Publicly accessible
URL: http://www.nzetc.victoria.ac.nz/collections.html
copyright 2016, 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.
A newly completed block of high-rise flats in Mt. Victoria has become the focal point in a struggle between private developers and local residents.
The local residents, led by the Mt. Victoria Progressive Association, are angry about the construction of Williams Development Holdings' new 10-storey Melksham Towers building, which was originally given a council permit on the basis that it would be a block of flats.
About two months ago, however, the residents found that the company intended to use it for temporary accommodation at a weekly rental of $80 per person, and subsequent advertisements have stated that the apartments are aimed at businessmen, conference delegates and sales and marketing representatives visiting Wellington.
The tower comprises 36 fully self-contained two-bedroom apartments, each with separate kitchen, lounge and balcony, colour television and all linen, crockery and cutlery supplied. A dry cleaning service, a 24-hour telephone service and a shop are also to be available.
Williams Development have a keen eye for a prospective market and judging from overseas developments, 'a new concept in accommodation' such as Melksham Towers has certainly all the makings of a nice tidy profit. But as the Mt. Victoria residents point out, they want 'development for people and not for profit', and Melksham Towers certainly doesn't help any people in the Mt. Victoria area (except if you're allergic to sunlight).
Mt. Victoria has a serious shortage of permanent accommodation and there is a need for family homes, not serviced apartments for transient businessmen. Wellington Tenants' Protection Association has records of numerous families and groups who have had to shift out of the area because their rented accommodation was to be demolished or was no longer suitable in terms of rent and conditions. The rents charged in the tower block will hinder any general reduction of rents in the area because of the comparative nature of the Rent Appeals Board's assessment of a 'fair rent'.
Residents have mounted a vigorous campaign against the tower block itself, but the main attack has been focused on the roots of the problem—the inability of a community to have any say in the development of their area. The campaign started from general meetings of the Progressive Association and a small group of people went from door-to-door in the area discussing Mt. Victoria's development and the significance of Melksham Towers.
The response was such that a demonstration of 70 residents gathered outside the tower block recently to show their disapproval of what has been described as 'a human filing cabinet'. They also discussed what steps could be taken to prevent the construction of any similar structures.
In consultation with Councillor David Shand, the meeting decided on two courses of action.
—At present Mt. Victoria is zoned 'Residential C', which allows as of right for a building to be up to 100ft. high and it also allows for construction of apartments and motels. The residents decided to put pressure on the council to get a special zoning which would allow them a say in future developments.
—A petition is being circulated calling on Williams Holdings to stop any future development in the area and to make a certain percentage of Melksham Towers available for long term rental accommodation. It also asks the Council to change the area zoning from 'Residential C' to 'Residential D' or a special zoning.
Last week the City Council considered the Melksham Towers issue and decided to turn it over to the Town Planning Committee. However, two members of this committee, Crs. Fitzgerald and Foot, made their positions very clear when they both supported the right of this type of private development. Cr. Foot ridiculed the call for private developers to build low-rental housing because he considered it to be an 'uneconomic proposition'.
The struggle between the interest of private developers and local communities will continue as long as people are told that area planning is perogative of those experts 'who know best'. But, even if the Mt. Victoria residents have been too late to stop the construction of the Melksham Towers monstrosity, they have been successful in building a much closer community which is more aware of the injustices that surround it and the forces that control it. As one resident said: 'The protest has only just begun.'
Not so long ago if you wanted to write an article on assessment you had to wait right till the end of the year when the closeness of finals was scaring the shit out of everybody and they'd sit up and take notice of an article on assessment. Then peculiar things started happening; in response to criticism of the unfairness of a three hour test of a year's work the university "allowed" in-term work to contribute towards the final grade. At the same time courses were divided into 4 credit, 6 credit, 9 credit and 12 credit courses in the interests of "flexibility of study".
The result of in-term work becoming assessable for a final grade was that it did relieve some of the concentrated pressure around exams but at the same time increased the average pressure during the year. As in-term work became assessable, academics demanded higher standards for in-term work and thus raised workloads considerably. And because the university had little time for innovations in assessment methods the new system was just as bad a test of knowledge as the previous one.
The result of subdivision of courses was that workloads increased markedly (they are still increasing). For various reasons, academics contrived to cram more into the small courses than their credit rating allowed.
So now you can write an article about assessment at any time during the year. At nearly every stage of the year students are doing work that contributes directly towards their final mark. The first thought of any student must be towards attaining the required standard for assessment—other activities of any sort (including learning) must fit in with the demands of assessment.
Now that we have been made much more conscious of assessment we should begin to analyse just what it is about. Assessment first radically affects us at School Certificate. 35% of New Zealanders never pass School Certificate. UE and HSC progressively cut more people off from the possibility of entry to university, The realities of these exams show the major oppressive function of assessment—to determine people's life chances (educationally, socially, occupationally etc.). The large majority of New Zealanders can never hope to reach university (providing they want to—most people don't when they've been branded a failure).
Assessment regulates people's life chances—on what basis does it do this? The standard answer is that assessment measures knowledge/intellectual merit. Yet "Those who succeed in the education system and are rewarded by the top jobs are not necessarily brighter than those who have failed"1. What is actually measured is the "ability to provide the required answer without being ordered directly to do so, because the norms underlying the required response have been assimilated by the student."2 As the Sociology Department put it, "Marks will be awarded for identifying what the question requires, then providing it."
Assessment of this type has a class basis. It has a class basis because the norms it measures are the norms of a class. The middle class norms serve the interests of the bourgeoisie—the perpetuation and development of capitalist society. 3
The school exams that we all went through to get to university were supposed to be tests of ability and nothing else. When we passed them we felt that we had proven ourselves—that we deserved to go to university. The determination of our life chances had supposedly been made objectively on the basis of our ability. In fact, what got us to university were the norms assimilated from our family background (57% of students have fathers in the upper professional areas, where-as in the population as a whole this section comprises only 18%) and our ability to pick up the norms of the education system and assimilate them.
The point I hope I have made is that assessment is an integral part of class society. So while we battle for changes in assessment (in particular making it less onerous) and concessions from the university we should realize that the major battle—the abolition of assessment—can only be achieved with the abolition of class society.
Finally, staff too are oppressed by the assessment system. Staff who break accepted assessment procedures (like giving too many A's and therefore devaluing the currency, like getting students to mark each other's essays, like getting students to do group work) are soon brought into line by the university. Although to a lesser extent than in schools the need to cover the material that forms the basis of assessment circumscribes what can be covered in a course and how it can be covered. Recently in Sociology 301 staff and students united to fight a form of assessment they did not like. So there is no reason at all for a division between staff and students on the question of assessment.
Assessment oppresses staff and students alike. It is in the interests of all the participants in the learning process to abolish assessment.
In New Zealand, the family and the school are primarily responsible for educating each generation. In both places children learn things they must know to be productive adults. The perpetuation of existing relationships in the economy and the society based on them is partly the responsibility of the education system.
In our society the techniques used in production are undergoing constant change. These changes are made in order to increase the profitability of economic enterprises for their owners. Each enterprise tries to invent new products, and make innovations in their methods of production, ensuring continuity of profits. Firms that fail to do this become inefficient compared to their competitors, and their owners face bankruptcy.
The education system produces the knowlege and thinking that will ensure the maintenance of productive relationships in the economic system, and it advances knowledge to help ensure the survival of the individual capitalist in that system. Education is subordinate to the interests of the class that profits by the productive relationships currently existing in the economy, the owners of the means of production, the bourgeoisie.
Part and parcel of this process of fitting people with the skills necessary to maintain and advance the economy is making sure that the worker accepts the economy's productive relationships as fair and just, and in the best interests of society in general. In New Zealand society there are some who make their living by owning the means of production: the worker must be persuaded that this is in the best interests of everyone. He must believe that anyone with ability can become a member of the owning class. He must believe that those who don't achieve that status lack the required ability and are therefore dependent on the bourgeoisie.
Thus schools help reproduce workers with the skills and ideas necessary for society to maintain its present form. The ideas are those that support the role of the bourgeoisie in the economy.
A quiet week.
Nothing really happened except that we tried to put out a twenty-four page issue on time. We got the twenty-four page done but not on time.
You may notice that we have included for old times sake and for the freaks on this here campus a Furry Freak Bros, cartoon which I) JGH (am certain I have seen here somewhere before... funny...
Those hardworking and tireless people who worked on Salient this week were Stephen Underwood, Neville Wynn, Anthony Ward, John Ryall, Lionel and Lynn Peck, Jim Delahunty, Martin Edmond, Marty Pilott, Neil Rowe, Ross Abernethy, David Newton, John Henderson, Lisa Sacksen, Bryony Hales, Sue (NZUSA) Green, Alison (STB) Grant, Leonie Morris, Lindy Cassidy, Cath Bergin, Glenda McCallum Pat O dear, Golden Rod Prosser, Robert Reid, fingers Franks and Kevin Clark as well as the traditional millions who we have forgotten to include.
Stephen Prendergast and Christine Haggart are responsible for advertising and the issue was edited by Bruce Robinson.
Salient is published by VUWSA and printed by Wanganui newspapers ltd., Drews Avenue, Wanganui.
The Budget announcement of the STB brought a storm of criticism from Teachers College Students. It obviously had some effect:
— during the transition period a students preference for the STB or the present system will not influence his chances of selection for Teachers College. (Originally preference for the STB was to be taken into account as a favouring factor for selection.)
— the STB as it relates to teachers college students now includes a bonded supplement (apparently dollar for dollar) which wasn't the case when the budget was announced.
Originally student teachers were to have taken a variety of industrial action across the country. The concessions stopped this but the student teachers still have many gripes. Not the least of these gripes is that a dollar for dollar bond could leave people with up to $6,000 to pay to get out—a risk that very few people could afford to take. Without the supplement the $13 a week basic rate is not a living wage. Teachers in training have shorter holidays (to earn money) and greater overheads (eg. travel when on section) than university students.
Approximately 600 people marched from Flagstaff Hill to Parliament. It is estimated that about two-thirds of Wellington's student teachers participated and two delegates with large banners from most of the other teachers' colleges in New Zealand added support, along with four and a half university students.
The students up the front carried the coffin of our dearly beloved and departed 'Future Education' while the wake followed in a remarkably long trail. Many people carried banners proclaiming that the STB would mean the downfall of education and that the STB should be killed and similar slogans. While I agree that the present STB is pretty helpless not only for trainee teachers but for other students as well, I feel that to say that the STB is a retrograde step is undermining our past efforts to try to obtain it. These banners were selfish because it is generally agreed that a fleshed-out STB with extra allowances for student teachers would be a good thing. But apart from that the marchers put on a good show.
Once at Parliament there were half a dozen speeches and then the delegation disappeared into the building supposedly in the direction of Mr. Amos' office.
While they were in there about a quarter of the crowd deserted. But for the majority who stayed the Wellington Teachers' College Maori Club gave two short performances of Maori songs on the steps.
The general feeling is that the march was well worth while. The meeting with Amos was much more congenial than previous meetings and although the student negotiators weren't entirely happy, they felt they had accomplished something.
Amos assured them that the matter would be cleaned up within six months to the satisfaction of those involved.
Another important result of the march was a speech given by Bob White, an executive member of NZEI. He strongly criticised the institutes handling of matters relating to student teachers and wished the students luck in their struggle for a better education system. It is also thought that Stanz could well get granted full negotiating rights for its own affairs in place of the PPTA and NZEI, who have been very poor negotiators on behalf of the students in the past.
A couple of law students who have done Town & Country Law & who are interested in saving Hunter.
Please see Lisa Sacksen, President.
Discover Quakers at 8 Moncrieff Street every Sunday at 11am.
Before D.J. Sullivan SM last week was an ex-varsity student on a charge or breaking and entering. A couple of academic years ago he was studying at this university. He was different from the other students—he asked 'funny' questions in class and other students saw he was different but couldn't understand him and didn't try; so he was given a hard time and generally shunned by others. Seems he lost confidence in himself and disappeared from the campus. He turned up last week in court, which made me very sad and upset because he's been receiving psychiatric treatment for a while. You may or may not be pleased to know I do not always get upset when I hear of persons receiving such treatements. However, on this occasion it seemed to me his condition has been contributed to by some insensitivity on the part of other people, and a lack of understanding as well. Fortunately, such 'cases' are few and far between but it does surely point to the responsibility which we have towards other people. It made me painfully aware of the relevance of the court to my life. These people were once accepted and ordinary people in society, but their criminal record does not change the fact that they are human beings whose circumstances have been influenced by factors within our society. The 'invisible' qualities such as love and understanding (whose meanings can be twisted) can be 'applied' in daily life but cannot be applied in the courtroom because the situation there is totally different and the whole court system does not allow such biases to enter into decisionmaking my the courts. The law does not (and should not) allow him to be excused from the crime he committed, but we should recognise that we can with love and understanding reduce the casualties of life. For the record—he was remanded for sentence as he was continuing to have psychiatric treatment. I did not enjoy writing this but I felt I had to say something at least to show that justice does not belong only in courtrooms.
* * * *
An Australian citizen was up on two charges—one of obtaining credit by fraud, and another of being an illegal immigrant (one thing leads to another ...). Police wanted a remand so they could lay further charges. This seemed to be a pointless exercise since the charges which could have been dealt with reasonably quickly and a deportation order could have been made in chambers in the afternoon rather than keep him on the taxpayer's money for a further period of time—the charge of being an illegal immigrant seemed to be to override the other charge in importance. Though from all accounts his criminal record (in Australia) suggested that the Australians would not want him back anyway.
A common offence in Magistrate's Court is drunkenness in a public place. It is increasingly being recognised as a social rather than criminal or legal problem. Most offenders are convicted and discharged leaving the courtroom in no better condition (apart from being relatively sober) and with no change except one extra conviction on the record sheet. The courts have an interesting power under S48A of Criminal Justice Act,
There is a need on campus for some sort of discussion/action/study group working in the area of the struggle for women's liberation. In response to this, a preliminary meeting of what we loosely called a women's study group was held, and about 10 attended. From this meeting, we decided to go ahead and organise a wider meeting with both a discussion on the women's struggle in NZ, and to get as many people as possible to give ideas and impetus to the formation of such a group. It was decided that at this stage, both men and women interested in understanding and fighting against the oppression of women would be encouraged.
On Thursday June 19, a meeting will be held in the Union Memorial Foyer at 8.00pm. This will open with a short panel discussion: Phillida Bunkle on women and university, Mary Batchelor on women and politics and Ruthie Beaglehole on women in capitalism. This will be followed by discussion in small groups on what form the organisation should take and what people want from it. Your ideas and needs will form the basis for the organisation, we are relying on your support and enthusiasm. (Supper provided!)
Memorial Theatre Foyer 8pm
Thursday 19 June.
Womens Study Group?
Womens Action Group?
Ski Club
Club Members—the committee hopes to have the lodge open by the middle weekend of Study Break, trusting there is skiable snow available on the mountain. If so, the lodge will be open all thru the second week to July 6 if demand warrants it and a Trip Leader is found. There is a chance of earlier skiing (say from Friday or Thursday) if the snow and transport are forthcoming. If interested in skiing Study Break, please contact Christine Saunders ph. 663355.
Non Members—there is still plenty of room in the club for new members so don't think we aren't interested in you. Non-members trip fees are substantially higher and if you plan to ski Ruapehu often this year it would be worth joining.
Everyone: our recent ski-film evening has been considered a great success by committee and we are hoping to hold a similar evening during the mini festival—keep it in mind.
After several years inactivity History students have roused themselves to form a (new and improved) History Society. While still an ad hoc group, we have so far organised a forum on 'Revolutions' in which Colin Davis, J.O.C. Phillips and Peter Webster discussed an intriguing (and to some frivolous) theory of revolutionary psychology proposed by Peter Munz.
It is hoped that more such forums/ lectures/debates can be held in future. Support is essential, and membership in the Society and attendance at functions is open. To show that history students aren't as dull, boring, and pedantic as they often seem, the History Society prooses, also, to hold social gatherings at which students and staff may imbibe and thereby overcome the artificiality of teaching situations.
To follow up the encouraging start already made, the Society has been able to arrange a lecture for Thursday June 19 in the Easterfield Conference Room. The lecturer is (I hear), an interesting and informative American Historian from Anu, Dr. Hector Kinloch. The topic (certain to be of interest) for his lecture is 1776 In The Shadow Of Vietnam.
So, remember to be at the Conference Room, Easterfield Building by 8.00pm. on Thursday June 19.
On the 26 September (that's in the third term, if you aren't thinking that far ahead), we will be holding a bazaar to which all clubs on campus and any individuals will be able to contribute. Each group will have their own stall and are invited to contribute whatever they prefer to the market. I envisage such commodities as cakes, sweets, pottery, prints, posters, vegies (yum!), literature, works of art, John Henderson (oops! sorry, that just slipped out), or anything else which you think someone might want to buy. Please start thinking about this Now and bring your ideas in to:
Barbara Leishman in the Studass Office.
to assist with production of film. Initially on spec. Continuity artist also required.
