it appears that many right wing votes chose not bother to vote, as the result is inevitable. Lee's blunder to blunder performance and media stir up also contributed to this. If this was a general election, I believe the result would be quite different, Labour would still win, but with a smaller margin.

There were only two races last night, first was the race between Melissa Lee and Green's Russel Norman. As previous polls suggested, Green may have chance to beat National, so I was really wondering whether Mt Albert can humiliate National further by place Lee on the third place. However, it didn't happen though, but the margin between the two is very small, about 5%.

Another surprise race emerged from last night's result, the race between United Future's former deputy leader, Judy Turner, and candidates from other small parties.  Although Turner herself is not in the parliament, but as a member of a parliamentary party, being beaten by Bill and Ben and Legalise Cannabis should be something she didn't expect.

I'm expecting that I could finish most of the works before or after Queen's Birthday, so I'll be back around that time, but before that, the update of this blog is halted. HOWEVER, you will still be able to find me in other places. I am still present on Twitter, and I have increased the number of tweets on current affairs in English.

The other thing is, I have made some of my RSS subscription categories publicly available for quite a while now, although I didn't post the links on this blog:). Most of my information and ideas came from those nice bloggers, so I just think these pages might be helpful if you are not a very into reading via RSS:

• blogs-china-politics (in Chinese)
  
• blogs-china-english
• blogs-new-zealand
• Magazines (mix of two languages)

Well, then, have a happy, safe Queen's birthday if I failed to make myself back on time.

Unlike a lot of backseat drivers who have never been to the site, I have no problem with how the police handled the inccident.  It is more than obvious that police wanted the gunman Jan Molenaar alive, otherwise AOS would storm the house before we know it. Unlike the Aramoana massacre, Molenaar snapped, but he poses no immediate threat to the public, therefore it's best to talk it out rather than end it with another life lost and put the Police in further danger.

The real problem of this tragedy, I think is the internal police procedures. I still prefer the polic to not carry any guns in daily patrols, but this incident was to carry out a search warrent, but the police failed to foresee the danger of such activity so failed to carry guns. It's the police authority failed to protect the safety of police force.

This was also the case in the death of Don Wilkinson. His fate was sealed when they decided not to carry guns.

This is more of a party contest now.

Unlike a lot of tories dreaming of getting an extra seat but have no vote in this, I happen to actually live in the electorate. You have to admit this is a very red seat, National never took it before, the last close call I could remember was in the 1990 election, but Clark still managed to hold on the seat despite Labour's poor showing nation-wide. If this is a National-Labour contest, I could see no chance for National.

But this is more than a two party contest, so National may got a chance, but just. It will depend on:

• Performance of Russell Norman, his ability to split hard left votes.
• How successful Nats could brand Shearer as the "national-lite".
• Turn out rate.
• Development of the supercity proposal.

It's still too early to call but I understand Labour does felt a bit nervous right now, many of residents got Labour polling phone calls recently, but that's understandable, given that the party has just lost an election, and Shearer is a relatively new face, therefore there are a lot of uncertainties.

For me, I do admire Shearer's career as a international aid worker, for that, I think he deserves this seat, as his skills of managing refugee camps would come quite handy as some parts of this electorate do give you a refugee camp kind of feeling. Although Clark was a successful Prime Minister, I do feel she owes quite a lot to her electorates, some areas didn't gain a lot from the economic development in the last few years.

Also although for most of the time I was very critical of the government here, this time I have to say, the health authority has done quite a a good job. The response was fast, open and transparent, it gave people confidence and assurance so they got no reason to panic.

However, I was totally shocked to see the ignorance of some people here in the country (quite a lot of them in the Herald discussion forum). "This is just a media hype", "it's fuelled by pharmaceutical companies", "normal flu kills more than this". They are demonstrating the total lack of knowledge on ..everything. That's fine, no one knows everything but the important thing is, those people got no interest to learn, but choose to remain arrogant - they just don't know how lucky they really are.

