House of Assembly: Vol106 - WEDNESDAY 25 JANUARY 1961

WEDNESDAY, 25 JANUARY 1961

Mr. Speaker took the Chair at 2.20 p.m.

FIRST READING OF BILLS

The following Bills were read a first time:

General Loans Bill.

Mental Disorders Amendment Bill.

Dutch Reformed Church in South Africa Repeal of Laws (Private) Bill.

University of the Orange Free State (Private) Act Amendment (Private) Bill.

SELECT COMMITTEE

On the motion of the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development, a Select Committee on Bantu Affairs was appointed.

NO-CONFIDENCE

First Order read: Adjourned debate on motion of no-confidence, to be resumed.

[Debate on motion by Sir de Villiers Graaff, upon which an amendment had been moved by the Prime Minister, adjourned on 24 January, resumed.]

Dr. STEYTLER:

Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. the Prime Minister will realize that when the hon. Leader of the Opposition welcomed him back in this House yesterday, he did so on behalf of all members and we here would like to associate ourselves with the words of welcome uttered by him.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the hon. Leader of the Opposition has moved the following motion—

That this House is of the opinion that the policies of this Government have failed—
  1. (a) to promote the racial harmony, the internal peace and the degree of prosperity needed to solve the problems of our nation; and
  2. (b) to maintain South Africa’s good name overseas; and therefore requests the Government to resign forthwith.

I would like to move the following further amendment—

To add at the end of the motion “and make way for an administration which offers a clear-cut alternative to apartheid, based on the recognition of merit and not on race or colour, as the test of participation in the government of this multi-racial state.”

The reason why I move this amendment is that although we agree with the motion moved by the hon. Leader of the Opposition, we are inclined to agree with the hon. the Prime Minister in thinking that the problems of South Africa will not be solved by substituting the United Party for the Nationalist Party as the Government of this country.

In his introductory remarks, the hon. the Prime Minister yesterday described the motion of the hon. the Opposition as an unrealistic motion, and the reason advanced by him for describing it as unrealistic was the fact that we have just had a referendum in which very many people expressed their approval not only of the republican aims of the Nationalist Party but also of their general policies. Well, Mr. Speaker, I do not want to talk at length about that. I do no think it will bring us any further. But I think the hon. the Prime Minister knows, as anybody else knows in the country, that there are very many people in South Africa who voted for the republic but who normally would reject the policies of the Nationalist Party. They voted for a republic because they believed the promises made by the hon. the Prime Minister and members of the party opposite that should the Nationalist Party and the Afrikaner attain their highest ideal, namely the establishment of a republic in South Africa, then an atmosphere would be created in which there would be more goodwill, a better chance of national unity between the English-speaking and Afrikaans-speaking people, and a more flexible approach from the Nationalist Party in respect of our fundamental problems. Everybody here knows that very many people voted pro-republic on the basis of accepting the prognostications of the hon. the Prime Minister that a better atmosphere would prevail in South Africa. Now I would like to tell the hon. the Prime Minister that very many people in South Africa expect him to honour those pledges, and it is the duty and the responsibility of the party opposite and the Government of this country to create a better atmosphere in South Africa whereby people can meet on better terms than in days gone by. In this regard I must say that I think everybody in this House and outside will be terribly disappointed with the speech of the hon. the Prime Minister when he dealt with that matter, and not only with the speech yesterday, but also with some of his utterances and speeches by other members of the Government side since the referendum. They have clearly indicated that the Nationalist Party is not prepared to introduce any measure of flexibility in their beliefs. We have seen what happened to members of the Afrikaans-speaking section in this country who dared to differ from the policies of the Nationalist Party. We had yesterday from the hon. the Prime Minister the statement that although there were differences amongst certain members of the Nationalist Party and amongst the Afrikaans-speaking people as such, there will be no break in the Afrikaner unity. Afrikaner unity on a nationalist basis will be maintained, we were told. Nobody realizes more than I do, Mr. Speaker, how essential it was for the Afrikaner people to develop a nationalism whereby they once again could regain what they have lost in the past in South Africa. But, Sir, we have reached the stage that we expect of the Nationalist Party that should they approach the problems of South Africa on a narrow nationalistic sectional basis, they should realize that if we continue on the basis of sectionalism in South Africa, there can be no peace and harmony. We were hoping, Sir, that the Afrikaner people now that they have achieved their ideal would broaden their approach and their vision. Because it should be apparent to everybody in South Africa that one extreme nationalism will stimulate other extreme nationalisms, and the example will be taken by other people in South Africa that if the Nationalist Party continues on this basis, they also must organize themselves on a basis of nationalism, belonging to their own racial group, to stop being dominated by one section of the community. Mr. Chairman, I think everybody in this country realizes that unless we can take out the extremism in nationalism, whether that applies to Europeans or non-Europeans, a conflict between various nationalisms is inevitable in South Africa. Mr. Speaker, it is expected of us here in this House, and of the European community who govern South Africa that we should determine the bases on which people can get together, of all racial groups in South Africa—not on the basis of narrow nationalism, not on the basis of one section wanting to dominate the others, but on a basis of serving South Africa in a spirit of common patriotism. If we fail in that, Sir, the future of South Africa is really dim.

We have heard a lot of how the Nationalist Party and Nationalist speakers have condemned extreme nationalism amongst the non-European people. Sir, they have taken a leaf out of the book of the White man in South Africa, and unless we are prepared to concede to those people the basic human rights that cannot be denied to them, they will organize themselves on a basis of extremism to take those rights by force.

Mr. Speaker, we were hoping that the evidence we have had during the last year of what has happened in South Africa, the Prime Minister and the Government of this country would have read the lesson correctly that unless we meet the legitimate demands of the peoples, there inevitably must be a recurrence of the tragedies that happened at Langa and Sharpeville, at Windhoek and Cato Manor. But apparently all those happenings have made no impression whatsoever on the Nationalist Party Government. We have been pleading, Sir, that the hon. the Prime Minister at that time should appoint a commission of inquiry so that we could determine the basic cause or causes which led to those happenings. The hon. the Prime Minister refused. We have repeatedly asked him: Let us have a broad representative commission and let us get to the basis of the trouble in South Africa. But the hon. the Prime Minister has refused. We knew at the time that the biggest objection of the non-European people was against the pass-law system when in operation. They object to the fact that they are not allowed to sell their labour at the best price. They object to the fact that they are denied rights purely on a basis of colour. It was a tragedy to us at the time when the Nationalist Party Government was prepared to suspend the operation of the pass-law system, attacks were then made by the official Opposition, accusing the Government of being weak. We once again want to ask: Let the authorities in South Africa go to the root causes of these troubles. Then they will find that the basis of the trouble is the philosophy of the European, particularly of the Nationalist Party, of racial discrimination. We believe that unless we can offer the non-European here in South Africa rights of self-determination, we shall fail. The hon. the Prime Minister has said before, and often repeated, that no human being will be prepared to live in subservience to other people for all time to come. He has said that the African must be given rights of self-determination in his own area. Well, the Nationalist Party Government have been in power in South Africa for very many years. They have had unequalled majorities in this House. Yet, Mr. Speaker, we find that up to now the implementation of their policy is impossible and the evidence we have shows us quite clearly that whereas the hon. the Prime Minister and the hon. Minister of Bantu Administration and Development sincerely believe in the practicability of this policy, despite the policy of the Nationalist Party to give these people their rights in their own particular areas, presupposing that the Bantu people can have full rights in their own country, the proportion of Africans to Europeans in the so-called European areas has increased considerably. We find for instance that in Johannesburg, Durban and Cape Town, for every three Africans in those urban areas in 1951, there are now four. In Pretoria and Port Elizabeth the increase has been even more rapid. For every two Natives in those two cities in 1951 there are now three.

The hon. the Prime Minister yesterday once again told us that he still believes in this basic approach that these rights must be accorded to the African people in their own particular areas. He left completely out of account the permanently detribalized urban African. Sir, there is no answer coming from the Nationalist Party in respect of those people. We have heard further that not only does the hon. the Prime Minister advocate that sentiment for the African people, but he extends that to the Coloured people. Pleas were made by many responsible people in the country that the Coloured people by virtue of their traditions, their background should be incorporated with the European section. Pleas were made that they should be given direct representation in this House. But the hon. Prime Minister has rejected that. Now we want to know from the hon. the Prime Minister: Where are the Coloured people going to enjoy their right of self-determination; where are their homelands going to be? And further, Mr. Speaker, we want to know from the hon. the Prime Minister where the Asiatics are going to find their home. Where are they going to have rights of self-determination? Because surely the same applies to the Coloureds and the Asians that applies to the Native. You cannot allow the Native those rights without equally on the same basis giving them to the Coloureds or to the Asians. Furthermore, I want to say that we agree with the hon. the Prime Minister that if he accords representation to the Coloured people here in this House, of necessity must that also be granted to the other groups of the population. You cannot deny political rights to any section of this community on the basis of colour alone. If you break through the colour bar in Parliament in respect of the Coloured people, then of necessity you must allow participation to the other non-European groups. We, in the Progressive Party, do not wish to create the impression amongst the people of South Africa, European and non-European, that we want to single out the Coloured man and the Coloured community only as an ally of the European. Should we create the impression that we want the Coloured man to stand by the European in the spirit of ganging up against the other non-Europeans in South Africa, it will do very much more harm than good. And, Sir, it was categorically stated, and I agree, by the Leader of the Opposition in his speech yesterday that all the African people are not uncivilized, that all the African people are not irresponsible. I do not think there is a person in this debating Chamber this afternoon that can maintain that the Asiatics are irresponsible people. Sir, if we want to concede rights to the Coloured man, by what right then can we deny participation in the highest body in this country to the other non-European sections of our community? That we believe in. We believe in proper consultation in the way the hon. Leader of the United Party indicated yesterday, that proper consultation should be held with all sections of our community, and we believe that representation in this House should not be accorded only to one section of the community but to all people. And we believe too that you will not be able to satisfy the aspirations either of the Coloured people or all the other non-European groups if you give that representation to them on a basis of discrimination still. I believe it is still the policy of the United Party that representation here should be effected on the Common Roll for the Coloureds. I believe that is still the policy of the United Party. Now what does that mean? If the Coloured man is allowed to represent his people here in Parliament, on the Common Roll, then it means that the Coloured representative will also represent Europeans here. We would like to know whether that is the policy of the United Party, whether they are now prepared to give representation in this House not only to Coloured people, but also representation of Europeans by Coloured people? We welcome that in the Progressive Party. If our honourable friends are prepared to concede that to the Coloured people, then on what basis do they refuse it to the Africans and Asians? We must get clarity on this. It is quite clear that we in the Progressive Party stand for Common Roll representation; we stand for franchise on a qualified basis on merit, not on colour. We do not want to give representation and participation in the government of this country to the Coloured man only, but equally to the Asiatics and the Africans, to those people who qualify. And, we have determined what we think is a responsible individual in South Africa. We would like to have comment on that, we would like to have discussion on that matter. We would like to know what the United Party thinks for instance of our qualification basis. We might be able to assist them in finding a qualification basis for the Coloured vote. But the basic philosophy of the Progressive Party is that we reject in toto racial discrimination on colour alone.

Mr. RAW:

Residential and social, too?

Dr. STEYTLER:

My hon. friend talks about “residential and social”. Might I ask him whether he rejects that in relation to the Coloured people? The hon. the Leader of the Opposition took the hon. the Prime Minister to task. He told the hon. the Prime Minister that he has no Asiatic policy at all, that he does not know what to do with the Indians in South Africa, that he still believes in repatriation. I think it is essential that we should know what the policy of the United Party is in this regard. As far as I know the United Party now wishes to negotiate. They want to talk. To whom? And on what basis? You see, Mr. Speaker, that is the reason why we have introduced the addendum to the motion of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. We want clarity on these matters because it is essential that the European community in South Africa should know what dangers are inherent in the policies that we follow. What is the position going to be should the United Party come to power?

Further, the hon. the Prime Minister talked at length yesterday about the role of the agitator inside and outside this country, misrepresenting the conditions pertaining in South Africa. He told us that the agitator is responsible mainly for the unrest that we have had in South Africa. He has told us that the communists have a tremendous influence on South Africa internally and externally. Might I ask the hon. the Prime Minister what is he and his party doing to nullify the influence of the agitator and the communist in South Africa? The agitator and the communist can have no results unless the field is prepared for them here in South Africa by the non-recognition of human rights. The hon. the Prime Minister spoke about South Africa being “die speelbal van ander nasies” at UNO and in other parts of the world. But he says he does not take too much notice of that. Mr. Speaker, it is essential to determine why it is that our erstwhile friends now seek to attack South Africa in the higher councils of the world; why it is that it pays them to criticize South Africa. Why is it that they can get more allies by virtue of the fact that they attack South Africa? It is solely and purely on account of the fact that neither we nor they can justify racial discrimination that we practise in South Africa. And unless we rectify these basic wrongs in South Africa there will be trouble in the future.