Ring Richard Turner—41706 Day
Martin Edmond—758-032 Night
A group operating a drop-in centre would like to obtain a 16mm projector in order to show films to people who use their centre. These people are doing something really worthwhile for the people in their area, and are worth supporting. If you happen to have such a projector, or know someone else who would like to lend one for use mainly at weekends, then contact Barbara Leishman in the Studass office or at home—759-487.
Will students please refrain from leaving books, cases and coats of various descriptions outside the library in the foyer. It has been pointed out to me that in case of an emergency such as a fire or an earthquake these bags would impede people leaving the library and could result in serious injuries. Please Put Bags in the Shelves Provided.
The United Womens Convention took place last weekend in the chilly confines of the Winter Show building. 2,200 women from all over the country took part in the Convention.
The Convention revolved around some 40 workshops covering a wide range of topics. Everyone got together only for two main occasions:—the address by Margaret Mead and the final plenary. Salient sent several reporters along to the the conference but due to deadlines we are unable to present all the reports in this issue.
It wasn't what we expected; but it was perhaps what we should have expected—predominantly white, middle-class, over thirty and moderate. This majority was represented in workshops such as 'Women and the Environment', 'Women and Employment', 'Women and Education', 'Women and Pregnancy', and 'Rural Women' (run by Federated Farmers?) However, a vocal minority representing the Lesbian and Feminist movements made itself felt in workshops such as 'Lesbian Mothers' and 'Feminism and Socialism'.
Even though there was such a wide spectrum of political thought represented most women left the convention with not only a warmer, and more intense feeling towards their sisters, but renewed confidence in themselves and other women. Obviously not even well-thought-out organisation and Margaret Mead could unite 2,200 women with such extreme opinions and life styles. Why did the convention then achieve such warmth and unity?
Perhaps because everyone identified with each other in a common struggle against—not only some men and women, but a whole system which has as its basic structure stereo-typed and restrictive role functions. However, it must be admitted that the recognition of the system as the main oppressor was only directly touched on by a few groups. However, though the other groups did not expressly state this the recommendations they made involved a different structuring of the system eg. education system should be revised to eradicate sex-role stereo-typing and women should have their own trade unions. Thus, in the words of Sonja Davies, 'we should not change ourselves to fit society, but society to fit ourselves.'
This was quite an amazing experience—an exercise in autocracy to say the least. The session commenced with the Chairman (Mrs. Tizard) stating that due to the lack of time and size of the group there would be no discussion or voting on any of the resolutions. She said anyone wishing to speak who did not have an official position, would have to wrest the microphone physically from her.
The plenary then got underway, with the convenor of each workshop reading the recommendations that had come froward from the workshop.
The majority of the recommendations were the sort of things which people have been saying for years, and never do anything about. It is to be hoped that some action will result from this convention, but I am extremely dubious. Many of the recommendations for 'on-going action' involved the setting up of committees, and the holding of further conventions and conferences. There seemed to be a fairly strong 'committee mentality'. Further, the attitude I have described in regard to the 'women and politics' workshop seemed to extend to the whole convention. The women seemed to consider that merely by having women in positions such as MPs and—wait for it—TV news readers, the problems of the masses will be solved.
The lesbian group stated that they were outraged at the number of men present (1% at maximum) and that the organisers must ensure that this was rectified at future conventions. Every time a man appeared he was hissed and booed. The men present were either press reporters, or those who had done a great deal of work for the convention—eg. a group of Newlands boys who had done a survey of 18 schools were made to leave the 'Women in Education' workshop. This, to me, is absurd.
The lesbians took the attitude that they had an advantage over the other women in solving the problems of women, because they were women without men, and therefore one step ahead.
The Radical Feminist Caucus expressed great horror that some of those attending their workshop were not true feminists.
To illustrate the blatantly undemocratic structure: At the 'Women and Equal Pay' workshop I and some of the others who had attended the NZUSA seminar managed to pass some useful resolutions to have several resolutions defeated. Yet, in the plenary session, the convenor of the workshop did not read out the resolutions which had been passed, but those which she had concocted. This seemed a suitable moment to indulge in a spot of microphone wrestling, but decided against this in view of the little that this would achieve, not to mention the number of people present.
During the final plenary I also attempted to hand out 2000 pamphlets about the NZUSA Southern Africa scholarship. The fact that a large number of women present either refused to take one, or returned it to me with statements like 'I don't want this rubbish' may say something about the politics of those present.
Women and Trade Unions opened with a recent British film 'What Did You Do In The War, Mummy?' showing how women have been pushed in and out of the workforce according to the needs of capitalism. This film emphasised that women are capable of taking over the traditionally male occupations. However, after successive World Wars had ended women were forced back either into domestic service (after WW1 there were 2 million female domestic servants, the highest number since the turn of the century), or back into the home. This vulnerability of women to be turned out of their jobs at the employers whim, is aided by the lack of trade unions who are prepared to fight for women's rights.
After the film, the group divided into discussion groups. Groups emphasised the need to educate women on the importance of Trade Unions and to encourage women's participation in Trade Unions. Also suggested was a Working Women's Council separate to, but working in conjunction with the F.O.L.
This workshop was essentially one of personal experiences categorized into the following areas—
Response was good and most of the delegates took part in the discussion. Out of the various small discussion groups came some useful recommendations that were taken to the Plenary Session on Sunday afternoon. One was that more advertising of legal advice be done so that women start realizing there is very little legal discrimination in NA—that is is social pressures that cause women to feel they can't own land, buy houses, get a loan, etc. as easily as men. Another recommendation was that the United Women's convention support the Wellington Singles Association, not as a 'lonely hearts club' but as a potentially active lobby group in the struggle to have women who have chosen to be single accepted and their needs in terms of housing, welfare and status in the community recognised.
Finally, that the NZBC stop referring to any woman under the age of 20 as a 'girl' while in the same breath term a man over the age of 18 as a young man'.
It was a good workshop and tended to bring out the more positive aspects of the Convention—that of a feeling of neighbourliness and concern for the women that are perhaps suffering as a result of their newly discovered and accepted freedom.
The entrance to this workshop area contained a large display of photographs and biographical details of all the New Zealand women who have been members of Parliament. This was interesting and effective and obviously the result of a great deal of work.
At the commencement of the workshop, the 120 women present were each given two handouts, One, entitled 'Political Lobbying', prepared by Christchurch N.O.W. The other handout was an outline of the workshop, in particular details of a play 'A Woman's Place.' This play was performed for the first ¾ hour of the warkshop. Using four characters and a narrator, the play showed woman's position over the past century, by depicting a 'middle class' family in several eras—eg. in Kaiapoi in
This play, along with the display, was intended to provide a springboard for discussion. The women then split up into fourteen groups for discussion purposes. The group I was in contained a variety of women (eg. a young mother from a state housing area in Palmerston North, and Mary Pickering, former Mayoress of Christchurch.) However, like the majority of those at the convention, it was a fairly homogeneous group in that all the women seemed 'middle class', well-dressed, capable of vocalising their ideas and fairly politically aware. Several were members of a political party.
I found that most of the women in the group disagreed with my ideas of the involvement of women in politics. They felt that the answer to women's problems lies in more women gaining office in local body and national politics. There seemed to be a feeling that as long as the person had two X chromosomes in each cell, it didn't matter too much about the politics. My point that I would rather have Mr. Rowling as Prime Minister than Margaret Thatcher was not received favourably (one woman said, 'oh, but she's very feminine').
The feeling of the group (later reflected by the larger meeting) was that men could not represent women's interests, and all those involved in the abortion debate should have been women. When I pointed out that the woman could have as easily been a member of SPUC as a man, the women got very upset. There seemed to be little agreement with my view that involvement of women in politics must start at the grassroots level with things like door-knocking and street meetings. Rather there was an automatic (and to me, naive) assumption that women will naturally represent the interests of other women.
The workshop then reconvened as a whole and the leader of each group presented the main recommendations the members had agreed upon (if they could agree).
A total of about 40 recommendations were put forward; some examples follow:
This workshop was well organised and a large amount of work had gone into its preparation—I found the discussion an interesting experience but a frustrating one due to my own political beliefs.
'Lesbianism is the vanguard of feminism', 'Lesbians have the right to their own children',—these were some of the issues raised in the workshop of 'Women and Lesbianism'. Our group was composed of a substantial number of articulate lesbians, some sympathetic straights and some (perhaps from the Hawkes Bay National Council of Churches) who were prepared to question but who had already made up their minds about the answers.
Discussion centred round lesbians as mothers—never in New Zealand has there been a case where a lesbian mother has been awarded custody of her children (even if it means the children must enter a welfare institution.) Personal cases were cited and obviously well-adjusted human relationships existed among the lesbian couples. Also prominent in the discussion was Wall's amendment—for the first time in New Zealand history, lesbians were being legislatively threatened (as if social pressure wasn't enough).
Recommendations included strong objection to Wall's Amendment and the need for education about lesbians and their problems to combat tear and ignorance.
'Sometimes' said the man, 'Sometimes I sits and thinks. Mostly I just sits.' This applies well to the way the University plans its teaching year.
Occasionally it tries to think up a plan to organise itself around. Mostly however, it potters around with minor changes and lets the big issues sort themselves out. With the wealth of minor changes over the past few years however, (the introduction of the credit system, internal assessment and mid-year final exams), there came a need to look and see where these changes are leading. With this in mind, Prof. Board put a cooling off period of two years at the beginning of last year to look around, especially at a semester system. Since then there's been a lot of sitting, but not much thinking apparent. Soon however, a decision will have to be made on how the teaching year is to be organised. What alternatives are there? What implications have these?
There are three major alternatives (and a variety of hybrids in between these.) Examples of each are contained in the diagram. The semester system is much on the model of that used in the United States, the three-term one that of most NZ universities (tho' many have a study week mid-way thru the second term.) The third alternative is the present system. The alternatives all have a 26-week teaching year, but a variety of times for exams and holidays.
Issues liable to be raised in any debate include:
After this brief outline of some of the issues in the debate, I would like to suggest a timetable I think would suit most people. Its major features:
This is a broad proposal—but then the present debate is about broad proposals. One major benefit in it—on an even broader and more nebulous consideration—is that it should reduce pressure on students in the first and early second terms, thus allowing more time for the hallowed non-academic 'university life'.
Undoubtedly many people will prefer other proposals—let them bring them forward! Only through a full discussion can we hope to arrive at a University timetable that is as acceptable as possible to as many as possible. And if the University is to really function in the interests of people this sort of democracy is vital.
Note: these are only illustrations of what could happen, they are in no way alternative proposals. For explanation see text.
Teachers and college students have been represented for years by establishment type associations, remote from the average member, sucking up to whatever Minister is in power, on first name terms with the bosses in the Education Department. There are clear signs that teachers' college students are sick of this. Their paternal association NZEI and PPTA let them down over the standard tertiary bursary. Students realize they need an association that belongs to them, not to those in charge of them. Some teachers have come to the same conclusion about NZEI and PPTA. They are sick of executives dominated by heads and aspiring careerists, secure in a structure that keeps them at the controls. That's why teachers have formed the NZ Teachers' Federation.
The NZTF is a new union which is being formed to represent the basic scale teacher. We are forming a union because the NZEI and the other teacher organizations have failed consistently to support and represent the basic scale teacher. We propose to form an active and democratic union to represent the needs and wishes of the basic scale teachers throughout the education service in NZ.
We want an organisation that is more concerned with education than pushing for more cupboard space in Headteachers' offices.
We want an organisation that is prepared to stand by its members completely.
We want an organisation that will support its members and encourage them to try innovative approaches to teaching.
We want to protect our members from intimidation by all and sundry in teaching.
We will provide a security for our members to enable them to continue unobstructed by bureaucrats.
You will find no Annual Meetings in the Hotel Intercontinental, you will find no executive far removed from its members.
You will find no Principals dominating your union.
You will be kept fully informed.
You will have full opportunities to participate democratically.
You will not become a Fellow, Associate or any other rank.
You will not pay $39 a year for mock representation in the NZTF.
You will not be bored by us.
You will be welcome.
You will be served and represented.
You can serve and influence. Join the NZTF.
Help get your union off the ground. The time is right for effective representation.
Start a branch in your area. NZTF—depends on you.
What do we hope to achieve in a picket anyway? The cause is put across to the media, which is a good thing. People get more of a chance to see what is happening and both points of view get a national airing. But did it intend to change Wall's ideas, or the ideas of anyone present? It seems that just about all those who attended did so because they either supported reform/repeal of laws against homosexuality, and therefore found this Bill repugnant to their aims; or they were there because they wanted to see homosexuality properly squashed, to shout some interjections. It is ironic that Wall was one of the few there who supported both the liberalization of homosexuality and his Amendment.
There is a sufficent number of organized speakers from the expected groups to keep interest aroused. At first there are no MPs in the offing, but the man himself wanders out smiling blandly and takes the microphone. As in the previous confrontation, the crowd plays into his hands. There are efforts to shout him down at first, his opportunity to ask whether the freedom of speech they were demanding was for them only. Prof. Roberts seemed quite prepared to chuck in his position of MC with this display.
But there is worse to come. Wall is a man who can be convinced by hard facts (remembering that vote power is another hard fact). The best way to convince him that you have no reasonable point to offer is to shriek extremist insults, make puns on his name and sing old demo songs. You guessed it. The lesbian teenyboppers may be doing something useful behind the scenes; they may be doing no harm, since there is little chance of a largely irrational crowd changing any of Wall's opinions or the opinions of those who follow him; but they certainly do little good. There are plenty of opportunities to promote Gay solidity, and as anyone who has looked at any movement from the outside knows, the emotional mutual reinforcement buildups are strictly for consenting members in private if you don't want to look very silly. This applies to Jesus Freaks, Young Nats and anyone else whose views aren't normal.
Then it's Wall's turn to challenge the crowd.
More interjections. 'It's better than being hetero!' brings sectional cheers.
A baby is proferred to Wall as an example of those unable to receive enlightenment. Much is made of the inability of parents to tell their children certain things, and of the age limit, even though Wall has said that both of these could be altered if necessary. Wall wanders off and talks to some of the statuary policepersons. Basset, Birch and Highet all speak in opposition to Wall's Amendment. Birch tells me afterwards that he is opposed to Venn Young's Bill, admitting that he may be wrong and still searching for a fair solution, but still fearing that the Bill threatens the Family—yet he has not developed so bigoted a fear of homosexuals that he will tolerate an amendment like Wall's.
Wall later tells me that he would vote for Venn Young's Bill even if his own amendment were voted out, but that he thinks there is a reasonable amount of support for him in the house. He makes the interesting claim that there is a large group of MPs who were not prepared to vote Venn Young's Bill straight out, but who have been put into turmoil by this Amendment and will have to look over the whole thing again. I assume he means that Young's Bill will only be acceptable to them in this form. So perhaps it is about time the opposition made itself quite clear. I stand ready to be contradicted, but to the best of my knowledge, homosexuals and homosexual groups see the ditching of Wall's Amendment to be of far greater importance than the passing of Young's. That is, if Wall's Amendment is grafted onto the present already inadequate and some-what damaging Bill, then they will ask MPs to vote against it.
So the only real achievement of the picket was to get itself on TV and a pretty favourable report in the papers. Fair enough, but it could have been a damn sight better. And I think it's time all those folks in the crowd sat down and worked themselves out a common policy of reasoned opposition and stuck to it, even if it means that some of the extremists should shut up for a while. We are no longer simply considering the freedom of NZ homosexuals to be themselves, an important enough freedom. We are looking at the possibility of a future in which enlightenment is censored by one Doctor Gerry Wall. And it frightens me very much.
Professional people carrying out their normal duties may find themselves before the courts if Dr. Wall's proposed amendment to the Criminal Amendment Bill becomes law. This is the view of Dr. W.C. Clark, President of the Association of University Teachers. Dr. Clark was commenting in Christchurch on June 16 on Dr. Wall's amendment in relation to the work of university teachers.
He explained that homosexuality is a topic of formal study in a number of disciplines including medicine, psychology, sociology and religious studies. Lecturers in history and literature refer to it as part of the background to some of their courses.
Dr. Clark pointed out that the consensus of informed opinion increasingly holds to the view that homosexuality is the natural sexual orientation of a significant minority of individuals. 'This means that if the proposed amendment becomes law some university teachers must either suppress the findings of research which they believe to be valid or risk prosecution. Clearly Dr. Wall's amendment is a serious violation of the principle of academic freedom.'
Dr Clark said that the Aut was most concerned that the study of a significant social phenomenon might be outlawed in the universities. He stated that the Association was making representations on Dr. Wall's proposal to the Minister of Justice.
