近年来，随着国际地缘政治竞争加剧，外国干涉（Foreign Interference）已经成为新西兰公共政策的重要议题。从政府加强国家安全立法，到媒体和学术界持续关注外国影响力，社会对此展开讨论，是一个开放民主国家应有的表现。

然而，一个成熟的民主社会，不仅要有维护国家安全的能力，更要有坚持法治原则的定力。

近年来，在有关中国的话题上，我们越来越容易看到一种现象：一些华人社团、华文媒体、企业人士、学者，甚至普通社区义工，只要与中国保持公开联系，便可能被冠以”中国政府代理人””统一战线成员””渗透对象”等标签。

问题在于，在新西兰，这些都不是法律概念，更不是可以随意作出的事实认定。

新西兰是普通法国家，任何涉及国家安全的严重指控，都必须建立在证据基础之上，而不是政治立场或公众猜测。无论是警方、情报机构还是法院，都遵循依法调查、依法审理的原则。任何人涉嫌违法，都应接受法律程序的检验；但在没有证据之前，不应因其族裔背景、文化联系或公开交流而被预设有罪。

事实上，新西兰近年来已经不断完善应对外国干涉的法律和制度。例如，《2023年选举修正法》进一步强化了政治捐款透明度，政府也陆续完善国家安全法律，加强对外国干涉行为的调查能力。同时，New Zealand Security Intelligence Service（NZSIS）每年都会发布公开安全报告，提醒社会关注外国干涉、网络安全和间谍活动等风险。

值得注意的是，这些官方报告始终强调，应针对具体行为开展调查，而不是针对某一族群或整个华人社区。国家安全工作的对象，是涉嫌违法的行为，而不是某一种文化背景或政治身份。

这一区别十分重要。

新西兰约有数十万华人，他们是新西兰社会的重要组成部分，在商业、科研、教育、医疗、公共服务等领域作出了广泛贡献。许多人与中国保持家庭、文化、商业和学术联系，这在全球化背景下十分正常。

中国长期是新西兰最大的贸易伙伴之一，两国在农业、教育、旅游和科技等领域保持广泛合作。政府鼓励合法经贸往来，高校开展国际合作，地方政府和商会推动投资交流，这些都是公开透明的正常活动。

如果一个人因为参加公开论坛、出席文化活动、推动经贸合作或服务华人社区，就被简单推定为”代理人”或”渗透者”，这种推理不仅缺乏法律依据，也可能损害社会信任。

当然，这并不意味着外国干涉不存在。

任何国家，如果试图秘密影响新西兰的政治决策、非法获取敏感信息、胁迫侨民，或违反新西兰法律，都应依法调查、依法处理。维护国家安全，是政府不可推卸的责任。

但同样重要的是，调查必须建立在事实和证据之上，而不能因为一个人的国籍背景、族裔身份或正常交流活动，就推定其具有违法意图。

民主社会的优势，正在于能够同时维护国家安全与公民权利，而不是为了安全放弃法治原则。

更值得关注的是，过度泛化”中国影响力”的概念，可能产生寒蝉效应。一些华人可能因为担心被误解，而不敢参与公共事务，不愿竞选地方议会，不愿担任社区组织负责人，甚至减少正常的文化和商业交流。这不仅削弱了华人社区的社会参与，也不利于新西兰建设一个包容、多元和充满活力的民主社会。

新西兰一直强调法治、平等和多元文化。这些价值不仅体现在面对本国公民时，也体现在处理国家安全议题时。真正的法治，不是对任何风险掉以轻心，而是在面对风险时，坚持以法律为依据，以证据为标准，以程序保障公平。

国家安全需要维护，社会团结同样需要维护。

当我们讨论外国干涉时，应将目光聚焦于违法行为，而不是某一种族；应依据事实，而不是标签；应坚持法治，而不是先入为主。

只有如此，新西兰才能既维护国家安全，也维护作为民主法治国家最宝贵的核心价值。


When the Label “Chinese Agent” Is Used Too Easily, New Zealand Must Stand Firm on the Rule of Law
Foreign Interference, Rule of Law, and the Chinese Community in New Zealand

In recent years, as global geopolitical competition has intensified, foreign interference has become an increasingly important issue in New Zealand’s public policy discussions. From the government’s strengthening of national security legislation to ongoing debate among the media and academic communities regarding foreign influence, public discussion on this topic is a natural and necessary feature of an open democracy.

