Organising Committee reply to Mulrennan

This letter has been written in reply to the attacks, made by Patrick Mulrennan, on certain members of the organising committee. First of all, we would like to point out that Patrick did not attend the first organising meeting where these issues were discussed, or several of the subsequent meetings. He was however present at Tuesday's organisation meeting where slogans for the banners were decided.

It was agreed at that meeting (consisting of approx. 35 people) that the main slogans for the banners should be first "Oppose the Royal Commission Legislation" and second "Abortion—a democratic right". It was also pointed out at the meeting that the Vic Women's choice Club has a sufficient number of banners and placards with the slogan, "A Woman's right to choose". At no time throughout the meeting was any objection raised to the slogan "A woman's right to choose". We also hold strongly to that slogan but that does not mean we will not raise the wider questions of abortion being a democratic right.

We feel that these slogans rather than contradict each other, (as Patrick would have us believe) are of a complementary nature and increase the understanding of those taking part in the abortion struggle.

This whole question of abortion being a democratic right was discussed at an open forum on Women's Rights in the Union Hall with the following resolution being passed........

Action should also try to incorporate all other groups and people who are opposed to the Government attacks."

It is perhaps revealing that Patrick states "Even if I had agreed with the slogan . . . ." Though Patrick did not openly state his opposition to this motion (only one person dissented), it seems that his main objection is the linkage between the recent attacks of the Government on women and other such attacks on the civil liberties of New Zealanders e.g. the SIS Bill and last year's industrial legislation.

Unfortunately Patrick has a politically naive view of 'democratic rights' i.e. "the popular view of democratic rights is that they refer to the rights of free speech, organisation". What Patrick fails to appreciate is that at present the state dictates to women whether they can have an abortion or not. If the state needs more children then it restricts abortions, regardless of the rights of the woman. We feel that it should be a democratic right of the women to decide, in effect "a woman's right to choose".

Why do we feel it is so important to stress the work "democratic"? At the moment the Government has and is trying to restrict the democratic rights of New Zealanders. The attacks on women are not an isolated event (as Patrick Mulrennan would have you believe). It is not because the Government is feeling particularly nasty towards women—it is deeper than that.

As The Sunday Times put it—The country is in an economic mess. The solution as this particular paper saw it was to clamp down on workers and the so-called bludgers of our community e.g. solo mothers. The government, in order to survive, must restrict the democratic rights of New Zealanders—hence workers no longer have the right to strike and if the SIS Bill gets through at least, our lives will no longer be private, and at most, our freedom to protest will be taken away.

The restrictions on women's democratic rights should be seen in this context. Recently the Evening Post quoted Mr Gill as saying that the fundamental role of women was in the home as mother and wife. When unemployment is high women are pushed back into the home. Thus, statements like Mr Gill's are not as isolated phenomena, they are in part tied to the country's economic trends. The current abortion legislation can also be seen in this context—a woman should want to be a mother and not a breadwinner. By limiting the abortion struggle we are in fact hiding the real facts about the situation.

There are a few other inaccuracies in Patrick's letter, e.g.—he says, "A poster (NZUSA poster) which displayed the policy of NZUSA was altered to display the opinion of the NZUSA officers who produced it". This was a reference to the use of a photo, the head banner of which stated "A woman's ritht to choose", and which was replaced by "Abortion a Democratic Right".

The poster was, in fact, produced by the 2nd Research Officer, Dave Macpherson in consultation with several people from the Vic Organizing committee and all the National Officer. The photos and slogans were decided by this group after the first organising committee meeting. On the question of it being NZUSA policy; it would be advisable if Patrick referred to the preliminary minutes of last August Council. In the Women's Commission and at final plenary the following motion was passed.

WR. 22

It is interesting to note that at the recent National Exec, meeting, the question concerning the poster was raised. It was pointed out and agreed by those at the meeting that the poster was in accordance with a consistant stand taken by NZUSA, that the abortion issue was also a civil liberties issue. It was agreed that NZUSA publicity was quite within its policy and certainly not in contradiction as Patrick Mulrennan has asserted.

Finally we would like to point out that writing such letters serves only to split the unity of our movement and plays into the hands of organisations such as SPUC. We were not enthusiastic to reply but felt that the obvious attempt to discredit the organisation of the demonstration could not go unanswered.

Elvis debate rages on (and on).

He's trying to improve his image.

