Wealthy Chinese Woman Buys Foreign Island For Daughter

Wealthy Chinese Woman Buys Foreign Island For Daughter

A wealthy Chinese woman has recently purchased Slipper Island, one of New Zealand’s few privately owned islands, as a gift for her daughter. The 224 hectare island, which sold for nearly 35 million RMB, is four miles off the Coromandel coast. According to documents related to the purchase, the buyer is Wendy Weimei Wu, a self-proclaimed “housewife”. Her daughter said that her mother really liked the island and bought it for her as a present.

Source: Jiemian

READ  New Monkey King Movie Rakes In Over 100 Million RMB In 3 Days
  • YourSupremeCommander

    35 million RMB for such a large island with a nice beach like that, I say its a good deal.

    • Seconded… super nice backup plan for if their family ever gets purged… I mean… ‘targeted for corruption’.

      • redwhitedude

        Yes and if the daughter decides that she doesn’t like it. The island will just rot.

        • If by ‘rot’ you mean ‘remain untouched in its natural state’ I don’t see the problem.

          • redwhitedude

            Depends if the island requires gardening.

          • moldavidian

            In China, most people think that the world and all its nature belongs to them. Otherwise, they feel it is just wasted space.

      • daz

        The West complains of endemic corruption, can’t do business etc. etc.

        • Amused

          Surely you’re being facetious…

          • daz

            Nup.

        • Ktrang

          tsk tsk tsk… you know the whole take down corruption gov things that have been goin on within china gov is just a political game to eliminate rivals and to strengthening Xi Jinping’s power ? almost everyone is corrupted and all of that corruption hunting is just to cover public’s eyes and make them look good, thats all

          • daz

            True, he wouldn’t be leader if he wasn’t willing to get his hands dirty. But I much prefer him than an ideological psycho asshole like Mao.

          • Ktrang

            well agree with that also, Mao was pretty much fucked up everything

          • 42

            Without Mao, China would be another middle east, where clan and warlords rival each other and keeping the country in Chaos. Yes even the Kuomintang under the rule of Chengkaishek was corrupted as hell.

          • Jahar

            Sure, It would have stayed exactly like it was with no progress whatsoever.

          • 42

            Mao was no psycho, he was a superb revolutionist and ideologist, he just tried many different style of governing his country, but failed, thats all.

          • daz

            Which styles of governing did he try out exactly?

          • 42

            First and foremost he focused on eradicating feudalism and second he united China (except for Taiwan ofcourse who seperated), in that he succeeded.

            Furthermore he tried to implement communism, first with the idea of farming and trying to provide everyone with at least enough food. This failed because people were sent to farming which did not have the knowlegde how. Farming lands became depleted and useless, hence the start of the great famine.

            Second Mao introduced for the first time, the five-year-plan policy in which every government policy is reviewed and evulated every five years, till this day CCP is still using this five-year-plan method.

            Mao started the great leap forward, which switched from agriculture to industrial economy, which is actually the foundation of the industrial revolution that lead to Chinas economic reforms.

            Mao introduced the hundred flowers campaign, where mao gave the party the platform of exchanging and the willingness to accept different ideas of governning, this is the foundation of next leaders like Deng Xiaoping to adapt different political and economic reforms, as like opening the country up for global market which have led China to be the second global economy of the world.

            Mao made some mistakes, some were heavy mistakes, but one cannot deny that some of his legacy have been refined and used till even today that has prospered China. But as in every pioneer we learn by mistakes, unfortunately Mao and his people at that time, has to endure this the hard way.

            For Mao had talent in being a revolutionist and ideologist with experimenting with new ideas, rather than being a thorough good leader.

          • daz

            No doubt. Do you think he would approve of buying islands for personal use by his comrades?

          • 42

            that is really a nonsensical question, first, Mao is dead who knows what he might have thought about this, we will never know. Second, CCP leaders of today might probably even enjoy one such capitalistic ventures or two. It are different times my friend, different times.

          • daz

            It are. It definitely are.

          • Jahar

            you know the great leap forward cost 50 million people their lives right?

          • Jahar

            He once said, in regards to the korean war, that even if the UN troops killed 300 million Chinese, he still had 300 more. So superb and not the slightest bit psycho.

          • Teacher in China

            I think that’s too pat an answer, and too many people keep spouting it without thinking clearly. It doesn’t take a genius to notice that corruption was getting out of hand, or to look at history and see how many regimes have been toppled because of the public’s unhappiness with corruption. Ok, so maybe he’s first targeting his enemies, but I think his end game is to try to clean up China and bring on par with the rest of the developed world – some corruption, but not to the extent that it exists now.

