Other formats

    Adobe Portable Document Format file (facsimile images)   TEI XML file   ePub eBook file  

Connect

    mail icontwitter iconBlogspot iconrss icon

Salient. Victoria University Student Newspaper. Vol. 37, No 24. September 18, 1974

Letters

page 14

Letters

Dear Sir,

Drawing by Folon of a man with a pen for a head

In reference to your story last week, "The Death of a Baby" I would like to inform you of a similar event that happened while I was nurse-aiding. I have decided to write about it as I feel that it is time that matters like this are brought out into the open and not just passed aside very quietly as this one was.

During Christmas last year I was employed as a nurse-aid for three months. In this time I saw the unnecessary death of a Maori baby (and I firmly believe that this was partly due to the baby's colour — because several references were" made to this — "a snotty nosed Maori").

Night after night the baby screamed but little notice was taken. He was just given more medicine in an attempt to calm him down. Often he lay in his cot coughing and spluttering, nearly choking but little attention was paid to him. Never did anybody think that the baby was screaming because there was something seriously wrong with him. One of the nurses went as far to say that the baby was only screaming for attention — a thing that shocked me greatly. This nurse asked why we should be looking after the baby as his home conditions were terrible. Yet the hospital suddenly discharged this baby knowing fully that only a few days before it had been haemorrhaging from the bowel. The next day he was dead.

I believe this was a case of unnecessary death and another figure to add to the high mortality rate among Maori babies. In this case I blame several factors — the doctor shortage (this baby was checked at very irregular periods by his doctor), the slackness in the hospital at this time, the shortage of beds, the intolerance shown towards the baby because he screamed so much.

What can be done? All these cases should be brought out into the open. The rate of deaths among Maori babies still remains high. Are we going to let it carry on?

Nurse-Aid

Ward for sale

Dear Roger,

Anthony Ward is selling out again! His thinly disguised middle class bureaucratic attitude to the demolition of Hunter is completely unwarranted. I don't know where he attained his figure of $75 a square foot for strengthening Hunter. Even if this is true, which I believe it is not, the cost is surely irrelevant here. The mindless edifices that are erected around this varsity as monuments to a tight fisted University Grants Committee must not be allowed to ride rough shod over the only building of any sanity and character in this varsity.

My suggestion to Anthony Ward is that, if he considers that the mindless, soul-shattering experience of Kirk and Easterfieid is more desirable than the one building that gives Victoria University an identity, he go back and take another look at the classic monument to Walkato Wankers that is their university, and Hamilton city itself, from whence he comes.

Anthony Ward was not elected to sell out university students interests. I suggest he reconsider.

Peter J. Tait-Jamieson

Abortion — gold rush

Dear Salient,

They call it women's liberation. No doubt many sincere women think it is but who are behind them?

They say in America the big companies making suction pumps and other such hard ware, have invested their money in women's lib. I wonder why?

And what about the new millionaires of Britain and America. Suddenly many more of the medical profession have joined the upper classes.

One Auckland private hospital is raking in at least $150,000 a year in an ever growing trade. Our new clinic sounds reasonable at first glance, $60 or more a time, 35 or more a week, $2,000 or more a week. How many on the staff? Good wages wouldn't you think?

Just who does gain by abortion? Certainly not the aborted child, maybe not even the mother, but there are others in this saga who do. The new gold rush of the twentieth century.

J.G.M.

Ghost of Moliere

Dear Sir,

A couple of points R. Mays raised, somewhat confusedly, in his letter published last week, deserve further discussion. First, however, I would like to correct some misconceptions he has. Over the past six months or so I have given about equal space in my reviews to shows from the three theatres I go to regularly: Unity, Downstage, and the University Theatre. I have not reviewed all the shows I have seen, for various reasons, I did not review Waiting for Godot and I have mentioned that show only twice and in passing. I would also like to point out that I do not have a monopoly on Salient reviews. To that extent I am 'self-styled', Which only means there is nothing to prevent R. Mays or anyone else publishing their own reviews. The other point Is that Misanthrope was not an attempt at a period production and nor did it aim to be 'realistic' — whatever that means. The supposed contemporary relevance was to derive from its setting in 1966, three hundred years after the death of Moliere. I said in my review that this aspect of the production had been 'overstated'. So much for Misanthrope.

