"World view of the ruling class" less nauseous than Salient's distortions.

I am a graduate of Victoria University and occasionally read Salient to clue up on political trends on campus.

The April 4 issue of Salient caused me great concern. On page four there was an article titled 'Press in Chains" based on a feature published by The Dominion where, incidentally. I am currently working as an subeditor.

The author of your article, Robert Collins, pointed out that Independent Newspapers Ltd owns the 'free press' of Wellington with the exception of Salient and the Karori News. Collins also correctly pointed out that privately controlled papers such as The Dominion generally perpetuate the world view of the ruling class even without state censorship.

However, the implication was that Salient and the Karon News are unfettered by partisan considerations. How wrong!

After reading the unashamedly bigoted article on the Socialist Action League campaign in Mangere and about the letter fraudulently published under the name of Patrick Mulrennan of Young Socialists, in addition to previous

anti-Tortskyite smears in earlier issues, it appears that Salient too is committed to subbing democracy in the back.

I consider it an unenjoyable compromise of ray own political ideals to work for INL. But as far as selective distortion is concerned, the recent Salient material is far more nauseating and far less excusable than the Dominion's.

A trout rises in a clear pool and is caught on the barbed hook of Evan Leslie's wit.

Evan Leslie's article in Salient no 6 points out that "There are serious lessons to be drawn from the Socialist Action campaign in Mangere.'

Certainly this is true, and it is true that the Mangere by-election brought into the spotlight many of the issues of importance. But those serious lessons, and those issues are nowhere to be found in Evan Leslie's article.

It is all the more damning that this is Salient's only direct comment on the Mangere by-election. That election brought into focus many important issues. Brigld Mulrennan's campaign highlighted these; the four main demands of the Socialist Action campaign were: "Return Bastion Point to the Ngati Whatua; End the Wage Freeze — Full Cost-of-Living Rises; No Deportations: Let Pacific Migrants Stay; Repeal the Abortion Laws."

Those issues and many others that the Socialist Action campaign took into the Mangere by-election are of the most pressing concern to the people of that electorate. Yet they are apparently regarded by Evan Leslie as of interest only to "nutters."

Unlike the campaign, the article can find nothing to say of the National and Labour policies. It can find nothing to say of the lack of housing in Mangere, the lack of health services, social welfare, and child care facilities, and the complete default of the two main parties on those issues.

But if the article is short on political content, it is long on contempt for the Socialist Action campaign. In fact from the sexist title "Snow White and the Seven Dwarves" till the concluding sentence, it is concerned only with ridicule. In this, its approach is identical to the approach of the establishment media, which seeks to distort or ignore altogether the "minor parties" — especially if they present socialist policies.

Evan Leslie's attempted ridicule is based on one aspect of the Socialist Action campaign; the very low vote that it recorded. In this too, the article resembles nothing so much as the establishment press, which counts political impact by votes, and votes alone.

Unlike Evan Leslie, the Socialist Action League and the Young Socialists see election campaigns as an ideal opportunity to publicise the socialist cause, and to front up to the Labour Party to demand that it stand up for working people, Maoris, Pacific Islanders and women, as those people expect it to. If the likes of Evan Leslie bad it their way there would be no challenge to the Labour Party's pose as the representatives of working people. And that's just what National and Labour want; they know that campaigns like Brigid Mulrennan's which take a clear stand on the side of the oppressed, have an impact far beyond what is recorded on the ballot.

That is the reason that the Socialist Action campaign faced a virtual ban by the establishment media. If the campaign won the socialists many friends, it proved once again that we face powerful enemies. And articles like the one in Salient do not help.

But Evan Leslie's complete ignorance of the real issues raised in the Mangere by-election, and complete preoccupation with smearing the Socialist Action campaign, is not out of place in Salient. Like the forged letter which appeared under my name in issue no. 5. like the slanders against the Young Socialists which have been the major part of Bruce Robinson's contribution to the debate in the anti-apartheid movement, like the ridiculous cartoon on page 8 of Salient no. 6, the article seeks to poison students against a legitimate student club which seeks only to have the same chance as everyone else to present its ideas to students.

