Publicly accessible
URL: http://www.nzetc.victoria.ac.nz/collections.html
copyright 2014, 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.
In order to make new content available faster this work has been uploaded but does not have comprehensive name authority mark up for sub-works and corresponding authors. We will endeavour to add this mark up as soon as possible.
If the forthcoming city council elections are to be fought over an issue, then that issue should be housing. It's time the public forced the city council to be more responsible in housing the people, and it's time those councillors who make radical promises about housing are forced to spell out their promises and if elected carry them out.
The Labour Party for instance, has grand objectives:
But how realistic are these proposals? Labour wants to use Government loan money for land purchase and wants to grab hospital land back for housing. This sounds good but in the past Council has had no sway with government over these matters and there is no reason to hope for a change in government policy. A recent example of Government and Council complicity with big business was when council granted a permit for hospital owned land in Newtown to be used for a Yankee chicken bar. In the area of rental housing, Labour promises to 'vigorously enforce City-by-laws on sub-standard rental housing'. Fair enough — so long as the council has the courage to immediately prosecute bad landlords out of business, and so long as council can rehouse any tenant whose house is condemned.
"To have the City Council become the major rental housing authority in the city" sounds impressive, until you find out that this merely means leaning on the government to let the council control state rental housing, and begging the government for funds to buy houses. The government's own record in house buying (and building) is feeble and it is difficult to see how the council is going to alter this.
The Labour policy does make mention of tenants' rights, but since with the exception of accommodation standards this is an area of law (and absence of law) rather than council involvement, most of this can be seen as more vote-catching gimmickry. Overall the policy is idealistic and wholly dependent on government finance, which is about as realistic as pie-in-the-sky.
Even the ideals don't go far enough. For instance there is no mention of the principle that the aim of any responsible administration should be to do away with landlords altogether.
In fact there is little evidence in the Labour policy or for that matter any other policy that any of the candidates are fully aware of the root cause of the housing problem.
As long as housing is regarded not as a basic right but as fair game for profit there will always be exploitation, sub-standard conditions, evictions and all the other related evils of a system that allows a wealthy minority class of parasites to live at the expense of the majority.
Landlords are the first problem and if city councils do not have the power now to take over their businesses then they must acquire that power. In Wellington, of course, there is another problem as well. Too much land is being used for commercial purposes for multi-storied concrete monoliths where there ought to be residential accommodation.
If even a Labour Government does not recognise the basis of the housing problem, then councils must make them realise. This must be the first aim of the council — not merely to beg and request more funds from government, but to demand them and force confrontations with government if necessary. One way to do this would be for the council to use its power to deny building permits. Recently, for instance, the council gave in when it let the US build its monstrous new embassy on what was formerly a beautiful old housing area.
Students, tenants, and all other citizens could well use the current election campaign to highlight housing problems. They should find out whether candidates are tenants, owner-occupiers, or landlords — in fact there should be full disclosure of all candidates property and business interests. Council aspirants must be pressed for details of their policies, so that they later can be held to them.
Some questions of candidates might include whether they will advocate housing development or commercial development; whether they are in favour of income-related rents on all council properties; whether they will increase rates on commercial properties and office blocks to provide more funds for community facilities; whether they will aim for nationalisation of property ownership, and so
The housing crisis needs
Can the council do anything to break this vicious circle? Or is it as powerless as many people already suspect it to be?
The fate of Hunter lies at present with the University Council's Committee on Site and Building Utilization and Development. This is chaired by the deputy principal, Dr Culliford, and includes one student representative — Gyles Beckford — in his post as Chairman of the Union Management Committee.
The site and building committee has been vested with all the powers of the university council, so it has the final decision on the Hunter Building. It is only bound by section 310A of the Municipal Corporations Act which sets the requirements for a building's earthquake resistance. However, this link between the university and the Wellington City Council could serve to make Hunter a local-body election issue, and the support of councillors may be extremely influential.
As is well known, the site and building committee commissioned a report on the condition of Hunter from a team of Auckland architects. They revealed that the building is clearly in a dangerous condition. Previous earthquakes have weakened the exterior, and another major earthquake would seriously damage it, perhaps injuring people in side. The move to demolish the building was started in
The architects list four possible solutions for Hunter:
No accurate quotes are available for any of these solutions and Dr Culliford has recently said that the University Council has never made a detailed estimate of the cost of the third possibility. The committee has called for a report on this, and the result will be made known as soon as possible.
The council have indicated that if it is economically viable, they would very much like to see Hunter strengthened permanently, and its character preserved.
Most students also want this historic and impressive building to remain, if at all possible. One of the most encouraging steps toward preservation was the meeting by the Law Faculty Club on September 5. The motion opposing demolition and advocating action for the preservation of Hunter was overwhelmingly carried.
It was suggested that groups and individuals of influence, interested in the fate of Hunter, should be formally approached for their support. Since then contact has been made with the daily papers, the NZBC the Historic Places Trust, Values Party, the Mayor and leaders of parties contesting the local body elections, and the ombudsman. Their replies will be made known.
Unanimous support was also given to the proposal that all information influencing the council's decisions on Hunter should be released to the public. This has received no response from administrative authorities.
A synopsis of the full report on the structural condition of Hunter Building is available from the studass office.
The last Student Representative Council meeting on September 10, also saw strong support for a motion to preserve Hunter. Peter Wilson pointed out that if it appears Hunter must be pulled down, students should at least press for the preservation of some of the old wooden houses along Kelburn Parade, which are due to be pulled down to make way for the Von Zedlitz Building. In fact, the fate of Hunter is very closely bound up with university council's decision on the proposed Von Zedlitz Building.
To the university council, both buildings represent mainly a problem of money, and it appears that they have tried to sacrifice Hunter to finance the huge and hideous Von Zedlitz.
The council first called for tenders for this in
The figure has now been officially approved, probably as a result of the Hunter report. The government is unlikely to be pressured again into providing finance to retain Hunter.
Yet students must not allow these decisions to be made without at least being aware of them.
Public opinion can be a very powerful weapon in an issue like this, and there is no reason at present to look on Hunter as a lost cause.
The next issue of Salient will report on the outcome of the latest meetings by the site and building committee, the Historic Places Trust, and other interested bodies.
A model of the proposed Gym-Arts Centre complex has recently been placed
There has been very little student
The major point of concern of this
Next year the Union Building Fund will
Today inflation may be pushing up the cost of the complex twice as fast as the amount that the union building fund increases from our $8 each year. This means the best time to start construction is as soon as possible.
Another point regarding finance is the Hunter Building. Most people want it saved but it will take a large amount of money (between $1 million — $5 million) to save it and the government is unlikely to give money to both of these projects in light of the recent $2.9 million grant for the Von Zedlitz Building.
A lot of people have questioned the need for the Arts Centre side of the project. It will make up about one third of the cost. Auckland had an Arts Centre built with government help and it was used a lot for the first couple of years but nowadays gets very little use at all.
There have been years of planning for this project and the only thing stopping an immediate start is finance and student opinion. Before a start was made there would have to be some consensus of student opinion that the project was really wanted. Some people think saving the Hunter Building is more important. Therefore all students should look at the model if they haven't already and discuss it, write letters to Salient and do what you can do to make your views known. I hope we will be able to have a forum on this issue before the end of the year.
National Maori Language Week
The following day saw a two-hour programme of both modern and traditional songs and poetry of the Maori, performed at the Waitangirua Mall. One the same morning, members of Te Reo Maori Society met with the Ministers of Education and Maori Affairs at Parliament Buildings to discuss the Maori language. They presented the submissions which were reprinted in last week's Salient.
On Wednesday, Thursday and Friday, the carved wharenui (meeting house) at Waiwhetu marae was opened to the public and visiting parties were conducted through.
At lunch time on Wednesday the University Union Hall came alive with the sound and sight of haka, action songs, and traditional games presented by Te Reo Maori Society. At one point some elementary language instruction was given, and hundreds of students joined in the singing and followed the actions. The programme also included modern Maori literature, with a reading of some of Hone Tuwhare's latest poems, and a presentation by poet Rowley Habib. The Maori rock band "Alfred Beer" then gave their first University performance. A "Maori Workshop" was opened in the Teachers' Training College on Thursday. This provided demonstration of, and participation in various Maori arts, including taniko weaving, rourou (basket-making), piupiu and kowhaiwhai.
The following day a delegation from Te Reo Maori went to Parliament to talk with the Minister of Broadcasting about the representation of Maori language on television and radio. They proposed that at least 10% of radio and television time be devoted to Maori language, the official language of that percentage of the population.
The society also advocated the establishment of a Maori language TV unit, and a Maori language radio station to broadcast on a national network basis. The society believes Maori people must have access to oral and visual material in their native language, and Pakeha must also be given the opportunity to participate in a truly bi-lingual, bi-cultural society.
These demands were fobbed off by the minister. He recommended that the society make direct approaches to broadcasting programming people and felt they would get a sympathetic hearing from the new directors of broadcasting.
Maori language week came to an end with a hui held in the Maori Room at the Dominion Museum on Saturday. A number of Kaumatua (elders), youth and representatives from various Wellington Maori organisations met to discuss the importance of Maori Language in general and two questions in particular. First was the issue of bi-lingual schooling. The society proposed that in predominantly Maori-speaking areas, all Maori-speaking children should have the right to receive instruction in their official native language for the first three years of schooling. From them on, schooling should be bi-lingual.
Everyone present was asked to sign a letter calling for such bi-lingual schools, to be presented to the Minister of Education and Minister of Maori Affairs.
The meeting discussed a second proposal, that a Central Maori Institute be established in the Wellington region. This would aim to promote Maori language and culture in the Wellington region, and to operate community schools for the general public, with tutors drawn from the Maori community.
A full week then, for proponents of Maori language. And if even a few people get interested enough to learn Maori or to make sure their children learn, then it has been a successful week. For those who already know Maori and for those who are learning, next year the aim will be not so much another Maori Language Week, but a full Maori language year.
The question of Maori Language is particularly important in areas and schools with a high percentage of Maori pupils. In the first half of this century schools had a way of dealing with Maori speaking children. They were caned or strapped for speaking Maori, even in the playground.
The education bulletin The Education of Maori Pupils has this attitude, which is nothing less than a whitewash for assimilationist policies, which attempt to force Maoris to become brown skinned Pakehas and to forego their language.
From parents and elders we know that these practices were widespread. Today they continue in subtler forms and many teachers believe that a knowledge of Maori hampers a pupil's English. Linguistically this is not correct. In fact a child under the age of twelve learns two languages as easily as one. Pupils who are competent in Maori almost always do better in English and all other subjects as well.
Those schools like Hillary College at Otara in Auckland which offer Maori language courses and have Maori clubs, find that the overall achievements of Maori pupils has soared. Learning Maori does not hamper development.
The learning of Maori by Maori and Pakeha can do nothing but benefit all New Zealanders.
Awhinatia. Akona te reo Maori
We have waited a while before publishing this report because the matter was sub judice. The incidents described took place in July, a week or so after a proposed clash between the Mongrel Mob and the Black Power group had been called off In fact, there has been a large measure of peacefulness between the two groups lately. They realise they have a far bigger adversary — the police.
The brief newspaper reports would have readers believe that in the Clarendon Hotel incident for example, there was a brawl going on. There wasn't. Police created one because, as becomes clear below, they are learning new and ruthless riot control tactics and used the Clarendon crowd to practise on. Why do they waste their time on techniques that only provoke resistance, and why must they try and prove people are gang members by battering them about?
