作者：Jonathan Ayling
（本文是一位政策顾问，他也是前新西兰言论自由联盟CEO，他每周四在NZ Herald发表评论文章，本文是他今年2月19日专栏文章 （ 的中文翻译版）
–
在我 1 月 29 日的专栏《台湾与中国：言论是前线》中，我曾写道：“我们必须重新找回说出真相的能力，即使这会带来后果。民主优于独裁，自由优于压迫。台湾不属于中国。”
对此，中国驻新西兰大使馆发表正式声明，并联系我的编辑，要求《新西兰先驱报》作为一个“负责任的媒体”，而不是“误导公众或损人不利己”。声明还称：“这不是言论自由问题，而是一个根本原则问题，是非分明的问题。”
中国共产党这种虚伪的愤怒并不令人意外。真正令人意外的是，新西兰前驻华大使卡尔·沃克（2009–2015）转发了这份声明，特别强调其中关于“责任”的说法，并将我的专栏斥为“反华”。
这是否说明新西兰已经在多大程度上被“害怕惹怒北京”的心理所扭曲？抑或是这种对中国的迎合已被视为理所当然？
“Listener” 杂志的常驻专栏作家、前法官大卫·哈维博士在回应中警告：“我们必须警惕并识别任何外国势力，尤其是中国，对我们国内主权的干预。若不能做到这一点，我们的民主制度将被侵蚀，滑向一个奥威尔式的‘集体思维’与‘遵循党路线’的环境。”
这正是塔斯曼同盟（新西兰）本周六在奥克兰举办国际研讨会所要直面的议题。该活动与新西兰价值联盟以及自由言论联盟等民间团体联合举办，演讲嘉宾包括知名中国问题专家安妮-玛丽·布雷迪教授、《Stuff》记者Paula Penfold、PILLAR NZ 联合创始人尼克·汉尼，以及来自跨党派的国会议员，包括海伦·怀特和托德·斯蒂芬森。
这场研讨会本身，就是新西兰开始警醒于外国干预逐渐被“正常化”的一个信号。
会议的一项议程将讨论拟议中的《外国影响透明度法案》。这项立法旨在提高透明度，要求披露在外国政府指示下在新西兰开展的活动。它将与 2025 年通过的《刑事法（反制外国干预）修正案》形成互补，使新西兰更接近英国、加拿大和澳大利亚等民主国家的做法。
研讨会还将讨论另一个新西兰人更应了解的问题：中共在新西兰大学中的影响力和进入渠道，包括通过与奥克兰大学、维多利亚大学和坎特伯雷大学合作设立的孔子学院。
在海外，新西兰已明显落后于盟友。在美国，拜登政府时期，孔子学院数量从一百多所降至不足五所。欧洲国家如瑞典已关闭全部孔子学院及中学层面的“孔子课堂”。在加拿大和澳大利亚虽仍有部分存在，但墨尔本大学、昆士兰大学、新南威尔士大学和西澳大学等已悄然选择不再续约，州和联邦政府也表达了对外国影响的担忧。
在英国，是否应要求大学披露外国政府资金的争论重新升温。《泰晤士报》报道，英国军情五处（MI5）已向大学发布指导，警告来自“敌对国家”的干预风险，明确点名中国，并提醒注意其试图影响对“敏感议题”的教学与研究，例如天安门事件、维吾尔人遭受的压迫、西藏问题，以及显然的台湾议题。
新西兰从与中国人民的贸易中受益良多，这种关系应当继续。但我们的公共空间不容出售。
现在是新西兰更严肃看待国家主权的时候了，更重要的是，要珍视支撑主权的价值。我在大学学习过中文，也曾多次访问中国。如今不得不承认，我可能已不再安全地前往那里。这一简单事实，难道不已说明这个政权的本质吗？
我刻意使用“政权”一词，因为真正需要被挑战的正是它。新西兰人无须害怕或反对中国文化或中国人民。但中国共产党是一个干预他国、压迫本国人民的霸凌者，它公然无视本国人民的基本权利与尊严，并试图将其红线向外延伸。
新西兰无法单独改变这一现实。但我们可以，也必须，守护属于我们自己的公共空间。我们有责任捍卫新西兰人的权利——无论中共的意愿如何。若我们连专栏作家、记者、学者、研究人员、政治人物以及非政府组织领袖表达一个最基本主张的权利都无法捍卫——即人们享有公民自由、政治自由与经济自由的权利——那么我们其实已经选择了臣属地位，而非公民身份。
本周六（2月21日）在奥克兰举行的研讨会，正是越来越多新西兰人开始认真看待这一威胁的证明。下一步，是要把这种严肃认识转化为政策与立场。透明度法律之所以重要，是因为影响力往往滋生于灰色地带。大学和公共机构应被要求披露与外国国家相关的资金来源、合作关系以及指令背景，让公民能够在阳光下加以判断。但披露仅仅是起点，更深层的任务是重建公民信心——一种平静而坚定的信念：自由社会不会接受一党制国家来指示什么才是“负责任”的言论。
如果我们守不住这条底线，终有一天会发现，主权并不是在某一次重大事件中失去的，而是在无数次自我审查中一点点流失的。面对这些威胁保持沉默，我们或许仍然拥有国旗与议会，但我们的公共空间，早已属于他人。
Our Public Square Is Not for Sale
In my column on 29 January, Taiwan and China: Speech is the front line, I concluded: “We must recover the ability to say what is true, even if it carries consequences. Democracy is better than dictatorship. Freedom is better than oppression. Taiwan does not belong to China.”