Chris Wainwright had been a lecturer at Victoria University for some seven years before he decided to leave his post in the Political Science Department. He had been teaching Pols 213 (Political philosophy with special reference to Marx now taught by Professor Murphy) before he left and in 1974 he attempted to run the course in a new way.
The new techniques he tried out in the course were the result of an increased consciousness of himself as a teacher—as a faciltator in the learning process. Chris like most lecturers had received no instruction in teaching before taking up his post and received little help from fellow staff. The result of his new approach was summed up in a course evaluation of Pols 213 produced over the holidays and which contains evaluations by both Chris and his students. The course evaluation castigated the present set up as being based on a basically feudal education philosophy. Salient interviewed Chris and asked about his course evaluation and his own educational philosophy.
Bruce: Why did you write your course evaluation?
Chris: Well, the main thing I was interested in was to try and describe the quality of the relationship between the students and myself, the teacher and also the quality of the relationships among students.
I've never had training as a teacher, I'm like 95% of the staff in the university. We don't have any training. Most of us come straight from graduate school and into jobs as teachers.
I've had no training as a teacher and I've been there 7 years and I wanted to write an account of my experience. I wanted to try and figure out the mystifications that occur in the university. Because it seems to me that a lot of what people say about what happens in higher education doesn't in fact happen.
There is a myth that says that there is academic freedom in the university. What happens in fact is a freedom for the teacher and not for the student. And when you get to describing what actually happens in the classroom as I've tried to describe in the course evaluation you get a better understanding of not the academic freedom but of academic control that teachers have over students. Its control of course content, control of what is learned, when learning takes place, where it is going to take place and it's controlled by examination.
Bruce: You became very conscious of yourself as a leather and very conscious of the situation you're in, in teaching at the university, but most of the university teachers just go along quite happily unconscious of what they 're really doing without thinking about teaching methods. What sort of effect do you think that has on the functioning of the learning process?
Chris: Partly it determines the purposes of the university. It makes the teachers very arrogant, it makes them very controlling. The fact that they have no training means that they're not accountable to any body or to any set of standards. The fact that teachers have no training puts them in a position of power that just no other professionals have. Teachers just aren't accountable to anyone except themselves. And occasionally younger teachers are accountable to the more dominant heads of department. But each department is a law unto itself and is accountable to faculty only in general terms. What actually happens in the classroom is at the discretion of each individual teacher and each individual teacher can be the ... biggest bastard that he wants to be.
Not only that, but he can keep it a secret from the rest of the university, because the lecture room experiences and the tutorial experiences are very private affairs. The teachers rarely talk about them to their colleagues because they don't have any generalised and shared educational vocabulary in which to talk about their experience. And if the students talk about their experiences the teachers, because they're dominant and because they have the authority of knowledge (or are supposed to have the authority of knowledge), they can invalidate what the students say.
The other effect of teachers not being trained is that it really fouls up the rationality of the examination system. Because if you're not trained as as assessor, this means that you can adjust and re-adjust your grading criteria. You can be as sloppy and as deceitful as you want in grading student essays if you don't have to tell them how you're grading them and why you're grading them. The lack of training of teachers I think is really important in keeping the university in the middle ages.
What's beginning to happen increasingly is an input from so-called educational technologists, that is course consturction, curriculum development, assessment procedures, course evaluation, examinations. These kinds of things are being scrutinised by people who are much more rational than the ordinary run of the mill teacher. Rational in terms of having definite goals, having definite educational principles and educational philosophies by which to work. And what the the technologists are doing is to cut out some of the arbitariness that untrained teachers bring to the job they do. But of course, its not cutting out the essential nature of examinations which is to grade people and fit them into a definite division of labour in the wider society.
Bruce: Can you give examples of the effect of untrained teachers on students?
Chris: Yeah. For instance, you find it in the course evaluation that I wrote ... With untrained teachers you get things like an English Department professor marking a students essay (in)
The reason we get different teachers giving different marks for the same pieces of work, which often happens, is that these teachers have different standards and different ideas about whats good and whats bad. Okay, so that variety. But it also means that any given student is at the mercy of an unstandardised set of criteria. Graeme Clarke, in an issue of Salient a couple of years back, had some really interesting figures about the different pass rates for similar level courses at different universities. And the discrepancies in the pass rates of students who did basically the same kind of work and who had basically the same educational level when they began the course is quite staggering. The reason for this difference, I think, lies in the fact that teachers are untrained. We have a situation where untrained teachers are affecting the life chances of students.
Parking tells us that a fair proportion of students fail their first year at university quite unnecessarily and he finds that some of the reasons for this are the malpractices of university teachers. They simply don't know how to operate as facilitators in the learning process. And they don't know how to operate as people who will assess students in a rational kind of way.
Bruce: There is talk of students getting together and doing a teacher evaluation questionnaire. Do you think this is a good thing?
Chris: There have been student evaluations of teachers before. And they're always dismissed. Except for trivial
Action by Pacific Islanders against racism, imperialism, foreign military bases and the mounting danger of nuclear war was urged in a Fiji Declaration issued at the end of the Conference for a Nuclear Free Pacific.
The Conference was held in Suva, Fiji, from April 1 - 6. There were 88 delegates from 22 countries attending the conference
The Declaration stated that "the conference was held in a crucial time in Pacific and international developments." The Declaration condemned the present series of French underground nuclear bomb tests on Mururoa and supported the rising awareness of the people of the Pacific and the emerging independence movements in the French Territories.
The role of the United States in Micronesia was also condemned. The US has built military and naval bases for aircraft and submarines which carry nuclear weapons around the Pacific. The US also uses Micronesia as a base to fight its wars in Asia. Now the US wants to make parts of Micronesia its own territory.
The conference drafted a Treaty for a Nuclear-free Pacific. The Treaty calls on the people of the Pacific to strengthen their movements for independence, from foreign domination and to work towards a Nuclear-free Pacific.
Finally the conference rejoiced over the victories of the peoples of Vietnam and Cambodia. It stated that these victories proved that the struggle of oppressed peoples are stronger than the huge weapons of the big Powers.
Ke fakaha 'e he kakai mei he 'Otu-motu' Pasifiki 'enau fehia he laulau pe fakafaikehakeke 'i fakamatakali, pule kehea ai a'e fonua, nga'ahi nofo'anga fakasotia 'fakamahafu' ha fonua muli ha motu he Pasifiki moe fakalalahi hake ai pe a'e tenaki ke toe fai ha tau faka-Niukilia koe nga'ahi fakaha loto mei he kau memipa he fakataha. Na'e mau ha fakamatala i he fakaikuiku a'e konifelenisi ko hono taumua'a koe "Pasifiki Tautaina" mei he mahafu Niukilia.
Na'e fai a'e konifelenisi i Suva, Fisi, mei Epeleli 1-6 Na'e fe'unga 'a konifelenisi ni mo e toko valu-ngofulu-ma valu ko hono fakafofongai a'e fonua e (22) 'nofulu-ma-ua.
Na'e pehe hono fakaha e ola mei ho konifelenisi. Na'e fai 'a e konifelenisi he taimi mahuinga 'i he Pasifiki moe nga'ahi fakalakalaka faka-mamani.
Na'e pehe he konifelenisi olu nai fakahalai'ai a falanise moe 'enau nga'ahi tasi faka-nuikilia fakamahafu 'oku lolotonga fai i Mululoa pea oku poupoui he konifelenisi a'e kamata ke mahino'i 'e he tangata'i fonua o'e Pasifiki pea moe nga'ahi feinga ke fakatau'ataina'i a'e nga'a 'otu-motu 'oku kei pule'i 'e he Pule'anga Falanise.
'Oku toe fakahalai'ai 'a Amelika koe'uhi koe 'enau me'a 'oku fai 'i Maikolonisia koe 'osi langa mo fokotu'u moe taulanga vakatau ma'a 'enau nga'ahi vaka-puna tau pea moe nga'ahi vakauku 'a ia 'oku fakamahafu 'aki kinautolu 'a e nga'ahi me'a tau fakaniukilia i he potu lahi 'oe Pasifiki. 'Oku toe ngaue a'ki foki 'e Amelika 'a e nga'ahi taulanga' ni i Maikolonisia ki he 'enau tau 'oku fai 'i Esia. 'I he 'aho'no'oku lolotonga feinga 'a Amelika ke nau ma'u a'e nga'ahi konga 'o Maikolonisia.
Na'e faufau foki ha Talite mau Pasifiki Tauatainia faka-niukilia. Koe Talite ni' ko ha 'ui ki he kakai o'e Pasifiki ke nau lototoa mo toe faka fefeka a'nge a enau feinga ke nau tanataina mei he pule'i kehei ho'onau fonua, pea nau ngaue ki ha Pasifiki tauatain'a faka-niukilia'.
'oku faka'osi 'aki 'a e loto fiefia mo mafana 'a e konifelenisi 'i ho nga'ahi malohi 'o e kakai 'o Vietinemu pea mo Kemipotia, 'oku fakaha koe ngaahi malohi ko 'eni 'oku ne fakamahino'i koe fute moe feinga a'e kakai 'oku lolomi ho'onau le'o 'oku fefeka mo toe 'iui lahi'ange 'ia 'i he ngaahi me'a tau lalahi 'a e nga'ahi fonua
Ina ua maea le fonotaga tele sa faia i Fiti e Malo o lo'o taumafai mo le saogalemu male sa'olotoga o tagata ole Pasefika, mai fa'ataitaiga o mea tau matautia a Malo tetele i totonu vasa Pasefika. Sa faasalalauina mai ai foi ni taumafaiga mole tete'e ina ole faailoga lanu. Malo olo'o fia pulea le Pasefika, ma Malo olo'o fia fausia ni a latou vaega au i totonu ole Pasefika mo sauniuniga mo ni taua.
Olea fonotaga sa faia i Suva mai le aso 1 - 6 o Aperila. E 88 sui mai Male e 22 sa auai.
O lea faasalalauga mai Fiti sa faapea ma ai. Ua usuia tonu lenei fono i totonu ole Pasefika, ile taimi tonu mo lona fia tau atina'e, faapea ma atunu'u tetele ole lalolagi. Sa faaalia mai ai foi le tete'e tele o tagata Pasefika i faatai'taiga o lo'o faia nei a Farani i Mururoa o mea tau matautia. Ma sa lagolagoina e sui uma sa auai ile fonotaga le matua faigata, ma faafiatauli ole a tutupu mai, pea fai ole a faia pea nei faiga a Farani i totonu o atu motu olo'o ona pulea ile Pasefika.
Sa matua faitio'ina tele foi le United State ona o aua mea olo'o faia i totonu ole Maikoronesia. E iai le fausia o vaega au, malae vaaleletau, vaa maulu olo'o tauaveina ai mea tau ana taua ma Asia. Ma e o'o mai taimi nei ua mana'o le United State o Amerika nate Pulea nisi vaega ole Maikoronesia.
Olea fonotaga sa saunia ai se feagaiga mole saolotoga ole Pasefika mai mea tau matautia. Olea feagaiga ua vala'auina ai tagata uma ole Pasefika ina ia galulue faatasi, mole sa'olotoga tutoatasi ole Pasefika mai atunuu ese, ma galulue faatasi mole saogalemu ole Pasefika mai mea tau matautia.
A'o lei faaiuina le fonotaga sa fa'aalia le fiafia o sui uma sa auai ile manumalo o Vietnam ma Cambodia ile taua ma Malo tetele.
Sa fa'aalia ai faapea, o ia manumalo e faaalia mai ai le malolosi o atunu'u laiti nai lo atunu'u tetele ma latou mea tau matautia.
Micronesia became a United Nations Trust Territory under the United States administration in
However, the US has breached its obligation to develop Micronesia towards such a goal. Instead the US government has continually used the Micronesian islands and waters for its nuclear testing and military bases. The US has failed in the last five years of status negotiations with the Micronesians to allow self-government or independence.
The US has in the last two years engaged in a divide-and-conquer colonial policy of negotiating with the Marianas (one chain of islands in Micronesia) to separate it from the rest of Micronesia. Some leaders of the Marianas have recently agreed to let the Marianas become part of the United States with 'Commonwealth Status'. If this becomes permanent the Marianas will be a military colony of the US separate from Micronesia. The US is trying to rush through the Commonwealth proposal in a premature
Micronesia is holding its national constitutional convention in
The Nuclear Free Pacific Conference sent a delegation in 'June to the Trusteeship Council of the United Nations to explain the the situation in Micronesia called on the UN not to recognise the Mariana plebiscite as a legitimate act of self determination in accordance with Resolution 1514 XV of the General Assembly.
'After the villagers had been back for two days, the soldiers returned and encircled the villages. All the inhabitants were driven to an open space between the two kampongs, and the men ... were forced to dig a large hole ... that hole became their grave for they were all shot to death. The women and children were forced to look on.'
The incident—no less than its graphic descpription—has a familiar ring about it. Did it occur, perhaps, in the paddy-fields of South Vietnam? Or was it the Moslem island of Mindanao in the Philippines? In fact, neither. This particular massacre took place four years ago in West Irian—an obscure corner of the Indonesian archipelago.
West Irian is the scene of Asia's latest war of liberation—the scene of growing resistance to Indonesian military occupation, and the inevitable retaliations. In this article Carmel Budihardjo explains how Indonesia acquired West Irian after the dissolution of the Dutch empire, and why President Suharto's military government is so determined to persevere with the kind of war it can probably never win.
On October 11th last year, the Dutch newspaper 'De Telegraaf' ran the first of a series of articles on what looks like becoming Asia's latest war of independence. The author, Henk de Mari, was reporting direct from Baik, one of the remotest islands of Indonesia. His first report carried an account of a grim jungle incident four years earlier, on the west of the island:
'Members of the Organisasi Papua Merdeka (OPM) fired on Indonesian soldiers in the jungle, and ten soldiers were killed. An Indonesian patrol of 50 red-beret and green-beret soldiers then went on a punitive expedition.
'The kampongs of Wusdori and Kridori, built on piles along the beach, were visited by the patrol. The villagers knew that the patrol was coming and they fled, not because they had in any way been involved in the OPM, but Because they were, as is usually the case, afraid of Indonesian soldiers. It often happens, even to this day, that troops misbehave: they rape women, kill pigs, and demand food and drink without payment.
'When the patrol reached the two kampongs, all they found were deserted huts ... The patrol moved on without destroying anything. The next day the villagers moved back...
'After the villagers had been back for two days, the soldiers returned and encircled the villages. All the inhabitants were driven to an open space between the two kampongs, and the men, 25 from Wusdori and 30 from Kridori, were forced to dig a large hole ... That hole became their grave, for they were all shot to death. The women and children were forced to look on ...
'The day after the mass murder, the soldiers came back with some 30 Papuans, presumably from neighbouring villages. They were not known to the villagers of Wusdori and Kridori. The soldiers took the boats of the villagers they killed the day before and forced the 30 Papuans into the boats. Stones had been tied to their necks, and not far from the shore the Papuans were thrown overboard and drowned.'
Baik lies of Irian Jaya—the western half of the island of New Guinea. Although this kind of armed resistance to Indonesian rule, and the inevitable retaliations, have only come to light in the last two years, the problem is as old as the Republic of Indonesia itself. When agreement was reached between the newly founded Indonesian Republic and the Dutch Government in
But the Dutch Government dragged its feet, and the issue quickly became a major plank in Indonesia's anti-colonialist struggle. A number of campaigns, both economic and military, followed. A naval encounter occurred at the beginning of
But although some circles in West Irian welcomed the chance of incorporation within Indonesia, a 'Free Papua' movement soon began to emerge, stressing the differences—ethnic and cultural, between the Papuan people and people in the rest of the Indonesian archipelago.
Indonesian Administration, when it moved into the area, brought with it officials who were inspired with a great sense of of idealism. But it also brought officials who quickly began to abuse their privileges, resorting to corruption and outright plundering of the local wealth. This was compounded by a general lack of understanding of a people, many of whom were still living in the stone age, and it inevitably had the effect of widening the feeling of mistrust.
In mushawarah— literally a 'reaching of consensus', but put differently a method that requires unanimity.
The principle of 'one man, one vote' was rejected and voting rights were conferred upon the tribal chieftains who would be regarded as 'representing' their tribes. They were actively wooed and cajoled into saying 'yes' and given to understand in no uncertain terms that any opposition would be seen as an act of 'Communist subversion'.
The result of the referendum was a foregone conclusion—a 100% vote in favour of the Republic. When the result came before the UN General Assembly for approval in
Since
The Free Papua Movement favours the merging of the two halves of the island of New Guinea into a single state, on the grounds of cultural affinity and affinity between the people of the whole island. And of course it had also vigorously challenged the 'act of free choice'.
Its military arm, the OPM, claims (despite being proscribed) to have set up a provisional Government in the central region of the territory which borders on Papua New Guinea. The OPM also asserts that it controls an area equivalent in size to 2½ times the size of the Netherlands.
