Liberals Unite!

The obvious bias in the article on the front page of last week's Salient over rides any presence at constructive analysis and criticism. The writer (conveniently anonymous) twists the facts so the executive members are seen in as bad a light as possible, except two executive members who he seems particularly keen to flatter. This is very obvious in his paragraph on Neil Gray. The writer obviously does not like Neil Gray but cannot find anything derogatory to say about him so is reduced to a meaningless statement "seems at a loose end".

Gerard Sharrock is described as "investigating a couple of rock concerts but his half hearted efforts lack the necessary drive to create a cultural scene on a very much dead campus"

This is a bullshit analysis. The only fact it contains is that Gerard Sharrock has investigated two rock concerts, the rest is based on the writers subjective judgement which from the biased tone, as with the rest of the article lacks any attempt at objectivity.

This is not journalism, this is destructive muckraking. If the writer calls himself a Marxist he has certainly let the side down by pandering to the worst habits of the bourgeois press.

Mao Tse-Tung describes this type of liberalism as "to indulge in personal attacks, pick quarrels, vent personal spite or seek revenge instead of entering into an argument and struggling against incorrect ideas for the sake of unity or progress or getting the work done properly." (From Combat Liberalism).

Many of the executive members, vilified in the article, lack experience in student politics, but are genuinely concerned for students welfare. While there is benefit in constructively criticising the executive, there is little point in the kind of guttersnipe journalism seen on the front page of last week's Salient.

I would like to briefly reply to some of the accusations contained in this letter. The article was a combined effort of the editor and two of the stuff who felt that the Executive's activities needed examining for the benefit of the association as a whole. It is hardly in the interests of the Association to have an Executive where more than half of the members do nothing to initiate action on fronts which involve students.

You say that I flatter two Executive members and imply that this action is surreptitious in some way. I believe that the article gave credit where it was due. I have been in a position to observe the Executive since the beginning of the term and I think it is a fair assessment that to say that the President and Secretary have performed well if you disagree then I suggest you make it the subject of another letter.

The criticism of Gerald Sharrock was justified if you don't believe me then I suggest you consult the people who put a great deal of time and effort into Orientation. You say that the only factual criticism of Gerald is that he has investigated two rock concerts. I also added that his effort has contributed to a lack of a cultural scene on campus. This is not subjective judgement——it is clearly fact.

It is a hallmark of liberalism that people take political criticism in a personal way. My article was a specific political criticism of an Exec which was failing in its prime political role (viz. leading students on policy which is made at SRC). Executive members were credited with their positive contributions in the article. But we are aware that nearly anyone can put a leaflet out or 'assist' in some campaign or other and Salient expects the Executive members to do a little more than that.

I do not have a personal vendetta against Neil Gray. When I said that he was "at a loose end"" I meant (and the phrase is common enough) that he was unclear about what exactly he should be doing. He may have potential to be an excellent Exec member but as yet, he does not seem to have taken full advantage of his open portfolio as have Vice Presidents in the past.

While many Executive members have the welfare of Studass members at heart, so too do the majority of students at this University. The essence of this concern is practice (another excellent contribution to philosophy by the late Chairman Mao) and so far we have seen very little.

The article will encourage students to identify more closely to the activities of the Executive—as you already have. This can only be good.

I resent the implication of your letter but I hope that this will not deter you from contributing your ideas on the subject in the future.—Ed

Thai on Thailand

Concerning your article on Thailand of March 21. I would like to point out that many important points have been left out (intentionally or not). October '73 was a united reaction towards the military regime and together with the factionalization of the top section of the military and finally the intervention of the king, resulted in the "tyrant trio" being kicked out.

However October 76 was quite different this time the students were factionalized. They were divided into the rightist faction of mostly vocational students, "redguars" who have played a very significant part in October '73. The other faction was the more socialist learning but by no way communistic, composing mainly of university students.

