Geez, even an article attributed to Global Times and headlined “New Zealand government approval of Chinese company’s purchase of farms criticised by opposition parties” can manage only the most painfully tepid attempt at criticism:
中国上海鹏欣集团购买新西兰牧场可谓一波三折。今年1月，新政府首次批准该交易，在新西兰国内引发激烈争议，反对者担心外国投资商进入新西兰会导致新重要的农业用地被屡屡“抢购”。2月，新西兰最高法院驳回交易，要求政府重新考虑。
China’s Shanghai Pengxin Group’s purchase of the New Zealand farms could be said to have been full of twists and turns. In January this year the NZ government approved the purchase the first time, sparking intense controversy in New Zealand. Opponents were worried that foreign investment in New Zealand would lead to important NZ farmland being sold off. In February, the New Zealand Supreme Court overturned the purchase and required the government to reconsider.
- Weren’t they far more worried about Chinese investment than foreign investment more generally? I mean, compare with the lukewarm response to James Cameron’s purchase of two Wairarapa farms very soon after the initial approval of Shanghai Pengxin’s bid. Not even Global Times can mention that aspect of the case?
- I really don’t know what to make of “屡屡“抢购”” here. It’s not ‘repeatedly’ or ‘time and again’, but the prospect of gradually, inexorably becoming ‘tenants in our own land’ as rich foreigners gobble up all the land. And it’s not the ‘panic buying’ that the dictionary says “抢购” means. No, it’s buying that is causing some Kiwis to panic. Different phenomenon.
- Supreme Court? I thought it was the High Court, and every other Chinese article on the subject I’ve seen has said “高等法院”.
- Funny how it “集团购买” mis-parses “团购” as one word, “group buying”, rather than parts of two separate words “集团” “group” and “购买” “buy”. Careless or hasty subediting? Or yet another example of how automation is still very, very far from linguistic competence?
Oh well, never mind, the deal is done and dusted…