Indonesian troops wage continual campaigns against the OPM, and have been responsible for many alleged acts of brutality. According to the OPM, no fewer than 30,000 people have been massacred since
Far too little is know internationally about the behaviour of Indonesian troops in West Irian. Quite apart from the Baik massacres, Henk de Mari's articles in De Telegraaf provide much startling information about extreme intimidation and fear pervading the country. A local parliamentarian, he reports, who had made an appointment with him for an interview on the local economic and social situation was arrested by the Army the day before the interview was to take place.
Why is the Indonesian Government so determined to pursue this debilitating campaign in the jungles of Irian? According to reports the entire province has now been closed to foreign observers and journalists. But it has certainly been opened up to the foreign investor. West Irian accounts for about 22% of the total land area of Indonesia and probably includes a larger share of its mineral wealth (much of which still awaits prospecting).
Indonesia's Foreign Investment Law of
There can be little doubt that current Indonesian policies on West Irian are based on exploitation and oppression. Nor can there be any doubt that they will provoke increasing resistance.
Hospital Prison des Baumettes, Marseilles
These three Tahitians are at present imprisoned in the Baumettes; they have been sentenced by the Tribunal in Papeete to:
five years in prisonten years local banishment22,000 francs fine
for an act political in nature. The government actually refuses to apply the law of amnesty to them.
On Faa airport on the occasion of a visit by Minister Rey.
According to the terms of the Public Prosecutor's indictment: 'They believed in a political evolution of the territory, each talking at once of autonomy and independence. They had envisaged a revolution, but a peaceful one.' The prosecution maintained that this arms theft had a military defence organisation as its goal. The arrested Tahitians have always maintained that it was only to ridicule the military, who believed themselves to be all-powerful in Papeete.
The Tahitians tried to engage a French lawyer but could not reach him. Their letters did not get through to Paris. On
The seven condemned men appealed, and on
It must be noted that the same public prosecutor, who participated in the two hearings, called for a particular severity because of political motivations. The Tahitians maintained that they had not been able to prepare through the registry of the prison at Papeete the defence which they
During the night of
It was then that 3 of them—Charlie Hing, Felix
Doubtless because it was warmer there and therefore with a small humane gesture, the three Tahitians were transferred to the prison of Baumettes where they will be detained, but under particularly harsh conditions. M. Pleven, then Keeper of the Seals, granted them on
The Tahitians refused to make a plea for pardon, but desired that the injustices of which they were victims should be repaired—i.e. that the proceedings at Papeete be reviewed or rejected.
But there is nothing that can be done. The law is the law and the Minister has declared himself to be powerless, while at the same time saying that it would not be possible to refuse a pardon. But this pardon that they had not asked for but which was expected would be given to them, was refused on
After the election of M. Giscard d'Estaing as President of the Republic, on 16 July, an amnesty law came into force which provided in articles 2-4 that 'all offences committed in connection with all other undertakings attempting to interfere with the exercise of the authority of the state or in connection with political or social incidents' would be subject to amnesty.
M. Lecanvert, Minister of Justice, spelt out that this would be an amnesty for all deeds of political motivation in his statements to the National Assembly and above all, to the Senate. A circular from the Keeper of the Seals, addressed to the different Prosecutors recommended as well an extremely wide interpretation of the amnesty law on this matter. In the majority of cases, the Prosecutor moreover applied this wide interpretation.
But the Tahitians remained in prison.
The Minister of Justice did not only apply the recommendations he had made to the different Prosecutors but he intended to increase the sentence passed on the Tahitians, and sought to have them convicted for escaping custody.
On Cahn to ten months imprisonment and Felix Teheriura to six months imprisonment for escaping custody.
Application was made to the Appeal Court in Aix-en-Provence who in its judgement on the appeal refused to rule on the amnesty to Maitres Henri Leclerc and Jean Dissler, lawyers for Felix Teheriura. This decision is now being submitted to the Supreme Court of Appeal.
The link with 'political and social' incidents arises firstly from the indictment written by the Public Prosecutor for the Papeete Tribunal. It arises next from the remarks made orally by the Prosecutor to the court hearings, as much to the Supreme Court as to the Tribunal, calling for a particular severity for the very reason that these acts were of political motivation.
The political nature of the conviction appears in the evidence in its great size. Never under any circumstances has a first offender been sentneced to the maximum penalty. The fact of inclicting in addition 10 years local banishment makes it all appear like a disguised exile.
M. Pleven, formerly Keeper of the Seals, had understood himself as well the political nature of the offence in granting the prisoners the benefit of the special rules provided for by article D 490 and following the Code of Penal Procedure which specifies that the latter can be granted only 'to persons prosecuted or convicted of whom it is proved in view of the circumstances of the case, that while they had committed the acts constituting the offence they were prompted by motives of a political character and were neither moved by personal interest nor by a spirit of vengence.'
This political character has been upheld by the Supreme Court of Appeal when removing jurisdiction from the Higher Tribunal of Appeal in Papeete for reasons of 'Public Safety'. It has only hindered the prisoners who are still in the Baumettes prison that the Minister refuses to reply to all requests.
Numerous letters from the Tahitian prisoners have been sent as well, as soon as they understood the import of their action. They are peaceful men who have been upset by the nuclear experiences of Mururoa because of their religious feelings and their patriotism. What is more, they have been upset by the economic consequences of these acts. They think that the presence of the army in Polynesia has been mostly to monopolize the territories, due to an improper application of the Civil Code, since the landed property in Polynesia is governed by a customary system founded on joint possession and inalienability of the native soil. Their act was designed to create real speculation and a deep jolt to the point of view of the social justice which can allow the destruction of these places, and rights.
They wished for the independence of Tahiti. Their act was governed at the time by political desire, a certain mystique, from love of their people and their country, and finally from a sense of humour and irony which has pervaded their actions.
Public opinion has increased already but it must make the Minister of Justice listen: one who has besides declared that he has the ear of the people. In this situation, does French public opinion accept that these men remain in prison and when they have completed nearly six years, they will be precluded form their country, Polynesia, for another 10 years? Ironically, it is the Higher Tribunal of French Polynesia which must make a new ruling on the problem of the amnesty law.
The men in the Baumettes are submitted to many pressures. Facing the inconsistency of decisions they have also changed lawyers. They only want justice. It will be a scandal if they remain still longer in the Baumettes without returning to their own country.
Note: Translated form original French summary of Maitres Henri Leclerc and Jean Dissler.
Clairs Slatter, Organising Secretary for the Conference Planning Committee has written to Span about the proposed Conference.
'A group of Pacific Island women based in Fiji are planning a Pacific-wide Women's Conference for the later part of the year. It is hoped that women from all over the Pacific and from different backgrounds will participate in the Conference.
The Conference, we feel, could be an event of the utmost significance for the Pacific. For the first time, and in a regional form, the women of the Pacific nations will be able to give expression to feelings and conceptions they have of their roles and rights in their societies; to access their contribution to national development and how it is being promoted or hindered. There are many issues and questions that will be raised. The forum will be a consciousness-raising experience for all of us women in the Pacific. The outcome could be important: an increased participation in national and regional development.
The Palnning Committee, composed of Pacific Island women entirely, held its first formal meeting two weeks ago. Much of the ground work had already been done by an ad hoc planning group. Letters have been sent to women throughout the Region. It is most important that we reach the women of the Pacific—not only those articulate few in the twons and with hobs, but few in the towns and with jobs, but particularly the 'silent majority' in unrecognised employment in some of our societies, and the women in the rural areas, engaged in traditional employment. We feel that all available means of reaching our women must be used.'
The organising Committee hope to produce a broadsheet monthly and Spacific will carry information from this, in order to help spread word of the conference. Any women interested in this conference should write to Claire Slatter, c/- YWCA, P.O. Box 534, Suva, Fiji, for further information or with ideas, comments, suggestions, etc. Also you could write to the editor of Spacific and we will either publish your comments or pass them on to the organising committee.
The Condomimium Government of the New Hebrides has decided to build a new airstrip at Norsup on North Malekula, but it has come up against fierce opposition from the local inhabitants.
The site chosen seemed ideal to the British and French, being close to both their district agencies. They bought the land from a French owned company PRNH (Plantation Reunies des Nouvelles Hebrides) which has operated a large coconut plantation in the area for well over fifty years. Indeed the PRNH claims undeveloped land and coconut plantations stretching for miles along the coast of Malekula including two of the largest plantations in the New Hebrides. (See map.)
However, the Condominium Government (which is the British and French working together on such things as public works) could not have been unaware of the intense hatred and bitterness felt by the local inhabitants for PRNH, or of the fact that ownership of the land they purchased has been in question for many years.
The story of the original purchase of the land by PRNH is a familiar one in the New Hebrides history. It tells of unfair dealings, of two ship loads of French troops anchored off Norsup while negotiations were proceeding; of Vietnamese labourers brought in to clear and fence the plantation; of fences gradually being pushed further and further out until the local inhabitants of Tatau occupy a tiny portion of rocky coastland; and of all native resistance being squashed by force of superior arms.
In addition to this long standing land dispute, the land chosen for the airstrip was also the traditional route of the Tatau people to their gardens.
Three years ago, without any consultation with the local people, the Condominium landed their machinery and labour force and started to bulldoze the area. This was the last straw for the Tautu people. Led by Kennerrie Williams, a strong nationist figure and secretary of the North Malekula local council, the Tauta people retaliated by replanting the cleared land with young coconuts. The land was bulldozed again, and replanted again, until the Condominium decided to postpone development to allow time for negotiations and planning new tactics.
By the end of
At the December meeting of the Advisory Council, the issue of the Norsup airstrip was tabled as a topic of discussion. As a result, a Commission of Inquiry was set up. The Commission consisted of four members of the Advisory Council—an Australian trader from Tanna, a French planter from Santo, and two New Hebrideans—the Air Melanesiae agent from Erromango and the ADCO member for North Malekula. The Condominium mishandled the situation in choosing the two expatriates who have exploited the New Hebrides for their own gain.
The Commission had two meetings with the Tautu people. The first went well as the local people were willing to talk to the Commission. They asked for time to think the matter over amongst themselves. They arranged a second meeting. In the meantime, the locals decided not to allow their traditional route to be developed into an airstrip. Their spokesman reported the decision to the Commission's second meeting.
The Commission made its recommendations to the Resident Commissioners in Vila. A week later the two governments announced their decision:
'that the new airstrip shall be constructed on the site originally selected—that is, on the land purchased from the PRNH by the Condominium Administration.'
The rest of the Comunique promises generous terms to the Tautu people. It virtually recognises their ownership of the proposed site and agrees to the annual payment of 40,000 NH francs (approximately A $400) for a 25 year lease. It promises them the right to use their traditional footpath across the airfield and offers them priority of employment, sale of the airfield and contracts for bars or restuarants at the airfield. It finishes with a stern warning against any attempts to interfere in the construction of the strip.
The Governments had in fact determined to push ahead regardless of the feelings of the Tautu people, and despite the repeated attempt by the New Hebrides National Party to warn the Governments of the possible consequences and persuade them to postpone the development until agreement was reached. Even before the Communique was published, police reinforcements had been sent from Vila and Santo, to make a total force of one hundred police on the site. In addition, the French Government sent two ship loads of local people from firther north on Malekula to standby in case of possible interference in the work from Tautu people.
In the face of this almost military invasion, the Tautu people could do little but be silent. They did, however, register their protest with a placard at the site and by returning the two tractors, documents and money they had been looking after for the Local Council.
Once the Communique was issued, of course, the governments claim they could not dream of going back on their published regulation. If they did that, the public could no longer respect the government.
The two governments claim that they acted thus for the economic advantage of the whole country, and for the benefit of a larger group of people than just the immediate village of Tautu. In fact the government has decided that economic development is of greater importance than justice for the local people. The whole incident has brought out one fact clearer than ever—that is that the Condominium Government is not the Government of the New Hebrideans but the government of the white minorities who are direct subjects of France and Britain.
The dispute over the property at Norsup is not ended. It will break out in some other form in the near future. Who knows what the future of the Norsup airstrip will be? The big thing is that the Condominium Government still has to learn to listen to respect, and take seriously, the views of the New Hebrideans.
Span Chairman, Peter Wilson, attended the Atom Conference in Suva, in April and found the Conference valuable in furthering the struggle against nuclear testing in the Pacific and against the US presence in Micronesia. Thanks to those members who contributed towards travel costs to the Conference.
Some Span Members attended a seminar on 'Understanding Tongans' run by the Wellington Tongan Association in May. Those attending found it a very informative seminar and helpful in increasing their understanding of another Pacific culture and people.
18 months ago the Shand Report on the Cook Islands—NZ Fruit Trade was published. Since little seemed to have happened, Span in conjunction with CARP met with David Shand on 28 May to discuss the Government's implementation of the recommendations made in his report. Although banana prices paid to the grower have been increased by 2c per lb. and shipping services have been improved, the structure of Fruit Distributors Ltd. remains unchanged. The Shand Report recommended that the FDL board should be reconstituted with at least an equal number of Government and shareholder directors. Span believes that until FDL has been changed, the fresh fruit trade in the Pacific will never be developed to the benefit of Pacific Islands growers.
Spacific is the newsletter of the South Pacific Action Network (Span) PO Box 9792, Wellington, New Zealand.
This issue is produced in conjunction with Salient (Victoria University Students Assn. newspaper) as a special Pacific Supplement.
Span is a network of people both in NZ and other Pacific countries who are working for change from the standpoint that all peoples in the Pacific have the right to determine their own futures, and that relationships between countries be based on equality, justice and mutual co-operation and respect. For more information, return the form below.
Spacific Vol 111 No.3
points like that the teacher might decide to speak more clearly. The teacher might decide to get to the tutorial on time. The teacher might decide to set a few more books, might even give out a syllabus for the course. But any basic criticism of teachers that students have, teachers are going to ignore because the basic criticisms get at the power position of teachers.
And I don't know any teachers in the university who want to share their power with students. Not when it gets to the actual learning situation. To answer this you've got to look at the purposes of the university. Essentially the job of the university is to socialize students into their future roles. That means giving the students some knowledge and probably more fundamentally giving them some basic attitudes towards work, attitudes of competitiveness of individualism and privacy. These three attitudes are ones which characterise learning at the university, just as they characterise work in the capitalist system. Students are private, they don't share their work with anybody, they work by themselves, (only occasionally do you get group projects going) and students work in isolation. Higher education is often a very private experience.
Bruce: You had no formal lectures at all in Pols 213 last year. Instead you placed yourself in among the students from the beginning of the course. You therefore weren't as isolated from them. What difference do you think this made?
Chris: What I did was not to give lectures except very infrequently and this created a lot of confusion among students and it created some anxiety in myself. We got rid of a basic format and it proved a problem. We had to decide what to put in its place. For me this was the first gain. We now had a situation where we could decide what we wanted to do. But this idea only arose because I as a dominator decided to give up some of my power.
Essentially, even though we scrapped lectures, I was still the boss, because I could turn around and say I'm going to break the contract, I'm going to have lectures. So even though you play around with lectures and you play around with seminars, and ways of conducting tutorials and rearrange examination and assessment procedures. Even though you might do this you will always have the situation where some people are in control, teachers, and some people have no control at all.
The reason for this is that students are powerless. All the attempts by students to get reas academic control of the university have failed. Students have always been fobbed off.
Students get onto Prof. Board and Council but they're always in a minority and academics ensure that this is always going to be so. I don't know of any courses in any universities which are run by the students themselves. I don't see how this could be the case in a capitalist society. Once a university in a capitalist society started doing what the participants wanted it to do it would get closed. Because the governments aren't going to fund that kind of operation.
Bruce: Why is it, do you think that the university pays so little attention to teaching. After all, most people see the university as a place of learning.
Chris: Well all education is basically political. All learning is political and all teaching is political. The universities have an ideology of academia that doesn't admit that education is political. When I say that education is political I mean that the content of what gets learned favours somebodies interests. It is not in the interests of academics to admit their political biases. Academics make a big point of avoiding doing so. They make a point of having another ideology about objectivity, the impartiality, the lack of political involvement of the intellectual game. What this means for individual teachers is a lack of their own personal involvement.
Now politics is about people and people are emotional and a lot of political activity is a combination of how people feel and how they reason. What the university has done is to cut out the emotional part of us and to act as if we only had reason. And what this does, is to effectively depoliticise the educational process. Thats one way the education process is de-politicised. Another way it is depoliticised is to have learning which is abstract away from the day to day experiences of those involved in the learning situation. Teachers will never talk about their own lives. The information they put across is distant from themselves personally and they never get into the experiences of the lives of students. What the student learns (and this is the main reason students don't get much from what they learn) is distant from him. Its in abstract from his material conditions.
