B.T.M.'s Reply

In reply to the F.S.A. letter regarding "Salient's" alleged "attack" in the last issue, I submit that the article was no attack, but that it wax purely observational. I submit that there was no "attack" in the ignominious sense suggested by the F.S.A. letter except in the minds and Imaginations of Messrs. Govind, and Nawalowalo. The artiele "Fiji Students keeping to themselves" was written in my capacity as reporter for "Salient." It voiced not my opinions only; nor those or the "Salient"; but it was the opinions of numerous people — Kiwi and foreigner alike—which were expounded. Far from being a criticism of the F.S.A., the article was a tentative attempt to explain on a psychological basis the existence of the F.S.A's "Fijians—only" policy.

I think the F.S.A. presidents for their insinuations about my own person. It is surprising that they spoke of "journalistic principles," However, the "psychologist in B.T.M." is backed up by the writings of Kllnberg and Allport Which opinion is more valuable? Those of Messrs Nawalowalo and Govind, or those of well-known psychologists? What I do about my ego is irrelevant to the issues in question, namely—was Salient's article on " attack," and assuming that it was, was the "criticism" Justified?

The gentlemen, supposedly revealing the feelings of all members of the F.S.A., misquoted me in several instances. Firstly, the article by "B.T.M." began with the words 'The F.S.A. at Victoria" and not "The F.S.A. of Victoria" as alleged. Next, "B.T.M," never suggested a "sectional association," What was opposed to, however, is a "sectional association which keeps to itself, either out of fear of rejection, or out of misguided nations of glory and improving International relationships." Even If the presidents were correct over these two matters, it is still left unproved that the all-Fijian policy is Justified. They have still left unanswered the rule stated in the F.S.A. constitution—that only Fijians be admitted. That the F.S.A. is not a university club is its own doing.

Their proud claim that "we have quite a few Kiwi friends" does not necessarily illustrate a "travesty of truth." For if these "friends" are themselves exclusionists, then the F.S.A. has failed in its purpose— "to make contacts and develop friendly relationships," Also, they use the word "Kiwi" friends. They knew precisely what they were saying—there must be discrimination between "Kiwi," and "non-Kiwi." Regarding the numerous guests at their annual dinner—I Interviewed about a dozen guests, and each one of them had never hoard of the F.S.A. before! Suchis the completeness of the F.S.A. isolation from other groups.

Admittedly, some F.S.A. members are active participants in other club functions. But this only reveals further the deplorable attitude of the Fijian Students' Association—its members will enjoy the facilities provided by others. But they will admit none. They will receive, but will not give. Also, there are gross Inaccuracies in the claims of the presidents. For instance, "our boys in the executive of the World Affairs' Council" sounds as if "our boys" were a large number. Messrs. Govind and Nawolawalo are suffering from delusions of grandeur. Perhaps they ore unaware that there are only two F.S.A. members in the W.A.C.—and that one of them is the "B.T.M." whom they so scathingly denounced.

Finally, while the F.S.A. letter expresses the opinion of a few, those expressed by " Salient" are those of many. As regards "Salient's" "violating the principles of journalistic courtesy," surely the F.S.A. is not suggesting that it manages, controls, and censors "Salient" as well! In any case, since there was no real "attack," "Salient" did not see why the article should have been referred to them.

I suggest that the presidents of the F.S.A. he less hypersensitive; that they remove some of their confounded suspicions. I assure the terribly hurt gentlemen that no one is laughing at them. The "terribly unjust, unkind allegations, indictments, and attack ad nauseum" by B.T.M. were totally misinterpreted.