Publicly accessible
URL: http://nzetc.victoria.ac.nz/collections.html
copyright 2013, by the Victoria University of Wellington Library
All unambiguous end-of-line hyphens have been removed and the trailing part of a word has been joined to the preceding line, except in the case of those words that break over a page.
Some keywords in the header are a local Electronic Text Collection scheme to aid in establishing analytical groupings.
" He was a Scapegoat." a member of the New Zealand Youth Forum's Nucleus Group is understood to have admitted, when discussing the expulsion of Salient's Political Editor Anthony Haas from the Forum. HAAS had been selected along with nine other Victoria students and a lecturer to act as "rapporteurs" (by senior lecturer in English, Mr. Harry Orsman).
They were to report group nnaings to plenary sessions of the conference.
Orsman told Haas on the Thursday morning of the conference that he ought to pack his bags and go, as a consensus of opinion of his group, taken by Deputy Leader Murray Halberg, had revealed that he was not wanted.
Against Orsman's advice, Haas checked with the group and found that eight out of ten at least had not been approached. It is understood that at a later Plenary Session of the Forum. Orsman admitted that he could have been wrong, but was not really worried about it.
Conference chairman Peter Darracott officially dismissed Haas from the Forum at midday. Challenged to refute the assertion that the evidence given for the dismissal was false. Darracott refused to discuss the matter further.
In a statement to the Press, Darracott later said that the nucleus group had decided on Haas's dismissal because he had exceeded the bounds of his duty, had been warned, and had persisted.
Later investigation showed that the full nucleus group had not met on the matter.
Haas claims that at no stage was he given a warning and that the dismissal came as a complete surprise to him.
His reports, which were claimed to be unsatisfactory, were all prepared in conjunction with his group leader.
It was obvious some time before his dismissal that some "rapporteurs" had aroused the animosity of key personnel at the forum.
At a meeting on the Wednesday morning, Orsman had accused rapporteurs Haas. Alister Taylor (Students' Association Secretary-Elect), Russell Campbell and Frances Lipson of being a wrecking group, of being an in-group of adopting superior attitudes, of being biased in group reports, of being superficial thinkers and of attempting to impose their views on the conference. He said to them: "You're——up my aims." Chairman Darracott later denied that these charges had originated with the nucleus group.
At the same meeting. Orsman criticised a report to the Forum given by Larry Coates, lecturer in international Politics, VUW, and a rapporteur. Said Orsman. "He's a bloody fool!"
Orsman went on to say that rapporteurs should not express .heir views openly even at the dinner table. Challenging this and ther statements, Campbell was told that if this was his attitude is had better call a taxi and go. Campbell stated emphatically that i.e., would not leave of his own volition, and the meeting broke up.
Rapporteurs were told on the same day that their representation on the Forum's drafting committee had been reduced from ten to two members.
The role rapporteurs were to play in the conference had been subject to constant redefinition during the week. At the Sunday briefing session no objection was voiced when a group leader said he intended to give his rapporteur speaking rights on a par with other members. At a meeting on the Monday night, concern was expressed that rapporteurs had been speaking too much. Later in the week Haas was ruled out of order even on points of clarification while other rapporteurs were still allowed considerable latitude.
At a plenary session of the forum following the dismissal, Haas's case was strongly stated by other rapporteurs. Campbell said that he considered the action to be contrary to the principles of honesty and fair play, and refused to be associated any further with the organisers. The forum failed to make any decision on the matter on the grounds of inadequate information.
Asked what he thought was the real reason for his dismissal. Haas said that new ideas were not welcomed by the organisers. Some rapporteurs had argued vociferously outside the conference rooms on the merits and demerits of pre-marital intercourse, and had attacked the framing of the questions for discussion and the composition of the Forum. He considered the organisers wished to avert the possibility of embarrassing recommendations being passed, especially as the Government had been associated so closely with the sponsorship of the Conference. "My expulsion," he said, "has shown that the Forum was not all that it was made out to be."
Four hundred and ninety two students out of about four thousand students elected Tom Robins to succeed Peter Blizard as President of the Students' Association for the coming year.
He defeated Roger Pitchforth, senior Law Student, former VUWSA Secretary and at present Administrative Vice-President of the New Zealand University Students' Association. Pitchforth received 438 votes.
Robins is a commerce graduate and at present Treasurer of the Students' Association. He will take office after the Annual General Meeting later this term.
Alistair Taylor was elected to succeed Brian Opie as Secretary He will take office with Robins and the rest of the Executive who are to be elected within a few weeks
Taylor received 558 votes and his opponent. John Pettigrew. 349. Tony Ashenden. Research Assistant in the Political Science Department and Commerce graduate, was elected Treasurer unopposed.
A much greater interest in politics was taken by students in the United States and, he believed, the United Kingdom, than in New Zealand, Sir Leslie Munro told a recent meeting of the V.U.W. National Club.
He said he hoped to see a big interest in politics in New Zealand, especially among the young people.
"Unless they take an interest, and a critical interest at that, we are going to live in bad times. The worst possible motives are sometimes ascribed to politicians and this could lead to not having the best representatives," he said.
Salient Co-editor, D. P. Wright has been forced to resign through pressure of work. The Editor remaining is W. Alexander.
This issue was printed by Truth N.Z. Ltd. The change of printers from A. B. D. Clark Ltd. has made it difficult to print some letters and articles received before the change. We sympathize with any disappointed correspondents.
In a recent match, held in the University Gymnasium, Victoria's fencing team was defeated by the Australian Universities team.
Victoria won the Men's Foil with Hurley and Black, two wins each, and Apathy, one win.
The Women's Foil team, H. Swartz, S. Markham and J. Einhorn, lost by three wins to six. In the Epee, Hurley and Lloyd had two wins and Lind-Mitchell secured two wins in the Sabre.
The strong Australian team had a run for their money, however, and several wins were gained by the narrow margin of one point.
After a South Island tour the Australians will return to Wellington for an Australian-New Zealand fencing test. Students and the public are encouraged to watch this test.
The Executive at their last meeting: condemned the Salient editorial of issue six.
A Motion was pasesd at this meeting that the Publications Officer (Tom March) should be directed to write an open letter to the editor of Salient saying that it had misrepresented the facts by making four allegations that could be proved incorrect by referring to the exec minutes, that the editorial is not based on fact. Tom March, who was all in favour of the motion, said in an aside that he hoped he did not have to write the letter.
