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. Volume 38, Number 20. August 8 1975

Letters

page 14

Letters

Abstract image of two hands drawing each other

All letters submitted to Salient are published subject to the following conditions:

They will not be published If they are deemed to be libellous, or In contravention of the Race Relations Act by the Editor.

Unsigned letters are only published subject to the Editor's discretion.

Letters from the White Sports Coat and Pink Carnation Society will not be accepted.

The Great Australian Peril

Our type-setter had to be bribed with an extra $2 an hour to type this letter, largely because he is Australian. When last seen he was muttering about Australians doing the type-setting for Salient because Kiwis are short-sighted -Ed.)

After some thought on the matter I feel obliged to question the wisdom of our continuing further relations with Australia. The scum they gleefully let across are the major threat to New Zealand's policy of full employment and the free trade agreement running against us is so extrordinary a marriage that a mutual separation should be immediately solicited. (That's what my Kiwi brother-in-law does in Australia - solicits, - Type setter)

Imagine the marriage in human terms. The Kiwi guy meets the Queen of Brisbane's Fernberg Road in Auckland's Great Northern Hotel - soon to be demolished for the AMP society, she returns to the Brisbane beat, until she has had enough of cursing Whitlamism and the Doc's love for Juni Morosi. She cables her adoration of Kiwiland a year and a bit later. A $270 double diamond and saphire ring goes across forthwith: after that she informs the Kiwi guy she has been exhausted, in debt, out of work and on the Federal Welfare. The guy outlays her fare, air cargo and pays off her debts. She does not want her parents involved in the wedding.

On the morning after the wedding (let's say it's a ministerial one) she reveals for the first time to the guy her mental record of being in a suicide attempt pact and shock-treated commitals. Five weeks or so after the twelfth day of Christmas she gets work and takes off.

Diplomatic relations between Aussie chisellers and the impending Fraser-type Federal government over there should be terminated before their cats and dogs keep yapping and yelping around the hooves of our thoroughbred stallions. New Zealands military forces should be called out of mothballs to deal with this perilous invasion.

Sincerely (if not faithfully)

P.J. Wedderspoon

Test Pictures Beautiful

Dear Mr. Prosser,

I cannot disagree that your criticisms of Test Pictures are "as simple as possible". Of course, I'm biased, but I thought the pictures were, by and large, beautiful. They had a quality perhaps lacking in Mr Prosser's racy prose. To sum up, Mr Prosser, this is one human being who dug the "pile of junk" (just so!), and in future, no more pissing out of your cage - all right?

Patrick Mulrennan.

P.S. Of course, your highly principled, exemplary stand on NZ film-making in the abstract [unclear: I wholeheartedly] support - dear me, yes!

Polite Argument

Dear Sir,

It is good to note the attempt of Ruby Pigeon to present inter alia an explicit and coherent "thesis" on the Malaysian problem. I desire not to engage specifically in verbal altercation, nor to monopolise your precious letter page at the expense of someone else. No sir, the desire is more to maintaining a policy of laissez-faire and let others continue discussions in length on the unavoidable Malaysian issues confronting us here in NZ and in Malaysia, and hopefully by this modus operandi to uncover the fallacy and the pitfalls of many conclusions and beliefs that we may otherwise incubate.

In particular I wish to stress that so often the Si no-Malaysians have been deluded by their emotion ties to China and the constant barrage of communist eulogy and ideology, plus of course, myriad other reasons that they begin to be indoctrinated to the point into believing that communism is always the ideal answer to our country's problems. Further-more the voluminous criticisms of Malaysia and Singapore by NZUSA and Salient and others are made on the basis of western values and ipsofacto not entirely valid nor relevant. However that is not to say that the 'western academic approach' as aptly described by Ruby Pigeon, to problems is necessarily wrong. It would be a fully altogether to say we have nothing to learn from the advanced westerners. Indeed they have much to offer.

