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 26. 1975

Letters

page break

Letters

Anticipation

Bruce,

Artwork of a man with words for hair

If Gary Henderson and David Newton can't write more constructive SRC reports (let alone proof read the bloody things) we suggest they stop writing them altogether.

Yours,

Gary Henderson

and

David Newton.

That which was anticipated. . .

Dear Bruce,

I was very annoyed to read the SGM report by Gary Henderson and David Newton in the last Salient. According to the authors, equally important with the policy decided is the 'telling indictment of shabby student politics it proved to be.' What this phrase means, apart from the obvious fact that the authors disagreed with the motion passed, it is not easy to see.

David and Gary consider the speakers marked by imbicility, caused by prolonged heckling etc. In my opinion the image of "prolonged heckling is completely inaccurate, the number of people speaking surely wrong, and the accusation of imbicility insulting.

On the first motion, that for another NZUSA Research Officer, reasons were obvious for the meetings decision. It was felt that NZUSA was not doing enough for students to justify an increase in fees. While I disagree with this, how our reporters could miss this very clear feeling is beyond me.

Turning to abortion, the report doesn't cover any of the material discussed, apart from the fact (?) that it was "nothing new." Mysteriously, the next three, undiscussed items on the agenda were considered "of equal importance' by our reporters. What absolute rubbish!

In toto, I think the SGM report was one of the worst reports I can remember, of a meeting that, for once, involved a very large number of students in decision making. On that ground alone the SGM was a far more optimistic occasion than Gary Henderson and David Newton would have us believe.

Anthony Ward

Retrospect

Dear Bruce,

We absolutely endorse the serious criticism of our SGM report made by Sunshine Hart (otherwise known as Anthony Ward). It was a very silly report, which, as we mentioned at the time, bore little relation to reality at all. No one in their right mind could take it seriously. Sunshine's letter shows that no one in their right mind did.

Yours as ever, opposed to sillyness,

Gary M

and

David N

(The Information Officer, in a special guest appearance, comments as follows:

Victoria University is to establish a special Chair in Sillyness, the Information Officer of the university, Mr Right, said today. Commenting after a meeting of the university Council, held in closed session in a locked, padded room, Mr Right said that the chair had been created "in response to obvious student demand". As hordes of crazied young louts began to break down the bolted doors (barricaded with copies of "Professorial Board Briefs" and "Council Briefs", Mr Right said that the new chair would be established under the aegis of the School of Political Science and Public Administration. "After all these gentlemen deal solely in fantasy", he said with a silly laugh.)

((To keep you up with the play its not 'Sunshine Hart' at all but 'Sunlight Hart'.))

Racist smoker irked

Dear Sir,

As a Peter Stuyvesant smoker I should like to protest strongly against the current ban on the sale of these cigarettes in the cafe.

I am told that the reason for the ban is that the profits from the sale of these cigarettes go to a South African company which exploits Black South African labour. I have every sympathy for the plight of Black South Africans, but surely this measure is going just too far?

Why should I and other Peter Stuyvesant smokers have to suffer at the expense of some misplaced idealism.

Yours faithfully,

H. M. Foot

(Association policy is opposed to the sale of any Rothman's products in the Union. Stuyvesant's are part of the Rothman's empire. This policy is not the result of "misplaced idealism" but a response to the continued calls for isolation and boycott of South African internationally by representatives of the majority of South Africans who need more concrete support than your nicotine-laced sympathy—Ed.)

*****************

Closet cartoonist caustically cajoles censor ...

Dear Bruce,

Why can't you publish the stuff we send in, I have sent in two lots of stuff, poems, drawings and after 4 weeks still nothing has been published. Everyone goes on about student apathy yet when some students do try and do something it is cut off by your bloody outfit.

If you don't want to publish our gear then write and say why Salient is not worth reading at the moment, full of overseas stuff. Put a bit of our gear in for a change.

Stanley

. . . and is characteristically castigated

(How do you expect me to "write and say why" when your material—which is unsuitable for reproduction by our printing process—is shoved anonymously in our letter box - Ed.)

Editor and Returning Officer Exonerated

Dear Editor,

The result of the Presidential re-election points clearly to one fact—that the first set of elections was conducted well above board with no one candidate gaining an advantage over the other.