Speaking against the motion, which was passed, were Tom Robins and Helen Sutch.
The only three facts that came out which were said to have been misrepresented were the parts of the editorial mentioning:
Other exec members who voted against the motion were Mark Harris, Sports Officer and Richard Smith, House Committee Chairman.
Dear Sir,—It seems that your correspondent Bill Alexander supports Penelope Houston's appraisal of Elia Kazan's "On the waterfront." Miss Houston is a member of the editorial board of "Sight and Sound," the British film magazine, and as such, toes the party line which "Sight and Sound" has had towards all of Kazan's films and to "On the Waterfront" in particular. In their survey of the
Mr. Alexander favours a religious interpretation of Brando's agonised walk down the quay, i.e.. "... a new purged Brando leads the men to work in defiance of the gangster unionists." Father Barry says over Dougan's body, "Every time the mob steps on a good man it's a crucifixion." Thus Terry Malloy is crucified to atone for the sins (apathy) of the group.
It seems to me that this interpretation reads too much into the material. "If Terry don't work we don't work"—the other wharfles realise that Terry has been carrying on their fight for them. "If Terry walks in we walk In with him"—one can detect a strong atmosphere of shame in their actions. In this proposal they have not, as Anderson has suggested, given Terry the opportunity ol a show of strength in order that he may become their new leader, rather they are urging Terry to lead them into work as a token of their recognition of his efforts on their behalf. "Work—he can't even walk!"—Johnny Friendly's challenge reduces things to a personal level and Terry's walk can be regarded as his ultimate triumph over Friendly and his gang.
It may be that Charlie's murder earlier in the film was the final straw and this one Incident was the sole cause of Terry's testimony on the waterfront rackets before the Commission, but I think that this is not the case, as there are many signs of Terry's moral awakening before this incident, e.g., "Everybody's been yelling at me about conscience." "Charlie, it's not as simple as I thought.
Indeed, Kazan, aided by Brando's consummate performance, has presented a subtle and uncompromising study of the moral awakening of a sensitive bruiser against the background of waterfront conditions. I think that there are deeper things involved here than mere technical brilliance, as Miss Houston would have us believe, but it is undoubtedly true that at the technical level, "On the Waterfront" remains an impressive and exciting visual experience.
This, however, is not the issue at stake.
Sirs.—The following is a transcript of a letter I sent today to Mr. Max Riske after reading Salient Number 6:
Dear Sir. I wish to apologise for any inconvenience you have been caused as a result of a statement I made a few weeks ago. In that connection. I could perhaps make the following comments:—
There is a very delicate line between calling a person a Communist and saying other people thought he was a Communist. We suggest that Mr. Baird's elephantine tread could not but rupture anything delicate in this connection.
If Baird did not say He thought Max Riske was a Communist, why did he introduce the subject at all? If, as he claimed later, he merely wanted to replace Max Riske with Armour Mitchell as a speaker at Grad. Dinner, again why did he drag up Riske's political affiliations?
Finally, we are disgusted with the face-saving tactics Baird has resorted to. President Blizard and Helen Sutch, who were at the meeting, have confirmed that Salient s report was accurate. How then can Baird maintain it wasn't (clause (3) of his letter)? Most damning of all why didn't Baird mention these inaccuracies When he Read the Report before it was Printed?
Your editorial comment on Catholic Student Guild retreats is libellous.
Cicero said "Nosco te"—this is the purpose of retreats. Self-knowledge and integrity are essential qualities in anyone who attempts to solve either small or "vaster" universal problems.
You should take Cicero's dictum to heart, sir and realise that prejudice and ignorance are not the hallmarks of responsible editorship.
Dear Sir,—In your editorial on
You had suggested that the Executive had tried to oust the Mormons. Yet, on
Also on
On the matter of hypnotism, I invite your readers to refer to the Executive Minutes of
Thirdly, your allegation that Mr. Blizard was censured in his absence needs serious qualification. It is submitted that Mr. Blizard was present at all material times of the investigation, from 5.15pm to 6.25pm (see Minutes of
Another particular allegation your editorial contained was that "we must not mention sex . . ." On the question of sex, the Executive has made only one statement. On
Finally, it is not denied that the Executive censured the persons holding mock-religious ceremonies.
If such irresponsible action were to arise again, the Executive might even consider the expulsion of such people from the University. Surely no one would care to dispute the presence of this constitutional and moral obligation on the part of Executive members to see that the reasonable limits of student behaviour are observed. Condemn that constitutional power, perhaps, but not the parties implementing the disciplinary power thereby conferred upon them. Had the Executive refused to take action, it would have been guilty of failing to discharge a moral and constitutional burden.
Your editorial, charged with emotionalism, made amusing and entertaining reading. The knowledge that so many innocents might take your word for gospel compels me to make this reply. As to the big question mark featured in your headline, "Have we lost our freedom," I suggest to your readers we have not, yet. Inaccurate journalism would, however, soon see that we get a positive answer to your query. It is sincerely hoped that you would publish this letter and endeavour to correct any misapprehensions which your editorial, possibly written in the heat of the moment, might have planted in the minds of your numerous readers.
The facts Mr. March has provided show that Executive did not prevent the Mormons from using the Little Theatre, but they do not show that members of the Executive did not try to achieve this. As Mr. March must be aware, at least one Executive member stated that he was opposed to the Mormons being allowed to come to the University at all. There was certainly a feeling that the Mormons were undesirable, and the eventual decision of the Executive to support them was in spite of the attempts of certain members to keep them out.
On the matter of hypnotism he says "an existent ban on the club would be lifted ..."
Where did this ban come from? I suggest that the action in banning the hypnotists in the first place was the result of a group of individuals who, quite without any justification, consider themselves to be the moral guardians of students.
So the minutes show that the discussion which took place after Mr. Blizard's departure was confined to the wording of the motion. Apart from the obvious suggestion that one cannot decide the form of a motion without altering its meaning. I would suggest that the minutes do not show any such thing. I suggest that anyone who cares to read them will conclude, as I did that the two motions of censure (you only refer to one) were passed while Mr. Blizard was absent. Whether or not Mr. Blizard was present, the Executive had no right to censure him for expressing his political views in an accepted democratic manner.