What I think is happening and what is going to happen increasingly is not that teachers will understand the political nature of their work, but that education will become rationalised, it will become more efficient, it will be technologised. And this, has happened in the States and this has happened in Europe, and especially it is happening in the Open University in Britain. It might take some time, but increasingly NZ academics will become more concerned for a greater rationality in the learning process. Whether this rationality will acknowledge the fundamental political nature of education is a moot point, I don't think it will.
Bruce: The student unions in Australia and New Zealand are very concerned about assessment and have done work publicising alternatives to the present modes of assessment. Do you think that the way things are done now is particularly backward?
Chris: Very often the students are ahead of teachers in understanding how teaching needs to be rationalised and made fairer and more efficient. But, in the end, what the students are asking for is a fairer and more efficient system that discriminates.
Essentially a university education is a priviledged education. I don't know; something less than 5% of the population. It is still an education for an elite. If the National Union of Students want to champion the cause of an elite, well, thats their business. In advocating greater rationality in education they're not doing very much to expose the fundamental political nature of education.
The fundamental political aspect of higher education is in the way it services capitalism. All the university is doing is turning out qualified people for a given division of labour. All NZUSA is asking is that we do this more efficiently and with greater satisfaction to students—so they feel that they're treated more fairly, not discriminated against, aren't the victims of arbitary and whimsical activities by teachers. This isn't attacking the division of labour which we've got at present. This is what I see as more important.
Bruce: But a student union, like any other union, isn't in business to fundamentally change the work situation. The main job of a union is to defend the members' interests—to make the situation liveable for a while.
Chris: Oh no, I disagree. An active radical union would do two things; it would do what you say, it would make the situation liveable for a while, but it would also go further in exposing and describing the nature of the work situation. The student unions aren't, as they ought to be doing, describing the division of labour within the universities. There's a whole lot of sexism, a whole lot of racism, a whole lot of exploitation of labour goes on within the universities. The NZUSA are sometimes concerned with this, but not too often.
I would like to see a lot of the energy they expend in promoting a more rational education system being spent in showing the mystifications that exist within the present division of labour in the university i.e. showing the division of labour for what it is—on the one hand there's a small group of very priviledged, highly paid ideologists who are force feeding a large group of middle class people who themselves will become priviledged. I would like to see NZUSA give much greater concern to the class nature of the university. I think it should protect its members but it could do that till kingdom come.
When Bruce Kirkland told NZUSA Council that they didn't realize the implications of their actions in stopping New Argot, little notice was taken of him. However, time has shown that he was right. A well-co-cordinateed campaign to discredit the NZUSA decision and for the reinstatement of New Argot went into operation within days of the desision made at the May Council.
Salient has already commented on the motions brought forward to Stanz Council the next weekend condemning the NZUSA decision and the fact that they were already shelved. We should also have mentioned that the person responsible for these motions reaching Stanz Council was a certain Roger King; one of the three constituent reps on the Arts Council Executive Board (which runs the day to day affairs of the Arts Council). The motions that reached Stanz Council were not the result of spontaneous student disgust but the result of the actions of a member of the Arts Council Executive Board.
The next vociferous opposition also came from Auckland (Roger King is from Auckland Primary Teachers' College) as letters from various literati and academics flooded into NZUSA condemning the decision made at Council. People were at a loss to explain this phenomenon until one person made the mistake of forwarding the form letter he received from the ex-editor Kaye Turner with just the scraw led comment that he agreed with the sentiments (see letter opposite). Apparently Kaye Turner, who had taken on the job under the assumption that it was to last at least a year, has been writing to various people in Auckland asking them to complain
Finally, (if there ever is a finally) down in Wellington Bruce Kirkland produced a report on the 'implications' of the demise of New Argot.
The report is a collection of emotional half-truths designed to discredit both NZUSA and those who desire to see a national student newspaper. In a later article I will attempt to counter the arguments contained in this report and give some positive suggestions as to the feasibility of a national student publication. The major good point of the report is that Kirkland accepts that the NZUSA decision to stop New Argot is constitutionally binding.
The National Trade Union Congress (NTUC) has set up a permanent membership recruitment committee in a renewed effort to bring into its fold unorganised workers in Singapore. Mr. V. Jayakody, NTUC secretary said that the present membership is only about 33% of the organisable workers in Singapore. He added that most of the unorganised workers were union-conscious but they seemed to have misgivings about the effectiveness of trade unions.
Mr. Phey Yew Kok, who is the NTUC's president and general secretary of both Silo and Pieu, said NTUC-affiliated unions not only endeavoured to improve the economic and social conditions of workers but also undertook other functions designed for their welfare.
The newly-formed NTUC Industrial Affairs Council (which the recruitment committee will be attached to), claims to provide expert assistance to affiliated unions, and also to undertake the supervision of strikes and other industrial action at the request of affiliate unions.
(NB: Between
The Railwaymen's Union of Malaya (Rum) general secretary, Mr. V. Baradan said yesterday three months had passed since the Public Services Department indicated that it would meet the union to discuss its wage claims. 'Frustration is mounting among our members,' he added. In a resolution adopted by the union last year, the executive council would decide on a further course of action to back the claims if normal avenues of approach fails to achieve satisfactory results by the end of June.
Singapore Sawmill and Timber Products in Kranji Industrial Estate has dismissed about 50 workers who failed to report for work on Vesak Day. The workers approached the Labour Ministry for assistance in resolving the dispute. Following the Ministry's intervention, the company agreed that the workers would be re-employed if they pledged not to break any company rules in future.
The next day, the workers staged a mass protest outside the sawmill, claiming that the company had offered them re-employment on unfair terms. They said they were determined to sit outisde the sawmill's gate until the company agreed to take them back unconditionally and without any pay cut.
Johore Baru: 47 Tasek Utara squatters were each fined $420 or six months jail in default and sentenced to one day's jail for illegally occupying State land outside the State Secretariat building where a demonstration was held.
Mr. Masacorale, a lwayer for the squatters said in the affidavit that a stay of execution should be given so that the 47 'may be able to beg for charity and save some money to pay the fine in case the appeal is dismissed.' He said under the present circumstances the applicants find it almost impossible to pay the fine, which it tantamount to them being compelled to serve the jail sentence. He said among the 47 are 24 women. Most of the squatters are casual labourers earning an uncertain income far below subsistence.
The United States will not abandon Asia despite major setbacks it has suffered in Indochina, the US Assistant Secretary of State for East Asia and Pacific Affairs, Mr. Philip Habib, said in Kuala Lumpur today. Mr. Habib said his trip to South-east Asia was to find out the mood, the outlook and the concern of the people of Asia following the developments in Indochina.
(This article is reproduced from the circular (May 19) of Malayan Information Centre (Sydney)).
The successful conclusion of the national war of independence and liberation in Vietnam was greeted by the Malaysian Prime Minister, Tun Abdul Razak, with the suggestion that Asean (Association of South-East Asian Nations: consisting of Malaysia, Singapore, Indonesia, Thailand and the Phillipines) be extended to include Cambodia and South Vietnam. This suggestion was made at a meeting of Foreign Ministers from Asean held in Kuala Lumpur from 14-16 May. The meeting of foreign ministers also decided to hold a summit meeting of Asean in July in Indonesia. The summit meeting is expected to sign a 'treaty of amity and co-operation' for the implementation of an Asean declaration that South-East Asia be made a 'zone of peace, freedom and neutrality.'
This Asean declaration was moved by Tun Razak to give Malaysia a new image as a 'progressive, non-aligned nation, irrevocably opposed to imperialism, colonialism, racism and firmly committed on the side of the liberation movements in their struggle for freedom and dignity.' Is this Asean declaration a reality, or is it just a big myth?
To answer this, one must ask oneself, 'why was the Vietnam War fought in the first place?' The answer given by William Bundy, foreign policy advisor to presidents Kennedy and Johnson, came closest to the truth when he said, 'On a wide view, buying time for the nations of South-East Asia to stabilize their governments was the major reason for actions. Thus there is a faint consolation in the fact that such countries as Thailand, Singapore, Indonesia and Malaysia are not in all that bad shape.' (Time,
Why stop the communists at the 17th parallel and stabilize the governments of South-East Asia? The answer, to protect western economic interests in Se Asia, an area rich in natural resources and cheap labour. Malaysia and Indonesia alone, produce over 70% of the world's tin ore and natural rubber. Besides tin and rubber, there are large deposits of iron ore, bauxite, tinanium and oil. All these commodities are needed in western industries. It is therefore in te the interests of the west (especially the US and Britain) to make sure that only sumpathetic regimes exist in South-East Asia—in other words, to make sure that Thailand, Malaysia, Singapore, Indonesia and the Phillipines, are nothing but neo-colonies of western imperialism.
In Malaysia, after 18 years of independence, the economy is still under foreign control (mainly by British, American and Japanese companies).
Foreign capital accounted for about 61% of the total share capital of limited companies; 75.3% of the rubber industry; and 72.4% of the mining industries. Repatriation of profits abroad by foreign companies comes to about $400 million to $500 million a year. The result of foreign domination is the increasing gap between the rich (the minority) and the poor (the majority). Repression in Malaysia is also on the increase. This pattern of foreign domination and its results are repeated in Singapore, Indonesia and the Phillipines.
The economies of Malaysia and the other Asean countries are geared towards the interests of western imperialism. Can a country which is economically foreign dominated maintain its independence and neutrality? The answer to this question can only be in the negative. The Asean countries cannot be neutral as the situation now stands.
Another factor interfering with the neutrality of South-East Asia, is the presence of foreign bases. There are still military bases in Thailand, and the Phillipines. These bases were used extensively during the Vietnam War. There are also foreign bases in Malaysia and Singapore, provided for in the Five Power Defence Agreement. As in Seato, the Five Power Defence Agreement was set up for the 'stability' of South-East Asia. Therefore. Seato and the Five Power Defence Agreement, were set up to protect the western economic interests. Australia and New Zealand are part of these two defence agreements, and have given substantial military aid to Malaysia and Singapore.
Does the defeat of US imperialism in Vietnam and Cambodia, mean the end of imperialism and neo-colonialism in South-East Asia? The answer must again be in the negative, as amplified in Bundy's statement and Ford's defence line.
The Asean declaration that South-East Asia be a zone of peace, freedom and neutrality is, therefore, nothing but a big myth. This declaration can only be realized when Malaysia and the other Asean countries get rid of their foreign military bases, revoke all their repressive laws and become economically independent—that is becoming 'master of one's own destiny, not its slave.'
If NZ and Australia are interested in the Asean declaration, then they must get out of Seato, the Five Power Defence Agreement, stop all military aid to Malaysia/Singapore and other Asean countries, put pressure on the US to get out of Asia, and accept the political and economic independence of South-East Asia.
'Nothing is more precious than independence and freedom!'
Textiles are a notoriously cyclical business at the best of times, but Malaysian companies today face a crisis which could cripple large sections of the industry and, at the same time, involve the Government in major policy decisions which could upset the country's economic development.
However, Malaysia's problems are not as simple as those affecting the rest of the Far East, America and Europe. The invasion of Japanese and Hong Kong textile manufacturers into Malaysia over the last couple of years has at least doubled the potential capacity of the industry.
The foreign-owned companies are bigger, better-equipped, and more competitive than the local industry. The fear is that they will capture the existing export market and undercut local firms on the domestic market. Malaysian firms will be forced out of business and, when the recession is over, only foreign-owned companies will be left to enjoy the profits.
The Government has tried to encourage these new firms to sell a percentage of their equity to Malaysians and to concentrate on exports rather than the local market. But there is little indication that it is aware of the problems it may have created through its very generous investment and incentive schemes and its policy of allowing overseas companies to repatriate virtually all their profits.
At the same time, the Textile Alliance from Hong Kong has set up a massive vertically-integrated operation in Penang with Toray.
The impact of these companies on the Malaysian economy is demonstrated by Govt. figures. In
'Although I am a foreigner myself, I think the Malaysian Government is selling out the future of the local people to the Japanese.'
Many of the big Japanese textile names are now well-established in Malaysia: Toray Industries, Unitika, Kanebo, Japan Exlan, T. Nishio and Toyobo.
The reasons for the influx of foreign money are not hard to find. The textile industry is famous for its low wages and cutthroat competition. Rising costs at home, particularly for land and labour, have forced Japanese and Hong Kong companies to expand overseas.
Japan's new relations with China politically mean that Taiwan and South Korea no longer have the same appeal for Japanese investors. Malaysia is an obvious alternative. Although wage rates are marginally higher than in Thailand or Indonesia, Malaysia enjoys one of the most stable political systems and economies in Southeast Asia. (It is illegal to strike in Malaysia.) At the same time, the Government is prepared to give new companies a tax-free holiday for up to eight years. It also guarantees new investment and allows companies to repatriate their profits.
Malaysian companies may be disturbed about export competition, but they are a great deal more worried about the future of the local market. Currently, Japanese and Hong Kong countries which grossly overbought during last year's boom, are alleged to be dumping large quantities of textiles on the Malaysian market.
The situation is now so bad that local manufacturers have managed to persuade the Malaysian Government to take action. It is likely that in the near future it will impose a total ban on imports of shirting fabric and substantially raise the tariffs on other items.
This dumping may be only a temporary phenomenon. In the long term, however, Malaysian firms are scared that the newly-established Japanese and Hong-Kong textile groups will start competing in the domestic market. One local manufacturer said: 'If the Japanese compete on the home market, our established mills will sink. These conglomerates can afford to sell at ridiculously low prices and, if necessary, take a loss. The indigenous Malaysian companies are much more vulnerable.'
The Government claims that it has anticipated the problem and carefully tried to prevent direct competition between the new foreign-owned companies and the local industry. The new companies are only allowed to sell in quantity on the local market if they are manufacturing fabric not already made in Malaysia, or where there is a shortage of locally-produced material.
Local manufacturers are certainly not very confident that the Government will protect them. They argue that the Government is trying to be all things to all men, and that although it can perhaps monitor the existing market it cannot anticipate the future.
Ironically, the strongest criticism of Government policy comes from an expatriate. Baiji Nath Birla, head of Indian Malaysian Textiles (49% controlled by the famous Birla family of India and 51% by Malaysian shareholders), simply said: 'Although I am a foreigner myself. I think the Malaysian Government is selling out the future of the local people to the Japanese.'
'I don't sing for love of singing or to show off my voice but for the statements made by my honest guitar'.
Victor Jara left his house for the Technical University on
Arrested with many others Victor Jara was taken by the army to the Santiago boxing stadium. The prisoners were put in the stands; down below was the military. They focused strong lights on the prisoners. Suddenly, someone began to scream with terror. Immediately, machine guns were loosed against the section from where the scream came. Ten or twenty bodies fell from the high stands rolling over the bodies of prisoners who had thrown themselves to the ground to avoid the shots.
'I saw comrades who, in all the days they stayed there, never lifted their faces from the stone floor and afterwards had lost all capacity to move. The psychological shock was complete'. 'Victor wandered around among the prisoners, trying to calm them, to keep order among them. A fruitless attempt. The terror was limitless. It brought the prisoners to the lowest degree of human degredation'.
At one point Victor Jara went down to the arena and approached one of the doors through which new prisoners entered. Here he bumped into the commander of the prison camp. The commander looked at him, made a tiny gensture of someone playing a guitar. Victor nodded his head, smiling sadly and candidly. The military officer smiled to himself, as if congrat ulating himself for his discovery.
He called four soldiers and ordered them to hold Victor. He ordered the table to be put in the centre of the stadium, so that everyone could see what was to happen. They took Victor to the table, laid his hands on it and with one single stroke of an axe the officer severed the fingers of Victor's left hand. With another stroke the fingers of the right hand were chopped off to fall trembling and still moving on the wooden floor.
Six thousand prisoners watched the officer throw himself on Victor Jara and hit him while shouting. 'Now sing, now sing'.
Victor Jara raised himself to his feet and blindly turned towards the stadium stands. His steps were faltering, knees trembling, his mutilated hands stretched forward like those of a sleepwalker, and And then his voice was heard crying, 'All right, comrades, let's do the commandante the favour'.
Lifting his bleeding hands, Victor Jara began to sing the anthem of the Unidad Popular, and everybody sang with him.
'As those six thousand voices rose into song, Victor marked the time with his mutilated hands. On his face was a smile—open and released—and his eyes shone as if possessed'.
This sight was too much for the military. A machine gun volley, and the body of Victor Jara, 27 years old, began to double over as if he were reverentially making a long and slow bow to his comrades. Then he fell down on his side and lay still.
More volleys followed, but these were directed into the stands against the people who had accompanied Victor's song.
An avalanche of bodies tumbled down riddled with bullets, rolling to the arena. The cries of the wounded were horrible. But Victor Jara did not hear them anymore. He was dead.