The Editor of Salient apparently committed a heinous crime by allowing editorial comment to appear in the Election Supplement, when previous Election Supplements have carried editorial opinion of one shade or another.

The Returning Officer was the convenient scapegoat which the Election Arbitration Committee looked for. There was no basis whatsoever for invalidating the Election for the position of President. If there was any reason for invalidating the election, it was not because of any infringement of the electoral regulations, but because the Election Arbitration Committee did not have the stomach to tell Hay that he was a bad loser.

If there was any unfairness then Hay should have at least won the re-election on a sympathy vote—the poor fellow, tut! tut! My heart bleeds for him.

The people who go to the polls are not exactly imbeciles. I am sure they can tell the difference between a fair and un-fair election and a good and a bad loser.

Well, Hay old boy, what does it feel like to be castrated twice at the polls! I bet it must be smarting real bad. Never mind old son, you can always put in another complaint on the basis that Gyles Beckford won because, instead of wearing clean white underwear to the election forum he wore red ones which probably turned the female voters on.

Yours sincerely,

Kelvin J. Ratnam

Hypocritics over Poronui

Dear Sir,

I wish to express my disgust at the article written in the Salient which appeared on the date of 2.10.75 concerning the issue of 'El Rancho Poronui.' In my opinion the writer and the majority of people who have put their efforts into this campaign against Poronui, are the armchair hunters and trampers of this country who are completely hypocritical in their ideas upon the bush areas of New Zealand.

On the one hand they are full of disgust at the conditions of 'road-end' [unclear: parks] and huts brought about by the ready access of vehicular traffic, and praise the terrific beauty of the beech forests and tussock river flats, and their unspoilt nature, which are present in the Oamaru Valley which Poronui backs onto. And on the other hand they are crying out for road access into one of the North Islands most scenic corners, this access would allow private land rovers and trail bikes up the Oamaru and down the Mohaka Rivers, and happen this definitely will as nobody walks where they can ride! And the land rovers with private shooters in them are numberous in the Taupo region.

This to me is the issue. I use the area, I do not sit in my armchair and spout about Yanky Land Owners stopping New Zealanders using New Zealand roads. Access is not blocked by the Americans! Access is, and always has been present either by the method stated in the Salient article over Mt Telringa or alongside Poronui The route over Telringa taking not ten hours and the walk alongside Poronui, which is almost all flat going takes only 5 hours. Both walks are very pleasant and provide ready access to a small corner of the Kaimanawas. Not as the Salient article calls it "one of the only easy access valleys into the Kaimanawa Forest Park". Rather, access seated on your arse in a Rover, into a riverbed, which forms a boundary to the park. The statement that trampers and shooters have met with persistant hostility when passing through the farm, is nothing new, ask any cow-cocky if he likes those guys with rifles walking across his land, let alone driving across it with Land Rovers with spotlights and pig-dogs.

Artwork of a submarine

Federated Mountain Clubs I feel should know better, their precious road would mean yet another encroach onto our too small bush areas. Ok they object to the principle of access being blocked. Well let's see them get access to the Kaimanawas in near the Prison Farm or somewhere on that side of the park somewhere useful, why waste all this verbal bullshit about wealthy Americans? Make New Zealand, New Zealand owned but where's the sanity in a road that none of the locals want? I have spoken with numbers of people who use the valley frequently and few want this road opened up! Ah yes, about our deerstalkers (they have been seen in the valley during the roar) they are well known for wanting to be able to shoot deer from the hut doorstep, how long do they think this will last once the road is opened up? The Forestry Hut in there is luxury accommodation, and so far has been respected, how long will this last if it is made a road-end' hut? So, I feel these bodies can't see the wood for the trees if they got away from their social clubs and cars and land rovers and walked (if they still know how) into the Oamaru Valley via the Kaiapo they might learn the reason why I enjoy he solitude of this incredibly beautiful area, and why I dread the thought of a road ending up through it.

Yours sincerely,

Mike Hyson

Cartoon of a man typing at typewriter with a machine gun attached

page break

66

Dear Salient,

I have been eagerly awaiting a review of the revue 'Penguins' which played at the Memorial Theatre recently. None seems to be forthcoming, so I thought I would write and say that it was a thoroughly enjoyable and amusing evening's entertainment, presented with professional aplomb by an extremely talented and able cast. The material, presentation and music cannot be faulted, and every single performer deserves singling out for their own special talents and their ability to react to and compliment each other. I especially liked the little man with short hair who played the piano: I thought he was the best, although the others were pretty good, too. A tremendous evening's entertainment I'd give it five stars.