Now for 'bourgeois art and culture', I would say that with a very few exceptions (and even those are arguable) all NZ theatre is bourgeois and elitist — in that the aim is to entertain rather than challenge or question; in that the drama is conceived to meet the expectations of habitual theatre patrons; and in that those patrons comprise an exceptional minority with various identifiable characteristics. University Drama, of whatever sort, is not and cannot be considered one of the exceptions. To say a theatre is bourgeois and elitist does not, however, mean that its productions are always and necessarily bad, though it may mean there is a certain kind of achievement they cannot manage. In this situation a reviewer or critic has three choices — he can pretend that everything is as it should be and write his pieces regardless; he can condemn out of hand 99 per cent of what he sees or will ever see here, in which case he need not write at all; or he can take each production on its merits and attempt to distinguish between the necessary and the gratuitous. I have tried to adopt the third stance, with what success I cannot say. It is easy to call Downstage 'fur-coat theatre' and therefore dismiss it altogether, easy to arrogate all sincerity and judgement to ones own position, easy to throw away such words as bourgeois and elitist. Finally it is also Irresponsible, in the same way that uninformed assertions about misuse of 'our' money is irresponsible. The proposed festival of student written and directed plays was not abandoned because $3000 had been spent on Misanthrope. There was a separate amount set aside for it, some other reason must be found for its non-occurence.

R. Mays seems to be saying there is a different kind of theatre waiting in the wings and that this theatre is prevented from taking the stage by the moneyed prima donnas and elitist entrepreneurs. That, this can happen is undoubtedly true; I know of at least one relevant example. Yet I take leave to doubt his claim that such a potential exists now, within the university. If it did exist anyway, I would hope it has the sense to act without invitation rather than whine outside the door. Its not that hard a world. And if you want 'positive, sincere, critical encouragement' you'll have to make some effort to earn It.

One more point in passing — can a diatribe really be complimentary? Perhaps R. Mays should consult his dictionary before he writes again. And get his thoughts in order and his facts straight, if he expects me to take any account of his criticism of the way I write.

Martin Edmond

P.S. I do think some explanation is demanded of the people who produced Misanthrope — as to how and why they spent $3000, who spent it, and In what state It has left Drama Society finances.

The Tower on the Hill

Dear Salient,

The article by Mareko Maruru on the shortcomings of Victoria is the most refreshing I have seen in Salient since my first year in the ivory tower in 1967. Gaining a bachelor's degree gave me a certain amount of pride, if only for not failing; five years on the outside has given me a much greater degree of insight and understanding of the student syndrome.

It is embarrassingly apparent when a university — or even 6th form high school student — is in a group, a job, or a bus. The patronising stand-offish attitude of the so-called intelligensia is a pollution in the air of our whole society. Too many students go on year after year doing units, whether passed or failed, degrees, diplomas etc or at least going with the same crowd. Sometimes for genuine love of learning and intelligent conversation, but sometimes also for fear of the outside world and the equalising effect of the Lambton Quay lunch hour rush.

The university may be expensive and a lot of hard work, but, if only for its geographical situation it offers a cushion against the outside world. It never ceased to amaze me, while at varsity, how students could mindlessly down booze to the exclusion of all else then demand freedom for the individual and the downfall of capitalism. Some of the biggest boozers I met were the radicals on campus — selling themselves shamelessly to DB etc — and no one, in my mind, is free when the mind is blown with any drug.

Students might be able to theorise to high heaven about the dialectics of materialism, the oppression of women, the economics of Samuelson etc etc blah blah, but a sobering existence to be a man working a 60 hour week on Todd's assembly line, a housewife bewildered by her resentment at having four grizzling children in a suburban home, or a pensioner budgeting for the week. Students would learn a lot more of far greater value if they would come down from the tower on the hill, if not in body at least in spirit.