One taboo in Thai society is the monarchy and the mistake of the university students was here, in one of their satirical protest play featured a man being hanged, he happened to look very much like the crown prince. The monarchy is held in very high respect in Thai society. The military and the right leaning newspapers lost no time in branding this act as evidence of the students being infiltrated by communist elements out to destroy the monarchy. The reaction was blood thirsty, mobs of vocational students and some members of the public stormed the university. The military took that opportunity to stage a coup, and crushed down on the students. Thus the sad end to Thai democracy.

Robinson will return!

Is it true that Bruce Robinson has given up on the Anti-Apartheid debate after the cutting criticism from the overseas students and James Robb's prosaic masterpiece?

More on the MSA Sketch

MSA reply to Criticism

As the committee of the Wellington Malaysian Students Association, it is our responsiblity to defend the good name of the committee and the many conscientious students who have been involved, one way or another, in our community activities. Our Association is not a political party nor a political organ, and as such there is never any intention on our part to deliberately misrepresent anyone or any group of people. If the critics in your paper last week had listened more attentively to the narrator, they would have heard her saying "..I can assure you that it (the scene) is not all that typical nor difficult as it appears to be.."

This refers to tourists having language or communication problems when having meals in a multi-racial country like Malaysia, and which formed the basis of the light dramatized sketch.

Our Association is a group of voluntary community workers. What we are trying to do is to create as many opportunities as possible, for Malaysians, Singaporeans and other interested persons, to interact with each other. Simultaneously, we are also trying to provide an atmosphere whereby we can all realise and share our talents or capabilities for the benefit of the community.

It it regrettable that the sketch has been read through a narrow and politically tinted glass. What is even more regrettable is that such criticisms may stifle other people from participating in such healthy non-academic activities; activities that are natural and normal to people like us if we were, for example, in the University of Malaysia.

We have already suffered enough of the social ostracization here in New Zealand, and further criticisms like these does nothing but demoralise well-meaning people who have sacrificed their time and efforts to promote a richer and more meaningful life here in the campus, or Wellington for that matter.

What keeps us going is our ideals and we will continue to work as hard and as tirelessly as before. And because we know we have done no wrong, we are confident that many of the students here in the campus support us in the activities we have undertaken.

The squatters by Lat

I'll start off by saying that I did not expect a Marxist class analysis from slapstick comedy. And alt those people who wrote those immensely sympathetic M'sia—I have one questioned to ask them. What are they going to do when they go back? Join the system I suppose. The letter-writers of sympathy better realize that the real rests to their beliefs lies in Action back home. Fat white S. Africans can write bleedingly sympathetic letters, too, you know.

Repressed countries do not need sympathy (let alone sympathetic letters). Patronizing does not aleviate pain and hunger. As it is, liberal pakehas are doing more than enough in the direction of sympathy, patronage and endless discussion about injustice and Marx (with coffee breaks, of course).

The comedy was purely slapstick devoid of any political content—that was fairly obvious. Yet phrases like "misled our Kiwi friends" or "bad impression and distorted picture portrayed to our Kiwi friends" are used. It all stinks of a terrible colonial hangover that the sympathetic letter writers seem to suffer from. This idea that we "owe" pakehas anything is just not on. I am not interested in presenting a "good image" to pakehas, or measuring myself on their terms.

And this big hang-up about cutting throats - I only wish that we engage more in such practices. The 3rd World has had it's throat cut for a long time (it's still going on) by the White World with all the rape and plunder that our countries had to go through, we have some of our people trying to "impress" Kiwis—such a sad state of affairs. Imagine trying to get a liberal well-fed pakeha to understand what hard-life is all about in this land of milk and sheep. Then, all we'll get is sympathies (well meant, of course) which makes me sick. I will not write about hard life of Malaysian (or any) working classes, and then fool myself to believing that I Feel for the Masses. I rather wait for the real test (which is not in N.Z.). I leave the wanking to liberals.