At about 9pm on Saturday, July 13, a group of ten or so policemen came into the Clarendon Hotel (corner Taranaki and Manners Street) and looked around. According to people present at the time it was just a typical Saturday night at the pub, a bit of singing, a lot of noise, but neither fighting nor any hint of it.
A group of youths in a corner started singing "Old MacDonald had a farm, e-i-e-i-o" at the sight of the police. They didn't intend to particularly provoke the police, who in turn weren't very troubled by it.
One policeman, however, standing by John Papera Smith (who was not in the group singing) said to John, "I bet they wouldn't say that to my face. John replied by joining in the singing, to the policeman's face. The policeman left.
About ten minutes before 10pm that night about 30 policemen entered the main bar of the Clarendon.
The scene at the time was similar to what it had been on the earlier visit. There was no skylarking, no tension, it was just a crowded but comfortable night at the pub. Most of the people present were young Maoris, but few if any were wearing the insignia of any gang. There were quite a few Europeans in the bar, and as it happened, quite a few people under the legal age.
While 10 or so policemen stationed themselves around the walls, the rest went up to various individuals and told them to leave. Most left immediately. One was John Smith. The policeman said to him "You've had enough, get out". John had been told that before, and, knew that although he wasn't breaking any law, the policeman meant to get him out of the bar. He left without com-plaint, and went into the bottle store. He was served, and a few minutes later he walked out of the bottle store and along the footpath outside the hotel. A policeman jumped in front of him, pushed into him, and said, "You're under arrest."
John said, "What for?"
The cop grabbed him from behind put his arms underneath John's then joined them behind John's head and forced it down, immobilising him. Two other cops grabbed John's legs, and the three carried him off to the paddy wagon. At no time during the arrest or carrying did John struggle. Yet a fourth policeman hit John repeatedly on and about the right eye, and a fifth kneed him in the neck as he was being carried. At some stage during this the cop who had earlier challenged John said, "You're not so tough now."
John was violently thrown in the police van, and with about seven other people was driven to the police station. There, the door was opened, a policeman yelled out John's full name (even though his name had not been mentioned or taken). John emerged from the van and was forcibly propelled into the station. Between the van and the station was a virtual gauntlet of about 10 policemen who kicked and punched John as he passed.
At the station, most of the total of seven who were arrested were put in the same cell. All, according to various witnesses, were manhandled and thrown about during all processes. The cell would open, cops would grab someone, say "You'll do", and haul him off.
One cop noticed that John's eye was severely damaged and puffed up. He asked another cop "Will we take him to hospital?" The other replied "no" and that was the end of it.
John asked one policeman, "What am I charged with?"
"Assault."
"Assault of who?"
"I don't know, we'll find someone."
While he had been carried away to the van, John's eyes had been closed because he was being beaten. To try and identify his assailant(s) he asked, "Who was the cop who was punching me, he sure knew how to punch?"
One cop came up and said, "Oh yeah, it was me." He showed John his hand which was cut and swollen, and said, "Jesus, my hand is nearly as big as your eye!"
Other prisoners were seen to be hurt or damaged, e.g. Kingi Stewart who had a bleeding mouth and another who had had his clothes torn about and left in tatters. During fingerprinting, photographing, questioning, etc., all were pushed and flung around.
The entire process at the station was carried out with ruthless efficiency, the police were obviously prepared for a large influx of prisoners. Normally you wait around for hours if you're arrested. But most arrested on Saturday night were rushed through. "There was no shagging around," said John. "I got the distinct impression they were ready for us."
When John's father was notified of his son's arrest, he went straight to the station. When he asked what John was charged with, a cop behind the desk replied "Assaulting the police," — not a policeman but the police in general. "I'll get the sergeant he assaulted," said the man at the desk — also highly unusual procedure. A tall, heavily built policeman emerged, without a mark on him, only a grin on his face. Mr Smith asked why his son was being held, and the cop replied that it was for assaulting him. "Rubbish," replied Mr Smith.
When he asked if he could bail his son out, the police replied, "No, we'll hold him." Notwithstanding this, he was later freed on bail.
Back at the pub, the whole arresting operation was effected in minutes. Witnesses saw that roads were blocked by traffic cops. Left inside the Clarendon were a few Europeans, and at least a few minors — the police weren't interested in them, only in who they thought were gang members.
Outside the pub the youths were picked off by the police, arrested on a variety of charges, most in a manner similar to John's arrest. There was no brawling, and only a few people put up any show of resisting arrest.
Only one person refused to leave the pub when told by the police. He had just arrived, hadn't had a drink that night, and resented being told that he'd had too much. He was quickly disposed of. Two policemen forced his arms outstretched and back, and a third pushed him from behind.
One witness described the speed and style of the operation as being similar to an Afrikaans commando raid on a shanty town.
A group of youths who were not arrested at the Clarendon made their way across the street. A cop found one of them with a gang insignia on the back of his jacket, he ripped it off, threw it on the road. No one was allowed to pick it up, or cross the road. Another youth was pushed backwards and forwards by the police. Finally he was told that he was under arrest. At this point he started fighting, so he was forcibly carted off.
The group walked towards a coffee bar in Ghuznee Street. Outside it, they were badgered by police in cars and on the footpath. One girl, L., went with some others to wait for friends in the Cuba Mall. She saw a friend being harrassed by police.
They were pushing and punching her. She was walking, but they kept pushing her to make her walk faster, just to irritate her. She went to the ground. They were hitting her on the ground. A man came to her aid, he went down, L. saw police boots coming down
"What for," she asked.
"Obstructing the footpath," said one cop. "Resisting arrest," said another.
She was taken towards the police car. One cop said, "Hurry up and get in the car or I'll hit you."
L. replied, "You hit me and I'll have you up for assault."
The policeman: "You try and prove it "
L.: "Just because you're the law you can't push me around."
At this two policemen already in the car laughed.
L. asked one cop what she was charged with. He replied "Oh I don't know what we'll charge you with."
L. asked later at the station what she was under arrest for. The reply: "One, obscene language." "What's two?" L. asked. "Two — resisting arrest." "Any more charges?" asked L. "Yes, obstructing the footpath." At one stage she had seen a policeman writing her down for only one of the charges.
I asked her whether she swore at all. "What one person did the whole lot did, as far as the police were concerned," she told me.
One witness was in the pub, it was quite peaceful. When the police came in one went up to him and said, "Get outside." Nothing more. "I knew he meant it. I went outside."
On the footpath, another cop came up to him and told him to get up the road 100 yards or he would be pulled in for obstruction.
"He pushed me with two hands on my shoulders, obviously trying to provoke me to hit him. But I didn't. I went up the road.
"I saw Joe being pushed by a cop from behind. Joe said "Hold on, don't push me, I'm going." There was a scuffle and then he was gone — not up the road but into the Black Maria."
Another witness later saw his brother being bailed. One policeman said to another, "What's his charge?"
"Oh, fighting will do."
Kingi Stewart was outside the pub. One of his mates was getting aggressive towards someone so Stewart tried to stop him. The police must have thought they were fighting. They didn't say anything to him, they just carted him off.
All the people arrested were in the big cell at the police station. Kingi had his back to the door. He was wearing a jacket with 'Mongrel Mob' on the back of it. The door was opened by a policeman. One said "He'll do" and grabbed Stewart. They took him out and started hitting him in the corridor.
They took him into the property room, an enclosure about as big as a toilet, and did him over. There were about four of them and they hit him about the face and body. He went down, and they continued to hit him, with their fists. One of his front teeth was snapped in half. His mouth was cut.
"Did you at any stage ask to see a doctor?"
"No, I didn't think about it."
"Did you go to a doctor once you were let out?"
"Nah, it costs too much."
After the police had finished beating Stewart, they let him stand up and took his property off him. While this was being done, Stewart's mouth was filling with blood. He tried to hold it in his mouth for a while, but it became full with blood, and he had to spit it out. So they hit him again, on the face.
When they had taken his property off him he was put in another cell, with only one other person in it. After an hour or so he was taken back into the main cell. He noticed at least two people there with black eyes.
"Why do you think they hit you?"
"Either because of the Mongrel Mob patch on my back, or because I was closest to the door."
"Have you ever been beaten up before in a police station?"
"Yeah, in the Lower Hutt cells, about two years ago."
"Why?"
"I couldn't tell them something." "How many beat you up that time?"
"Just one, but there were a couple more watching."
At 3am on Sunday morning Stewart was bailed out. He asked the police who it was who worked him over. "Probably the shift before us," was the nonchalant reply.
On his bail bond he saw that he was charged with fighting. In court, however, he was charged with obstruction. He first appeared on the Wednesday after the weekend.
"Why do you think they waited till Wednesday to charge you, instead of doing it on the Monday?"
"Probably so the scars and the bruises had gone away."
In the deepest, wettest, southernmost part of South Westland, a mining consortium made up of Cassair Asbestos Corporation of Canada, Kennecott Copper Corp of the USA, and Lime and Marble Ltd of NZ are in the advanced stages of prospecting a large deposit of asbestos ore. They have completed an extensive drilling programme and dug two 60 foot long tunnels into the deposit.
In a recent statement, Mr J.C. Braith-waite, the general manager of Lime & Marble, revealed that if the deposit proved to be a workable one, it could produce $30 million worth of asbestos a year.
Initial development costs would be about $60 million. He said samples were now being analysed in Canada to determine the quality of the fibre.
The Red Hills areas has long been known as a potentially rich source of minerals. During the last century as many as 150 prospectors scoured the area at one time. The red rock forms a belt that runs 50 miles from Jackson Bay in the north to the Hollyford River in the south, and in places it is up to four miles wide. The rock is rich in iron, nickel, copper and chromium, but the yield is too low for commercial exploitation. However, at the boundary of the red rock with the natural rock of the area, asbestos is commonly found. Kennecott, who took over the prospecting rights from Lime and Marble in
In
The activities of the consortium made press headlines last year when they brought a team of bulldozers 60 miles down the coast from Jackson Bay, to build a road from Big Bay to the Pyke River Flats. It cost $250,000 and took five months to get as far as Durward Creek on the Pyke. The bulldozers were then ordered home, though still six miles from the mining site, and the consortium claimed that it was abandoning the road because of the cost. Conservationists were angered at the mess left by the dozers and at the insensitive attitude of the consortium to one of NZ's last great wilderness areas.
Government departments were prodded into action, and a high level meeting was organised between the Mines Dept, Lands And Survey. Forestry and the Ministry for the Environment. A somewhat embarrassed Mr A.P. Thomson, director general of the Forest Service, conceded that "it was a matter of great regret that my officers did not insist on full constraining conditions when authority was sought for the venture". The meeting agreed that a much greater degree of coordination between government departments was necessary, with closer supervision of the consortium's activities in the field. They decided to refuse permission for an airstrip to be built in the Pyke River capable of handling Bristol Freighters, until an environmental impact report had been made. They made it clear, that should mining go ahead, a full environmental impact report would be called for. The consortium was also directed to clean up the piles of empty oil drums left along the road, and to top-dress and oversow with grass any exposed soil.
