Last night in the Library I was assailed by an army of weevils originating from the British Museum Catalogue of printed books. I admit that the assault was only a technical one in that I was unharmed physically, but the sight of my books being uplifted and transported on the backs of thousands of multipeds and dumped over the edge of my desk was, to say the least, upsetting. I give fair warning then, that starting as of August 4th., I will be arming myself with a can of mace and god help any instigative insect that crosses my path (or desk).

Peterkin Lockwood

Accy 301: What we need.

In reply to your correspondent "a concerned accountancy student" (Salient No 17, July 16) I would like to defend the right of the Accy 301 lecturer concerned to put forward the views he did.

Firstly, I did not see the situation in the lecture as the author painted it. The lecturer finished the course half-way through the final lecture and then made brief comments on the final exam. He then began his "tirade of eloquence" after making it clear that the following comments were to make us think and were not part of the course or examinable. Some students who voiced objection were told they were free to leave.

The book mailed out to students with the final project was certainly of an appropriate size and shape to fit in most student's rubbish tins.

Secondly, the author seems to think that the teaching of knowledge can be neutral and free from value attachments. Knowledge however cannot be neutral and must reflect values and assumptions of the user of that knowledge. All the lecturer was doing in this case was changing the values and assumptions underlying the knowledge and challenging us to consider these alternative ways of looking at the subject and life in general.

He first asked us to consider alternatives to a capitalist system, such as a system operating with increased government ownership, planning and control. He commented that extreme capitalism and its socialistic alternatives seemed not to have solved the economic, social and political problems of their time and suggested that a consideration of a system that was not centred on man and materialistic motives may provide some insight.

He then talked at some length about numerical patterns found in the Bible which tend to suggest that it is a book of special significance that may lead one to a knowledge of God on which one could desirably centre one's personal life and, ideally, community life.

I admit this may sound like "religious mania" to many but I suggest that the author's strong desire to keep religion out of lectures is simply a mania in the other direction.

In short by changing the assumptions, and frame of reference the lecturer presented a minority viewpoint but he also only took a small portion of the time I have spent on lectures at this University.

What has all this to do with accounting, which is neither religious studies nor political science?

Accounting may seem a neutral reporting of economic facts but in fact it reflects the ideology and values of the system in which it operates. It tells the users (or should, as best it can) economic information which they use in decision making.

Our present accounting framework grew out of demands made by commercial enterprise during the industrial revolution. Hence, modern accounting [unclear: inour] country reflects the capitalist assumptions of the profit motive, free enterprise, right to private property and competition.

While different assumptions underlie the system accounting adapts to reflect these. This is seen in the different performance measures adopted by accounting in Socialist countries and in government accounting.

The BCA degree course does very little questioning of the basis of our system and hence of the bias of accountancy.

If such questioning cannot be carried out in a University, where else can it be done? It is unfortunate if our business graduates blindly accept the business system as it operates without bothering to ask if its results are just or fair or simply whether it is the best of a number of alternatives. Perhaps part of the fault lies with the job oriented approach of the degree.

There is also, given our economic system, little attempt to discuss ethical issues that arise within that system. I cannot help feeling many managers and students reluctantly accept a modified profit concept and would prefer the old idea of profit maximisation.

I therefore support this lecturer's right to make the statements he did and raise by implication the sort of questions outlined above

The last letter from the WSCPCS

Each week we make the effort to pick up what you so fondly term a newspaper, in the hope that somewhere ("over the rainbow") there might be one, small worthwhile article, of interest to those of us who are not left wing, radical, prejudiced, perverted or just plain pissed. No such luck!! The only things worth reading (an believe us we have examined many issues of Salient with, if not an electron microscope, then at least a McKenzies magnifying glass) is the Letters Column. These letters, usually of the common or garden variety, are most entertaining and informative. We felt that we would add our own little letter to this pile of s**t (Daring language! -Ed). We feel that the best idea for your 'newspaper' is to increase the number of pages and then we could find a use for them in the Varsity loos.

Annoyed

Obviously Gay Liberation has a lot of support from the student hierarchy, for how much longer are students using union loos going to have to put up with the crap scrawled almost every available space in these amenities. This is obviously an act of vandalism and should have been dealt with in the correct manner -withdrawal of the said society's affiliation with the students' association. Even if members of the society didn't creat all the conspicuous grafitti you'd think they would try to save face and get the stuff removed. Perhaps this is a reflection on their whole attitude towards the property they seem to control.

