GROWING UNREST TO OUR NORTH

"More bodies keep coming to light from the violence which began in the Malaysian capital two weeks ago". - The Sun, Melbourne. May 27.

The recent racial riots in Malaysia, allegations of the invasion of Papua by Indonesian troops, and to a lesser extent the protests of the white townspeople of Normantown against forced integration with aboriginals illustrates again that racial differences pose as a threat to the stability of any country where they exist.
In the case of Malaysia and Indonesia where Australia is diplomatically, and in the case of Malaysia, militarily involved, the picture is anything but bright.
In the case of Indonesia and our border in New Guinea with West Irian we have been practically pushed past the point of diplomacy twice in recent weeks when Indonesian troops have taken the law into their own hands and invaded territory under the control of Australia. The Australian Government is hoping that its problem with Indonesia over these border incidents will disappear after the "act of free choice" is nicely tucked away in Indonesia's favour, bringing an end to such embarrassing occurrences. This could be wishful thinking as it is obvious that the Indonesians are fulfilling the role of overbearing masters towards the West Irians.

Typical of such an attitude is the remark of Mr. Malik, Indonesia's Foreign Minister when told of the raid on a camp inside Papuan territory. He said, "Australians should not allow Irians to live in its territory. They must send them back according to our agreement." The reaction to such a statement is to ask what sort of fate awaits those sent back?

With the closure of West Irian to visitors and commentators it is taking on more of the atmosphere of a country under armed suppression. Border incidents on the pattern of Hong Kong, and West and East Berlin, may become more the order of the day, rather than fade away.

Dr. Alan Cole, scholarly missionary with sixteen years experience in Malaysia-Singapore in a recent sermon pointed out that the Malays and the Chinese had cultural and ethnic differences as great, if not greater, than the white and the black man. What we have recently become aware of in the racial riots in Kuala Lumpur could be a foretaste of things to come. The recent elections revealed clearly the opposition to the political power of the Malays by the more industrious and politically conscious Chinese is growing stronger. Under British administration the differences could be controlled by the application of rules impartial to all. Now both Chinese and Malays have to work out their respective differences.

With Australia committed through SEATO and Commonwealth ties, and in the words of Mr. Freeth, acting as a "policeman on the beat" we could find ourselves in an increasingly sticky situation in Malaysia. Judging on the reports shown on television during the riots in Kuala Lumpur when the opposition party went on the rampage waving Mao's little red book and chanting his "thoughts", the Communist Party is once again fishing in troubled waters.

EMPIRE DAY 1969

"In a world desperately in need of greater unity, we serve no one, ourselves or anyone else, by breaking any link which presently links us with at least some of our fellow men. We demonstrate our maturity as a nation by strengthening the existing links. The accidents of history may have thrust us together. But we are the shapers, not the slaves, of history. Yesterday's accidents provide us with today's opportunities." - The Age editorial May 24.

It is not often a newspaper editorial on a patriotic theme makes as much sense as did the above editorial. The usual practice is to deride and belittle the past and the ties, which have built our nation. Symptomatic of this prevailing trend was the derision poured on the picture adorning the cover of the new telephone directory for Melbourne showing the Governor, Sir Rohan Delacombe in full dress uniform inspecting a guard of mounted policemen. The above editorial points out why we still celebrate May 24. For many years it was known as Empire Day, the word Commonwealth took the place of Empire in 1959. People had been taught to shrink from the word Empire a word associated with the glories of the reign of Queen Victoria whose birthday on May 24 was celebrated as Empire Day.
Those who through the processes of modern education and the perversion of history have been taught to deride their traditions, and the institutions which have been handed down to them, seldom stop to think that they owe the freedom and security they enjoy, and which is still unequalled outside membership of the old Commonwealth, to those very institutions and traditions which they now spurn.

THE INCREDIBLE CASE OF MR "JUSTICE" ABE FORTAS

Mr. Eric Butler reports from Washington, U.S.A., on the recent sensational resignation of Mr. Abe Fortas from the American Supreme Court:

Arriving in Washington four days after the resignation of Mr. Abe Fortas from the Supreme Court, I found the Nation's capital still buzzing with discussion and stories concerning the Fortas case. This case has demonstrated with dramatic clarity the superiority of the British tradition concerning the judiciary, as compared with the American system under which the most blatant political appointments are made to the Courts. Australians and New Zealanders should consider themselves fortunate that their judicial systems still reflect the British tradition. Probably the most blatant violation of that tradition was the appointment of the late Dr. H. V. Evatt to the Australian High Court and later his appointment to the Supreme Court of N.S.W. when he had become a major embarrassment to the Federal Labor Parry.

Those who have read J. Evatt Haley's exposure of the record of former President Lyndon Johnston, A Texan looks at Lyndon (available from the Heritage Bookshop, price $1, post free) will recall the close association and friendship between Fortas and Johnson. Fortas was at one time lawyer to Johnson's friend, the notorious Bobby Baker, but quickly resigned when the Baker case became public. Johnson owed much to Fortas, this being the reason why he attempted to have Fortas replace Earl Warren who desired to retire. Fortas had first been appointed to the Court by President Johnson. When the Senate refused to accept the Fortas nomination for Chief Justice, the mass media carried the usual picture of a "progressive" and "liberal" man being persecuted by reactionaries. It was even alleged that his nomination was being opposed because he was a Jew. It was during the Senate hearings that the American public learned for the first time about a fee being paid to him for a series of lectures at the American University. The fee was $15,000. The critics observed that it was not only the size of the fee which concerned them, but the fact that it had been arranged by Fortas' former law partner. They also noted that it had come from some of his former clients and business associates who might someday be involved in a case before him.