It appears that Cassiar Explorations will not be active in the Red Hills this summer. But if the analysis now being carried out in Canada proves the deposit to be an economic one, we can "expect in the not too distant future to hear the rumble and roar of bulldozers in the Red Hills. And if Cassiar's British Columbia mine is any guide, the asbestos will be open cast mined. After initial separation at the mine, the ore would be taken by aerial cable way to a mill and township on the Pyke flats, from where the fibre would be graded, and trucked out to a wharf at Big Bay. The waste from the mill would be dumped in a tailings pile. A Christchurch man who has just returned after a year working at Cassiar's B.C. mine told me, "if you're interested in the conservation of the environment, you won't like asbestos mills". He said that windblown dust from the mountainous tailings pile at Cassiar settles on the vegetation for miles around, resulting in a low forest of mangy, stunted trees. The Canadian Government had put pressure on the company to pelletise the trailings, but nothing had been done by the time he left.
Next summer, a team of government scientists and a protest group are planning expeditions into the Red Hills. The government group is made up of scientists and civil servants from the Dsir, universities, and the Lands and Survey Dept.
The protest will take the form of a familiarisation tour of the general area, but particularly the mine site and the prospecting camp (which has been vested in Forest Service control for this season, and will be available for public use). Because of the difficult nature of the country only experienced trampers will be able to take part. The protest is being organised by the Campaign Against Foreign Control in NZ, Box 2258, Christchurch, and will take place during the last two weeks of February, with everyone meeting up at the mine site on Sunday 23 and Monday 24 February. The focus of the protest will be the foreign-dominated nature of the mining consortium. If mining goes ahead the consortium plans to regroup itself under a new name. New Zealand Asbestos Ltd, with Kennecott and Cassiar holding one million shares each, and Lime and Marble having the right to purchase 324, 581 shares. The protest group will also press for the inclusion of the Red Hills area into Mt Aspiring National Park (which it borders) and for the preservation of the surrounding country as a wilderness area. They are demanding that the asbestos be left in the ground and the Red Hills preserved in their natural state for posterity.
(More detailed information on the protest will be published in Salient shortly.)
Education, like all parts of the system, is designed to meet the needs of the system. Science education is no exception to this. From it is demanded the production of a series of intellectual cogs. Cogs which will work on the problems without attempting to question anything other than the scientific rationale behind the problems. Science and technology are treated as tools. They are means to ends in the capitalist (or indeed any) system. At the same time they are set apart from the rest of society by virtue of the special quality of objectivity which characterises their knowledge. They can thus be used as a shelter behind which political decisions can be made which are justified by reference to this objectivity. There is a very real danger that an apparent technocracy may emerge on the basis of this. (A technocracy is a society ruled by scientists and technologists).
How does science education produce the cogs which will fit happily into this wheel? It does it mainly by systematically excluding from their education anything which might lead or allow them to question the status quo. They can be, and must be critical in the conduct of their science, in order that its standards can be preserved. What they cannot be is critical of the context in which this science takes place.
Thus science students are taught in such a way that they have little opportunity to develop their wider critical faculties. Science education consists of learning and understanding a series of "facts" presented by teachers. The wider social political and philosophical context of these facts is never discussed.
Via this dogmatic tradition a particular philosophy about the nature of knowledge is passed, on to the student without his realising it. He is taught that scientific knowledge is "objective", that the world exists out there, that it can only be known by the use of the scientific method. We can only understand the true nature of a particular phenomenon if we approach its study scientifically. The logic of the scientific method is, of course, beyond question. It is presented as the only, almost as a "God-given" way of knowing.
What an education in science doesn't teach students is that this previous methodology is a relatively recent idea developed by, among others, a certain Francis Bacon in the sixteenth century. It doesn't teach them that alternative philosophies about the nature of scientific knowledge exist. Philosophies which do not necessarily suggest that scientific knowledge is absolute in some sense, that its laws apply over time and space, that the rules by which it is discoverable are fixed and that its content is not influenced by the context in which it appeared.
An example of an alternative philosophy is that found in the work of T.S. Kuhn. Kuhn challenges the idea that science proceeds in a cumulative linear fashion. He suggests instead that science proceeds in terms of a succession of what he labels paradigms. A paradigm can perhaps be described as an all-encompassing theoretical and methodological framework within which all the activity in a particular area will be conducted. It provides a complete world view. While a particular paradigm is being used, scientists cannot conceive of another way of approaching the study of the phenomena with which it is concerned. How then does science advance, how are paradigms changed? Kuhn suggests that as a paradigm is being explored, events occur which it cannot explain. These he calls anomalies. These grow in number and significance over time and in the end their resolution becomes the dominant concern of activity in the area. There are no clearly identifiable and definable rules which prescribe bow this process should occur. The problems are resolved by the emergence of a new paradigm. The new paradigm will be able to explain everything the old paradigm explained plus the anomalies. There are no rules either which govern the emergence and acceptance of the new paradigm. It is usually produced by an individual new to the area or peripheral to it, i.e., by somebody who is not so saturated in the dogma that he cannot see outside it. Initially there will be a struggle between the old and the new paradigms. The struggle will be a subjective struggle for individuals and some may never accept the new paradigm.
Kuhn's work has attracted a great deal of attention from philosophers of science and social scientists. It presents a challenge to the orthodoxy. He has argued that a subjective element is involved in the discovery of knowledge, that knowledge is paradigm-bound rather than absolute in some sense and so on. Regardless of a discussion of its merits and demerits his work has been largely ignored by the scientific community.
Through our education we are made such salves of the objective consciousness (see Roszak) that we cannot seriously consider challenges to it let alone contemplate alternative ways of knowing. Thus Uri Geller must be a fraud because a scientific explanation of his activities cannot be produced.
Science education also persuades its victims that their work and knowledge is outside the realm of values. In so doing it is elitist since it seeks to persuade scientists that they are a special group with special responsibilities by virtue of this. They are taught that scientific knowledge because of the way it is discovered is not tainted by values or influenced by ideology like other knowledge. Science alone is concerned with an absolute. Creating this belief among scientists removes from them any concern they may have had about the use or role of science in society. The myth of the neutrality of science. It means that scientists do not perceive a role for themselves in policy-making and decision-taking. These areas are tainted by values. Science is not, and therefore the scientists' role is merely to provide facts which may help the decision-makers to reach their decisions.
Science education, not surprisingly, makes no attempt to examine the influences of values in science itself. The answer a scientist gets reflects the question he has asked. Different questions elicit different answers. These answers must be evaluated. How? This is not presented as an issue.
Students are not shown how the dominant value system at any one time and its particular concerns influence the nature of scientific activity. For example, take the current approach to the study of population dynamics in ecology. It is based on economic entomology and the control of pests. The theories centre on the idea of competition between and within species, and on the production of models, to predict fluctuations. The necessity for pest control arises from artificial situations yet this determines the way the issue is approached. The way the questions will be asked. Our economic system has created both the problem and the approach to the answer. A more radical and comprehensive approach would deal with the true diversity of natural populations and dispel the paradoxes of the competitive approach.
Thus science education systematically brainwashes people into believing that there is but one way of knowing: one methodology, one truth. In so doing it produces the kind of uncritical cogs the system needs.
The beliefs so far discussed also have wider implications. The ideas that science and scientists are natural and that scientific knowledge is objective have allowed the cult of the expert to develop. We are told that "scientists have proved that....." and who are we, mere mortals, to challenge these giants. The sheer complexity of most scientific and technological activity today means that the majority of people understand almost nothing about it. They are bedazzled by its jargon and its flashy achievements (like men leaping about on the moon — a stunt which Walt Disney could have staged more effectively). In the face of this power people are willing to cower before the altar of science. Since the expert, is after all, the one who knows best (because he has the monopoly on objectivity) he cannot be challenged. Decisions backed by his judgement cannot be challenged either. An apparent technocracy may emerge with all the accompanying daggers of totalitarian rule, apparent because it will be controlled by the ruling class).
What action can we, as radical scientists and technologists, take against oppression of this kind? The obvious answer is to change the system to change the context in which science takes place, to change the nature of education, to change the role of science and its practitioners. Given, however, that we can't do this overnight, what else can we do?
Those of us involved in science education can try to expose our students to some of the ideas which they would not normally have the opportunity to confront. We can challenge the objectivity of science, we can expose its value dimension.
These involved in the practice of science can do two things. They can attempt to identify the influences on their own work and in doing so formulate alternative approaches to the issues in question. Different questions will produce different answers. They can also make their work more accessible to people. Science doesn't have to be esoteric and incomprehensible, it can be explained to the layman. Scientists should recognise that they belong to the same species as the rest of mankind. In so doing the cult of the expert can be challenged. In this context the advent of critical science is to be welcomed. This involves challenging the "experts". Barry Commoner, for example, challenged the experts who said that Lake Erie was dying as a result of the natural aging process which all water-systems experience and showed instead that its problem was that it was polluted. We can set up alternative research projects which ask different questions of the phenomena the "experts" are investigating, and which may produce different answers. More "critical science" of the Commoner variety will be a powerful weapon in the fight against the technocratic tendencies of our society.
Text of an address delivered by Trevor Richards, National Chairman of the Halt All Racist Tours Movement, Saturday, September 14, to a conference in Christchurch organised by the Christchurch Committee on Southern Africa.
It is well known that there exists in New Zealand a pro-apartheid lobby, composed of a few disgruntled people who found themselves unable to come to grips with the twentieth century. The claims made by these individuals in their attempts to defend both apartheid and contact with teams selected on the basis of that system often mirror the official handouts from the South African Consulate in Wellington, and their activities clearly lack public support. The various pro-apartheid groups have been until now nothing other than of minor irritant value. Their activities have certainly in no way set back the growth of the anti-apartheid movement in this country — if anything, their presence has assisted the growth of our movement.
This situation however has changed over the last few months. In their activities, and in particular the activities of Ward (War Against Recreational Disruption), a situation has been created which causes me considerable distress. It is not that New Zealanders have suddenly gone mad, and are flocking to the banner of these pro-apartheid groups. In terms of their activities in New Zealand, Ward, SAFA and other similar groups are still the same as they were a year ago. What does concern me greatly about the activities of Ward, is that as a direct result of its activities, it is responsible for severe pressure being placed on black and coloured sports administrators and sportsmen inside South Africa. In their frenzy to win debating here in New Zealand, Ward has placed in jeopardy the security and future of many South African sportsmen.
They have dreamed up a desperate ploy, aimed at shoring up their diminishing support. In so doing, they have introduced a whole new dimension into the debate. It is this new dimension I would now like to examine.
When Mr Fenton of WARP was in South Africa at the beginning of the year as guest of the deceitfully named pro-apartheid sports group — the Committee for Fairness in Sport — he was quoted in The Evening Post (
Four weeks elapsed and there was no sign of any report. I wrote to Ward and asked when the report was to be released. In time Mr Fenton replied, stating that he was waiting for more information. No date was given as to when the report would be released As time passed and no report arrived, I eventually gave up all hope of ever seeing this powerful document. That was, until a week ago.
A week ago I received newspaper clippings in the mail from South Africa revealing what had happened to Mr Fenton's report. Black and Coloured South African sports administrators were being approached by officers of the South African Government Ministry of Sport and asked to sign the Ward document. (Daily News
What Mr Fenton has done, in a vain attempt to dress up Ward's pro-apartheid case in some brief authority, is to jeopardize both the future and the security of sports administrators and sportsmen. It is well known that sports administrators who do not toe the Government line are constantly harrassed, at times to the point of having their passports removed and being placed under banning orders. If Mr Fenton knew anything about the nature of apartheid he would have known that this document could only cause suffering to many sporting figures in the Republic. If he did not know that officials from the Ministry of Sport would actively involve them-selves in pushing this document, I can only say that it is poor consolation to sporting figures to know that the pressure they are being placed under is the result not of Mr Fenton's heartlessness, but of his naivety.