Without transgressing Ruby Pigeon, I wish to say that first of all that his comments and arguments have been based on a [unclear: misunderstand] ding of my views. It is erroneous to allege that I have defined the 'racial' problem as the only problem. Nay, it is only one of many. Secondly, if he wishes to be realistic, he would have to admit that a ceteris paribus (sic) reasoning is most unrealistic. Thirdly, the words like justice and equality are cliches to avoid. I have no wish to delve into the philosophical discussion of such semantics, but it would suffice to say that an egalitarian and entirely just society is only an ideal. As George Orwell wrote - "All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others." Fourthly and lastly, I s. s. h. shudder at Ruby Pigeon's advocation of a social revolution at this stage. Surely it is evident that no political events of great significance will be allowed to proceed without external interference these days. The bloody consequences of interference by powers like America in Vietnam, Chile, and Indonesia have indicated that no matter whether a particular political accomodation is objectively the best for a certain country you cannot prevent the 'righteous' interference of such a big brother. Besides I do not think the fervently anti-communist Indonesia and Malaysian Malays would entertain kindly the idea of a red Malaysia.

I believe I have said enough. I think Ruby Pigeon will auger well to see that the raison d'etre of this letter page is to enable me to reason and debate on any topic without resorting to acrimonious remarks. I hope none have been made here.

To end, my radical friend, as well as you, my politically biased editor, I say Bonjour

X...you-know-what

Matters of Student Interest

Dear Bruce

Recently a couple of matters of interest to students have arisen at Professorial Board level. A number of students have raised questions about them, and, as I was unable to attend the last SRC meeting, I would like to take the opportunity of reporting now what has been going on.

The first matter deals with surveys. As was pointed out in Salient (23.7.75, p.3) "within the next month students are going to face a barrage of research surveys". While that is something of an exaggeration, it is nevertheless true that there will be at least six surveys going on in the university over that time. Those surveys will be entirely un-co–rdinated, except for a couple because of informal agreement reached by two of the researchers involved. I took this matter up with a number of people including Professor Clift, of the Teaching and Research Centre, who is organising a survey of the Commerce Faculty on student workloads, and Professor Cullwick of the Business Administration Department, who is surveying student eating habits and catering. Both agreed that there is a definite need for regulation and co-ordination of the amount of surveying done, and a pool for collecting results and research material. Finally I went to see Professor Jackson, convenor of the Survey Research Committee. He pointed out that this question of lack of co-ordination and over-surveying had been a matter of concern for some time now and that his committee will be putting forward proposals to deal with it. Hopefully they will regulate the amount: of surveying done, and co-ordinate the results obtained. These proposals at the moment are only general and tentative and it is hoped that practical details relating to them will come up at the September meeting of the Board. If any students interested about this matter have any suggestions of their own, would they please see their Professorial Board representatives about it.

The second matter relates to the use of calculators, and is only slightly more boring than the first. This was discussed in Salient (23.7.75, p.6)—and various criticisms, most of which were valid, were made of the science faculty proposals dealing with calculators. Since then, these proposals have been considered by other faculties, and the responses, which read like Trent ham Racing results, were as follows: from Architecture, support; from Arts, endorsement; from Languages and Literature, another endorsement; from Law, a 'no comment'; and from Commerce, a 'let's set up a committee." On this basis the Board then decided to approve the recommendations of the Science Faculty to allow the use of calculators in examinations in the remainder of 1975 and any subsequent years under the four conditions suggested by that Faculty..."

Those conditions have already been outlined in the article mentioned, and they are not without problems. Without entering into that debate however, I would point out to any students who feel they might be disadvantaged by not having calculators, to make their views known loudly and clearly to the lecturers involved.

Fraternally yours,

Pat Martin.

Accomodation Required for Occupational Therapy Student aged 21, private board or flatting, from 30 August till 26 November in Lower Hutt, Petone or central city areas. Please write:

Sue Walton, 80 Esplanade Road, Mt. Eden. Auckland.

Dear Sir,

I would like to refer to the article "War Clouds in Korea" in your Salient of 9 July, 1975, which I read as it was about my country.

But it was with deep regret and shock that I found the article not only failed to present a true picture of my country but also fabricated stark historical facts and the reality in the Korean peninsula.

Though I did not, and do not want, to find out about the writer of the article, it is my opinion that he somehow has fallen victim to the false propaganda of the North Korean Communists. I feel sure that anyone who would read it from an objective and consciencious point of view would share my belief.

As I presume the majority of the readers of your Salient are students who are always interested in pursuing truth and facts, I feel obliged in this case to present them the facts and the truth about my country; the situation in the Korean peninsula; and the North Korean communists.

Thus I would deeply appreciate it if all or any relevant part of this letter could be presented in your Salient so that they may have a fair opportunity to judge for themselves and aquire the true facts about Korea.

At the beginning of his article referring to the Korean war of 1950, Mr Auld said ".......the United States launched its first anti-communist war on June 25, 1950....."