After some consideration we have decided 'o re-ex plain the reasons that led us to attack on Franks' "Renumbering Elvis".

On the day that [unclear: Elwis] died many of our fellow workers openly expressed regret at his parting, reminiscing about his songs and the rock and roll era of which he was the pioneer. A couple of workers even wore black armbands, so deeply were they affected by his death.

And yet Don Franks' comments on Elvis seemed at odds with these feelings and comments - so much at odds that they led to ask whether this discrepancy was not, in fact, a sympton of a difference in politcal outlook.

As hopefully could be seen from our reply, it was not our intention to confront D.F.'s blanket condemnation of Elvis' music with blanket approval. It was more our aim to show that in writing his article D.F. was not starting from the spontaneous ideas of the people around him, but trying to impose his ideas on them.

The objective fact is that many workers could not recognise in D.F.'s article a systemisation of their thoughts at the time of Elvis' death. We are not so concerned with whether D.F 's ideas on Elvis are right or wrong as we are with the fact that he has worked these ideas up with total disregard for the thoughts of many Wokers on the subject.

To many of these workers Elvis was, quite literally, a God, and so for a Marxist it is no more acceptable to try and draw people away from the bourgeois influences of Elvis' music by condemnation than it is to draw people away from Christianity by condemnation of God.

In straight terms D.F"s article shows that he does not treat seriously (i.e. with sensitivty) the ideas of the workers around him. He therefore does not see that the depth of commitment which many of the workers hold (or held) for Elvis' music will when transferred to Marxism-Leninism-Mao-Tse-tung thought emerge as a revolutionary quality.

D. F.'s open contempt for the music of Elvis is, in fact, a veiled contempt for the ability of the masses to hold dear convicttions other than the ones D.F. wishes them to hold. His condemnation stems from their refusal to work with nothing more than it: orally based categories of good and bad.

Thus, Don Franks, unable to contribute to the progress of social change, can only condemn it for taking a different direction from that he wishes it to take—whether it be developments in popular music or in any other of his sacred cows.

This approach has characterised issue movements and other rallying points of the petit-bourgeoisie over the years - all of which have left the working class untouched.

Funny sort of United Front?

To suggest that the highly distorted and misleading account of Gillian Denford's speech did not "warrant a letter of complaint" smacks of precisely the sort of fascist denial of "democratic rights" the writer is purportedly concerned to preserve.

Lamorna, and those who share her views, must appreciate that others quite simply, do not. Within the context of our combined struggle against repressive abortion laws, Lamoma's mis-reporting was deliberately divisive—unity cannot be preserved if one side consistently and arrognatly imposes its views on all others.

Lamorna ought to have the political presicacity by now to realize that her attitude directly panders to the opposition—the last thing any of us want.

So, let's have a bit of integrity and an end to this counterproductive bullshit.

Ferox replies to Smith

The rather sad defence of the present Government's policies from Phillipa Smith (Salient, Sep. 19) spoke for itself. It was first clear that Ms Smith is an extremely arrogant young woman. ("I would be instantly recognizable as the only normal person there", she boasts). It was also clear that Ms Smith doesn't understand, or is insensitive to the financial difficulties many students are presently in, since she demanded "Why should tertiary students be given still more? ", and defended the pathethic $2 bursary increase.

Far more significant, however, is her total ignorance of the political scene. As the Chairman of a National Party Club (how can she be the Chair-Man? Is she the only member?). One would expect her to have at least some knowledge of current affairs. According to Chairman Smith, it is "thanks to Labour's three years of profligate spending" that New Zealand is verging on bankruptcy. I don't know much about Labour, but I do know that both Mr Muldoon and Mr Tempeton have attributed the current economic difficulties to the worldwide recession and the downtum in our terms of trade. Is this the work of the NZ Labour Party? Or are Mr Muldoon and Mr Templeton wrong?

Apparently she was one of the delegates to the National Party Conference. In response to the deep, angry voice of her messianic leader, [unclear: boomng] out the words "Rowling and his crowd are [unclear: welcome] to those thugs out there", she too creamed and stamped with hysterical approval, antalized by Muldoon's fascist style. (According [unclear: o] the newspapers this was the "high point of the conference). Ms Smith should think very seriously about this man she supports so loyally. Before she deludes herself any more, she ought to consider his motives and actions. It sounds to me like she's been duped.

