page 3

Jack speaks his mind

"Gentleman" Jack Marshall lived up to his nickname when he spoke "his mind" in the Union Hall last Wednesday. His manner was polite, and he attentively listened to questions put to him. But the content of his speech showed what a conservative politician he is.

Most of Marshall's speech was about his six day visit to China three months ago. He began by conceding that his visit had been too short for him to be an expert, and he preceeded to give a conventional, rather facile interpretation of Chinese society.

China, to Marshall, is a society of massive uniformity, everyone conforming to the party line. This he saw at the most superficial level of everyone wearing identical clothing—except for the Chinese government minister he met whose clothes, while of the same cut as any peasants, were of "finer material"

According to Jack, there is great uniformity of expression (though not necessarily of thought) in China: "What Mao thinks today, 800 million Chinese will think tomorrow". This is the result of "thought control", through complete control by the state of all communication outlets—press, radio, posters and meetings organised by the local party cadre. Marshall claimed that no opposition view is allowed to be expressed through any of these.

He described his visit to a commune of 40 thousand acres, "a large farm", with a population of 50 thousand people scattered in villages throughout. Everyone was employed, well fed and clothed. Rut no one can change their jobs or leave the region without the cadre's permission. This is the way, Marshall said, the state controls the people—by being the sole source of food and shelter.

He admitted that the result of communist government in China is a rising standard of living, with adequate housing and food. Health and education services provide the minimum requirements necessary. However he compared the Chinese standard of living with that in Indonesia—a country under a different system of government, which he believes is not completely democratic but has the potential to be.

This evoked a justifiably angry reaction from the audience. Asked to define 'standard of living', Marshall said the Chinese were materially secure but less free. In Indonesia, there was poverty, but more freedom.

A speaker from the floor quoted Amnesty figures of 600,000 prisoners in Indonesia jails—was this freedom?

Marshall did not deny the existence of political prisoners in Indonesia, but said there is greater personal freedom. For example there are four political parties in a Parliament which has the power of debating.

When asked if he had spoken to any political prisoners or anti-government people, Marshall replied that he had met members of the political parties. Although Suharto and the members of his government make and carry out the laws, at least the rights of the Parliament are guaranteed. Marshall apparently could not see that the right to debate (but not to take action) is a very limited, shallow freedom. Especially when those likely to provide real opposition in such debates are beyond the political pale, in Suharto's jails.

When Marshall was asked if he would prefer freedom to going hungry, he chose freedom—an indication of how many times he has been starving.

Anne Gilbert, who visited China last year, asked about his version of the campaign against Confucious. This campaign indicated the existence of debate in China, which Marshall had denied by his phrase "uniformity of expression" Anne pointed out that Confucious represented a slave philosophy. Jack retorted that this is the "communist line" and in China, no-one defended Confucious. A recent visitor to China interjected that he had seen open debate with both sides represented, on a street-corner. And he understood the language.

Peter Wilson asked how the Chinese leaders in Peking controlled 800 million people—by a system of pulleys and levers? The debate and struggle still continuing in China today is about class. Peter asked if Marshall though NZ was a class society.

Before addressing himself to the question Marshall said how wonderful it was that people could advocate such things. Then he patronisingly said that in ten years Wilson will have forgotten these things and settled down.

Class in NZ only existed in the imaginations of a minority, Marshall continued. NZ is a country of equality of opportunity.

Although statistics show that only 5% of children from unskilled or semiskilled backgrounds (while comprising 40% of the population) will reach university, Marshall still talks about equality of opportunity. There are no class divisions in NZ, he said. Apparently oblivious to the contradiction, he later stated that the National Party was working to end class division in NZ.

When asked about the role of trade unions here, Jack replied that there should be fair wages and adequate rewards for skill and qualifications. Diane Hooper angrily asked why women don't get a fair wage for work in the home. Again patronising, Marshall replied that women enjoy their housework and "you will too when you get married and settle down".

The conclusions Marshall gave about China, that the "human spirit" would always prevail, and because of this, the Chinese people deprived of their "freedoms" would overthrow those responsible, were also examined by the audience.

Marshall was asked if he had met anyone in China who objected to the restrictions on travel The questioner, another recent visitor to China, said that his overwhelming impression had been that the people, contrary to the tenseness associated with suppressed people were happy—obviously enjoying life.

Marshall agreed that the people are better off than before. But said they won't continue to allow their "freedom" to be suppressed.

Yet he was still speaking in abstraction. When asked to define these "freedoms" he cited freedom of speech, of assembly, from fear. Marshall apparently ignored the growing encroachment upon these rights in NZ. As several speakers from the floor pointed out, as well, in NZ "freedom of choice" allows people to be alcoholic, be subject to unscrupulous advertising, and allows monopolies to force the small businessmen out. In our present status—obsessed society it also allows people the freedom to be rich by exploiting the poor.

Peter Wilson, also described the arming of China's population into local militias—something that Thieu, or Park or Suharto or Tun Razak (whose regimes NZ assists) would fear to do.

How, then, can Marshall assert that the Chinese people are manipulated by their leaders from the top, when Mao Tsetung insists that the people be given the weapons that could be employed to overthrow the government?

Marshall's attitude to communism was further illustrated when a question was asked about NZ's entry into Vietnam, under a National Government. Marshall believes that the various estimates of the percentage of the Vietnamese people who supported communism (80—95%) are irrelevant. Basically the reason for entry was the necessity "to halt the advance of Communism in South East Asia". If it hadn't been stopped in Vietnam, he continued. Indonesia would be communist today. This dramatic statement might provoke worried glances at the Lions or Rotary meeting but in the Union Hall it just brought laughter.

Marshall appears unable to conceive of democracy other than the two party system which merely gives people the choice of which group of representatives of the ruling class will misrule them. But confronted with questions from the floor, which exposed serious contradictions in what he said cracks appeared in the veneer of Marshall's interpretation of reality. Students attending the forum could see the way in which people such as Marshall misrepresent not only society in socialist countries but also in New Zealand.