Victor Jara was born the child of a poor family in southern Chile. He became a pupil of the famous Chilean singer, the late Violeta Parra. Jara also worked in theatre, becoming director of Theatre at the University of Chile in
In the late
In
During the 3 years of the Popular Unity there was a sort of cultural flowering in Chile 'you could call it an explosion, a real and massive participation of the people who had always been starved of any sort of cultural activity. New song groups, dance groups and theatre groups began to flourish, drab walls in Chile towns blossomed with colourful murals painted by the people.'
His widow, Joan Jara, described his music like this: 'He wanted to use the folklore as a base to develop new musical ideas and combine past and present. He wanted people to feel that folklore was a part of their lives, not an institution for museums, but a living thing that didn't stop growing.'
One of Jara's fellow prisoners wrote: 'We were very conscious of the hatred that the reactionary forces had against Victor. Because of the personal attacks made in papers, because of gestures made in the street, because of all sorts of things. The worst thing that could happen to an artist or a singer at such a moment, he said, would be to stop risking one's life, to draw back—so he went on and on. It was That in Chile, to know that you were risking your life, because you felt what was there in the darkness.'
Last Friday night me 'n a couple o' mates were a bit lost for something to do. You know howitis—you get a bit tired of the pub having been there all week, and there's not much action on other fronts, so you feel a bit down. And then me mate Dick suggested we go and see a film. 'What about this one, he says, 'the paper reckons its a shocking sensation about a sadomasochistic love affair.'
'Sounds good', says I so we sorta ended up at the Regent Theatre.
Yeah ... well first off, it's not so good if you only want to see them having it off and things cause there ain't really too much o' that. There's a couple of scenes about Nazi concentration camps what might send a chill up ya and that Charlotte Rampling chick is ok by me.
So I didn't think too much o' the film and the guy next to us (I thinks they was a bit cultchaed) didn't seem to like it either—said something about 'aesthetics'.
This night porter called Max (knew a guy called Max once) seems to be the centre of the action. He used to be in charge of a concentration camp. The war's supposed to have ended about thirteen years ago but Max and his mates can't seem to forget it and they's bothered by it all.
Max has these files what can be raided and destroyed and there's a couple of people what know who he really is still around. So he hatchets one of these witnesses but the other one he's got a bit of a crush for (Charlotte Rampling). One day she comes along to his hotel and...the...they gives y' a few scenes from their past and the concentration camp...he slaps her around a bit and they end up holed up in Max's apartment for a week or two. Outside Max's mates sort of beseige them, trying to get at the girl and 'save' Max. When they've gone without food for a week, they have this grouse idea of climbing out of the window and escaping, he's in his Nazi officers uniform 'n she's in a dress like that from the camp. If they reckoned they's'd escape like that they must have been a bit warped—perhaps it wasn't eating. Anyway, one of Max's mates followed them and shot them up.
Seriously, folks, I thought Charlotte Rampling was pretty good, Dirk Bogarde patchy and the rest rank. One major fault was that apart from one scene at the opera, and the camp flash-backs, you hardly saw anyone not connected with the plot. Tho' I suppose if the extra actors had been as bad as some of the minor ones it would only have made things worse.
The scenes where Bogarde and Rampling are together are the highlights of the film, but many of the others have this sort of unconnected unreal atmosphere. I found it annoying. One thing you can say for it tho'—it doesn't drag. At half past ten you wander out thinking where the time and your money's gone. That may be controversial, but the film sure isn't.
(A good film for surrealists).
The Wellington Film Society is proud to present this fourth annual premiere showing of new films chosen from the best of the world's leading film festivals. Many have won prizes. All are films of distinction which are compelling examples of the film-maker's art from more than a dozen countries—including this year from New Zealand, in the form of a world premiere. Films such as these are too often denied local distribution because of their very originality. In most cases this Film Festival will be your only chance to see these productions—all have been brought here only for this event, and most leave the country immediately after the screening. To summarise the Film Festival: it is a non-competitive celebration of the motion picture as a dynamic art form.
The Film Festival is open to the public.
Public Bookings for individual seats open on Friday, June 20. Bookings (no extra charge) available only for 5.15 and 8.15 sessions. Book at the Paramount between 10.30 and 5.30. Monday to Friday. Or book by mail from June 20 onwards—send a stamped, self-addressed envelope, with your cheque, and specify dates, times, and number of seats required. Post to Public Bookings, Film Festival, Box 9350, Wellington.
Friday, June 27, at 2, 5.15 and 8.15
France, 1972. N.Z. Premiere.
New York, San Francisco and Los Angeles Film Festivals, 1972. Sydney and Melbourne Film Festivals, 1974.
Saturday, June 28, at 10 a.m. only
U.S.A., 1974 N.Z. Premiere.
London Film Festival, 1974.
Saturday, June 28, at 2, 5.15 and 8.15
Japan, 1973. Wellington Premiere.
London Film Festival, 1973.
Sydney Film Festival, 1974.
Friday, June 27, at 10.45 p.m.
Saturday, June 28, at 10.45 p.m.
U.S.A. 1974. N.Z. Premiere.
Sunday, June 29, at 10 a.m. only
U.S.A., 1973. N.Z. Premiere.
London Film Festival, 1975.
Atlanta Film Festival, 1974.
Sunday, June 29, at 2, 5.15 and 8.15
U.S.A., 1973. Wellington Premiere.
Best Actress Award—New York Film Critics' Circle. Best Actress Award—U.K. Society of Film and Television Arts Best Supporting Actress—U.S. National Board of Review.
Monday, June 30, at 2 and 8.15
Hungary, 1971. Wellington Premiere.
Special Jury Prize at Cannes; New York. 1971.
Chosen for the London and Sydney Film Festivals, 1972.
Monday, June 30, at 5.15 only
Canada, 1973. N.Z. Premiere
Cannes Film Festival, 1973.
Special Jury Prize, Canadian Film Award.
Tuesday, July 1, at 2 and 8.15
N.Z., 1975. World Premiere.
Tuesday, July 1, at 5.15 only
India, 1970. Wellington Premiere.
Chosen for the National Film Theatre, London.
All Enquiries should be made to the Paramount. Tel. 553-553 between 10.30 and 5.30 daily. Monday to Friday. During the Film Festival, there will be an information desk in the ground-floor lobby.
The organisers reserve the right, in unavoidable circumstances, to change the programme by amending dates or replacing films. At the time of printing this brochure, not all films had arrived in New Zealand for submitting to the censor.
Information about censorship certificates or any programme changes will be published in the Paramount's daily newspaper advertisements. Full information about each programme will be contained in the Official Programme, on sale at the cinema during the Festival.
Wednesday, July 2, at 2 and 8.15
South Africa, 1973. Wellington Premiere.
London and Edinburgh Film Festivals, 1973.
Wednesday, July 2, at 5.15 only
Finland, 1973. Wellington Premiere.
London, Edinburgh, Berlin, Locarno, Sydney
Film Festivals, 1974. Thursday, July 3, at 1.30 and 8.15
France, 1974. N.Z. Premiere.
Cannes, New York, London Film Festivals. 1974.
Grand Jury Prize, Locarno Film Festival, 1974.
Thursday, July 3, at 5.15 only
France, 1974. N.Z. Premiere.
Cannes, Locarno and London Film Festivals, 1974.
Sydney and Melbourne Film Festivals, 1975.
Friday, July 4, at 2 and 8.15
Belgium, 1973. Wellington Premiere.
Cannes, London Film Festivals, 1973.
Sydney, Melbourne Film Festivals, 1974.
Friday, July 4, at 10.45 p.m. only
Belgium, 1972. N.Z. Premiere.
Trieste Festival of Weird Films, 1972.
Saturday, July 5, at 2 and 8.15
Australia, 1974. Wellington Premiere.
Cannes, Sydney Film Festivals, 1974.
Saturday, July 5, at 5.15 only
Australia, 1974. N.Z. Premiere.
Cannes and Berlin Film Festivals, 1975.
Sunday, July 6, at 2, 5.15 and 8.15
Ireland/U.S.A., 1972. N.Z. Premiere.
Cannes, New York Film Festivals, 1972.
Friday, July 4, at 5.15 only
West Germany, 1974. Wellington Premiere.
Unicrit Prize, 1975.
Special Mention, Delhi Film Festival, 1975.
The appearance of a feature length film made in New Zealand always comes as a suprise. 'Test Pictures' the film in point, comes 4 years after Rudall Hayward's 'To Love A Maori'—the last feature length film made in New Zealand. 'Test Pictures' is also the first feature length film to come out of the 'Alternative Cinema' co-operative in Auckland. For these points alone, its release is a remarkable event.
The makers of 'Test Pictures' faced the same problems as their predecessors—crises over finance, equipment and processing facilities. (The final soundmixing and printing had to be done in Australia). The film-makers invested $7000 of their own money and worked full-time for months without pay. While the Queen Elizabeth 11 Arts Council did made a very important contribution of $7000, the film's final budget of $14,000 was still extremely small—the kind of budget usually devoted to a 25-minute television documentary.
Film-makers who are faced with problems of finance and distribution may decide to concentrate on box-office entertainment in the case of Australia's 'Alvin Purple', or they may attempt to make a doublelayer film like 'Barry McKenzie Holds His Own' which interweaves subtlety and obviousness. Or they may ignore the demands of the box-office entirely, and conduct some kind of film experiment. It is this choice that distinguishes 'Test Pictures' from all the other previous NZ feature films. It is so uncompromising—or so fool hardy if you like—that I don't think the group has much chance of retrieving their $7000.
If any money is earned by screening 'Test Pictures' the film crew will be given some pay for their four months' work, and those who put their own money into the film may be able to recover part of their $7000.
'Test Pictures' does not have anything profound to say about life, but it does capture the flavour of a particular landscape. The spectator must stop worrying about the absence of a plot, and must stop waiting for 'something to happen', so that he can respond fully to the image that is on the screen at the moment. Otherwise, he is likely to be bored. Geoffrey Steven's photography and Philip Dadson's sound-track make small events in the film rich and sensuous—a woman washing herself, for example, or stepping outdoors into bright sunlight, or walking through sand.
The strong points of 'Test Pictures' are obviously its imaginative sound-track and photography. Anyone who regards photography simply as the 'icing on the cake' will fail to notice most of the information and experience that is contained within the visuals. The weak points of 'Test Pictures' are its acting and dialogue. The film has a rich texture but a weak overall structure. A mood of sadness pervades most of the film, which various objects and incidents seem about to symbolize and to bring into focus, without ever quite succeeding. This vague suggestiveness is one reason why the film seems dreamlike. 'Floating feeling' of this kind is often found in poetry but it is difficult stuff to handle. In the case of 'Test Pictures' the second half would have benefitted from a lot more variation in mood.
'Test Pictures' has to be judged as a first feature-film made under appalling conditions. The filmmakers will certainly go on to create better films—provided they are not saddled with too many debts from this one. Despite its weaknesses, 'Test Pictures' is a very impressive debut.
In
Now almost six years after his first exhibition and only his third show in Wellington, it is interesting to see a cross section of his work between
To date, what has characterised Brent Wong's paintings are his meticulous technique, the heightened realism of his landscapes and buildings and the monoliths and labyrinths which have become his signature.
Quite unique, these constructions, these masses of architectural ornament which hover in the sky in his painting or that we look through into a sky or landscape, have no parallel anywhere. Critics have tried to find sources for Wong's vision, from the American painters Andrew Wyeth and Edwin Dickson, (he certainly learned much about technique from Wyeth), and particularly Magritte. While I agree he uses the typical surrealist device of juxtaposing totally incongruous objects in familiar (almost) surroundings and his concern with architecture, cool colours and the dream-like quality of his paintings are reminiscent of De Chirico, I believe this to be accidental, rather than consider Brent Wong's painting to be derived from these or any other painterly sources. (Paul Klee was the most singular influence on his early painting, an influence that it nowhere apparent in his later work.) He is a natural surrealist. These monoliths and labyrinths are a classic example of what Andre Breton refers to in his Surrealist Manifesto as 'automatic writing'. They stem from a fascination with old buildings and began as doodles, exercises in perspective and chiaroscuro.
Deskbound into the early hours of the morning as a copyholder on the Dominion ten years ago, he drew and doodled constantly on the piles of newsprint which covered every desk, serving as scratch pad, blotter, tea towel and elbow rest for the proof readers. Doodle is a subconscious utterance, and Brent Wong's monoliths came directly from the subconscious. By nature a reclusive person, he lived, practically all his life until recently in an old building above a shop in Vivian Street. The buildings he paints are amalgams of the buildings he saw from his window and the others are entirely invented, like the famous French farmhouse in 'Untitled
Brent Wong has never needed to search for emblems or motifs to express the NZ thing he simply paints the world he knows, inner and outer. Much can be made of the inner/outer dichotomy in Brent Wong's work. Many of his earlier paintings are painted from the inside looking out, 'The Window'
The six paintings exhibited cover the period
'The Keeper'
'Diagram'
'Diagram' and 'Untitled
There are one or two unfortunate aspects to the exhibition and sale of the 66 original etchings by Picasso at the Academy here in Wellington. The etchings were illustrations included in the recent re-publication of the Spanish Tragi-Comedy, 'Le Celestine' written, at least in part, by Fernando De Rojas and first published in 1501. The recent publication was a limited edition of 400 copies, expensively produced and expensive to buy. The illustrations were pulled from plates etched by Picasso. Although the etchings were not done specifically for La Celestine, they were felt to be close enough to the spirit of the work to be fitted to it. Each of the copies of the book was numbered and signed by Picasso, who was also consulted over the selection of the etchings. The etchings themselves though most of them are dated, were neither signed nor numbered. It was intended, after all, that they remain inside the book.
An Auckland concern, Barrington Galleries, bought three copies of the book in New York recently. Despite the statement in the Evening Post a few weeks ago that 'you wouldn't get a copu for less than $10,000', it appears that Barrington's bought its copies for considerably less than this. The three books were cut up, the etchings were removed from them and were framed and put up for sale. One lot stayed in Auckland, another went to Sydney and a third set was bought by the Academy and sold there. There were 66 Illustrations per book; they were sold at prices ranging from $200-$400; most of them have been bought. That means a gross return, from each of the three books of something like $18,000; and a net profit of maybe $10,000 per book, maybe less, which is a great deal of money for someone. I don't mean to implicate the Academy here, since they bought their set already cut and framed and presumably took only a commission from the sale.
The second point is that, although the etchings are undoubtedly genuine, since they are unsigned and undated, their investment value is virtually nil. That's o.k., I suppose—as was said on the radio, maybe people bought them simply because they liked them. The fact remains that the organisers of the deal were not exactly falling over themselves in an attempt to tell people precisely what they were buying. They have destroyed three copies of the book and made a sizeable profit in the process. Noting i a sizeable profit in the process. Nothing illegal has been done, of course, and the business ethics of the deal are immaculate. Nevertheless I find the method of working dubious in its implications and the motivation behind it transparent. The Art World/Big Business tie-up has never really worked in NZ. This little deal, despite the-poor-man-can-now-have-his-Picasso argument, comes like a warning.
And what of the works themselves, are they lost in all the wrangling? There is a famous remark Picasso once made—'Yourself is a sun with a thousand rays in its belly. The rest is nothing'. That remarkable energy is fully present here, receiving, as often as not, erotic expression. Running through the series is one memorable figure, a sort of animated odalesque, thighs spread, everything is so bared it was too much for NZ customs a few years ago. Picasso's mastery of his craft and his medium is complete and leaves him free to animate his gallery of characters—the bawds and rascals and wenches and donkeys and gentlemen and ladies. Delightful in every sense.
Both this show and the exhibition of the Kim Wright collection have been widely publicised. I wonder how many people realised that just across the way, in the National Gallery, there are (or were) real Kandinsky's, real Paul Klee's, real works by Kirchner, Nolde, Schmidt-Rottluf and many more? You can even, as you cannot next door, trace the contours of the various immortal signatures. It is a show toured by the Institute for Foreign Cultural Relations through Australasia and despite the outstanding quality of the works, it seems that no-one has bothered to advertise it.
There is an argument which says that German Expressionism is best represented by its works in prints—woodcuts, etchings and lithographs—there is nothing in this exhibition to persuade you otherwise. Most of the works are simply black and white and most of them are simply superb. The celebration which is at the heart of the Picasso's is hardly present however. There is power and energy enough; but we are more likely to find a knot of anxiety or pain or hunger in the belly, than a thousand sun-rays. The media in use and particularly the wood-block are especially suited for the depiction of a 'spectrally heightened and distorted reality'. The phrase is from Wilhelm Worringer's book of
There seems a world of difference between the abstract harmony of Kandinsky's 'Composition with Chessboard, Orange' and the 'Blonde Frau' of Nolde's woodcut. Yet in Worringer's terms, one path out of the chaos of the perceived and experienced world is the cultivation of geometric abstraction. Worringer isolates two ways of coping with the feeling of 'dualistic distraction'—one through the heightened and distorting power of fantasy, the other through self-alienation, leading to abstract construction. That stated, it must be emphasised that few of the works here go the whole way. There are no works by Munch in the show and the Kandinsky's are the only purely abstract works, even if Klee's work is on the way there.