Ms Smith refused to answer my question: How could a party supposed to be opposed to socialism introduce a socialistic pension plan? I suppose socialism is good if practised by National, but bad if practised by Labour.

According to Phillipa Smith, "no charge of incompetency has been levelled" against Walker or Gill or McCready or Lapwood or McLachlan. I wonder.

Execution of Child

It was very heart-breaking to read the article on last Salient telling of a 14 year boy who was sentenced to death in the High Court of Penang for having ammunition under the infamous ISA. To all Malaysians, ISA is no more a new tactic for the Malaysian Authority to suppress the people at home from having freedom of speach and action. This 14 year old boy is just only a sea p goat under the whole bloody repressive government. As all of us have passed our juvenescence, we should be much able to appraise our mentality of thought of being an innocent 14 year old boy. What do we want a gun for? As the boy had maintained that he was totally unaware of the plastic bag that contained a gun throughout the trial. In the name of humanity, my heart was fully filled with sympathy and condolence with the boy and my ignited anger and ill-feeling towards the tyrannous Malaysian Authority butcher could never calm down.

This is only the first case, how many more are going to be treated the same way? I am sure this is not an impasse stiuation, till the day comes when all of us consolidate our impetus and unite together to fight for our basic human rights.

Tel Aviv—Pretoria Axis

Recently the darling of NZ Truth, Mr Leo Durden, waxed eloquent in Salient's columns about NZUSA's purchase of an IATA agency because it could involve it with contacts with South Africa. Mr Durden was filled with "some horror" and he asked: "Do we have our own Watergate right here in NZUSA?" (Salient, August 29, 1977).

Mr Durden, as most of us will know, is a well known supporter of Zionism and apologist for Israeli policies of aggression in the Middle East. His horror would be more explicable it it were not for the fact that Israel and South Africa from a veritable axis of reaction, their common bond being the denial of elementary rights to the peoples who have had their homeland taken from them: the Palestinians in the case of Israel, the blacks in the case of South Africa.

South Africa was the only country to fully endorse Israel's attack on its Arab neighbours in the 1967 war. Israel is a big buyer of South Africa's diamonds. Excluding the arms trade, between 1968 and 1976 trade between Israel and South Africa increased from $9 million to $97 million.

Between 1973 and 1976 Israel and South Africa signed a series of agreements on co-operation in the military field. Recently the Director General of Israel's Military Industries Administration, Itzhak Ironi, announced that South Africa tops the list of Israeli arms buyers. The main items, bought by South Africa are Israeli-made Jericho and Gabriel rockets, aircraft aviation and electronic equipment and [unclear: missile]-carrying naval vessels. South Africa has manufactured for years the Israeli [unclear: VZI uvon] under licence. South African [unclear: siu]. Durban have launched manufacture of Dabur patrol boats under Israeli licence.

Between 1969 and 1972 Israeli arms slaes to South Africa grew sixfold, amounting to $20 million during the four years. In 1975 they topped $13 million. Vorster and Rabin signed agreements in April 1976 for South African investment in manufacturing military hardware in Israel.

Three years ago Vorster told Western newsmen that South African scientists had discovered a new cheap method of uranium enrichment and were starting the design of a major uranium enrichment complex. The Western press reported that Israeli scientists had helped them greatly in that. Is it too much to believe that Israel had a hand in the recent attempt by the South African racists to develop nuclear weapons?

South Africa and Israel regularly exchange military instructors and advisers and Israel shares with South Africa its mannuals and advisers dealing with anti-guerilla warfare.

In addition to growing trade and military ties. South Africa is increasingly exporting captial to Israel. There are a growing number of joint Israeli-South African enterprises and the two illegitimate regimes are partner in a massive bilateral technical assistance programme.

Mr Durden claims to oppose Israel's trading relations with South Africa? Does he oppose the Tel Aviv Pretoria Axis? Does he wonder why the two are linked?

Herrington I

In connection with Donald Beswick's letter (Sept. 5) about the Vatican's involvement in war crimes it should be noted the Vatican never severed its links with Pavelic. He died quietly of natural causes in the German Hospital in Madrid, receiving the personal benediction of Pope John XXIII at his deathbed in December 1959.

John also showed that he agreed with his predecessor's support of Stepinac by giving Stepinca the honour of a service at St Peter's in Rome, when he died in February 1960 though he wasn't a part of the Curia.