With much cocky love; Fil.

Extending Support

We must all extend our heartfelt sympathy to the Labour Party in its current plight of having to 'import' members of one electorate into another, in order to help their election campaign. I am deeply saddened by this predicament. I base my sorrow upon the recent 'migration' of members of the Wellington members of the party to the Hastings area, to spread their gilted manifesto in that area.

Jenny McLeod in the clouds

Since her premature ascendency to the Chair of Music at Victoria University, [unclear: have] followed the career of Jenny McLeod with concern, and latterly with alarm.

The decline in Miss McLeods musical and intellectual well-being in these last few years has been reported uncritically and at length in The Listener and elsewhere. For the loss of a former colleague and friend I feel a personal regret. The loss of a composer though, is a national loss, and Miss McLeods continued deterioration (The Listened, 21 June) in conditions of undiminished affluence and authority, is both pathetic and contemptible.

A composer who renounces music has only himself to blame, but a teacher of composition who renounces composing betrays his calling and his art. Who has considered Miss McLeod 's students? Has she? What sort of credibility can one place in a music degree awarded by a disciple of Maharaj Ji? Can those young musicians that have come under her influence also look forward to having all "the money and a house, all the established material values"?

A University that will not act to protect its students is unworthy of its scholarly duty. A society that is able to countenance Miss McLeod's present condition with amusement is as lacking in compassion as it is lacking in culture.

(Robin Maconie is chief music critic of the Times Educational Supplement and Associate Lecturer in composition at the University of Surrey. His book "The Works of Karlheinz Stockhausen" is due to be published by the Oxford University Press in October, and another book on the New Zealand Composer "A Critical Edge "is to be published by Price Milburn Music.)

XYZ one-eyed

XYZ's analysis of Malaysian politics follows the Western academic approach which has almost been totally dominated and defined by the racial divisions in Malaysian society. This has resulted in the obscuring of many changes and processes that help us to understand the perpeptuation of such racial cleavages and the whole context of Malaysia's social, political and economic development.

To imply that the racial problem is the only problem of Malaysia is unrealistic. What about the problems of poverty of over 80% of the people, the malnutrition that accompanies poverty, the chronic unemployment that worsens it, the drain on the economy through foreign and local capitalistic exploitation? To put the racial problem on a unique plane and ignoring the other problems is to present an incomplete picture of the situation.

XYZ sees the whole makeup of Malaysian society as being governed by this racial factor, which has resulted from ".....an unequal representation of Malays in all sectors", i.e. the commercial and non-commercial areas. As no solution was given, it may be inferred from his idea of Unequal Representation, that to solve this inequality, the answer is to make equal this representation within the present system. XYZ is resigned "to the fact that capitalism is here to stay" having briefly dismissed that the solution might be found in communism. Except for this he did not refer to any other systems which might solve the "problem".

Is his argument sound?

Ruby Pigeon

Best men for the job

(a man who travels and is seen is appreciated). The lecturer for Maori 101 and 102 is quite possibly the first person to involve his class in a traditional learning situation since the inception of Maori studies. Quite possibly also there are students who are unable to deal with an informal and relatively unstructured series of lectures; students who, unfortunately, have not been inspired by the very real wairua - the essential Maoriness which is manifest during each lecture session. That this is the case does not necessarily mean a failing on the part of the lecturer, but more likely is an inadequacy on the part of those students who are unable to involve themselves closely with his teaching methods. Personally I enjoy the lectures: both for the fact that they inform to a high degree on my study of the Maori language and culture, and because I feel it is high time that all lecturers got off their ass and (o god yes) talk with their students. And as far as I'm concerned the present lecturer for Maori 101 and 102 is the best man for the job.

Voice your opinions

It is interesting to note that over the past 4½ years, there has been a continuous debate in the pages of Salient between Malaysians for and against being involved in politics. This year the debate appears to have taken on a national scale in New Zealand if one is to take the flurry of Malaysian letters in other student papers as an indicator.

These letters by and large have concentrated on attacking the leadership in MSA's around the country. MSSA has so far escaped the flak.

