Letter to the Editor: A Criticism of Universal Te Reo

Tuesday afternoon on RNZ Wallace Chapman was on with his usual all-accepting attitude and Maori advocate Scott Campbell.

I was disappointed by the usual supercilious attitude toward critics of universal Te Reo promotion. If polled entirely confidentially I suspect the attitudes today would still be the same as those expressed openly to TV3 decades ago. At the time, unless in education, or angling for a position in a Maori Trust, there was little to lose by expressing reservations.

Even so, the critics of the time little imagined the concession would be expanded to the tyranny of today with Maori language and obfuscating words and titles everywhere. Today no one in employment or running a business, in the public service or education, dares to be seen as other than complying with what has craftily been established as the PC attitude.

Only retired persons of means can comment, and with the Maori tradition of utu, their utterances are not devoid of risk. Persons no longer express in great abundance contrary views to RNZ because they are aware of the implacable rejection. This apparently springs from a selective interpretation and application of the charter, presumably encouraged by the board. 

Kim Hill, normally noted for a balanced and rational approach, ripped mercilessly into meek and entirely rational Don Brash. Seems even Kim is afraid to be seen as other than subserviently supportive, at least whilst in the employ of RNZ and its board. So much for balance.

As with Old English etc, very few would object to the study of Maori for historic purposes and/or as a hobby. I am a great advocate of diverse hobby interests. But it is undeniably a stone age language obsolete as a means of complete communication in the modern world. 

Honest non-Maori display annoyance because of the perceived misdirection of effort, the misdirection of their tax contributions, and because of the time-wasting confusion created. (And whilst many have made great sacrifices to obtain job skills, there is also envy of those well and securely paid just to expound their normal language or hobby.)

Maori seem to fail disproportionately in the modern civilised world. Instead of directly addressing causal factors we promote Te Reo. It may have some benefit because of the adult attention given to children and the sense of belonging amongst all. But it is a very indirect and inefficient way of attempting to remedy problems and it inflicts huge costs on others.

We have a vast political movement being generated under the guise of Te Reo promotion. The side effect of fostering a united race-based group indoctrinated by propaganda will likely not prove to be in the future best interests of the whole nation, especially of new immigrants, and of those whose industrious ancestors did not intermingle.

Promotion of Te Reo represents a huge diversion of resources. There are now skilled English as a Second Language tutors in the State system who, instead of concentrating on eager, often gifted immigrants, spend much of their time introducing English to stumbling total-immersion Maori youngsters. In the modern world, it is difficult to imagine anything less inefficient or less rational. Failure of children who do not make good will be blamed not on Te Reo but on colonisation.

As a country very dependent on the export of foodstuffs, which overseas buyers expect to be subject to checks of the highest technological order, we should be doing our best to present as a modern advanced nation and avoid a primitive stone age image. It is folly to repeatedly present our nation to the world by way of the stone age cannibal war dance haka, and by this and other rituals in an incomprehensible native language on every official occasion.