The present Pope worked in the Vatican Secretariat of State throughout the War and therefore would have known of the atrocities in Croatia and the Vatican's involvement. Despite this in the last month of Vatican II he announced to cheering bishops in an open session that he was initiating the steps to [unclear: beratify] Plus XII.

Friar O'Sullivan replies to Croatia letters

I would like to offer some observations on the situation of the Catholic Church in Croatia during World War II. and, specifically, to reply to the letters of Messrs. Beswick, Herrington and Pearce. I invite readers to examine the attitude of the Church to the Croation government, to the German and Italian authorities, to the Serbs, the Jews and the Communists.

Relations with the Croatian Government: Within three weeks of the new government's existince Archbishop Stepinac wrote to Pavelic protesting at some of its practices. He protested that people who were guilty of no personal crime were being sent to concentration camps, that marriages between Jews and Catholics were being forcibly broken up, and that the most essential of all human rights, the right to life, was being violated. He pointed out that these practices were driving people into the hands of the Partisana He knew the origin of these practices, as they were taken directly from Hitler's Germany, commenting "If there is here an interference of a foreign power in internal political life, I am not afraid if my voice and my protest carry even to the leaders of that power".

It was not long before the new government, for its own political reasons, began to try to force Orthodox Serbs to become Catholics. In July 1941 the Archbishop wrote again Pavelic, "No one can deny that terrible acts of violence and cruelty have taken place . . . the Church demands full respect for the human personality without regard for sex, religion, nationality or race, for all men are the children of God and Christ dies for all! The government's reaction to these statements of the Archbishop was to prohibit the printing of his sermons, and to threaten with execution the editor of a Catholic weekly who had printed one of them in defiance of the government order.

If the Archbishop was a supporter of government policy then what did he mean when he went, uninvited, into Pavelic's office and publicly challenged him "It is God's commandment, "Thou shalt not kill' "? Why was it that the Croatian Minister of the Interior complained to Abbot Marcone, the Apostolic Delegate to the Yugoslav Hierarchy, that "Archbishop Stepinac has never uttered a single word to show his adherence to the present government "? Why was it that Pavelic wrote to the Vatican in 1942 asking that "the Archbishop of Zagreb be persuaded to desist from his severe attitude towards us "? Why was it that later, on no less than three occasions, Pavelic asked the Pope to remove Stepinac from office? That hardly suggest complicity between Stepinac and Pavelic.

Relations with the German and Italian Authorities: As early as 1941, Stepinac wrote to Pavelic to complain about the German and Italian armies saying that "many Croatians can no longer tolerate the injustices of the occupation forces ". He wrote to the Italian representative in Zagreb complaining about atrocities committed against Croatians, and, in 1943, after further pressure on the government, he saw some result for his effort in a request from the Croatian government to the Germans to remove one of their divisions from the territory of Croatia.

The BBC, in a radio broadcast in the Serbo-Croat language, made this comment. "In Yugoslavia the Germans are making their persecutions harsher in order to break the courage of the Serbs, Croats and Slovnenes who are fighting for their liberation. According to reports from Zurich, the most recent victims of the Germans are 23 priests whom the Germans have arrested in Dalmatia. The priests referred in their churches to a sermon delivered recently by the Archbishop of Zagreb The priests said that the sermon was in accord with the spirit of the Catholic Church. The arrest of these priests provoked great anger among the people. Their fate in not known, but more serious news is awaited is it possible in view of all this that Archbishop was a Fascist who supported Hitler and Mussolini?

Relations with the Serbs: It is ironic that Stepinac is accused of complicity in the killing of Serbs, when, in 1942, in the government-controlled press of Croatia, he was constantly under attack for being "pro-Serbian". After all, the papers pointed out, he had appealed successfully for the lives of five Serbs condemned to death. What further proof could be needed?

Relations with the Jews: From the earliest days of the Croatian government Stepinac protested at the measures announced against Jews, reminding Pavelic that his own wife was a Jewwss. In a sermon on October 1941, he stated, "All people without exception, whether they belong to the race of gypsies or another, whether they be negroes or Europeans, whether they are detested Jews or proud Aryans, have the same right to say 'Our Father, who art in heaven'. . . . That is why the Catholic Church has always condemned, and condemns today as well, every injustice and every violence committed in the name of the theories of class, race or nationality. .... If the racist theories, which have no foundation, are to be applied without scruple, is there to be any security for any nation at all?........ No one has the right to kill or harm in any way those who beling to another race or nation".