The Executive was not bound to censure the people responsible for the so-called "Black Mass." The Executive has the power to prosecute any student for almost anything, but this does not confer on them any duty to do so. We must condemn people who use constitutional means if they are wrong, just as we cannot accept the plea that the Nazis were only obeying the orders of Herr Hitler when they slaughtered the Jews. The principle Is identical.
Mr. March's letter deals almost exclusively with the official statements of Executive as a body. My editorial was, however, aimed at certain members only—people I believe have shown themselves to be unfitted to hold any responsibility for the destinies of students The minutes of meetings do not record the full details of their activities—they are, after all, only a record of motions tabled.
The quality of Salient has declined. One compares the large band of reporters on Salient's staff with the narrow range of subjects which appear issue after issue, and asks whether this is a reflection of the reporters' interests or of general student apathy?
The quality of Salient has declined. No doubt advertisements are necessary to help meet publication costs, but must they comprise a quarter of the paper? (re May 4th). We would like to see a Salient issued perhaps less frequently, but with more stimulating articles.
We suggest a Roving Reporter to bring together general student opinions and problems; news of club activities, as we cannot join all in which we are interested; and original contributions.
The ratio of advertising material to editorial material in Salient is quite low compared with any other publication which attempts to make a profit.
Many factors have forced us to have smaller Salients recently, mainly factors beyond our control. Issues 4, 5 and 6 came out over a space of only 3 weeks.
Thank you for your suggestions. But as usual a full staff list does not mean a considerable working staff. Perhaps you could help us gather news of the events and opinions in which you have an interest.—Ed.
The proportion was approximately a Sixth of the paper.—Advt. Mngr.
In future we will not print letters of more than 400 words—Ed.
While "Procesh" is still fresh in our minds, some thought should be given to one of its least desirable aspects. I refer to the public beerdrinking display put on by one truckload of students. I cannot see what purpose this "float" was meant to serve and I fear that most onlookers would have regarded it with similar lack of enthusiasm.
On capping day the public is prepared to extend the bounds of its tolerance and watch, even enjoy, whatever the students turn on lor them, provided that it is reasonably clever or humorous and not downright obscene, but there was nothing even remotely clever or humorous about this drinking exhibition.
If students want to celebrate graduation in the time-honoured way what is wrong with the pub, graduation ball or private parties? Why do some have to attempt to prove that they are no longer children by showing off their capacity for beer to the entire city?
The bad taste and lack of maturity displayed by the few would scarcely warrant comment if it were not for the damage it could do to the public usage of the university. Many people are very willing to condemn students in general as a pack of beery sots, and this sort of exhibition seems to justify their opinion.
In the interests of preserving good public relations let us exclude this element from next year's "Procesh."
It is common knowledge that the Agreements reached in 1959 between the British, Greek and Turkish Governments in Zurich and London and which provided the basis for the 1960 Constitution of Cyprus, have been responsible for the recent tragic events on the Island.
Because of the importance of these Agreements for the political future of the Cypriots themselves and because of the implications a Cyprus crisis can have on the Atlantic Alliance as a whole and peace in the Eastern Mediterranean in particular, it is necessary to glance more deeply into the spirit of the Agreements and spend some time on some of their provisions which have since found their way into the Constitution.
The main characteristics of the Constitution were based on the Zurich and London Agreements, formulated in the absence of the Cypriots themselves. The Cypriot leaders tried very hard to bring about the change of that Agreement. They failed, however, in that effort and were faced with the dilemma either of signing the Agreement as it stood or of rejecting it with all the grave consequences which would have ensued. In the circumstances they had no alternative but to sign the Agreement. This was the course dictated by necessity.
It was stated at the time of the signing of the Agreements that the Constitution could be made to work if there was goodwill and understanding between the two communities. But in actual fact, it was this same spirit of goodwill and understanding that was lacking from the Agreements themselves. The various provisions of the Constitution agreed upon by the three Powers instead of aiming at a return to a unified country as had been in existence (and quite happily so for all Cypriots) for almost 400 years, introduced various separatist elements, thereby widening rather than bridging the differences between the two communities living on the Island. As a result of intercommunal troubles initiated and directed from abroad for about three years (an amazingly short time in the life of a country) and with the pretext of providing safeguards for the minority, so many privileges were created for a community numbering less than one-fifth of the population that the normal functioning of the machinery of the State could not but break down. The will of four-fifths of the population was equated with that of the one-fifth; instead of majority rule and minority check, the Cypriots were given dualism in Government; instead of co-operation and co-existence, the Constitution contained the seeds of discord and enmity: no wonder that this "most bizarre and complicated of Constitutions" (The Economist 4/1/64) has failed completely.
But let us now examine some of the most undemocratic characteristics in the Cyprus Constitution:
In the first place, Cyprus is not a truly independent country since it is tied hands and knees by the notorious Treaty of Guarantee which gives the right to the three Guarantor Powers—Britain, Greece and Turkey—to meddle in the domestic affairs of the Republic whether the latter likes it or not. One cannot but wonder how lax a term "independence" can be.
One of the biggest sources of friction in the Constitution has been the provision that the Public Service of the Republic shall be composed by Turkish Cypriots to the extent of 30% and Greek Cypriots 70%. This same percentage applies to the Security Forces while in the case of the Army the Turkish percentage is even raised to 40%. What bigger privilege for a minority of 18% of the population can be imagined than to be given 30% and 40% of the posts in the Public Service and the Security Forces! Especially so, when one remembers that at the end of British administration the Turkish percentage in the Public Service did not exceed 18%. The implications of the provision have already manifested themselves in various ways. Greek qualified applicants to the Public Service are rejected summarily while posts remain vacant awaiting prospective Turkish applicants to finish their higher studies!
On other occasions, new posts have been created in an endeavour to accelerate the achievement of the 70%-30% ratio. Further, Greek civil servants are victimised in cases where promotion of competent people is frustrated as it will interfere with the desired ratio. One could go on enumerating similar cases illustrating the unfairness of this Constitutional provision. What mainly happens here, however, is a complete disregard of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of the United Nations, which provides that, "Everyone has the right of equal access to the Public Service of his country." Instead of this, we have flagrant favouritism which fosters friction, incompetence, unnecessary expense.