What evidence have we to indicate that pressure is being applied to these administrators in an effort to get them to sign the document? The short answer is that you will all see the evidence in the apartheid system itself, and in the way in which it is enforced.
The South African Government is fighting an internal war against those of its citizens who do not accept and following full Government apartheid policies. This war is not against "terrorists", but against clergymen, bishops, teachers, students, sportsmen, against legitimately constituted organisations whose only crime is that they are opposed to Government policy. The war is rough and brutal. It is fought in all arenas, including the sports field. In the past, many of the casualties of the war have been sportsmen — people who have had the courage to question apartheid sport and the determination to introduce non-racial sport — people like Hassa Howa, who had his passport removed when it was known that he was to travel to London to address the Imperial Cricket Conference. People like Morgan Naidoo, who has been served with banning orders because he dared to expose racism in South African swimming at a time when South Africa's membership of the international swimming association Fina was under review.
The war is conducted at all levels, and involves all Government agencies, including the Ministry of Sport. To deny that pressure is placed on sportsmen opposed, either in part or in full to apartheid sport, is to deny the existence of Mass Howa, Morgan Naidoo and others.
To maintain that no pressure would be placed on sportsmen who refuse to sign Wards document is to deny all the evidence. The Pressure would probably not be overt; it would be psychological Increased security service surveillance — the car at the end of the street, sitting, waiting, watching; increased tampering with their mail; damage mysteriously happening to their property; the thought that, like Morgan Naidoo and Hassa Howa, one day perhaps they too will find themselves banned, jailed. From discussions that I have had with many South Africans I know only too well the pressures Mr Fentons document will be placing on the many who are refusing to sign it.
To suggest that all of this has changed, that the South African Government is now much more enlightened, is to make the most fundamental error of them all. What change is there in a system which, as reported on Wednesday, fines a white woman R400 for murdering a black boy she found raiding her orchard.
What has been the attitude of black and coloured sportsmen and administrators to "Leading non-racial sports administrators yesterday slammed the declaration.... Mr M.N. Pather, secretary of the S.A. Council on Sport said "Sports administrators penning their signatures to a document in which they declare that 'a true spirit of cooperation exists in South Africa between the sportsmen in this country where racial discrimination is to be found only in isolated instances' do so knowing full well that it is a distortion of the truth. We reject this unholy alliance and condemn most vehemently propaganda of this nature designed for overseas consumption." "The declaration was also condemned by Mr Abdullah Khan, President of the Durban Cricket Union; Mr R.K. Naidoo, President of the Federation Professional League; Mr Norman Middleton, President of the South African Soccer Federation."Ward's document? The Durban Sunday Times (
Since then others have condemned the document. Despite all of this, Mr Fenton was blithely able to inform Terry McLean in the New Zealand Herald (Care and Hart'. Mr Fenton must have walked around South Africa with his eyes shut and his ears closed.
It would seem that in addition to the document being heavily criticised, serious doubts can be expressed about some of the signatures that do appear on the document. The "The President of the South African Soccer Association (Indian) Mr Y.C. Meer, said today he did not agree with much of the contents of a secret document being circulated among black sports administrators.....Mr Meer said that he did not know how his name got on the document, but he might have "foolishly" signed it.....in a statement Mr Meer said he would not be a party to the document because he did not agree with it. Although I might have signed this document, I was foolish, and I want to dis-associate "myself with much of the contents of the document."Durban Daily News (
And I wonder how many other people who have signed the document have since had second thoughts and regrets?
Initially it was difficult to understand why the report was taking so long to be released. Mr Fenton came back from South Africa six months ago figuratively waving his report like a Neville Chamberlain back from Munich. As time wore on, and this document failed to appear, it became obvious that the reason why this document was taking so long to arrive was because officials were having trouble finding anyone to sign it.
What of the document itself? Apart from all of the reasons which lead me to condemn this document, what validity do the contents of this document itself have?
I have received a photo copy of the report from South Africa. In general terms I think that we should be suspicious of a document The Evening Post (Hart is in the process at the moment of writing a critique of this document, and this will be forwarded to Government and other interested bodies in the immediate future. Our report will not be a secret, and will be available to anyone who wants it.
The most telling comment about the Ward document that can be made is that Dr Koornhoff was "delighted" with it. Mr Fenton should realise that he is being used as a tool of the South African government in their attempts to get apartheid sport back into the international sports arena. The document is designed to bear the signatures of those black and coloured sportsmen who accept apartheid sport — the stooges who are in some instances affiliated to white bodies on a subservient basis. The report follows so closely the official Government line that there are several sections of the report which even these stooges themselves would find difficulty in agreeing with.
While Ward was galloping off around Hawkes Bay, charging at windmills, there was little harm that could be done. The situation now however has changed. In South Africa Ward has become a menance to all those who struggling to achieve justice and equality on the sporting field. The people of South Africa, black and white, will win their fight against the oppression of apartheid. Organisations like Ward make it just that little bit more difficult.
On September 10 the so-called "NZMSA Executive Council" purported to make a press statement on behalf of all Malaysian students in NZ, which was reported in the Wellington Evening Post viz: "The newly formed NZ Malaysian Executive Council does not support demonstration tactics over political issues".
Four days later, on September 14, at the AGM of the VUMSA this was over whelmingly rejected in a motion passed calling for the MSA to disassociate itself with the statement as it was not in their interest.
Further, a motion was moved by L.C. Goh strongly condemning the "secretive and undemocratic manner" in which the VUMSA executive committee acted in forming the "Executive Council".
These two motions are indicative of the mood of the members of VUMSA who did not altogether support the arbitrary actions of the executive members over contentious issues. This feeling was further reinforced by the election results held on the same day: Steven Oh — 78. Robert Pui — 77, David Cheung — 10. Lawrence Poh — 3.
Although Robert Pui missed out by one vote, he has the backing of 77 members and many more Malaysians who are not members of MSA because of his part in the campaign for democratic rights for Malaysian students, here and at home. He was criticised for his views by some members, who disagreed with this 'tactics', which have so far been to speak out and demonstrate against the Malaysian High Commission. Steven Oh in his election speech promised to take a similar stand but has never taken part in any debates over Malaysian issues in the last few months. His sincerity must therefore be doubted.
The majority of one vote gamed by him shows that the MSA does not represent the majority of its members on political issues. Those voting for Steven Oh voted for a conservative approach foisted on them by an amendment to the association's constitution: that the association seeks to maintain liaison with the home government. Steven Oh was the
The last VUMSA Committee acted incompetently and indecisively over important issues concerning Malaysians. It has further acted in a secretive manner in helping to form the 'executive council' The legality of this is expected to be questioned in court by a group of Malaysians on the basis that members of the association were never consulted. The formation of this body was already proposed in May but the VUMSA committee never called a general meeting to discuss the proposal.
In amending the constitution the executive members also failed to give notice of its intention to the members. This was only revealed at the AGM. It is also expected to be questioned in court.
A lot of the members did not receive, notice of the AGM. This undemocratic action is similar to the tactics used by the ruling party in Malaysia to maintain its position in the [The Dominion
It is quite clear that the proxy system introduced this year by an amendment to the constitution was a ploy to strengthen the pro-MSA conservatives in the election. Many absent members could have enjoyed this right but were not informed. Hence the right to vote by proxy must be questioned.
The ballot paper itself did not bear the MSA seal lt could have been easily duplicated by unscrupulous members especially when it was distributed three hours before the election.
One member pointed out the ballot paper for vice president could be used for voting the president because one could tear off the word 'vice' and use it as an additional ballot for voting for president. The validity of the ballot paper is very questionable.
Hence, the poor publicity for the AGM, the questionable right to vote by proxy, the dubious ballot paper itself, all these go a long way to show that the whole AGM is under suspicion. Consequently the validity of the election must be challenged. Moreover, at the second counting there was only a difference of one vote between Steven Oh and Robert Pui. Perhaps, if there was to be a third counting, the difference would have been levelled to
Many students left the meeting in disgust after the announcement of the results for the president was made. As a result of this. Steven Oh's fellow committee members were elected by default.
The conduct of the previous VUMSA committee mutt be described as undesirable and undemocratic in the conducting of the association's affairs.
Right from the moment a Malaysian student enters New Zealand, he is spied on and sternly warned to steer clear of politics. He will face ill consequences if he ignores these commandments. There are cases of students who have been deported back home under the guise of failing the academic requirements. This surveillance and intimidation by the Malaysian government has been exposed with the recent arbitrary arrests of Khoo Ee Liam and Wong Siong Seng.
We, as Malaysian students are now faced with the question of our political freedom and democratic rights. Should we, in view of this suppression and deprivation of freedom, remain docile and apathetic with an attitude of indifference and let this scar of suppression deepen from generation to generation? Or should we all unite to protest against the injustice and fight to protect our basic human rights? Let us all remember that in time of struggle, to fight is to survive and not to fight is to perish.
NZUSA has initiated the move to fight for our democratic freedom. The campaign has won whole-hearted support from Malaysian students in the form of congratulatory letters of encouragement, financial contributions and enthusiastic participation in the forums and conference held. This campaign is a stepping stone in the history of Malaysian students in NZ — no more do they hide themselves in the library, away from the outside world. More and more of them are beginning to be concerned with the ever-rising suppression and intimidation of the Malaysian Government. But even in this time of protest and response from fellow Malaysian students, there are some factions like the Auckland MSA president who conclude that demonstrations are useless and will only lead to suppression from the government. (He quoted for example the implementation of the Malay language test requirement). But he refused to recognise that it is suppression that provokes protest and not protest that results in suppression.
The conference on Malaysian on August 31 was a great success. No one has yet come out to oppose or deny the significance of holding such a conference. The active participation and warm applause expressed the support of the 300 people present at the conference. Among them were many strange faces (Malaysians) who probably came from other centres throughout NZ. Both Dr Vasil and Mr Frank Tay provided some valuable information and insights into the political and economic situations back home. Their analysis aroused interesting discussion and Malaysians and New Zealanders alike, came out better informed and enlightened. The only disappointment in the conference was that the Malaysian Student Union leader, Hishammuddin Rais who was scheduled to speak, could not be present.
On the issue of demonstrations, there are some differing views. The newly formed MSA National Executive Council (formed without consultation with members, by a handful of MSA bureaucrats) came out against the demonstration organised by NZUSA However, they claimed they 'support' NZUSA's campaign for democratic rights for Malaysian students and NZUSA's demand for the release of Khoo. The two fundamental questions in arguing for or against demonstrations are: Is there a better alternative? What can be achieved by demonstrations and picketing and what have they achieved?
