Anthem comments spark backlash
New Plymouth councillor Murray Chong is facing a barrage of criticism, has been censured by his mayor and there’s even a petition calling on him to resign for saying he was ashamed to sing the national anthem in te reo.
New Zealander of the Year for 2014, Dr Lance O’Sullivan, weighed in on the controversy with a scathing social media post yesterday, saying the incident ‘‘goes to show that USA is not the only country that is capable of electing idiots to public office’’.
Chong’s track record has been slammed as ‘‘despicable’’ by political commentator Dr Andy Asquith and a petition calling for the councillor to resign had gathered 1550 signatures in 24 hours.
He has also been censured by his mayor Neil Holdom, who had already censured the councillor last month for proclaiming he had no issue flying a Confederate flag during Taranaki’s Americarna car festival.
The backlash against Chong follows his answer to a Facebook post which asked people to ‘‘name a song you are ashamed of singing’’. He replied: ‘‘The te reo version of the NZ national anthem’’, God Defend New Zealand.
When former Taranaki man Michael Riley heard the ensuing row being reported in Australia, where he now lives, he decided to take action.
His petition calls for Chong to either stand down or for New Plymouth residents not to vote for him in this year’s local body election.
Riley, who ran unsuccessfully for council in 2016 at age 18, and was a member of the council’s now defunct youth working party, said the reaction from Kiwis living in Australia has been stronger than those in New Plymouth.
‘‘I wanted to show that not all of New Plymouth and not all of New Zealand agree with what he’s saying.’’
Riley, who also made headlines for his stance on various issues during his involvement with the New Plymouth council, said it was like bad history, where te reo was not recognised, repeating itself.
‘‘It’s not acceptable; we live in the 21st century.’’
Chong did not respond to requests for comment yesterday.
But on Monday he was unapologetic, and although he declined to speak directly to the media he did send a text message.
‘‘Firstly why would anyone have to sing the national anthem again when they have just sung the original version that they are accustomed to,’’ he wrote. ‘‘And secondly, since being a councillor (I) have also noticed on many occasions other councillors that don’t sing it twice and only sing the English version.’’
Reaction has not all been oneway and many comments on social media support Chong’s right to say whatever he likes about the national anthem.
Asquith, a Massey University senior lecturer and commentator on local government issues, said in his opinion it was not about politics but about responsibility and recognising that the country has two languages.
‘‘I’m just astounded at the insensitivity of it, to be honest,’’ he said.
‘‘We’re now in an election year so this could well be part of an attempt to build up a profile.’’
But Chong’s track record, which includes being censured last month for saying he had no issue flying the Confederate flag during Americarna, and questioning on Facebook whether te reo was a ‘‘dead language’’ in 2017, was ‘‘despicable’’, Asquith said.
If New Plymouth District Councillor Murray Chong chooses not to sing the national anthem in Ma¯ ori, that is his choice. And it is a legitimate one. It would be a terrifying day indeed if there were ever a law that made the singing of a national anthem compulsory.
Neither should he be compelled to sing the anthem in te reo because of social pressures – just because it’s seen as the right thing to do.
Chong, like all of us, should only sing the anthem in te reo because he wants to and because he feels a genuine pride and understanding in why he is doing so.
The issue with Chong’s latest controversial Facebook post, this time about our national anthem, is that he is ashamed to sing it in te reo. Such sentiment demands explanation.
If it is because he doesn’t know the words, that’s fair enough. Plenty of us mumble our way through it. The very act of mumbling speaks of our shame at our ignorance.
But Chong is not ashamed because of that, or if he is he’s not telling us. He’s ashamed, he explains, because the original version was in English and if we are ‘‘forced’’ to sing it in two languages then we should also perform the haka in two languages.
In a nation with two official spoken languages that’s not an altogether redundant argument, albeit a tad too simplistic.
After all, the original version and the Ma¯ ori version have both been around for more than 100 years. But it doesn’t answer the question about what he’s ashamed of.
We deserve to know that answer because without a proper explanation Chong’s comment can be interpreted as racist.
Chong also defends his position by saying he is not the only councillor who doesn’t sing the anthem in te reo. That is almost certainly the case, but again it’s an excuse, not an explanation.
Just because others are doing something is not a strong moral position from which to justify your own actions.
Chong’s attitude to te reo is concerning in a multicultural nation but it’s not out of step with thousands of others who view the language’s growing presence as something ‘‘forced’’ on them. That attitude is not going to change overnight.
There will be some, many thousands, who will hold that position no matter what. And these people will see Chong as one person ‘‘brave’’ enough to speak the truth. But we should hope that there are many more thousands who will at least be open to learning about why te reo is so integral to this country’s past, present and future.
Chong’s social media behaviour does nothing to advance such an openness and it is disappointing the councillor appears content to continually act in a way that divides rather than unites. Because even though it’s a tired cliche, it’s as true now as ever that united we stand and divided we fall.