Although there is no reason to panic right now, people need to be aware and closely watch the development of the situation. This is a new H1NI strain (same as the Spanish flu) and most of us got no immunity.It may appears to be mild and not that pathogenic right now but if we just sit and let the virus spread, it is almost certain that this strain will mutate and who knows how this virus may evolve.

However, even to adapt the conservative version of death number, the overall mortality rate is about 5%, which is still significantly higher than normal flu mortality rate - I don't have the number here but if my memory serves, that number should be around 0.4%. Now you start to see why this thing needs to be controlled.

"We have 105 of them (Light Armour Vehicles), mostly parked in garages where they are in long-term storage. My own philosophy is Defence should have things they use and don't have things they don't use."

I immediately started to wonder how he got that post - by that logic, New Zealand's whole defence force is simply a waste of money, nobody is going to invade us as far as we could tell, and all our forces sent oversea are largely non-combat forces. Defence is like a life insurance, you buy it, and hope that you or someone else will never use it (well in this case, some needed to be used for training purposes).

His comment worries me quite a bit, but the associate minister, ACT's Heather Roy, is even worse:

"The Defence Force doesn't necessarily need to own everything. It could work in a partnership where somebody else owns the land or owns the buildings and they lease it back."

Well, I have an idea for this government since they are in the mood of privatisation (where's the election promise?), how about ...  let's privatise parliament buildings, at least the debating chamber. Here is my reasoning:

1. The debating chamber is rarely used - no more than half of the year, so ... what a waste.
2. ... and Parliament doesn't have to own everything it uses.
3. so the chamber could be used to host picnics, or give a private company to run tours.
4. it costs less to tax payers - as tax payers only pay for the building when it is actually in public use.
5. it's also more efficient - if every minute use of the chamber costs money, I hope parliamentarians would keep their debate and squabbling succinct - although I know I put my hope a bit too high.
6. ... the current debating chamber is too much of luxury for politicians. A large garage would do anyway. or we can have the British house of the commons style, let the MPs squeeze in the seats.

So what are we waiting for, let's do it! I look forward to have my picnic on the speaker's seat.

I don't know when will I be capable to start this blog again, but, at least a week.

The Government has backed an Auckland 'super city' council and says it should be in place in time for next year's local body elections. ... Rather than having six local councils, there will be between 20 and 30 community boards. These will not be able to raise revenue or appoint staff. (Via New Zealand Herald)

Local democracy was identified by many, including myself, as the major problem of the Royal Commission report. However, I don't see this is best the solution. I disliked community boards from start, waste of time, not many actually attends, and its power cannot change much for the community. I prefer the parliamentary electorate style, each community elects its own member to the Auckland Council, the member manage local issues and represent that at the higher level.

Anyway, the difference in government recommendation[pdf] is, community boards will gain extra power, such as :

• advocate for their local community and have input into the Auckland Council’s plans
• develop local operational policies for local issues, for example dog control, liquor licensing and graffiti control
• influence the Auckland Council by petitioning for extra services that their community wants. Services would be paid for through a targeted rate for the local area, a local rate rise or a change in priorities. The local boards will not have the power to set rates, so any rate rise would have to be agreed by the Auckland Council.

Can you imagine 30 sets of dog control and and operational policies? Anyone who still thinks the change will save their rate bill should check if the sky in their little world is still blue. Also I did not notice anything in that report mentioning the delivery of council services,  does that mean all people need to travel to Auckland CBD to get their resource consent done?

The grand council will increase overall efficiency but I don't see a way that could reduce overall costs in both Royal Commission and government report.

Also another thing worth noticing:

Privatising water services?

Nice try. So National.

In my opinion, although Cullen was not prefect, he did a fine job in the past 9 years. National was reluctant to admit that but they also know it for a fact.  He also did a fine job on his baby Cullen fund, I know it has a bit of trouble at the moment, but under the current economic circumstances, which fund is still free from trouble?

I haven't got time to check who is next on Labour's list but if my memory serves me right, the person should be Damien O'Connor. Not too bad, as long as we keep Judith Tizard, the minister responsible for holding PM's handbag out.