The hon. the Minister of Defence—and I do not want to take him to task for this because I think it is his duty and that he should do it—has drawn the attention of the South African nation time and time again to the inherent danger to us from Communism. He is doing his best to bring the Union Defence Force into a state of preparedness in which it can defend our Fatherland. But, Sir, has he no other plan than that of force? Has he no other way in which to govern South Africa than on the basis of force? Can we imagine, should we be threatened to-day, what a potential there is in this country for the communists? Let us try and get the non-European in South Africa to unite with us, not on a basis of anti-White or anti-Black, but on a basis of wanting to defend our common Fatherland. If we cannot do that then there is tremendous danger before us.

An HON. MEMBER:

What about Luthuli?

Dr. STEYTLER:

My hon. friends say: “What about Luthuli?” The hon. the Prime Minister has also said that no matter what policy is brought out the majority of the Africans might reject it.

Mr. B. COETZEE:

They will.

Dr. STEYTLER:

They say that they are not accepting either the United Party policy or the Progressive Party policy.

HON. MEMBERS:

You know they don’t.

Dr. STEYTLER:

So they say. But it is not so. There are very many of the African people who subscribe to the policies of the Progressive Party.

HON. MEMBERS:

That is not so.

Mr. S. J. M. STEYN:

Name one?

Dr. STEYTLER:

Assuming that is not so, Sir, I ask my hon. friends whether they reject the basis of the Progressive Party policies because the non-Europeans do not want to accept them? Is that the basis on which you reject it? The only basis on which you can justify it—and I say this again—the only basis on which you can justify defending yourselves is the basis of the Progressive Party policy. And it is imperative, it is essential that the European should establish himself on a tenable basis in South Africa. Should we fail to do that …

Mr. B. COETZEE:

May I ask the hon. member a question?

Dr. STEYTLER:

No, I am sorry. Should we fail in that we will be called upon, most probably, to defend ourselves. Most probably law and order will once again have to be maintained. And, Mr. Speaker, it will depend entirely upon what basis the European in South Africa wishes to do it.

Do not let us create the impression in South Africa and in the external world that we, the governing section in this community, wish to maintain power in our hands purely in order to have the right to dominate other people. That is the danger, and that is the attitude we have to rectify.

Mr. F. S. STEYN:

We are creating Bantustans for that purpose.

Dr. STEYTLER:

We have now heard from the hon. the Prime Minister what the Nationalist Party visualizes the future to be, and on what basis it should be approached. We have also heard from the United Party. But the ideas of both of those parties have one thing in common: Their entire policies are still based on racial discrimination. And as long as that is the pattern the motion, as proposed by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, with my addendum, is justified.

Mr. WILLIAMS:

I second the amendment.

*The MINISTER OF BANTU ADMINISTRATION AND DEVELOPMENT:

Mr. Speaker, I listened attentively to the speeches of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and of the hon. the Leader of the Progressive Party, who has just resumed his seat. I do not want to react to any great extent to what they said, because after the hon. the Prime Minister had used the knife on their policy yesterday I think it would be somewhat cruel of me to continue to cut them up further. But I cannot help telling the House that the speech of the hon. the Leader of the Progressive Party reminded me of an incident which happened to me when I was attending the university at Pretoria. We visited the abattoirs. At the time there was a very interesting man in charge. Inter alia, he showed us two old gelded goats they had there which were used to lead sheep to the slaughtering place. The one always took a direct course and he had only a few sheep around him. He was not a great success. Peculiarly enough—and this is actually a fact, and I am not belittling the hon. member— that old goat’s name was Steytler. [Laughter.] In my view, he was an honest goat, but they slaughtered him because he was not of much use to them. The second one was a very interesting goat. He led the sheep by devious routes all along the green grass, but both of them led the sheep to the same kraal and eventually they landed in the slaughter-house. That was so typical to me of the hon. leaders’ opposite standpoint. We have the typical standpoint of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition …

*Mr. S. J. M. STEYN:

And was the second goat’s name De Wet Nel?

*The MINISTER OF BANU ADMINISTRATION AND DEVELOPMENT:

… but eventually it was just a question of a difference in timing. There is no difference in principle, but only a difference in timing. Eventually both of them, and together with the whole of the White population of South Africa, will land in the slaughter-house which awaits South Africa.

*An HON. MEMBER:

In Uncle Daan's kraal.

*The MINISTER OF BANTU ADMINISTRATION AND DEVELOPMENT:

There is no doubt about that. Mr. Speaker, I just want to pause to deal with a few matters contained in the speech of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, and then I want to return briefly to the hon. the Leader of the Progressive Party. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition particularly raised two matters. He referred to the trouble we had last year at Sharpeville and Langa, without making a proper analysis of those circumstances. Two things struck me about both those leaders. They are very anxious to have judicial commissions; they are very anxious to have commissions. That to me is clear proof that in their subconscious minds there is a great measure of uncertainty about their own policies. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition said that his facts are based on the data he received last week. I just want to tell him that I pity him if I have to judge by those data he received and on which he bases his policy. Now I just want to state this fact, namely that there was this significant phenomenon that the leader of the people at Sharpeville was not a person who was in the slightest concerned with the interests of the Bantu population. I refer to Sebukwe. He was a senior lecturer at the Rand University and he was as little interested in the welfare of the Native population as the greatest enemy of the Bantu population could be. What he was interested in was to organize those poor people in order to obtain a position of power for himself. Nobody can deny that fact.

But I come back to Langa. Here in Langa the hero of the United Party was Kgosana. He was the man who had to be consulted. Who was he? He is a young Basuto of 21 years of age. Where he comes from I do not know. He does not come from here, but he attended the University of Cape Town. But suddenly he was the leader of these proud Xhosas in Cape Town. Now hon. members expect us, and particularly me, actually to have consulted Kgosana and to go by his opinion. What an insult would that not have for those Xhosas! But I go further.

The Leader of the Opposition referred to the trouble we had in Zeerust, in Sekukuniland and in Pondoland. If he had taken the slightest trouble to study the pattern, he would have found that the same pattern was followed here as was followed in other parts of Africa, a pattern which received its form behind the iron curtain and behind the bamboo curtain. There is no doubt about that. We had this phenomenon that in Zeerust a few Whites were moving about amongst the Native population. I want to mention their names. There is the case of the Rev. Hooper, in regard to whom Natives made sworn statements to the effect that he told them that it was his object to create chaos and in that way to enable the Bantu to rule South Africa. The Bantu made sworn statements to support these facts. He went in there together with Mrs. Muller and others, and later commenced this unholy work. And then we had the second form of the pattern. They took tsotsis by bus from Kimberley and Johannesburg to intimidate the people there terribly. And then we had the third form of the pattern. The attorneys gathered there like vultures—certain attorneys. I am glad that I need not say this about the majority of that profession. We had the same pattern in Sekukuniland and in Pondoland. Here I want to mention a name again, namely that of Mr. Ahrenstein, who did not scruple to do that work in Pondoland. If necessary, I will mention other names also. It was Whites who originally moved in there and set in motion these events.

Mr. Speaker, if the hon. the Leader of the Opposition had taken the trouble to investigate these matters a little, he would not have made these frivolous statements which he did in connection with this matter.

I also want to pause for a moment to deal with the hon. the leader of the Progressive Party. He said that they had hoped that the Nationalist Party would now broaden the whole of its views, that the party would become more flexible. I must honestly say that in that case the hon. member still does not know the Nationalists. A Nationalist is a person who has an unshakable faith in the sacred principles of his convictions. He is not a weather-cock. He is not blown this way to-day by one wind, and that way to-morrow by another. But at the same time I want to say that there is no section of the White population in South Africa which wants to give the other sections of the White population and the sections of the non-White population such just, humane and fair treatment as the Nationalists. In this I include those English-speaking people and all who feel like we do in these matters. Because I do no want to claim this as being the sole attribute of the Afrikaans-speaking section. The hon. member said that he expected us to broaden our views. He said he hoped that extremistic Nationalists would disappear and that once again a common love for South Africa would be found. I must say that I do not understand such views, because the basis of nationalism is love for one’s fatherland and for what is one’s own. Every group has love for its fatherland and for its cultural heritage, whether one is a Coloured or an Indian or a Bantu, whether it is the various Bantu ethnic groups or whether it is the English-speaking section or the Afrikaans-speaking section, but that is the basis of nationalism. It is here where the policy of the Nationalist Party rises to such heights, to grant to each population group the development of its spiritual riches. We grant everybody that patriotism to which every person in the world is entitled. I believe in nationalism, but I believe in nationalism not only for myself and for my people. I believe in it for every White group of the population and for every nation in the world. Because, Sir, there is nothing more dangerous than a population group where one creates a process resulting in people running away. That is one of the most contemptible things to be found anywhere in the world. It is regarded with contempt, and that is what the hon. member is trying to achieve by means of his policy. He is not trying to allow those cultural riches of the various population groups to come into their own and to develop, to find in that the creation of the most beautiful thing man can create, but at the same time also to see in it the most splendid achievement of which the human being is capable. We must not forget that patriotism, nationalism, is one of the mightiest forces provided by the Creator and one of the most beautiful things the world has ever produced. That we must grant to every population group in South Africa. But he does not grant it to them. He wants a heterogeneous society, and that has never yet paid in any part of the world. There are parts of South America I can mention where there is no peace or spiritual happiness, but where there is a seething spirit of unrest. South Africa cannot afford to have that position. The hon. the Prime Minister quite rightly said that we believe in this four-stream policy in which every individual and every group can give expression to their own personal and national aspirations, from the lowest to the highest. That is the divine right of every population group on earth. That is the standpoint of the Nationalist Party.

*Mr. S. J. M. STEYN:

May I ask a question?

*The MINISTER OF BANTU ADMINISTRATION AND DEVELOPMENT:

The hon. member may put his question a little later. The Leader of the Progressive Party stated a proposition here about which he has not thought enough. He said that because they have a different colour the non-Whites have no rights in South Africa. I know he did not think about that before he spoke. I just want to say that there are few countries in the world where the masses of the people have as many rights as in South Africa, in spite of all these allegations. But I do not want to deal further with the speeches of these two hon. members. I think the hon. the Prime Minister has replied to them adequately.

I want to come to the hon. member for Transkeian Territories (Mr. Hughes). He has informed me that unfortunately he is busy but will be here a little later. Due to circumstances he cannot be here at the moment. Seeing that my time is limited I unfortunately have to start dealing with him immediately. But just before doing so there is one point I forgot in regard to what the Leader of the Opposition said. He again launched an attack on the Bantu authorities and said that he could not agree with that “archaic, rigid tribal system”. Those were his precise words. Now I just want to say this. I do not want to repeat what I have so often said here already, that this system is based on the Bantu’s own system, and that they themselves recognize. I challenge any person to deny that. It is easy to say here that it is not so, but it is a different matter to prove it. I also challenge the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. Mitchell). He is also one who said all kinds of things in regard to which I shall still deal with him. Mr. Speaker, I want to tell the hon. the Leader of the Opposition this. If we have regard to what has been achieved in the brief period since Bantu authorities have been established, and we compare it with what was achieved before, it is really a miracle. There was the Western system introduced by the previous government, and in almost 40 years only 26 to 28 places in the whole country accepted that system. Then we introduced this system, and it was gladly accepted almost right throughout South Africa. And let me just make this announcement: During the course of this year this matter will be rounded off 100 per cent. But the great proof is the development results we have had in all parts of the country. What is more, Sir, we have this proof that the country which to-day has adapted itself most easily to the prevailing position is Nigeria, and this is the system on which the government of Nigeria has built its whole future. At the moment there is in South Africa a senior official from Nigeria who can confirm that this is almost 100 per cent the same system which in the past they applied in Nigeria. Then we also have the example of Swaziland. Of all the places where we really have peace and progress, Swaziland is one of the best examples amongst the Protectorates. They are also based on this system. No, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition must first make sure of his facts before making such statements.

I now want to pass on to the hon. member for Transkeian Territories. He is a member of Parliament. He is also an attorney. He claims to have lived in the Transkei for all these years. I must honestly say that I have seldom listened to a more irresponsible speech and more inaccuracies and misrepresentations than I heard in this House yesterday. He gave us a demonstration of his ignorance and of the misrepresentations of which he was making himself guilty. I want to prove that by quoting chapter and verse. I do not like accusing a man if I cannot prove it; I do not take things out of the air. The hon. member got up here with a pious face and bitterly and reproachfully said: “You gave the chiefs powers to remove a person from one place to another in his own territory. Those are far-reaching powers; it is unfair and unjust; that has never been done before. Is the hon. member then such a stranger in his own fatherland. Does he not know that that is a right which the chiefs in the Transkei have? What is more, these are matters which have often been discussed in the courts, and that right has been given to the chiefs by the courts. It is their national tradition and forms part of their Native law. But here the hon. member now makes a row about it. He gives the impression that we have introduced the strangest thing which should not have been done there and never existed before.