Your chum as ever,

Michael M. Ransome

(or Christopher to Those who Know).

99

Dear Salient

I have been eagerly awaiting a review of the so-called satirical humorous revue 'Penguins,' which was on at the Memorial Theatre recently. I would like to say that I thought it a putrescent immature sensationalist bit of filth, that relied entirely on gutter "humour" about dirty sex for its impact, and continual references to the more sordid aspects of human behaviour. The cast were totally without any sort of talent whatsoever, and the writers seemed to be under the impression that humour consists of blatant onstage representations of various forms of excretion and sexual activity. All in all, a most satisfying evening's entertainment.

Yours truly,

Caressa M. Fondleparts

P.S. I did like the little man with short hair who played the piano.

Hand holding a gun

***************************

Reply to Ratnam

Dear Sir,

I am indeed surprised at Mr Kelvin Ratnam's reply to a letter written by Mr W. Chang questioning the Constitutional position of MSSA.

Mr Ratnam avoided the real issue and instead gave a rather vulgar reply, all filled with spite. Mr Chang never mentioned anything about any 'dinners' with Razak, etc. but, Mr Ratnam took an opportunity to "condemn" MSA. If one analyses his letter properly, one can only realise (it's too obvious!) that it's a simple case of "sour grapes"!

One further point, why was there no mention of Mr Chang, contention that there was no quorum last year (1974) too? It is submitted that Mr Ratnam seems to accept that fact. If so, then the amendment which was passed last year is invalid!

Yours sincerely

An Observer.

Sickening, insulting, childish?

Dear Editor,

It's simply disgusting to read about Kelvin Ratnam's crude, distorting and spiteful reply to William Chang's letter (Salient 2nd October 1975). It is typical of a desperate person trying to run away from the truth i.e. the inevitable disintegration of the decadent MSSA—and uttering a lot of lies to confuse the students

Kelvin mentioned that MSSA has always conducted itself in the appropriate manner. How? What has he got to say about his Treasurer, Chua Chin lin, making obscene gestures (and mind you in front of a lady too!) as a reaction to the applause at William Chang's comments during the AGM? I don't blame him for treating that action as "appropriate since he is the "pariah" as he reveals himself to be—the lowest caste in his Indian society.

It is rather sickening, insulting and childish of Kelvin to suggest and hope that those Malaysians who have bacon and eggs or dine with Razak will either die of food poisoning or have live frogs in their soup. Perhaps it was "unfortunate" that he survived the effects of food poisoning and that some of the live frogs got killed in his stomach the last time he and a few Singaporean and Fijian Indians attended the dinner funtion thrown by the High Commissioner at Ocean Terminus last year. It is interesting to note that such "unprincipled pariahs" are the ones who are not invited, but nevertheless they turned up, ate and drank the most, and afterwards made unwarranted remarks about the High Commissioner's extravagance. Kelvin also revealed his cynic nature by suggesting that the P.M. who is a Muslim have bacon and eggs, knowing full well the Muslim's aversion to pork. Calling Muldoon a pig seems kindergarten stuff compared to this!

It is high time VUWSA stop supporting such shit-stirring "pariahs" like Kelvin who are rejected by their own community.

Yours faithfully,

(Pissed Off Malaysian)

MSA and Razak Government put in their place

Dear Editor,

I would like to point out to "Pissed Off Malaysian" the following:
1.My treasurer is free to express himself in whatever manner he feels like at an AGM. I don't blame him for his actions especially when you get a bunch of blockheads whose disruptive habits would get anyone's blood up.
2.The most obscene event this year will be the grand moment when MSA has breakfast with Tun Razak. 'Bacon and eggs' is another way of referring to breakfast.
3.I have never been to any of the High Commission's functions in the time that I have been here. Yes! I will have to agree with you that there are many who do go to such functions, soak up the wine, glut over the food and then come out and criticise K. L. and the High Commission.
4.The Fijian Indians do not patronise our High Commission's functions. They have no reason to do so. So please leave them out of this. They have a communal problem of their own and their own High Commissioner to go to.

