Being a tint year student and Katherine from the put two weeks' letten, I am surprised to discover that I too possess political or even 'Marxist' view which I dread to think so!

Those letters really confused me with what is political and what is Marxist. Does it mean that the normal or natural feeling of an ordinary person towards the Malaysian sketch, may it be good or bad, carry with it political Marxist views?

In other words, does it mean that the natural feeling that it is no good to laugh at others or make a laughing stock of others (whether they are hawkers or not) is equivalent to possessing a political-Marxist view? If that is how it's defined, then I am sure most Malaysian students as well as other overseas and Kiwi students have political-Marxist views.

May I ask "unsigned" (1) how much he knows about what is political- and Marxist? (2) What is His Purpose in putting a Marxist hat on anyone who sympathises towards the hawkers?

To end my letter, it seems to me that many students (including myself) still do not know or are unclear about what politics are, even though they are university students. As a result I hope someone could explain to me what politics are.

P.S. Does the Political Science course include the topic "what is Politics" in the teaching?

The reply from MSA to critics of the Malaysian sketch is not at all satisfactory. Maybe MSA has no intention of misrepresenting any group of people back home, but certainly it has provoked some students here. The ignorant belief of MSA that the sketch has no social implications, obviously deserves some criticism. In the case of the hawker's son I do understand how he felt after having being offended. I therefore call upon MSA to apologise sincerely to the hawker's son and others.

I would like to clarify my points for "Unsigned" who classified the Hawker sketch as a "slapstick comedy." I am sure that all sensible people who are aware of our social environment would agree with me that the sketch didn't portray the True life of the Hawkers. Is it fair to say that those who are able to see the real situation at home are holding to a wrong view?

It doesn't really matter whether the sketch gives a good or a bad impression to the audience, but it should show the true picture of what it is trying to portray — in this instance, the Hawkers' life.

By sticking to a narrow viewpoint and using general terms like "white world", "pakehas", I am afraid "Unsigned" has fallen into the racist category. What we should oppose are the Oppressors, regardless of their race.

P.S. I agree with 'Guru' that "comedy is a part of culture," but I believe he has made the same mistake as "Unsigned" by playing on sentiments — mixing up the true exploiters with the ordinary tourists.

The letters that appeared on March 28 amused me very much and I was very surprised they were written by the so called highly educated ones.

I can't see how some of the replying letters related the critics' letters (as appeared on March 21) with Marxist ideas.

We, the lucky ones who are able to come here should be bright enough to know the root- cause of the widespread poverty at home. Nevertheless, the bright suggestions to solve the problem as suggested is to engage the "bright ones" in cutting more throats or "the Char Koay Teow hawker should charge a thousand pounds for a single bowl of that delightful dish.

If they believe that will solve the root- cause of the poverty at home, those bright people should pack up their bags and go home. For they are wasting their time studying here.

As a 'freshie', it was an experience for me to see MSA in action during the International Evening night. As I recall, the commentator started with — 'This sketch represents a typical scene. . . 'The sketch went on to display a language difficulty, the competition between hawkers, the cut-throat business, and the readiness to thrash the tourists if they did not pay up. Unfortunately I lost catching the last part because like the others I was laughing at the way they acted.

However I have never seen such an incident at home. I know the hawkers to be poor. Come to think of it, I think MSA has made a mess out of the sketch. The people involved had either gone deliberately to show the hawkers in a very bad light or they are so naive as not to know hawkers' lives at all. I wonder whether MSA is going to charge me as having a view seen through 'a narrow and politically tinted glass.' (I pick that phrase on your reply to those people who criticise you in the previous issue — Can you please elaborate on that?) I am very scared by politics.

I think MSA should not disregard the criticism in the previous issue as criticism that 'does nothing but demoralizing well-meaning people who have sacrificed their time and efforts to promote a richer and more meaningful life here on the campus.' I would support people who criticise on the correct grounds. It is only through this means that MSA can improve its future programme.

Finally, although MSA is usually right, it has done wrong in this circumstance by not accepting criticism and not apologising to the hawker's sen. If it is going to continue to maintain this attitude. I don't think it is going to have the support of the majority of the Malaysian students.

I felt very intolerant that MSA does not appreciate and welcome constructive criticisms by other Malaysians. Instead of facing the objective realities, MSA is drumming up support for its wrong doings and trying to slander and smear the constructive criticisms.

It will be encouraging to see Malaysians participating in healthy non-academic activities, so that our talents and creativity can be tapped and transformed into artistic forms to express the aspirations and hopes of our people. But on the contrary, our people (in this case, hawkers in the sketch) were being portrayed misleadingly and made into a laughing stock. Is this what the MSA committee tries to promote as a healthy activity and hence a meaningful life?

I am sure the majority of the Malaysians here disapprove of what MSA has done. Knowing that we come at the expense of many others, we have a responsibility not to betray that trust that others have placed on us. We should come together with open minds, ready to explore new ideas to nurture our talents, if they be, for the betterment of mankind.

