PUBLIC OPINION

Waikato Times, Volume 122, Issue 20510, 28 May 1938, Page 11

PUBLIC OPINION

As expressed by correspondents, whose letters are welcome, but for whose views we have no responsibility. Correspondents are requested to write in ink. It is essential that anonymous writers enclose their proper names as a guarantee of good faith. Unless this rule is complied with, their letters will not appear.

AN IMPOSSIBLE POLICY.-

(To the Editor) Sir, —Ministers have repeatedly stated that they have no intention of nationalising the land, that property rights will he respected, etc. They have as frequently stated that their policy Is the nationalisation of production and distribution. Can you Inform me how- they can nationalise production without nationalising the soli, the source of all production? They have made some progress with the nationalisation of distribution by acquiring a number of transport services. Will not the nationalisation of production entail the acquisition of farms?—l am, etc., CURIOUS. Hamilton, May 26.

MINISTERIAL PROMISES

(To the Editor) Sir.—Ministers, recognising that the farmers are dissatisfied with the treatment meted out to them, are endeavouring to mollify them with further promises. These, no doubt, many producers will be inclined to accept at their face value, despite the fact that experience has proved that Ministers' promises resemble piecrust In the ease with which they are broken. Sales tax abolition, exchange adjustment, and numerous other easements were the themes of lavish promises before the last election. None has been redeemed, but the load has been greatly added to. If producers and others are wise they will refuse to he lured by husks. A few grains of performance are preferable to many bushels of chaff, which is twisted and twirled by every zephvr.—l am, etc., H. E. PERWIN. Hamilton, May 26.

NATURAL ELECTORAL SYSTEM

(To the Editor) Sir,—The letter by “Janus” is a rather thought-provoking contribution to a highly-important topic, that of our electoral system. I can hardly accept his “way out,” to vote for character in the absence of agreement to a reasonable extent on policy, though that would be the best advice if It were compulsory to vote. However, I am not so sure that one should vote at all where one is wholly opposed to all the policies offering, as a vote in such circumstances is misleading. I am inclined to think one should practise non-co-operation, or passive resistance, and refrain from voting at all. This would at least Indicate to the politicians of all colours that none of their policies was acceptable.

Passing from the passive to the active stage, I quote this from the letter of “Janus”: “I regard the Parliament of the country as a sort of board of directors. They have to handle the business of the country, and we want the very best men we can get for the work.”

Indeed we do, but we go a most ridiculous way about getting these best men, and “Janus,” did he but realise It, has stumbled upon the remedy 1 How do we elect a board of directors? The process is that all the shareholders in a particular concern elect their directors, usually not a full board at once, but half, or some proportion, a number retiring each year, and generally eligible for re-election. In that way the very best men nre ordinarily available to conduct the affairs of the company, and there is seldom any violent upset involving a radical change of policy. Well, as Parliament “have to handle the business of the country,” why not elect them along business company lines, instead of by this eternal and stupid struggle of the Ins and the Outs? We should adopt the corporative system, without the dictatorship at the top. That is to say, every industry and calling, such as various major branches of farming, secondary Industries classified into groups, the clergy, school teachers, professional classes generally, medical and legal professions. sports associations and other bodies, should all be eligible to send their quota of members to the national legislature. Rv such means we would have a body of genuine, experts managing the “business of the country,” instead of a mixed crowd, manv of whom possess no special aptitudes for any kind of trade or calling whatever, but merely have the gift o’ the gab. We could thus avoid all the silly ballyhoo of elections, as each industry and calling would send their representatives to Parliament, replacing them at will, as the members of each industry decided, and thus there would be continuity of policy, expert guidance in all fields, absence of the blind prejudice of party politics, and an incomparably saner and more constructive politloal life. Every 'civilisation that has gone down into oblivion has failed because of absence of an equitable distribution of wealth, which is not to be confused with “equal” distribution, which would be both impracticable and immoral. Our trouble is that plutocratic parasites receiving indirect doles ore. in the long run. driving the masses down into economic slavery, and causing another stratum of parasitism down below the real producers of wealth being crushed between the upper millstone of patrician parasitism and the nether one of plebeian parasitism. After many years of study upon politico-economic problems. I have come to the conclusion that we will not get economic justice and freedom under present electoral systems, that proportional representation is not likely to he revived, and that the corporative system, on democratic lines, is tlie natural one. as it follows the natural tendency of human beings—and animals, too. for that matter—to work in occupational groups, and to take common action in their common interests. Under the proposed system farmers, for example, would send their own representatives to Parliament, and on such a plank as free trade, they would then receive the support of “directors” «.f other sections who. once they had grasped the fact that free trade would increase the purchasing power of their incomes, would vote with the farmers on that plank, there being no party to bring them to heel on a no-confidence motion. To repeat for emphasis, we will not get economic equity until we have political justice, ail sections being represented, according to interests, in a manner giving a true reflection of the people and their callings.—l am, etc.. t e. McMillan. Matamata, May 26.