What is impressive, in almost any work you choose, is the energy of line, the suppressed force of it, everywhere from Marc's 'Tigers' to Kirchner's 'Rider' to Beckman's 'Two Couples Dancing'. The works are charged and not usually in the direction of visual beauty. There is a considerable variety of subject matter and of subject treatment—but townscapes are more common than landscapes, self-portraits than still-lives, people than anything else.
I will not easily forget Schmidt-Rottluf's 'Large Prophetess', bisecting the light and dark behind her and wearing an expression as old as the world; nor Kokoska's lithography portrait of Emmy Hein, which has something of the same resignation, endurance and power, nor Campendonk's 'Seated Harlequin'. The final conglomerate image is of a gallery of faces looking out of the darkness of their setting or situation, with their dark staring eyes; and of the strength of those faces before the forces that threaten them and which are nevertheless part of them.
Reviewing a new Hollies album verges on being an exercise in futility; you scarcely need listen first. The Hollies have stayed around the top of the pop charts for over 12 years—remember 'I'm Alive' and 'Look Through My Window'?—getting old aintcha.
Their trademarks remain the same; polished harmonies, crisp instrumentals, and catchy melodies. The boys have written all songs but one, '4th of July Asbury Park (Sandy)' from the pen of Bruce Springsteen, another Jewish poet/muso. They treat him better than they did Dylan.
If you like the Hollies, you can't lose. Was futile, wasn't it?
Of recent years 'rock' has become an extremely convenient term for us to use about music we like. But try to pin it down to styles or influences and it becomes very elusive. I suspect that what distinguishes rock musicians from your straightforward pop singer lies further back than the kind of thing they play, and it's something to do with their attitude towards their music and audience, their rejection of standard ideas about entertainment. For example, in a recent review about Bad Company's 'Straight-shooter', a writer wrote that rock music could provide a good milieu for getting laid—only to have it mutilated by some moral sub-editor to 'meeting girls'. I realise that the glossy advertising sheet he writes for considers it has some sort of duty towards the uptight natives, but why can't he write 'Fuck' if he wants to, especially as such an idea is integral to the rock ethos.
Another thing about this type of entertainment is that it must never suprise the audience, but reinforce the prevailing ideas about melody, 'good singing', love and the roles of man and woman. Carly Simon has a song on her new album with a promising story line: first verse dinner at a table for two, second verse breakfast ditto. And the moral punch line contained in the first song up, 'After the Storm', isn't even some Jim Reeves masochism about being punished for extra-marital sex by separation. Instead, it's a more up to date line—
for Carly Simon's persona is that of the nice girl who finds fulfillment through her man—none of that woman's liberation nonsense. She could have come straight from the pages of Vogue. That impression is strengthened by the grainy black and white cover which shows her in a preparatory state for???, and further reinforced by Slave, a cute ditty guaranteed to make the strongest willed male chauvanist buckle at the knees.
But love comic readers don't buy anyone as supposedly hip as Carly Simon, even if her claim to integrity has been somewhat compromised by the rapid shift in attitude evinced between 'Hotcakes' and 'Playing Possum,'. They are more likely to settle for Olivia Newton-John, the Australian protege of Hank, Bruce and Cliff. Her thing on this 'Great Hits' ellpee is to some fine, gentle songs by such as Bob Dylan, George Harrison, Don McLean and John Denver and package them for people who watch television at 8pm on Saturdays. To do so all the rough edges and finer tones of the originals have to go and in the Denver case it's homogenized beyond homogeneity. The point about this type of music is that the satisfactions it provides for its audience don't really have anything to do with rock music, much less make a statement that could be interpreted as meaningful. The soothing feeling generated by Olivia's own brand of bland pop puree could just as easily have come from a magazine story, so I would suggest that the above mentioned 'sub' editor take one copy of his sheet, one copy of 'First Impressions', roll them into a tube and ...
(Thanks to Colin Morris on the Terrace for supplying a review copy of 'Playing Possum'—discounts of 10% for students, and there is the occasional bargain as well.)
Robert Palmer (who?) used to be cosinger with Elkie Brooks (who?) in Vinegar Joe (who?), a very under-rated British band.
You're little the wiser, are you? Here's some more name-dropping. This album was recorded in New Orleans under the direction of Allen Toussaint. Along with people like the ubiquitous Dr. John, Toussaint has succeeded in establishing a distinctive New Orleans sound that now ranks with that of places like Nashville and Macon, Georgia in being right to the forefront of contemporary music. Toussaint has had songs recorded by Johnie Winter, Maria Muldaur, Bonnie Raitt and Little Feat, to name a few. Rumour has it one Rod Stewart wants to record with him. He has written two of the songs here, including the title-track—evocative phrase, isn't it?
More names. Two other songs were written by Lowell George of Little Feat, a truly amazing band whose cult following here is spreading rapidly. And Lowell took advantage of Feat's short-lived split last year to help Palmer with the album.
This attempt to examine the musical milieu of the album may be boring, but it took some hard work. The cover-notes fail to credit either location or backing musicians.
While hardly creating a storm, 'Sneaking Sally Through the Alley' did receive some critical recognition. 'New Musical Express' placed it no. 54 on its list of 60 top albums for
The album's vivid title is suitably complemented by the cover. A sleazy green-tinged shot of our Robert leading an alluring semi-masked lady through what could pass as the Mt. Vic. tunnel. On the back he appears suitably satisfied with his exploits. Island do well with their covers—eg. Sparks, Traffic and Roxy Music.
Enough of the idle chat. What of the music? A good hint comes from the cover—a sensual, earthy feeling is all-pervading.
Side 1 kicks off with a fine version of Feat's classic 'Sailing Shoes', the soul backing (puns unintended) and Lowell George's slide imparting the required bite. It fades all too soon into the funky bass and clapping intro of 'Hey Julia'.
'You're a temptation to a man
I could not resist you
And I won't if I can
You're a danger, just like giving sweets to strangers'
No respite, this runs into the crisp bass, slide opening of 'Sneaking Sally.' The culprit for the fine harp-playing is unknown.
The tempo slackens to a sleazy shuffle for Palmer's own 'Get Outside' and picks up again to the tight horn sound of George's 'Blackmail'.
The door burst open
I was caught in the raw'
Side 2 opens with Palmer's 'How Much Fun'. It doesn't take too much imagination to find out his idea of fun:
'C'mon baby, let's pull back the covers
Do our best to help one another
Find out how much fun we can get into life.'
The backing vocals sound suitably amorous. But at we all know, frivolity can give way to melancholy, and here we move onto Toussaint's haunting 'From a Whisper to a Scream'. Palmer's soulful phrasings are given full reign on a fine number. The final and longest track is 'Through it All There's You'. A pleasing melody, but perhaps a little skimpy in its development to justify its 12 minutes. In parts here Robert sound a little like Jim Morrison and that's fine with me.
So, can Murray's jibe of 'paled-out, blue-eyed soul' be sustained? True, Palmer may look pale and have blue eyes, but to label his music accordingly is grossly unfair. I couldn't care if the man has violet skin and orange eyes as long as he can sing, and this alley-cat can. One would hope that the amazing success of the anything but average Average White Band finally crushes the old bogey of 'you must be black to be soulful.'
An enjoyable, often exciting album.
Sneak a listen.
The Charlie Daniels Band is the outfit formed by the legendary sessionman, veteran of three Dylan albums among countless others. Funnily enough, and despite their New-York-based label, they emanate from the Deep South and record at the Capricorn studios in Macon, Georgia. Like the Allman Brothers and Wet Willie they display a healthy approach to their craft that produces head and heart warming music. However, unlike those bands, they don't share their hard-edged approach and instead work in a mellower country style more reminiscent of Marshall Tucker.
They are most endearing for their casualness, whether on up-tempo pieces or down-to-earth ballads. The album—with the exception of the live segment that occupies most of side two. 'No Place To Go' and 'Orange Blossom Special'—is equally divided between the two. The former material works best. 'Long Haired Country Boy' has a good-timey feel and an exuberance that is the mark of musicians enjoying their work.
Like their studio mates—and a whole helping of other Capricorn music that, through label distribution problems, hasn't yet been released in New Zealand—Fire On The Mountain suffers from a certain sameness in the material. Its very eveness tends towards the soporific by the time 'No Place To Go' arrives. But they generally manage to avoid tedium through a judiciously-placed piano solo here, or fiddle jam there.
Letters can be handed in at the letterbox just inside the Salient office or handed in to the editor personally. However if you wish to pay 4c postage then send your letters to PO Box 1347, Wellington. Letters should be double spaced and on one side of the paper only. We'll print just about anything you send in except we can't print libellous material.
May I, through your columns, ask the Socialist Action League where they really stand as regards the Election Campaign, their Manifesto etc. Do they support the Labour Party? If yes—then why do they have their members stand in opposition to Labour members? If they don't mind 'Labour' getting in why don't they go ahead and support the Labour Party and later on try to persuade them to change or modify some of their rules, etc. Surely, they should make clear what their aims are and who they are trying to represent before making such moves which will inevitably lose their deposits.
We loved Prof. Pride's beautifully-handled ironic 'criticism' of our article on the English Department at Vic. (Salient, 22 April). But although quite delightful to read it's the most miserable form of defence that you have to resort to when you know that there's nothing to be said for your point of view—at least nothing normal people (whoever they are) could sympathize with.
Let's get a bit more positive for a change. After returning from Wellington to Germany last November, I took a job as a lecturer at the University of Bochum, West Germany. Very interesting to see the other side of the staff-student 'power-struggle'. The staff are either pretty reactionary or (like me) apathetic, the student representatives at the departmental conferences aggressive and unrealistic. All the bad things in the English Department here change very slowly, at least on the official level, and all the pseudo-democratic fervour that spills out in conference leads to pretty well nothing.
So students don't change anything because they're apathetic or unrealistically extreme and the staff won't change anything significantly because they've got a vested interest in seeing things continue as they always have.
I soon came to realize, however, that change was possible and that I could play an instrumental part in it (I guess this is also true of the other English lecturers). Let me give three examples of courses I've held in the last few months to show that something interesting and useful can be done, in spite of the system.
1. A series of seminars on textbook analysis. We looked at a wide range of East and West German English textbooks to see how Britain was represented by their authors: a study involving extensive and sometimes heated discussion (in English), detailed study of stereotyping processes and vocabulary selection. Very useful, surely, for students who are going to be standing in front of a class in three years time.
2. 'Descriptive Grammar.' This is an obligatory course on stylistics/grammar, regarded by the students with widespread hatred. I've twisted the demands of the syllabus somewhat so that the first four weeks involved my swamping them in semi-lecture form with as much information as possible. This information was then modified or rejected as a result of class discussion and an investigation of the way vocabulary and grammar were handled in recorded review sketches ('Beyond the Fringe'), newspaper obituaries and a recording of a discussion between two housewives.
Prof. Pride believes that one shouldn't criticize before one has read deeply round the subject. I suggested that the class might like to read about ten pages from one book, and am delighted to have as much critical discussion and thinking as possible, right from the start. Some people—even students—do have a little natural intelligence of their own and are quite capable, after a bit of practice and a hit of help, of working things out for themselves.
These students are now doing group work, analysing the style of newspapers, advertisements, political speeches, comics, etc., with as much or as little help from me as they need. Most of them actually like it, and if you can get anyone to like grammar then I think something has been achieved.
An exam is required at the end of the course, and I'm not going to give it.
3. Ten seminars on the novels of Ira Levin. Of course, the staff were shocked that I could actually choose (heaven forbid!!) to deal with a writer of thrillers! (Actually none of them had heard of him, much less read anything by him, but they knew there was a film called 'Rosemary's Baby', which was popular, so that was enough. To make it worse there's not even any-written criticism of his work—nothing for students to read before daring to make criticisms of their own!)
They really enjoy reading these novels, and discussing them, and in a couple of weeks I shall hand over the whole conduct of the seminars to specific students for discussion of general trends in the four books.
Dickens and Shakespeare are dead, and Dickens and Shakespeare don't interest roost people, so let's work at something that does, shall we.
Sorry to go on so long about this. What I'm trying to say is that we really depend on young? lecturers to bring something realistic into courses. Clever ironic letters are all very well in their place, but for God's sake let's shake traditional sentiments a tiny little bit now and again.
I have heard a rumour that Neville Wynn has returned to University this year so that he can become President of VUWSA. According to my information Wynn thinks he will win the right-wing vote which supported John MacDonald last year, Is there any truth in this rumour?
Narc Squad on Full Alert this Week-End and all of Next Week.
A Friend
As you have criticised so strongly the new tertiary bursary, I wondered it you had in fact seen the following press release of Mr. Amos which you have thus far ignored, in any of your articles:
Normal bursary and scholarship payments for university students would continue in addition to the standard bursary and all tuition fees would still be paid.
Printed in the Dominion and Evening Post's of Friday May 30th.
(Amos's statement refers to the transition period—the Salient article compared the present system with the full S.T.B. system.—Ed.)
'Israel-bashing', 'Anti-Zionism', etc., the currently fashionable cause of the Left, is rather difficult to reconcile with their other espoused causes.
On the one-hand, this young nation is berated for its joy and pride in the first homeland it's persecuted people have had for 2,000 years, and for stressing the teaching of a culture and literature that other countries in which Jews lived, did not allow. On the other hand, Nationalism in Black Africa. South East Asia etc. is vigorously supported. Curiously too. Israel's critics seem unconcerned by such examples of Arab intolerance as the carving of 'Jew' arrow the stomach and arms of an American student at Beirut University because she had visited Israel (recently reported in the 'Evening Post'). One's mind boggles at the likely every-day treatment of Jews by the ordinary uneducated people in Arab countries, whether such Jews can worship peacefully, (let alone live safely) or have Jewish culture taught in schools. But, of course, such countries have, in the main, closed Feudal systems, that one would have been excused for thinking were anathema to the Left!
The land Israel was established upon was, in the main swamp and desert, and it was the early Jewish settlers who lost their lives from the various associated diseases, in the draining and reclamation of such land. In all the 2,000 years before this land was brought to its present abundantly productive state, the Arabs who cry dispossession, seem to have made little impression upon this liny territory that one need spectacles to find amid the millions of square miles of Arab lands. It is interesting too, that the Arab leaders who profess such concern for the 'Palestinians', had plenty of time before
Curiously, in all the vast lands of the Middle-East, with all its varying cultures, the Arabs can feel at home only in the orange groves of Jaffa.
Israel's 'intransigence', its 'Masada complex' (or whatever such criticism is levelled at it), the very fact it must live a seige-like existence in respect of the Arabs within its cities and boundaries is, I suggest, merely an inevitable result of a situation where, hours only after its establishment as a State by the United Nations, the Arabs began their policy of belligerancy, and continued and accompanied it with calls to the effect that the only concessions, on any question, be made by Israel alone.
Why should it be that the Jews who were persecuted in the anti-semitic programs in Russia or Poland, or who somehow survived Hitler's 'solution' to the Jewish 'problem', must now see the State of Israel and its citizens looked upon as yet another 'Jewish problem'? to be solved in another 'interesting way'?
Why should the rights of every other Peoples in the world be sacrosanct, save those of the Jews?
I am astonished and to-some degree upset by the recent flood of mail into the Salient letterbox complaining about the articles which have been appearing under my name in the Salients of late. These letters attack me for 1) Frivolity 2) Egotism 3) Banality and 4) My generally unrespectable appearance, I would like to handle these in reverse order.
And in conclusion, I would like to say two things. First, I am no longer writing my exec. reports. I will recommence this 'service to students' if and when I get a directive or a request from said students asking me to do this. Secondly, would you please redirect your efforts from attacking me to attacking the state of the catering services. It is a much more worthy cause.
Much as I dislike dragging on this sort of correspondence, I feel obliged to reply to your tirade, in Salient June 12. You accuse me of being 'much less than honest' in outlining your reasons for rejecting my report. Might I suggest, that you are are equally dishonest, specifically in your distortion of the very tone and content of my report.
Your repeated reference to 'factual inaccuracies' in my report is poritively laughable when one considers the numerous 'factual innacuracies' inherent in your reply and the report that was subsequently published and for that matter, the numerous other articles published in Salient.
Just for laughs, might I quote you from one of your earlier replies to a letter in Salient:
'how does Brent Ellis know that I consign to the dustbin anything I feel doesn't come up to my personal standards? Have I ever stated that to be my policy? (Sic) In fact I have printed articles of quite varying standards in Salient this year because I believe that students should feel free to write what they like for Salient without fear of an editorial sledgehammer.'
I am again reminded of the old fable of 'Alice in Wonderland'...