This sermon had a very wide impact, being broadcast by Vatican Radio. The BBC, in a commentary, stated, "In the moral sphere the Axis have been dealt a heavy blow by the highest moral and spiritual power by the medium of the Vatican Radio. This blow was directed against Nazism and against its satellites, of whom Pavelic is one, who must do as they are told. The Archbishop delivered this sermon after the Ustashi government had ordered that the Nuremburg laws be applied to all Jews in the independent state of Croatia .... the most important prelate in Croatia has spoken out against the Ustashi authorities who imitate Nazi crimes. This expression needs no commentary".

Relations with the Communists: Archbishop Stepinac was not s communist and many of his sermons were directed at them no less than at Psvelic and the Ustashi. On more than one occasion he had warned Pavelic that his policies were driving people into the arms of the Communists. Such appeals fell on deaf ears, and Stepinac was himself accused by some of Pavelic's supporters of being a communist. They pointed out that he had called for reallocation of land, and for social reform, and insinuated that since the communists had made similar demands then he must be sympathetic to them. Since he had appealed successfully for clemency for communists awaiting execution, this was further evidence. Since he had taken 400 orphaned children of communist, or allegedly communist, parents into his care, this was more grist for their mill. In reality the alternative to fascism to which Stepinac pointed was not communism but Christianity.

Readers who have preservered in following this correspindence to date may have been struck by the abundance of apparently conflicting evidence. I would suggest to such readers that they re-read the letters of Messrs Beswick, Herrington and Pearce and look at their logic as much as at their history. Following their logic a crime which if carried out by the State in "a Catholic country" is the responsibility of the church Church. The fooishness of this "logic" can be seen clearly today if we look at South America. The majority of people there are Catholic, yet in many South American countries the Church is persecuted because of its support for social reforme and for human rights. Another argument (equally logical) is that if a Bishop receives and/or prays for a State official he thereby approves of his policies, and shares in respinsibility for them. The Pope met Brezhnev in 1967. Does that make him responsible for the Gulag Archipelago, or does it, perhaps, prove that Brezhnev is s Catholic? Another example of this "logic" is in G. Herrington's letter of September 12, where totally unrelated statements are placed together in such a way as to suggest that there is some link between them when. In fact, there is none.

Nonetheless the reader may feel that, with so much smoke around, there must be s bit of fire somewhere. There is. There was one priest whose nationalism was more important to him than his Christianity and who committed murders. He was excommunicated for it. If Bishops and priests had been involved in such crimes on a large scale, as has been suggested, then why would the Bishops, in May 1945, have issued this challenge. "The Catholics Bishops of Croatia are prepared and ready to have each individual case investigated by representatives of other nations and by an international committee. In this way the charge of war criminality will be proven a lie, and simply s means of exterminating those who oppose and want no part of Communism". The offer was not taken up. The last sentence of the Bishops' statement points to something significant. The Church was a thorn in the side of the growing comminist power in Yugoslavia as it had been, to Pavelio also. The Soviet Union and Tito, its ally, wanted to remove or at least discredit this position opposition. What better weapon was there than the charge of collaboration with Fascism? Indeed no sooner had the communists come to power than they began an intensive attack on the Church and particularly on priests. On July 21. 1945. Stepinac wrote to Vladimir Bakaric, President of the People's Republic of Croatia, that, "As statistics show, the clergy is fast disappearing from the surface of free life, either in the prisons or under the bullets of the firing squads What statistics? These were given by the Bishops in a Joint pastoral letter read in the churches on October 1945. They include 240 priests killed. 169 in prison, and 89 listed as missing—all from the diocese of Zagreb alone. At his trial, in September 1946, the Archbishop reported that the number of priests killed by the National Liberation Front was between 260 and 270. The reason is clear enough. The Church opposed (and opposes) communism and fascism, so it was attacked at different times by both groups, simply for the fact of being Christian.

At a glance at the "trial" of Archbishop Stepinac will show how comminist justice works. One of the Commisars of Justice described it, "In our People's Courts the procedure is simple, short and effective without any delays, oral and direct". As Belgrade Radio put it, "It is not important that the judges be professional; it is important that they have democratic ideas and are devoted to the Movement". Under such a legal system, in three days alone, 105 people were sentenced to death in Belgrade, Fourteen of the twenty defence witnesses called by Archbishop Stepinac were disallowed. The other six were allowed, although the judge introduced them by saying that they could not contribute anything to modify the substance of the indictment. Frequently the president of the court and the prosecutor were directing so many questions at Stepinac that he was cut off in mid-sentence. The prosecution lawyer spoke, by actual count, for 48 hours, while the defence lawyer was cut off after 20 minutes on the grounds that he was [unclear: unduly] prolonging the trial. That was Archbishop's Stepinac's "just" trial at which he was sentenced to 16 years imprisonment.