TAX AND EXCHANGE

(To the Editor) Sir.—The Labour Party is pledged to carry out the things mentioned in its election platform, and no one will find there any reference to removing the sales tax or removing the present exchange rates. When he spoke at Lower Hutt the other night, Mr Nash gave a list of the promises made and showed that they had already been kept, or would be kept In the coming session. When the Bills about superannuation and health Insurance have been passed practically the whole of the election pledges will have been carried out. Could any other party point to a reeprd like that? The next stage will be shown In the coming election manifesto, for the drawing up of a platform has been left to a special committee, on the decision of the conference. The removal of the sales tax and the question of exchange probably were mentioned by the Prime Minister as among the things he tioped to do, but it is doubtful whether he ever gave a definite promise. If he did, when was it?—l am, etc., F. RANKTON. Frankton. May 26

ART BECTION

(To the Editor) Sir,—A brief reply to “ Figuro ’ and Mr Hill. I had intended to deal very thoroughly with the subject, but have not the time. Having dealt with the “outline” size, I will take the size of the figure. From the top of the head (extreme end of the hair-parting) to the lowest part of the neck is 4 inches. From the hair on the extreme left to the hair on the extreme right is 3 inches, so that “twice the size” is 8 inches and 6 inches. Nothing can alter those, nor the previous figures given. Mr Hill says authorities, in their wisdom, leave it at that. Is it wise to have nearly all the pictures submitted of different sizes? I do not think so, even if only an inch or part of an inch. The object of my correspondence was to obtain for all entrants the chance to make their drawings the same size. I still think the “outline” size should be given- Then let the student or novice draw his picture in proportion, which will be a further test to ability. —I am, etc., HOMO. Hamilton, May 26.

DEFENCE MEABUREB

(To the Editor) Sir,—Relative to defence measures, differences of opinion will always obtain until the dawn of “The Day,” which appears to be not far distantOne offers no apology for facing facts as we see them to-day. The “Running Shoe” brigade's procrastination suggests the probability of mass production of its utility product becoming necessary. Anything but a fireeater, give me a gun and a pair of “good old Bill Masseys” in preference. As an arm of defence the motor torpedo boat will hold its own. As a target in a seaway it is most elusive and difficult to pick up, either from the air or the gun-turret, and would make contact with an invader well out to sea. Much will have to he done if this unit is to take part and do its share. Defined bases, with fuel-storage tank, repair shop and grid-iron for slipping purposes are essential. This equipment could all he shop-fabricated and pontooned into position. Manned by a species of the "bulldog breed.” it would be found to have a sling in its tail. Its moderate cost in relation to its efficiency makes a strong appeal, and when its services are “definitely” no longer required as a fighting ship, its conversion to the trawler status is cheaply effected.— I am, etc., EX-SOLDIER. Cambridge, May 26. -