But I go further. He says: You gave Botha Sicgau a farm as a present, and that telegram he sent in connection with the republic was inspired. Does the hon. member really want to tell me that he does not know that that was one of the undertakings given at the time of Annexation—in the ’eighties or ’nineties— that every chief in that area would receive his farm? Victor Potho and his predecessors received their farms. A farm was given to each chief.

*An HON. MEMBER:

Does Hans get one, too?

*The MINISTER OF BANTU ADMINISTRATION AND DEVELOPMENT:

Unfortunately in former years this matter was neglected, but right throughout the chiefs have asked that it should be remedied, and this matter was remedied before Bantu authorities were introduced there. Before that time Botha Sicgau had received his farm as the result of the word of honour given by a White man before our time. Now the hon. member wishes to intimate that we simply gave him farms as a present because he is a supporter of Bantu authorities. That is the impression being created. He says that this telegram he sent us congratulating us on the result of the referendum was inspired. That is not true. It is untrue that we inspired anything like that. I received numerous telegrams from Bantu over the length and breadth of the country congratulating us on the result of the referendum, and not only from Botha Sicgau. Then why create this kind of impression here? I go further. With a pious face he says: You see, there is trouble in Pondoland; formerly there was no trouble and it was a land of peace. He says, further, that these troubles took place because Bantu authorities were instituted. He is a stranger in his own fatherland. He does not even know the history of his own territory. Does the hon. member not know that particularly Bizana was one of the trouble-spots with which the old British Government had difficulty, with the result that for many years it had to keep soldiers there? Thereafter there was trouble from time to time. There are particularly two tribes which are very aggressive and which do not belong to the Pondos. They settled amongst the Pondos but refused to recognize the Pondo chief or to recognize any Government. From time to time that section caused trouble. Now that is the spot grasped at by the communists in order to apply their methods. Why does the hon. member now make these allegations? But now I come to what is the worst of all. He stated here that we forced Bantu Authorities on to the Transkei, and then adds that there was never any difficulty when the Bunga was there. I just want to say that that is absolutely untrue. We never thought that by this time Bantu Authorities would be functioning in the Transkei in this way. As Chairman of the Native Affairs Commission I attended a meeting of the Bunga where there were ten motions asking that the system of Bantu Authorities should also be applied in the Transkei. And, Sir, just remember how Adv. Stanford made propaganda against it. He even held meetings with them at night, and I think the hon. member for Transkeian Territories was also very active then. And the Bunga unanimously resolved that they wanted Bantu Authorities. We did not ask them; it came from them spontaneously. [Interjections.] Now I want to challenge the hon. member. Let us appoint a Judge and let him ascertain whether what I say here is true or not. In the Bunga there was a prominent official who certainly is not a Nationalist. Mr. Pearce. He is a man who has the interests of the people of the Transkei at heart, and he and many others can give evidence that we never asked them to accept Bantu Authorities. They asked us to explain it, and we did so, and then the Bunga itself appointed a commission to investigate the whole matter. They sat for months. Our officials were there to give guidance, but eventually they themselves evolved the system. That is the reason why it differs somewhat from that in other territories. The whole draft was again submitted to the Bunga, which passed it unanimously. I know there was one person who made propaganda against it, Mr. Stanford’s agent, but he was not quite right in his head. For the rest, however, it was unanimous. The hon. member lives in Umtata and knows these things. Why does he want to create the impression that this was not so.

But I go further. I can mention many more things, but just want to mention one last matter. He read out an indictment here, a summons against four persons in 1960 whom we prosecuted because they did not want to accent Bantu authorities. I have got into touch with our office there. The senior magistrate, Mr. Midgeley, went through the records and can find no trace of it, but what he did in fact find is that four persons were charged with arson, under three Acts, one of them being the Bantu Authorities Act. Two were acquitted and one was convicted. Now I want to challenge the hon. member for Transkeian Territories to give me that indictment, because this is all that we can trace in the records at Bizana. I am quite prepared to accept it as authentic, because it is a very responsible official who made the investigation. I say the hon. member has no right to make these misrepresentations. But that gives hon. members an idea of what we have to cope with. It is not only the communist propaganda, but the communist propaganda is being fed in this way. I will deal with that in a moment.

But a second thing the hon. member did was to get up here and make a venomous attack on the Commissioner-General of the Transkei. He said that he did not know the Transkei and did not know the Xhosas and that it was a very unfortunate choice because he is very unpopular amongst the English-speaking people there and not very popular amongst the Bantu. Now, let me say this. I am prepared to compare the hon. member’s knowledge of the Transkei with that of Mr. Hans Abraham. Mr. Abraham originally comes from that area, from the Ciskei. I challenge the hon. member to speak as good Xhosa as Mr. Abraham does, and I am quite prepared to accept the hon. member for King William’s Town (Mr. Warren) as the examiner. Then he can judge as to who speaks the best Xhosa, Mr. Hughes or Mr. Abraham. I also know some Xhosa, and Mr. Abraham speaks it fluently. But what is more, in the short time he has been there he has learnt more about the Transkei and has more facts about the Transkei at his finger-tips than the hon. member for Transkeian Territories. I can prove that also. Why does he make these sneering remarks? He says he is not very popular amongst the English-speaking section. Sir, I am surprised that there is still an Englishman left who greets him. [Laughter.] If I look at the propaganda they made, he and his Press, against Mr. Abraham, not personally—this whole thing is aimed at the system introduced by the Government. But that area was selected. Instead of using his influence to establish good relations, the hon. member for Transkeian Territories was one of the persons who was in the forefront in engendering hatred between Boer and Briton in the Transkei.

I just want to add this. A short time ago I was also in the Transkei. In numbers of places there are prominent English-speaking people who are respected men in their community and who came to me and told me that they have the greatest respect and appreciation for Mr. Abraham. But a campaign has been waged in the Press. There were the misrepresentations in regard to his speeches. I have his speeches here. Why were those things done? It was done to attack this system.

But I go further. I say the hon. member for Transkeian Territories did not move a finger to make his contribution towards solving trouble in Pondoland. Instead of co-operating he continually tried to belittle the Commissioner-General, and he is now busy playing off the Bantu Commissioner and the Commissioner-General against each other. But he will not succeed in that. There is hearty co-operation between them. He passed a remark about the Press statement made by Mr. Abraham. It should not be forgotten that at that time I, merely as a transition period, seconded the Information Officer to the Commissioner-General, and then he was compelled to make that statement. But as soon as we had reorganized the matter those officials reverted to the old system and the matter is now proceeding as it was in the past. It is not a question of shutting Mr. Abraham up. It is a system we applied temporarily. But the hon. member derives pleasure from making such statements. I say he made no contribution towards solving the troubles in Pondoland. On the contrary, he even used some of those traders to make propaganda against the policy of the Government, instead of trying to create good relations as a member of Parliament and trying to resolve the trouble. My accusation against him is that in a subtle way he did everything to fan the trouble and I challenge him to deny it. This is a very unpleasant and unsavoury allegation to make against a fellow member of Parliament, but he looked for it.

Now, what are the facts in regard to Pondoland? I want to deal with it briefly. It is that the trouble arose particularly caused by one tribe, but we immediately devoted attention to the matter, and suddenly this trouble burst out because we now know that it was inspired by a number of White Communists. We have the evidence of the Natives there. It is not only the chiefs but numbers of ordinary Natives who brought the evidence and said that these are not the Pondos they know but that behind the whole business there is a master brain, and it is a White brain. There are Whites who spent nights and nights in Pondoland. I am thinking of one person who said how hard he slept in gaol, but he forgot to say how hard he slept in those huts in Pondoland. What was the result? They made use of the tsotsis, with the result that three people lost their lives and many huts were burnt. That is the fruit we have to pluck as the result. They set to work very cleverly. Immediately it was said that they have objections to Bantu Authorities; they do not want to dip their cattle; they do not want to tackle development works and they are against the education system. They asked me to explain these matters to them and I agreed. What is one of the basic principles of the Native population? They want to have access to the authorities, and I gave them access. I appointed a commission consisting of three experts. No criticism can be voiced of any of the three. Mr. van Heerden was the chairman. The complaints were heard. I have a thick volume of the evidence which was taken. Even Mbele gave evidence. He later left the country to go to UN, but what was his evidence? I do not know whether it lasted even ten minutes. He was just against Bantu Authorities and the education system and taxation. Now I want to ask hon. members this. Is there a single person here with any intelligence at all who will tell me: Do not allow those people to dip their cattle; do not make them pay a small fee for dipping their cattle; do not let them pay taxes in future; introduce a different education system? That is the sort of thing they asked for. I do not believe there is such a person in the House. There was no delay. I immediately had the matter investigated and decided that here and there things were done with which I did not agree. Let me mention two matters. In one case a headman put up the fee where usually grass was cut for a certain fee. He should first have asked permission from his chief. That made the people very angry. If only there is an increase of one penny they are angry. At another place the complaint was that a teacher had been appointed because he had bribed the committee concerned. What truth there is in that I could not ascertain, but our Education Department is very strict about such matters and immediately investigates them when they come to light. Well, I appointed that committee and we went back to them and held three meetings, at their request, one being at Bizana where a few thousand people were present. We told them what the findings were and they said: We will now go back to consider the matter and we will let them know later. The second was at Flagstaff where more than 1,000 people were present. On every occasion we held meetings the weather was very bad and we know that under such circumstances people do not like to go to meetings. At Lusikisiki there were between 3,000 and 4,000 people. In the meantime there was no trouble. They said: We are now going back to consider the matter. But I just want to say that there is one pattern which very clearly emerged, namely that at every meeting we found one leader who said: “We want one man, one vote and nothing else.” That is the whole crux of the trouble in Pondoland. Then they said they would gather at the airfield at Bizana on a certain day, when they would give the reply. The Chief Bantu Commissioner went there on the appointed day but nobody turned up. Why not? Because the same pattern that had been followed in other places was adopted and the people had received instructions that if they turned up there their families would be murdered and their huts burnt etc. Then Whites came there again, and then the murders began. Thereafter we did not delay but were compelled to take forceful steps by sending the police there and two sections of the Defence Force. Now I just want to express my appreciation to those people for the way in which they handled the matter, because it redounds to their honour and that of South Africa. [Time limit.]

Mr. BLOOMBERG:

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development will forgive me, I am sure, if I do not refer to his speech because my time is limited and I wish to devote it to matters concerning the Coloured people who we represent. On behalf of my colleagues and myself, I would like to identify myself with the expressions of personal congratulations which came from the Leader of the Opposition to the hon. the Prime Minister.

In a Christmas message issued by the Prime Minister towards the end of 1960 to the South African nation, the hon. the Prime Minister used the following words: “During 1960 the Nationalist Party devoted itself to a search for goodwill and national unity. Greater unity would be pursued during the republican era and this will be one of the main objectives of 1961.” I want to say briefly that our South African nation and the world at large were entitled to draw the conclusion from those words that every effort would be made by the Prime Minister and the members of his Government to bring about greater goodwill and unity among the various sections of our multiracial community. These words were accepted as a sincere gesture on the part of the Prime Minister to bring about greater national unity in our torn country. We felt that every effort would be made by him to do this, despite the fact that we have conflicting political, social and economic problems. These words were taken to mean that the Government was prepared at long last to deal fairly with all sections of the people in a genuine search for goodwill and national unity.

As far as the Coloured people are concerned, you will appreciate, Sir, that they were greatly heartened by this Christmas message. They were hopeful that at long last the time had been reached where the turning-point in the treatment they had received at the hands of the Nationalist Government would come about, and that 1961 would bring forward racial harmony which they had sought ever since the advent of this Government in 1948. But what happened? Instead of the Coloured people receiving from the Government some tangible proof of its desire to attain greater national unity and harmony, there was meted out to the Coloured people early in 1961, before the ink was dry on the Christmas message of the Prime Minister, two statements which had the effect of shattering beyond all hope the ideals and aspirations of the Coloured people of this country. I want to say this, and I am glad that the hon. the Prime Minister is here, that I attribute responsibility for those two statements entirely to the Prime Minister himself.

