Twice a year the government makes
various people knights or dames of the realm!!! I don’t consider myself a
republican or a royalist. I would also
assume that I, like most people, are unaware exactly what the criteria is upon
which they decide to bestow such titles on people.
However, irrespective of what the
criteria are, twice a year, I find myself absolutely stunned as to who receives
such titles. If someone simply pursues their
goals or career and they get well or adequately remunerated for it: why do they
deserve to be made a knight or a dame simply because they have been successful
in their chosen field It’s farcical!
Surely to be worthy of receiving
such a title you must do more than simply pursue your career or your vocation
and be successful at it. You need to
use your position, success and/or status in society to help many others over
your lifetime to be even considered worthy of being made a Knight or a Dame. Logically this would mean most people would
normally receive such an honour in their twilight of their life as it takes
success, benevolence and hard work over a lifetime to truly make a difference
in society. It goes without saying that
someone’s contribution in this regard is not their vocation or employment for
which they are getting paid.
I don’t know much about the basis
for receiving a CNZM or ONZM either. But
I think I heard Phil Goff being quoted after receiving one of these that he was
simply doing his job. Which succinctly sums
up my view that if you are doing your job well, do you deserve this as surely
even in a small country in New Zealand, we have millions of people who do their
job well?
I have a lot of admiration for
what Val Adams has achieved in the field of athletics, but being extremely
successful in the world as a shot putter, for which she is remunerated in some
form or another means she should be made a Dame? No way!
Perhaps twenty years down the track when through her success and status
she gives so much back to society via unpaid appearances, speaking engagements
or endorsements etc, then she may deserve to be made a Dame.
Sir Graham Henry is another. For most of his career as a rugby coach, he
has been extremely well paid for pursuing his vocation and ultimately his
career. Again I admire what he has
achieved and done, but did he deserve to be made a knight, again based on my
criteria, no way.
A coupler people who in my eyes
do deserve it: Sir Colin Meads; sure he was a legendary All Black, but it is
what he done over the subsequent decades in giving his time, endorsement etc to
many worthy causes. What he put back
into rugby. It is his lifetime of what
he gave back, not as part of his job, which means he deserved to be
knighted.
Similarly Sir Peter Leitch, aka
the Mad Butcher. A very successful
businessman, a man who deserved to be knighted, not for his success as a
businessman, but for what he has done (and still does) for so many entities,
charitable, sporting and otherwise. He
has used his success to help so many others.
The man seems to be a dynamo; he is always using his notoriety and
resources to help some cause.
Sporting stars can have the
abilities recognised through Halbergs, or Halls of Fame etc if we are simply
looking for a way to acknowledge how good someone is in their chosen field of
endeavour. Surely such success alone
cannot merit being made a Dame or a Knight.