I will conclude with s quotation from the Serbain Orthodox Bishop. Dionisije Milivojevic, commenting on Stepinac's trial, "This trial was prepared in the political sphere. It was for the prupose of dividing the Catholic Church in Croatia from its leadership at the Vatican. Tito has openly expressed this prupose. The strategy, which definitely comes form the Kremlin in Russia, is to break the leadership of religion. It is to be noted that opposition to atheism is stronger when there is an outside leadership. I refer to the Pope. The trial was not based on justice, it was an outrage of justice. Tito's regime has no interest in justice. It seeks only to stifle opposition"! Readers will note that this statement comes form a leader of those whom the Church is accused of killing by the hundred thousand. It speaks for itself.

I believe that Messrs. Beswick, Herrington and Pearce owe an apology to the memory of Archbishop Stepinac wh6 died, still a prisoner in 1960.

One of this year's best letters

I would just like to say that the people who have been complaining about Salient this year are, in my humble opinion, a bunch of rotten sniveling ratbags. Salient is a wonderful newspaper, and I only wish they would give me a job on it.

Grateful Dead Reviewer complains

I wish to protest about Patrick O'Deas editing of my Grateful Dead review last week as his editing amounts to a misrepresentation of what I said.

I said that the track "Passenger" was similar to Fleetwood Mac of the 1971 circa. The absence of the words "of the circa" means that I think the track sounds like the [unclear: prenet] Fleetwood Mac which I do not think it does.

Finally I said that the orchestration on the title track (by Paul Buckmuster and the English Chorale) does not detract from the music but highlights and accentuates it, not that it detracts from it.

Tango

Thanks for your review of "Last Tango in Paris", the second I've read this year.

I don't agree that Jeanne's closing lines are pure B-grade thriller though they might be reminiscent of a pure B-grade thriller (whatever that is—something exceptional to be, so pure!). What they communicated to me was Jeanne's privileged position in society and how with Paul's death the door into a different and daring world had snapped shut, leacing her alone in her "niveau" of isolation, wealth, manners and boredom. Also, knowledge of her access to a gun was a necessary device to the plot's unfolding, rather, it seems to me, than reminiscent of a Hollywood of French New Wave thriller.

I absolutely agree that "Last Tango" is not erotic. It is completely engrossing. One's faze is riveted to the screen and during the showing come those odd moments of an almost alien sense of self-awareness. When the house light come back on at the films end and one walks around the streets again reality seems very strange, not from a sense of fantasy Just seen, but form the intensity of the film.

I conclude that the film is "great" whatever that means these days. (Perhaps not knowing, how can I judge?) What I would say then is that the impression this film creates is such that if one had to bet a sizeable sum it would be one of greats of fifty years on, then one would not be throwing sway ones money. All of which should make Bertolucci happy, though I don't think he reads Salient; since every artist (artist underlined), aims at making something great, something lasting, sometime.

Complaints about notices

I have been instructed by Sports Committee Motion 77/47 to write complaining about the non-publication of Sports Council Notices in "Salient".

The [unclear: 1st] notice was submitted on Tuesday of the penulitmate week of last term. You informed the chairperson that possibly the notice could not be fitted in the next issue of "Salient", but would certainly be printed in the following issue, due to come out i.e. the 1st week of this term.

This notice about the Blues Dine and Dance appeared in neither issue.

The 2nd notice was submitted by the Secretary on Wednesday morning of the 2nd week of term. It should have appeared in the "Salient" issue of the 3rd week. This notice concerned the Sports Council SGM to be held on Thursday September 15th.

This notice was also not printed. Both notices were personally handed to the Salient Staff—why were they not printed?

Salient is an uninteresting enough rag as it is—but if it doesn't even print student notices what the shit is it supposed to be doing.

Never a cross word

Please could you please put a crossword in your paper. It would be nice to do during Cafe 102. (That rhymes). Not too hard please sirs. And witty clues too madames. I like crosswords! Do you?