The first statement consisted of a blunt rejection by the Prime Minister of the proposal which had emanated, not from the Coloured people but from an important section of Afrikaans-speaking people, that the Coloured people should have direct representation in Parliament. I do not want at this stage to debate the merits or demerits of direct Coloured representation in this House, but what I do want to do is to emphasize the manner in which the Prime Minister made this statement and the manner in which he conveyed this arbitrary decision on his part to the Coloured people and the world at large. In order to appreciate the shattering blow which the Prime Minister delivered to the Coloured people, it is necessary for me to recount to this House the state of mind which existed among the Coloured people at the time. Sir, they had every reason to believe that there would be a re-appraisal of the Government’s attitude and policy towards them. They were justified in this belief not only by the Prime Minister’s own statement at Christmas, but by reason of many encouraging statements made in recent months by many prominent Afrikaner leaders, including many well-known members of the Nationalist Party. I say that the Coloured people were justified in that belief by reason of the fact that there had been established a Cape Nationalist Committee which was established with the sole object of investigating ways and means in which there could be evolved a just pattern of racial harmony for the Coloured people. Without awaiting the public decision of that Committee established for that very purpose, the Prime Minister, in a curt and arbitrary statement, announced that the Coloured people would never be given direct representation in Parliament. He advanced no reasons for this decision, except to state that it conflicted with Nationalist Party policy as enunciated by himself. I say that this blunt statement had the effect of shattering the aspirations, the ideals and the hopes of the Coloured people for a re-appraisal of the Government’s attitude towards them. I want to ask the Prime Minister whether he thinks that this cavalier way in which he dealt with the Coloured people is likely to bring about greater national unity in this country, the greater national unity which the Prime Minister tells the House time and again that he is seeking. Does he think that this is the way in which he should devote himself to the search for goodwill among the different sections of the community?

A few days later the hon. the Prime Minister issued another statement, and I say that that second statement was made in order to ameliorate the effect of that unfortunate statement he issued a few days previously. In that statement the Prime Minister listed several measures taken to promote the socioeconomic development of the Coloured people. I assume that we will, during the course of this Session, have an opportunity of dealing with the proposals set out in that statement. I think, however, that it is necessary for me to say here and now in general terms that the statement and the proposals made by the Prime Minister do not by any means go far enough. I say advisedly that those proposals cannot undo the harm that the Prime Minister’s initial statement created. Those proposals cannot restore the old amicable relations between the Whites and the Coloureds. If there was any doubt about the Prime Minister’s intention vis-à-vis the Coloured people, his intention to apply his policy of separate development with inflexible rigour, then that doubt was entirely removed when we listened to the Prime Minister yesterday afternoon in this debate and when one read a statement which purports to emanate from the Federal Council of the Nationalist Party a few days ago, which I venture to suggest is an instrument of the Prime Minister himself. It is quite obvious from what the Prime Minister said in the House and from what is contained in that statement of the Federal Council that, once and for all, the reappraisal attitude enunciated with great courage by a large number of leading Afrikaners is to be stopped. In point of fact, the statement itself makes it perfectly clear that it was being issued in the light of recent discussions in the Press and elsewhere about various aspects of Nationalist policy, and further, the statement makes it clear that the Federal Council adopts the interpretation of all the principles expounded by its national leader, Dr. Verwoerd. I say that that statement had the effect of stopping at once this reappraisal proposal emanating from leading Afrikaners. It has the effect of putting beyond all doubt what the Coloured people can expect from the Government. To say the least of it, this statement is the most shattering pronouncement in so far as the Coloured people are concerned that has so far been issued by the Government. It kills the fervent hope and the belief that the Coloured people had of 1961 evolving for them a just pattern of racial harmony. It rejects in the most cold-blooded manner the public statements made throughout the years by previous leaders of the Nationalist Party, men like General Hertzog and Dr. Malan and Mr. Havenga and Mr. Strijdom and others.

Dr. DE WET:

Quote those leaders.

Mr. BLOOMBERG:

My time is limited, but I will give them to the hon. member with pleasure if he doubts that these statements were made. I say it rejects the public statements made by these men of sacred memory that the Coloured people should be treated as part and parcel of Western civilization. It has rejected the considered statements made by Afrikaner leaders throughout the country that the Coloured people should be taken under the same political roof as the Whites in this country; that they can never be fully segregated because they share the White man’s language, his religion and his culture, and they have no special homelands like the Bantu. I say that the statement made by the Prime Minister yesterday and the one which emanated from the Federal Council has put an end once and for all to the aspirations of the Coloured people and the reappraisal which they had the right to expect in the light of the statements made by these public men. Now, surely it must have occurred to the Prime Minister that if ever there was a time for him and his Government to do something for the Coloured people, this was the time. Time is running out on us. The eyes of the whole civilized world are to-day on South Africa. Any genuine steps taken by the hon. the Prime Minister and the members of his Government to bring about racial harmony in South Africa would have been accepted by the outside world as a decent gesture and as a step to win back for our country the regard and the status which unfortunately South Africa has lost in recent years. Sir, I repeat: Could there have been a more opportune time than the present for the Prime Minister to try to win back that status in the eyes of the outside world? Because of our racial policy South Africa unfortunately is at present under a cloud throughout the whole of the world. Trade boycotts, as we know, have been threatened against us and are being used against us. We know that we are short of investment capital in this country. We know that we are short of investment capital in this country. We know that our immigration figures indicate that we appear to be losing more immigrants than we are gaining. We are involved at the very moment in a serious issue before the International Court about the future of South West Africa. Our whole conduct is before the eyes of the world. Rapid changes are taking place almost daily on the African Continent and this Government up to the present has taken no steps whatsoever to establish a friendly-attitude with the new states which have come into being on the African Continent. In the face of all these adverse conditions to which I have referred and many more which the Prime Minister knows better than I do, would it not have been statesmanlike for the Prime Minister to forget for a single moment his fanatical apartheid policy as far as the Coloured people are concerned, and to have said something which would have given them some hope for the future. Would he not have been justified, in the interests of South Africa, of which he speaks so frequently, in giving careful consideration to the moral issues involved in this Coloured question? The hon. the Prime Minister seems to have been obsessed with the idea that any concessions that he may grant to the Coloured people would lead to greater and greater demands. That is the idea that seems to override all his considerations. But what the Prime Minister has overlooked completely is that no demands were made by the Coloured people. The idea of direct representation as one of the benefits which should be granted to the Coloured people did not emanate from them. They did not ask for the immediate implementation of any such undertaking. The idea of direct representation came from a very large and responsible body of intellectual Afrikaners in South Africa, and was supported wholeheartedly by the largest and leading Afrikaans paper in this country. I say that to have given consideration to these reasonable appeals emanating from the Afrikaner people themselves in the hope and in an endeavour to restore racial harmony in this country and to have held out hopes to the Coloured people that they might look forward in due course to having direct representation in Parliament, would have been well received not only in South Africa but throughout the whole of the civilized world. I am sorry to say that the hon. the Prime Minister has failed lamentably to avail himself of this wonderful opportunity.

I repeat that at no time did the Coloured people or their leaders press for direct parliamentary representation. This was an aspiration which they cherished but there was really no serious request from the Coloured people for its immediate implementation. Even the Union Council of Coloured Affairs, consisting in the main of Government nominees, in an endeavour to whitewash the Prime Minister’s two statements to which I have referred, states that these two statements should be read together, and they go on to say this—

“The Council would be untrue to Coloured opinion if it were to agree that Coloured people should never be represented by members of their own group in the highest legislative body. Whilst there may be differences of opinion as to the desirability of having Coloured people in Parliament at the moment, there should be no doubt as to their right to do so in due course. It is in this light that the Union Council of Coloured Affairs interpreted the Prime Minister’s statements.”

But, Sir, even this cherished hope on the part of this small band of men who play the fiddle to the Government’s tune, is absolutely shattered by the final statement which came from the Federal Council of the Nationalist Party, which says that representation of Coloured people by Coloured people must not be applied now or in the future. I say that the hon. the Prime Minister has blundered more than ever by applying this rigid policy of apartheid in this fanatical fashion to the Coloured people of South Africa. He must know, as indeed I am sure many members on his side of the House know, that such a rigid policy cannot succeed as far as the Coloured people are concerned. It must be obvious to everyone that the livelihood and well-being of the Coloured people, particularly in the Cape Province, are inextricably bound up with the general economy of South Africa. To separate the Coloured people, as envisaged by the Prime Minister under his rigid policy of apartheid, will not only spell disaster for the Coloured people themselves, but must inevitably affect the general economy of South Africa. Sir, I have dealt with this last statement which emanated from the Federal Council as though it emanated directly from the Prime Minister. I have not the slightest doubt in my own mind, and I am sure that no member in this House or any leading member of the public outside, has any doubt that the principal architect of that statement is the Prime Minister himself. But what is so disheartening and so frustrating as far as the Coloured people are concerned, is to find that among those present at that meeting where this statement was adopted and from which this statement was issued to South Africa and to the world at large, were men in the Nationalist Party who have represented Cape constituencies for many years, men whom we thought and whom the Coloured people thought were steeped in Cape traditions and men whom the Coloured people gradually came to include among their White friends. I refer particularly—and I am sorry that they are not in the House now—to men like the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Lands, the Minister of Justice and the Deputy Minister of the Interior. I say that one of the most disheartening features of that statement is the fact that these men whose names I have mentioned and in whom the Coloured people have placed some faith and who they regarded as being their friends, should have been a party to this statement of policy, a statement of policy which kills for all time, under Nationalist rule, any prospect which the Coloured community had of taking their place together with White civilization in this country. Once again I say that this Government will live to rue the day when it rejected the hand of friendship which was held out to them by the Coloured people in an endeavour to establish racial harmony in South Africa. In the light of this conduct which I have described on the part of the Government, what kind of confidence can we have in the future of this country under the Nationalist Party rule.

*The DEPUTY MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:

The hon. member for the Peninsula (Mr. Bloomberg) has expressed himself in a very peculiar way here. He expressed his astonishment at the fact that the Federal Council of the National Party was able to endorse the policy declarations of the hon. the Prime Minister, and in the second place he showed even greater surprise at the fact that there were certain persons, whom he mentioned by name, who served on that Council and who, as he says, are steeped in the “Cape tradition”. I want to ask the hon. member a simple question, because he did not say much, and I think this answers his whole argument: Does the hon. member not know who laid the foundation of this policy for the National Party? He spoke about “sacred leaders”. Is the hon. member a stranger in Jerusalem that he does not know that this policy was laid down on the recommendation of the late Dr. Malan himself? Which tradition does he want us to follow other than the tradition of the leader who, to us, was the architect of this policy which we are carrying out to-day? There was a time when the Coloureds were partially integrated in the political sphere in South Africa, when there was a sort of sham system under which they had representation, a system with which I shall deal further in a moment, and that system was departed from. There were years of conflict before that system could be changed. There was a struggle after 1932 over this principle and this was one of the basic principles on which the National Party eventually came into power in South Africa, namely that Coloureds would be represented in this Assembly by Whites. That was laid down by the late Dr. Malan in 1932, and now the hon. member comes along and talks about a “Cape tradition”. There are two Cape traditions in this country, and I think the time has come for us to say so. One is the Cape tradition that we inherited from Queen Victoria but there is another Cape tradition and that is the one for which men like the late Dr. Malan stood. We are most certainly not associated with the one to which the hon. member refers. What we did in the Federal Council therefore and what was done in the Cape Committee which inquired into Coloured affairs in recent months, was in accordance with the basic principles of the National Party as laid down by its congresses, and what the Federal Council did last week was to re-affirm that they stand by the Prime Minister’s statement as a correct interpretation of the policy laid down by the highest bodies of our party, namely the congresses of our party. That is all that happened; it was nothing new. But I also want to say this to the hon. member in connection with direct representation. He himself has said here that the Coloureds have not asked for it, and I must honestly admit that I do not know of any responsible Coloured body that has ever asked for it. In actual fact the position is that the Coloureds who are politics-conscious, the Coloureds who desire a change in political rights, are a small group of vocal Coloured leaders in South Africa who are seeking escape from the masses of their own people. They are striving to bring about the establishment and the restoration of the common voters’ roll. The Coloureds generally speaking do not want separate representation through direct representation. It is only a small group that wants it—a small group consisting in the main of a small band of politics-conscious people who want to separate themselves from the 80 to 85 per cent, of the Coloureds in South Africa who do not think about these things because they have greater problems—I shall deal with that in a moment— but I contend that these leaders who positively went out of their way to make propaganda for the restoration of the common voters’ roll, are seeking escape from their own people. They do not want to be Coloureds; they want to be absorbed into the White community. They are not interested in the needs of their own people; they do not want to be leaders of those people who need upliftment, and they are the only people with whom the hon. member comes into contact; he does not come into contact with the others at all—and he knows that. He knows that the Coloureds with whom he comes into contact are a small group seeking escape from the burdens of their own people, and now he comes along and tells us about a “Cape view” and mentions the names of people in whom he is disappointed. No, nothing new has happened. The National Party’s policy since 1932 has just been reaffirmed. He also referred to two committees which were allegedly appointed here. I want to say to-day in public, because I was a member of both those committees, that the Cape Committee on Coloured Affairs was appointed as far back as two years ago at the request of our congress. The specific terms of reference of that committee were not to make any decision about political rights for the Coloureds. Their terms of reference were to try to give us clarity on those aspects of our Coloured policy on which we were not yet clear. I was a member of that committee, and that committee did not make one single recommendation, which in principle was contrary to the recommendations and decisions of the Cabinet Committee. They were completely analogous. But to show hon. members the type of slanderous talk and the distortions that we had in regard to this matter as well, I just want to refer to a report which appeared in the Star: “The inside story of those two inquiries on the Coloureds.” The Star is supposed to know everything!—

When Dr. Verwoerd declared the day before yesterday that the Cape Nationalist Party Special Committee on the Coloureds and the Cabinet Committee on the same subject were united in believing that the Coloureds should not be admitted to Parliament, he was talking about the sort of unity that existed between Jonah and the whale.