The first question: What other alternative is open to us? MSA Executive Council talked of doing things through the proper channels and what have they done so far? They wrote a single letter to the High Commission and are still waiting for a reply Khoo's case was publicised and created an uproar throughout NZ, four months ago. With Khoo arrested and jailed, our most fundamental democratic rights and freedoms are threatened. MSA, who always claims to represent the interest of Malaysian students in this country, have until now done practically nothing to fight for these rights. NZUSA tried the 'proper channels' at the very beginning, when Khoo's case first came to light in NZ. 'Proper channels' require dialogue and co-operation by both sides. But the response from the Malaysian authorities was rejection and snubbing. A senior NZUSA officer, David Cuthbert, went to Kuala Lumpur early this year and tried to talk to the authorities concerned. He was turned down despite the efforts he made and sincere concern he had shown. NZUSA International Vice-President. Mr Alick Shaw, tried on numerous occasions to contact the ex-High Commissioner to NZ. Jack de Silva, about Khoo's case, but he too was rudely ignored. Many letters and petitions from all social sectors were sent, and all were either rejected or simply received no reply. All this is very clear evidence that the Malaysian authorities just won't co-operate. The 'proper channels' have been tried, but there is no entrance into the channel.
Confronted with such circumstances we are forced to take the other alternative, to demand that our voice be heard. But what could be achieved by taking to the street?
Demonstration is an effective means to protest against suppression: to demand our democratic rights, to voice our grievances to the NZ public and infrom them of our plight, and to tell the world what is happening in our country today. All people seeking justice will come out in support of our cause. There are many prominent groups and individuals that have expressed concern and support for our just demands. This support from the NZ public is itself a very great pressure on the home government. The protest has drawn international attention and exposed the fascist nature of the Razak government and its suppressive laws. A very significant instance is the dropping of the three charges against Khoo for activities while he was a student in Australia and NZ. These absurd charges were not dropped for nothing. It was done because of strong public protest against them. Hence, the significance and necessity of publicity is undeniable.
The struggle in NZ is not isolated. Demonstrations have also taken place in Canberra, Sydney and Melbourne, for the release of Khoo and an end to surveillance and intimidation against Malaysian students there.
This is also in conjunction with the current wave of protests and demonstrations back home. In Malaysia demonstrations are on a large scale. Thousands of students take to the streets to protest against the University and College Act which denies students the right to participate in political activities. Thousands of Mara students marched to Parliament House to demand that their qualifications be recognised as equivalent to university degrees. Hundreds of them were arrested. In Singapore, students organised a large campaign throughout the Island against the rise in bus fares, a crucial means of transport for most students and the ordinary workers. It means an extra burden to the Singaporean people who already face soaring inflation. Tens of thousands of people from all walks of life signed a petition against the rise in fares.
What prompted the students at home to come out in protest, especially in a situation where suppression and intimidation is so much more severe compared to that here in NZ of Australia? (Fascist authorities and police in Malaysian make no attempt to cover their naked brutality) What is the invisible force which makes them so courageous? It is their staunch belief that truth and justice can never be cowed by suppression and brutality. They realise that oppression must be met with persistant reaction, not docile conformity. They are confident that the majority of people are standing behind them. And they are confident they will succeed in the end.
What is the result so far? The majority of Malaysian students have taken a common stand, demanding in solidarity our just democratic rights. However we need greater unity to form a strong front. Although the MSA NEC said they support the NZUSA, their attitude and stand during the forum (August 30) and conference (August 31) is questionable. The impression was that the MSA NEC opposed the campaign of NZUSA. If MSA NEC is fighting for our interests, it must substantiate its words with some positive actions.
We know what we are doing today is right and necessary. What we are able to achieve now may be insignificant, but this is the first step. And it is gathering support and momentum. Our fight here is only a minor but essential part in the struggle, the major role will be played by the people back home. Malaysians of all races must unite in firm solidarity with our New Zealand friends to continue the struggle for democratic freedom!
Teaching means helping students to learn for themselves. For this task we need teachers who are well equipped academically and who are able to stimulate young minds. If you think you have the necessary qualifications, contact the Careers Advisory Officer, or local education board for further information.
Here is a career that uses your knowledge; a career with probably more job satisfaction than any other. A career in which your academic, artistic and sporting interests can be used to the full.
Teaching offers permanent lifetime employment in a service that's vitally important to the future. It offers variety and scope for initiative. It offers freedom to develop special interests, and real opportunities for advancement and self-improvement.
Then there's the generous salary scales and the payment while you train. And the long holidays.
Secondary teachers usually specialise in a subject or group of subjects. English, science, maths, languages, social studies, art, music, physical education, homecraft, commercial subjects, woodwork and metal work, or agriculture. Some teachers undertake special responsibilities in connection with school libraries, or as careers advisers. Others specialise in' the expanding field of guidance counselling, while a few become child welfare officers, or education officers in the armed forces. There are opportunities, too, in teachers' colleges and in the secondary inspectorate.
If you have a university degree, there is a 1 -year teacher training course. Allowances:
If you have an incomplete degree, you can continue your university study whilst teacher training in Division B (training allowances are the same as for Primary) or get financial assistance to complete your degree full time, then do teacher training, with a Secondary Teacher Studentship (Division U).
Basic Salary Scales at
If eligible, a married allowance of $140 is paid. Higher rates are paid for positions of responsibility. In secondary schools with rolls in excess of 850 pupils, the basic salaries for Principals and Deputy Principals are:
If you have a university degree, or part of one, you are eligible for primary teacher training in Division A. For graduates, the 3-year college course may be reduced to 1 year. For undergraduates with five or more units, the course may be reduced to 2 years.
Non-graduates
20 — over
Basic Salary Scales at
As you study this basic scale, keep the following in mind :
For further information see the Careers Advisory Officer, or contact the Education Board or Department of Education. Applications close 20 November, although late applications may be considered.
Amamus' latest production 'Gallipoli' began last weekend and will continue for the next two weekends. It is, quite simply, the most powerful piece of theatre I have seen here this year. I would recommend that everyone who can see it, (especially anyone who is bored, unhappy, dissatisfied with things as they are) should see it. There are not many performances and a very small house — even smaller than Unity usually is — so the first will be the lucky.
I say the 'most powerful piece....'; before I begin to give that statement the qualification it needs, I must emphasise that this is a different kind of theatre from anything else around at the moment. With Theatre Action at present and hopefully reconstituting itself and Auckland's Living Theatre in temporary or permanant dissolution, Amamus can claim to be the only experimental theatre group at present performing in NZ. And some of the force that 'Gallipoli' has is derived from this fact. It's not that the group sets out to startle or shock the audience with avant-garde pretension. But they are working inside a different kind of space and they invite the audience into that working space, rather than sitting them outside as onlookers. As soon as one enters the square canvas rectangle which is both stage and auditorium, one is aware of a new freedom, one feels the expectancy that comes from a lack of precise and comfortable expectations. It is the setting for an event not for a performance. People file in and seated in various degrees of comfort in a circle around the square. It is impossible to avoid each other, impossible not to attend to the action when it comes. I mention further details like the bright house lights and the lack of costumes and props only to emphasise again how close we as audience were allowed to the event, how our reactions were taken into account.
'Gallipoli', as one of the cast said, was the first time NZers felt themselves to have gained some identity in a European context. It was a coming of age and a trial by fire. Now, if we do not use it as an excuse for sentimental indulgence, we regard the very many and familiar attitudes and emotions which surround it as somewhat contemptible cliches. Neither sentiment nor cliche is a promising beginning for a piece of serious and non-satirical theatre. Yet 'Gallipoli' takes on the difficult task of dealing with both and thereby constructs a third entrance into that bit of our past It is at once more harrowing and more honest; the attempt is to discover and actualise the psychological components behind the event and the ways we regard the event. To find, beyond sentiment, the psychological correlative that explains the cliche. The immediate analogy, faced with the actual show, is with psycho-drama as practised in therapy situations — but with the difference that Amamus are not so much exploring their own hang-ups as those of a nation and a culture. The amazing thing is, they accomplish the exploration without arrogance, without posturing or naive pity for Kiwi and his mates. And this can only be because the obsessions they discover in the culture, they also find in themselves as individuals. The major factor in the power of the show, is that through it the audience can realise its own undeniable part in the tangled emotion and half-acknowledged suffering.
The plot, such as it is, does not bear mention. It is important only as a vehicle for what I have called the emotional correlative. In the story of Kiwi what we need to realise is the attitudes he has and the reasons — historical, cultural, local or personal — behind those attitudes. There is a fine line between knocking the shit out of your Kiwi gent and getting him there, in the theatre, straight and honest. This production almost always stays on the right side of that line and does it through group effort, not individual performance. I mean, I do not want to single out particular characters and names — it is the group and the effort that matters. And the amount of effort that goes into a very short play is almost incredible; if it were not so convinced and so controlled you might think that six hysterical maniacs had escaped to a public forum.
'Gallipoli' is not so much frantic as urgent. What criticisms I do have to make arise from the need to sacrifice certain niceties, fine points, to the pace and overall intensity. Bits of what sounded like a very competant working script got lost in the action; at various times I wanted to consider what was said at leisure; it was simply not possible to absorb everything. I felt, too, that some of the movement became a little stereotyped as the production progressed — but these are minor points. The thing I was least happy with was the opening scene where we see the cast out of their heads on some drug or other and deciding to play the game which is 'Gallipoli'. It did not seem necessary, it was rather precious
If I have not said with any certainty what actually happens, it is deliberate. For two reasons: first because in a very real (and not derogatory) sense it is a matter of opinion. I did not see it as the gloss in the programme interpreted and I was given the right to reject that summary. Second, it is a production to be seen not talked about. I took it very personally for I was confronted with a kind of shorthand summary of my past inside a similar shorthand of what this country has been and is about. I saw in the figure of Kiwi all the narrow-mindedness, the gauche insecurity — especially sexual insecurity — the false ideals and nostalgic sentimentality, the fascist undertow we are all to a greater or lesser extent heirs to. As he lay dead at the end I could not reject him and what he stood for, because he was too like myself. It was odd, but no surprise to hear people afterwards talking of where they were born and brought up. I am not exaggerating when I say I experienced a kind of culture-shock at 'Gallipoli', a nexus of half-explained emotion and partly comprehended truths. The culture I had come across was, of course, my own. It was a rare and valuable experience.
Take a hunk of the landscape, a heaped shovel of the attitudes and prejudices of the populous, mix it well with booze, pour it out, and you have a poem.....by Dennis Glover, With a little bit of luck, and more mixing, the end product could even be a piece of prose, or, to the amazement of Glover fans, an original art work.
Times have changed, times are changing, times will go on changing, but never will it be so great as to be inexpressible by the imagination of Glover. In this anthology Glover has the universe dancing to his tune, be it the 'Pocky Cracked Old Moon' or any other heavenly body that attracts his cynical amusement, as well as the public servant with the only thing to look forward to being the 'bosses secretary's behind'.
Glover's cynicism isn't limited to the skys, and wandering eyes of people; the mighty ships and windy politicians as well as the notorious Smith of Rhodesia all come under his hammer of condemnation.
The geographical regions Glover knows are caught by his sensitivity and frozen in a poem much the same way as the Turnbull Library has the Glover family frozen in a photograph forever. Yet whereas the Glover family is stiff and formal in their eternal pose, the poems throb will far out live the man. Lake Manapouri and Wellington aren't just place names on the map, they are borders encasing memories, thoughts, and emotions of a man.
'Wellington on a Wet Sunday' communicates the squalid beauty of a city of which it is said 'Earth has not anything to show less fair'. In this bitter sonnet Wellington is paradoxically transformed from a locality to a living entity with 'all those mighty mortgages lying still'.
Glover is not given totally to political satire, or landscape painting with words. In his imagination there lives some of the most sensitive love poems of our time. 'This to Lyn', 'Towards a Piece of Verse' and "This for My Lyn' are among some in this anthology. These poems do not have the customary Moves labour lost' theme, but rather the permanency of a lifetime love affair. And what more can a man give to a cause than a lifetime?
