[unclear: cations] Officer pours out [unclear: art]

[unclear: as] prompted to write this letter as a [unclear: of] thinking about that phrase often used [unclear: lent'] in criticism of Exec members (par-[unclear: y] myself > "Why don't you do [unclear: some-] Now the obvious answer to this is do you want me to do ?' which under-[unclear: orollary] of the original question ; what really means is "why dont you [unclear: a] charismatic leadership with active [unclear: ots] orientated political campaigns ? "

answer this question It is helpful to the roles of the executive into [unclear: ad mini -] and policy making/campaign leading. [unclear: ou] realise that the Executive only has [unclear: y] in matters of finance and that all policy [unclear: ns] are theoretically made by SRC you will [unclear: a] in theory Exec is totally an administrative [unclear: hat] bears a relationship to SRC which [unclear: ar] to the relationship between the of Lords and the House of Commons land.

[unclear: As] (somewhat Inflated) image is, however, [unclear: pful] if one thinks of the historical [unclear: pment] of the present situation and that, originally, all policy decisions were [unclear: y] the House of Lords whereas now it is [unclear: a] rubber stamp body. I believe one can [unclear: start] of a trend in the role of indication of this trend is the greatly [unclear: ed] role of SRC officers. More and [unclear: is] they who do the groundwork for campaigns and they who try and involve roots' students while Exec simply does ministrative shit-work and keeps the [unclear: its] Association well oiled financially and administratively.

[unclear: d] as an Exec member I know the kind of [unclear: re] are expected to do in our capacity as Exec [unclear: rs] is always on the lines of organisational [unclear: nce] — selling SASRAC tickets, helping [unclear: the] meetings, seeing bills are paid and things [unclear: ed] when broken down.

[unclear: tly] this is intended as a statement of [unclear: roarh] to student politics. I view my [unclear: a] simply as a job and not as a tabernacle [unclear: hich] to spout on every available subject [unclear: w] how much work I am doing. (If I gave [unclear: minute] report at each Exec meeting you stop giving me bad write-ups [unclear: ent]) You expect us to be charismatic [unclear: s] when ail we are are very poorly paid [unclear: crats]. Now if you think that is simply [unclear: tification] I think you should closely [unclear: he] the present trend described in SRC-[unclear: elationship]. I don't believe democratic rep-[unclear: ition] can be forced from outside (by but must be allowed to grow from within on the foundation provided by the [unclear: ratic] structure.

[unclear: The] other reason for writing this was to [unclear: age] debate on the reason for the structure [unclear: lent] politics, particularly the relationship [unclear: en] administrative and decision making [unclear: ns]. I look forward to comments, and [unclear: rse], criticisms.

[unclear: Democracy] or farce

[unclear: Think] the narrow majority with which the [unclear: bortionists] won in SRC (25/5/77) shows [unclear: tense] division among students on the This is contrary to Salient's representat- [unclear: that] VUWSA as a whole supports "a woman's to choose."

seems that a general university ballot [unclear: only] way in which the true feelings of [unclear: nts] will be shown. After all, the cry for [unclear: cracy] is our loudest one - isn't it?

[unclear: rtion] rages on

[unclear: With] an abortion forum last Friday, 20 May, [unclear: lengthy] debate debate at the SGM the main issue [unclear: eems] to me is whether it is a woman's right to choose. I think that it is quite clear that women dont have any rights. For centuries now man has been the dominant sex of the two and I see no reason why now in the Twentieth Century this domination should change. Women are not physically and emotionally capable of undertaking an equal role to men in society and the test of time has shown this. For instance the shocking representation of women in Parliament (keeping in mind that 63% of the population are female, and having one vote the same as men, do hold in their hands more political power) does prove that the women of New Zealand have elected a male dominated legislature. Women in NZ do not want to take on the responsibility that a man has and the last General Election proves that they would prefer to be dominated by the male sex. It also proves that the majority of women realise their capabilities and to having equal rights is Just not on. So my advice to the small minority of women who are screaming for equal rights and a right to choose whatever it may be to look at themselves, to their own capabilities (which does not go out of the home) and only then perhaps they might realise how lucky they are. The benfits to a woman in our present society are enormous they are expected to do stuff all, they can talk whenever they like and best of all only they can become pregnant.