And then he continues; he is supposed to know the “inside story”, and this is the one which the hon. member has also got hold of—

This is the story behind their agreement: The leader of the Cape Nationalist Party, Dr. Dönges, got the Cape Nationalist Party to set up a committee to inquire into the political representation of the Cape Coloured people.

In the first place that is not correct; it was the congress that decided that. Moreover, it was not asked to make any decision about political rights, but about those aspects of our Coloured policy on which we were not yet clear—

The chairman was Mr. van Gend who is chairman of the Nationalist Party in Cape Town.

He was not a member of one of those two committees, but according to the “inside story” he was the chairman—

… and some prominent Cape businessmen.

Now, that is not true. All the members of the committee were members of the Cape “Hoofraad” (Executive Committee) of the National Party. And then he goes on and tries to drive in a wedge somewhere, he looks for Ministers whom he can use as scapegoats—

To the best of my information Mr. Sauer did not serve on either committee.

The fact is that he was chairman of the Cape committee. I just mention that in passing …

*An HON. MEMBER:

What is the point?

*The DEPUTY MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:

My point is that the hon. member also made certain statements here this afternoon as though he knew the truth. He referred to those two committees and he referred to the decision of the Federal Council, and all I want to say to him is this: All that happened in this process is that the Federal Council re-affirmed what its leader had re-affirmed as the policy of the National Party since 1932. That is the one point and the second is that the so-called “Cape view” to which he referred is not the “Cape view” to which we refer, and in the third place, these two committees in principle reached complete unanimity and that is why the Government was able to make the policy-declaration, which it did in connection with the socio-economic upliftment of the Coloureds.

I leave it at that as far as the hon. member for Peninsula is concerned. I do not think that the Coloureds take much notice of what he says, except the small vocal part. But the hon. the Leader of the Opposition made the statement yesterday that “it is only a small portion of the Coloured population who have decided to co-operate with the Government”. I do want to ask the hon. the Leader of the Opposition to go over his books before he makes such statements, because he comes here and makes the assertion that this Government is only in touch with a small part of the Coloured population. I want to mention to him a number of Coloured organizations which are co-operating with the Department and the Government in a most friendly way—and in saying this I am not trying to intimate that they agree with the Government on every issue but that there is consultation between them and us. Discussions are regularly held with them, as well as with their leaders and attempts are made to learn the point of view of the Coloured population. The first one I want to mention is the C.P.N.U. The C.P.N.U. differs from us on certain aspects of policy, but at a recent congress it once again, expressed its confidence in the Department of Coloured Affairs and, among other things, in me as Deputy Minister. But according to the Leader of the Opposition we are not in contact with the Coloured population. Then I want to mention the B.C.E.S.L., the ex-servicemen’s organization of the Coloured population. On 3 January this year they held a congress at George, and there the president of that organization, one of the biggest organizations amongst the Coloured population, stated in public from the platform: “We have full confidence in the Department of Coloured Affairs.” But the hon. the Leader of the Opposition says that we are only in touch with a small minority. The Department of Coloured Affairs and I personally try to remain in touch as far as possible and we are in touch with a large organization such as TEPA, the recognized teachers’ organization amongst the Coloureds. I do not know whether the hon. the Leader of the Opposition wants us to take notice of the T.L.S.A. because they are the Leftist bunch. Some of the most responsible leaders amongst the Coloured population in South Africa serve on the Union Coloured Council, to which the hon. member for Peninsula referred so contemptuously. The hon. member cannot deny that and I challenge him to say that that is not the case; then we shall see what happens to him at the next election. The fact of the matter is that the chairman of that Council is a recognized Coloured leader.

*Sir DE VILLIERS GRAAFF:

How many voted in the election?

*The DEPUTY MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:

I am dealing with the accusation of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition; he must not run away now.

*Sir DE VILLIERS GRAAFF:

How many were interested in that election?

*The DEPUTY MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:

All I know is that the Leftist elements boycotted it, but what has that got to do with the assertion of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that we are only in touch with a minority?

*Sir DE VILLIERS GRAAFF:

Will you be kind enough to tell us how many of the enfranchised Coloureds voted in that election?

*The DEPUTY MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:

They did not vote at all, because the members of the Union Coloured Council were returned unnopposed, and if the Leader of the Opposition infers from that that the Coloureds are against the Council because the members were returned unopposed, then I am equally entitled to infer that they were satisfied with the candidates who stood because the hon. the Leader of the Opposition himself came in unopposed in Rondebosch. Am I to infer from that that he is a nonentity?

*Sir DE VILLIERS GRAAFF:

Are the reasons the same?

*The DEPUTY MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:

In that case I must infer that he is a nonentity in the United Party. But, Mr. Speaker. I am dealing with the accusation of the Leader of the Opposition that this Government is not in contact with the Coloured population. We are in contact with the C.P.N.U., with the B.C.E.S.L., with TEPA, with the Volksbond organization, with the Union Council, and I say that together these groups represent the majority of the Coloureds in South Africa. These people repeatedly and more and more express their confidence in the way in which the Department of Coloured Affairs is handling their affairs for them. In saying this I am not intimating that they agree with every thing, but there is consultation. We are in contact with them and we know what they think.

*Sir DE VILLIERS GRAAFF:

Are they satisfied with job reservation?

*The DEPUTY MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:

The hon. member must give me a chance. I did not interrupt him when he was talking.

*The MINISTER OF EDUCATION, ARTS AND SCIENCE:

But you are not feeling as uncomfortable as he did.

*Dr. RADFORD:

May I ask you a question?

*The DEPUTY MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:

No, my time is limited. The hon. member can ask his questions under the Coloured Affairs Vote, then I will answer them. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition, in the second place, adopted the attitude that the Coloureds should be absorbed as “part and parcel” of the White population—in other words, integration. But we virtually had integration after 1854 in respect of the Coloureds and the Whites in South Africa, with this difference that as far as rural areas were concerned, certain areas were set aside for the Coloureds, but otherwise the policy followed in South Africa since 1854 was one of gradual equality for the Coloureds and one of integration. And now I want to ask the hon. the Leader of the Opposition this: To what extent did the Coloureds benefit after 1854 under that policy? Let us take a few examples. Let us take rural homelands. In all these years 2,000,000 morgen of land was set aside for the Coloureds, not in the sense in which land is set aside for the Bantu as their national homelands. But the Coloureds have a natural land hunger and there are some of them who are of rural origin. And let me ask the Leader of the Opposition this: What was done in these rural areas after 1854, under that system of integration, to promote the interests of the Coloureds there? I have taken the trouble to ascertain what was done during all these years, and I just want to mention a few examples. I want to take the Richtersveld, an area which covers 600,000 morgen of land. From 1854 until a few years ago not a single borehole was sunk on the whole of the 600,000 morgen of the Richtersveld, not a single fence was erected and not a single betterment work was brought into being—and that happened under the system of the previous regime and all preceding Governments. The rural areas of those Coloureds were left in the most backward state. It is this Government, with its policy of parallel development, which in recent years has been systematically developing these rural areas for the Coloureds in a most impressive way. We have increased the carrying capacity, applied water conservation, erected grazing camps, applied rotational grazing, developed towns and planted trees. In general the carrying capacity of these areas has been increased. It was under the present Government that Coloured stock farmers were also given the opportunity to obtain stock loans from the Land Bank. But the integrationists who have been so interested in the Coloureds’ political franchise since 1854 have never thought of doing that, of doing something for these rural areas where the Coloureds live. I have here the amounts which have been spent in this connection, but I do not want to take up the time of the House by quoting all these figures. Let us take a second example. I am now referring more specifically to the farm Coloureds who are employed on the farms. Under that system of integration and so-called equality, what guidance was given by the State to increase the productive capacity of those Coloureds who are employed on the farms, to improve their living conditions? No, it was left to this Government to introduce the system of agricultural gymnasiums by which the productivity of these Coloured labourers will be increased so that they can be equipped to achieve an improved economic position.

Let us take another aspect, namely the urban areas. Under The system of integration the Coloureds in the urban areas were forced into the slums of the cities and towns; in those areas where the worst housing conditions prevailed, the Coloureds had to live because the integrationists bought apartheid for themselves through their financial resources. They did not need a Group Areas Act. They bought apartheid with their money, and for the rest the Coloured was left to live amongst the poor Whites in the slums of our cities. But under the socio-economic policy as announced by the Prime Minister, the present Government has given the Coloureds a decent opportunity to develop their own urban areas, and not merely to have an area in which to live, but also to create channels for them whereby they can give expression to their aspirations in various directions. This is in contrast with the integration policy to which we had been accustomed for all those years in South Africa. In reality the Coloureds have in the main made their mark in two spheres since 1854. I am not referring now to the few individuals who have risen above the rest. I want to mention the two spheres. They have made their mark in the educational sphere and secondly in the sphere of the Afrikaans churches. In the educational sphere the Coloured as a result of the then prevailing system could become a teacher and in the church sphere the Coloureds could become missionaries and ministers. And in both these spheres in which the Coloureds have in the main made their mark in the past, the principle of parallel development and not integration was applied. We can take the rural areas; we can take the urban areas; we can take the platteland Coloureds; and we shall find that 80 per cent of the Coloureds are backward, undeveloped and poor and the Coloureds have become a socio-economic problem. Where he has advanced, he could only do so on the basis of the principle of parallel development. And then the Leader of the Opposition says: No, you must destroy this system of parallel development. You must once again bring the Coloured back under the system we had for all those years, a system which is tried and tested in South Africa—that utopian belief which represents the policy of the Progressive Party, of the integrationists and of the Liberals. In terms of that policy one does not need to plan. One does not need to take any trouble; one just lets things slide. That is why I call it the “utopian belief”. We say that we cannot do that if we want to act morally towards this population group which has been entrusted to our care.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition went on to say:

“No hope is held out to this section of the community.” No hope is held out to them! Is this true? Over the past two years, since we introduced the legislation into this House two years ago, an impressive programme of development has been undertaken in the Coloured rural areas. I do not want to bore the House with figures and examples. There sits the hon. member for Karoo (Mr. G. S. P. le Roux) and if he is an honourable man, he will rise and say that the work of the present Government and the Department of Coloured Affairs as regards the Coloured rural areas is unprecedented in the history of the Coloured people. I want to give the hon. member the opportunity to deny this if I am doing him an injustice. Developmental work has been undertaken on an impressive scale with the assistance of the local Coloured boards of management. We have received the maximum possible co-operation from all the local Coloured boards in developing those rural areas, so much so that other rural areas which do not yet fall under the Department have submitted petitions to us asking that they should also be brought under this legislation so that they can enjoy the benefits of the National Party Government’s policy. These are the race haters! These are the oppressors, the people on this side of the House who are undertaking this development, and there on the Opposition benches sit the saviours of the Coloureds who are only interested in 20,000 enfranchised Coloureds.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition says that no hope is held out to them. How else does the hon. the Leader of the Opposition want to eliminate the frustration from which the Coloured suffers to-day because he cannot find employment in the rural areas? How does he wish to eliminate the frustration which is caused when we provide an academic education to more than 200,000 Coloureds per annum in our schools, without creating new employment opportunities for them in their own residential areas? Does the hon. the Leader of the Opposition want to give them this education on a parallel basis? Does he wish to prepare them for life? And when he has done so, does he then want to send them out unprotected to meet the cruel competition from other racial groups with which they will be faced. Or must we create channels for them in their own residential areas, in their own towns, in their own urban areas in which the various fields of life can be opened to them so that the frustration from which they suffer to-day can be dispelled? The Coloured as chemist, the Coloured as doctor, the Coloured as an attorney. The time must come when that aim will be realized. The Coloured as hairdresser, the Coloured as shoemaker, the Coloured in every sphere of life, taking his place in his own areas.

Another point which lies at the basis of this Government’s policy …

*Sir DE VILLIERS GRAAFF:

Where are their own areas?

