Colinxy: The Myth of the Māori Elite — Rebutted

Dr Harpreet Singh continues to be a gold‑mine for demonstrating just how low the bar has fallen in New Zealand’s tertiary sector. His recent Substack entry, “The Myth of the Māori Elite,” introduces a new term — the “Elite Wedge.” In theory, it sounds like a promising analytical tool. In practice, it becomes yet another exercise in ideological evasion.

Singh’s central move is simple: deny that hierarchy exists within Maoridom. This is an extraordinary claim, and one that collapses under even the most cursory glance at history, sociology, or contemporary politics.

But Singh avoids this problem through a familiar manoeuvre: the Motte‑and‑Bailey. When challenged, he retreats to a safe, uncontroversial claim (“Māori leadership is rooted in community”), but when unchallenged, he advances the Bailey — the much stronger claim that there is no Māori elite at all, and that any suggestion otherwise is “strategic” or malicious.

This is not an analysis. It is rhetorical insulation.

The Whopper at the Heart of Singh’s Argument

Singh writes:

“This idea does not match reality. Māori leadership is deeply rooted in community life. Leaders work through whakapapa and are accountable to the people they represent. Suggesting that they are disconnected or secretly enriching themselves is both misleading and strategic. Once these narratives take hold, even long trusted leadership structures can be cast as illegitimate.”

This is a remarkable paragraph — not because it is persuasive, but because it requires the reader to ignore the last 30 years of New Zealand politics.

To accept Singh’s claim, one must believe:

• Māori leadership is uniformly community-rooted
• Māori leaders are consistently accountable
• Māori institutions are immune to elite capture
• Māori organisations do not enrich insiders
• Criticism of Māori elites is inherently “strategic” (i.e., malicious)

This is not sociology. It is mythology.

The Reality Singh Refuses to Acknowledge

New Zealanders have eyes. They have memories. They have newspapers. They have the Auditor‑General.

We have all witnessed:

• John Tamihere, whose political and organisational empire hardly fits the image of humble, community-rooted leadership
• Nanaia Mahuta’s extended family, whose appointments and contracts under the Ardern–Hipkins government were so numerous that even sympathetic media struggled to keep track
• Iwi trusts with corporate boxes at Eden Park
• Māori organisations with multimillion-dollar assets, while local whānau remain in poverty
• Elite Māori negotiators who became wealthy through Treaty settlements, while ordinary Māori saw little material improvement

These are not fringe examples. They are structural features of modern Māori politics.

To pretend otherwise is to engage in deliberate blindness.

The Māori Elite Exists — and Everyone Knows It

Every society develops elites. Every identity group develops elites. Every political movement develops elites.

Maoridom is no exception.

There are:

• iwi CEOs
• Treaty negotiators
• political power‑brokers
• consultants
• public‑sector insiders
• academic gatekeepers
• cultural authorities
• media figures
• professional activists

These individuals wield influence, shape policy, and benefit materially from their positions. This is not a moral judgement; it is a sociological fact.

To deny the existence of a Māori elite is as absurd as denying the existence of a political elite, a business elite, or an academic elite.

The Convenient Blind Spot

Singh’s argument depends on a selective view of Māori institutions — one that highlights whakapapa and community accountability while ignoring:

• opaque governance structures
• lack of democratic oversight
• concentration of wealth
• political patronage
• insider networks
• the gap between iwi leadership and ordinary Māori

The result is a romanticised image of Māori leadership that bears little resemblance to the actual distribution of power.

This is not an analysis. It is ideological protectionism.

The Poor Are Still Poor — and the Elite Are Still Elite

One of the most striking omissions in Singh’s piece is the absence of any discussion of outcomes.

If Māori leadership is so community-rooted, so accountable, and so egalitarian, then why do so many Māori communities remain impoverished while iwi corporations flourish?

Why do:

• iwi trusts accumulate assets
• executives earn six-figure salaries
• corporate boxes get purchased
• political influence grows

…while the poorest Māori remain exactly where they were?

This is not a mystery. It is the predictable result of elite capture — the very phenomenon Singh insists does not exist.

The Motte‑and‑Bailey Tactics in Dr Singh’s Writing

Dr Harpreet Singh’s Substack piece is a textbook example of Motte‑and‑Bailey rhetoric — the strategy where a writer advances a bold, controversial claim (the Bailey) but retreats to a safe, uncontroversial position (the Motte) whenever challenged.

This tactic is common in ideological writing because it allows the author to appear both radical and reasonable, depending on the audience and the moment.

Below is a breakdown of how Singh deploys this manoeuvre throughout his argument.

1. Bailey: “There is no Māori elite.”

Motte: “Māori leadership is rooted in community and whakapapa.”

This is the central Motte‑and‑Bailey of the entire piece.

The Bailey (controversial claim):

Singh asserts that the idea of a Māori elite is a “myth,” implying:

• no hierarchy exists within Māoridom
• no group of Māori leaders hold disproportionate power
• no Māori individuals or families benefit materially from political influence
• criticism of Māori leadership is inherently “strategic” or malicious

This is an extraordinary claim — and demonstrably false.

The Motte (safe claim):

When pressed, Singh retreats to the truism that Māori leadership is “rooted in community life” and “accountable through whakapapa.”