It is a democratic association, to if you are not happy with it why not contribute something by turning up at the next meeting and be there on election day, do something constructive rather than negatively criticising everything MSA does. And when you do, come up with some alternatives.

You have the power to change the Association!

All of us, I am sure, realize the true situation in Malaysia and the third world in general. I don't think we should be overly concerned that one mere sketch will destroy the understanding of our cultures by N.Z. students. Give them some credit for being intelligent enough to realize it's only a crazy sketch, nothing more!

The hawkers back home would probably be the first to appreciate this point for they understand the value of laughter in the face of pressures, for how else could we keep our sanity.

I say to you, get out of your political shell, don't keep seeing the trees and missing the Forest. They love Malaysia just as much as you do, give them a chance.

I think that there has been much misunderstanding and thus confusion over the staging of a sketch by MSA during the International Evening. Basically, those who criticized the sketch concentrated on two issues. One, whether the sketch was in fact a typical scene of Malaysia and two, whether it is morally right to rip-off the tourist.

I do not in the least question the typicality of the sketch. The sketch did potray to me an everyday scene in Malaysia. It was not totally divorced from the cartoons created by that increditbly perceptive Malaysian cartoonist and socio-political commentator Lat. Lat's distintively Malaysian humor is much loved by the Malaysian public. But the sketch obviously failed to match up to the political standards of Lat's cartoons.

It is at this point that I agree with the critics, that the sketch flirted completely with humor and consequently failed to add the vital and, may I add, obligatory political depth. Political commentary should have been its basis with humor touched on strategically to make the point more cogent. This would have pulled the sketch away from being just a mere comedy to a critical social commentary. It is here that the sketch failed, and failed miserably. As a side commetary, I think that the person who put the heading 'Comedy or Culture' to one of the letters needs educating i.e. that comedy is an important part of any culture and is not opposed to it.

However, perhaps this confusions can be further clarified, since all the critics are so concerned about what their "kiwi friends' would say, by referring to the introductory remarks made by the compere of the International Evening—Lindy Cassidy. I know of no other 'kiwi friend" who is more concerned and dedicated to the workers struggle in Malaysia than Lindy Cassidy. And she, as a tourist, has actually so journed in Malaysia for a few months and has even enjoyed Lat's cartoons. She in introducing the sketch to the international audience said that it was "a very witty sketch potraying a typical Malaysian scene". What other "kiwi friend" has more qualifications to say this—I ask you?

And now we come to the question about the tourist. The attitudes of the critics towards 'ripping them off would have earned them commendation medals and a bonus pal on the back from the National Tourist Board of Malaysia. The tourist industry is a cancer worm to any culture. Look at Bali, Fiji, Hawaii etc. Cultures ire diluted, bastardized and sold in the open market like any other commodity. Selling the very soul of ones country for the sake of foreign exchange is to me the lowest level of moral debasement and economic dependence upon the capitalist system. This is precisely why progressive countries like China do not encourage the tourist industry despite their needs for foreign exchange.

I, therefore, don't see why we should protect these cultural vultures who come with their glistering, jutting cameras,—the genitals with which they rape our cultures. I would strongly recommend that our hawkers instead of metaphorically cutting the tourists throat translate that into literal action. If the British syphon off 220 million pounds every year from my country, I don't see why the Char Koay Teow hawker should not charge a thousand pounds for a single bowl of that delightful dish.

May I further suggest that the concern and preoccupation on the part of the critics as regards what their "kiwi friends' will say or think of Malaysians is reflective of the colonial hangover that grips their minds. I would strongly recommend a traditional cure—a vigorous cerebral massage with Minyak Angjn and a quick lobotomy by a Bomoh.

Sermon on the Mount

As a resident of Salamanca Road I would like to express my utter disgust at the proposed plan to close off Mount Street. In fact I will go further, I am not happy with the scheme. I suggest that a much better place for the building of the alleged motels would be in Shell Gully.

Bookcentre in a Mess?