*The DEPUTY MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:

I have been telling the hon. member all the time that there are rural Coloureds for whom we are providing on the basis that we shall develop their own rural areas and increase the carrying capacity of those areas.

*An HON. MEMBER:

Only 30,000!

*The DEPUTY MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:

If the figure is so low, and it is not, then it is only because under the integration policy of the United Party the land was so poorly developed that it could not carry any more people. Now we say: We have the Coloureds living in the cities and towns and opportunities will have to be created for them in their own residential areas. And we are after all delimiting those residential areas. Does the hon. the Leader of the Opposition not know about that? In the third place we have a group of platteland Coloureds who are employed on the farms and we are trying to increase their productivity.

*Sir DE VILLIERS GRAAFF:

Then I am correct after all.

*The DEPUTY MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:

Now as a result of the Prime Minister’s statement, the Department is going further and saying: We are now going to take over all Coloured welfare services. They have been partially taken over, but we are negotiating to take over all these services and to train Coloureds at the Western Cape College for Coloureds so that their own welfare workers will work amongst their people. They can then help bring about the social upliftment which is so essential. In our Department itself this Government already employs more than 300 Coloureds as officials. But apparently all these things mean nothing to the Opposition. They are only interested in the small local group of enfranchised Coloureds, and the 80 per cent from whom this small group is being separated, can go under as far as the Opposition are concerned. They can be absorbed by the Bantu. It is often said that the White man needs the Coloured in South Africa. I have repeatedly told the Coloureds: “That may be true, but I want to tell you that you need the White man even more, and you need the Nationalist Government even more” because the Nationalist Government stands between the Coloured and his destruction in South Africa. If the Coloured were to be handed over to the Opposition in our country, he would fall back into poverty and backwardness, and only those whose votes can be bought will receive attention.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition has put forward a further accusation and he has been followed in this accusation by the hon. member for Peninsula (Mr. Bloomberg). It is now being said that it is so immoral that we do not want to give the Coloureds direct representation in this House. In other words we are withholding an elementary right which we should grant to anyone. I have always thought that this House is a place where we realistically face the facts, the facts with which we in South Africa are faced. Along what lines have we been moving in South Africa since 1932? We have been moving ever more decisively towards the standpoint that the Coloureds should not be represented in this Parliament by Coloureds. What is more, if we should go to the country to-day on this point, namely that we are in favour of allowing the Coloureds to sit here in Parliament, we would suffer the most crushing defeat possible at the hands of the electorate of South Africa. In other words, the Government in this matter adopts the attitude that it is interpreting the feelings of the majority of the voters in South Africa, and that is surely its task as a democratic Government. But if we could on moral and other grounds justify granting the Coloureds direct representation, one could make out a case that one should propagate a cause that is right against the will of the majority of the voters. Political parties have done that in the past. But if we were to take this step which (on the authority of the hon. member for Peninsula) the Coloureds themselves are not asking for, but which Whites are asking for and which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has now suddenly adopted as his policy, what then? The hon. the Leader of the Opposition has seen that there are a few people who think along these lines and now he has suddenly adopted this as his policy and he hopes to catch a few votes. But if we should allow the Coloureds to have four Coloured representatives who could sit in this House would we then be acting morally? Is it then moral to give the 20,000 or 30,000 enfranchised Coloureds representation in this House but to leave out in the cold the 90 per cent of the Coloureds who are not yet interested in political rights. What of the morality of the Opposition on this point? If we wish to act morally, then we should surely calculate the ratio of Coloureds to Whites and then give them representation on a proportionate basis. If the Opposition wished to take such a step should it come into power would South Africa accept it? As a matter of fact, if the United Party were to come into power, there would not be time to take such a step because the Bantu would then govern. That is why the Government says that there is only one way and that is the policy which we started to follow in 1932, the policy of developing the rural home areas of the Coloureds, the policy of providing the Coloureds with the necessary opportunities in life in their own city and town areas, the policy of uplifting them in the socio-economic field on the platteland too, the policy of allowing them to be served by their own people wherever possible, the policy of establishing local authorities for the Coloureds. This policy must be developed further and for that purpose the Union Coloured Council must be used. That is stated in the reports as well. This Union Council must be reorganized, must be further developed, and the time will come when the Union Council will have to be made more representative than it is to-day. But that time will only come as and when the Coloureds reveal that sense of responsibility, and as and when suitable leaders come forward. Then this Union Council can perhaps be used as an overall organization covering all the local government areas, and it can first advise and later be given administrative powers, and it may develop along these lines until eventually it is given legislative power as well. The Government has envisaged in its statement that on this basis of parallel development there will be consultation at the highest level between the Union Council and the government of the day. In other words, we envisage that attention should first be given to the most urgent aspect of our Coloured policy, namely the socio-economic part of that policy. As progress is made in that regard, we shall also be able to progress with the further development of the parallel development ideal as regards the political rights of the Coloureds. Then we shall not be assaulting this principle to which such value is attached in South Africa, namely separate representation, and where the Coloureds are represented in White bodies, they will be represented by Whites. I believe that by this means we shall retain the self-respect of the White man and we shall confirm the self-respect of the Coloured. Only when the two population groups mutually respect one another and also retain their own self-respect, can the policy of good neighbours with just dividing lines be successful. It is along that road that the way to racial peace and racial content in South Africa is to be found.

*Dr. STEENKAMP:

Although I do not agree with everything the hon. the Deputy Minister of the Interior has said, I think nevertheless that we must admit that he has placed his policy before us in an interesting way. I shall try to refer to it as I go along. Mr. Speaker, I cannot omit in passing to testify immediately that I was surprised when he said that the late Dr. Malan was the architect of the present Coloured policy of the Government. Has my hon. friend then forgotten that it was Dr. Malan who was not only most emphatically in favour of the Coloured franchise being maintained in the Cape, but that he also wanted to extend it to the north? Has my hon. friend forgotten—he did not refer to this, because it did not suit his purposes at the present stage—that it was the late Dr. Malan who was in favour of the franchise being extended to Coloured women as well? Was it then not the late Dr. Malan, the former Prime Minister, who told the Malays that segregation would not be applied to them? Was it not the then leader of the Nationalist Party who said that in the economic and political spheres (this was prior to 1932) no distinction would be made between the Coloured and the White man? And was it not the late Dr. Malan who advocated the so-called (now I am quoting my friend over there) “Queen Victoria idea”? Was he not the pioneer of that policy together with Mr. Sauer and the late Mr. F. S. Malan? In 1932 this same Dr. Malan changed his policy and was it not the same Dr. Malan of whom the late General Hertzog said at that time that when it suited him politically, he repudiated anything for which he had previously stood?

*An HON. MEMBER:

Shame!

*Dr. STEENKAMP:

The late General Hertzog did say that after all. But I do not want to devote any more time to the hon. member who has just sat down. With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and with apologies to the hon. the Deputy Minister, I want to come back to the hon. the Prime Minister because after all he stands head and shoulders above anyone else on the opposite benches. That does not say much but it is so. One thing is certain and it is that he is setting the course and the pace politically on that side of the House. Whatever members of the Cabinet or other Nationalists outside might say, once the Prime Minister has spoken, then the matter is settled. He is “His Master’s Voice” and once he has spoken, hon. members opposite are dead silent, as happened yesterday once again. Even the Federal Council of the Nationalist Party immediately followed him slavishly. We sometimes hear a weak nervous bleat from hon. members opposite, but once the bulldog has spoken, there is silence, dead silence, even on the part of the Burger, the mouthpiece of the Nationalist Party! Then this mouthpiece of the Cape Nationalists uses words and sentences of which one cannot make head or tail! The hon. the Prime Minister told us yesterday: “There is no division in the National Party; we are absolutely united.”

*HON. MEMBERS:

Exactly!

*Dr. STEENKAMP:

I wish hon. members could have sat on this side of the House and seen some of the downcast faces on the opposite benches when the Prime Minister said that. However, it is most disappointing, it is a national tragedy that there is not one hon. member opposite who, when he differs from the hon. the Prime Minister, dares to say so or has the courage and the frankness to differ from him. Hon. members have become slaves of the Prime Minister. I challenge any hon. member opposite to rise and to state his convictions where they conflict with what the Prime Minister has said.

*Mr. F. S. STEYN:

May I ask the hon. member a question?

*Dr. STEENKAMP:

No, I am sorry; I do not have the time. The hon. the Prime Minister is normally a very friendly person.

*Mr. F. S. STEYN:

You talk of moral courage. Why did you not have the moral courage to vote for the republic?

*Dr. STEENKAMP:

I repeat that the hon. the Prime Minister is normally a friendly person and I am sorry that he has made such a personal attack on the hon. member for Transkeian Territories (Mr. Hughes). We are still waiting for his reply because serious allegations have been made. Nor did the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration in his attack on the hon. member for Transkeian Territories this afternoon adduce any counter-proof. I just want to put a question to the hon. the Minister. He has said that the speech of the hon. member was nothing but a demonstration of ignorance on the part of the hon. member. May I then ask why at the moment we have a large part of our Army in the Transkeian Territories, why a large part of the Navy is to be found along the Transkeian coast, and why a large part of the Air Force is in this area? What are they then doing there? Are they on holiday?

Yesterday the hon. the Prime Minister repeated a previous allegation, a serious allegation. It is a pity that he has done so because he is once again dragging the non-Whites into the struggles of the Whites. He says that we on this side, meaning the United Party, are using certain non-White racial groups in our struggle against our fellow-Afrikaners in our struggle against the Nationalist Party.

*An HON. MEMBER:

Do you deny it?

*Dr. STEENKAMP:

I reject it with the contempt it deserves, and this allegation could only come from a party such as the Nationalist Party which does not care what harm it does the future of our people so long as it can simply remain in power. But if this is in fact our policy, I ask my hon. friends to give us one single example to substantiate their allegation. Was it a United Party Senator who wrote to a Native, Bethuel, and asked for his assistance against his fellow-Afrikaners in the United Party? Was it a United Party Senator or was it Senator Pretorius?

*The DEPUTY MINISTER OF BANTU ADMINISTRATION AND DEVELOPMENT:

He was not a Senator when he wrote it.

*Dr. STEENKAMP:

No, then he was the Nationalist Party candidate and at that time he sought assistance against his fellow Afrikaner. I want to raise this matter once again. After the insinuation and the allegation which the hon. the Prime Minister made yesterday, it is clear that the Nationalist Party is once again going to concentrate on exploiting the non-White danger, the Black danger, and I therefore think it is necessary that we on this side of the House should once again show what deplorable methods have been used by a person who was fighting an election on behalf of the Nationalist Party. He wrote—

Dear Friend Bethuel …
*Mr. E. G. MALAN:

And later they made him a Senator.

*Dr. STEENKAMP:

Yes, later he was made a Senator. [Interjections.] He went on—

Look, I have received a letter from the district committee, I mean the divisional committee of Lichtenburg, in which it is suggested that they should allow you to organize …

“you”—that is the Native …[Interjections.] yes, it is a sore point—

… that they should allow you to organize and to propagate the Government’s policy in the area. It was suggested that I should write to the head committee of the Nationalist Party, and I then did so.

They will get this letter later. Now listen—

I appreciate it greatly that you Bantu yourselves appreciate the necessity for supporting this Government because the United Party is already using the slogan that the National Party is doing everything for the Natives and nothing for the Whites. They say we are kafferboeties … And, if that slogan of theirs wins the 1958 election for them and they come into power, you know what you can expect.

Imagine it, Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Prime Minister levels the accusation at this side that we are working hand in glove with non-White groups, and they are writing this type of letter behind the scenes. I say it is deplorable.

*Mr. G. F. H. BEKKER:

You are a comedian.

*Dr. STEENKAMP:

Yes, that may be so, but not the “kapater” of Cradock! As regards the allegation by the Prime Minister, is it then the secretary of the United Party who is looking for party funds in the Asiatic shops of Durban, who is seeking assistance from the non-Whites against our fellow Afrikaners, against our fellow Whites? Is it then the leader of the United Party who wrote to Dr. Abdhuruhman and thanked him for his assistance against the late Mrs. Steenkamp, or was it Dr. Malan? Was it the United Party who asked for these things and who sought their co-operation? And why has this allegation been made by my hon. friend? And finally, was it then the United Party’s secretary at Lichtenburg, or was it the Nationalist Party’s secretary at Lichtenburg, who sent £5 to this same Mr. Bethuel—“Dear Friend Bethuel”—to help him organize for the Nationalist Party?

*An HON. MEMBER:

It was not a big contribution.