Under the Constitution, separate municipalities on a communal basis must be created in the five main towns of the Island. Apart from the fact that this provision serves no useful purpose, it has also proved unworkable. The impossibility of finding a way to define geographical areas and create separate municipalities, based on communal criteria, is due to the fact that never before did the Greek and Turkish Cypriots contemplate living in separate areas. Greeks live in so-called Turkish Quarters, Turks live in Greek Quarters. In the same way, there are no geographical boundaries in property ownership. But even were geographical separation feasible, separation of municipalities would prove financially detrimental with the duplication of municipal services that any such separation would bring.
Justice has also been separated lest a Greek be judged by a Turkish Judge or vice versa. It is indeed difficult to imagine a provision less likely to promote confidence between the two communities. It is a division not only unnecessary but detrimental as well. The very concept of justice defies separation. Not only is it a slur on the impartiality of judges but is also helps to establish the idea that a judge is no more than an advocate for his community.
According to the Constitution the Vice-President of the Republic has the right of veto in matters concerning foreign affairs, defence and security. In other democratic countries, the President has the right to return a decision for reconsideration but here we have a negative power in the sense that the Vice-President's veto, which is a final veto, prevents the implementation of a decision of the Council of Ministers or of the House of Representatives.
Perhaps the most ill-thought out minority safeguard contained in the Constitution is that providing for separate majorities, always on a communal basis, of deputies in the House of Representatives in the case of Laws relating to taxation, municipalities and the electoral law. This means that the majority of the Turkish deputies actually voting, can at any time and at their absolute discretion stop the passing of a Bill even if such a Bill receives the majority of votes in the House of Representatives. If for example, the 35 Greek members of the House and 7, out of a total of 15, Turkish members vote in favour of a Bill, it will still be defeated in the House. In fact, even two Turkish representatives can defeat a Bill if only three Turkish representatives take part in the vote. This provision has already caused serious adverse effects on the State by preventing or delaying the enactment of taxation legislation. Cyprus has remained for some time now without a custom tariff and also without an Income Tax Law, not because the Turkish Representatives had any objections to any part of the Bill, but their effort to further causes completely unrelated to taxation. In a word, this provision in the Constitution has been used as a tool for blackmail.
The 1900 Cyprus Constitution has proven an abysmal failure for various and diverse reasons: it created privileges where safeguards were needed; it produced dualism which made the majority rule unworkable; it gave powerful weapons to the minority which could and have already been used for political blackmail; it tied Cyprus hands and knees in the foreign field making a joke of true independence.
Perhaps the recent tragic events on the Island have shown to one and all that constitutional experiments of the Zurich and London sort cannot work in Cyprus. What the Island needs instead is: true independence free from foreign interference; internal democratic self-government based on majority rule and minority safeguards. Nothing more or less than exists in practically every free country of the world.
There is a hum of institutional and political backgrounds, and inside information, filtering through the reports of the Monetary and Economic Council.
The Fifth and Sixth Reports of this Council continue the growing tradition of informed and expert comment upon facets of New Zealand's economic life.
The Council has two aims—promotion of economic growth and rising standards—and two constraints—maintenance of full employment and maximum stability of internal price level. The reports are nearly always clear, but in some matters inconsistent and occasionally there is use of ambiguous economic jargon which is in sufficiently defined.
There is a feeling that there are close contacts with private opinion from official sources. Perhaps the most apparent example of this occurs in the Sixth Report where some information regarding increased bank debits is given the source "We have been advised". Could this adviser be Mr. Jim Rowe, once a Lecturer in Victoria University's Economic Faculty, now Research Director of the Trading Hanks' Association? If so we can only feel grateful that such unofficial sources are being able to find their way to a wider public.
A less commendable political attitude seems to be in evidence in the Fifth Report. The Council appears not to question the Department of Statistics' allowing the layman to use a figure as "exact". The average layman accepts figures as being exact but in fact statistics are rarely accurate in this sense. The Council knows this and knows also that in order for the layman to know the degree of "fuzziness" of these figures information of their sources and methods should be obtainable. However the Council did not come out and say so nor did they recommend that a "sources and methods manual should be published.
The oversight or omission to do so can be explained in terms of the Council's dependence upon Government support for its existence and in terms of the institutional and commercial bias of the Council members. But such reasons do not deserve either our approval or our forgiveness.
The Fifth Report is well balanced and the ways to carry out its suggestions are fully discussed, weighed and selected. In the third part the Council has named the chosen areas for immediate investigation and improvement; national income and expenditure and balance of payments estimates, both annual and quarterly; retail trade turnover; building and other investment activity; quarterly index of industrial production; import license usage; actual activity; actual wage rales and earnings, hours of overtime and short-time work; and finally, household enquiries.
If all these improvements are accepted by the Government, might not the money be better spent in making currently-produced statistics clearer and more up to date and publishing a "sources and methods" manual as some overseas countries already do? (for example U.S.A.. Canada, U.K.. Australia). Measures of relevant standard errors, of estimation sample size, correlation coefficients, etc., should be available somewhere. These measures are not an optional "luxury".
To most people "Oriental Culture" means vague recognition of the names Confucius and Omar Khayyam, the Taj Mahal on a mouldy postcard, and the gradual emergence of the "Willow Pattern" lurking beneath the mutton and peas.
Even those who so enthusiastically urge us to "understand" the Orient and its peoples, themselves rarely understand or place much emphasis on the cultural expression of the region. And too often those Westerners who have studied Oriental culture have done so condescendingly, exhibiting the same mystified wonder as archeologists unearthing an ancient tomb, watched bv canine locals.
Europeans are about to undergo a slightly painful awakening similar to that experienced by the Chinese about a century ago. The Chinese were suddenly forced to acknowledge that their country was not the centre of the world, and their culture not the great daddy of all cultures. It was a shock to the Chinese, a shock which, some say is still vibrating neurotically in modern China.
Political and cultural trends indicate that the cultural insularity of today's Europe and America is bound to receive a rude blow from the East in the not too distant future. Unless it turns itself outwards and takes the initiative in investigating and absorbing Oriental culture. West will find itself confronting East over an all too clearly marked border of mis-understanding.
Of course, this border exists to some extent already; Kipling was not merely seeking a felicitous combination of words when he said "East is East . . .," etc. But it is at present largely a border formed by ignorance, by lack of awareness. It is only when cultural insularity brings about indifference or a refusal to be aware that a really dangerous state of misunderstanding will arise.
The ideal of a widespread appreciation of Oriental culture is not just another good cause, of a type worthy of subsidy from the Golden Kiwi. It is virtually a matter of necessity; as much for the health of Western culture as for the cultural, social and political integration of the world's peoples.