As I pointed out in my letter to Salient no. 5, such an attack sets a precedent for attacks on the democratic rights of any individual or club that holds views that are counter to those of some of the elected leaders of the Students' Association.

The campaign of vilification against the Young Socialists shows a complete absence of understanding of the principle of freedom of speech, and a refusal to allow us to present our point of view on an equal basis with the editor of Salient and his co thinkers.

This refusal is the same as the refusal of the daily papers to publicize the Socialist Action campaign in Mangere. It stems from a fear of opposing opinions. It is a fear shared by the National Party, by the Labour Party, and by all the forces that support the status quo. Salient is doing students a disservice by lining up with the status quo on this matter.

I like Trotskyites.

As an ex'-kid' of working-class origins (brought up in a railway village and my Dad a truck driver), a feminist and a post-graduate student (who has had to struggle through university with its middle-class and academic male-dominated environment), I feel obliged to come out and (in these times of purge) state that Trotskyist politics are the politics for me.

I do not belong to the 'Young Socialists' but I am seriously considering joining the Socialist Action League when I have the time and the money to do my membership justice.

As far as I am concerned the political theory and strategy of this political movement is the best that is offering. It is a political movement adhering without compromise to social justice and committed to the struggle of the oppressed for justice — The senior members of the Socialist Action League are active, erudite and have integrity. In my opinion it is the political movement and the party of the future — not only in New Zealand.

Student politics? Well?! — I would urge any thinking students not to be put off by what they read in 'Salient' but to investigate the matter independently for themselves.

The Film Reviewer Who Fell on His Head.

Reading David Beresford's review last week was a real science fiction treat. His far-out musing on metaphorical mutations of modern man and the multitudinous levels on which the movie "moved" were truly revealing to those of us whose feet fell to earth some time ago.

Really Mr Beresford the whole thing was quite simple. Ziggy was actually sent to earth not, as you mistakenly claim, to get some gas for their spare buggie, but was sent out to get some burgers for his Buddies. This explains much of the "unexplained" in the movie including Ziggie's preoccupation with housemaid Mary-Lou, who he understandably mistakes for a hamburger wrapped to go. Also explained is the need for the $333million 'cos with extraterrestrial inflation who knows what the fuck Ziggy thought hamburgers cost.

I wonder what the star suckers woulda thought of this movie without David Bowie's "well hung snow white tan" being touted at the box office. As for being a sociological stew, this movie more closely resembles a fetid stew of spew.

Besides it was boring and silly. (Why didn't I think of that in the first place?)

NZer rips into hawker debate.

I am utterly shocked at the attitude adopted by a number of Malaysian students who have been writing in these columns, week after week, on the sketch by M.S.A.

Putting the sketch in the context of my viewpoint as a New Zealander, I saw it not as a condescending and snide attack on low-income workers in Malaysia nor as a regular rip-off of tourists as specific to Malaysia but as a light-hearted look at a fact-of-life situation in Malaysia.

Also, in New Zealand, education is not analogous to "intellectualism" as it may be in Malaysia where there seems to be a distinct upper class. In New Zealand nobody seems to be offended by the daily 'Andy Capp' take-off of the typical bread-line working class bloke.

I put down the petty, 'nit picking' comments of the Malaysian students (writing to Salient and wasting column space) as a demonstration of their own personal guilt feelings about their opportunity of a university education.

For these students worried about giving New Zealanden the wrong Impression about tourist rip-offs in Malaysia well — give us some credit for not taking a humorous five-minute sketch as an authority on public relations in Malaysia. After all, that type of event will occur in any country where bargaining of the price and language barriers occur in trading situations.

Getting to know you.......

This is not another letter written in defence nor in criticism of WMSA. but rather to highlight some points which should be given fair consideration. For a start, allow me to say that it's becoming quite sick and rather monotonous to read about all those countless criticisms against WMSA. O.K., if WMSA has really done something wrong by merely promoting the "sketch," surely they are aware of their mistakes by now and a sincere apology should suffice to settle the whole controversy once and for all. To err is human, to forgive is divine? But frankly, why are we all so obsessed in criticising MSA and never in congratulating it on its fine performance in the Malay and chopstick dances? Indeed, why are there tome students who are ever to critical about WMSA?