*Dr. STEENKAMP:

Even if it was 1d., then the hon. the Prime Minister does not have the right, the temerity, to level this accusation at this side of the House.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to devote a few moments to what the Prime Minister has said about our Coloureds. He has said that we, the United Party, will not only restore them to the common roll, but will give them direct representation as well. That is the policy. Then the hon. the Prime Minister says that this is the “charter of hope” or the “policy of hope” of the United Party. May I with all the emphasis at my command say that as far as the Coloureds are concerned, this policy, with the progress we have made in this regard, is not a “policy of hope” or a “charter of hope” to help the United Party or any party as such, but is an attempt to find a basis on which the future of the White man of South Africa can be assured. Because one thing is certain. Whether we differ from one another or not, if we do not keep on our side these 1,500,000 people—and by the year 2,000, they will number 4,000,000—who are favourably disposed towards us or if they do not support us Whites, there is in my opinion very little hope of a future for the White man in South Africa. These are people who have come from us; they are people who are of us; these are people who live as we live …

*Dr. DE WET:

That is not quite true.

*Dr. STEENKAMP:

Where then do they come from? Of course it is true. If you want to run away and say that that is not so, let us then differ on that point. One thing is certain: 90 per cent of them are descended from us.

*An HON. MEMBER:

[Inaudible.]

*Dr. STEENKAMP:

No, my blood fortunately is pure? I wonder whether the hon. member can say the same. But, Mr. Speaker, whatever the position may be, those people think as we do; they have accepted our religion and our church; and as far as their culture is concerned and particularly as far as we Afrikaans-speaking people are concerned they stand by us and some of them are ranked amongst the best writers in Afrikaans. As the late Gen. Hertzog said, they are an appendage of the Whites. If we do not regain their support, then I doubt whether the White man has a future. I cannot see how this new policy can or will benefit the United Party. But I cannot accept the basis which the hon. the Deputy Minister of the Interior has laid down. He says that if we should go to the country with this policy, we would suffer a crushing defeat. For what purpose are we here? Have we been put here to provide leadership or to follow? In my opinion we are here as Members of Parliament to provide leadership, and I think it is necessary for us as a party and as a Parliament to differ over these matters, but also to recognize that if we cannot remedy this position, if we cannot rehabilitate the word of honour of the White man towards the non-White, we are going to lose the support of the Coloureds in maintaining the position of the White man in South Africa. That is the policy of the United Party, and it is not afraid of this policy. If it is going to lose an election or two, what does it matter? Parties come and go, but we as leaders must ensure that we lay down such a basis that it can or will be possible for us— not the United Party or the Nationalist Party— to safeguard the future of the White man in South Africa.

Furthermore, the United Party feels, as regards the Coloured people, that they must have a share here in this House of Assembly. The Prime Minister now says: But do you not appreciate the danger of that policy; do you not realize that if, for example, you should give the Coloureds four representatives they will ask for more? Of course they will ask for more. I take myself as an example. If I was a Coloured or anyone else in this House, and I felt that I had less privileges or representation than was my due, I would, of course, ask for more. But must that now hold us back? Must this deter us from doing the right thing? Why then have my friends in the Nationalist Party given these people four White representatives? The same principle applies. For how long will the Coloured people be satisfied with four White representatives? Nor is it necessary to be in this House to ask for additional rights. The Nationalist Party knows as well as I that the institution of the four White members in this House has given the Coloureds just as great an opportunity to ask not only for an increase in that representation, but also that their representatives should be non-Whites. That will come. It can be said that at present it is only Whites who are asking for this change, but it is our best type of White who is doing so. It is not only we as a party who are asking for this; some of our leading people outside are doing so. There are, for example, intellectuals from my alma mater. Hon. members know the old saying: What Stellenbosch asks for to-day, is the policy of the country to-morrow. Some of our leading people are asking for this; they are not all United Party supporters. There are also Nationalist Party supporters who are asking that we should do the right thing by these people, and that, inter alia, we should give them direct representation. I grew up in the atmosphere of the north. I grew up in the conservative north, but I would, indeed, be untrue to my position in this House and to the confidence which my constituency or my voters have placed in me if I should allow them to lead and not try to lead myself. The United Party honestly believes that if we want to safeguard the future of the White man we shall have to take steps to ensure that we regain the confidence of the Coloureds. One of the ways to do so is not only to transfer them to a common roll in order to rehabilitate the word of honour of the White man, but also to give them an opportunity to have direct representation in this House.

*An HON. MEMBER:

You will have to render account for that.

*Dr. STEENKAMP:

You can exploit it if you wish.

*Dr. DE WET:

And what about the Indians?

*Dr. STEENKAMP:

I am not discussing the Indians now. But, seeing that my hon. friends have referred to the Asiatic people, I want to tell them that the day will come when we shall have to give attention to them and that we cannot continue ignoring them. Hon. members can, perhaps, remain in power for one, three, five or ten years, but the day will come when they will have to consider the position of the Asiatics.

*An HON. MEMBER:

Must they come sit here?

*Dr. STEENKAMP:

The hon. member will have to answer that question, and I tell my Nationalist friends again that the day will come when they will no longer be able to ignore the Indian people. Let the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark (Dr. de Wet) rise and tell us what they are going to do about the Asiatic people? The hon. member will not do so, because they are still promising on the platforms outside that they will repatriate the Indians—just ask the hon. member for Brits (Mr. J. E. Potgieter).

*Dr. DE WET:

May I ask a question?

*Dr. STEENKAMP:

No. I was discussing the Coloured people, but I have also referred to the Indians, because an interjection has been made. In the time remaining I now want to refer to another matter, namely the relationship between White and White. The hon. the Prime Minister has referred to this matter. It was amusing to listen to our Nationalist friends during the referendum.

*An HON. MEMBER:

It was very amusing.

*Dr. STEENKAMP:

It was most amusing. Never before have the Nationalists loved the English so dearly, never before has an English-speaking person been so popular amongst them. Even an English-speaking person of Jewish descent who addressed their congress at Bloemfontein received the applause which is due to a Prime Minister! Mr. Speaker, it was strange … [Interjections.] But wait a moment, keep quiet! The hon. member apparently cannot do so, but he must try to do so. For 12 years the Prime Minister and his party have ignored the English-speaking section of our population.

*Mr. J. E. POTGIETER:

That is a lie.

*Dr. STEENKAMP:

Now the referendum is over …

*Mr. S. J. M. STEYN:

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Chief Whip of the Nationalist Party has said that that is a lie; must he not withdraw it?

*Mr. J. E. POTGIETER:

I withdraw the word “lie” and I say that that is untrue and incorrect information.

*Dr. STEENKAMP:

Unfortunately, while the Prime Minister was making this appeal to the English-speaking people and telling them how well they would fare once we have a republic, and also that he needed their help, all his efforts to gain unity, co-operation and harmony were frustrated by, inter alia, my hon. friend from Vanderbijlpark. He said: Look what is happening in the United Party; Marais Steyn and Louis Steenkamp do not have the courage to stand on their own feet. No, they are co-operating with the English-speaking people in an attempt to build up South Africa. That is his opinion of the English-speaking people and of co-operation between the English-speaking and Afrikaans-speaking peoples. And, Mr. Speaker, that is not all. Was it not my hon. friend, the Deputy Minister of Education, who referred to Queen Victoria as the “ounooi” (old madam)? This type of thing has completely frustrated the Prime Minister’s efforts. But, as I have said, for 12 years they have ignored the culture, the background and the traditions of the English-speaking section of the people in practically every sphere but now all of a sudden they are so fond of the English-speaking people! But what else have they done? If the hon. the Prime Minister is—I do not want to say honest —sincere in his approach, why did he not appoint an English-speaking person to the Senate when he had that golden opportunity last year? Why does he not abandon his deplorable policy of keeping the English-and Afrikaans-speaking children apart in the Transvaal? Why does he not tell the English-speaking people: Look, you are now going to cooperate with us in building up our great republic. No that is not being done. Certain English-speaking people have voted for the republic as a result of the Prime Minister’s appeal and now they are being repudiated.

*Mr. B. COETZEE:

[Inaudible.]

*Dr. STEENKAMP:

The hon. member has now reminded me of what I should have said, namely that the Prime Minister in his reply to the deputation of English-speaking people from Natal showed that the Nationalist Party does not want to co-operate. We cannot get away from the fact that Natal is predominantly English-speaking. The fact that we are going to establish a republic in South Africa has caused doubts to arise amongst those people. These are English-speaking people, and although the republican principle has been accepted at the referendum, and I personally have accepted it …

*Dr. MULDER:

But you worked against it.

*Dr. STEENKAMP:

… I feel that it will be most unwise of the hon. the Prime Minister at this stage to go ahead immediately with plans for the establishment of a republic. It should be a danger sign to him to see what is going on in certain parts of our country, amongst a certain section of our population. He gained a small majority in favour of a republic—it was 2 per cent, not so?

*Mr. S. J. M. STEYN:

Scarcely 2 per cent.

*Dr. STEENKAMP:

Although the principle has been and is accepted, it will be unwise to go ahead with its implementation immediately. That is why the question is asked—after we have been so strongly criticised—where the United Party stands as regards this matter, namely co-operation. We have stated our attitude repeatedly and I am not going to bore the House by repeating it. We believe in what General Hertzog said, namely that it would be a crime to keep our English-speaking and Afrikaans-speaking children apart on the school grounds; we must give our children an opportunity to learn and to respect one another so that, when they grow up, they will not be enemies or strangers to one another; we must let them grow up in such a way that they can respect one another’s culture, language and traditions and have the opportunity to help build a true South African nation and people.

*Dr. JONKER:

The hon. member for Hillbrow (Dr. Steenkamp) tried this afternoon to refute that since 1932 the late Dr. Malan introduced and promoted the policy of separate development also in respect of the Coloured people. His attempt to refute that consisted of an endeavour to quote what Dr. Malan had said in the years prior to 1932. I am surprised that the hon. member for Hillbrow has not learnt the simple little lesson which most of us have learnt a long time ago. In days gone by we amused ourselves by referring to Hansard and newspapers, reading judgements and quoting or misquoting what people said 15, 20, 30 or 40 years ago in totally different circumstances and trying to prove that what they were saying to-day was incorrect. He produced no proof to show that the policy of separate development in respect of the Coloured people has not been advocated by the National Party over the past 20 years at least. What he lost sight of, however, was this that since 1910 no governing party and no official Opposition ever advocated the abolition of the colour bar in the House of Assembly and in the Senate. All the parties, the former National Party of the day, the former South African Party, the United Party and the National Party since Dr. Malan, were very much against the abolition of the colour bar in this House. This policy which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition advocated yesterday is a completely new policy, it is a policy which the former United Party, to which the hon. member for Hillbrow and I belonged, discarded time and time again. The late Mr. Hofmeyr was the only person who ever advocated that policy. In 1947, just prior to a very important by-election in the Hottentots Holland constituency, he said that he envisaged the day when the colour bar would be abolished in Parliament. That meant that the present Leader of the Opposition, who was the United Party candidate in Hottentots Holland at that time and which was a safe United Party seat, lost it to Senator Van Aarde.

*Dr. STEENKAMP:

May I put a question?

*Dr. JONKER:

That hon. member refused to answer questions. If what I am saying is not clear to him he will have an opportunity at a later stage to ask questions. Just allow me to develop the argument with which I am dealing. My argument is this that the hon. member tried to prove that since 1932 Dr. Malan did not consistently follow the policy of separate development in respect of the Coloureds, and he dragged in the question of the colour bar in Parliament. As I have said, the policy of all governing parties and of all official opposition has been the retention of the colour bar in Parliament. Until yesterday it has been the policy of the United Party to maintain the colour bar in the Senate and in the House of Assembly. This policy which they now announce, is an umpteenth new policy, a new change-over on the part of the United Party, to a policy which they have never advocated before. They advocate it for two reasons. The first reason is that they are afraid of the Progressive Party. They are afraid that the Progressive Party may get too far ahead of them. The second reason is, as has already been stated, that they hope to catch the vote of a few national-minded people, people who have expressed the view that the Coloureds ought to get direct representation.

The United Party did not argue this matter thoroughly, just as they have failed lately to argue any matter thoroughly beforehand. In the past the position in the United Party has been that the Coloured people voted with the Europeans on the same voters’ roll. As a logical consequence and as a result of that attitude, the old United Party began to admit Coloureds as members of the party. Coloureds were allowed to become members of the United Party. I now want to ask the hon. member for Hillbrow, now that they have once again adopted this policy, whether he is going to exert himself to have Coloureds admitted as members of the United Party. Let him tell us, Sir, whether he is going to exert himself to have Coloureds admitted as members of the United Party. They say that the Coloured people should be represented by Coloureds in this House. That was the policy of the late Mr. Hofmeyr in respect of which General Smuts repudiated him. They now adopt that policy. If they want to allow Coloureds in Parliament and the Coloureds are returned to the common roll, will the hon. member exert himself to have Coloureds admitted as members of the United Party? Will he exert himself to have Coloureds allowed to play their part on the councils of the Party? Will his aim be and will the aim of his Leader be to have the decision taken by the United Party Congress at Worcester, namely that Coloureds will not longer be allowed to become members of the Party, revoked? Now I come to the Peninsula Council and I want to put this question to the hon. member for Simonstown (Mr. Gay). As a former chairman of the Peninsula Council will he endeavour to have Coloureds represented on the Peninsula Council, as was the position in the days before I became a member of the United Party, and that they be admitted as members of their congresses? Because, Mr. Speaker, what will the position be otherwise? If a Party advocates that Coloureds should become members of this highest Forum in the country, but they are not allowed to become members of that Party, what will the position be? They may not be members of the councils of that party: nor may they be members of the congresses of that party, but they may very well be members of this House.