Roald Dahl, whose short stories have only recently attracted New Zealand readers, possesses an extraordinary, comic imagination and a gift for creating tension and suspense. His easy, flowing style enables us to slip into the story with absolutely no effort at all, and before we know it we are caught up in a tale impossible to put down until the end. "Someone Like You" contains fifteen such tales, all very different yet similar in their art of enthralling. Many of his clever plots ileal with casual bets, which turn out to be not so casual. The stakes are high, e.g. a finger, a daughter, even ones own life, as is the case with Mr Botibal who leaps into the middle of the ocean in the hope of winning the ship's pool. Others are concerned with the deviousness and cunning of human nature. "May Lady Love, My Dove" is an example of this.
Here, one piece of trickery leads to the unveiling of another, which in its turn breeds more trickery, and so it goes on.....
Mr Dahl seems to delight in uncovering the less noble, but nonetheless amusing aspects of human character, especially in people whom you would expect to be the very embodiment of nobility, nobility itself, the wealthy, the social elite. We are shown that society is not always the comfortable place it might seem. It can be a source of great humiliation as Lionel the hero of "Nunc Dimitis" discovers. Undaunted however, he seeks revenge. His method is as cunning as it is cruel, but the way it exploits human vanity is most humorous and a light touch is retained by the ending in which the manipulator is himself manipulated, as the victim gives back as good as she gets — well, almost. By an unexpected little twist, both character and reader are caught unawares. These stories rarely end quite as we might expect, and here lies, I think, much of Roald Dahl's charm as a story teller: his ability to lead us on in one direction, then all of a sudden making a volte-face, leaving us a trifle shocked, greatly surprised and much amused.
The films ranged from the overtly political to simply movies that happened to be made by women. 'Reflections', for instance, a gentle play with natural images, was pleasant but only that. "Bread" was a really nice movie too — again, not really 'political', but a very happy erotic movie about making bread. It suggests all kinds of possibilities for female erotic art — sensual and groovy, but not sexually exploitive.
'Gretel', by Gillian Armstrong, I found a bit puzzling. The acting and photography was skilful and attractive, but I am not clear what the director's intentions were; perhaps this in itself says something about how successful it was. It could be seen as a simple story of a boy's encounter with a 'schizophrenic' little girl. However the form of her madness perhaps says something about the consciousness of many women; her immobility, her dead voice, her doll-like appearance, her attachment to the look-alike doll she nursed and the beads the boy gave her.
Another film, "Women in a House" by Sue Ford, used these same images to suggest what is called 'suburban neurosis" but is in fact just the deadening symptoms of female oppression. The woman in this movie, unlike 'Gretel' turns to alcohol rather than 'madness', but she too suffers from a crippling immobility (on the sound track a woman tells a talk show 'counsellor' about her inability to step outside her house), and also has a doll to keep her company. The sequences in which the woman explores her sexual attractiveness before the mirror, and feels herself to be stranded and left abandoned to the cruelty of external forces — the sea, a snowy waste-land — suggests painfully her self doubts and feelings of importance.
This feeling of self-hating helplessness is put across even more strongly in 'Homes', a documentary with re-enactment about the position of women in Child Welfare Homes. I was most strongly impressed by the collectively-made documentary-style movies included in the programme. This one for instance was made in conjunction with a political movement to abolish child welfare homes, so it is a "this is the way it is, what are you going to do about it?" movie. The nature of female oppression is clearly dilineated; as well as the indignities suffered by any prisoner, these women are also subject to the particular indignities reserved for women, such as the Virginity testing' of a thirteen-year-old woman by an obnoxiously sexist male doctor, the other important point the movie made was that the 'crime' of these women is usually "being exposed to moral danger". The experience of the two women featured in the movie was that basically they were forced to spend their adolescence in prison because the authorities wished to control their sexual activities — with men in one case, with women in the other. This kind of control is not extended to adolescent males. Where the patriachal family 'fails', the patriachal state takes over. As well as feelings of impotence, there was a movement in mood from sadness and helplessness to anger, solidarity and a feeling of 'we have to, we can, look after ourselves.'
My other favourites of these movies were also based on re-enactments of feelings and experiences, and I think their fidelity to common (collective and daily) experience made them politically as well as personally significant.
The first, 'Hearts and Spades' is probably relevant to a lot of university women, or any women who live with men but are not 'housewives' for a living. It showed the painful efforts of a woman to get the men she lived with to take their share of responsibility for the housework. Housework is the nitty-gritty, the share of housework he does is the true index of man's feelings about 'women's place'. In this movie we see again and again, the woman being brushed off with "I'm busy" (housework is 'trivial', men have more important things to do) and her growing anger at having to nag to get it done in the first place. This goes side by side with the empty attempts by the men to 'raise their consciousness'. Finally we see the woman stamping through town getting more and more angry as she recalls this daily oppression by the men she cares for, and who supposedly care for her. As she arrives where the men are sitting in a happy group chatting idly, she gets out a rifle and bang! bang! shoots them down as they try to flee in terror. This sequence fades into an alternate one where she walks up, and instead of shooting, everyone hugs everyone else. As the movie finishes, the two images alternate: shooting and hugging, hating and loving. A similar movie made by a black about racial relationships would be unthinkable: loving the white oppressor is merely to be an Uncle Tom. Why would a black brother spending so much thankless' emotional energy on creating a decent relationship with a while.? This movie suggests the tortuous complexities of female oppression, if your oppressor is the person you love best, what the hell can you do about it? As Mae West said, "men are all alike — except the one you've met who's different."
"Leonie's Movie" also deals with male-female relationships — in fact the relationship of the woman who made the movie. It is a very personal film, the sound-track using a tape-recording of the man expressing his feelings about the relationship, unaware that he is being recorded. The problem basically, for him 'work' comes before their relationship, for her the relationship is most important. This movie functions like a good consciousness-rousing group, to remind us that the personal is political, that where female oppression is concerned, "home, like war, is a continuation of politics by other means".
"Film for Discussion" against a collectively-made documentary-style movie, was definitely my favourite II was introduced by a collage of images of male and female — for instance a stripper, a body-builder, marching feminists — followed by a very simple day-in-the-life view of a woman office worker. The way this film achieved its strong impact was very interesting; unlike many of the others it used no extraneous imagery, but instead concentrated on the way in which the woman's every gesture and action in the course of her daily life-activity accumulates as a catalogue of her minute-by-minute oppression. The oppression of women is deeply ingrained into every aspect of our culture and our daily life — its just a mallei of opening your eyes. The title, "Film for Discussion" emphasises its makers' message: look closely at what actually happens in a woman's life — why is it this way? What does it mean? Like nineteenth century feminist Lucy Stone, it shows that disappointment is a woman's lot in life, and its task, like hers, is "to deepen this disappointment its every woman's heart until she bows down to it no longer."
Black poet Ted Jones says that revolutionary art is successful when it presents "the correct word (or image) at the correct lime, calculated to explode, inside of the target's brain". Did these movies really achieve this? For me, in the whole, yes — but were they presented "at the correct time"? I would like to see some or any of these movies shown, say, in the afternoon so that they can really be "Film for Discussion". Perhaps then they will be in the best position to do what so often speeches and articles cannot: catch people under the surface of their rationalisations, hit their senses with the reality of female oppression, show them that it is not just a rather out-of-date conversation piece but a here and now obscenity: then maybe they'll do something about it.
In reference to your story last week, "The Death of a Baby" I would like to inform you of a similar event that happened while I was nurse-aiding. I have decided to write about it as I feel that it is time that matters like this are brought out into the open and not just passed aside very quietly as this one was.
During Christmas last year I was employed as a nurse-aid for three months. In this time I saw the unnecessary death of a Maori baby (and I firmly believe that this was partly due to the baby's colour — because several references were" made to this — "a snotty nosed Maori").
Night after night the baby screamed but little notice was taken. He was just given more medicine in an attempt to calm him down. Often he lay in his cot coughing and spluttering, nearly choking but little attention was paid to him. Never did anybody think that the baby was screaming because there was something seriously wrong with him. One of the nurses went as far to say that the baby was only screaming for attention — a thing that shocked me greatly. This nurse asked why we should be looking after the baby as his home conditions were terrible. Yet the hospital suddenly discharged this baby knowing fully that only a few days before it had been haemorrhaging from the bowel. The next day he was dead.
I believe this was a case of unnecessary death and another figure to add to the high mortality rate among Maori babies. In this case I blame several factors — the doctor shortage (this baby was checked at very irregular periods by his doctor), the slackness in the hospital at this time, the shortage of beds, the intolerance shown towards the baby because he screamed so much.
What can be done? All these cases should be brought out into the open. The rate of deaths among Maori babies still remains high. Are we going to let it carry on?
Anthony Ward is selling out again! His thinly disguised middle class bureaucratic attitude to the demolition of Hunter is completely unwarranted. I don't know where he attained his figure of $75 a square foot for strengthening Hunter. Even if this is true, which I believe it is not, the cost is surely irrelevant here. The mindless edifices that are erected around this varsity as monuments to a tight fisted University Grants Committee must not be allowed to ride rough shod over the only building of any sanity and character in this varsity.
My suggestion to Anthony Ward is that, if he considers that the mindless, soul-shattering experience of Kirk and Easterfieid is more desirable than the one building that gives Victoria University an identity, he go back and take another look at the classic monument to Walkato Wankers that is their university, and Hamilton city itself, from whence he comes.
Anthony Ward was not elected to sell out university students interests. I suggest he reconsider.
They call it women's liberation. No doubt many sincere women think it is but who are behind them?
They say in America the big companies making suction pumps and other such hard ware, have invested their money in women's lib. I wonder why?
And what about the new millionaires of Britain and America. Suddenly many more of the medical profession have joined the upper classes.
One Auckland private hospital is raking in at least $150,000 a year in an ever growing trade. Our new clinic sounds reasonable at first glance, $60 or more a time, 35 or more a week, $2,000 or more a week. How many on the staff? Good wages wouldn't you think?
Just who does gain by abortion? Certainly not the aborted child, maybe not even the mother, but there are others in this saga who do. The new gold rush of the twentieth century.
A couple of points R. Mays raised, somewhat confusedly, in his letter published last week, deserve further discussion. First, however, I would like to correct some misconceptions he has. Over the past six months or so I have given about equal space in my reviews to shows from the three theatres I go to regularly: Unity, Downstage, and the University Theatre. I have not reviewed all the shows I have seen, for various reasons, I did not review Waiting for Godot and I have mentioned that show only twice and in passing. I would also like to point out that I do not have a monopoly on Salient reviews. To that extent I am 'self-styled', Which only means there is nothing to prevent R. Mays or anyone else publishing their own reviews. The other point Is that Misanthrope was not an attempt at a period production and nor did it aim to be 'realistic' — whatever that means. The supposed contemporary relevance was to derive from its setting in
Now for 'bourgeois art and culture', I would say that with a very few exceptions (and even those are arguable) all NZ theatre is bourgeois and elitist — in that the aim is to entertain rather than challenge or question; in that the drama is conceived to meet the expectations of habitual theatre patrons; and in that those patrons comprise an exceptional minority with various identifiable characteristics. University Drama, of whatever sort, is not and cannot be considered one of the exceptions. To say a theatre is bourgeois and elitist does not, however, mean that its productions are always and necessarily bad, though it may mean there is a certain kind of achievement they cannot manage. In this situation a reviewer or critic has three choices — he can pretend that everything is as it should be and write his pieces regardless; he can condemn out of hand 99 per cent of what he sees or will ever see here, in which case he need not write at all; or he can take each production on its merits and attempt to distinguish between the necessary and the gratuitous. I have tried to adopt the third stance, with what success I cannot say. It is easy to call Downstage 'fur-coat theatre' and therefore dismiss it altogether, easy to arrogate all sincerity and judgement to ones own position, easy to throw away such words as bourgeois and elitist. Finally it is also Irresponsible, in the same way that uninformed assertions about misuse of 'our' money is irresponsible. The proposed festival of student written and directed plays was not abandoned because $3000 had been spent on Misanthrope. There was a separate amount set aside for it, some other reason must be found for its non-occurence.