Further, I would like to bring it to the attention of "An Observer" that I will always take the opportunity to condemn MSA and the Malaysian Government whenever the opportunity presents itself. Loyalty is not for the present Malaysian Government Governments come and go. Loyalty is to your nation, its flag and three communal groups (especially those Malays, Chinese and Indians who are poor and have their teeth kicked by the government) that make up the population. Governments in Asia have a habit of overstaying their time after coming to power. They do so with the forced "consent" of the people they trod on and the National Front Government in K. L. is an example par excellence. At the rate things are deteriorating in Peninsular and east Malaysia, the present Malaysian Government will be replaced by another in the not too distant future.

The Malaysian Government is a government of incompetent, corrupted politicians and administrators. A corrupted government is a pariah government and a student organisation that supports it is an even bigger pariah.

My letter in the previous issue of Salient was a dirty letter and that's the way I would like it to stay. This is the only language a dirty government and its MSA mouth piece on campus understand. The language of reason, diplomacy and tact is something alien to their way of doing things

Last but not least, nothing gives me more pride than to be a low-caste out caste amongst my own people.

Yours sincerely,

Kelvin J. Ratnam

(P. S. The next time you people write letters have the gumption to sign your name. Anonymity is no substitute for hypocrisy.

I Said... GET BACK TO THE FUCKING LIBRARY!

I Said... GET BACK TO THE FUCKING LIBRARY!

Remember the Alamo!

Dear Sir,

I've no particular desire to loose the pendantry of scholarship onto your otherwise lively pages, as, apart from scattering screeds on barren ground, there is a good chance that no-one will give a proverbial damn. Students are granted better things to do than ponder on academic miniatures. But it appears that yours is now a journal of scholarly rejoinder, unwelcome to your readership as this may be. And, I am moved to comment on George G. Saintsbury's arrogant approach to the literary vices so easily cultivated by G.K. Lytton, onetime pretender to the title of The English Genius.'

I've no quarrel with arrogance, nor with aspersion; but I detest factual error. Now, in the letter alluded to above, Saintsbury goes haywire quite early on. He purports to oversee the studies of I A.Q Richards, who is now commonly regarded as the 'adult terrible' of English letters. This relationship is simply not possible (something which all Saintsbury s associations share) Richards and I collaborated on a series of articles last year - collected under the title 'The Tongue as Art' - and we grew quite loose with our secrets. Richards discovered that I regard the wont of hermaphrodeity in Ipswich people as a tragedy, and I discovered that Richards studied under G.K. Chesterten The last named is actually mentioned in Saintsbury's tirade, but in another context. (However, typically Saintsbury is the flagrant disregard for detail, Saintsbury refers to him as G Z. Chesterton, who is, in fact, a peculiar individual now employed by Saintsbury as a 'relief masseur.'

I approached Richardson Thursday, when we both served on a committee welcoming the Anglo-Indian Philological Society to the exhibition of Carlyle's suitmaker at Blades. In the midst of the general jocularity, Richards was only too pleased to confirm my belief. He even went so far as to say 'Saintsbury grabs any bugger on the way up, and Chesterton gets all the distinctions' ripped off by some theiving bastard.'

Now Richards' misrepresentation of others is notorious. One remembers the Voodoo Club scandal, in which Richards accused H. I. Wells of building a tank one mile wide 'around the back,' with the express purpose, it seems, of using up all the life support systems in Whitechapel, because 'Wells sympathised with the Boche.' Wells was not extended in denying the charge. And then there is Richards assertion that Asquite was once an opium addict, and in a state of intoxication, roamed around the Welsh countryside, stark naked, and addressing every woman over eighty as 'Bucephalus' Asquite did not stoop to reply.

However scouring through Richards autobiography 'Princeps of Literary Criticism, I discover not one error of fact in the nauseating account of his development from an Odyssey-quoting nipple eater to the self-styled 'vision of Elysium. He does not tell a single lie, and with this as the deciding factor, I accept Richards word as to his largely forgotten tutorage.

Denying Saintsbury is another matter He is another congenital liar, and another unstoppable assassin of reputation But Saintsbury does not limit murderous outrage to the person of others; a recent entry in the Times obituary column rightly noted Saintsbury's late literary suicide. This is by the way; but there are horrors to access in this disagreement still.