If women are given equal rights what will happen next. We'll have infants standing up for equal rights, dogs, a monkey even, or anyone who feels they are hard done-by. The line has to be drawn and so long as the male is physically and emotionally stronger they must remain superior and women must accept their position in society no matter how tough it is.

So with regards to abortion as women dont have any rights, the decision should be left to males, the legitimate rulers of this country so that this issue must be solved by Parliament.

President of V.U.W. Mens Liberation Group.

Regarding the abortion debate letter in the last issue. 24/5/77. I heartily agree that aboertion abortion is a terrible thing, but as such is a necessary eveil. You see, for all the contraceptive advice, its use and availability, there will be failures, misuse and plain ignorance of female fertility, being two of many reasons.

The impassioned, emotional debate against abortion, is not going to stop them happening, women have, abd will continue to seek relief from from accidental pregnancies, which some people seem to forget are not ingested, but are the result of rape, casual intercourse among other reasons. And just as there are women who will seek abortions there are those who dont want them. I'm aware of SPUC's so called 'Pregnancy Help', but have never heard much about it or seen any in action. How about helping where it is needed - at Arohata Borstal, where girls already disadvantaged are continuing the cycle, by having babies that will in a few few years time be in exactly the same [unclear: position] as their mothers, and grandmothers, and great-grandmothers ...

Once again the streets of Wellington have been intimidated by our iconoclastic sisters, the 'Feminist movement, and for what great purpose None other than to manifest their totally irrational and trendy beliefs concerning abortion.

Frequently I have heard pleas for a totally objective and non-emotional discussion of the abortion issue from our 'cool' sisters. Well. I shall endeavour to fulfil their desire, in a logical manner. Most feminists demand abortion on demand, or at least, to generalise, a woman's right to choose. To choose what? Simple... abortion on demad (i.e. the right to terminate an unwanted pregnancy.) Of course 'terminate' is a very subtle euphemism for kill or murder. After all, for a 'termination' to occur, there must be something to terminate. And what is it that is terminated? (or to be more precise; kill, murder, deprive life from). A piece of meat? Flesh? If it is ignorantly referred to as flesh, that implies that it is organic (i.e. cellular). The foetus, as most of us know (or should do) is a cellular organic 'thing' — or more correctly a multi-cellular organic 'thing'. As it is multi-cellular and organic, as opposed to inorganic, it therefore can only be termed Living - and to continue, an organism.

So now we have two important axioms clarified. Firstly, to terminate implies halt or discontinue — and as it is unwilling it is murder. Secondly, the 'thing' terminated (sorry, killed) is a multi-cellular (complex) organism, with the potential of the capacity to to reason. Therefore the foetus belongs to the soecies of organisms known to most as Homo Sapiens, or Human beings.

The foetus, if it is not sufficiently complex for our 'Feminist' sisters, at least has the potential to become overwhelmingly complex and acquire the capacity to reason within a relative short space of time. On the other hand, a dog or a cat is not as complex insofar as the capacity to reason, and potential to evolve into that state would require a time span beyond one's imagination.

Thus it has been proven beyond any doubt that, in a logical manner, to 'terminate an unwanted pregnancy' means nothing else than to ill a multi-cellular, complex organism (i.e. human being). If anyone can logically approve of killing fellow human brings whether they be two weeks, two months or two score years old, then indeed I do believe our society has taken a turn for the worse.

I would like to thank the feminist group for advocating the slaughter of innocent children, who, do not choose to be created.

Thank you ladies (if you call yourselves that) for showing yourselves in your true colours as selfish bigotted women who make me ashamed to belong to the same gender.

You are selfish because you think only of what you want, to be rid of so m eh ting that hinders your lives. What about the child's right to life. You do not seem to think that children, particularly those unborn, have any rights at all. I suppose that you nect be campaigning for the extermination of the old, since they are no longer productive.

Furthermore, I would like to ask why the feminists continually need to boost 5 heir egos by telling then selves that they are equal to males. I know I'm equal — dont you? Males only help in the production of children, we women women create them.

I consider the creation of children unequalled and and beautiful. You dont - so perhaps it would be better if you had yourselves sterilised

More on I.S.C.