          • 42

            Xi Jingping will be replaced after 5 years, so whats the use of eliminating political rivals? The Next presidential terms your enemies might be your friend. China has just one party. It’s not like North-Korea where rule is held in the bloodline and family. So your assumption is totally and utter bias!

          • Teacher in China

            When one of the political rivals was a person who tried to have you assassinated, there’s plenty of good reasons…. but as I said in my other comment, I don’t think that’s the only game Xi is playing here.

        • China has been objectively rated as one of the most corrupt nations on earth. The US has problems, but in relative terms corruption isn’t a big one.

          The problem is that China’s campaigns against corruption have been thinly veiled efforts to purge political enemies of whichever clique of cadres happens to be in charge. Corruption is totally fine so long as you’re in good with Xi’s crew.

          • daz

            Don’t be so naive.

          • How are international corruption ratings of the US and China flawed? How many of Xi’s supporters have been purged? Don’t just insult, prove.

          • daz

            Prove what?

          • 42

            Xi Jingping will be replaced after 5 years, so whats the use of eliminating political rivals? The Next presidential terms your enemies might be your friend. China has just one party. It’s not like North-Korea where rule is held in the bloodline and family. Therefore chinese presidentship is not a totalitarian dictatorship. So your assumption is totally and utter bias!

          • 42

            Thats totally bias. Corruption in the U.S. is very well alive as in any other country, That U.S. on the surface can cover it up better and not show it to the media is somewhat of another story.

            Also other countries don’t meddle with internal affairs of countries as much as U.S. does with others.

            For example China on the surface is totally not interested in the internal affairs of U.S. and always have a policy of not meddling with countries internal policies. This is also the reason why U.S. corruption scandals are not criticized by other countries.

            But just a quick google and you can get a list of the top recent corruption scandals of government officials even under the Obama administration. not to forget the international scandals as in the NSA privacy violations and spying on its allies.

      • moldavidian

        In China, most people think that the world and it’s nature belongs to them. Otherwise, they feel it is just wasted space.

        • daz

          So they’re a bit like humans then?

          • moldavidian

            Maybe but the last time i checked, i’m human and i don’t think that way, do you? Are you Chinese?

          • Kodabar

            You don’t think that way. Can you explain how Chinese people think nature belongs to them and can you explain how you are different? Please give examples.

          • moldavidian

            I see Chinese people trash Qingdao on a daily basis. I see them smoking, spitting, throwing trash everywhere and read stories about how they kill just about any animal for food or “medicinal” purposes. I do none of those things and don’t see the reason why others feel it is neccessary. Oh, and i’ve never seen a clean body of water in China. Even the beaches are filthy and there is news the government is destroying reefs in the sea for what? Overfishing?

          • Kodabar

            I don’t know where you’re from originally, but here in the UK I find rubbish lying all over the streets of London (it’s comparable in size and population to Qingdao). That the Chinese will eat any kind of animal doesn’t really indicate much difference in attitudes to nature.

            You’ll eat a selection of animals, but they’ll eat a larger one. I don’t see a disparity in philosophical approach. You’re still eating animals, knowing full well that the resources required to produce them are incredibly wasteful compared to a vegetarian diet.

            There are plenty of clean bodies of water in China, but they’re unlikely to be found in a large city. Equally so, I’ve seen filthy beaches throughout the Western world as well as clean ones. Likewise I’ve seen plenty of clean beaches in China too.

            The story about the reef destruction comes from the Chinese government extending the land in the Spratly/Nansha islands. The claim about reef destruction comes from the government of the Philippines which is in dispute with China over the ownership of the islands. Naturally the government of the Philippines is primarily concerned about potential damage to part of a reef and not about trying to grab those islands for themselves. The rest of the world has managed to destroy 50% of all reefs in the last forty years.

            Yes, China is quite polluted at the moment. They Chinese government regards environmental pollution as an acceptable consequence of rapid economic growth and industrial expansion. The Western world did exactly the same until quite recently. We can expect the Chinese government to take the same attitude when it’s convenient, rather than hobble their growth now.

            I don’t think you’ve managed to demonstrate any great difference in ideology between you and the Chinese. You and I are products of a culture that has systematically destroyed vast amounts of the world’s natural resources over the last century – far more than anyone else, including China. Now that the Western world has achieved global domination and relative comfort for its citizens, we’ve suddenly sprouted a conscience.

