The Dominion. THURSDAY, JULY 20, 1939. “THE UNVARNISHED TRUTH”

Dominion, Volume 32, Issue 250, 20 July 1939, Page 8

The Dominion. THURSDAY, JULY 20, 1939. “THE UNVARNISHED TRUTH”

It has been remarked -by overseas observers on more than one occasion that New Zealand people arc somewhat sensitive to criticism. To whatever extent this may be true, the reason no doubt lies mainly in their remoteness from the rest of the world. And if it be true to an extent that invites comment, it is a fault that should be remedied. Criticism is the salt of experience. Without it errors could not be corrected; our national sense of proportion would become distorted through an exaggerated sense of satisfaction with our fancied perfections. It should therefore be welcomed, not because all criticism is necessarily sound and justified, but because of its value as a hint to examine ourselves, and our methods, to sec whether it is warranted. To resent criticism, as the members of the present Government are rather prone to do. is childish. To ignore it would re stupid. The purpose of these remarks is to refer to a letter signed “Twenty Times Round the World,” which appeared in the columns of The Dominion of July 8 last, and the two letters—one on Saturday last, signed “A Few Times Round the World, the other from “Travelled,” in the next issue~which followed. The first was aci iticism directed at the proceedings in Parliament as broadcast to. the public over the air. The other two delivered broadsides that might well have jarred the susceptibilities of the New Zealand people if they are really as sensitive as has been alleged. A good many, no doubt, felt highly indignant about these critical analyses of thennational characteristics. Others prgbably tossed them aside ,as unworthy of serious consideration. Quite possibly our critics, in .their dissatisfaction with what they conceived to be our shortcomings, were led unconsciously to exaggeration and a somewhat meticulous spirit of fault-finding. But how many readers, it may be wondered, paused to ask themselves in all seriousness whether there was in any. or all, of them some solid foundation of truth?

Take the first, the criticism of Parliament. One of the reasons given by the Socialist Government for putting Parliament on the air was that the people should be given the truth about the proceedings in that august assembly. They have got it. But the prestige of Parliament has undoubtedly been impaired by the revelation. the Press, for obvious practical reasons, such as considerations of space, had hitherto confined the reports of the proceedings to essential matters, and to the relevant points in members’ speeches. It . was thus possible to extract from the mass of verbiage, wearisome reiterations, obscurities of speech, and bad grammar, a concise summary of the day-to-day proceedings in language which conveyed to. the public the impression of a dignified and intelligent assembly. Radio broadcasting has revealed it as a very commonplace affair, the conduct of which could be bettered in scores of humbler institutions where debaters speak to the point and do not waste hour after hour meandering alb. round the compass. Speeches “tedious as a twice-told tale, vexing the dull ear of a drowsy man,” as Shakespeare would. describe them, come droning over the air, punctuated with interjections, complimentary and otherwise, coughs, and the “hear, hears” of party claquers. Evidence enough, surely, to justify the criticism of “Twenty Times Round the World.”

As for the criticism of the New Zealand people themselves by the other two correspondents, it is impossible in the.space available io deal with the points raised. In sum, they amount to a general condemnation which, though applicable to many, is obviously untrue of the whole. At the same time, it is a little disturbing that three correspondents who have travelled, and, no doubt, based their opinions on comparative impressions, should have discovered in our national characteristics sufficient evidence of an unfavourable kind to. piompt such sweeping assertions. Even if they are only partly right, there is ground for personal and national stocktaking.. Are we really extravagant? Are we being white by politicians with their heads full of all kinds of theories but containing little practical knowledge” ? Is there little respect for discipline, and is there much petty thieving in New Zealand? These are a few of the questions raised in the 23 points of criticism made by our correspondents. How would, the average intelligent New Zealand citizen, prepared to give serious thought to such matters, answer them ? He certainly could not honestly dismiss them lightly.

Having answered them, and carefully studied the others, he would probably be forced to admit that, in practically all of them, there was at least a modicum of truth, applicable in varying degree. He would also, if he regarded his citizenship.in a serious spirit, inquire how those evils in the body politic, which, if allowed to permeate extensively, would lead to civic degeneracy, could be eliminated. Quite apffrt from the question of the degree of truth in the, criticisms of our correspondents it would be a great gain if the public s reaction to them resulted in a serious examination of the justification.for the charges. There are tendencies in our social and political life that' give serious cause for anxiety, and if people do not think seriously about them the drift may carry this young nation. to the edge of moral and civic degeneracy, a prey to other nations imbued with higher standards of discipline, greater endurance of hardship, and trained in the school of hard work, willing service, and self-sacrifice.