Liu Jianwei

liujjww@163.com

THE proposed plan for bilingual road signs in New Zealand, featuring both English and the te reo Māori language, has led to intense debates. While intended as an inclusive gesture towards New Zealand’s indigenous Māori community, the plan has sparked controversial division among the population.

One key aspect to consider is whether this proposal is truly necessary for the daily lives of the people. Less than 25% of Māori in New Zealand speak te reo Māori as one of their first languages, amounting to less than 5% of the overall population, given that the Māori community constitutes less than 20% of New Zealanders.

Even among those who speak te reo Māori, a significant portion may not be able to read the language, as is the case with any language. Therefore, we are talking about putting a language on road signs that can only be read by far less than 5% of all citizens.

Contrastingly, 95% of New Zealanders speak English, as per the most recent census in 2018. Therefore, putting up road signs in te reo Māori is merely an act of political pretence by the liberal radicals, who push their own personal agenda to score with voters in disregard of road safety and the wellbeing of travelers on New Zealand’s roads.

There is very limited space for words on a road sign. By squeezing in another language, the space taken by English, the language that can be read by the vast majority of New Zealanders, is cut in half. Smaller text size on signs due to cramped space will make things difficult for drivers, who require clear visibility to read road signage while in motion.

Politicians initiated the plan only to make themselves look good, pretending to take the high moral ground but in fact disregarding the safety of their voters. They have taken hostage the kindness of ordinary people for their own political gains.

This plan is an imposition by a select few on the wider majority, which conflicts with the principles of democracy.

This is not a move to embrace indigenous culture for the benefit of the Māori. Their indigenous language can best be promoted within certain circles, for instance academic professionals studying the language and culture and indigenous organizations dedicated to the preservation and celebration of their identity.

Reviving a minority language is inherently contentious. Learning a new language presents significant challenges for individuals with different first languages. In the case of te reo Māori, the reality is that a majority of Maori individuals do not speak the language. Therefore, mandating Māori children to learn an additional language, even one from their ancestral heritage, could place them at an academic disadvantage, affecting their educational prospects and future social mobility.

Putting up road signs in a language that almost nobody can read in the name of preserving indigenous culture is misguided and hypocritical. The hidden agenda is to marginalize the minority people and reduce social mobility. Admitted or not, English is the language for people to move up the social ladder in New Zealand.

Drawing a parallel, in the U.S. state of Hawaii, despite Hawaiian being recognized as an official language since 1978 and significant investments in teaching it in schools over the years, only 18,000 residents out of a population exceeding 1.4 million now speak Hawaiian at home — an estimated 1%, according to a 2016 government survey.

Preserving and reviving a minority language is a nuanced endeavor that requires careful consideration. Rather than imposing the burden on individuals, support should go to those who have a genuine passion for studying and promoting the indigenous culture connected to that language. Imposing the responsibility on minority groups, particularly students who no longer speak the language, to adopt yet another language is unfair and places an undue social and educational burden upon them. Imposing minority culture on the whole society without proper justification is an utter abuse of legislative and executive powers.

(The author is an independent financial investor.)