This is not to say that we poor Westerners have a weary academic task ahead of us. Even a brief glance at the great sweep of Oriental culture is enough to convince one that it is the equal of that of Europe. In all fields of expression there are artists and works which are in no way inferior to the greatest produced by the West. They are different certainly, very different, but of sufficient stature to make the experience of them pleasant and satisfying for its own sake, rather than as a duty.
The cultural heritage of the Orient belongs as much to us as it does to the people of the East, though, of course, it is unlikely that Westerners would get as much out of it as Orientals. We should try to approach it as something strictly equal to our own heritage. We should look forward to the day when the names of Shakespeare and Kalidasa can be nonchalently mentioned in the same breath, or Wordsworth and Tao Yuan-ming, or Mme de La Fayette and Murasaki Shikibu and so on.
The above is by way of introduction to a number of articles which will appear in coming issues of Salient, each in the form of a brief portrait of the life and work of a recognised "great" among Oriental artists. The first will deal with the Chinese poet of the T'ang dynasty, Tu Fu (712-770 AD).
Cappicade is expected to make a profit of between £800 and £1000 net, the Business Manager reported to the Executive.
He also said that there had been three known cases of Massey sellers selling Maskerade as Vic's capping magazine, Cappicade.
It was reported that the Wanganui Council had been very diffident about allowing the magazine to be sold in their town. It was only because one of the sellers had an acquaintance with one of the Councillors that they were allowed at all.
One of the most entertaining ways to spend an hour in the evening is to go to the opening of an Exhibition at a small gallery. The cross-section of humanity on show is far more interesting than the work of the artist. The general idea seems to be to stand around and view the display whilst listening to some poor unfortunate eulogise, at the same time sipping sherry.
The smoke-filled room and the effect of the "sipping" leaves an impression, rather of the quality of the sherry than of the works on display. The quality of sherry varies with the fortunes of the artist but the most usual type seems to be an inexpensive South African with an effective back-kick.
The sherry, however, is not necessary to create atmosphere; those present create it. One can see all sorts, ranging from the social hangers-on to the art students, who look conscientiously hard-up. The most outstanding example of the original arty-craft type is the woman in the tweed outfit with hat to match, health-oxfords and an enraptured gaze at the form in motion of the sherry bottles.
There are, of course, more sophisticated examples of the type and these are characterised by a vague expression and an ethereal dottiness as they waft towards the bottle.
Next there is the anxious suburban who used to paint a little before she married Stan, but since then, what with the children and that . . . who looks conscience-stricken as it is because the dinner will not be ready.
The speaker makes a valient effort and inevitably touches on the lack in New Zealand; the lack is never made specific but there always is one in some aspect of our culture which is mentioned then excused because of our young nationhood. Indeed a great little country.
After the speech the general mass sorts itself out into little cliques and those that are just not with it are easily seen. At this stage the anxious housewives scurry off the sherry is finished off by the diehards and a few wander around and make appropriate comments.
All the while the artist, whose exhibition and sherry are under surveillance, sits gloomily in the corner and waits for the motley collection of humans, who will make him or break him, to leave.
A Tall, willowy blonde and two dark, bearded young men with guitars are a trio as unusual in performance as they are in appearance. They are folk-singing group Peter, Paul and Mary, the American trio with three topselling record albums to their credit and a coast-to-coast reputation in the United States and Canada.
Concert tours in the last six months have taken the Peter, Paul and Mary combination to England and Europe, and then to Australia and New Zealand. The trio will give New Zealand concerts from June 4 to 9.
Some people question whether there is an honest way to sing folk music in our complex and cosmopolitan society. Peter, Paul and Mary may have found the way. They certainly have the dedication to folk singing that comes from having lived with folk music all their lives. Each of them has a city background, but this is probably part of the secret of their appeal to our largely urban society.
Greenwich Village, the New York melting pot of the arts, with its coffee shops and artistic intensity was the spot where the three first met.
Peter, Paul and Mary spent their first seven months together as a group working up their initial repertoire. Even now the time spent behind the scenes in sessions talking over and exploring the songs they are going to sing is as important to the trio as the hours they spend before the recording microphone or on the concert platform.
"We are a cosmopolitan group," says Peter. "It would be dishonest for us to imitate the folk-singing style of any particular race or class. We can present in a modern musical form the feelings of many groups, and do it with integrity."
The trio is constantly seeking for new folk songs to add to the Peter, Paul and Mary repertoire and while in New Zealand hopes to discover folk songs and ballads here that can be integrated into the trio's style.
An Epic Play such as The Life Of Galileo, to be presented by the Khandallah Arts Theatre sponsored by the English Department in the Memorial Theatre this week from May 25 to May 30 Doses problems of production all its own.
It is epic not only in the Brechtian sense of being theatre of non-involvement, but also in its sheer size and length.
There are 15 scenes. The sets for these have been designed by Geoffrey Nees to combine a richness and variety with economy of movement. Set changing, which involves the flying of some scenery, is to take place behind a gauze screen only, in keeping with Brecht's aim of constantly reminding the audience that it is in a theatre.
The play contains 87 characters requiring over 100 costumes. Music has been composed by Ashley Heenan and Terry Bryan. Terry Bryan is to sing, accompanying himself on the lute, his own settings of the verses preceding each scene.
Brecht uses these verses to convey in brief the developments of the plot before their dramatic presentation. He thus avoids suspense or fragmentation of interest and forces his audience into intellectual action and rational judgment of character and situation.
Perhaps it is the sheer complexity of the play which has hitherto deterred other theatre groups in New Zealand from tackling it. The producer, Pauline McLean, will be remembered for her brilliant production of Archibald Macleish's J.B. in August last year. Galileo, in itself an exciting and controversial play, promises to be a no less remarkable event in theatrical circles.
Judging by the performance I saw, Extravaganza is on the road back to the great shows of other years.
After last year's effort, Extravaganza enthusiasts had a lot of problems to cope with. Firstly, they had to rid the show of the non-students who were taking all the plum roles and killing the student interest. They had to drag the show out of the financial mire which was likely to kill association support. And, finally—the most difficult thing—they had to find students to write, produce and manage the show.
It is obvious that they have succeeded in mastering these difficulties, and have produced a show which was apparently a good financial success. This is a far cry from the £1024 lost last year.