It is indeed very disappointing that during the recent ISC (International Students Congress), the WMSA committee members were nowhere in sight. Is it because the ISC is so important that they don't merit your attention? Come on MSA. you can do better than that to begin your winter hibernation at this crucial time. As a student, I feel that this is one of your golden opportunities to show your worth to society as you always claim yourself — representing student's interests, my foot ! By absenting yourself (or is it boycotting ?) you really prove your worth to us.

Before I end I would like to ask whether WMSA can enlighten me as to why they were not attending the recent ISC when in their recent newsletter they purported to be in the planning committee and were pleased with the programme?

As a student I viewed with grave concern and surprise the utter lack of participation by WMSA during the International Student Congress. During this time we saw the newly formed WMSSA doing most of the organising especially the Cultural Evening. To WMSSA I can say that you have done a good job of it and the credit should be given to you and the participants on that night. I hope that all Malaysian students will continue to give their full support to you.

To WMSA, I wish to say this word, 'Action soeaks louder than empty words on pieces of paper.' To everyone of us on this campus you really have been a great disappointment. During the ISC you must have been hiding under the 'sarong' of our Malaysian Ministers. I can only presume that you have deliberately absented yourselves, especially when you jolly well know that questions involving student's interests (i.e. Cutbacks and LATOS) would be brought up for discussion. The ironical thing is that during a recent newsletter circulated to us you (the WMSA committee) claimed that you were in the Planning Committee. Guess that you must have chickened out at the last moment?

[unclear: or] us older students we are not so gullible to your tricks and meaningless activities. However, to those new students, I would like to add this message: Dont be taken in by these people. University life is one where you can learn a lot of new things, especially to develop an analytical mind; to be able to see things clearly and above all to be able to contribute more for the betterment of our society.

The International Students Congress has just passed yet the memories of four days being with friendly and warm people remained fresh with me. Especially great was the two get-togethers-The two get-togethers were a great change from what I have always been subjected to whenever I attend any such gathering, i.e. the you and me type (no third party). So I look forward to any gathering where everyone participates so actively.

Auckland President writes to Salient.

One thing that has frequently concerned me about newspaper reporters is their ability to take quotes out of context or misquote completely. Congratulations, you have managed to do both in your recent article on May Council -in the one sentence !

To quote — "saying that the axing of the IVP was in his own words 'a set up'."

What I actually said was "that the situation was set up so..." Perhaps the difference is subtle enough that I will be accused of nitpicking, however, in the context of my speech I think it is important. Your quote suggests that National Office forced Paul Watson to resign — this, I think, was not the case.

If I may continue to nit-pick, my motion to change the voting structure of National Executive did find a seconder (UCSA) and the discussion was indeed brief. Most Presidents spoke and as the necessary 2/3rds majority to change the Constitution was not there, it was declared lost. Once again, I feel you missed my line on this argument. It was not a question of mistrust, but simply an attempt to redistribute the balance of power. As you are aware, an SGM can achieve those ends but diving in and out of a general meeting is tiring.

The claim that National Executive is a management committee is quite correct, but as any student politician is aware, the difference between management and policy at times can be marginal. Does one call the proposed purchase of an IATA agency managerial, political or both? The case was initially decided at National Executive and confirmed at an SGM. I suppose May Council solved the problem.

Lastly, if I may finish off my cut short line talking about Lisa's report—" a direct link with what Bruce Gulley, the Auckland President, calls 'real students'".

Lets hope we never forget they exist.

Long live the superpower contention.

Letter from an ex-soldier

With reference to your 30 May issue of Salient. The supplement on the Government's policy of cutting back on Overseas Students (specifically Malaysian) students was informative I found the slogan at the top of the middle page — 'Cut Overseas Troops Not Overseas Students' to indeed sum up the whole situation. For too long New Zealand Governments have been more interested in defending despotic Governments and not building people to people contact. Further. NZ's future defence interests would be better served if the Government spent its money on helping to make a country self-reliant rather than provide Joe Soldier with the possibility of a cut-price stereo. Keep up the good work.

Mount Street

With regard to the proposed block of flats to be erected on Mount St. Could someone please tell me why we are protesting.

For all I know, a block of flats on Mount Street could be one of the most marvellous things to happen to Wellington since they built the University.

Lots of people have told me to protest, lots of people have told me its bad, no-one has told me why its bad. Until they do, I remain.