          • moldavidian

            Good observations. I assume you are vegetarian too. What do you do or would you do to make a difference in China? The number of tourists to Qingdao increases every year along with their rubbish and i don’t expect the police to fine anyone or lift a finger.

    • Teacher in China

      Yeah that doesn’t sound right to me. Makes me suspicious of the truth of this story.

  • daz

    What’s the cost of linking the island to the internet?

  • monster

    for island, it’s not expensive at all.
    compared to buy a villa in beijing or shanghai!

  • Clive Rowland

    damn, do they need a live-in foreigner to say hello to?

  • Ktrang

    theres sth going on within themselves so thats why its like this

  • Matt

    Not gonna lie: I’m super jelly. Having a private island of my own has long been a dream of mine. I don’t need a yacht, a private jet, a mansion, a sports car, or any other luxury BS. But an island of my own? That’s an introvert’s paradise.

  • redlobster

    Good for her. I’d buy it too if I had the money.

  • yi_ge_yi_jian

    What is up with all these short blurbs?

  • Alex Dương

    Hold on, are you implying that Mao pushed the Great Leap Forward to purposefully set China back and kill tens of millions of people?

    • PeterScriabin

      How on earth does he imply that??

      The purpose of the GLF was to buy/obtain, from Russia, the means for China to become a nuclear power. Russia, unable to grow enough food properly to feed its own, was willing to accept grain. The GLF extracted enough grain from the Chinese countryside to pay the import bill with exports in return.

      Mao was perfectly clear that to extract a “surplus” (of grain) from a sector where there WAS no surplus, would require starving many people to death. This was a matter of total indifference to him, as he clearly stated for the record – just collateral damage of a few ants, in the struggle to make China a modern country and a world power.

      • Alex Dương

        He said, quote,

        The Great Leap Forward bankrupt China and starved 30 million people, the greatest famine known to mankind. It had NOTHING to do with making China Industrial (emphasis added).

        Thus my question.

        • PeterScriabin

          Alex, this is just Logic 101. He says A resulted in (caused or accompanied) B. That does not mean A was intended (by Mao, in this case) to do that.

          Please, before we get into another (different) argument – I am not hereby making any statement about the truth/validity of Historynerd’s assertion.

          As most people know (and this is still a 3rd matter, nothing to do with the above 2), Mao was quite well aware of the situation in the countryside. This still does not mean the GLF was intended to etc.. To Mao, it was just an unfortunate side-effect, and not an especially important one.

          • Alex Dương

            Alex, this is just Logic 101. He says A resulted in (caused or accompanied) B. That does not mean A was intended (by Mao, in this case) to do that.

            How convenient of you to ignore the part of his comment that I emphasized.

            Please, before we get into another (different) argument – I am not hereby making any statement about the truth/validity of Historynerd’s assertion.

            That was obvious since your reply to me contradicted his remark that “It had NOTHING to do with making China Industrial.” Besides, it makes no sense for you to be explaining someone else’s comment that you didn’t make.

            As for our last argument, I really didn’t know that we weren’t on the same page. I thought it was really obvious that making a statement as an adult about how languages you don’t understand “sound funny” is pretty damn ignorant. Clearly not everyone agrees.

          • PeterScriabin

            The emphasized part of your statement cannot help you make the case that cause is intention. This morning, a man saved a dog from being run over, by running into the road and scooping it up quickly. Unfortunately, the man’s footfall killed an ant. So the man caused the ant’s death. You can put it in emphasis till your keyboard breaks, but it doesn’t mean the man intended the ant’s death. If you can’t grasp it, try a course in elementary logic.

            If A doesn’t like B, for quite other reasons – he may unguardedly say B’s mother is fugly, or even that B’s speech sounds funny. It really doesn’t mean much. The big question is: why does A feel this way about B, that he says silly things to defend his position? That’s the elephant that people like you and Kai miss in this kind of online banter. It sounds obnoxious when people yell at each other in public, no one gives a crap what language it’s in,

          • Alex Dương

            The emphasized part of your statement cannot help you make the case that cause is intention. This morning, a man saved a dog from being run over, by running into the road and scooping it up quickly. Unfortunately, the man’s footfall killed an ant. So the man caused the ant’s death. You can put it in emphasis till your keyboard breaks, but it doesn’t mean the man intended the ant’s death. If you can’t grasp it, try a course in elementary logic.

            Irony: Man condescendingly talks about logic. Uses straw man fallacy.

            I never “made the case that cause is intention.” I asked whether he believed that Mao set out to purposefully kill tens of millions of people. So you are arguing against my doing something that I did not actually do.