This year's script, "We are the greatest or how I learnt to stop worrying and love Christine" was written by David Flude It kept away from the usual satire on New Zealand politics, and concerned Itself more with a few prods at New Zealanders in general. It was spiced with scenes from British and American political life.
Production, by Jeremy Agar, was generally good, though I think that he could profitably cut a tab scene taking oft the NZBC. It was an unfunny funny scene, and nothing Is much worse than this.
Of the actors, Albert Wendt as Cassius X was obviously the star. He was perhaps the only one who moved the show along by his performance, quite apart from the lines the scriptwriter had given him. Doug Wison as Jed Wilder and Ann McHugh as Miss Christine made good work of two of the longer roles. The parts of Lord Hume and James Bond were also well played.
The inevitable male ballet was nothing to write home about. The routine described as the Conservative Ballet was reasonably successful, but could have done with just a bit more suggestion of doubtful sexuality on the part of Whitehall and Conservative Party types.
The stage manager made a mistake, I think, in shifting props for the tab scenes in semiblackout. Far better would have been total blackout, or no black-out at all. The stage crew could easily have put on odd costumes and become part of the show.
Finally, the interval—here was 20 minutes which could have been used to advantage. Mock interviews with prominent persons in the audience, general humour in which the audience can participate could have been provided at this point.
Students went 'native' in true South Pacific fashion at the Polynesian dance held on Friday night, April 24th.
The University Maori Club rallied in full force to prepare an excellent evening of entertainment. Amidst palm-fronds hibiscus blossoms and colourful paper leis the 'leaders of tomorrow' sweated out their frustrations to the beat of tom-tom drums, and the heavy pulse of guitars. Sarongs, lavalavas, mumus, bula shirts, shifts and bare-feet (the more inhibited dressed in conventional collar and tie) wriggled, stomped, hitchhiked and twisted with loose abandon until midnight. A Kava stall (looking like a soda fountain) and the coffee bar downstairs helped to sustain the dancers until closing hour, when they were permitted to collapse in an exhausted heap outside the hall.
The dance was well patronised by the public and the student body alike. The orchestra, specially imported from Manahiki of the Cook Islands group, provided just the right musical touch. The assistance of Mr. Short, the curator, who generously lent pot plants, and Mrs. Matthews, who donated dozens of beautiful hibiscus flowers, combined to make the Polynesian dance a tremendous success.
Proceeds went towards running the New Zealand Federation of Maori Students' Conference, held in the Student Union Building on May 21. 22 and 23.
Invitations to the Charity Performance of Extrav were sent to all members of the University staff, numbering about 300. Invitations to buy 107tickets for the Friday night show were accepted by a total of two staff members.
Most students who had anything to do with the show were disappointed and angry at this lack of support and interest.
Executive is willing to support the Mock Murder which took place in Pigeon Square during capping week.
A Group of students organised a mock murder. A car pulled up to the curb, a student jumped out, fired a starting pistol at another student, got back into the car, which then drove away.
Several students rushed up and and turned the fallen victim over allowing him to burst a plastic bag containing a quart of ox blood. The screaming of girl students brought the lunch-time crowds from a nearby auction room.
Students explaining that it was only a stunt were ignored. The crowd attracted more and more people, who took no notice of the placard telling them that it was only a stunt. In fact, the placard was thrown over the crowd. The placard read. "This will happen to you if you don't see procesh or give to charity."
Someone rang the police and the ambulance. The police arrived on the scene quickly. It appeared that a whole Homicide Squad had turned out. Apparently some were very annoyed because it had disturbed them drinking the lunchtime cup of tea.
When the crowd learned that it was only a stunt they turned on the students. Cries of "Lynch them," "Throw them out of the university," were heard.
The police asked four students to go to the police station for questioning.
• Watch for the very critical article on the architecture of the new Anglican Cathedral—with illustrations.
During capping week Extravaganza had its traditional drinking in the Little Theatre during performances much to the annoyance of the S.U.B. Managing Secretary, Mr. I. H. Boyd.
David Baird brought the matter up at the last executive meeting when discussing capping. Apparently to the annoyance of Boyd the cast were drinking behind stage and in the orchestra pits where Boyd couldn't get at them during the performance.
For most of a long season of 10 nights, Extrav played to packed houses in the University Little Theatre recently. Profits arc unofficially estimated at £300 to £400.
It was reported at the last executive meeting that at the Graduand's Dinner, during the speeches, there was one particular group which frustrated all efforts to keep them quiet and to stop them breaking glasses and jugs.
David Baird said that this particular group's behaviour was disgusting and that it was frustrating the efforts of others and himself to raise the tone of the function.
He said that this group, which included a Professor, was mainly composed of members of the Geology Department. They behaved like louts, particularly the gentleman who performed on top of the table.
Exec, decided to move a motion that a letter be written to the Geology Department, complaining about the behaviour of members of their staff.
Robin Bell, although in full agreement with the motion, refused to move it on the grounds that he was going to Antarctica with these people in the near future.
The letter is going to regret the rowdiness and say that the executive had hoped for a more dignified manner on such a formal occasion.
The U.N. survey team had insufficient information to determine whether the people of British North Borneo wanted to merge with Malaya and Singapore, Professor S. Milne, Professor of Political Science at the University of Singapore, told a recent meeting of the V.U.W. Political Science Society.
Prof. Milne criticised the British for not having held a full referendum in Sarawak and British North Borneo. Public opinion in the Borneo territories was almost non-existent and the basis for most of the U.N. survey team's research had been the elections held early in
But these elections had very little connection with the pros and cons of federation. It was not until several months after the elections, when Britain was trying to produce evidence of public support for the conception of federation, that pro-federation interpretations were read into the election results.
Prof. Milne listed three main reasons for the setting up of Malaysia:
Prof. Milne felt that many Chinese in Malaysia favoured the formation of Malaysia because they regarded it as the lesser of two evils. Although the federation was aimed at preventing the Chinese from gaining too much political power, Maphilindo appeared to be much more of an anti-Chinese organisation.
Speaking on the Malaysian elections. Prof. Milne predicted a slight rise in popularity for Tunku Abdul Rahman's Alliance party. He said the elections were being held about three months early. One possible reason for this was that most of the opposition parties were supporting the Tunku's stand against Indonesia's confrontation policy. With little effective opposition, fewer votes were likely to go to opposition parties.