Nothing could be further from the truth. Several hours after the north Korean Communists' surprise attack on my country, the Security Council of the United Nations was convened, in view of the seriousness of and urgency to stop the unprovoked communists aggression, to adopt a grave concern over the "armed attack upon the Republic of Korea by forces from North Korea," and called upon the authorities of north Korea "to withdraw forthwith their armed forces to the 38th parallel."

This is the judgement and decision of an organisation none other than the Security Council of the United Nations as to who started the Korean War.

Thus the Security Council further authorised (Resolution S/1588, July 7, 1950) "the unified command (United Nations Command) at its discretion to use the United Nations flag in the course of operations against North Korean forces concurrently with the various nations participating" so that the Republic of Korea may "repel the armed attack."

It should also be recalled that the United States troops withdrew from the Republic of Korea in 1949, and by the the time north Korea was ready to unleash an all-out attack against the south, the overall military capability surpassed that of the south by more that a two to one ratio. The Republic of Korea owned neither a single tank nor any anti-aircraft artillery. It was literally defenceless against the communist invasion, spear-headed by 240 Russian-made tanks. Thus Seoul, the capital city of the Republic of Korea, had fallen into their hands in a matter of three days after they launched the aggression.

North Korea chose for its attack June 25, 1950 which was Sunday, when many officers and men of the Republic of Korea army were off duty from their military posts both on the front line and in the rear.

page break

Even more revelling in this connection is what former Soviet Premier, Nikita Kruschev had to say in his memoirs, Kruschev Remembers (In part II, under the heading of the Korean War): ".....The north Koreans wanted to prod South Korea with the point of a bayonet..... I mutt stress that the war wasn't Stalin's idea, hut Kim II Sung's. Kim was the initiator. Stalin, of course, didn't try to dissuade him...."

According to Mr Auld's description of the economic situation of the Republic of Korea one cannot help but receive the impression, that Korea's economy has been running continuously in the past toward a total collapse. If what he said is true the economy should have gone into bankruptcy years ago.

If the economy had been in such a state as as he presented, how should we treat the following facts among others?

A. Per Capita income of the Republic of Korea went up from $98 in 1964 to $520 in 1974.

B. Korea's total exports of $121 million in 1964 increased to an impressive $4,713 million in 1974, the exports reaching more than 130 countries around the world.

Are these signs of an economy in "deep trouble", and "going from bad to worse."?

Could a continuously deteriorating economy start to build, complete and operate such heavy industries as iron and steel; oil refineries; automobiles; cement; fertilisers; and ship-building that last year completed and delivered to Greece a 260,000 ton tanker, not mentioning various other types of vessels it built.

Why do more private foreign investors keep investing their money in Korea if "its economy is going from bad to worse."?

As for inflation, which country, including communist-block nations, is immune from this plague of inflation in recent years since the oil crisis?

In 1947, the United Nations General Assembly resolved to establish, on the basis of the principle of self-determination, a unified, independent Korea under the representative form of government through free General elections throughout Korea. South Korea accepted the General Assembly Resolution (112-II, 14 November 1947), and as a result free general elections were held in 1948, establishing the government of the Republic of Korea.

The communists in the north rejected this Resolution, and the Soviet occupation authorities set up arbitrarily a communist regime in North Korea in 1948.

Immediately after the establishment of this regime, the north Korean communists began to augment secretly their military strength to launch an unprovoked armed invasion against the south in June, 1950, which lasted three years.

It is a stark historical fact that they invaded the Republic of Korea with a surprise attack. This led the United Nations Security Council to determine that "the armed attack upon the Republic of Korea by force from north Korea constitutes a breach of the Peace," calling for "an immediate cessation of hostilities," and calling upn the authorities of North Korea "to withdraw forthwith their armed forces to the 38th parallel," and to recommend that "the members of the United Nations furnish such assistance to the Republic of Korea as may be necessary to repel the armed attack and to restore international peace and security in the area."

As tensions on the Korean peninsula reached a peak and the danger of renewed war increased toward the end of the 1960's. the Republic of Korea government took a series of important initiatives to cope with the situation.

On August 15, 1970, President Park Chung Hee called upon the North Korean communists to abandon their scheme of unifying Korea by force and proposed that south and north Korea engage in a bona fide competition for development and construction.