I'm living in The Chairman Mao Memorial Hall. Welcome!!!

We all know those twitterers are fake, because we know for a fact that Chairman Mao cannot tweet from the below (or above, as some may still prefer), and for those who are still breathing, they don't need a twitter account as they don't have to go through the general election process.

But in New Zealand and other countries like the States, politicians need get up to date with all the internet new techs although they are usually a bit behind. It is important nowadays for politicians to at least set up a facebook page (although the politician may never have visited "his/her page", as it was done by the employees).

Everyone wants to get their hands on youth votes, but does a facebook page really means those politicians "understand" WWW ? I always feel pity for anyone who thinks they do - the fact is that Section 92A  was passed by all major parties, except two that are, in my opinion,  sometimes genuinely connected with youth - Maori and Greens.

So no surprise on how John Key was tricked by a twitter impostor on  the April's Fool.

During the week I struggled to finish the first of two presentations I have to do this year. As a moderate-severe stutterer(even this word is difficult to pronounce), it went better than I expected, but I still tend to over-simplify speeches to keep fluency, and that has affected my marks. Second presentation, however, would be a lot more worse, the panel includes city councillors, and a parliamentary party leader.

And I also got several assignment that I need to finish this week.

• Switch off your lights at 8:30pm on the night of Earth Hour
• Turn off any unnecessary appliances
• Spend your Earth Hour creatively: plan a candlelit dinner with friends, or play cards by candlelight
• Spread the word to neighbours, friends, family and colleagues
• Avoid driving anywhere for the view as this results in unnecessary greenhouse gas emissions - what we are fighting against!
• If you live in a tall apartment building, you are even more visible. Let your neighbours in other apartments know about Earth Hour and see if your building can have the fewest lights on. Perhaps you could talk to the property manager about turning off any ornamental lighting that is not needed for security reasons.

I think I'll enjoy this day if a substantial amount of people turn off their lights. Light pollution is so common in big cities, making astronomic observations more difficult each year. People no longer watch the sky - we don't know what we've missed.

Sure nobody expects to "save the earth" by turning off their lights for an hour a year. This is sure not the point, however, this is the least people can do to show that "we care".  Save electricity is just the first step, the most important thing, in my opinion is, save the wasted energy first. I'm doing that everyday, and I hope people can also do the following simple things:

• Turn off or put  your computer into sleep if you need to leave for more than 15 minutes;switch off the monitor if you need to level for 5-15 minutes;
• Switch off all the lights if you are the last to leave the room;
• Adjust the sound of your TV to a moderate level, you can hear from it, but it's not too loud;
• When the price and the quality are the same, use services/goods provided by green businesses - in fact sometimes you can find green businesses are even cheaper;
• Don't leave cellphone battery recharger on for too long;
• Use eco-bulbs if possible;

A common misconception is that people need to change their lifestyle back to stoneage man to be green. I'm not that kind of "greenie" who refuses to use anything powered by electricty, but I believe that  by just doing what you can to reduce unnecessary waste of energy you will also make a huge difference.

If you believe Global Warming is a myth or scam, I respect your opinion :) However, I still recommend you to reduce the wasted energy, even if there's no earth to save, at least to me, I enjoyed a substantial reduction of monthly power costs.

It's quite similar to what I expected, but bit different from what I wanted (I'll talk about this later). A "supercity" looked inevitable, but I also expected that the current local councils structure will be maintained at some degree, it's common sense that one grand council will not work. There are two common misconceptions in the general public, and a right wing government actually fuelled them: first, bigger is better; second, this investigation is about cost cutting.

The objective of the commission, was cleared stated as:

to receive representations on, inquire into, investigate, and report on the local government arrangements (including institutions, mechanisms, and processes) that
are required in the Auckland region over the foreseeable future in order to maximise, in a cost effective manner,—
(a) the current and future well-being of the region and its communities; and
(b) the region’s contribution to wider national objectives and outcomes.

