DIRTY POLITICS - PART 4 of 5: Chapter 12
Sting
on Cunliffe: ANYTHING WRONG IN Donghua Liu’s immigration
letter?
Thakur Ranjit Singh
DIRTY POLITICS PART 4: WHEN DAVID
CUNLIFFE WAS CRUCIFIED BY AN UNETHICAL NATIONAL PARTY AND A GULLIBLE AND WANTING MEDIA
IN 2014
People need to appreciate that what
Cunliffe did some 13 years ago was nothing wrong
What all MPs do - writing or
signing the letter on standard requests, what they normally do to help their
electorates.
Hard-working electorate executives
write hundreds such requests like this every year. It needs to be noted that
DONGHUA LIU, who lived in Cunliffe’s electorate, had been waiting eight months
since his application had been accepted for processing and said:
IT WOULD BE HELPFUL TO MR LIU TO BE ADVISED OF AN ESTIMATED PERIOD OF TIME IN WHICH HE COULD EXPECT A DECISION ON HIS CASE
That was all. Cunliffe has not “ADVOCATED” for Liu, or apparently even met him: the residency application, it seems, had been arranged by an immigration consultant.
THE HOUNDS IN NATIONAL PARTY, LED
BY THE NOTORIOUS “POSSUM IN HEADLIGHTS,” MICHEAL WOODHOUSE PLAYED EXTREMELY DIRTY…
Read and be shocked......
After reading Dirty Politics, I came out of it sick. I decided to pick the ending
chapter where PM’s office dug up 11 year old letter on a Chinese businessman, to
discredit David Cunliffe in their plan of negative campaigning.
The irony hit me when I heard that New Zealand has some observers in Fiji to observe their election on 17 September, 2014.
What a hypocrisy- how can they advise Fijians on good governance with such a rotten lot at the heart of their own government?
The irony hit me when I heard that New Zealand has some observers in Fiji to observe their election on 17 September, 2014.
What a hypocrisy- how can they advise Fijians on good governance with such a rotten lot at the heart of their own government?
This is a case of John Key’s Office making mischief by digging into
the files of its predecessors, and breaching the civilised conventions of a “clean”
NZ politics.
Sitting in the midst of negative politics was John Key. For years Jason Ede had been working in his office, two doors along the corridor, coordinating attack politics for National Government and his master, Key. This is but one example of that… continue reading.
Sitting in the midst of negative politics was John Key. For years Jason Ede had been working in his office, two doors along the corridor, coordinating attack politics for National Government and his master, Key. This is but one example of that… continue reading.
National’s close ties to wealthy Chinese immigrant
donors had become a serious vulnerability for the party and they were keen to
turn attention back on Labour. This was after the National Cabinet Minister Maurice
Williamson was forced to resign in May 2014 after he had phoned a senior police
officer to advocate, and reportedly plead on behalf of Donghua Liu in a domestic violence charges. The minister did that
because Liu, a Chinese immigrant businessman was National Party donor.
Six weeks later, on Tuesday June 17, the monkey was
placed on David Cunliffe’s back, when in a crafty and questionable media
ethics, he was asked “leading” and well-rehearsed questions about his
acquaintance with the same person - Donghua Liu. On whether he had ever met
Liu, had anything to do in granting permanent residency or had advocated on his
behalf. Cunliffe said “I don’t recall, no” to all the leading questions.
Lo and behold, the next morning, government released a
letter to media under the Official Information Act, which Cunliffe had written
to the Immigration Service in 2003 about Liu’s residency application. This was 11 years earlier.
Media and National Party leadership jumped on Cunliffe, accusing him of telling a lie, being untrustworthy, not fit to lead. NZ Herald’s chief political commentator John Armstrong said that Cunliffe was in deep trouble and would have to resign as Labour leader.
John Key, who was in New York, and had orchestrated and had prior knowledge of this charade, jumped on the gravy train, and said ‘politics is about trust” and asked Cunliffe to explain his lie about any involvement with their donor, Liu. Deputy PM Bill English also joined the sham, accusing Cunliffe of being “tricky” and could not be trusted.
For years Jason Ede had been working in his office, two doors along the corridor, (to John Key's office) coordinating attack politics for National Government and his master - John Key |
Unbeknown to Cunliffe, National’s Cabinet Minister Michael Woodhouse, who had released the
Cunliffe letter, admitted Key was aware of the letter around 10 May, 2014.