Sincere love and peace,

Margaret Davey

$100,000 solution

Dear Roger,

I am so sick and tired of hearing how bad the cafe is that I (in my own modest (??) sort of way) am suggesting an alternative. From my roost in the Fourth Floor of the Rankine B. (the library for idiots) I have a perfect view of the roof of the Memorial Theatre. How about building an architect designed (Roger Walker or Ian Athfield type excellent) brick olden style coffee house with large roaring open fireplaces (for those cold winter days), old chairs and tables (knocked together or donated??) and plenty of old pictures plus authentic fire smoke, dust and soot, and the good old character much needed to liberate us 'battery hens' at feed time). It seems a pity to waste such a perfectly good roof, and we really do need some break from automation and the 'new-idity' cult that seems to be coming up four toes and a rubber bunny's squeaker lately. So how about it romanticists? Just don't dismiss it with words like 'costs' or 'labour', purely 'serving' to bring you closer to the plucking stage of our process. If you like it let's hear it....

Chook Chook Chook Chook

P.S. Motto....."I'm sick of asking for things, let's get something!!!

(This letter was typed, computerised, inspected and sterilized, but I like the Idea — Ed.)

(I did not write this editor's comment — Ed.)

Unperceived contrapuntal control

Dear Sir,

Mr Campbell has paid as little attention to my recent letter as he did to "Valdramar". If he will kind re-read my letter and his own review, he will discover that:
1)I did not "assert" that "Valdramar" is remarkable. In fact, I offered no opinion on the show whatsoever. I merely suggested that your readers might have concluded, on the basis of Mr Campbell's egregious review, that "Valdramar" was remarkable; and whether or not this was a plausible suggestion, it did not commit me to a verdict on that show.
2)I did not accuse Mr Campbell of "spite and aggression towards the show" — or towards anything in particular. I had in mind his description of (the) Downstage (Theatre Society) as "incestuous". However, I am happy to extend the accusation as Mr Campbell suggests, since he seems so bent on wearing a crown of thorns.
3)Any abuse I levelled at Mr Campbell was far from "unprovoked" — but I am not surprised that he is unaware how obnoxious, apart from dowright inadequate, his "criticism" can seem. However, this — not to mention his apparent gross insensitivity in the face of, among other things, the demonstrable musical merits of "Valdramar" and the minor ironies of my letter is to be expected, I suppose, of one who has "never felt embarrassed in public in his life".
4)I certainly do not bear either Mr Campbell or his paranoia anything like "hatred". I couldn't be bothered.

In the light of these considerations, I feel that my putative obligation to explain to Mr Campbell what he has missed all but evaporates; which is as well, for I am not sure that this would have been possible for one so musically ingenuous as to foment the absence in a score of "decent melodies" — whatever they may be. Perhaps I may make my own position clear by noting what appears to have escaped Mr Campbell so far: that I prefer not to grant his writing the status of "criticism" or "review" at all. Not just because it was a display of ill temper, but because, philanthropist though he may be, Mr Campbell appears to be deaf.

I believe that Gordon Campbell has failed entirely to perceive certain fairly obvious musical merits in the Cockburns' score — for example, its harmonic inventiveness, its contrapuntal control in the development of certain ensembles, its dramatic continuity and compactness. I believe that he failed similarly, to observe strengths in "Valdramar" other than the vital musical ones, and so his criticisms of all except certain technical difficulties are unfounded. He is, it would seem, insensitive to the stylistic objectives and achievements of at least this particular piece of music-drama, however much social science he might know. It is perhaps inevitable that someone prone to discover "arrogance and elitism" exemplified in a theatrical production should be unsuited or unwilling to discern its internal artisitic merits. Mr Campbell's criticism fails because it is not, despite his protests, specific in the right way: he is unable to provide any penetrating internal criticisms of the work. It is not enough, or even, of interest, to say "It, sounded ghastly", or "It's just a set of riffs": one must, I believe, to be informative, point to stylistic reasons for the failure claimed — show that the work is unsuccessful on its own terms.

But the spectacle of Mr Campbell's public education could hardly be of further interest to your readers. If Mr Campbell wishes. I suppose it would be possible to analyse the score and its dramatic thread for him, in a little detail, out of the arena. In the meantime I think I can most charitably only express my hope that he will get a better seat or a better dinner when he goes to "Valdramar" again.

Robert Love

Dear Roger,

It is ridiculous to hear David Chung saying that he would support the NZUSA's (and some Malaysian students) campaign for the democratic rights of the Malaysian students on August 31, and he contradicted himself by strongly opposing the demonstration against the Malaysian High Commission. But on that same day he exposed himself by telling the audience that he participated in the demonstration which was held on August 30. Was he there to count the number of Malaysian students participating in that demonstration? Or was he having some other purposes?