However, a mature democratic society must not only have the ability to protect national security; it must also have the commitment to uphold the principles of the rule of law.

In recent years, discussions involving China-related issues have increasingly reflected a concerning trend: some Chinese community organisations, Chinese-language media outlets, businesspeople, academics, and even ordinary community volunteers may be labelled as “agents of the Chinese government,” “United Front members,” or “targets of infiltration” simply because they maintain open connections with China.

The problem is that, in New Zealand, these are not legal concepts, nor are they factual determinations that can be made casually.

New Zealand is a common law country. Any serious allegation involving national security must be based on evidence, not political assumptions or public speculation. Whether investigations are conducted by the police, intelligence agencies, or courts, they must follow the principles of lawful investigation and due process. Anyone suspected of wrongdoing should be subject to proper legal procedures; however, before evidence is established, no person should be presumed guilty because of their ethnic background, cultural connections, or legitimate engagement with others.

In fact, New Zealand has continued to strengthen its laws and institutions to address foreign interference. For example, the Electoral Amendment Act 2023 further enhanced transparency around political donations, while the government has continued to improve national security legislation and investigative capabilities relating to foreign interference. The New Zealand Security Intelligence Service (NZSIS) also publishes annual public threat assessments, highlighting risks such as foreign interference, cyber security threats, and espionage.

It is important to note that these official reports consistently emphasise that investigations should focus on specific behaviours and activities, not on particular ethnic communities or entire groups of people. The focus of national security work is unlawful conduct, not cultural background or political identity.

This distinction is critically important.

New Zealand is home to hundreds of thousands of people of Chinese heritage. They are an important part of New Zealand society and have made significant contributions across business, science, education, healthcare, public services, and many other fields. For many people, maintaining family, cultural, commercial, and academic connections with China is entirely normal in today’s globalised world.

China has long been one of New Zealand’s largest trading partners, and the two countries maintain extensive cooperation in areas including agriculture, education, tourism, and technology. The government supports lawful economic engagement, universities conduct international partnerships, and local councils and business organisations promote investment and cultural exchanges. These are legitimate and transparent activities.

If a person is automatically regarded as an “agent” or “infiltration target” simply because they attend a public forum, participate in cultural events, support trade cooperation, or serve their local community, such assumptions lack a legal foundation and may damage trust within society.

Of course, this does not mean foreign interference does not exist.

Any country that attempts to secretly influence New Zealand’s political decision-making, unlawfully obtain sensitive information, intimidate members of diaspora communities, or violate New Zealand law should be investigated and dealt with according to the law. Protecting national security is an essential responsibility of any government.

At the same time, investigations must be based on facts and evidence. A person’s nationality, ethnic background, or normal social and professional connections should never be treated as proof of unlawful intent.

The strength of a democratic society lies in its ability to protect both national security and individual rights. It should not abandon the principles of the rule of law in the name of security.

A particular concern is that the excessive generalisation of the concept of “Chinese influence” may create a chilling effect. Some members of the Chinese community may become reluctant to participate in public life, stand for local elections, lead community organisations, or engage in normal cultural and business exchanges because they fear being misunderstood or unfairly labelled.

This would not only reduce the participation of Chinese New Zealanders in society, but also undermine New Zealand’s goal of building an inclusive, diverse, and vibrant democracy.

New Zealand has long promoted values of the rule of law, equality, and multiculturalism. These values should apply not only in everyday social life but also when addressing national security issues.

True rule of law does not mean ignoring risks. It means responding to risks through legal frameworks, evidence-based assessments, and fair procedures.

National security must be protected, but social cohesion must be protected as well.

When discussing foreign interference, the focus should be on unlawful actions, not ethnic groups; on evidence, not labels; and on legal principles, not assumptions.

Only by maintaining this balance can New Zealand protect its national security while preserving the core values that define it as a democratic and law-based society.