Thinking about Varsity

In the last issue of salient, a '1st year student' had raised the question of' Can I do do something useful while in New Zealand, or am I here solely to get a degree?"

Here, I would like to share a poem, 'Come in Awareness' which was written by Norsiah A. Rahman with him/her and many other overseas students and hope that it will help to enlighten us in this question.

'Come In Awareness'
You who have come
In quest of knowledge
Come with open minds
Ready to explore new ideas;
To nuture your talents, if they
Be for the betterment of mankind.
Come with humility and gratitude
For your coming has been possible
At the expense of many others
Know that you have a responsibility
Not to betray the trust that
Others have placed in you.
The world out there needs you
Let your coming be
To make you a better person
For the role destined for you.
And should you find
Your ideas shattered.
The rosy picture you painted
Smeared........
Do not be disillusioned
But from this dilemma
Gain greater strength and wisdom
To pursue your goals.

— Thought

Mulrennan replies to Malaysian Reporter.

The campaign of slander in Salient against the Young Socialist club was reserved in the issue of May 30 for the letters column. In this the Maoist guardians of Salient show remarkable restraint; normally everything from "Salient Notes" to SRC reports is used as a vehicle for some new vicious example of Trot-baiting. But, of course, the use of the letters column gives the editors a certain cover; it makes it appear as though independent students are joining in the campaign. But the relevant letters have a marked family characteristics; they comprise the first four letters, all are signed by pseudonyms, and they all include "in-jokes" about James Robb's article on the 200 mile fishing zone.

The most vicious of these letters is the one signed "Malaysian Reporter". This letter concerns the editor of the Malaysian Socialist Review, Alan Pinjen, and his recent speaking tour of New Zealand. Pinjen spoke on three topics: the campaign for political asylum for Hishamuddin Rais, the current situation in China, and "The Revolution in South East Asia". But "Malaysian Reporter" does not take take an Interest in these subjects. The letter is aimed from start to finish at smearing Pinjen personally.

There are two particularly serious slanders against Pinjen: the first one is that his family, and by implication Pinjen himself, have dubious relations with the Mlaysian government, this is repeated with the inference that if the Young Socialists hadn't financed Alan's tour, then "One would presume that the money came from the Malaysian Government..," No facts are presented. Instead there are only "rumours" as the letter admits. But the reality of the matter is that the newspaper Pinjen edits, "Malaysian Socialist Review", bases its politics on uncompromising opposition to the Malaysian Government. But "Malaysian Reporter" conveniently ignores the platform of "Malay-Man Socialist Review" and turns instead to "rumours" about Alan Pinjen.

The second slander that stands out is that Pinjen has "even attacked Hishamuddin Rais." But Pinjen's support for Hishamuddin Rais was demonstrated on his New Zealand tour, where he spoke on each campus where he appeared urging solidarity with the campaign for political asylum, the latest copy of "Malaysian Socialist Review" has a cover which is devoted to the slogan "Political Asylum for Rais Now", and contains an article which far from attacking Rats Rais defends him at every step against the Malaysian and Australian Governments.

There are a number of other slanders in the letter which are of similar quality. Alan Pinjen will reply to these personally in Salient.

It may puzzle some students to find such energy as is displayed by "Malaysian Reporter" wasted on this sort of mudslinging. But this slander has a political use. "Malaysian Reporter" has political disagreements with Alan Pinjen, but to discuss those disagreements openly and sanely would legitimise free discussion. That is something that terrifies the followers of Maoism, since their politics run completely counter the principles of democracy and free speech. So they resort to tactics and abuse which make Muldoon's slanders against Moyle look like a bit of comradely leg pulling. Personal abuse and political bankruptcy are old drinking partners.

Further Comment on Fishing

I have just finished reading the Salient article about how the New Zealand government should not declare a 200 mile limit for territorial waters. The author of this article Mr [unclear: Jonas] Robb has lined himself right up with a big power against a small country. What can one say about this shocking article? Mr Robb's stance is like that of a by standen yelling [unclear: entha] iastic encouragement to a great ugly lout [unclear: enga] in raping an unwilling ten year old school girl.

Mr editor. Salient should support the New Zealand fishermen in their difficult position against robbery from big powers lib Russia. No more sell out James Robb article in Salient please.