The instances of Saintsbury's emerging from his still incomplete comparison of the fricative patterns in John Aubrey's deep sentence structure and Alexandria's pre-Roman sewerage arrangements to wax unwisely are too numerous to recount. But I wish to add two as yet uncirculated stories.

Saintsbury recently remarked on the propriety of the late Queen's Coronation. Digressing a moment he mentioned a letter addressed to Keats, which made play of the despondency with which a Zebra urinates. The truth is, the letter was addressed by Keats, and made play of the Latin pun secreted away in 'the vale of tears.' Also, I have it on good authority (Ernest Jones, the shrink) that Saintsbury was so rude as to suggest to a platoon of reconnoitring suffragettes, that Bosanquet is a lousy philosopher and an excellent no 3.' Both Bosanquets repudiated these libels with vigour; the philosopher by describing Saintsbury as 'deserving of his repellant isolation', the cricketer by sending Saintsbury the memoirs of a Golden Products salesman manque. Symons was quick to display his displeasure too. An article in last Septembers issue of the 'Jaune Liver,' bearing the initials 'A. S.,' terms Saintsbury, among other things 'treacherously bad, lecherously mad, and a bastart to boot' I concur with most of this evaluation and consequently dismiss any claim that Saintsbury was responsible for the mutilation of Richards' mind.

There is one other point made by Saintsbury to which I take exception. That is the suggestion that Slaver St is a public convenience. It is inconvenient without resembling a Parisian pissoir, and was the scene of Lyttons regrettable arrest following the public lecture on Belles Lettres. Grot it was not.

And, might I mention, David Hare did not write 'Morgan: A suitable case for treatment.' David Mercer did. You should not trust the theatricals, you know. Their word is only an eloquent stammer.

My dislikes are John Wilmot's moral regeneration, the spread of the Spanish Lady rumour, and Lily Langtree's attempt to complete the labours of Atalic.

Yours faithfully,

George S. Antayana

Juan-Les-Pins (until Monday)

POWIE!

page break

Masterly analysis?

Dear Editor,

The MSA AGM was held yesterday afternoon (2019 hs) at E006. It was 'very successful.' Paper aeroplanes flew every-where. The atmosphere was quite relaxing although the 'party without light refreshment provided' was divided mainly into two political lines. It was only a "cats and rats" meeting. I didn't see the master.

The cats are Steven Oh and John Chin on the one side, Robert Pui on the other. The rats are all others including myself A Kiwi was elected to be the chairman. The taste of the 'chairman cake' to me is a bit of 'home-made.' Steven Oh claimed himself again to be sent by God, full of confidence; John Chin was very performing and a good stories teller but unfortunately what he said is just another 'Donkey story.'; Robert Pui was still a single-handed swordman, a hero without 'rats'. He appears like the only leader of what he so-called 'the revolution in New Zealand.' What he wants to achieve is not impossible and unrealistic but extremely hard. Anyway the cats are obvious, The rats were the followers. They were divided and led without a real sense of feeling what was really going on in the 'Party' and without a real aim of their participation. This is a very strange and unhealthy situation.

Two groups were competing to be the committee members of MSA. A lot of 'rubbish' were manifested. In fact nothing was new and exciting except two things were worth of mentioning because of the implicit contradictions. These two things are'

(1) One of the groups led by Mr Loo Kim Hoe consists of nearly all "new faces". He claimed that his members were all new bloods to the 'dead' MSA. Their slogans were "It's Time for a Change" and "Let's Come Alive." Isn't it wonderful?

The other group was led by Mr Leo Ann Puat who proudly announted that his members were pretty well qualified because most of them were in the last year's committee. Isn't it great? All are old hens.

The contradiction occurs here is:

New bloods: Old bloods.

What sort of blood do we need for a 'dead' body? Perhaps neither of these bloods are suitable because the body is dead.

(2) In the manifesto made by the New Bloods, there is something mentioned about "Polities' that "no student with conscience can ignore and avoid political issues that are of direct concern to us." On the contrary Mr Leo, seems to me, enjoyed himself by airing that "No politics would be emphasised in their future activities if....." Isn't it another contradiction which is expressed as follows:

Political: Non-political

Which one is more important and more meaningful? I do not know.