            The big question is: why does A feel this way about B, that he says silly things to defend his position?

            Oh, so you agree that it was a “silly thing” to say? Gee, you know, Peter, if all you want to say is that he made the comment because of obnoxious behavior on the part of some Chinese, all you had to do was just say that. You didn’t have to be purposefully obtuse and act like it wasn’t a “silly thing” to say.

          • PeterScriabin

            My last post to you, I must let others judge. My contention is that you’re a twister, and that you’re flat out wrong. You groundlessly raised the question whether the italicized statement has an implication that it clearly does not have. You have then waffled irrelevancies that helped you recover from your simple error not one whit.

            We agreed before about the manner of the complaining poster’s speech. You apparently still have not grasped the important point he was making, or have otherwise chosen to ignore it, merely carping on a near-irrelevancy of style. Again, others must judge.

            Alex, I won’t come here and reply to you anymore, that’s a promise. You’re an idiot, and I see no help for you, until a certain fog clears from your emotions. Wanting something to be so cannot make it so.

          • Alex Dương

            Protip: If you want to act smug and talk about logic, refrain from straw men and ad hominem fallacies. Bye.

        • guest

          I also wondered why you asked this question.

          Don’t know if it’s me but I view your emphasis in two ways,

          Past historical tense in which “did the great leap forward actually and directly help China by the end of it?” Ie it was to be the great success as it was planned to be.

          or a future tense that at the time it started ie it was “planned to help China industrialise by the end of it”

          • Alex Dương

            My understanding is that Mao did not set out to kill tens of millions of people deliberately. He thought he had an amazing idea to modernize China, but he didn’t think things through all the way, which tragically caused the deaths of tens of millions of people via famine.

          • moop

            “He thought he had an amazing idea to modernize China, but he didn’t think things through all the way, which tragically caused the deaths of tens of millions of people via famine.”

            isnt this more or less what the party line is on TGF right now?

            if people are starving and you are still exporting rice to other countries, i’d say you’re more culpable than being misguided

          • Alex Dương

            AFAIK the official party line is still “hush hush” on the deaths. But yes, Mao was definitely responsible for the deaths; incompetence does not negate responsibility.

          • Jahar

            He was a peasant leader who didn’t understand science, and that stupidity led to him causing 30-50 million deaths. At that point, good intentions are so far beyond mattering. He paved his way to hell quite well.

          • Alex Dương

            I never disputed his responsibility. I am only saying that he did not concoct the Great Leap Forward to purposefully wipe out a percentage of the population.

          • Jahar

            I know. I wasn’t disagreeing, I was just voicing my opinion. It makes no sense at all for him to have done it for the sole purpose of killing people.

      • CSiang

        YES… Without the Bomb…. the world have NO RESPECT for the Chinese…..
        – I may not agreed with Mao about many issues…. but… for this… I Fully Agreed On This….

  • Kodabar

    Apparently there’s some controversy over this. It seems the island is owned by shareholders and that the Needham family’s children are the shareholders, but they don’t own equal amounts of shares. Liz Needham owns 61% of the shares and supports the sale. Some of the others don’t support the sale. But with Liz (and others apparently) in support of the sale and owning the majority of the shares, it would seem likely that the sale will go through.

    There’s more about it on the Slipper Island website, including links to articles that go into more detail.
    http://www.slipperisland.com/slipper-island-sale/

  • James

    ok

  • moldavidian

    I hear CS is now being edited by the government so the best comments will be replaced by those the CCP agrees with.

    • Alex Dương

      Not true.

      • moldavidian

        Good to know.

  • Alex Dương

    But you are leaving out the part about him knowing his people were starving and didn’t want to lose face and say he had made a mistake, thus allowing more and more people to die.

    Yes, he didn’t want to admit he had made a big mistake. But that doesn’t prove that he intended to kill tens of millions of people deliberately.

    • Teacher in China

      The truth is a little more than that Alex. The GLF goes hand in hand with the setting up of communes, which was often described by the leadership, Mao included, as a kind of war in which there would inevitably be casualties. Of course he didn’t set out to kill all those people, but he knew full well that people were going to die as a result of the whole process.

      And of course, as the whole process went on and the famine started, there are various statements on record of Mao reacting casually to news of thousands and tens of thousands of people being worked or starved to death, in a manner that suggests he really didn’t give a fuck about it. Take this one – “When there is not enough to eat, people starve to death. It is better to let half the people die so that the other half can eat their fill.” This is more than a guy who didn’t want to admit to making a mistake. He really just didn’t care. The ultimate goal was the most important thing – how many people died to make it happen was irrelevant.