This is unobjectionable. It is also irrelevant to the question of whether elites exist.

Why this is a Motte‑and‑Bailey:

The Motte is used to shield the Bailey. He hides the controversial claim behind a cultural platitude.

2. Bailey: “Criticism of Māori leaders is a strategic attack.”

Motte: “Leadership structures can be delegitimised by harmful narratives.”
The Bailey:

Singh implies that any criticism of Māori leaders — even when based on evidence — is:

• “strategic”
• malicious
• designed to undermine Māori authority
• part of a broader political agenda

This frames critics as bad actors by definition.

The Motte:

He retreats to the safe claim that harmful narratives can delegitimise leadership structures.

Of course they can. This is true of any community.

Why this is a Motte‑and‑Bailey:

The Motte is a generic truism. The Bailey is a blanket accusation that shields elites from scrutiny.

3. Bailey: “Māori leaders are accountable to their communities.”

Motte: “Whakapapa creates obligations.”

The Bailey:

Singh asserts that Māori leaders are inherently accountable because of whakapapa. This implies:

• accountability is automatic
• corruption is culturally impossible
• elite capture cannot occur
• power imbalances are self-correcting

This is not analysis; it is romanticism.

The Motte:

He retreats to the cultural truism that whakapapa creates obligations.

No one disputes that. But obligations do not guarantee accountability — especially in modern political structures.

Why this is a Motte‑and‑Bailey:

The Motte is a cultural observation. The Bailey is a sweeping claim that denies the possibility of elite behaviour.

4. Bailey: “Māori elites do not enrich themselves.”

Motte: “It is misleading to suggest secret enrichment.”

The Bailey:

Singh claims that Māori leaders are not enriching themselves, and that any suggestion otherwise is “misleading.”

This requires ignoring:

• John Tamihere’s empire
• the Mahuta family’s appointments and contracts
• iwi trusts with corporate boxes
• multimillion-dollar assets held by iwi corporations
• the persistent poverty of ordinary Māori

The Motte:

He retreats to the claim that accusations of “secret enrichment” can be harmful.

Again, this is true of any group.

Why this is a Motte‑and‑Bailey:

The Motte is a warning about unfair accusations. The Bailey is a denial of observable reality.

5. Bailey: “The Māori elite is a colonial myth.”

Motte: “Colonial narratives have historically been used to undermine Māori.”

The Bailey:

Singh asserts that the very concept of a Māori elite is a colonial invention — a myth used to divide Māori communities.

This is historically and sociologically untenable.

The Motte:

He retreats to the safe claim that colonial narratives have been used to undermine Māori.

This is true, but irrelevant to whether elites exist today.

Why this is a Motte‑and‑Bailey:

The Motte is a historical fact. The Bailey is a present-day denial of elite behaviour.

6. Bailey: “Māori leadership is uniformly legitimate.”

Motte: “Leadership structures can be cast as illegitimate by harmful narratives.”

The Bailey:

Singh implies that Māori leadership structures are inherently legitimate and that questioning them is dangerous.

This is a sweeping claim that shields leaders from scrutiny.

The Motte:

He retreats to the truism that harmful narratives can delegitimise leadership.

Again, true — but irrelevant to whether some leadership structures should be scrutinised.

Why this is a Motte‑and‑Bailey:

The Motte is a warning about unfair attacks. The Bailey is a blanket defence of all Māori leadership.

7. Bailey: “There is no internal division within Maoridom.”

Motte: “Whakapapa connects communities.”

The Bailey:

Singh denies the existence of internal divisions, factions, or competing interests within Māori communities.

This is sociologically absurd.

The Motte:

He retreats to the safe claim that whakapapa creates connections.

True, but irrelevant.

Why this is a Motte‑and‑Bailey:

The Motte is a cultural truism. The Bailey is a denial of political reality.

Singh’s Argument Is Built Entirely on Motte‑and‑Bailey Manoeuvres

Every major claim in Singh’s piece follows the same pattern:

1. Advance a sweeping ideological claim (Bailey)
2. Retreat to a cultural truism when challenged (Motte)
3. Return to the Bailey once the challenge passes

This is not scholarship. It is a rhetorical evasion.

The Māori elite exists. It is visible. It is powerful. It is politically influential. And it is materially enriched.

Singh’s Motte‑and‑Bailey strategy exists for one reason: to deny the existence of that elite and delegitimise anyone who points it out.

Conclusion: Mythmaking Is Not Analysis

Singh’s argument collapses because it requires the reader to believe in a version of Māori leadership that exists only in theory. His denial of hierarchy, his Motte‑and‑Bailey evasions, and his refusal to acknowledge real-world examples all point to the same conclusion:

He is defending an ideological narrative, not describing reality.

The Māori elite exists. It is visible. It is powerful. It is politically influential. And it is materially enriched.

To deny this is not scholarship. It is mythmaking.

Other articles I have written on this academic:

Dr Harpreet Singh and the NZ History Curriculum – No Minister
The Myth of Māori Privilege: A Warning Against Paternalism – No Minister

No doubt he will continue to be a rich source of inspiration for how lousy academic credentialism is in this country.

Colinxy regularly blogs at No Minister, This article was sourced HERE