Power struggles are often the dominant scene of Malaysian politics. This time in the match were Harun faction who employed the same old tactic of accusing the people (like Samad Ismail etc who belong to the Razak faction) of being communist, subversive elements. Hence once again the McCarthy Spirit is now seriously haunting the Malaysian political arena. This evil spirit from Malaysia was brought into this land of "sheep and milk" and is trying to create white terror amongst the Malaysians. By accusing the critics of the sketch of being identical to the "Chiang Ching" sort of culture, the writer was trying to devoid the sketch of the main issue. To me he was employing the same old dirty tactics of Harun.

I personally felt that, after all what's wrong with the critics advocating the true life of hawkers in the sketch, which you as Malaysian intellectuals are quite familiar with.

I think criticism through rational reasoning is good for us, because only then can we improve our work. So by using the smearing tactics on our critics, we just simply bare ourselves behind the curtain of ignorance, which is of no use to the improvement of our work. So I hope as a rational intellectual, that next time we may argue with sense, and stop the silly, dirty smearing.

What else can be more disappointing than to see such a negative response from WMSA regarding the sketch. I would have expected the MSA executive to have considered seriously the damage they have done to hawkers, rather than having accused others of being politically excited. By pointing out their humiliation and insultation from the hawkers is a political commentary on its own, tell me what else is not political?

Throughout their reply they make no attempt to clarify the four points that I raised. Instead they childishly hope for sympathy from fellow Malaysian and Singaporean students. Have they not got the guts to face what they have done? It is pointless to tell me what the structure of MSA is and how it functions, after all I did not challenge its existence. All I am interested in is why WMSA staged such a provocative sketch that humiliates my parents, relatives and the majority of my country men.

Do you realise that my people have to start work at around 6a.m. to finish at mid-night, everyone in the family works flat-out. And all they get in return is a meagre income, just enough to keep their families going.

On top of that, rocketing inflation hits the hawkers and workers the hardest. With rapid increase in prices of ingredients, it is hardly profitable to produce, even at a higher price. But there again, higher prices are bound to meet with inevitable complaints from customers who then will stop buying eventually. In addition, policies and gangsters come regularly for money. On a number of occasions, my parents were at the point of giving up the business but where! Where to go from there??

As intellectuals and future decision makers, we should sympathise and help to Improve their living standard, and certainly not turn them into a laughing stock. You may call it a light-hearted sketch, but inside it are the blood and tears of hundred and thousands of our fellow country men.

In response to WMSA's reply to criticisms, I would like to bring forward the following points.

First of all, I would like to ask the MSA committee, what their definition of 'non-academic activities' which are natural and normal to us is? By claiming that the WMSA's activities are like those of the University of Malaya, is completely misleading and doing the student union at home a great injustice. The students in the University of Malaya are concerned with community problems and their living conditions. They have been involved in various social issues like the squatter problem in Tasek Utara and supporting the Baling people. On the other hand, just take a look at the sketch, does it reflect the lives of the hawkers or voice their aspirations?

W.M.S.A. as an organisation which represents Malaysian students in Wellington should be open to criticism and suggestions from its members instead of overriding them. I see nothing wrong with criticism. To say that we've already suffered enough of our social ostracization here in New Zealand is really trying to shed responsibilities.

Where comes the suffering? If a W.M.S.A. person is doing the right thing, he will have the support of the members, and have no fear of criticism or whatever.

The phrase "to promote a richer and more meaningful life on campus" is very vague. What is a "richer and more meaningful life" supposed to be? What sort of 'normal' and 'natural' activities will lead us to a more meaningful life? I suppose the sketch is meant to be a healthy non-academic activity, but are our lives made more meaningful by the amusing of ourselves with the plight of the poor hawkers? It is anyone's guess whether the theme of the sketch was played with or without intention. However, is the WMSA committee so ignorant as not to realise the consequences of the damage and injustice done to our people?

MSA put forward the great philosophy of 'ideals.' May I ask what sort of ideals have been practised? If WMSA is not in the least prepared to take constructive criticisms. I wonder what elitist ideal keeps them going?

It is disgusting to see the apathetic "unsigned" building up arguments, distorting facts in some instances, and largely deviating from discussing the truth the "truth" of the hawker's life.

It is an interesting thing that "unsigned" can make up stories like "Marxist class analysis" on the "slapstick comedy." I think any responsible Malaysian will know the "true" life of the hawker since it is so common in Malaysia. Or to put it the other way - - what is it like to be a hawker? Do those at home need "a Marxist class analysis" to know the "truth" of a hawker's life?

To state the hawker's sketch was purely "slapstick comedy" is purely a LIE. In fact the sketch itself did portray a social comment — "Hawker's Life'", but has been distorted by the "well meaning people who have sacrificed their time and efforts. . . "(refer to WMSA reply to criticism letter, paragraph five.) If it was merely "slapstick comedy" why doesn't the hell. WMSA perform a sketch on corruption which is so common in Malaysia (e.g. Harun's corruption case) instead of founding a Mockery on the hawkers.

If "unsigned" has no feeling for the masses, I doubt he is "waiting for the real test?" I suppose, "unsigned" must have already joined the system.

P.S. Would "Unsigned" clarify 'the real test" as required by the Salient editor.