      I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, anyone interested in this period of Chinese history ought to read “Mao’s Great Famine” by Frank Dikotter, which is filled with information from primary sources obtained from provincial archives in China.

      • Alex Dương

        I thank Kai for this reference. While Joseph Ball is biased in favor of Mao, I find his argument that Dikotter took Mao’s quote about letting half the people die out of context to be persuasive.

        • Teacher in China

          He makes a good argument, but I feel like it’s a bit too roundabout in its sourcing: someone who worked in the office but wasn’t allowed to take the document but says it’s the same one that we’re quoting here, etc etc. Anyone who is biassed in favour of Mao can’t really be trusted in my opinion. Most of the other things (which I admittedly scanned rather than read, I’m getting sleepy) seems to contradict much of what I read in Dikotter’s book. Now of course he is biassed against Mao, but so am I, so I’m willing to accept his version.

    • nickhz

      when you are a leader and you know that people are starving… yet you don’t fix the problem, and he could have fixed it, that seems deliberate to me.

      • Alex Dương

        I think Dikotter took Mao’s quote out of context. It’s still Mao’s fault that tens of millions of people died of famine, but he didn’t intend to wipe out a percentage of the population.

  • Kodabar

    It’s not a poor excuse. We knew about the effects of pollution from quite early on. Even as far back as the 14th century, pollution was so bad in London that the king banned coal fires. We knew what caused it, we understood the consequences, but we kept going. It wasn’t until 1952 that London decided to really do something about it because several thousand people died in just a couple of days.

    Sure, we were more concerned with the local effects and consequences and didn’t realise the full global impact of the damage or that it could be so long-lasting, but we knew most of it. We didn’t know about climate change, but we knew about acid rain, ozone depletion, respiratory illnesses, etc for a long time. We didn’t suddenly discover all this in the 1990s. Nor was there no technology to deal with it. Sure, we didn’t have carbon capture and storage technology, but we knew over a hundred of years ago which types of coal were more polluting, we knew where to locate factories to mitigate the immediate effects of pollution, we knew of alternate manufacturing processes that caused less harm (but were more expensive). We just didn’t care because we were making money.

    Now China’s in the same situation as we were. And yes, you’re right, they are not using the most environmentally friendly production methods and it’s about cost. China’s economic competitiveness is based on low manufacturing costs, so they’re not going to do anything that increases those costs. Your iPhone isn’t made in China because they have the best high-tech production processes, but because they are the cheapest. We grumble about pollution in China, but we still buy iPhones and everything else that’s made there. We know what goes on, but we want cheap stuff, so we do nothing. We’re still complicit.

    To say that we didn’t understand the damage we were doing in the past is simply untrue and just an easy way to excuse our appalling behaviour. To say that the technology was unavailable to combat pollution is the same fallacy.

    China has only just passed the USA as the most polluting country in the world. And given that the US has a much smaller population, it shows that, individually, Americans are still the most polluting people on the planet, despite all this knowledge of harm and the technology to combat it. Your average Chinese person pollutes a lot less than your average American.

    What’s bad is that many parts of China are still under-developed. The rural population has only just fallen below the urban population for the first time. So there are hundreds of millions of Chinese who aren’t yet polluting to their full potential, so there’s a lot more of this to come.

    Luckily though, as the urban Chinese become more like us, they’re demanding higher wages for their work and they’re starting to get them. This is leading to a rise in production costs. So sooner or later China isn’t going to be the cheapest place to make stuff any more (maybe then it’ll be India’s turn and then maybe Africa). At that point, there will likely be a shift towards higher quality and higher technology production processes (as there was in Taiwan) and the levels of pollution will start to go down.

    But right now, yeah, the Chinese government see pollution as an acceptable cost of economic growth and industrial expansion. And we keep buying their stuff, so we’re complicit in it. Just because the polluting factories making our cheap stuff aren’t on our doorsteps any more doesn’t mean we’ve cleaned up our acts. To pretend we have is the true really poor excuse.

    • bujiebuke

      I share a similar sentiment on this topic. I would add that more recently, it’s China that has leaped over the U.S. and Europe when it comes to investing in clean technology. Forbes estimates that China accounts for 61% of clean energy investments. On the other hand the amount of resistance in U.S. government investment in alternative energy from a certain political party is dumbfounding.

      It makes sense from every angle why the Chinese government would invest so much in green energy. One, they have the most to loose if their entire country turns into an arid dessert, and two, they have the most to gain in terms of having an technological edge over other countries.