Hence they has weeks to sit on the letter and plan what to do with the letter.
All indications here are that Government orchestrated
the release of the letter to harm Cunliffe. First, as with Goff-SIS hit (Israeli backpacker case, see part 2),
journalists have been tipped off to make the official information request-by
someone who knew about the Liu letter.
Next, the requested information was fast-tracked and released two days after the requests were submitted- something unheard during normal situations.
Next, the requested information was fast-tracked and released two days after the requests were submitted- something unheard during normal situations.
But most obviously suspicious was the way the story came
out. Why was Cunliffe asked very specific questions about his personal links to
Liu just 24 hours before the fast-tracked letter reached the media?
At that stage no one outside government supposedly even knew about the letter or any links to Liu existed. The political damage arose because Cunliffe was asked those questions when he did not know about the letter. It was the denial, not the letter itself that provided ammunition for the accusation of unworthiness and lying.
At that stage no one outside government supposedly even knew about the letter or any links to Liu existed. The political damage arose because Cunliffe was asked those questions when he did not know about the letter. It was the denial, not the letter itself that provided ammunition for the accusation of unworthiness and lying.
People need to appreciate that what Cunliffe did some 13 years ago
was nothing wrong, something that all MPs do, writing or signing the letter. It
was standard request what other MPs normally do. Hard-working electorate
executives write hundreds like this every year. It noted that Donghua Liu, who
lived in Cunliffe’s electorate, had been waiting eight months since his
application had been accepted for processing and said “it would be helpful to
Mr Liu to be advised of an estimated period of time in which he could expect a
decision on his case.” That was all. Cunliffe has not “advocated” for Liu, or
apparently even met him: the residency application, it seems, had been arranged
by an immigration consultant.
The fact is that it was politically twisted to show that
Cunliffe had lied. He had not. After 11 years, like most normal beings, he
simply did not remember the letter. It was one of the thousands from his
constituents who has asked for help during the years as an MP.
There is a bigger implication in this
case. In arranging to tip-off the media
and release the letter, the government had abused its powers and its control
over public files. Any government can make endless mischief by digging into the
files of its predecessors, but they usually refrain from doing this. And the
usual understanding is that the current government checks with the previous
government before releasing politically sensitive material requested via the
Official Information Act (OIA).
But in this Cunliffe’s case, release without warning was the plan – a plan to discredit Cunliffe by throwing the bait at a gullible and wanting media. That is how dirty Key and National are. Do they deserve another term? You get what you deserve.
But in this Cunliffe’s case, release without warning was the plan – a plan to discredit Cunliffe by throwing the bait at a gullible and wanting media. That is how dirty Key and National are. Do they deserve another term? You get what you deserve.
[E-mail: thakurji@xtra.co.nz]
[Disclaimer: All information in the above article are either direct quotations, paraphrased or interpretations from Nicky Hager’s
book, DIRTY POLITICS
NEXT -PART 5 of 5 - HOW THE "SMILING
ASSASSIN" JOHN KEY USED PACKS OF "WILD DOGS" TO ATTACK AND MAUL POLITICAL OPPONENTS, USING IMMORAL AND UNETHICAL TACTICS.
[About the Author: Thakur Ranjit Singh completed his Masters in Communication Studies (with honours) at AUT on scholarship from Pacific Islands Media Association (PIMA) with the objective of adding colour to New Zealand's newsroom. But he ended up driving a bus - and is involved with community wellbeing, runs his blog, and occassionally ruffles a few feathers-AND HE IS DOING EXACTLY THAT NOW.
E-mail: thakurji@xtra.co.nz]
NEXT -PART 5 of 5 - HOW THE "SMILING
ASSASSIN" JOHN KEY USED PACKS OF "WILD DOGS" TO ATTACK AND MAUL POLITICAL OPPONENTS, USING IMMORAL AND UNETHICAL TACTICS.
[About the Author: Thakur Ranjit Singh completed his Masters in Communication Studies (with honours) at AUT on scholarship from Pacific Islands Media Association (PIMA) with the objective of adding colour to New Zealand's newsroom. But he ended up driving a bus - and is involved with community wellbeing, runs his blog, and occassionally ruffles a few feathers-AND HE IS DOING EXACTLY THAT NOW.
E-mail: thakurji@xtra.co.nz]
No comments:
Post a Comment