The Tunku was considered to be above communal differences, and Prof. Milne regarded him as the real unifying force in the multicommunal Alliance party.
"Talk of communal conflict and violence in Malaysia is exaggerated." said Prof. Milne. "Most of the violence in Malaysia is intra-racial, for example, one Chines knifing another, or two British soldiers having a fight."
Prof. Milne believed the motives behind the Philippine's claim to Sabah could be ascribed to President Macapagal's personal interest in the territory, and to an attempt to build up Filipino nationalism. (This involved the Asian concept that one of the requisites for true nationalism was to have a territorial claim.)
When asked for his views on the feasibility of Maphilindo, Prof. Milne said he considered it to have rather obscure aims, and was generally impracticable. One of his objections was the confederation's name: "It sounds too much like a successor to the Bossa Nova."
Ex-Salient stuff member George Andrews, at present studying at a French university, recently learned that contraceptives are illegal in France. He writes:
"Apparently after the first World War so many Frenchmen were killed that the President of the day decreed that henceforth all contraceptives would be illegal—in the hope of rebuilding the nation. De Gaulle still believes that France needs more men so the law still stands. This certainly accounts for the large number of married students that there are here."
Examinations appear to have originated in China in 156 B.C.
They were inaugurated by the Emperor Han Wen Ti. When the Imperial Medical College was inaugurated in the 7th century A.D., it adopted the practice of setting examinations developed at the Imperial University during the preceding centuries.
European medical examinations have been traced back to the physicians of 10th century Baghdad, where the Caliph al-Muqtadir, moved by a death arising from a medical mistake, decreed that the famous physician, Sinan, should examine all would-be practitioners.
Arabic influence on the famous European medical school at Salerno played an important part in communicating the system further west. Arabic-Chinese contacts arose in the 8th century as a result of Islamic expansion, and it is thought that this is how the idea of medical examinations was transmitted from China to Europe.
Mr. Gerry Mills, subject of a recent parliamentary controversy over entry to the Cook Islands has written a description of their history and recent development for Salient. See next issue for the first instalment.
Victoria students appear to be more health conscious than their counterparts in Auckland, Christchurch, and Dunedin.
Dr. Fleming, director of the newly established Student Health Service reports that to date over 600 students have applied for interviews. This compares favourably with the response made in the first year of operation at other universities where the average response was about 250 students. This response was also far greater than expected by the management committee of the Students Association, who were expecting 250 at the outside.
Dr. Fleming reports the service is able to interview approximately 25 students a week, so many students will not yet be notified of their appointment. At this rate he hopes to have completed the interviews by the end of next term, having seen part-timers during the May Vacation. The service is being hindered by students failing to keep their appointments, he added.
Students have the benefit of the service free since the Association provides the facilities, and the Health Department is paying the doctors.
The service is also interested in investigating the living conditions, food, and accommodation of the typical student. Dr. Fleming added the ideal in his eyes is a more extensive system of hostels, with much more adequate regulation of living conditions and standards of food.
At this stage Dr. Fleming said he could not make any concrete observations on the general standard of students' health. He did add however, that in his opinion students would be well advised to take more exercise than they appear to be at the present time.
In conclusion, he added that students who have no regular doctor in Wellington should note that Dr. Gray is available to provide general medical services, with Dr. Fleming as his stand-in when he is not available.
On this classified service page we hope we have provided a full list of the goods and services you will be needing this year. If not, the Advertising Manager welcomes suggestions for services not already mentioned here. First-year students, especially, should find this guide useful.
By shopping with the firms which advertise in Salient you will be returning some of the goodwill they have shown to students.
"Youth should have ideas and be prepared to express them," said Prime Minister Keith Holyoake recently on opening the New Zealand Youth Forum. If youth does have ideas they certainly weren't expressed at the Youth Forum. Conformity and mediocrity were the order of the day! Those with ideas were stifled by the incredible over-representation of church and social workers and the strenuous efforts of leaders to reinforce the 'status quo.'
An air of self-satisfaction pervaded the Forum. This was amateurs again playing at bigtime decision-making, disturbed only at times by efforts at stimulation by 'rapporteurs,' a motion reading 'that this group is concerned that the majority of members of this Forum will be back in the same rut in two week' time'; and the expulsion of Anthony Haas for disturbing the decorum.
The brainchild of 60-year-old Keith Holyoake, the aim of the Forum was for the 'youth of New Zealand to look at itself, at its place in society, and its influence on New Zealand's place in the world . . . lasting and long-term contributions to our youth and our country are sought.'
Members of the Forum tried valiantly and sincerely to realise these aims but were hindered by lack of time—leading to superficiality of topic consideration and generality of findings; and lack of expertise and insight in setting the questions so that groups often had difficulty in deciding what the questions wanted.
Group leaders, directed not to take part in discussions, came up with some valuable ideas when they plucked up the courage to speak out. It is possible that with greater training; in leading group discussion the leaders could have stimulated and provoked the groups into helpful and meaningful findings.
The Forum appeared confused because most Nucleus Group members appointed by the Prime Minister misconstrued the original aim so that all they wanted was to find the present attitude of New Zealand youth, and not what thoughts, ideas and solutions they had for the future. Indeed, the Nucleus Group did their best to 'protect the delegates from new Ideas'—the reason given when senior Political Science student Russell Campbell was refused permission to carry out a survey of opinion.
Key personnel at the Forum included Peter Darracott, Forum Chairman and Assistant General Secretary of YMCA; Don Reisiserer, Nucleus Group member and YMCA organiser; Tom Johnson. Drafting Committee Chairman and Maori Welfare Officer; and Aussie Malcolm. Liaison Officer. Child Welfare Officer and veterar niversity undergrad. Speakers a the Forum included Very Rev. Allan Pyatt, Rev. L. C. Clements. Mr. G. F. Briggs. General Secretary YMCA, and L. C. Cross, sometime/longtime YMCA worker.
It is no wonder that the Forum had a bias, especially when statistics reveal that approximately 25 per cent New Zealand youth is religious, and only six out of 112 were in this category at the Forum. One groun finding on moral value found: "That chastity is the natural state of mankind and therefore should be adhered to as long as possible.' The question may well be asked what fleet this finding will have on the community when well over 80 per cent of people indulge in pre-marital intercourse.
Although students were reasonably well represented numerically at the Forum, all except two o hree illustrated the dominant traits of delegates—in fact they vere remarkably uninformed, generaly inconspicuous and depress ingly lifeless.