I cannot help feeling that the failings of MSSA and MSA are partly the result of the attitude of the majority of Malaysian students towards these associations.

I am against the existence of dual student bodies catering for the need of similar students. However it is not my intention to say which Association is redundant. The ultimate issue is not how badly the MSSA and MSA have served us; but how we, Malaysian students at large, responded to the calls of these Associations in the executions of their duties and obligations. The response and interaction between the two must be mutual if anything is to be achieved at all.

I presume every Malaysian student here is aware of the political, social and economic situation in Malaysia. Ours is a tender and sensitive nation and is experiencing a transitional era of "Malayanisation". Thus the need for every one of us to pull our weight in one way to do that. Letting the government know what you think is another. Remember most, if not all of us have to actually confront the "facts of life" in our country soon. The undesireable element will not be the one who speaks and acts for his country's sake; but will be the one who does not want to know and consequently does not care.

I implore all Malaysian students to take advantage of the relatively liberal environment in New Zealand (and especially at Victoria) to exercise their rights, and voice their opinions. Only by being more articulate will the Malaysian student be able to manifest that he is concerned about current political, social and economic issues in New Zealand, Malaysia and elsewhere. We must prove to others that our capacity to excel is not confined to badminton.

On behalf of everyone who loves his country dearly, I beseech you to get your priorities right. Silence is golden only at funerals. The government will benefit from a voluminous feedback of public opinion, and what other better way to test the sincerity of Razak's policy.

Stop sending Religious Propaganda

as I first year student I would like to congratulate all those responsible for putting up informative notices on the boards provided. They enable me (and probably others like me) who were not previously aware of the large range of activities, to determine our interests at a glance and join certain clubs. However I am not interested in the catholic society or any other christian movement and often wonder why they, and out of all the numerous clubs, only they, find it necessary to send propaganda to students' homes. Perhaps someone could explain how they got my address and why they thought I might be interested. I would also like to point out that most first year students are quite capable of finding out about club activities for themselves and are not willing to have their names associated with certain activities.

Defender of the Faith.

Sport Officer takes correct Channel

I was surprised to see Trevor Mallard claiming in Salient last week, that I was disgusted with the last lecture in ACCY 301. This is not true. I must discredit Trevor's implication that I wrote the anonymous letter appearing in the previous week's Salient, criticising certain parts of the course. I have never written an anonymous letter to any paper, nor am I likely to do so.

Without starting an open debate on the merits or otherwise of the course or lecturer (because I don't have time), I will say that I did object to the course as a whole. The actum I took was firstly to write to the Vice-Chancellor (the letter can be seen on the daily file in the Students' Association Office) and secondly to talk over the situation with the Head of the Department. This would seem to me to be a far more effective way to get improvements rather than just ignoring the problems or writing anonymous letters.

As for the rest of Trevor's letter, it would appear that he has changed his views considerably since last year (remember BUAD 111) or is making a poor attempt at satire with his comments in the last paragraph.

"At long last we have a lecturer who is prepared to lay his prejudices of the line and thereby let us attempt to sort the fact from the fiction in the rest of his lectures. Long may it continue."

It is inevitable that there will be some far-reaching changes in the Commerce and Administration Faculty in the next couple of years. These changes will only come through student pressure, but, as I have already mentioned, I am too busy to instigate or help this year myself, but if I return next year you can be guaranteed that I will.

Kevin Wright.

Little Revealed

Gordon Little's letter last week("Justifying the closure of the Remuera Clinic") reveals little except confusion on the Remuera Abortion Clinic, a confusion that seems common to many supporters of Dr Wall. He stales that Wall's Act is justified in closing the Remuera clinic because it makes illegal abortions that much harder to obtain. That I answered last time by the fact that the Remuera clinic has not yet been shown to have broken any law. Gordon side-steps this point by stating that "public and approved private hospitals could easily cope with legal abortions." If this were so, then why have so many women gone to the Remuera clinic? Despite police harrassment and official interference, it would seem that they preferred the services of the clinic. Abortions in Public Hospitals are far from as easy as Gordon implies.

Gordon's second point is even more confusing. He cites my assertion that society's highest goal at the moment is the making of profits for a small and increasingly foreign elite, and continues "Assuming that this is true, it still has nothing to do with what the purpose of society is". This to me appears completely illogical.

