Skip to content

More prejudice re the Chinese


David Farrar discussed the Crafar court decision in his NZ Herald column. The comments below were from one of those who commented on David Farrar’s article.
Adam suggests that the comment reveals an interesting mindset and a distinct lack of knowledge around the issues.
TheOwl (Auckland City)
04:00 PM Friday, 17 Feb 2012
So who would have the overpayment for the farms certainly not the crafter estate, would the receivers have kept it? Chinese business practice is well know for its fair trading and honesty.
1 There is no question of an over payment for the land by the potential Chinese buyer, that is the amount they are willing to pay.
2 The implication that any so called over payment would have been kept by the receivers is scurrilous and betrays a singular lack of knowledge, unless this is a wilful mis-statement. Under the law the receivers have a legal duty to obtain the highest amount possible for the farms. It is not their concern as to whether that price is paid by foreigners or New Zealanders.
3. The comment about Chinese business practice is outrageous, xenophobic and suggests that all Chinese are corrupt. It is prejudiced and yet another example of NZ intolerance.
  1. pdm permalink
    20/02/2012 08:01

    Adam – Receivers are rapacious fee chargers so they would be taking `top whack’ from the money paid and it would seem like they are keeping part of the purchase price.

    Mind you most on the left don’t understand the concept of `willing buyer/willing seller’.


  2. adamsmith1922 permalink*
    18/02/2012 11:49


    the great shame is that finding them is not a problem


  3. 18/02/2012 10:59

    You’re good at finding comments that support your view.


Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: