General Election

Press, Volume CVI, Issue 31226, 25 November 1966, Page 12

General Election

Sir, —It is disturbing when the Prime Minister and others continue using words about Vietnam like “treaty” and “allies,” which imply some obligation, when there is none. Challenges on the point are ignored and the statements repeated. Making war is the most drastic step a nation can take. A democratic government should ascertain beforehand the temper of the nation, preferably by Parliamentary debate. This applies particularly where military action contravenes international obligations and a substantial section of the community argues an opposing case. In legal language, the onus of proof lies on those advocating force, and if they cannot produce overwhelming national unity on the question, they should draw back from war. The National Government has failed to follow this elementary procedure, and some who have often voted National have had their opinion of its integrity and good judgment seriously damaged.—Yours, N. H. BUCHANAN. November 24, 1966.

Sir, —We live in strange days! The Prime Minister commends law-dodging broadcasters for their initiative; the Minister of Broadcasting calls pirates his friends; and now the Minister of Justice is undisturbed by a reported loophole in liquor law. The restriction (no drinks after noon on election day) has for many years upheld voting as a sober business. Mr Hanan says it is out of tune with the times: “I am inclined to think that uniformity is desirable.” Does Mr Hanan mean that the newly discovered loophole will be blocked, thus bringing clubs into line with other traders? Or that a widened loophole will give hotels and restaurants similar advantages? I fear the latter, since recent legalised liquor selling on Sundays, Good Friday, and Anzac Day. Will Saturday’s increased beer flow add anything to the poll, either in extra or more enlightened voters? Only the befuddled would sav so.—Yours, etc.. PHILLIP RAMSAY. November 24, 1966.

Sir, —If Mr Handyside has faithfully reported the answers given by the Minis-

ter of Defence, 1 cannot see what fuller answers he expects. Mr Handyside is a Christian pacifist of experience and strong conviction. We can hardly expect him to view these issues with an open mind. The blunt truth of “revolutionary people’s war,” as outlined by Mao in preference to a large-scale conflict, has now become an academic argument for men like Mr Handyside. There are those of us who feel this kind of warfare should be opposed on the grounds that it is unacceptable to a free society. It is an expression of a third world war, even if in fact it is not global; there is little choice but to fight it on its own terms, until they are forced to the conference table. Mr Handyside would do well to see the sin of the world caused by neither Communist nor capitalist but the Godlessness of men.—Yours, etc., FRANK G. GLEN, Methodist Minister (Chaplain to the Forces). November 23, 1966.

Sir, —I would comment on the open letter to the Ministei of Defence by the Rev. A. J Handyside. There is an urgent need for a groundswell of men and women who will live to answer the weaknesses and needs of men and of nations and enlist everyone in creating a society that works. Moral confusion, drift, and compromise produce, among other things, one illegitimate baby in every nine, one pregnant bride in every four, one crime every four minutes. The “shades of gray” in our modern society will be dispelled as these things are honestly faced and we all accept responsibility for them. It is too easy and too cheap to just criticise others. God needs us all in his society; North Vietnamese, South Vietnamese, the U.S.A., China; every single soul and every nation. Our nation could give a great aim and a satisfying purpose to mankind if we decided now to live it, which is the programme of Moral Re-Arma-ment.—Yours, etc., ARTHUR E. BINGHAM, Wellington. November 24, 1966.

Sir,—The Government publication, “Vietnam —Question and Answer,” states: “President Diem in 1961 appealed to the United States for help. The United States had until that date scrupulously observed the limitations imposed by the provisions of the 1954 cease fire relating to foreign military aid to Vietnam. . . .” In 1954 an international supervisory commission on Vietnam was set up by the Geneva Conference to supervise the agreements on Vietnam. The commission comprised representatives of India, Canada and Poland. Extracts from the reports of this commission are as follows: Sixth Report, 1955/56, para. 53. “U.S. naval and military planes continue to enter and leave Vietnam without notification.” Para. 56. “Inspection teams noticed war material being brought into South Vietnam without notification. Teams not allowed to check.” Seventh Report, 1956/57, para. 51. “Many instances of the arrival of military personnel and war material (in South Vietnam) were reported by the commission’s teams.” What is the truth?—Yours, etc., L. G. EADE. November 10, 1966. [The Prime Minister was invited to comment on this letter. No reply has been received.]

Sir, —The Prime Minister denies using the External Affairs Department for political purposes. The occasion was a booklet, “Vietnam— Question and Answer.” This is difficult to believe in view of an article last February by the same department on Rhodesia—a leprous document, slanted to a degree, full of half-truths and distortions of fact, and with no mention of the Rhodesian side of the question. It was obviously produced as propaganda for his misguided policy on Rhodesia in order to conceal the true facts on Rhodesia from the people of New Zealand. Members of Parliament have made reference to this article as their source of information when discussing facts and issues on Rhodesia. At this stage it is necessary to say that the Aid Rhodesia Movement gives its full support to Government policy on Vietnam, but is unable to understand why the New Zealand

Government fights communism in Vietnam, but supports it in Africa.—Yours, A. ELDERTON, For the Aid Rhodesia Movement. November 9, 1966. [No reply has been received from the Prime Minister, who was invited to comment on this letter.] Sir, —After reading Mr Eyre’s remarks regarding Oriental people, as quoted in this morning’s issue, 1 feel that, as a New Zealander, 1 want to apologise to every Asian person in this country, in fact to every Asian person anywhere. Does Mr Eyre really believe that Asian people do not suffer, that their children do not suffer? If he has nothing better to offer us than a “basinful of bombs” as a solution to the tragedy and suffering in Vietnam, then I do earnestly hope that Mr Eyre never gets his way.—Yours, etc., MURIEL MORRISON. November 24, 1966.

Sir, —Conscience compels this protest against Mr Eyre’s statement that Oriental people are different from ourselves, and implying that the bombing of these people is not like bombing people “like ourselves.” Many who heard the broadcast from the hospital ward in Vietnam can assure Mr Eyre that the piteous crying of the children sounded just like the crying of suffering children anywhere, and so moved people that we oppose Mr Eyre’s idea of a “basinful of bombs tomorrow.” In the name of Christ and hi.inanity, we say, “No; Mr Eyre!”— Yours, etc.,

N. BECK. November 24, 1966.

Sir. —When I was a child somebody told me that the worm on the fish hook was different from us. It could not feel pain. Somehow I could never quite believe it. But perhaps Mr Eyre believes it, and so he makes the interesting statement that “Oriental people are different from ourselves.” So very convenient.—Yours etc. FRANCES CRESSWELL. November 24, 1966.

Sir,—We have read with shock and horror the report of Mr Eyre’s statement that he would “give North Vietnam a basinful of bombs tomorrow morning if he had his way,” and, when asked, “What about the children?” his reply, “We are not dealing with ourselves. We are dealing with Oriental people. They are different from ourselves.” We reaffirm our belief in the equal value of all human life.—Yours etc. G. A. TETLEY AND 27 OTHERS. November 24, 1966.

[ln fairness to Mr Eyre, attention is drawn to a report today in which he suggests that his remarks were misconstrued.—Ed., “The Press.”]

Sir, —I hope the National Party’s defeat will be convincing, because, in all areas where I have an interest, it has fallen short of making a reasonabe effort to effect improvements during its terms of office. These areas are mental health, including the welfare of retarded and disturbed children, medical services and social security, particularly for the aged and handicapped who have been so hard hit by galloping inflation, and foreign affairs, supporting allies who choose terror instead of United Nations action. I hope Labour will win because, in my lifetime, all the worth-while legislation to recognise human values has been planned by the social idealists in that party, often facing bitter opposition from members of the present minority Government, which holds office through the existence of a small party of fanatical theorists, repeatedly rejected, but, conveniently for National, stubborn as mules.—Yours etc. VARIAN J. WILSON. November 24, 1966.