Let's face it, probably the major underlying cause for those against MSA revolves around the fact that this association is not prepared to take up any political issues whatsoever. The committee has made its stand pretty loud and clear to all of us students that it is not going to shoulder itself with political controversies. Fair enough. But if some of the students are unhappy about this, there are many alternatives open to them, tome of which are: — 1) to form a committee of their own and stand for election in the next AGM, or 2) to organise a brand new student association of their own altogether.

The latter would only result in competition duplication of efforts and potential for conflicts in the future. So, probably the best possible alternative is to obtain sufficient support to be successfully elected into office by next election. If there are students who feel strongly convinced that MSA is not heading in the right direction, then they should whole-heartedly be prepared to do something about it, and not just passively criticise MSA year in, year out.

WMSA is not and can not please everybody, for there will always be people who will disagree with the policies of MSA. Those of us who are here long enough must have acquainted themselves, in one way or the other, with such staunch critics like Robert Pui. who while he was here, launched many remarkable attacks against MSA and its non-political commitments. A few years back, he stood for election and lost. Is there anyone else fully prepared to take up the footsteps of what our legendary hero once did? I am not suggesting that you should follow his political style, but rather to take a positive stand, be legitimately elected into office and to steer the course of MSA into what you think ought to be the right track. Until then, please refrain from passing garbage comments and unjustified criticism.

The question remains:— are you willing to commit yourself in doing some constructively active thing about this or are you more contented to just sit back, criticise with words and no action? The decision is yours. Think about it.

Since much has been said on MSA already, it should only be fair that a quick comment on the revival of WMSSA be made as well. Probably the first thought that crosses anyone's mind is whatever happened to members of the interim committee that was set up last year? I shall refrain from embarrassing them by mentioning their names here, but they are certainly a bunch of disappointments. However, a fresh group of students has sort of taken over what was left behind undone by the interim committee. Maybe WMSSA will be prepared to undertake the tasks that MSA is unable or not willing to perform.

Let's face it, if WMSSA is going to "come alive" again merely to carry out activities already done by MSA, then there will be too many unwarranted duplications. But in looking at the recent activities of WMSSA, it is quite commendable in the sense that this is not going to be another "disco-dancing" association. Rather. WMSSA seems to be heading in a direction somewhat like its sister association in Auckland, in organising informal gatherings and get-togethers. This is largely on a basis of "get-to-know-you-better" rather than a "couple-no-trespassing" basis.

The recent Easter picnic at Otari Reserve is a sample of such casual gathering, which was a tremendous success indeed. I would truly like to thank the organisers for all they have done to make that afternoon out an extremely refreshing and enjoyable break from the humdrum of books. As this is only the beginning, I really do not expect too much from WMSSA. No doubt, this association still has a very long way to go, but if we students are willing to give it the support it requires. I am sure it will make the whole journey a lot more pleasant and enriching.

I sincerely hope that by the time I leave New Zealand for good. WMSSA will be as active as any other association on campus and will progressively move forward, both in co-operation and understanding with WMSA, to promote and protect the interests of overseas students here.

Widen the Hawkers debate.

Letter from Malaysians have been flooding into Salient for the past few weeks regarding the WMSA's sketch on hawkers.

Students' social awareness and concern for the working masses is a healthy sign. The debate on the sketch should be continued and extended to a general debate on "what is culture?" "The role of Malaysian Students in NZ:" and "what we expect of a Malaysian student Association."

For the past few weeks, criticisms on "hawker sketch" have reached a crescendo which is of no surprise, because Malaysians overseas are awakening and closely linking themselves with people at home.

As an observer, I found it a very healthy sign that Malaysians are fully using Salient columns, expressing and exchanging their views so as to explore new ideas to make ourselves and betterment of mankind, I think MSA should face the objective reality to answer factually and sensibly by the sporadic discontent and furious reactions on the "hawker sketch" felt by most Malaysians. It's a coward's tactic to turn oneself away from a "steaming up" controversial topic and furth-more by isolating yourself in the nutshell would not stop majority of the Malaysians pouring in more criticisms.

