Malaya?

Regarding the present condition of Malaya, the British Labour Government proposed a new constitution for (1) a Malayan Federation (Legislative) Assembly consisting of 14 Government officials and 16 nominated by the High Commissioner—not one elected representative. (2) A Singapore Council with 16 nominated members and six elected on a limited franchise.

The people rejected this sham "constitution," organised a general strike against it (1947) and boycotted the so called "elections" in Singapore. (Under 10 per cent, of those eligible voted.)

Today laws forbid meetings of more than five people. The Press is strictly censored, The Malayan fighters are called "[unclear: bandits]." In fact they are the same heroes, trade unionists and peasant leaders who led the resistance against the Japanese, liberated Malaya in August, 1945, were in control before British troops landed, and were thanked publicly by Lord Mountbatten. A number marched in the Victory Parade in 1946, led by Lau Yew, who was shot dead by British led police in 1948, his battered corpse being photographed by a U.S. "Life" reporter.

If resistance were really the work of a handful of "bandits" and "terrorists" why are 10,000 arrested and 40,000 banished? Why after 20 months of full scale warfare is the war not dying down but flaring up? Why do the imperialists need about 130,000 personnel for "bandit suppression?" Why send the Colonial Secretary to Malaya?

Fighters for freedom have been called "bandits" before by the ruling classes: Joan of Arc, Robert Bruce, Owen Glendower of Wales, were denounced as lawless criminals for their leadership in the work of national liberation.

—W.M.

Why Chapel?

At the Special General Meeting of the Association which was not held before the vacation, I understand that it was stated that a chapel has "been agreed on by all sorts and conditions of students.

Having now read the Executive report, I must enter one in the lists to disagree with the idea.

Why should it be necessity to set aside a special room for this." From the report it seems that there are already plenty of small rooms which could be used: in fact it seems that too much of the space in the building will already be cut into little pieces and doled out. This is a waste of a good building.

The answer will be raised that all the other clubs have facilities, and the religious clubs should also have theirs. This is fallacious—the meeting rooms are designed to cater for their meetings as well as any others. The other answer may be that they feel themselves unable to worship except in a room specially set aside for this purpose and decorated to that end. This would be a sad admission of unworthiness on the part of the religious clubs who should be able (and I am not being sacriligeous) to face their Maker without the need of special surroundings to do so.

There isn't any good reason why these clubs shouldn't have to use one of the other meeting rooms. Cut down on this senseless chopping up of good space into pokey little units which are each too small to be worthwhile.

If they get away with it, then we could perhaps suggest that the Charter Club should have a special room set aside for its meetings, with a deep blue colour scheme and an enshrined photo of Sid.

—Senior Atheist.

Spirituous Lectures?

Salient has shown a remarkable tendency towards flippancy and humorous nonchalance in the past few months. The letters and articles I have read have been amusing and entertaining, but this state of affairs must cease forthwith in view of the conditions existing in the community outside the college. One of these conditions is an increasing tendency for clubs and institutions to seek their own charters, so that liquid refreshments may be supplied on the spot to patrons. I look on each Charter granted as benignly realising that the dreams of Alcoholics Anonymous will never be realised.

Sir, I am appalled at the apathy of members of VUC, both staff and students, but more particularly am I satisfied that Salient, the self-styled "Organ of Student Opinion" has failed by not raising its voice in this matter of great importance to all those who, through the drought at VUC, have found their powers slowly waning, their intellectual ability ebbing from them. The losses shown on the Caf, balance sheets perturb me, too. And I am consoled only when I think that the same solution will do for both problems.

The money raised for the new building should first be used to extend the present Caf. to at least 20 times its present size, with every facility for serious and prolonged drinking. Loading bays should be installed, and individual earphones with control selector panels (as for UN translations). Students could then have both liquor and lecturer on tap without stirring from their seats at the bar. The present lecture rooms would be unused (but the lecturers, I am afraid, would have to do without). It may be that continuous pipelines might supply the lecturers in their rooms. The germ of the idea is now there—need I proceed further? The profits would quickly build a genuine Student Union Building which VUC has for so long been without. This is a noble scheme, is it not?

—F.E.G.

(Sic! Hic! Vuc.—Ed.)

To Contributors

R. G. Coleman.—Sorry, your article is too long: we asked for any others on this topic to be kept to letter length: we will take it if you can cut it down to 250 words, but in the meantime it has been returned to you.