'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.'
'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean so many different things.'
'The question is, 'said Humpty Dumpty. 'which is to be master—that's all.'
(It is the usual ploy of a person unable to reply to criticism to reverse things and criticize his critic and thus avoid the issue at debate. Krishna Menon has failed to answer one single point of criticism that I made, If he thinks a decision not to publish lies, distortions and effective propaganda for the Malaysian High Commission is based on purely a personal stand, he is wrong. I would hope that any person with an ounce of responsibility would have done the same as I did.—Ed.)
Just a quick not to tell you that we thought the capping ball was a bit hopeless.
Here's what was bad:
On the whole, it could have been a whole lot better on the whole.
Was this the capping ball, or was this Saturday night at the Lion Tavern?
If the lazy slobs who wrote criticizing Henderson would turn up at Salient once in a while they 'd find out why his name appears so frequently. It's an accurate reflection of the amount of work he does. Since the pay isn't quite up to paper-boy levels it isn't actually for the loot either. If J.T. Minge had bothered to read the Salient notes in June 5th more closely, he'd have noticed thay they were co-written by me—and the literary gem he quotes ('masturbation is perfectly normal ...') was mine. The intention was a satirical comment on the Wall Amendment, with reference to the fact that masturbation is a crime punishable by (in one case) twelve years! imprisonment in certain US states. I regret that my adolescent psychology should present such interpretative problems for Mr. Minge. Also, does Jan Lacki only take seriously those whose dress and hairstyle conform to certain standards? My, my, where were you in '62? Why the hell should people have to write things in a serious vein all the time? Buggered if I will. Henderson's raves were frequently the only interesting thing in a whole turgid self-righteous issue of Salient. Confucius say he who takes life seriously have fucked head. Not that laughing cures fucked head but it doesn't ache so much.
Your music critic, Brian King, writes a lot of crap. His review of Jack Bruce's album, in last week's yet again excellent issue, is no more than a sad testimony to the shortcomings of tertiary education in the sorry 20th Century. I quote:
it's part of the English genius and has a marked affinity with the excess of Victorian romanticism. If not on the page then certainly on record.'
Well, say no more!! Pseudo apoceraphile muck like the above is its own worst enemy.
Anyway what I wanted to say is this: as the English genius I completely dissociate myself from Mr. Brown's lyrics (which are wretched if they are lyrics at all) and Mr, King's peculiar assertions about their relation to me. I would not be seen dead. Yours 'til your critique masters the queen's English.
The readers of 'Salient' newspaper should take more care about what they do with their newspaper when they've finished with it. Large numbers of this newspaper are, for example, left lying on the tables of the bottom and third floor cafeterias. This creates a disposal problem for other people, (namely cafeteria staff) which is really unnecessary. The more considerate action would be to take the paper home or put it back on the pile or stuff it in the rubbish bins. (This wastepaper is really only a smaller section of a much larger problem of badly disposed off used articles i.e. drink containers, paper bags, etc. and the solution is similar—throw it in a rubbish bin.) Ecologically it would be better to recycle as many of these materials as possible and at present only one location is known for collection of waste paper—the Kelburn Primary School Collects Waste Paper.
It would appear that some of my comments recently have upset the Puketitri Playboy. Why else would rationale desert his ... arguments, (for want of a better word) with a result that is even more haphazard than John Henderson.
In the first place, the University does not teach that to question and to criticize is to become disillusioned, that is a product of SRC. Whose 'status quo' Mr. Paul D. Swain is talking about in his letter, is something only he can explain. But if it is his, I can assure him there is no security in it for me.
Secondly, the principle 'if you're not for it, you're against it' is that propounded by Mr. Tony Ward and Pat Martin (with regard to whether or not SRC should support the PRG) I applied it merely to point out its idiocy. It certainly is not a rational argument, it certainly is not a 'Right-Wing' principle (unless Messers. Ward and Martin call themselves right wing, in which case there would be a large swing on my part), and it should not be used at SRC to bully people into supporting something they do not.
His comment that the breweries make a profit each year seems rather irrelevant to whether or not he agrees with me. The Catholic Church makes an even bigger profit than the Breweries, but that too is irrelevant. (Though conveniently ignored by the NCL). Mr. Swain claims that 'the left have won by default and consequently SRC's are boring. True, they are boring, but in fact, the left Lost by default. He makes several condescending comments about 'come on stand up and give us a bit of opposition'. Something like 'Stand up Nigger, we want to kick ya in the balls again,' Well just watch out, some Niggers kick back.
Most 'left wingers' seem to have a preoccupation with revolution. They seem to think that one day they'll raise up the red flag and everyone will rally round, and united as one, they will storm the bastions of everything that is evil (i.e. Right). This myth is something which perpetrates the University and more particularly SRC, from top to bottom. If this 'Revolution' is ever to take place here, it will be as a reaction against the left, not with it. Students are getting sicker and sicker of hearing the same liberal bullshit at SRC, spouted by the same liberal bullshitters.
'What are you going to do about it?', I hear you cry already. 'Come on take a stand.' Lets look and see the stands that have been taken so far. The famous Feslier drinking-horn motion. As Kevin Wright said 'people (Joe Average-Student) are prepapred to act when Repressive millions not within their interests are put forward.' A minor triumph. David Newton said exactly what he thought about the political profiteering at SRC. A few heads nodded, a few listened, wondering who he was talking about ('not us' thinks the liberal-left.) And to show there was genuine concern for what he had said, he was presented with a chocolate fish.
If you think for a moment you have student support, you're wrong. If you think for a moment that you can win that support you're wrong. If you think that anyone is going to stick his or her neck out to give you the 'soul' pleasure of chopping it off you're wrong. And if you think things are going to stay this way for very much longer, you're even wronger.
Your correspendent 'Values Voter' criticises the Young Socialists for 'compromising' ourselves by calling for the return of a Labour Government. Instead we should vote for Values, who 'stand out as a humanitarian party firmly based upon Socialist principles.'
But is Values socialist? Cathy Wilson, Deputy Leader of the party, claimed in a letter to the Young Socialists that they are 'fundamentally opposed to capitalism.' However, Values does not even begin to seriously analyse capitalist society. The outline in their 'Why Join the Values Party' leaflet how 'we're polluting the environment ... We're turning people into 'production' work slaves'—how 'we' are causing all sorts of problems. But who is it that are creating these problems? The Young Socialists say that the problems are not caused by the majority of New Zealanders, but by the small minority who make profits out of the exploitation of others. It is not the working people who make themselves into 'production' work slaves. It is the businessman thirsting after bigger profits—and these are the same people who make the real decisions in out society.
Because they do not see that capitalist society is run by and for a small wealthy minority, Values will never have a strategy than can challenge that minority. They will remain in the blind alley of policies of 'zero population growth' and 'zero economic growth', which shift the blame for this society's problems from its rulers to its masses of victims. We need to create a society organised rationally to provide for everyone—not make further calls for the working people to tighten their belts to solve the problems that capitalism has created.
As 'Values Voter' points out, the Young Socialists are severely critical of the Labour Government. We have see for three years the Labour Government trampling on the rights of working people, Maoris and other Polynesians, women, and young people. Pensioners, dental nurses, student teachers, university students, Maoris, unionists, women, and gay people have all been forced to organise to defend their rights, demand changes. What sort of alternative does Values offer these people: a muddled series of reforms with no clear strategy for achieving them.
The Young Socialists in contrast see the only solution is to transform this society into a socialist one. There is only one way to achieve this—through the majority of working people and other oppressed sectors of our society organising independently of big business, and making fundamental changes.
The Labour Party was originally formed as the political arm of such a movement of working people. Despite its present rotten leadership it still remains the party of the unions, retaining the support of the overwhelming majority of workers and underprivileged people. Therefore we call for the return of Labour to office, but at the same time we challenge the Labour leaders to respond to the demands of the working people—the people who vote for them—and to abolish the power and influence of bib business.
The Young Socialists will be running a vigorous campaign in this year's elections. We are supporting the candidates—in Wellington, Kay Goodger is running in Island Bay and Russell Johnson in Petone.
Our campaign will represent the people who voted for Labour in
As a member of the Students' Association I would like to condemn the Vice-President's remarks about the recent Hospitals Amendment Act, and similar remarks made by Anthony Ward in an article in 'Salient' of May 29th.
Every unborn child is a separate human life (since both its parents are human), with its own body, and genetic and other characteristics. As medical knowledge of the unborn child advances, its own individuality as a human being at a particular stage of maturity is increasingly realised. It is a pity that so many people are prepared to measure the value of the lives of these children more and more in terms of how convenient it is for the children's mothers, or society, to have them.
If the purpose of society is to provide support to and acceptance of each of its members as having individual human worth, that is, to exist for man's benefit, then it has no right to impose criteria for the right to be provided with these things. Any critieria which decided which children were to be born and which were to be disposed of would be denying human beings their worth, and would thereby make society defeat its own purpose by becoming repressive. Instead of society existing for mankind, mankind would exist for the sake of society.
The fact that a child is unwanted is a reflection on the community, not the child. If the community is so irresponsible as not to want certain children, it certainly does not help to give it the arbitrary power of child destruction. One act of irresponsibility does not justify another. Even if the child is severely handicapped, society would be failing in its duty if it did not accept and support him for what he is.
For these reasons, I very strongly oppose abortion except when it is necessary to preserve the mother's life. In this case it is simply the child's right to life as against the mother's.
An abortion is justified legally only if it is done in good faith to preserve the mother's life. Dr. Wall's Bill restricts the performance of such abortions to public, or to approved private, hospitals. Since I agree with the present legal grounds for abortion, and no others, and since justified abortions would be so very few that the public and private hospitals could easily cope with them, and since the effect of the Bill is to make illegal abortions more difficult without restricting legal ones, I support the Bill. John Blincoe claims that the Remuera Clinic provided a relatively cheap service, but a public hospital should be able to do the same, since it provides a free service. Anthony Ward claims that the Bill's primary motive is to close the Remuera Clinic, but even if this were so, that would not make the Bill wrong. If it is right in prohibiting abortions in clinics other than hospitals, it is also right in closing the Remuera Clinic.
The other major objection to the Bill was that it would force some women to go to Australia, and others to back street abortionists, to get an abortion. If any abortion were justified, it could be performed cheaply in a public hospital. If it were not, then it should not be performed anyway. The fact that women are prepared to use desperate means, or to spend a lot of money, to break the law is no reason why the law should be changed to accommodate the actions of criminals. It may well mean that the law should be enforced more rigorously.
A similarity was also drawn between Dr. Wall's Bill and a Bill of Attainder. Dr. Wall's Bill basically makes it more difficult to break the existing law, which is far different from the purpose of a Bill of Attainder.
I was shocked by a recent press statement released by one of your students association's affiliated clubs. The Shite Sports Coat and Pink Carnation Society stated, and I quote: 'It is ridiculous to treat Blacks as equal because if it wasn't for the influence of White People, they would still be throwing spears.' I know now for sure that they are really basically racists at heart. No-one in any organisation would ever come
No organisation is a good enough socialisation agent to be an absolutely successful deceiver.
I object to Ken Comber's ludicrous advertisement that appears with monotonous offensiveness in Salient. A six-year old could pick the grammatical error in Comber's invocation but still he's a drop-out student who never made a graduation ceremony. One thing I do like is the elegant snail that crept around the corners of his box (June 4). It's symptomatic of just about everything his party stands for. Still, it's an improvement. I never did like the pig.
While reading last week's Salient letters I noticed one Ms (or Mr.) Jan Lacki's destructive criticism of John Henderson.
I agree that it's been nice in the past to see Vic's aspiring critics demonstrating enough interest in the magazine to voice their opinions of its format, etc. but I am disappointed at the total lack of feeling some correspondents demonstrate when they not only criticise other writers, but seem determined to publicly rub somebody's face in the dirt without offering a constructive alternative.
At the risk of appearing rude, what the hell do you—Jan Lacki—hope to achieve through your mindless attack on John Henderson? If you really disagree, or are embarrassed by what he writes, why don't you come into the Salient office and volunteer to write the staff notes, Exec, reports, etc? Of course, one word of warning—you will find that very few people will read these reports unless you make them interesting and/or witty because they are otherwise horribly boring. (But judging from your keen sense of humour you may do very well). Another thing to remember is the time you must spend attending these meetings and forums taking notes and observing the people there, so you can later construct your witticisms.
While you apparently take enough interest in John to read and analyse what he writes, you seem annoyed that his name appears in the magazine. I personally think that the writers of Salient's articles should be acknowledged for their efforts—but you evidently disagree. Of course, if you join the staff and write something on a regular basis, you should have the satisfaction of seeing his name replaced by your own at least once per issue.
Any further criticism of Salient's content is, I feel, unwarranted unless the critics bother to help with the work of writing it, because if the present few workers gave up and left, Salient would cease.
In response to Mr. Robson's plea for more participation, I submit the following, as an exstudent who has finally reached the point of no return.
Have you ever seen a cat spread out and squashed flat, with road visible where its rib-cage was? It was obviously hit by something fast and heavy because it's spreadeagled and there's a pool of glistening red liquid about the same diameter as the span of the legs, spread of bone glinting in the moonlight.
What about all the squashed hedgehogs, birds, dogs, possums, pets, little shapes of feathers, fur or needles, thrashing and flopping their lives away in agony. Those that get hit directly are the exception rather than the rule. Or perhaps you'd prefer a Flake—that girl really gets it on!
The world is literally running out of phosphate, the stuff is mined as a relatively insoluble material, treated with sulphuric acid to make it more water-soluble, then dumped on the land to dissolve in runoff and groundwater, collecting in places like Lake Tutira where it causes the suffocation of sub-aquatic life, through over nourishment of the plants and algae.
Meanwhile, I understand that the Japanese are set on harvesting plankton from the sea, using modified whaling vessels.
When you consider that plankton recycle something like 70% of the oxygen in the atmosphere, as well as oxygenating the oceans, remembering that the plankton float and drift, they don't swim, they can't escape from a trawled seive, they are easily 'fished out'.
Fish the plankton out of the oceans, you drown the fish, and you raise the carbon dioxide level in the atmosphere, creating a 'greenhouse effect', melting a few polar icecaps a bit more and drowning a few cities as well.
If we quadrupled the present rate of world fuel consumption, and burnt all the plants for fuel as well, there would still be enough oxygen in the atmosphere to last us another 125,000 years or so (that's 3,750 generations peoplewise).
Our present rate of world consumption of fuel furnishes us with approximately 15,000 Gigacalories (1 Gcal. = 1000 million calories) per day, about half of which is wasted as heat before it's even put to work. The sun furnishes earth with approximately 2000 million Gigacalories daily.
There are companies who spend more on advertising than on protecting the environment, than on cleaning up their own discharges. A company which has an economic monopoly on a commodity is under little or no social pressure to change its processing methods—financial penalties for pollution are easily passed onto the consumer as increased costs
There are people in this society who claim to represent groups of peoples' interests, using arguements on behalf of the group, without having the facts to found the argument ( including the fact of representation.)
With our present information gap between those who are older or more experienced, and those who hold positions of control in society, I have no doubt that within a generation or two, the transfer of common sense skills from one generation to another, will, to all practical purposes, cease.
As the experienced people die or forget, the knowledge gets buried until destroyed or rediscovered by inspiration or an 'act of genius'. Those who are left capable, find more and more people demanding more and more of their time, at the mercy of those who own the resources, they work themselves to death through idealism, or sell out, or they become hermits.
Anyway, they don't pass on the information that will enable their children to stay alive in a material world, they prefer to let someone assumedly more qualified do that, and from my experience of student teachers, and knowledge of the number of teachers that a class goes through in a year, coupled with a bit of observation, I would conclude that it is easier to manipulate a class of pupils through a school that it is to gain their respect and trust by demonstrating facts reasonably and knowledgeably.
The teachers, at the moment, are the instruments by which knowledge is directed towards those who, at present in economic authority, also strongly influence the means by which information is disseminated to the public and thus concentrate knowledge and power in the hands of a chosen few. The fact that some people have woken up to this is evidenced by the attacks on centres of learning in the form of arson, sabotage of instruments and equipment, disturbances at school and university functions and vandalism to education department property.
I think that the spectacular dawns and sunsets we've been having recently are caused by pollution from the burning of too much fuel for not enough work, too much waste.
I have patented a machine for converting waste plastic to non-polluting fuel, flux and organic raw materials for reprocessing, I have almost finished developing a process for using sun and windpower to convert carbon dioxide from the atmosphere into acetylene.
I am thinking about a process to extract phosphate from runoff, using sun and/or wind power to reconvert it into a form suitable for use as an economical fertiliser.
Unless persuaded otherwise, I intend to form a company and make these and other ideas viable commercially, it takes two people ple to sign the articles of association. The other signatory will be female.
I would be interested to see what other people are doing environment wise.