Executive Defined

I want to offer the executive a bit of free advice. There are students at this place who strongly disagree with decisions that you are making. That is their right, and you should not fall into the trap of feeling it is your duty to cling to executive decisions as though they come from heaven.

If students vote to alter or overturn an executive decision or vote to condemn a executive act, then it is not your job to feel personally slighted and to justify at every possible opportunity your point of view. As elected representatives of our power you work for us. Thats what a political position is for; thats what you are.

Karori has a HART

As a result of our observations of the nonchalant attitude of Karori residents, a small group of students have endeavoured to start a new Karori branch of HART with the aim of discussing and sharing views on apartheid and generally trying to create an awareness of the facts upon the people of Karori we shall also be working in with the national office.

Our next move is to show the film 'Last Grave at Dimbaza' at Helen Lowry Hall The dale and time shall be advertised well in advance of screening. All those who are concerned enough to participate in such a branch may contact us by ringing:

768-913

Muggleton Muggled

Even if you sit still its amazing what information you pick up. Even in the last week I inadvertently discovered that the nasty cat who spilled the beans on his associates who like Social Democracy, is none other than a respected and long standing member of one of the language departments.

Though I shouldn't be expected to find out all the information it is not unreasonable to expect that by next week I'll know more precisely who it is.

I also wish my protest to be registered that you allowed to be published a cruel and hurtful parody on my name penned by some obscure Transalvanian tramp. No more of it.

Shot in Educ III

Who is responsible for allocating lecture rooms? Or better still, who is responsible for allocating lecture rooms which can hold only a restricted number of people and then not restricting the size of the class? All those people who find it difficult to take notes and listen to the shining wit of the lecturers, even when seated at a desk, must surely feel sorry for those 20-30 people forced to sit on the floor of Education III, twice a week.

Yes, many lectures may be a waste of valuable recreation time, but surely if the University is primarily a place of study, we should be encouraged to attend, not encouraged to sit in the sun and get by by reading-your text-book.

But I am beginning to wonder whether this University is a place to further your education or an institution designed to churn out a specified number of arts and science graduates each year.

If it is the latter than I have no complaints about people sitting on the floor, about the lecturer's actively encouraging students not to turn up and telling them that they could easily pass the exams just by reading the prescribed texts.

I would have no complaints about tutorials being postponed because of lack of finance to pay wages. For if V.U. exists to produce graduates and the conditions for study restrict that then the situation can be remedied by making exams easier and thus still producing the right number of graduates.

But I believe that a University is a place to further your education and I demand that the choice of whether or not you achieve this should be yours and should not be governed by the fact that there are too few scats for too many or by the financial positions of the various departments.

Ticket for Tucker

Having only one hour for lunch between lectures on that ill-fated Thursday afternoon, I raced into line at Ye Olde Cafeteria, money in hand, keen and eager to purchase my delicious meal ticket.

Finally with only three minutes to go till my next lecture, and still nowhere nearer my food, desperation told me there was only one choice left: eat my meal ticket! Prepared for the worst, I bit into my meal ticket, liberally charged with free salt and vinegar.

And what a treat! Pulp prepared to perfection - ink aromatically blended - a feast fit to rival Des Britten's gourmet! Never before in the field of human consumption has so little been consumed so rapidly by so few.

Might I humbly suggest to the Cafeterial Powers-that-be that they sell only tickets, and scrap the crap.

O.C.F. Infiltrates M.S.A.

I noticed that the 'sketch' presented by the M S A. during the M.S.A. orientation night (5/3/76) had definitely smacked overwhelmingly of religious flavour. Although I am not a fervant Christian, I could still detect the unmistakable resemblances of that so-called sketch to the 'Prodigal Son' parable in the Christian Scriptures. Surely such obvious resemblances could not be due to mere coinicidence; especially when the whole abortive farce had been produced, directed and acted by the current leading members of the Overseas Christian Fellowship (O.C.F.) movement.

For this reason. I would like to express my criticism at the executive committee of M.S.A. for allowing and encouraging the practice of such fanatical religious propaganda-spreading through the M.S.A.

One should bear in mind that the M.S.A. exists only by consent of its members. One must also not forget the objectives of the M.S.A. as a source of assistance to, and as a representative image of Malaysian students in Wellington.

I see such unnecessary and unsubtle religious preachings as the effort of certain ex-members of the M.S.A. executive committee in using the association to further their selfish aims. They need and indeed, ought not to assume that since their preachings are consistent with their Christian beliefs, it is automatically rendered acceptable to all. If they are using the M.S.A. as a vehicle to advance their vested interests, no matter what they turn out to be they are still guilty of being selfish and irresponsible.

During the election campaign of M.S.A' last year, the current president had unequivocally promised M.S.A. members that if he were elected he would not tolerate any religious-flavoured activities as representative of the organisation. How much is his promise worth, I wonder? What he has now done is in essence, a symbolical stab in the back to all M.S.A. members who have faith in him.

At this point some vital questions could be raised,

Therefore, to all responsible M.S.A. members, I would like to say Think About it!

Editor Attacked (Again)

In your article entitled 'Editorial Raves' (aptly named in this instance I feel) you make criticism of certain constitutional experts 'many of them prominent comrades from the Student Teachers' Assoc.'.

I have never been much of a fan of student (teacher or university) journalism and the nature of your article heavily reinforces that prejudice.