Sir, —The claims made by the candidate for Fendalton, Mr Lake, shed an interesting light on the conflict in Vietnam, interesting because of their apparent incompatibility with the reasons which prompted American intervention. To quote President Johnson (May, 1965, the day before a request for 700 million dollars to finance the war in Asia), he said, “I have seen the glories of art and architecture, and moun-

tain and river. I have seen the sunset on the Jungfrau and the full moon rise over Mont Blanc. But the fairest vision on which my eyes ever looked was the flag of my country in a foreign land.” Mr Lake insists his party is not seeking a European empire or even a sphere of influence in Asia, but why are we providing military assistance for the use of a country which is?— Yours, etc., R. B. WILDE. November 23, 1966.

Sir, —Electors who feel there is a danger of New Zealand slipping from the United States’ orbit will be reassured upon reading Mr Lake’s latest remarks on Vietnam issues. A third of this declaration comes word for word from a speech to the United Nations General Assembly by the United States Ambassador, Mr Arthur Goldberg, on September 22, 1966. Although it has been necessary to substitute “Nev. Zealand” and “European” for “American” the commas are still in the identical places. Is this a coincidence? Were the LakeGoldberg letters culled directly from the “Readers’ Digest” without connivance? The fact that the United States was responsible for ensuring the non-observance of the Geneva accords is conveniently overlooked in these utterances. Historians may be excused if there is confusion between these and the words of a certain American Senator whose name has similar connotations. —Yours, etc., PETER STOCKER. November 23, 1966.

Sir, —If we are to fulfil our treaty obligations in Vietnam, perhaps we should know what those obligations are. As a member of the United Nations our primary duty is to its Charter. Article 2 (4): “All members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force. . . .” Article 39: “The Security Council shall determine the existence of any breach of the peace, or act of aggression, and shall decide what measures shall be taken to restore international peace and security.” I' our S.E.A.T.O. and A.N.Z.U.S. Treaties are in conflict with this they are invalid, as Article 103 states: “In the event of a conflict between the obligations of the members of the United Nations under the present Charter and their obligations under any other international agreement, their obligations under the present Charter shall prevail.” Thus our treaty obligations are to refrain from the use of military force except through the United Nations. — Yours, etc., H.C. November 24, 1966.

Sir, —“Enzedder” agrees that inflation is the enemy of all, including public superannuitants, which is precisely my view and why adjustments to offset inflation should be made equitably by means of the age benefit and universal superannuation. One could understand a welfare committee of the Pension Fund having powers to assist long-retired members now in difficulties through inflation, but a blanket increase as intended by the Labour Party is wrong and compounding inflation. Mr Kirk has kept very quiet about this during his campaign, as he has obviously yielded to a pressure group. He apparently accepts that inflation will be a normal part of our future, as by his intended legislation a public servant retiring this year will receive each year for the next 12 years an automatic 2 per cent increase in his pension to offset inflation. — Yours, etc., _ R.P. November 24, 1966.

Sir, —As a widowed war pensioner (unable to work) on a life disability pension of £5 12s 6d a week. I seek from the leaders of the National and the Labour Parties, answers to the following questions: (a) To Mr Holyoake: is he, along with his party, proud of the attention the above pensioners have received from them and do they intend to increase the pension to somewhere near a living wage? Leave charity out of it and do not pass the buck to the Returned Services’ Association, (t) To Mr Kirk; what has his party in mind should it become the Government? There are many like me throughout New Zealand who would like

these questions answered before election day.—Yours, WAR PENSIONER. November 8, 1966.

[A spokesman for the Prime Minister’s office states that the National Government has a good record of liberalising and increasing war veterans’ allowances and widows’ pensions. In 1963, for instance, the Government reached agreement with the R.S.A. for a two-yearly review of rates of disablement and war widows’ pensions, taking into account movements in the consumer price index. This resulted in an increase in 1965. The matter will again be reviewed next year. This is in addition to periodic increases in war veterans’ allowai ces in line with increases in social security benefits.] [Mr Kirk replies as follows: “The Labour Party believes that benefits payable should be sufficient to provide standards of comfort which are reasonable in relation to general community standards. The actual rate of benefit will be determined after a thorough nation-wide investigation into the actual living costs incurred by single and married beneficiaries. A special cost-of-living index that faithfully records the actual living costr of beneficiaries will also be established. All benefits subject to a means test will then be automatically adjusted upward in accord with movements in the index. To ensure that some relief is extended, an interim increase in benefits related to further movements in prices and wage adjustments will be made as from March 31, 1967.”]