I entirely agree with Gordon about the attributes of a socialist society though his analysis is somewhat vague in that it is not based on the necessary change in the ownership of production. I would personally welcome a change to the present law to extend the grounds for abortion to the general mental and physical health of the mother, with a removal of the often degrading procedure a woman has to go through to get an abortion in public hospitals. This alone however cannot change the forces in our society generally degrading and exploiting people - an issue that the anti-abortionists seem to have lost sight of completely. In fact, in further restricting women's abilities to obtain safe, cheap and legal abortions, Dr Wall and his running dogs are pursuing an entirely reactionary role. Gordon Little's professed belief in a just and humane society is in direct contradiction to his support for the Hospitals Amendment Act.

Anthony Ward

A Pakeha Problem?

How convenient for the students of first year Maori to have a bad lecturer to blame for their dropping out, their failure to learn very much. I agree that Rua would win no prizes for his lectures, but then who would? And remember that it is his first year too.

But all this is off the point. Last year in Peter McLean, students of Maori had perhaps the most pleasant, efficient, easy to follow, relevant teacher in the whole university. Yet what did he achieve in terms of pass rates, or more important, in terms of the number of students who were markedly more fluent at the end of the year? Bugger all.

This is the point, then, that the lecturer is by and large irrelevant. It's the students attitude and his kaha that counts. There's too many pakehas, purerehua (moths) they have been called, who came on strong about how they were sympathetic to Maoritanga, but they don't get stuck in and learn, practise, learn, practise and stick to it. They fly into the light but rather than stay and do the work, they bumble off to some other attraction. There is a proverb from the Kahungunu area: "Kav e hoki i te waewae tutuki: a apa ano i te upoko pakaru."

"Don't turn back because of stumbling feet, but only if your head gets broken."

Na Maitai

Lyttoning strikes twice

I wish to correct two points in IAQ Richards sprawling anecdote, and subsequently pass comment on your SRC report.

IAQ Richards is a young man making a name by dropping bigger ones (e.g. Russell, Rossetti, Tennyson, etc.). He is not the social galavant suggested in that letter, yet it is time we are aquainted, and, yes, we lunched together recently. But it was not a tete a tete (as you, sir, suggest). It was yet another of Richard's exasperating attempts to procure my patronage - a waste of time as I subscribe to none of the tripe Richards passes off as ideas.

But, anyway, my objections and corrections: my age is my business, and it is not one of those which Richards indicates anyway. A stigmatism in the cornea is the probable cause of their variance from paragraph to paragraph, incidentally. Second-up: Russell's smile does not split his forehead. It does make inroads into his ears but never rises above the temple.

That is more or less it, but, as an afterthought, I must say that Richards facts on the Tennyson/ Rosetti feud are wayward. Richards knows neither of these gentlemen (regrettably, I do) and pinched the material for the various assertions from Queenie Y. Leavis' forthcoming autobiography. Mrs Leavis writes with the best of intentions (generally) and the worst of memories (always) and the consequences are evident in Richards' misinformation. The feud actually arose from their differing opinions on the propriety of army manoeuvres during the General Strike (1926). And, the concept of the English Genius cannot be ascribed to Tennyson at all. He only heard about it from Noel Ian Coward, the operatic impressario, and its genuine origins are shrouded in the mists of Max Beerbohm's grave.

As to your SRC report: in it, your writer refers to the inevitable Lloyd Jobson', This is a misnomer, as, if my finks report properly, Mr Jobson is only perennial. If you must regard this professional student as some sort of 'master of time', you might do well to recall your own paper's one-time designation for Jobson, i.e. Prick of the Week in Perpetuity'. It's got a good ring to it, and, at certain times, the feel of.......

Disassociation being the order of the day, I must deny any links with or susceptibilities towards "scrutiny', the Gissing Revival, that parvenu Eliot woman and the legacy of the enlightenment.

Using Accepted Channels

Without being too deferential to NZUSA's attempt to inculcate a political awareness in Malaysians, it is clear evidently they have succeeded to a certain extent. The responses and initiatives in Salient are encouraging, but bonhommie, it is regretful to note that many of the comments lack the finesse of depth and relevance both in the analysis and discussion of problems uniquely Malaysian. It begrieves me to say that we can so unabashedly call ourselves worthy students of the Victoria University establishment. Nay, God forbid!