R. Mays seems to be saying there is a different kind of theatre waiting in the wings and that this theatre is prevented from taking the stage by the moneyed prima donnas and elitist entrepreneurs. That, this can happen is undoubtedly true; I know of at least one relevant example. Yet I take leave to doubt his claim that such a potential exists now, within the university. If it did exist anyway, I would hope it has the sense to act without invitation rather than whine outside the door. Its not that hard a world. And if you want 'positive, sincere, critical encouragement' you'll have to make some effort to earn It.
One more point in passing — can a diatribe really be complimentary? Perhaps R. Mays should consult his dictionary before he writes again. And get his thoughts in order and his facts straight, if he expects me to take any account of his criticism of the way I write.
P.S. I do think some explanation is demanded of the people who produced Misanthrope — as to how and why they spent $3000, who spent it, and In what state It has left Drama Society finances.
The article by Mareko Maruru on the shortcomings of Victoria is the most refreshing I have seen in Salient since my first year in the ivory tower in
It is embarrassingly apparent when a university — or even 6th form high school student — is in a group, a job, or a bus. The patronising stand-offish attitude of the so-called intelligensia is a pollution in the air of our whole society. Too many students go on year after year doing units, whether passed or failed, degrees, diplomas etc or at least going with the same crowd. Sometimes for genuine love of learning and intelligent conversation, but sometimes also for fear of the outside world and the equalising effect of the Lambton Quay lunch hour rush.
The university may be expensive and a lot of hard work, but, if only for its geographical situation it offers a cushion against the outside world. It never ceased to amaze me, while at varsity, how students could mindlessly down booze to the exclusion of all else then demand freedom for the individual and the downfall of capitalism. Some of the biggest boozers I met were the radicals on campus — selling themselves shamelessly to DB etc — and no one, in my mind, is free when the mind is blown with any drug.
Students might be able to theorise to high heaven about the dialectics of materialism, the oppression of women, the economics of Samuelson etc etc blah blah, but a sobering existence to be a man working a 60 hour week on Todd's assembly line, a housewife bewildered by her resentment at having four grizzling children in a suburban home, or a pensioner budgeting for the week. Students would learn a lot more of far greater value if they would come down from the tower on the hill, if not in body at least in spirit.
I am so sick and tired of hearing how bad the cafe is that I (in my own modest (??) sort of way) am suggesting an alternative. From my roost in the Fourth Floor of the Rankine B. (the library for idiots) I have a perfect view of the roof of the Memorial Theatre. How about building an architect designed (Roger Walker or Ian Athfield type excellent) brick olden style coffee house with large roaring open fireplaces (for those cold winter days), old chairs and tables (knocked together or donated??) and plenty of old pictures plus authentic fire smoke, dust and soot, and the good old character much needed to liberate us 'battery hens' at feed time). It seems a pity to waste such a perfectly good roof, and we really do need some break from automation and the 'new-idity' cult that seems to be coming up four toes and a rubber bunny's squeaker lately. So how about it romanticists? Just don't dismiss it with words like 'costs' or 'labour', purely 'serving' to bring you closer to the plucking stage of our process. If you like it let's hear it....
P.S. Motto....."I'm sick of asking for things, let's get something!!!
(This letter was typed, computerised, inspected and sterilized, but I like the Idea — Ed.)
(I did not write this editor's comment — Ed.)
Mr Campbell has paid as little attention to my recent letter as he did to "Valdramar". If he will kind re-read my letter and his own review, he will discover that:
In the light of these considerations, I feel that my putative obligation to explain to Mr Campbell what he has missed all but evaporates; which is as well, for I am not sure that this would have been possible for one so musically ingenuous as to foment the absence in a score of "decent melodies" — whatever they may be. Perhaps I may make my own position clear by noting what appears to have escaped Mr Campbell so far: that I prefer not to grant his writing the status of "criticism" or "review" at all. Not just because it was a display of ill temper, but because, philanthropist though he may be, Mr Campbell appears to be deaf.
I believe that Gordon Campbell has failed entirely to perceive certain fairly obvious musical merits in the Cockburns' score — for example, its harmonic inventiveness, its contrapuntal control in the development of certain ensembles, its dramatic continuity and compactness. I believe that he failed similarly, to observe strengths in "Valdramar" other than the vital musical ones, and so his criticisms of all except certain technical difficulties are unfounded. He is, it would seem, insensitive to the stylistic objectives and achievements of at least this particular piece of music-drama, however much social science he might know. It is perhaps inevitable that someone prone to discover "arrogance and elitism" exemplified in a theatrical production should be unsuited or unwilling to discern its internal artisitic merits. Mr Campbell's criticism fails because it is not, despite his protests, specific in the right way: he is unable to provide any penetrating internal criticisms of the work. It is not enough, or even, of interest, to say "It, sounded ghastly", or "It's just a set of riffs": one must, I believe, to be informative, point to stylistic reasons for the failure claimed — show that the work is unsuccessful on its own terms.
But the spectacle of Mr Campbell's public education could hardly be of further interest to your readers. If Mr Campbell wishes. I suppose it would be possible to analyse the score and its dramatic thread for him, in a little detail, out of the arena. In the meantime I think I can most charitably only express my hope that he will get a better seat or a better dinner when he goes to "Valdramar" again.
It is ridiculous to hear David Chung saying that he would support the NZUSA's (and some Malaysian students) campaign for the democratic rights of the Malaysian students on August 31, and he contradicted himself by strongly opposing the demonstration against the Malaysian High Commission. But on that same day he exposed himself by telling the audience that he participated in the demonstration which was held on August 30. Was he there to count the number of Malaysian students participating in that demonstration? Or was he having some other purposes?
When he was questioned by a student of what practical steps or plans that he could propose to contribute to the campaign, he gave absolutely no solution! This showed that he had no intention to co-operate with the NZUSA's campaign to fight for the democratic rights of the Malaysian students, but rather he was trying to stop the demonstration or It could be that he was representing "some other people" to speak out in the forum!
The reasons why are:
The Law Faculty (especially its Dean) would like a brand-new, plushy building where they can be housed in comfort and convenience, and with their own library. The Law Library was originally part of the main library, which was housed in the Law Library's present position, until the mid-sixties. Thus the precious Law Library has been in existence for ten years at the most — and though the Dean emphasises how necessary a separate law library is for the Law Faculty, it got on without one for over sixty years. Admittedly the geography, geology, and botany-zoology (combined into the biology library) departments have seperate departmental libraries — but they are paid for by the departments concerned and I have yet to hear the Dean volunteering to pay for his law library — at present financed out of the main library vote. There is also a precedent for the incorporation of a departmental library into the main one — the English class library. The Law Faculty also wants to preserve the distinction between law studn students and others — mainly in terms of the facilities provided. It was mentioned by a lecturer in the English and NZ Law Department that if necessary the Law Faculty wouldn't mind moving the whole Law Faculty (including Library) into a building off-campus! Enough said as to the Law Faculty's attitudes.
Thus with only a maximum of 500 students (those at the Law Faculty Club and SRC meetings) actively wanting to save Hunter, and with the varsity administration and academic community (especially the Law Faculty) concerned, what hope is there?
A cartoon to the editor:
Whether I meet Mr Cookson's criteria for a "Maoist" I do not know, nevertheless I would like to answer his question: Why did the Chinese turn up at Malaysia's national day celebration. (Salient.
A more reasonable question than Mr Cook-son's, I believe, is this: why shouldn't the Chinese turn up at the function? It is normal practice for two countries with diplomatic relations to attend the other's national day celebration. Considerable stress in state relations would be necessary before one country boycotted the other's national day celebrations.
Diplomatic relations between a socialist country and a capitalist country in no way implies approval for each other's internal regime. All that is involved is state-to-state relations. If it were really unprincipled for the Chinese to attend Malaysia's function, it would be equally unprincipled for them to attend New Zealand's diplomatic functions. Both countries are under the dictatorship of bourgeoisie, even if in New Zealand it takes the form of parliamentary democracy and in Malaysia a form of fascism.
Is Mr Cookson actually calling for China to break its diplomatic relations with capitalist and imperialist countries? Why should a socialist country withdraw from the area of diplomatic struggle against these countries? When a socialist country enters into diplomatic relations with these countries, it in no way implies that it has ceased to support revolutionary and progressive movements in them.
Most importantly, when such relations are opened it is no way incumbent on revolutionary and progressive movements in the capitalist and imperialist countries to cease their struggle against their ruling classes. In fact, the Chinese insist that their foreign policy is China's and that revolutionaries in other countries are in no way required to follow it. In the Chinese view, the revolutionaries in other countries should integrate Marxism-Leninism with the concrete realities of their own country if they are to carry out a revolution. In particular, if there is to be a revolution in Malaysia and New Zealand it must be the work of the peoples in those countries.
If progressive people give up their struggle because China has opened diplomatic relations with their country, then they demonstrate nothing more than their own low political consciousness.
As to Mr Cookson's anonymous "Maoist" who, according to his story, was embarrassed by the attendance of representatives of the People's Republic of China at Malaysia's national day celebration while there was a demonstration out-side, all I will say is this: If this "Maoist" actually exists, and if Mr Cookson is not misrepresenting his or her remarks, then on this question he or she is being as big an ass as Mr Cookson and his fellow Trotskyist gentlemen are on all political questions.
The press statement of the "MSA Executive Council" disapproving NZUSA tactics used in its campaign for democratic rights for Malaysians was rejected by the majority of MSA members at its AGM on September 14. A resolution was passed at the meeting that MSA disassociate itself from the statement as it did not represent their opinions.
It is clear to all that in such a contentious issue, concerning the democratic rights of Malaysian students here, the executives of VUMSA and other MSA's have acted in a "secretive and undemocratic manner" without bothering to consult their members. The proposal to form the "executive council" was made in May but members of VUMSA in particular were not consulted at any stage.
In fact when I went to attend one of its meetings on August 28 an attempt was made to exclude me. I only learnt of this meeting through a committee member an hour before the meeting.
At the AGM, L.C. Goh roundly condemned this whole procedure as undemocratic having been done in a "secretive manner".
This, however is not the only undemocratic method the former MSA executive used to put forward a minority opinion. At the AGM members were asked to amend the constitution under the guise of "tidying up" certain articles. No notice was given prior to this move. As a result there was inadequate time to consider the amendment in detail. However I would also raise the point here as to why L.C. Goh had four hours to study the amendments the night before as he told me, while no one including myself was consulted? This is highly improper.
Examining the amendments which the members foolishly assented to I understand why the MSA executive committee have acted in such an underhand manner.