Since the Leo's team was arranged to be elected, I could predict that nothing would be Active' and 'New'. All activities would be as usual - 'Dead.'

The cats are still the cats and the rats are still the rats but I still can't see the Master.

Where is the Master

Professional moralist on foreign affairs

Dear Editor,

I find your blurring of National and Labour Foreign policy and refusal to give Labour any credit in this respect (e.g. in your recent article 'P.M. Cornered') rather amusing. I suspect it stems from an unwillingness to admit that NZ troops, after helping smash the Tet offensive and drive the Communist forces from the South Vietnamese lowlands left not because of Vietnamese communist or domestic minority group pressure, but because their presence in Vietnam simply did not accord with Labour party foreign policy in general; and that the eventual Communist takeover (one ceasefire and several years later) was received as good, rather than bad news by the N.Z. government.

Peter Ivory,

Labour Supporter

Letter from a nutter

Get the masses indoctrinated, never ever use racist approach, then you may have a measure of success.

So far most political activities have been of racist orientation, either blatantly or subtly. This must end.

Honest, sincere, and genuinely non-racist leadership for the radical movement is a must.

What we have seen at this stage, is that radicals blame all the ills on one race, while other races who share the guilt equally, are exonerated. All the races have guilty members in politics, government and business. Yet we get a one sided view of the indictment of a particular race. Thus the intentions of the radicals may be suspect. Honest and fair assessment will win support. Above all radicals must be genuine—strive to help help all races.

From a well wisher to the radicals and activists (Re: Malaysia Affairs)

Name change

Dear Bruce,

May I suggest that, henceforth, the Wellington Malaysian Students Association be called the Wellington - Malaysian Society of Accountants.

Guru,

J. Hek

Malaysians, shall we take to the street!

Dear Sir,

From the 30th September Forum and from my knowledge of all the past events, I think I have to point out just one thing.

Quite a few (esp. MSA executive members) are unable to see clearly the role of demonstration, the strength beneath the Student's Movement. They have a stereotyped feeling that there are other ways (that is to say demonstration is not the best way) to achieve something. This may well be true. But when other channels have been blocked, as students in this stage, demonstration is then justified. At present, this is the case. Malaysian Government refused to have any dialogue with student leaders here. They refuse to heed any students' demands. So it would be very right for the Kiwi to organise demonstration especially after you analyse the past events and lead to the conclusion that "other channels" are virtually non-existant.

Besides, demonstration shows one thing, a very important one. That is to tell and educate the students and people, we are in the 'seventies', we want human rights we want academic freedom and we want democracy. Government may not bow to us and may even introduce harsher rules, against us. Some patriots may end up in jail. But the basic principle is there. Our achievement is immensely large. Who dare to discredit the student demonstrations in Malaysia and Singapore in the past. Without the events of the past there would not be the turmours at present. "Without doing somethings constructive at present, future will be very different."

I do not think the majority of Malaysian students are so childish as unable to see through the above point. I feel that "saying demonstration achieves nothing" is deliberately spreaded by someone to meet their ends. But fellow Malaysians, think for yourselves 'Have you been misled to believe things told by someone deliberately?'

Unsigned.

Reply to criticisms of Solidarity Week

Dear Sir,

I am answering the letter "Suggestion for Solidarity Week organisers by Mr "Yes and Just Action" in the capacity of on of the organisers of Solidarity Week Committee in Wellington. My pont of view may not necessarily represent them of other committee members.

I admit that there are short-comings in ourselves and our work. However, there are many points on which I cannot agree with Mr Yes.

The political argument put forward by Mr Yes is most peculiar and contradictory. On the one hand, he argues that the approach taken in organising the week was wrong because it was too radical. According to him, "Even the name itself Solidarity appears too red to most Malaysians and Singaporeans." He then tries hard to give the readers the impression that Solidarity Week is a movement for a revolutionary cause organised by some revolutionaries: he lectures to them on how to wage a revolution using such terms as "red", "revolutionary", "reactionary", "Sacrifices" and so on. The "logic" of this sort of argument is the product of a stupid and confused, if not a twisted mind. If Mr Yes thinks that Malaysian and Singporean students in New Zealand are afraid to come to listen to speeches by university lecturers, research personnel, New Zealand Government representatives and NZUSA officials, does he think that they will not be more frightened off by his big mouth parroting half-cooked revolutionary theory? No reader could fail to pick up this contradictory and self-defeating manifestation in the letter, and it would cause one to wonder whether the writer is indeed trying to deliberately scare Malaysian and Singaporean students away from activities of this kind.