Fortas was a frequent visitor to the White House during the Johnson Administration, and it is no secret that his opinion was asked on policy matters. In 1964 it was Fortas who led the Johnson Administration attempt to keep secret the news that sex deviate Walter Jenkins, a long time top Johnson aide had been arrested on a morals charge. This arrest came at a most embarrassing time for Johnson during the 1964 Presidential campaign.

Fortas may well have survived on the Supreme Court if it had not been for the dogged investigations of his activities by Life magazine. It was known by many that these investigations were taking place, and Capital Hill was seething with rumors before Life of May 5 appeared on the book stalls with its sensational claim that shortly after he had been appointed to the Supreme Court, Fortas had arranged to receive a life-time income of $20,000, this to extend to his wife in the event of his death, from a foundation set up by a criminal financier Louis Wolfson. Wolfson was twice indicted on stock-rigging charges. It appeared at one time that Fortas might try to ride out the storm concerning his activities, but his resignation has probably saved him from possible impeachment, and a detailed exposure.
Fortas' friends are insisting that his resignation has made any further investigation unnecessary.

There was widespread astonishment late last year when President Johnson granted a most lucrative trans-pacific route to Australia to Braniff Airways. Greatamerica, a holding company for insurance firms, was the parent company for the Texas-based Braniff Airways. In addition to being an officer of Greatamerica, Fortas was, during 1965, a director of Braniff. After he left the company, Fortas' former law partner, Paul A. Porter, was taken on to the board of directors. One of the incorporators of Greatamerica was Cliffored A. Jones, Nevada Lieutenant-Governor from 1947-54. On January 5, 1966, Jones was indicted for perjury in connection with the grand jury investigation of Lyndon Johnson's close friend Bobby Baker.

Americans are now watching with the closest attention to see whether President Richard Nixon is going to take the opportunity of the Fortas resignation to start restoring the American Supreme Court to its original purpose. Such a policy is a basic essential for American survival.

PERTINENT QUESTIONS OVER WHEATSALES

The Australian Government has been so reluctant to disclose the details of prices received for Australian wheat from Communist China that it is now probable that the DLP will join forces with the Labour opposition to call Wheat board officials before the bar of the Senate. The Daily Telegraph (May 15th) states that this is likely to seriously embarrass the Government, which has consistently refused to divulge details of wheat sales to China. Dr. Patterson, one of the sounder A.L.P. members, has alleged that the Government is selling wheat to China at prices as low as $1.40 a bushel, while drought-stricken farmers in Queensland cannot buy it for less than $1.70 a bushel.
The Minister for Primary Industry, Mr. Anthony, while making no attempt to refute these charges, has expressed astonishment that the opposition should attempt to make public information, which would make the Wheat Board's task of selling wheat even harder.

So autocratic has the Cabinet become, that it resents examination from both the Opposition and Government backbenchers. It was only a few months ago that Mr. McEwen was placating primary producers with the assurance that the International Grains Agreement would guarantee a just price, with no possibility of undercutting, for all international wheat transactions. But on the 14th of May, the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Anderson, admitted that France had sold 800,000 tons of wheat to China at prices lower than those specified in the International Grains Agreement. All this can only lead to one question: "What are the full details of the latest wheat contract between Australia and China? Are we subsidising sales on an increasing scale to an enemy that is largely responsible for the continuing Australian casualties in Vietnam? The sooner this information is made public the better.

BRITAIN AND THE COMMON MARKET

An article in the Daily Telegraph indicated (May 16th) that both of the candidates leading in the race to succeed Gen. De Gaulle are keen to secure entry into the E.E.C. points to renewed campaigning on this collectivist concept. Both former Britain's Prime Minister Georges Pompidou and Head of State Alain Poher have said that Britain should join the Market, and Pompidou added "the sooner the better". Many people who feel that this would offer Britain a way out of her seemingly insoluble economic problems have not realised that the price for this would be complete loss of national sovereignty.

A number of eminent statesmen and jurists have pointed out the constitutional implications contained in the Treaty of Rome, the blueprint for E.E.C membership. Amongst others, Sir Derek Walker-Smith T.D. Q.C. C., M.P., former economic Secretary to the Treasury has pointed our that "The sacrifice of Sovereignty would be unparalleled in our history, and at variance with our constitutional practice and tradition.

That this erosion of national sovereignty among E.E.C members has already started is clear from a report in the Dalgety Review (Western Australia) January 16th, 1969, which dealt with Dr. Mansholt's agricultural policies in Europe. The article said that "The contents of Dr. Mansholt's "package" were expected to take some powers of intervention away from National Governments into a central authority... "
This would be a tragedy for England the repository of common law and individual freedom.