Finally I urge all Malaysians to be educated by getting to know ourselves, to be equipped with knowledge and understanding of our immediate concern and to identify ourselves with the people we are responsible to. Social awareness and a critical re-appraisal of the social economic situation back home becomes a paramount concern for us.

Thinking and acting on Politics.

It seems to me that a lot of people are confused about what the term "politics" means. As a Political Science student I could tell you that you will never get a definition of "politics" from the Pol Sei department, perhaps with good reason. Lecturers will refuse to define it for you. However I will risk the disapproval of my lecturers (and others) and present My Conception of what politics is hopefully without seeming to be too much of a smart arse or offend.

It seems to me that politics is concerned with human relationships in general, be it economic, social values, power, culture, administrative structures etc. More specifically it is concerned with the ability to impose or influence other peoples' ideas, values, way of life, norms, etc by ones own conceptions of these, and also the expression of one's own values, ideas etc. Politics is not restricted to government functions. Thus the relationship between the father and the son is very political (you do what he tells you [unclear: se]. . .)

Thus you and I are speaking politically when we say that "this movie is better than that

In terming something as "political" or not, must inevitably involve many other things which have any effect at all on the subject. Sport is in itself not political but when a team represents a country, wear track suits with flags or national symbols on, win medals not for themselves but for the country, and stand on the winning platform when their national anthem is played and their flag raised, then it inevitably becomes "political."

A social sketch is political especially when it conflicts with other peoples' views or respect or sympathy for the subject of the sketch. (i.e. Hawkers sketch) Thus no-one can hide themselves from being political. Your existence in a society or culture or country is always inevitably "political." Thus the very existence of MSA for the purpose of serving Malaysian students and its members (if it is their aim that is!!!) is inevitably "political" especially if you claim to represent a body for the Interests and Welfare of your members. These interests and welfare are inevitably what goes on at home.

If you have taken up executive positions in MSA you should be prepared to do those unthinkable, dirty, stupid, useless acts termed "political" or else either resign or change your title from "Association" to "Social Club" as others previously suggested. I can understand the insecurity you must feel, as I myself come from Thailand, and have been involved with protest activities before (though not in Thailand itself.) You don't have to become martyrs as a result of your actions. Careful and skillful wording and planning of your programmes, letters of petition, activities etc will not put you to too great a risk and it's probably not fair for people to ask you to do so. This is why it is important to have an active mass of students to support your functions. If we ourselves are not prepared to risk our own comfortable positions to help change things, who else should risk their asset?

Maybe I'm amazed?

I read with some amarement your article about Whitcoulls on the Salient of 4th April. If some students had been wronged this sort of reporting does little to help them.

One gets the feeling one is being asked to believe something without really being told the evidence. It may be fruitful to contemplate why. If these students have been wronged a clear statement of the truth of the situation will be most helpful to them

Salient Pro-National?

Sue Cairncy's nonsense article about Tizard's speech is yet another example of Salient's peculiar political stance — pro-Communist, pro-National, and anti-Labour. It's clear from the article that Sue didn't even go to hear Tizard — she probably wrote it before he came. No one would claim that his speech was "adequate", but he did show a reasonable grasp of the economic situation. Contrary to Cairney's preposterous lies, Tizard supported moves for increases to the S.T.B. He outlined specific differences in the major parties' housing policies and achievements, and (again contrary to Sue) considered it a problem affecting students. Also, had she gone to hear Tizard, Sue would have heard him spell out a lot of Labour's new policies on the economy involving taxation.

In defence of Tizard.

I am concerned that those students who failed to hear Mr Tizard's talk on the economy, but who read the review by Sue Cairney (Salient, April 13), will think that those present indeed "saw Tizard intult hecklers, avoid questions and say nothing."

Mr Tizard covered three main points; taxation, regional development and housing. On taxation, Mr Tizard said that Labour would reduce the level of tax paid by low-income workers. This could be achieved simply by a review of the tax scales or by extending to single-income families the taxation benefits enjoyed by two-income families. The advantage to students seeking employment of a strong regional development programme was also stressed by Mr Tizard. Of the three main points covered, only housing is mentioned in the review.