I admit that at the AGM I did not clearly see the implications of this amendment and I was criticised for not being clear on why I opposed this. The lack of time in considering the changes in my case was raised in objections to the chairman of the meeting, but was ignored. I do not question the integrity of the chairman but I must point out that there was a hurry to get the discussion over with, as time was running short. In doing so members failed to consider the implications of a new article (17) which gives the association power to expel members on political grounds as I read it. This is clearly directed at persons who act to the "detriment" of MSA, whatever it means.
An additional clause was introduced stating that the MSA maintain liaison with the Malaysian government.
The above two amendments show the clear intention of the former executive committee to ignore the political welfare of its members, a fact already demonstrated by its behaviour over the Khoo issue. It might interest everyone that another Malaysian student has been deported from NZ. And this is the type of issue the former executive committee would like to ignore.
The new committee must be held to its election promise that it will look after members' political welfare. Steven Oh the new president made this promise and I say that the first move he should take is to make a public statement to the effect that the VUMSA has disassociated itself from the action of the MSA Executive Council.
There are enough undemocratic means used by people who are supposed to rule on our behalf at home. I do not wish to see this being practiced here by Malaysians who pretend to support my beliefs and yet resort to the same undemocratic methods to make decisions for us.
It is always said that human nature is hard to change. An evil man cannot divorce himself from evil deeds even though circumstances did not dictate it. Take for example, the Prime Minister of Malaysia, Tun Abdul Razak and the recent general election. It is well understood for obvious reasons that the National Front of Malaysia would win the
c)".... it is not a healthy development to have a predominantly Chinese party as the only opposition party."
d) "Over in Sabah where Kuala Lumpur's influence is minimal, the local bosses ensured they won by arresting 10 opposition candidates and confining them till it was too late for them to file their nominations."
e) "Opposition claims it lost 10,000 votes on average in each electorate because of the missing names."
The above allegations would go a long way to give a fair idea how Razak's regime got into power. In sum. Tun Razak bulldozed his way into power by:
Points a) to e) spell out the death of democracy in the Malaysian Government clearly. It is a pseudo-democratic and corrupted government. He makes a mockery of the word "democracy". Point e) in particular had been confirmed by the OMSA president who mentioned in the last "NZUSA Conference on Malaysia" that his members were so asked to register a year ago because they were qualified to vote for the
The NZUSA Conference on Malaysia demonstrates very clearly that most of the Malaysian students in NZ are interested and concerned with their home problems.
The NZUSA conference hints that we cannot take what is going on sitting down. For progress to be made Action is the word. The Malaysian Government is not going to hand over your rights as citizens on a golden plate. You have to fight for it, if it need be. And judging by what the government is doing — wilfully leaving out the Chinese voters from the voting registers — it looks like we have to make a move or else more and more repressive actions will follow.
The NZUSA Conference also called to the stage aspiring future 'Tuns' and 'Datos' who showed their support for the government in very definite terms. They opposed the demonstration. Why? Because the government does not like it. Our beloved David Cheung's well-rehearsed oratorical performance was enthusiastically greeted with boos and hisses. Malaysian students here know him for what he is. His argument was self-contradictory. On the one hand, he strongly opposed the demonstration fighting for democratic rights in Malaysia, on the other hand, he participated in the demonstration. Why did he go if he opposed it. What ulterior motives he had is obvious. People can well analyse his actions and his motives:
Some one had asked: Could we change our bloody and chauvinistic government? Could we alter our unjust constitution? The answers are positive. Nothing is absolutely fixed. But let us always keep in mind. Changes need time and need action, action and action. More important is that changes to lot of the cases requires sacrifice of life.
For the sake of the majority of the poor people, for the sake of your next generation in terms of better education, better environment and more democratic rights, we have to fight. Now, it is time to stand up to struggle, it is time to unite to fight and it is time to speak up and to act.
Recently the MSA Constitution was amended at the annual general meeting. I wish to express my disgust at the way which the former MSA committee carried this out, by not informing its members and giving them enough time to consider the changes some of which have serious implications.
At the AGM the discussion on the amendments was rushed through, the debate being taken up by the wordy law students. Other students were not as aware as law students of the consequences of the amendments, such as the new object to carry on "liaison" with the Malaysian government and also the power to expel members.
As I see it, the last committee was consistent in acting in an undemocratic fashion in this aspect as well as deciding for us, that we are against demonstrations. I am glad the AGM has rejected this. I know that certain Malaysians are on very friendly terms with the Malaysian High Commission people. These were present at the meeting to push through the amendments. Maybe these who are so good at carrying the balls of the High Commission will be ensured of a good job when they go home, or are now paid to give information to the Malaysian government.
I conclude by saying that in
It is no surprise to see secretary Chong and Chairman Lee attempting to 'sneak in' a sentence into the MSA constitution giving the committee wide dictatorial powers to refuse or suspend membership. Tun Mustapha's tactics have landed in New Zealand.
Somehow one of MSA's fanatic supporters Goh, managed to drag himself to draw attention to that sentence, though he was noisy as the devil and technical to the letter, justice prevailed and the constitution was revised.
Watch out for Mustaphas! Screw those who try to stop free discussion and get rid of law students.
I shall be grateful if you will be kind enough to publish this in your paper.
The MSA Annual General Meeting was held on September 14, last Saturday. About two hundred students attended the meeting. Included in this 200 were 60 new members who joined minutes before the meeting. I would like to say a big thank you to them for
A revised constitution with provision to prevent last minute joining membership was adopted as the new constitution of the association.
The following person were elected to office for
On behalf of my colleagues the ex-MSA committee, I would like to thank Mr Joseph Lee for conducting the house so efficiently. My personal thanks again to those fantastic last-minute $1 contributors.
David Tripe rode a girrafe into the Salient Office the other day which would have been all right normally, except that he bumbed his head on a light bulb, fell off, and landed in Margot Bourke's soup, which would have been all right normally, except that Derek Fikkers happened to be swimming in just the part of the soup bowl that David happened to land in, which would have been all right normally, except that Derek's frog jumped out of his ear where it had been sleeping, which would have been all right normally, except that it frightened Lynn Peck's hair-net, which would have been all right normally, except that it scurried up Mark Derby's back, which would have been all right normally, except that Mark's Armidillo jumped off his head, which would have been all right normally, except that it chased David Rutherford into the darkroom, which would have been all right normally, except that Keith Stewart (the Salient photographer) was in there developing a talk-back show, which would have been all right normally, except that he got it the wrong way around and undeveloped a talk-front show, which would have been all right normally, except that Jules Maher was on the talk-front show and spent the rest of the day doing everything backwards, which would have been all right normally, except that it upset John Henderson, which would have been all right normally, except, that it was full of teradactyls eating Claire Smith's jandals, which would have been all right normally except that Roger Steele, the editor, saw them, which would have been all right normally, except that they were going to be dissected next week to feed Lloyd' Weeber's polemics, which would have been all right normally, except that Christine Haggart got to hear about it and swallowed her encyclical, which would have been all right normally except that she told Audrey Young about it, which would have been all right normally, except that she tried to get Colin Feslier to keep writing the Staff Notes, which would have been all right normally except that he had gone insane writing 'which would have been all right normally' which would have been all right normally, except that Stephen Hall, Graeme Clarke, Neil Pearce, David Waghorn. Peter Franks, Richard Siegert, who he'd he forgotten to include in the Staff Notes came in and made him swallow an archipeligo, which would have been all right normally, except that normally it wouldn't have been all right at all, which would have been all right normally all right.
Special thanks to Mrs Baxter in the NZ room at the Public Library who went out of her way to help.
We forgot to mention Graeme Simpson, Lionel Klee, Robert Pui, Peter Mcintosh for his graphics and Bob Brockie.
Advertising Manager: Chris MacKay (home phone 664-698).
Published by Victoria University of Wellington Students Association. Private Bag. Wellington.
Printed by Wanganui Newspapers Ltd, Drews Lane. Wanganui.
The Salient Office is on the Middle Floor, University Union Building, phone 70-319. The address is P.O. Box 1347.
I've been told that it's bad taste to criticise a man while his corpse is still warm, but I still believe that you've got to get in quick before the myth making starts. Nonetheless, I have acceded to the judgements of others on this matter. This piece, then, mentions Kirk only as an example of a related point that has to be made.
The whole hullaballoo over Kirk's death showed up a few good aspects but more bad aspects of New Zealand society. One aspect even worse than the hypocrisy (which after all was predictable) was the glorification of the individual. "He was a great man", "He was a leader", etc, even the Maori metaphor "the totara has fallen" is part of this. This individualisation is of course to be expected in a society that values individuality and generally accepts the theory that individuals make history, but that does not make it excusable.
In the first place, I do not believe that a politician's faults should be glossed over, not ever. Norman Kirk for example, is largely praised on two grounds, first as a defender of the 'little people' and secondly for his 'enlightened foreign policy'. Both these are myths.
One of Kirk's last acts before he died was to set the final seal of despair on a Malaysian student who has good reason to fear that the Malaysian Government will not receive him kindly if he ever goes home. This student has been engaged in political activities in New Zealand. There is every reason to believe that he will follow the path into jail of Khoo Ee Liam. Kirk, who did little enough to help Khoo or stop surveillance of Malaysian students in New Zealand, also had no leniency for this latest Malaysian student. He left the country under threat of deportation last week. His fate is unknown.
Did Kirk really do anything for 'little' New Zealanders? I know of nothing he did to help the plight of the homeless, the undernourished (yes, we have them in New Zealand), the homosexual, the drug users, those desperately needing abortion, the suffering. The only 'little' people he helped were the little rackrenters, Cornish investors, the little oil companies, and the little parliamentarians.
What of the 'enlightened' foreign policy? Well, Labour recognised China, but National would have done that anyway. Labour stopped the tour, but National would have done that anyway, if not before it came then certainly when the rioting started. Did Kirk recognise the legitimacy of the Provisional Revolutionary Government of South Vietnam? No, he turned a blind eye to them and continued to send aid to Thieu's fascist gang. Nor did Kirk see who was the real leader in Cambodia, nor did Kirk act against the repression in South Korea, Indonesia, or Malaysia, to name but a few countries. Kirk had to his credit a fairly realistic appraisal of the situation in South Africa, but he didn't stop trade ties with South Africa or stop sanction busting by NZ in Rhodesia, and he didn't curtail the pernicious propagandising of South Africa's man in NZ, Peter Phillip.
But none of this is so much criticism of Kirk, it is only the beginning of a suggestion that we keep any leader and in particular this leader in perspective before the myth grows fatter than the shadow. More to the point, it is not so much a criticism of Kirk than an attempt to point out the mistake that so many people make, of glorifying the individual leader. So much hope was pinned on Kirk and his party, more hope in fact than they could ever fulfill. But it is not individuals who make history anyway, rather it is social and economic forces. And that comes down to people, the way they are organised, in particular, the way they organise themselves. No Prime Minister, not even Norman Kirk, should be considered a leader or a 'boss' to be followed and worked for. The people are the leaders and the way they organise themselves will determine their destiny, if they are disorganised and split then they will be led, all right, by powerful economic interests and their puppets in Parliament. The recent 'oil crisis' was a classic example of this. If people want to stop being pushed around by the likes of the oil companies and employers then they should stop putting their faith in capitalist apologists with their eratic values and politics. They should put their trust in themselves, and organise themselves for social change. That is the way history will be made.