Looking forward to 1978

After two years in NZ I began to see new flourishing students activities coming into life in various campuses. I like to express my feelings and hope you will allow space for my thoughts.

1977 - A New Year of Growth in our Youth

By the end of Last Autumn yellow leaves began to leave it's year older trees, In Wellington we saw plenty since its very windy, It's getting cold yet friends from Christ church enthusiastically exclaimed, "they is no winter in Christchurch!"

I thought for a while, recalled my memories.

During May holidays friends in Wellington actively helped organised the remarkable ISC, NOSAC formed to expose the student cut-back hypocricy.

Friends from all over NZ actively participated WMSSA opened up the path of friendships and social understanding through "come awareness" and the remarkable song "Putera-Puteri", A closer community fostering, Don Franks enlightened us with Detente—"the two superpowers preparing for wars "we don't trust them any more!".

Soon the cutback campaign reaches its peak. Every overseas student now knows that despite plenty of unfilled vacancies in the NZ universities it's government implemented the slaughtering cut But $20 million-100% military expenses increase stationed in our land.

James Movick and Lisa Sacksen our hard working friends, you toured every campus informing students, exposing the government's fallacies, and the discriminatory Latos test, Even now the OSAC has eventually recommended for a reinstatement of 1976 Quota and no to cut-back.

CMS A and MUMA held their warmly participated Cultural Concerts, reminded us the beauty of SE Asian Cultures, and the fine works of the common folk.

The cultural concerts were very educational yet entertaining, some NZ friends told me joyfully "this is so colourful and rich in content, the song of friendship so beautiful."

Perhaps they will one day be able to learn more about our culture fully.

"Malaysia Digest" the Malaysia High Commision's publication telling students about Malaysia new buildings and the wooing of more foreign investors to have nice time plundering the cheap resources!

On the other hand there was the commemeration of the newly born "Malaysia Monthly Review" a student publication that studies the social problems of our country and remind us of our potential abilities to help contribute our part towards building a better society! With two detail magazines we are able to cultivate an analytical mind towards our Malaysian society apart from receiving a degree.

"How nice? Mountain slope, covered with snow, so crystal clear and bright!"

The garden flowers begin its colourfull bloom. Pink and white plum blossoms welcoming the golden spring!

Overseas students organisations spring up everywhere,

How educational, I enjoyed this wonderful year!

Many thanks to those who promoted such a healthy growth.

Well! end of the year examinations are near? Let's wish everyone successful in it and end 1977 with a fruitful year!

With enthusiasm and youthful vigour, let's look forward to another more meaningful year!

Hard Times in Hokianga

I was interested to see that Phillipa Smith has gone into print. I await "The Rise and Rise of a Young Nat" with eager anitcipation.

I am actually writing to comment in her statement that "the average yearly income figure quotes for the Hokianga seems reasonable". As a one-time resident of that part of the countryside I must first make it quite plain that the residents of the Hokianga are not, in general, full of strife and misery because of their low annual income. It happens that many of them have something in the manner of sensitivity to the social and physical environment, and thus would rather live in the Hokianga than in Auckland or Wellington.

Nonetheless, her assertion that "this is an area in which a Large number of pensioners live", suggests some confusion of her middle-class retirement havens. Hokianga is our subject, Phillipa dear, not Havelock North. There is a disproportionate percentage of young children as well as of old people (it is the school-leavers who are missing, gone south for jobs).

While Phillipa and her comrades campaign successfully for assistance to parents who want to send their children to WASPish private schools, the parents of the Hokianga cannot always afford good lunches and school uniforms. (True, both major parties are some what screwy-minded on the issue. The Far North continues to feature general political alienation).

I am not trying to make a case for government aid to the Hokianga. After all, uniforms are regimental, non-essential. I do not seek to draw inferences begrudging others their handouts (hardly anyone in the Hokianga pays taxes). My objection is to a Government that makes a policy of, and exercises its power in, perpetuating the social and class divisions rife in New Zealand.

Information of the Kidnapping of German Industrialist

Right country, Wrong Government

If the Government is unable to realize the hitherto unrealized fact that the abortion law(s) and recent SIS Amendment Bill are not just—implies that the Government is unable to realize. Implies, the Government is unable to realize an injustice. Implies, the Government is not just. Implies, the Government is injust.