I disagree with the statement that "when faced with hecklers determined to have their (reasonable!) questions answered, he degenerated instantly into rudeness." It is true that many reasonable and polite questions were asked, and these were answered in like manner. However, there were numerous childlishly rude questions and interjections which were responsible for lowering the tone of the proceedings and which precluded a constructive discussion.

Birds of a feather?

After the forged letter under Patrick Mulrennan's name, when it was promised that Bruce Robinson would take up the criticisms of Patrick, James Robb and the Overseas Students of his article opposing the demand "Black Majority Rule." I expected a letter dealing with the issues they raised. Instead we read a letter devoted to miserable grizzles which claims that the demand wasn't correct because a large number of Blacks didn't turn up on the demonstration, and that I wrote an article for Craccum that didn't have "Black Majority Rule" as a demand for the demonstration. In fact, the letter didn't take up a single argument as to why 'Majority Rule" is preferable to "Black Majority Rule."

As Bruce Robinson is well aware, the demands decided on for the Auckland demonstration were those he agrees with. I supported "Black Majority Rule", but could not impose this demand on the demonstration in an article for Craccurn, urging students to join the march. It would have been undemocratic in relation to the committee and would have falsely portrayed the demands of the demonstration to students. Bruce might not understand such democratic methods, but I certainly do.

This does not mean that my own view, that the demand was insufficient, has changed and I hope to take the question up in a later issue of Craccurn. But unlike Bruce Robinson. I felt the urgent task prior to the march was not the writing of factional articles, but the guaranteeing of maximum participation.

The racism contained in that letter is self-evident: Black politics if the 'Rule of the jungle:" the assumption is that Black rule automatically means oppression of non-Blacks.

As James Robb pointed out, it is this white racism that Robinson gives ground to. Privately the supporters of Robinson's point of view say that "of course majority rule means Black rule." The logic of the demography of South Africa tells people that! But if that's so, why not include the word "Black," unless you're scared of the racists who try to make out every Black leader to be an Idi Amin, and that "majority rule" can mean continued white influence over South Africa's destiny.

Moreover, Robinson's position places him in opposition to the real struggle in South Africa — that of the oppressed Black majority for national liberation through self-determination. It is this oppressed nationality that has the right to decide the future of their country. The fight against apartheid is a Black struggle against racism in all its forms and for recognition of Blacks as Black human beings, that takes the racists head on and supports the real struggle in South Africa.

Robinson's only real "argument" in his letter it that Blacks didn't participate in large numbers in the Wellington demonstration. That point has no meaning to the issues raised, except that it reflects the inability of the anti-apartheid movement to relate to the concerns of Maoris and Pacific Islanders, or to take the message into their communities.

This reflects the continuing white middle class bias in the movement.

It also reflects the inability of the movement to relate the racism that pervades our society, to the support of the NZ Government for our "kith and kin" in South Africa and Rhodesia. The attempt to bring in the Maori Pacific Island and overseas student communities should not be derided for its not being sucessful, than hoped for, but intensified to ensure greater participation in the future.

At least in Wellington you had a degree of participation not present in Auckland, where no such beginnings were made.

Against a NZUSA Women's Commission.

I was pleased to see the letter in last week's Salient referring to the Women's Rights Action Committee for there needs to be a lot of discussion on this committee, the NZUSA Women's Commission and Women's issues generally on campus.

However I would like to comment on some aspects of Virginia's letter.

For all the above reasons a Women's Commission is not necessary. Policy concerning women's oppression should be made in which ever of the other Commissions, (Welfare and Accommodation, National, International or Education) is relevant.

The Women's Rights Action Committee on the other hand is a committee which plans action on the basis of policy made at NZUSA councils. Although it is difficult to be sure at this stage, I feel this committee is far more worthwhile than the Women's Commission. With the help and support of this committee the Students' Association will be able to run effective campaigns on women's issues, (e.g. equal pay, crech, abortion, law reform, Domestic Purposes Benefit etc.)

At the moment I am involved in the Women's Study Group and also organising with other Studass Officers forums on Rising Prices, Women in Unions, the Domestic Purposes Benefit and on Gill's anti-abortion Bill.

If people have any ideas on these or other women's issues please contact me at the Students' Students Association.