In the first instance it is of no consequence that these people were members of some other organisation. We were at the S.G.M. in our capacity as members of VUWSA and we spoke and voted in that capacity and no other.

Your article suggests some kind of conspiracy on our part to upset the procedures of the SGM. In fact the very opposite occurred we were upset by the procedure (or lack of it) of the meeting.

Your article suggests that our constitutional wrangling was out of order. It becomes clear that you have not yet left your schoolboy days and realised that you are no longer playing esoteric games. The decisions you make in SGMs and suchlike meeting influence the academic, and often the financial and social lives of the people on whom your decisions impinge.

The whole object of a constitution is to ensure that procedures are observed which will protect the rights of each individual member to have her/his say and to have equal influence, with all other individuals in the decision making process. Where those constitutional provisions are not observed there is a very real danger that those rights will be violated (whether intentionally violated or not makes no difference to the outcome).

Gyles had no right whatsoever to be in the chair under the circumstances. The reason I protested is that I observed three separate instances of individual's speaking or procedural rights being violated by him. That he did not do so with mal-intent I do not question, I have the utmost faith in Gyles' integrity. Nevertheless these people were denied the rights they purchased with their membership fees. If that doesn't bother them then that is fine. I suppose. But in those instances I am prompted to speak out from the fear that the next member who is deprived of their rights may be me.

Further to this the whole issue under discussion was one concerning a person's rights which had allegedly been violated by the Exec.

In respect of this constitutional matter alone we have the instances of a violation of the constitution in itself; a number of violations of member's rights under the constitution: and an exhibition of ignorance of the constitution by the person - the chairman - who is supposed to be the learned and trusted arbiter of constitutional questions in the meeting context.

This ignorance was further revealed in Gyles' later handling of matters of procedure which were damned important.

Your suggestion that we attempted to block democracy through red tape is completely unfair. Insofar as democratic procedure is that which is embodied in the constitution the meeting was infact undemocratic. It was also undemocratic in fact as well - as is evidenced by the incidents I cited above. I am not terribly happy with constitutional arbitration of democracy but until our schools and social institutions teach us to unselfishly persue a point of arguement for the benefit of the collectivity rather than for the benefit of ourselves, as is now the case, I will continue to put my faith in the procedures laid down by constitutions.

If these procedures are known and followed then they do not hinder but in fact expidite democracy.

Comments such as yours throw us right back into the capitalist doctrine of the 'survival of the fittest', and to the wolves with the rest.' Well friend I am not for that and that is not for me and if you expect me to stand mute while that reality is practiced or promulgated then TOUGH.

Birth Notices not Accepted

I don't know whether or not you accept birth notices but here's one anyway on the off chance that it won't be lost by yourself or one of your cronies:

Born to Mary, Mother of God, fathered by the Holy Spirit (who happens to be of an ethnic minority) a daughter. Many thanks to doctors, nurses, shepherds. Wise men and the plastic surgeon who made sure that Mary still appears to be undefiled.

Henderson's Mate Retaliates

I was thoroughly disenchanted by Gary Henderson's expedient and thoughtless article on the SGM held to dismiss the Exec.

While I have never held Gary's journalistic abilities in any esteem at all, this jumble of turgid and completely distorted phrases seems to have taken the cake. I appreciate the fact that Salient serves the purpose of entertaining as well as informing, I am not prepared to accept articles that not only fail to provide one unbiased fact but which come perilously close to sending the readers to sleep

His writing style is undistinctive, academic, and boring and acts more as a political soporific than a forum for free thought and discussion. His political line has always been wishy washy in the extreme and seems to have taken a turn to the right. While his idolatry of those whom he Thinks are in power would be laughable had he not been so serious.

To describe Tony Wards rave as 'one of the most well presented arguments I've heard'! shows a total disregard for the fundamental principles of rational thought. Gary seems to either miss or ignore the fact that while Mr Wards arguments may have appeared logical in the extreme it is difficult to convince an intelligent man of the validity of an argument when the premises upon which it is based are not only false but have no substance in reality at all. I was never 'totally convinced of the adequacy of Gary's intellectual abilities - this report has shown him up to be the blabbering moron that he is.

Gary's second most blatant failure is his report of the speech made by John Henderson, his namesake who prefers not to know him. Totally ignoring the fact that the speech made by John in that meeting was the best he had ever made in his life, and seeming unwitting (sic) of the fact that at no stage did John try to logically disprove any of Tony's arguments (John assumed that the audience had picked up the fact that all Mr Ward s arguments were based on totally unrealistic grounds - Gary obviously didn't but I suppose we must take pity on the intellectually weak), Gary decided that John was motivated by some 'vague principle' and left it at that. Putting aside for a moment the fact that Gary wouldn't be able to recognise a principle if he saw one he has still been guilty of saying or implying something without offering (and obviously having) the slightest reason for doing so.

In mine, and most other's opinion, John said more in his thirty seconds than Tony did in his ten minutes. It is easier to argue from a position of ethics than it is to do from a position of expediency. And it is pretty obvious just which side Gary supported.

There are several other examples of Gary's partiality and incompetence in that article - those I leave for you to find for yourself. Suffice it to say that I am getting rather sick of this variety of reporting and that I am pleased to see that the editor of Salient is trying to gel away from it.

I suggest that if you want to preserve that image you sack Gary Henderson and his cronies and give forum reports to someone who has the integrity to report the facts and not their idealised and warped version of the facts. Keep up the good work and keep telling us things as they are