We are, as a matter of fact, just students who are concerned about the welfare of the countries concerned and the injustices the Malaysian and Singaporean governments have done to their people, especially to those who are unemployed and those who have to slave in order to earn a meagre living. We are also concerned about the exploitation by foreign monopolies of the local natural and human resources, the deprivation of justified means of protest against corruption, abuses of power and exploitation, the loss of the freedom of press and human rights, the jailing of outspoken professionals, scholars, and students without trial, the demolition of thousands of houses built by squatters in the most brutal manner on earth with no concern at all for the livelihood of these people, etc.

We, as students, regard it as a pride and duty, not a crime, to take the welfare of the state to heart and to be prepared to inform students as well as the public of the reality of life in these countries. This is nothing "red" or militant but the social responsibility all intellectuals should show towards their nations and countrymen. We believe the majority of the Malaysian and Singaporean students here are willing to learn more about their countries and themselves in an environment with comparatively fewer restrictions than in Malaysia and Singapore. The word "Solidarity" might be vague in its content as to having solidarity with whom and for what, but it is incredible and ridiculous to say that the word itself is "too red". It did not appear frightening to Malaysian and Singaporean students elsewhere—In Australia, London and other centres of New Zealand; so why should this be so only in Wellington? Phrases like "Solidarity Week", "Solidarity Month" etc. have also been used by the Malaysian Government on various occasions. I hope Mr Yes will learn to be more objective, positive and accurate in his assessment in future, instead of placing such great emphasis on things such as "white terror" and playing up a sense of fear and the kind of tactics so often employed by oppressive rulers.

What are the items that are too radical for the Malaysian and Singaporean students to accept? The exhibition? The speeches by invited speakers? The film "Burn" (starring Marlon Brando) and "Malaysia" (produced by the BBC)? The slogans, which sum up precisely the theme and the contents of the function?

From this letter I gather this so-called "Mr Yes" must have some knowledge of organisers and the planning of Solidartiy Week. If he knew what was being planned at that time, why didn't Mr Yes join in and help work out a better programme, pointing out the shortcomings of individuals in the presence of these people instead of standing aside and making pronouncements on revolution (with the apparent intention of alienating the organisers from their fellow students) and attacking in public only after the show was over? I hope Mr Yes will adopt a more serious and sincere attitude in future.

There is in fact no need for Mr Yes to pose as a pompous revolutionary theoretician and treat the organisers condescendingly. Who does not know that most of the Malaysian and Singaporean students here are of middle class origins? (It would be extremely surprising if it were found that most of them came from working class families and were still able to enjoy the luxury of higher education overseas!) As far as unity is concerned, only idiots will pick on a friend as an enemy. Being organisers, we know full well that we have to sacrifice our time, energy, and some-times our personal security. Mr Yes reminded us to be prepared for sacrifice—as if we have been on holiday! ... or criminals ready for punishment?

I think it is a waste of time and space to go on refuting Mr Yes point by point. Before concluding, however, I would like to point out to Mr Yes that being smart is one thing, being honest is another much more important thing. He made a statement that "revolution is not simply a 'dinner", it does not occur within one day, or one week nor at set hours. It comes from struggles and sacrifice." It should be pointed out that this is a cunning plagarism and distortion of Chairman Mao's quotation which runs "A revolution is not a dinner party or writing an essay, or painting a picture, or doing embroidery; it cannot be so refined, so leisurely and gentle, so temperate, kind, courteous, or restrained and magnanimous. A revolution is an insurrection, an act of violence by which one class overthrows another." After all which organiser of Solidarity Week regards revolution as a "dinner"? What is the intention of Mr Yes in actually using himself some of the revolutionary jargon which he has already condemend "too hot"?

An organiser

Second to last letter of the year

Dear Editor,

I would like your readers to know that you have rejected all 376 pieces of copy submitted to you under my hand this year.

The students of this university will judge you by your wonton censorship, sir, but let me assure you that when I'm the Editor of the Evening Post and you come crawling and penniless with some garbage for publication, you will suffer.