Thoughts from Rankine-Brown

As a first year student I have been deeply disturbed by a certain Fascist facet of the library. Every time you leave the place you're subjected to a degrading check by a border guard. (I see all the librarians "get a turn" at it, and are often to be seen grinning about their power.) What of the poor, forgetful student who leaves his "identification card" (another Fascist invention) at home, but has to take a book out for the night? What can he do? And from the long line that had to go through the border inspection during the recent bomb scare, it's obvious that the fanatical librarians are more concerned to stop one unissued book getting out than to stop a crowd of students getting blown to bits.

Clearly, as these measures are carried out over the next few weeks, the frustration they cause to library staff will ensure the return of democracy to the library exit.

— Bloe Joggs.

Paying our debtors.

I was interested to read in last week's Salient about the Victoria Book Centre's lack of money when the Executive dished out $20,000 to this august institution.

Apparently $10,000 is going to a call on the capital of the company as mentioned in Salient. The other $10,000 "to pay debtors and compensate for the flow of money." If my accounting 1 is correct, one receives money from your debtors and you pay your creditors. How come we pay our debtors? What is going on? Is the book centre having cash problems immediately after its most busy period in the financial year? What money flows are there, as hasn't the Bookcentre heard of using your creditors as a source of funds? What is this $10,000 being used for?

Objecting to Apathy.

Every alternative Wednesday this term at two o'clock, I have been highly motivated to write about SRC meetings. But this afternoon I am not even highly motivated. I am furious. The meetings are a farce. We have comedy time to finish, and a few red herrings are generously applauded, but — if participation means listening, deciding and voting objectively (silly word anyway) — Participation is basically nil. Approximately 20% of the students present voted verbally, we are noticably more enthusiastic about raising our hands. Few of us have any reasons more coherent than the theory that motions which appear in print (though we haven't bothered to get an agenda) must be sensible (if incomprehensible.) Consequently everything is passed — unless it is supported by an unpopular speaker — a young socialist for example.

However, decisions of great moment are taken; recommendations and complaints are lodged. Highly informed about Malaysian politics, the status of women in pre-class societies, we will formulate policy on any issue you care to name. We elect people whose names we've forgotten to positions, the significance of which we never discover.

Today we passed a really neat assessment policy: "if a student wishes to improve or change their mark he/she may either sit an end of year exam or re-submit his/her year's work (altered or unaltered) at the time the end of year exam is scheduled." First try and ignore the grammar. Now read on. "Group work (should) be made assessable and the current restrictions both formal and informal be abolished."

We are incredibly naive to think that group work is assessable — however valuable it may be as a teaching aid. (If it were assessable, it would be a less valuable teaching aid anyway spontaneity and creativity having been automatically removed.)

We have practically guaranteed ourselves a "degree" that no external institution in its night mind would recognise.

Most of the two hours is spent in constitutional quibbling; democracy now consists in the majority removing a guy's right to speak through various constitutional pathways — quite democratically of course.

There was little enthusiastic discussion on action to be taken on the bursary issue. We are told that people don't organise marches just for fun, so we should support them. Maybe we just shouldn't have a march; maybe we should take no action at all; maybe we accept that it's unrealistic and irresponsible to squeeze money out of a stone; maybe we are satisfied with, and even grateful for, our STB.

We'll probably pass another motion about it at the next SRC, anyway. Democracy and Apathy Do Not Mix.

The frustrations of student life.

Salient stinks. It's dedicated to perpetuating the prestige of the incestuous little clique that runs it. What are their responsibilities to the peer group that gives them their prestige and the honorariums that aren't big enuff to keep them in dope anymore. It's time Salient was involved in presenting critical comment on subjects that interest us clean-cut, all-pakeha, smalltime students.

Where was our programme of the Easter Tournament? When is Paul Wookey's album hitting the NZ folk-scene? Why did that nasty capitalist propaganda shitsheet Dominion get Prof Q. Baxter's views on Holyoake's appointment before Salient? (albeit a month after everyone knew.)

What is the psychological motivation behind John Dorraot's association between sex-problems and gloomy cavices? Is Lindy Cassidy always incompetent or was she under the influence? Whose illustration Whose illustrious Leader has paid $40,000 for a second hand wife?