Most people tend to confuse the meaning of "cost cut" with "cost effective". In fact, in my opinion, one council that takes care of everything is not necessarily cost-cutting, and has the potential to actually increase the total cost.  However, with the right management, the super city council can be cost effective. This change will eventually save a bit of money in the short run, but will it be the sum that public sector killers (aka Nats) wanted? Not necessarily:

Preliminary analysis, which will need to be quantified in detail by the Establishment Board, suggests that adopting the Commission’s proposals for structural change will result in estimated efficiency savings in the indicative range of 2.5% to 3.5% of the total expenditure of the Auckland councils planned for 2008/09 (of around $3.2 billion). This represents estimated efficiency gains of between $76 million to $113 million per year.

113 million sounds like a lot, but when translated into rates, it's really not that many, at least I doubt it - the integration costs, as suggested by the commission, cost even more than that at around 200 million, and I also expect more people employed in the long term to manage such a large city. I can only see substantial cost saving from council owned organisations like water supply, that is likely to same a fair amount of money, but whether that saving will be transferred to you ... well, it's at local politicians' discretion, and that's bit scary, as a unified region is more likely to return a left leaning mayor, due to the majority of the population are  urban.

I agree with the Commission's decision to maintain the current local council structure in principle.However, I don't agree the functions though:

In addition to the elected governing body of the Auckland Council, local democracy will be maintained through six elected local councils operating within the unitary Auckland Council. Local councils will oversee the delivery of services by Auckland Council staff and will undertake local engagement in four urban and two rural districts.

My understanding of Auckland's current problem is, how should I put this, policy inconsistency and fragmentation, and kind of "too locally focused" way of thinking in each local council.  Auckland Region is more connected than ever, and policy of one district council will have direct impact on one or more other councils, and usually council act on their own rather than sitting together to find out the best solution for all.

However, one district plan, one spatial plan, and one long term council community plan will not solve this, in fact, there's a danger to make things even worse as the policy role is even more dictated. The people who understand local issues and needs are not mayors or councillors, but planners and other people who get in touch with the community every day. A single plan has the risk of more imbalanced development.

What I preferred was the super council acting as a over-guiding authority, each local council still makes its part of the district plan, but they come together under the guidance of the grand council and merge as one plan. The current proposal also does this, but it's bit over the top.

Local democratic participation is also important on local issues, so it worries me a bit that all community boards will be abolished.

For the rest of the functionalities of each level of governance, I agree with the Royal Commission.

But the arrangement and structure of the new councils is not that good. I really don't see the need for local councils to have councillors, a single (or three)  councillor from the grand council is more than enough to manage local issues and represent its local council in the region wide context - 22 local councillors for current Auckland city really sounds like a bad joke to me.

In general, I'm ok with the current plan, but there's sure a large room for improvement.

If you were interested in my opinion, here it is. Maintain community boards, but with a larger area, or use the current electorate system we have. Each community returns one grand council councillor,  this councillor is also the local council councillor, and should know the local constituency very well and know where the problems are. In that way we got  a better consistency of policies in different areas, while the local needs and identities (like Waitakere's eco-city) can be maintained.

Oh, and by the way, I don't see reason why National will not adapt the recommendations made by the commission. In fact, I have heard that the law change proposal is already finished, its just waitting for cabinet approval, which shouldn't be a problem at all.

Australia, hurt feelings of

An Australian couple has upset Kiwis with an online expat guide which warns that Auckland is a "horrible soulless city" and its inhabitants are "hobbits" who cannot dress properly. (Via New Zealand Herald)

Well I have spent a bit of time to read that guy's blog. I'm not a serious traveller therefore I can only comment on Auckland. What that blogger blogged is indeed bit over the top,but most of the comments, although somewhat exaggerated, are also facts.

Auckland indeed lacks a bit of culture, that's how I feel at least. By "culture" I mean not just the presence of culture diversity, but ... how do I put this, a community that respect, cherish, and upholds "serious" culture (not just the culture of get drunk in a pub every Friday evening.) as one of the important life aspects.