Valuable ideas appeared by chance but were so well revised And generalised by the Drafting Committee and ignorant Forun members that they lost all they original emphasis and meaning. The Forum did not want specific findings but generalities, and decried knowledge because it was not representative of youth. This was illustrated in one case where a member was giving reasons for massing a specific motion on a pacific problem. He was informed that the knowledge was too letailed, and that it was not epresentative of New Zealand youth. The motion was not heard.
However, the guest speakers came out with some interesting statements. The Rev. Allan Pyatt stated that sexual intercourse is permissible when there is a certain degree of permanency and security to a relationship. In some cases, therefore, it would seem pre-marital sexual intercourse is permissible. This he did not deny.
D. D. Rowlands, speaker on School and Employment,' made the blatant statement that the higher a person got up the academic and intellectual ladder, the more he tended to regard manual workers as his inferiors. He wanted more specialisation at an earlier age in schools, but the Forum disagreed with him and tended towards a broad general education preparing the individual for living in society and as a basis for his working life. Much emphasis was placed on a 'Design tor Living' course.
The general standard of discussion was surprisingly high, and members handled such concepts as moral values with impressive facility. Some of the most stimulating' views of those few expressed came towards the end of the Forum from the few ex-prisoners and ex-borstal inmates who had been persuaded to attend.
Youth at the Forum wanted to accomplish something, they wanted to set an example to others, but they were all toc ready to pass the buck to the family, the school, or the Government. Forum groups recommended the establishment of a Ministry of Youth, a worthwhile suggestion but cancelled out good suggestions by realising findings such as 'the New Zealand education system is perfectly adequate out New Zealanders can't cope with it.'
One thing about a cage is that it would provide more shelter from vitriolic attack than the pillories that are becoming standard equipment for those Executive members who have the courage to express and maintain their own opinions.
At a recent S.G.M.. students reaffirmed the right of Executive to take a stand on important issues without the expressed consent of the majority of the Association. Yet whenever Executive does take a stand (as in the case of the regrettable incident at Otaki) you complain of a "guided democracy" and use vicious and biased editorial writing to ridicule decisions and besmirch individual names.
Your headlines in the last issue of Salient were "McCarthy comes to Vic—Have we lost our Freedom?" McCarthyism has come to Vic—in the guise of Salient editorial tactics employed to conduct continual witch-hunts against anyone suspected of being even remotely Conservative.
The ill-feeling engendered by the last Salient is irreparable, but nevertheless I wish to point out a few facts (conspicuously absent from the Salient report) concerning my choice of a speaker at Graduands' Dinner.
The question of Mr. Risk e's political affiliations does not and has never interested me. It was raised at the meeting when his name was first suggested, and at that time I approved of the proposed invitation. Why did I change my vote at a subsequent meeting? Not because of a repetition of the political objections, but because at this meeting it was pointed out that Armour Mitchell had just been appointed Chairman of the Appointments Board and thus would be directly concerned with graduates from now on. He has also worked directly for our Association in many capacities (including that of President) and has proved on numerous occasions that he is a competent speaker. I have known and respected him personally for years whereas I knew very little about Mr. Riske either as a person or as a speaker. On these grounds I approved of the deletion of Mr. Riske's name.
Salient carefully neglected to mention that had the motion rejecting Mr. Riske's nomination been carried, a foreshadowed motion that Armour Mitchell be the speaker would have been put. There was at no time any suggestion of banning a speaker! As far as I personally was concerned both Armour Mitchell and Mr Riske could have spoken at Graduands' Dinner. Since I had to make a choice I consider myself perfectly justified in voting as I did.
I always have and always shall vote in the best interests of Victoria, according to the dictates of my intelligence and my conscience—but not of Salient. I object to any attempt on the part of Salient to restrict my freedom in exercising this right. Things have come to a sorry state when it is necessary for an Executive member to answer to a charge of prejudice where absolutely none existed.
The fact that Executive members strive sincerely to cope with a heavy burden of thankless administrative drudgery is invariably ignored by Salient. Effort and industry are not newsworthy—only sensationalism interests your reporters. I realize that politicians are expected to kowtow to the Press, but cannot see why political graft and prevarication should enter into Executive responsibilities.
Salient's war cry has always been "Freedom of the Press" and rightly so but some members of its present staff have lost sight of other freedoms that are sacred, especially the Freedom of Personal Opinion, and the Right to be Reported Correctly. Freedom of the Press should be earned by responsible and ethical journalism not betrayed by immature and emotional journalese.
Salient used to be a responsible newspaper—"An organ of student opinion". It is becoming an irresponsible organ of isolated students' prejudice—the personal weapon of malicious editors.
I did not know that Miss Bene-field had different motives from those of Mr. Baird in supporting the recision motion. I apologise to her for this misrepresentation. The report was, however, shown to Mr. Baird, who did not object to the contents at the time.
My heart bleeds for the hard working and unthanked executive members. From personal experience of an Executive job at another University. I can vouch for the truth of this complaint of Miss Benefield's. Since she is now serving her second term of office on the Executive, it is surprising she did not discover this fact before. So all intending Executive members take heed—do not run for office if you are looking for the heartfelt thanks of the student community.
I supported the move at the S.G.M. to allow Executive to take a stand on important issues, and was glad to see the motion passed. And if the Executive does take stand in a way I consider absolutely indefensible. I will tell you about it in no uncertain terms. When I talk of guided democracy, I am not criticising Executive for taking a stand that does not reflect the views of students 100 per cent. I am complaining of what I think are executive attempts to dictate who shall be allowed to influence student opinion. Executive members sometimes seem completely incapable of seeing the dangers of this for themselves, so others have to tell them. Salient, you will note, does not censor opinions the Editor disagrees with Consistency and standard of writing are the only criteria.
Your charge of witch hunting is a little far fetched. Salient does not hunt witches amongst the general student population as Executive members are sometimes wont to do. It keeps its vitriol and purgatives for those who push themselves into prominence in student affairs, and then expect to be able to do what they like with their newly acquired power. You put yourselves in the stocks when you ran for office. If you have any understanding of your responsibilities, you will expect and welcome criticism, even when it hits you like rotten eggs.
Printed by Truth (N.Z.) Limited, 23-27 Garett Street. Wellington, for the Victoria University of Wellington Students' Association.