In response, the Chinese Embassy issued an official statement and contacted my editor, calling on The Herald to act as a “responsible media outlet”, rather than “mislead the public or do harm to others without benefitting itself”. It added: “This is not a matter of freedom of expression, but a fundamental question of principle and a clear issue of right and wrong.”
Such faux outrage from the Chinese Communist Party was not surprising. What was surprising was that Carl Worker, New Zealand’s former ambassador to China (2009 to 2015), retweeted the statement, highlighted its call to “responsibility”, and dismissed my column as “China bashing”.
Does this show how far New Zealand has already been bent by fear of displeasing Beijing, or how normalised deference has become?
Former Judge Dr David Harvey, a regular columnist for The Listener, warned in response: “We must be vigilant to identify interference with our domestic sovereignty by any foreign power and especially the PRC. Failure to do so will result in the erosion of our democratic institutions into an Orwellian environment of Groupthink and adherence to ‘The Party Line.’”
That is exactly what the Tasman Union (NZ) seeks to confront this Saturday at an international symposium in Auckland. Hosted alongside the New Zealand Values Alliance, and other civil society groups such as the Free Speech Union, it will feature speakers including prominent China expert Professor Anne-Marie Brady, Stuff journalist Paula Penfold, PILLAR NZ co-founder Nick Hanne, and MPs from across Parliament, including Helen White and Todd Stephenson.
This symposium is a sign that New Zealand is waking up to the slow normalisation of foreign interference.
Part of its programme will consider a proposed Foreign Influence Transparency Bill, drafted legislation intended to improve transparency around activities in New Zealand carried out at the direction of foreign powers. It would complement the Crimes (Countering Foreign Interference) Amendment Act 2025, and move New Zealand closer to approaches adopted in comparable democracies such as the United Kingdom, Canada, and Australia.
Another issue the symposium will address, and more Kiwis should understand, is the influence and access the Chinese Communist Party maintains within New Zealand’s universities, including through Confucius Institute partnerships at Auckland University, Victoria University, and Canterbury University.
Overseas, New Zealand is out of step with our international partners. In the United States under the Biden presidency, the number of Confucius Institutes went from over 100 to fewer than five. Likewise, European nations like Sweden have shut all Confucius Institutes and Confucius Classrooms (the high school level equivalent). While several still function in Canada and Australia, universities like the universities of Melbourne, Queensland, New South Wales, and Western Australia have each quietly opted to not renew contracts, with State and Federal governments expressing concern regarding foreign influence.
In the United Kingdom, debate has revived over whether universities should be required to disclose foreign government funding. The Times has reported on MI5 guidance warning universities about interference from “hostile states”, naming China explicitly, and cautioning about attempts to shape teaching on “sensitive subjects” and certain research. Think Tiananmen Square, the oppression of Uyghurs, Tibet, and, evidently, Taiwan.
New Zealand benefits from trade with the Chinese people; long may that continue. But our public square is not for sale.
It is time New Zealand took sovereignty more seriously, and even more importantly, the values that underpin it. I studied Chinese at university and have visited China on several occasions. It saddens me to admit it may now be unsafe for me to visit again. Does that basic admission not tell us almost everything we need to know about this regime?
I say “regime” deliberately, because that is what should be challenged. New Zealanders have nothing to fear, or oppose, in Chinese culture or in Chinese people. But the Chinese Communist Party is an interfering, oppressive bully, a state that has shown blatant disregard for the basic rights and dignity of its own people, and that seeks to extend its red lines outward.
New Zealand cannot change that reality alone. But we can, and must, protect our own public square. We have a duty to defend the rights of Kiwis, the wishes of the CCP be damned. If we cannot defend the right of columnists, journalists, academics, researchers, politicians, and NGO leaders to state the basic claim that people have a right to civil, political,