But, democracy requires that there be justice, which implies, that the government is not only injust but undemocratic as well. But the government says it is just and democratic and the NZ people say they are not just and democratic The implication here is very serious; one is lying. The crunch question is, who is lying, the government the NZ people, the NZ people and the government, niether or both. Or who is telling the truth, if anybody actually is.

The NZ people hired the government, to carry out democracy, which implies that they also employed them to carry out justice. But the government, obviously is not doing this, because it believes the abortion and SIS laws to be just. Hence, who do we believe, the government or the NZ people?

We believe the NZ people to be democratic and just; but the government believes itself, to be equally democratic and just. Implication; that the government does not believe that we believe in ourselves, because it believes itself to be democratic and just.

This implies, that the government believes we are not democratic and just, because it is. Thus, the government believes us to be unjust and undemocratic.

Implication: The NZ people are the liars, because they are niether just nor democratic. Conclusion: The government is governing the wrong country.

Vacation pay rate

As a student who works in the Summer vacation for money to see me through the 'varsity year, I have a serious complaint to make regarding the office at varsity that deals with holiday employment.

My employer rang this office last vacation, offered a job for a student and asked the office what the going hourly rate of pay was for students jobs for X'mas 1976. He was quoted the unrealistic rate of $2.20 per hr. and I had to put up with this low rate due to the general shortage of jobs. For it, I had to travel 15 miles from Wellington every day. You can guess how expensive that was.

Seeing that I was paid in similar jobs at the rate of $2 per hr. in 1974 and $2.25 per hr. in 1975, I would like to know where the office got its figure for $2.20 per hr. for 1976.

Please be a bit more careful as it's the old student who suffers. I would also like an indication of the rate this year—$2.80—$3 per hr.?

This is a letter in support of the joint-action taken up by WMSSA Executive Committees over the 'save [unclear: the] 14 year old 'boy' issue.

I strongly agree with the view-point put forward [unclear: by ie] two committees that 'the death sentence on the boy is too harsh and that on humanitarian grounds we should try to save his life.

[unclear: As] students, we should try to identify the objective that the two committees are portraying Based on humanitarian ground, we can show our concern and support to the issue by signing in the forth-coming petition campaign.

It's very encouraging to see that the two newly elected committes are working together for the first time. The joint-effort over the issue is a good start. I really appreciate that, and I would like to send my heart-felt congratulations to them. I sincerely wish that the two committees can cooperate over more issues and establish a closer relationship with our student community here.

Lastly, I wish to share a message with WMSSA and our fellow students.

"Let's all unite, Let's all unite
Let's work together to reach our goal.
Strengthen ourselves through friendship,
unity and understanding.
A bright future we forsee!

As part of the campaign to save the life of 14 yr old Lin Hiang Seoh, I would like to dedicate the following lines to those who have a little conscience.

Action Now
Do you think
I don't want to speak out?
Do you think
I don't want to rebel?

Why in our 'democratic' nation
We can't voice our opinions
And exercise our basic human rights?

Now I see
A 14 yr old innocent boy
Handcuffed to the Court
And I hear
The heartless judge give his verdict—
Death!

How it shocks the workd!
Our people's hearts shatter
The death spell unfolds upon us
For the sake of our beloved people
And our future generations
Let's act now or never!

It is indeed a great shock to Malaysians everywhere to learn of the death sentence passed on the 14 yr old boy for possessing arms. The Malaysian Government has intensified its resolve to be more fascist by this inhuman act than ever.

The important question now is not the fact of the boy (and two others both aged 15 arrested on July 20 in Taiping alleged with control over 147 rounds of live ammunition) in possession of firearms but why he did so. This must surely be reflected in the policies of the Government for practising and perpetrating every king of injustice in the country from exploitation of the poor to downright racial discrimination to mention a few. Widespread dissatisfaction against government policies is so serious as to force even juveniles to take up arms to right whatever injustice that they feel has been imposed upon them through no falut of their own, be it real or imaginery.

The government has responded to this in a negative and fascist way by sentencing the boy to death. It chooses to be inhuman by disregarding all the ethics of a civilised society. Far from lowering dissatisfaction, it has encouraged it. By doing so, it has directly or indirectly acted as a recruiting agent for the Communist Party of Malaya.

Every effort must be made to pressurize the government to give the boy a royal pardon. MSA and MSS A have taken the right step by issuing a joint statement deploring the action. We hope NZUSA and other organizations will do the same.