What I was really surprised about is not the whines from this Aussie expat, but how Kiwis reacted toward those comments. I mean, it's just a blogger, like myself (possibly you as well), everyone is entitled to have, and publicly express he or she's opinion, and it is a fact of life that no matter how beautiful the Big Sister Helen or the land of Aotearoa is, it is not possible to win a 100% approval rate - that only happens in North Korea, even the Chinese parliament got more nay votes nowadays.

It's not even a news, there are more than a million blogs out there and I believe a fair amount of them is about New Zealand. Single this blogger out only means that 1) marks the new low of NZ journalism, 2) maybe the view of that blogger is not uncommon and there's a need to discuss it on a higher public forum.

So I was really surprised that many "serious" organisations, like Destination Rotorua or New Zealand beer brewery , treated the comments that seriously, even " took exception to an open letter on the site" ... oh I just see a short cut for bloggers who want to get famous. I actually quite liked the smell of Rotorua, but if I badmouth them once maybe I can generate a bit of traffic to my site as well, but I'll only do that after I put up Google Adsense:)

BTW, wonder where's the sense of humour, or it's just like the Nationalists can make fun on everyone else, but when others make fun of Nationalists, their feelings are hurt.

Most of the us who stood up and against this copyright law is not anti-copyright, I respected copyright holders' rights whenever I can. However, protection of copyright involves a mutual respect, but I feel this Section 92A, promoted by copyright holders, deeply undermines my right.

Since they treat netizens guilty of violating their rights before convicted, I also got a nice name for what they did which caused a great outrage among netizens: "copyright terrorism".

So Section 92A is dead but it doesn't mean this country does not respect copright.  New copyright protection measures will restart from scratch, I hope the new law got more common sense in it.

TVNZ is not a fully funded state broadcaster like BBC domestic broadcasting because as a small nation, we probably cannot afford it. Therefore its channels carry adverts, and is exposed to the what Nats are usually proud to say "real business world" out there and needs to compete its way out.

Under the current economic situation, we see countless number of privately owned businesses experiencing significantly reduced profit, or even go into deficit. If you are an investor to a large corporation, you wouldn't expect your dividend to be as high as last year, or you may just get ready to sacrifise your dividend for a year to keep your investment safe.

So Why John Key, aka "the man with real economic sense"  is expecting a unrealistic dividend from TVNZ:

From the Crown's point of view we have $200 million invested in TVNZ, that's the equity in TVNZ, if we don't receive a return on that equity and we don't receive a dividend, that's less money the Crown has to pay for hospital beds, less money it has to pay its doctors and less money it has to pay its teachers.

Nice words, sounds sympathetic, but does it really mean anything? Last year TVNZ paid out $10 million to the government, don't tell me that our health and education system would fail for a shortfall of $10 million dollars.

As TVNZ is going to cut 90 employees, more pressure will be added to the dole queue. So what National government did is, forcing TVNZ to reduce costs by reduce amount of local made programmes (that's what state owned media is for, in my opinion) and axes kiwi jobs to meet government dividend demand so Mr Key can have more money to pay for hospital beds.

I hope those people who will lost their job could find a job soon otherwise the whole thing is just pointless - a large chunk of the few million dollars dividend will be used to pay the added dole queue anyway, when those people really should be working and contributing at least some value back to our society. Now you call that real business sense?

By the way, I remember this government was claiming itself dedicated to keep kiwi jobs.

It's very hard to believe there's no hidden agenda behind this movement.

• replacing regional fuel taxes with smaller increases in national fuel excise and road user charges, which feed into the National Land Transport Fund
• confirming the government's commitment to Auckland rail electrification
• committing an additional $258 million of the government's capital allocation to land transport over the next two years
• amending the Government Policy Statement on Land Transport Funding to make more money available for state highway construction

I wonder how rural people, especially the nats would think of the first point. But it's a fair measure I have to admit, as the whole country can benefit from a well-funtioning Auckland.