Sir, —Having seen and heard Mi Kirk, I am convinced that he has not heard or has not heeded what every schoolboy is told: that no Government can play Father Christmas except at the expense of the taxpayer. Apparently he has not heard either the old saying, “In vain is the snare set in the sight of the bird.” Although his party protests that they do not take orders from the tyrannical Federation of Labour, it is surprising how quickly they line up when the whip cracks. — Yours, etc., TRUST THEM NOT. November 23, 1966.

Sir, —The letter by “Pro Bono Publico” is this morning’s paper should spur all women to vote on Saturday. We should remember the words of the late Dame Hilda Ross: “Women can get anything done if they stick together.” That is where women’s organisations could help. Has any one of them ever protested about increasing drinking hours? Perhaps they are all of the same mind as one organisation I know of: “We must not meddle in anything political.” Increased drinking hours will mean unhappiness for many families and more crime and road accidents everywhere. Let us show what we women can do on Saturday.—Yours, etc., GRAN. November 24, 1966.

Sir, —“Wise Elector” need not waste words defending Tory policy, long obsolete but now completely obsolete. The policy of money in the hands of a few. conscription to wars to defend wealth and property and generally a law of the jungle, is entirely anti-God. Socialism is the new world order, evolution and Christianity put into practice.— Yours, etc., CANDID. November 24, 1966. Sir,—Regarding the use of the word “welsher” in this election Varian J. Wilson has instructed that it is inapplicable because it means thief. Other dictionaries print that it is synonymous with black-leg. This gives me the following association of ideas: black-leg labour, New South Welsh watersiders founding the New Zealand Labour Party, the black looks of Labour’s “new look,” a union member of A.N.Z.U.S. declaring the job black if its blackleggers are elected to misgovern, a black future of instruction to have association of red ideas only. However, election day has the looked-for silver lining.— Yours, etc., A. B. CEDARIAN. November 24, 1966.

Sir, —In a North Island address Mr Eyre, Minister of i Defence, is reported to have

said that he would “give North Vietnam a basinful of bombs tomorrow morning if he had his way.” When an interjector asked about the possible, fate of children Mr Eyre said, “We are dealing with Oriental people; they are different from ourselves.” Could I, on behalf of the fine New Zealanders of Oriental extraction that 1 know and who dearly love their children and rear them with the utmost care, protest most strongly at the deplorable lack of humane feeling displayed by the Minister of Defence.—Yours, COSMOSIAN. November 24, 1966. Sir,—This Government was asked by the City Council to make things easier for the ratepayers. They ignored it. Now I am voting Labour, for they have said they would do something to ease the burden of the rates. I am trusting they will carry it out.— Yours, etc., RATEPAYER. November 23, 1966.

Sir, —When will Mr Holyoake and his “Friends of America Society,” the National Party and its supporters, realis that pouring of McCarthyis that pouring of McCarthyVietnam as “Communists” is doing National’s already-slim election prospects more harm than good? It only makes people sit up and realise this organisation exists, and when someone learns the true facts about Vietnam they realise that America, or New Zealand, has no right to be there. All National can do is to trot out emotional, dogmatic rubbish such as, “We must stop Communist aggression,” or “If we don't fight now on the Mekong we will be fighting in 10 years on the Waimakariri.” Communist aggression is a myth. America is trying to form a sphere of influence in South-east Asia, and Mr Holyoake, like Mussolini with Germany, is trying to get his share by following blindly behind America. —Yours, etc., STUDENT. November 23, 1966.

Sir, —Mr Cracknell’s summarising of the position of farmers today is correct. As an ex-farmer I can verify all he has said regarding the lack of incentive for farmers to increase their production. 1 gave up when the tax got to the stage where 1 was losing 12s in the pound. Farming to me is more than an occupation. It is a way of life and I would willingly return to it tomorrow if I could be sure of a true and just reward for my labours. With my money invested in town property, 1 am still being slugged by the Taxation Department, but at least I am not working the long hours; nor am I subject to adverse weather or stock losses. Rising taxation is no incentive for farmers to increase production.—Yours, EX-FARMER. November 23, 1966.