On August 12, 1971, the Republic of Korea Red Cross Society proposed to its counterpart in the north to hold a south-north Red Cross conference for the purpose of resolving humanitarian issues arising from the territorial division, including the question of reuniting separated family members in the two parts of Korea during the Korean War.

Against this background, President Park, in May, 1972, sent an emissary to Pyongyang for preliminary contacts with north Korean leaders to start a South-North dialogue. As a result, a South-North Joint Communique providing for principles for peaceful reunification of the country was finally issued on July 4, 1972. The the historical South-North dialogue started for the first time since the quarter-of-a-century-old division.

In a further effort to materialise peace in the Korean peninsula, President Pak called upon north Korea on January 18, 1974, to conclude a non-aggression agreement between south and north. It includes provisions of renunciation of the use of force, non-intervention in internal affairs and continued adherence to the Armistice Agreement of 1953.

All these efforts of ours to establish a durable peace in the Korean peninsula, to solve humanitarian problems and to achieve peaceful unification of the nation have come to nothing so far.

The north Korean communists flatly rejected the constructive proposals of President Park.

The militant and intransigent attitude of the northern side, repeating impracticable and stereotyped demands put the south-north dialogue into a stalemate.

They have rejected our proposal to establish a "reunion house" for the separated family members to meet freely.

They also rejected our proposal that the families visit freely the area of the other side to meet their separated parents, children and relatives.

Our proposal to assist the families to be able to exchange letters was also rejected.

Moreover, the north Korean communists unilaterally suspended the two-lane South-North dialogue on 28 August, 1973.

In the meantime they have sent armed agents into the South on numerous occasions, shooting to death the late wife of President Park in the attempt to assasinate him, staging at the same time provocative acts around our islands in the estern sea.

They were digging large-scale underground invasion tunnels across the truce line at the very minute they, together with us, were having the South-North Joint Communique of July 4, 1972. The tunnels were "for use in bringing patriotic persons to safety in the event of a revolution in the South", was what the north Korean dictator Kim Il-sung said during his meeting with a Japanese mission on May 8, this year.

North Korea's dictator, Kim Il-sung - who was a former soviet army officer and was installed as the head of the north Korean communists by the soviet military authorities in 1945 when he was barely 30 years old; who is now worshipped as the "sun of revolution" in north Korea; and whose birthplace is enshrined as a sacred place in Pyongyang - has been calling out peace and peaceful unification.

But let's see whether his peace offer is a truly genuine and sincere one or a camouflage to achieve his basic strategy to communize the whole of Korea through violent revolution and the use of arms.

On November 2, 1970 before the fifth convention of the north Korea Workers' Party, Kim Il-sung declared that "the precondition of unification of the country is an achievement of a South Korean revolution," and boasted "we have all finished war preparations."

On July 3, 1972, Radio Pyongyang in the north blared in its comment on the issue of unification "The unification can be realised only on the condition that a revolution takes place in the South" and "methods of realising the unification of the fatherland may include peaceful and non-peaceful ones, but there can be none but violent ones for the accomplishment of a revolution in the south."

On November 8, 1974, Ho Dam, north Koreas so-called foreign minister declared that "North Korea should support the revolutionary movement in the south to overthrow its government."

On 18 April, 1975, during his visit to Peking, Kim declared "If revolution takes place in South Korea, we as one and the same nation, will not just look at it with folded arms...."

If they really have any affection towards the nation and aspiration for peaceful unification of Korea they would not be able to call out for a so-called "revolution in the south." What lies behind North Korea's peace proposal is self-revealing and deserves no further explanation.

The word "peace" to them is by no means an objective itself but a mere means of camouflaging their schemes for communication of Korea. Whereas the word "peace" means absence of violence in a free world.

Thus no matter what they have advocated. North Korea's basic strategy vis-a-vis the south has been two-pronged: politically, to subvert the Republic of Korea by instigating a violent revolution in the South; and militarily, to build up military strength to invade the south. This basic strategy of North Korea has been pursued incessantly with variable tactics ever since the establishment of the north Korean regime in 1948.

The people of the Republic of Korea, therefore, have always been under the constant threats of the north. There is no doubt that the recent Indo-China situation might have so embolden the north Korean communists as to start another reckless war in the Korean peninsula. It should be pointed out, however, that should they launch another invasion out of miscalculation, my people would then take the occasion to eradicate their threats once and for all. It would only invite their own destruction.