When he was questioned by a student of what practical steps or plans that he could propose to contribute to the campaign, he gave absolutely no solution! This showed that he had no intention to co-operate with the NZUSA's campaign to fight for the democratic rights of the Malaysian students, but rather he was trying to stop the demonstration or It could be that he was representing "some other people" to speak out in the forum!

A Malaysian Student

page break

Hunter Won't be Saved

Dear Sir,

The reasons why are:
1)

The Law Faculty (especially its Dean) would like a brand-new, plushy building where they can be housed in comfort and convenience, and with their own library. The Law Library was originally part of the main library, which was housed in the Law Library's present position, until the mid-sixties. Thus the precious Law Library has been in existence for ten years at the most — and though the Dean emphasises how necessary a separate law library is for the Law Faculty, it got on without one for over sixty years. Admittedly the geography, geology, and botany-zoology (combined into the biology library) departments have seperate departmental libraries — but they are paid for by the departments concerned and I have yet to hear the Dean volunteering to pay for his law library — at present financed out of the main library vote. There is also a precedent for the incorporation of a departmental library into the main one — the English class library.

The Law Faculty also wants to preserve the distinction between law studn students and others — mainly in terms of the facilities provided. It was mentioned by a lecturer in the English and NZ Law Department that if necessary the Law Faculty wouldn't mind moving the whole Law Faculty (including Library) into a building off-campus! Enough said as to the Law Faculty's attitudes.

2)The Hunter wasn't built according to the plans approved by the City Council. The floors and ceilings of the building are only tied onto the mortar and brick walls (and it is well known what state mortar is in after 60 years), instead of being sunk into the walls. Thus in an earthquake the bonds come loose and pronto — a flattened mass of people costing hundreds of thousands of dollars to compensate loved ones. If the building had been built "legally" the cost of strengthening would surely have been much less, and the cause to save it mightn't have been in vain.
3)The people protecting at its demolition (or has the decision only been made in mind and is not yet on paper?) do so on emotional (the "quality of students"), and aesthetic ("building of tradition and beauty") grounds — but they are not the ones who have to face up to the fact that dooms Hunter — the money for its strengthening/replacement must be dragged from the Government. One just has to look at the trouble the varsity administration had trying to get a few hundred thousand dollars extra for Von Zedlitz (first stage). What hope is there for $1½ — $2 million extra that it will cost for strengthening (for 8 — 10 years) as against replacement cost ($4 million compared with $2 million). The varsity administration couldn't raise the money itself nor could the Law Faculty Club or any other body (like the Historic Places Trust, which is likely to classify Hunter of historical interest and not the necessary "historical importance" anyway).
4)The varsity administration has been accused of a total disregard of aesthetic values — yet when the proposals for New Kirk were mooted the Science Faculty departments, to be housed there, wanted no windows — they took up valuable wall space! The administration insisted on windows, even if they are totally inadequate they're better than nothing. What "sterile monstrosity" will the Law Faculty have — no roof because they want through JC to be closer to the heavens?
5)Despite its "tradition and beauty" (facade, halls, law library, and tiled lavatories) Hunter has its chronic points (H312 speaks for itself and the Law Library rivals the cafe for stuffiness and crowdiness).
6)Finally, where were the student representatives on the council when this matter was raised? Are they trying to make up lost ground with political statements?

Thus with only a maximum of 500 students (those at the Law Faculty Club and SRC meetings) actively wanting to save Hunter, and with the varsity administration and academic community (especially the Law Faculty) concerned, what hope is there?

A cartoon to the editor: Cartoon of students arguing with landlord

Sedgemoorian

Dear Roger,

Cartoon of a man sitting at typewriter

Whether I meet Mr Cookson's criteria for a "Maoist" I do not know, nevertheless I would like to answer his question: Why did the Chinese turn up at Malaysia's national day celebration. (Salient. September 11, 1974)

A more reasonable question than Mr Cook-son's, I believe, is this: why shouldn't the Chinese turn up at the function? It is normal practice for two countries with diplomatic relations to attend the other's national day celebration. Considerable stress in state relations would be necessary before one country boycotted the other's national day celebrations.