Cordially, *

Albert Rhodes

*

Brian Bell

*

Ian Westbrooke

*

Neville Wynn

* Strike out the name that does not apply.

Principled Letter

Dear Editor,

In principle, I believe WMSSA has a vital role to play, insofar as Malaysian politices here are concerend. However, the comments of Kelvin J. Ratnam, do no justice to the good name of the aforementioned society at all, less his functional capacity as a president. If this is the kind of politics he cares to indulge in - personal insults and deviating from the issues raised by W. Chang - I wash my hands off WMMSA, as a member, until a much more responsible and sincere leadership is found.

Perhaps if I may submit a suggestion to VUWSA. At the present point of time, I believe VUWSA would be really doing its part towards Malaysian students if MSA is recognised as well. To deny its existence on principle, is hardly realistic. As I see it, VUWSA or NZUSA for the matter, is not unlike the U.S. in its stand on the recognition of the Peoples' Republic of China. Surely attitudes and policies must change with the prevailing realities. [unclear: WSA] in its role as a responsible and constructive opposition has fared rather poorly if not deplorably in light of its performances in the past few years. Perhaps Lee Kuan Yew was right after all. Kelvin Ratnam is no responsible opposition leader. To my mind he represents an opportunist - appeasing the NZUSA page break and Kiwis concomitantly to further his ego and standing - like Thieu.

There are many good level headed people in WMSSA's committee whom I am sure I would hate to see the society brought into disrepute by one solitary person. So until WMSSA can come up with a leader who is politically and socially responsible, and able to answer responsibly to reasonable queries, it might as well lie low. EKY

Chartered prose

Dear Sir,

In the making of the modern mind Quennell Desmond Wickham, ninety seventh Archbishop of Working, was important. In Wickham we saw the awakening of the 'new sensibility', and his late lamented passing is only made palatable by the thought the 'new sensibility did not die with him. Although there is a greater immortality, Quennell Desmond's enduring example is enough to say he is one of those of whom we state non norunt haec monumenta mori.

Of the new sensibility I have spoken elsewhere, and this is not the place to reiterate what others, with reason possibly, adjudge to be my prejudices. But it pertains to what follows, and it would serve us well to remember its place in our presently exacting critical procedures.

By opening essays like this for the next trecade, I expect the reading public to recognise me as in charge' of English literature in the meantime there is Mr Saintsbury.

The much we do not accept. And Saintsbury's propensity for exposing his interest in contraceptive procedures, ancient and modern, we do not accept. Baltimore, even, dislikes it, which is evidence of general approbation enough, and to which I cannot add.

But what we must accept is that Saintsbury is of an older and (thank god, as my living depends upon it) outmoded school of literary criticism. It is a school with which the one I'm presently instigating is at variance. Not only in degree but also in kind does my improvement differ from Saintsbury's original. His was a critical coterie which employed proprietous and improprietous procedures alike, probably oblivious to the different Some of this circle were aware of circumspection and decency—Jones, who gave us a Shakespeare in the image of Shakespearean dirty jokes, and Lewis, who gave us an Elizabeth G. Browning in the image of Gargantua and Christopher Columbus. But recognise these virtues as they did, these individuals dispensed with them on the whiff of a quick buck. Others, like Saintsbury, were not equipped with the tools of thought to distinguish decency from indecency and never displayed any practice of ethical consideration. So we cannot blame Saintsbury—even in writings so vile as the letter you published last week, on a man who is, if anything, more repulsive. The subject should not subjugate the style, and we won't let it; for Saintsbury, I am sorry, we must make an exception.

However, this was not my only reason for writing; for excepting the old school will not last forever. It will go away, and I will re-instate the metaphysical poets and change my mind about Milton every twenty years. Also, my vacillations over the relative superiority of either Shakespeare or Dante's right to be number one of all time will raise some eyebrows. My dissertations on Anglican prelates as venerable as the stones of Avebury will be forgotten as soon as their subjects. My speculations on the future of eduction will not get the attention they deserve. And even with so much before me, I expect everyone to keep out of my bed linen. Yes!

Now, while I am opining before 6000 arbiters of literary reputation I may as well send you my latest poem. It is not my best verse—it needs a little sinew—but some phrases will get praises. You may care to print it.

Thank you,

Tom N. Eliot

Chartres