Stuff MSA and East Timor. If another Anonymous Wog's friends don't like Fijian Indians where were they when elections were being held? For the answers to these questions (and more) consult the doors of latrines in the Law Library (6th Floor, North End.)

Alternative amusement may be achieved by studying aerodynamic behaviour of paper darts thrown from the windows of discussion rooms on the said same floor. Fascinating but not quite cricket.

(in my opinion.)

'Joe the Junkie.'

Down in the alley where the cold wind blows,
Along the backstreets where the alkies go.
Joe, the dying junkie lies,
No more friends or family ties.

Just a skeleton of the man he used to be
Such a waste —why can't he see.
Now cold and starving and very ill
All he wants is one more pill
To finish what was started by a friend
I ask—
Will he be there, at his end.

He only started by smoking pot. .
Now near death, and he's used the lot.
Needle holes in his arms and legs
When he's broke, he has to beg.

Passing people only stop and stare,
I ask
Does any of you really care
For Joe and all the others too.
Are they just —
'the forgotten few.'

President replies.

I was very gratified to learn from "Sick of Marxists" that the president's honorarium is $3,000 and that the treasurer manages to rake in $1,000. The real facts are, however, that the President's honorarium is $2,000, the treasurer's, $600, the Secretary's $450 and the rest of the Executive receives the princely sum of $300.

What happened at the AGM was that the meeting passed a motion changing the President's honorarium to $3,000, the treasurer's honorarium to $1,000 and the secretary's to $500.

We hardly had to scream down the opposition as no-one spoke against the motion. It was then suggested that the Publications. Sports and Cultural Affairs Officers also receive in increase of $150.

This motion was subsequently referred to the SGM (not by a member of the Executive.) for greater discussion. It was also decided to rescind the previous motion concerning the President, Treasurer and Secretary's honorarium and refer it to the SGM for the same reason. To say that the Executive "cunningly" decided to refer this matter to an SGM is inaccurate.

"Sick of Marxists" also noted that during the first 5 years of the Student Association the President and Treasurer received small token payments. This is, accurate. However the President was not expected to be full-time — she/he could work part-time, could study part-time, and be president part-time.

Now the situation is completely different. With the financial, social and political activities of the association expanding rapidly, the President. Treasurer and Secretary's responsibilities are also increasing. Hence the need for a full-time president.

As for the honorarium for the rest of the Executive, my personal opinion is that if they work hard then payment is only a token gesture and if they don't work at all then it's a waste of money.

On one point I will agree with "Sick of Marxists" — it is important that you come and vote on these motions. You are paying — come and get your money's worth.

The SGM is to be held on Wednesday April 20 from 12-2 in the Union Hall. Dress is informal

God is dead! Long live God!

Those who have watched the film "Network will have been confronted with Howard Beale's prophetic insight that 'Kojak always gets the killer and nobody ever gets cancer in Archie Bunker's house!' However, it is also true that Archie Bunker is very unlikely to gain an active faith in Jesus Christ, but will remain an irreligious cynic to his deathbed. With the media largely portraying a 'dead' God, or 'mystical' truth, is there no longer any truth to be found?

Howard Beale was martyred for his inconvenience to 'the system', similar to Jesus Christ. However, Beale was aware of his humanity did not claim to be God or to have power over death. He also did not claim to be The truth (John 14:6,) and rose from the dead three days after his death. This was witnessed by over 500 people, and there are thousands of present day Christians who have experienced the validity of his claims.

The Bible states that "the fool has said in his heart 'there is no God.'" The media largely ignores the claims of Jesus Christ, or the existence of a sovereign God who will eventually judge all mankind. Who is being fooled?

Poetess reviled, rewritten, rent, racked, ribalded, risqued, rummage and ripped into.

A verse reaction to Rire Scotney's poetry—
private poems for a public
fuck, is not on.
god, I know it stinks to write shit
about the ostracism of students
Mother-Earth figures
and concepts of intellectuals
playing cute word-games
lyric for a lost soul
mine.
chritt, you know that's enough
to hell
with all the bloody crap,
poetry isn't just big words.
guilt,
or psychic alientation
see, I can do that too.