In the meantime the people and government of the Republic of Korea will continue their efforts to achieve peaceful unification of the land, as we called once again, as recently as on 9 July, 1975 upon north Korea to come back immediately and unconditionally to the forum of our dialogue, which the north unilaterally suspended in August, 1973.

Now I have cited some hard facts out of hundreds in regard to Mr Auld's article. I hope your paper is fair enough to present these facts and truth in the Salient so that the reader may be able to draw their own conclusions on the basis of these two different types of presentation on Korea.

Yours sincerely,

U.K. Kim

The Really Last Letter from WSCPCS

Not so dear sir,

Drawing of an angry man holding their head in their hands

In your second to last issue you declared your intention of banning our [White Sport Coat and Pink Carnation Society] "turgid verbiage".......Now we notice that you have printed a letter headed "the last letter from the WSCPCS".

(Abridged considerably.

Yes, I will be printing no more letters from yourself or anyone else purporting to represent the White Sport Coat and Pink Carnation Society. This correspondence is now closed - Ed)

Have a H.A.R.T.

Dear Sir,

Just thought I'd piss a few people off. Got out of my Tut. early last Tuesday, to go to the H.A.R.T. forum. Very revealing in more ways than one, learnt a lot and laughed a lot. Got the impression that Sandy King was related to a lecturer of mine - so full of shit it's coming out of his mouth. Had me worried he did. King does Law, Jesus, so do I - better watch myself - don't want to go like him.

What really got to me tho' was the fact that there were more people at the folk concert and the "laugh in "compered by Fred Dagg's "Huntaway", the one and only (thank the lord for small mercies,) Rob Muldoon. It really shook me to think that my fellow- students were more interested in seeing a nonentity like Mulddon, than making the effort to find out and become more aware of the problems that our fellow-human beings are faced with. An issue of life and injustice such as apartheid is one of vital concern. Makes roe tremble at the thought that the Vic student is more interested in seeing this "missing link" than in a matter of human integrity.

Hold it, maybe I've got it all wrong, maybe the Vic student favours South Africa's racial policy. Because in a matter such as apartheid there is no neutral position. So, if you're not against it.....? And stuff all this crap about lectures and lunch and assignments. This is one example of not only "varsity but every New Zealander's attitude. New Zealanders are so apathetic on this sort of thing I am ashamed to tell people I am one. Some of the people there weren't listening any way. Reading newspapers, doing cross-words, eyeing up the bird over the room. There were some there, I must admit, who were really right into it. Mainly Maoris though. Which brings me to my final point. If you go back to the beginning of history, you'll find that all the misery and strife, all the exploitation and imperialistic plunder has been done by Whites. From the colonial scramble for Africa, the massacre of the North American Indian, the Australian Aborigine to the ever lovin' Maori boy. All the misery and suffering of one human to another has been caused by the pure civilized Caucasian. Adolf Hitler was one hell of a "bwana", Mussolini, Nixon and Muldoon.

Yet the minute a "boy" like General Idi Amin starts handing back the shit the Africans have been getting for hundreds of years, the whiteys start crying for blood.

Glad I'm not Caucasian

Glad I'm not a New Zealander.

Glad I'm a Maori.

Aue.

A Good Day's Work for Kevin Wright

Dear Bruce

Kevin Wright hit the nail on the head in the last paragraph of his letter to last week's Salient. He has been too "busy" to help in any changes in the Commerce Faculty this year. I would like to extend this statement to include any other year in the past and, I daresay, the future. Like the vast majority of Accountancy students, Kevin's eyes are firmly on his BCA/ACA and the dollars beyond and thus is and has often in the past been too busy to do constructive work on the Commerce Faculty.

Kevin states that far-reaching changes are inevitable in the Commerce Faculty in the next couple of years and that the changes will come only through student pressure. What student pressure? This pressure will only come when people like Wright get off their arses and do some fucking work both overtly and covertly within the faculty.

I find it very difficult to remember Brad III which I did in 1972, not last year as Kevin states. What I presume he refers to is the Brad 112 debacle in which I assisted in an expose of Stannard/Fogelberg malpractice. Getting back to the basic point of our argument I feel that the Business Administration Department's approach is vastly preferable to the Accounting Department's because they openly admit to being ultra-conservative defenders of dog-cat-dog capitalism.

I stand by my original statement that lecturers should lay their prejudices on the line as an aid to students sifting the facts from the crap in their lectures.