Embarassing the Malaysian Government tour de force is good, but I perceive that a greater good is achieved through effective and constructive intellectual discussion of the issues confronting our nations. I note the opportune offered in the Salient, and I am sure my fellow country men lack not the fore sight to see it too. It does not befit our justice to permit the analysis and identification of our nation's problems mainly to our M.U. counterparts. To date they have sallied forth and suffered the consequences of their laudable actions on the home front. Our 'education' here, our propitious opportunity to observe and utilise to the maximum our human faculties here - do we resign ourselves readily to making full use of it or are we destined to be mere passive passers-by? If that is not the case then we are not fit to set foot upon this fair New Zealand soil. Is not active intellectual and political participation-cum-discussion the key to effective ruling of a nation - be it Capitalistic or Communist? So much more then, is our reason to study in depth the problems rooted in our Malaysian socio-economico-politico sphere. Shall we not make an effort to criticise the shortcomings and inequalities in the present governmental policies and structure, approaches and the like?

This however is where common sense and clear thinking is needed. In the past issues of Salient, it is regretful to note the numerous baseless and near-sighted criticisms made against NZMSEC and MSAS. Think for a moment the realities of the political situation... Who is going to stick his neck out for anyone, least of all the anonymous critics? Not all of us can be, nor wish to be like Robert Put or the other publicly stature committee members. This voluntary denunciation does one no good except to reflect an ill-hidden psycho-somatic disease. On the critic's part enough is said. Let not history speak for us. Let us make history.

Lastly, I hope that the editor may be as kind to restrain himself from bearing down upon matters and opinions that is pro-Razak and Co. Otherwise where would the freedom of speech so often propounded in New Zealand be? I believe even Krishna Menon has the right to say what he pleases. To muffle opinions contrary to say NZUSA's policies is surely to defeat the gains to be derived from democratic discussion.

Enough is said. My fellow countrymen, shall we not indulge in meaningful dialogues?

Illegal Workers?

My friends and I congratulate you on establishing a Malaysia-Singapore supplement. I would be grateful if the following points are brought to the attention of the editor of the supplement. We Malaysian students would like to point out that while the High Commission staff discourage us from taking employment in this country while-studying, it seems to shut its eye to the fact that most of the wives of the officers are working for payment. These people enjoy all the priviledges accorded to diplomats, are allowed to bring in domestic help, drive DC cars which are immune to parking tickets, etc.. Besides and more importantly these officers and wives have signed a bond with the government that while on a diplomatic posting, the wives will not be employed for remuneration. Many of these officers let the wives work, and also send their domestic helpers ...in many cases relatives, also to work. It is quite common to see a Malaysian diplomatic wife serving behind the counter in a shop or a bank. Who do they think they are kidding? They want to have their cake and eat it. Surely wives of officers are meant to be diplomats themselves.... and perhaps help students who may need companionship.... instead of going to work illegally.

Open Letter to Mr Verma

A friend's views on your egotistic pursuits concerning the Fiji Students' Association:

Having lost the election for Presidency last year, you pledged your full support to the Association, and claimed that the belter man had won, in your final speech.

As we all know, your petition was the object of much ridicule, and is still a great joke amongst Fiji students. Your performance, we all know, at the S.G.M. was even worse.

After all that stirring we sat back and said give these young jokers a go, and so far they haven't done too badly. But you weren't satisfied. I was truly amazed when you told me that you had seen some top brass to lay a charge of defamation against someone who had written your name on the toilet wall of a pub frequented by Fiji students.

And another big stir when a lady-friend of yours wasn't allowed into the last Fiji social, free of charge, although you grabbed her arm and walked inside, only to be thrown out by the doorman. Calling people 'nincompoops' and crying that it was a matter of 'principles and ethics' won't get anyone anywhere.

The claim before the last election was that you were the most qualified to be president. What's next?

Knowing how you take criticism I have not revealed my name as it would put our friendship in jeopardy, but I do hope this letter makes you take a look at yourself, and what you stand for, more closely. And for our faculty's sake, please get it out of your head that you represent the entire Law Faculty, as far as the Fiji students are concerned.