Diplomatic relations between a socialist country and a capitalist country in no way implies approval for each other's internal regime. All that is involved is state-to-state relations. If it were really unprincipled for the Chinese to attend Malaysia's function, it would be equally unprincipled for them to attend New Zealand's diplomatic functions. Both countries are under the dictatorship of bourgeoisie, even if in New Zealand it takes the form of parliamentary democracy and in Malaysia a form of fascism.

Is Mr Cookson actually calling for China to break its diplomatic relations with capitalist and imperialist countries? Why should a socialist country withdraw from the area of diplomatic struggle against these countries? When a socialist country enters into diplomatic relations with these countries, it in no way implies that it has ceased to support revolutionary and progressive movements in them.

Most importantly, when such relations are opened it is no way incumbent on revolutionary and progressive movements in the capitalist and imperialist countries to cease their struggle against their ruling classes. In fact, the Chinese insist that their foreign policy is China's and that revolutionaries in other countries are in no way required to follow it. In the Chinese view, the revolutionaries in other countries should integrate Marxism-Leninism with the concrete realities of their own country if they are to carry out a revolution. In particular, if there is to be a revolution in Malaysia and New Zealand it must be the work of the peoples in those countries.

If progressive people give up their struggle because China has opened diplomatic relations with their country, then they demonstrate nothing more than their own low political consciousness.

As to Mr Cookson's anonymous "Maoist" who, according to his story, was embarrassed by the attendance of representatives of the People's Republic of China at Malaysia's national day celebration while there was a demonstration out-side, all I will say is this: If this "Maoist" actually exists, and if Mr Cookson is not misrepresenting his or her remarks, then on this question he or she is being as big an ass as Mr Cookson and his fellow Trotskyist gentlemen are on all political questions.

Yours fraternally

Terry Auld

Dear Roger,

Cartoon of a chef rolling a pizza base with a large fly in the dough

The press statement of the "MSA Executive Council" disapproving NZUSA tactics used in its campaign for democratic rights for Malaysians was rejected by the majority of MSA members at its AGM on September 14. A resolution was passed at the meeting that MSA disassociate itself from the statement as it did not represent their opinions.

It is clear to all that in such a contentious issue, concerning the democratic rights of Malaysian students here, the executives of VUMSA and other MSA's have acted in a "secretive and undemocratic manner" without bothering to consult their members. The proposal to form the "executive council" was made in May but members of VUMSA in particular were not consulted at any stage.

In fact when I went to attend one of its meetings on August 28 an attempt was made to exclude me. I only learnt of this meeting through a committee member an hour before the meeting.

At the AGM, L.C. Goh roundly condemned this whole procedure as undemocratic having been done in a "secretive manner".

This, however is not the only undemocratic method the former MSA executive used to put forward a minority opinion. At the AGM members were asked to amend the constitution under the guise of "tidying up" certain articles. No notice was given prior to this move. As a result there was inadequate time to consider the amendment in detail. However I would also raise the point here as to why L.C. Goh had four hours to study the amendments the night before as he told me, while no one including myself was consulted? This is highly improper.

Examining the amendments which the members foolishly assented to I understand why the MSA executive committee have acted in such an underhand manner.

I admit that at the AGM I did not clearly see the implications of this amendment and I was criticised for not being clear on why I opposed this. The lack of time in considering the changes in my case was raised in objections to the chairman of the meeting, but was ignored. I do not question the integrity of the chairman but I must point out that there was a hurry to get the discussion over with, as time was running short. In doing so members failed to consider the implications of a new article (17) which gives the association power to expel members on political grounds as I read it. This is clearly directed at persons who act to the "detriment" of MSA, whatever it means.

An additional clause was introduced stating that the MSA maintain liaison with the Malaysian government.

The above two amendments show the clear intention of the former executive committee to ignore the political welfare of its members, a fact already demonstrated by its behaviour over the Khoo issue. It might interest everyone that another Malaysian student has been deported from NZ. And this is the type of issue the former executive committee would like to ignore.

The new committee must be held to its election promise that it will look after members' political welfare. Steven Oh the new president made this promise and I say that the first move he should take is to make a public statement to the effect that the VUMSA has disassociated itself from the action of the MSA Executive Council.

