Sunday, 24 December 2017
A spy in the Beehive part II: further dodgyness from Jin Yang
And wouldn't you know it but Yang deliberately tried to subvert a SIS security vetting in an attempt to get an individual with a Chinese background into the NZDF.
Matt Nippert's article in the NZ Herald has the better depth on things and from that its clear that Yang sought to overturn the vetting outcome so that the individual could get a job in the NZDF in a position requiring a Secret level security clearance.
Yang, of course has claimed that he was merely "seeking answers" for his constituent but Nippert's article goes on to note that the letter of response to the constituent by the then minister for defense Jonathan Coleman noted that Yang "approached the office" on his constituents behalf.
And while we can get hung up on the definitions of what "forwarding correspondence" vs "approaching the office" means the real issue is that Yang sought to question a failed security vetting and get it overturned because that's what people go to their MP for.
People don't go to their MP to just find out whats going on, both the SIS and the NZDF are very clear about the minimum requirements for a security vetting and general queries about such matters can be made via the Inspector general of Security and Intelligence, so Yang going into bat on this individuals behalf means that the individual was seeking to use Yang's influence as a MP to overturn the findings of the vet.
Add to the issue is that Yang has further sought to obscure his background with the Chinese Military and Spying establishments (as the article notes) and you have an individual with a highly questionable background and blurry backstory seeking to subvert a security vet so another individual, who would not normally get into the NZDF, in a high security role, could bypass those checks and get in.
So at what point do we say that Yang is a spy and be done with it because as I said in my last post on the issue I would not be surprised if he was found to be a spy and none of those actions make Yang, or his behaviors, look credible, believable or trustworthy and in fact make Yang look dodgy, dubious and traitors in regards to that charge.
If Yang was just another MP without all the other issues then we could probably put those actions in context of a MP acting on the behalf of a constituent (even if challenging a security vet is a rather unusual action for a MP) but with all the extra information about Yang and little or no info to mitigate things its harder and harder to believe that this is just another unrelated action.
And with questions about Chinese influence abounding at the moment Yang is probably hoping that all of this will just go away but I don't think kit will as if previous Chinese National MP scandal of Pansy Wong was enough to get her removed I fail to see why Yang gets to stay in his job when issues of trust are one of the foremost things about being a MP or member of government.
So far Yang has tried to play the race card (which failed) and has now sought to issue a single statement on the matter and say nothing more, in the hope that this will all go away but my guess is Nippert has the scent of a story in his nostrils and wont be giving up on things that easy when who knows what further OIA's might bring to light.