There are enough undemocratic means used by people who are supposed to rule on our behalf at home. I do not wish to see this being practiced here by Malaysians who pretend to support my beliefs and yet resort to the same undemocratic methods to make decisions for us.

Robert Pui

Razak and the death of democracy

Dear Sir,

It is always said that human nature is hard to change. An evil man cannot divorce himself from evil deeds even though circumstances did not dictate it. Take for example, the Prime Minister of Malaysia, Tun Abdul Razak and the recent general election. It is well understood for obvious reasons that the National Front of Malaysia would win the 1974 election and many people have predicted it. I would say the Party cheated its way to victory. Richard Long, in his article "Chinese improve their voting strength in Malaysia" published In the Dominion of Sept 2, 1974, stated that: a) "He (Tun Razak) would never allow a party with a non-Malay majority to take control." b) In the unlikely event of the DAP, even being voted into power. Parliament would be disolved.

c)".... it is not a healthy development to have a predominantly Chinese party as the only opposition party."

d) "Over in Sabah where Kuala Lumpur's influence is minimal, the local bosses ensured they won by arresting 10 opposition candidates and confining them till it was too late for them to file their nominations."

e) "Opposition claims it lost 10,000 votes on average in each electorate because of the missing names."

The above allegations would go a long way to give a fair idea how Razak's regime got into power. In sum. Tun Razak bulldozed his way into power by:
1)threatening the ignorant masses and the opposition party;
2)arresting the opposition candidates;
3)censoring people's suffrage;
4)uniting the Malay elite and bourgeois and a few degenerated Chinese;
5)dividing the masses — poor Malays, Chinese and Indians.

Points a) to e) spell out the death of democracy in the Malaysian Government clearly. It is a pseudo-democratic and corrupted government. He makes a mockery of the word "democracy". Point e) in particular had been confirmed by the OMSA president who mentioned in the last "NZUSA Conference on Malaysia" that his members were so asked to register a year ago because they were qualified to vote for the 1974 election, but what happened, no voting forms were sent to them. They like many others were deprived of the right to vote as citizens. Why?

The NZUSA Conference on Malaysia demonstrates very clearly that most of the Malaysian students in NZ are interested and concerned with their home problems.

The NZUSA conference hints that we cannot take what is going on sitting down. For progress to be made Action is the word. The Malaysian Government is not going to hand over your rights as citizens on a golden plate. You have to fight for it, if it need be. And judging by what the government is doing — wilfully leaving out the Chinese voters from the voting registers — it looks like we have to make a move or else more and more repressive actions will follow.

The NZUSA Conference also called to the stage aspiring future 'Tuns' and 'Datos' who showed their support for the government in very definite terms. They opposed the demonstration. Why? Because the government does not like it. Our beloved David Cheung's well-rehearsed oratorical performance was enthusiastically greeted with boos and hisses. Malaysian students here know him for what he is. His argument was self-contradictory. On the one hand, he strongly opposed the demonstration fighting for democratic rights in Malaysia, on the other hand, he participated in the demonstration. Why did he go if he opposed it. What ulterior motives he had is obvious. People can well analyse his actions and his motives:
1)He went up there to blow his own trumpet, to sell himself to the audience, in fact an early campaign for the presidency of MSA' Judging from the hundred odd votes he had for cultural officer, one would think he would have more sense than to aspire for the post. It would be easier for him to sell himself to the Malaysian Government.
2)He tried to prevent the demonstration from taking place. He tried to discredit it.
3)Since the demonstration could not be stopped, he took part in the demonstration so to find out who were those under the masks that he could score a credit for his future 'Tun' or 'Dato' by selling them to the Malaysian High Commission.

Some one had asked: Could we change our bloody and chauvinistic government? Could we alter our unjust constitution? The answers are positive. Nothing is absolutely fixed. But let us always keep in mind. Changes need time and need action, action and action. More important is that changes to lot of the cases requires sacrifice of life.

For the sake of the majority of the poor people, for the sake of your next generation in terms of better education, better environment and more democratic rights, we have to fight. Now, it is time to stand up to struggle, it is time to unite to fight and it is time to speak up and to act.

Struggle! Struggle! Struggle! A Malaysian