Mr. Speaker, that is what we hear from persons and parties who are so prone to moralize. I ask in all humility what sort of morality is it when you advocate that Coloureds should become members of this House, but you are too scared to say it, neither will you say it, that your aim will be to have Coloureds admitted as members of your Party and to sit on your councils and congresses. What kind of morality is that? What kind of justice is that and what value can you place on that. Sir? [Interjections.] I am sorry I did not hear what the hon. member for Simonstown mumbled, but I take it he said that he did not advocate that Coloureds should once again be allowed to become members of the United Party. If he does advocate that, I should like to hear him say it and in that case he can still make a statement in that regard to the Press this evening. Sir, this attitude on the part of the United Party is an immoral attitude, it is immoral in that respect to which I have once referred in the past. If the United Party were to succeed in having the Coloureds restored to the common roll, and to that they add that the Coloureds should also sit in this House, then I ask them this: During the time when the Coloureds were on the common roll and they had the opportunity of electing a Coloured person to the Cape Provincial Council, why did they not see to it that after Dr. Abdurahman and the person who succeeded him, Mr. Reagon, another Coloured person reached that position? Why did they not see to it that another Coloured person was sent to the Provincial Council since then? At every election they used the vote of the Coloured person and relied on his vote to win seats, but not once did the United Party say to the Coloured people: You supported us so faithfully during this election, here is a constituency; elect somebody to represent it in the Provincial Council of the Cape. They never said that and now I want to ask this: If the Coloureds were returned to the common roll, were to become members of the United Party and were to serve on their councils and boards, would any Coloured man stand a chance at a party nomination of being nominated in opposition to the hon. member for Hillbrow or the Leader of the Opposition? Sir, this is merely an endeavour to lead the Coloured people up the garden path. They are not sincere when they say that they genuinely do not begrudge the Coloured people the opportunity of climbing to the very top. In no constituency of theirs will they allow a Coloured person to win the party nomination. They say: We dare not allow the Coloured person to be nominated in this safe seat; if we do we shall lose it. That will be their excuse. They preach morality, but they leave the Coloured person on the shelf.

This question of the representation of the Coloured people, of course, flows from a consideration of the people which is based on a wrong approach. For the umpteenth time the hon. member for Hillbrow has suggested that the Coloureds should be treated in such a manner that it will not be possible for them to develop separately, and the United Party bases that argument on the fact that the Coloured people, as a community, do not differ in any respect from the White community. They say that the Coloureds speak the language of the White people, that for the greater part they have adopted the religion of the White man and for a great part they have taken over the civilization and culture of the West as far as it has been possible for them to do so. But then we have the crux of the matter. The hon. member for Hillbrow comes forward with the statement, a statement which one should not merely deprecate, Sir, but which one should prove to be false, namely that the Coloured people of South Africa is a section of or originate from the White section of the people of this country. In other words the Coloured race has come into existence as a result of miscegenation between Whites and non-Whites.

*Dr. STEENKAMP:

For the greater part.

*Dr. JONKER:

That is completely false. The Coloured race is a mixed race, but the majority of them are the descendants of the slaves which were emancipated in 1834 and the Hottentot race in South Africa. [Interjections.] I advise the hon. member for Hillbrow, for his own sake and for the sake of the national group to which he belongs, to acquaint himself with those facts. I say that the total percentage of White blood which has been added to the Coloured race is not more than 10 per cent or at the most 15 per cent; and that addition took place mainly in the coastal areas, in the harbour cities. What happens in every coastal city in the world where visiting sailors have no respect for colour or race for the few nights that they are there, happened there. Ten per cent or at the most 15 per cent of White blood was added, something which we found in all places where there were military camps, like Wynberg, Simonstown, Grahamstown, and throughout the country where there were permanent military camps in the past, during the last century. A certain amount of miscegenation has taken place between the Whites and the Coloureds who are the descendants of slaves and Hottentots. We should accept the fact that the Coloured race is a mixed race, but theirs is a race which is different from the White race, and because they differ from the White race, they should be treated as a separate race. Because they are much closer to the White race than any other racial group, as far as civilization, language and culture are concerned, they should also be treated differently from those other racial groups. For that reason they should enjoy privileges which the Bantu do not enjoy. That is why the Coloured people are allowed to have vested interests in their own towns in White South Africa; they are allowed to own houses and land; a right which is not enjoyed by the Bantu. Because the Coloured people are much closer to the White group than any other group, as far as language and culture are concerned, we are willing to grant them privileges and to hold out prospects to them which we are not prepared to do in the case of the other races. But because they are nevertheless a different race, with a very small amount of White blood, they should be trained as a different race, in their own community and in their own group. In view of the fact that since 1910 no Government or official Opposition has accepted the policy that the colour bar should be abolished in the highest Forum of South Africa, we can but regret it to-day when the United Party repudiates and betrays its leaders of the past—they are always so fond of referring to General Hertzog when he was leader of the United Party—General Smuts and the policy which they have always stood for namely that the colour bar should be maintained in the House of Assembly; we regret it that they are to-day discarding that policy as well, just as they have discarded their policy in so many different ways in the past.

When the United Party come to their senses and we are again faced with a general election, they will realize what the repercussions are of this new policy of theirs. At the moment they think they can win a few votes, but they are losing votes faster than in the past. During those days when Mr. Strauss was Leader of the United Party he often used to say, every time a catastrophe hit the party: “Now we have reached rock-bottom”. But to-morrow or the day after there is further division in the party or there is a crisis and then he says: “Now we have reached rock-bottom” and hardly has he said that when the party plunges further down the precipice. That was what happened. Here you again have a section of the United Party, Sir, but there are others in between who do not want to sit either here or there and that is what will happen at the next general election. They talk about the extinction of the Progressive Party. I am not concerned about the Progressive Party, but we will witness the decimalization of the United Party. I just want to say this, because it ties up with my statement that the hon. member for Peninsula also said that the leaders of the National Party— he mentioned General Hertzog, Dr. Malan, Mr. Havenga and Mr. Strijdom—were supposed to have led the Coloured people to believe that they would one day have direct representation in this House. Sir, that is definitely not true. Not a single word can be quoted from the speeches of any of those leaders to show that the prospect was held out to the Coloured people that they would be allowed to sit in this Chamber. On the contrary, all those leaders, as well as General Smuts, said that the colour bar would be maintained in this House and that the Coloured people would not be represented directly in this House. That was the traditional policy of all the parties and all the leaders and to say now that prospects were held out to the Coloured people in the speeches of those leaders, is to violate the truth.

I should now like to say something in connection with the Bantu. In the first place the hon. member for Transkeian Territories (Mr. Hughes) said that in respect of the Bantu, they should eventually, particularly in what is known as the White areas,—and the Leader of the Opposition also said that—obtain greater political rights as far as this House and the institutions of this country were concerned. The basis for that request is the allegation that the Bantu in the urban areas are detribalized Natives. I do not think there is another word which is abused so often than the word “detribalized” Native. There was a time when there were Bantu servants on farms and in our homes who were actually detribalized to a great extent, but that is no longer the position at the moment because they have followed the stream; they have come under the influence of the others. The Natives that we find to-day are people who have always retained their tribal association with their homelands. I will prove that. Recently when the British Government granted a certain measure of self-government to Basutoland, the Basutos were first asked to vote on it. Not only did the British Government ask the Basutos in Basutoland to vote, but they asked the Basutos throughout the whole of South Africa to vote, and the people who participated most ardently in that referendum were the Basutos outside Basutoland, those in Johannesburg and in Cape Town. Some of them even stood as candidates. The so-called detribalized Basutos were the keenest to take part in it because Basutoland is after all still their country. I venture to predict that if we give the Bantu in South Africa the opportunity to develop his Bantu authorities, to develop his own national culture, and to build upon it in accordance with the demands of a modern state, if we give them the opportunity of developing their own national consciousness and their national pride, which they have, and if we give the Bantu outside their homelands the opportunity to participate in that process as in the case of the Basutos, we will be surprised to see how many Bantu in the White areas have throughout retained their association with their homelands. We cannot evolve a pattern for the Bantu in the White areas before we have fully established the Bantu Authorities, which will enable the Bantu themselves to prove how many of them have retained their tribal associations. This reminds me of something in our own national history the history of the Afrikaner. There was a time when Afrikaner leaders, especially in the Cape Province, despaired. We remember the days of the Patriot, English, English everywhere, the time when it looked as though the entire Afrikaner nation, particularly in the Cape Province, had become Anglicized. The leaders had no hope for the future. But the opportunity gradually presented itself for the Afrikaner to develop his language and his culture. He developed his national traditions and lived in accordance with them and what happened? Those people who thought that mose of the Afrikaners had become Anglicized were surprised to find how many of them had throughout been conscious of their tribal association with their nation; they helped to develop our culture in such as way that to-day even in the ranks of the United Party, there are few Afrikaners who are not conscious of that feeling of national solidarity. That is exactly what will happen in the case of the Bantu. Give them an opportunity to develop their Bantu Authorities, give their national feeling an opportunity to unfold itself and you will discover, Sir, that the pride and aspirations of the Bantu who are to-day in the White areas, are still rooted in their homelands.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition put up another bogey to frighten us and that ties up with what the world outside thinks about South Africa. He tried to frighten us by saying that if we did not do this or that in South West Africa or in South Africa, we may live to see the day when the Black nations of Africa would “leapfrog” across Angola into South West Africa. It is a ghastly thought which the hon. member expressed, namely that Black states would cross Angola into South West. I now want to ask him what he and his Party are prepared to do in that event? Will they support us if we try to retain South West Africa for White civilization or will they stand back and say: Fight it out yourselves. I think the Leader of the Opposition should inform his members on that point and tell us, because we are going to put that question to their candidates. If they want to frighten us with the idea that the Black states will cross Angola into South West Africa, we want to ask them what they are going to do. Will they throw in the towel, or will they stand by the rest of South Africa? Apart from that I am not very worried about what UNO or other countries think about us. I am not unduly worried about that Sir, because I believe that we should view that matter in its historic perspective. This is not the first occasion on which South Africa has been subjected to venomous attacks on the part of certain people outside South Africa. If you check on what was said and written 150 years ago, if you read the accusations which were levelled by Phillips and Reid and Van der Kemp against the White colonists, you will find that that is exactly what is being said to-day in certain countries about our policy here. There has been no change over the past 150 years. I do not want to read what was said but I want to call as a witness a famous English big game hunter who travelled through this country. This is what Captain William Cornwallis Harris wrote in his well-known book “Wild Sports of South Africa” which was published in 1839. He describes there under what appalling conditions the farmers along the eastern boundary of the Cape Province lived, how they were murdered and robbed, how they were suppressed and how they received no protection from the British Government. He says this—

Far greater than these, however, are the evils that have arisen out of the perverse misrepresentations of canting and designing men, to whose mischievous and gratuitous interference, veiled under the cloak of philanthropy, is principally to be attributed to the desolated condition of the Eastern Frontier.

Harris said that those calumniators of South Africa, those so-called philanthropists—to-day they call themselves by another name—caused more devastation and sorrow in South Africa than all the hordes of black barbarians. We still find people like that to-day.

I want to bring further evidence. I want to quote what General J. W. Janssens, who was Governor at the Cape during the time of the Batavian Republic, wrote in a report on the occasion of his departure about what should be done in the Cape Province if, after the armistice which they expected at that time, the Cape were returned to the Batavian Republic. He referred to one of the bad influences here which should be destroyed. We are to-day faced with the same problem. We still have the Reeves and the Huddlestons and the Joost de Blanks. Under the heading “Zendelingen Schadelyk” General Janssens wrote as follows in 1806—

Indien men het schadelyke dat die zendelingen in de Volksplanting, en er om heen (men zondert de Moravische broeders in Genadendaal by de Baviaansch-kloof uit) hcbben aangebracht, met het nut door hen veroorzaakt weegd, zal het eerste zeer zwaar, het ander nul zijn,—men kan zig niet te veel haasten de meeste dezer zendelingen (Elendelingen) weg te zenden, en aan de geduld wordende, zoo er kunnen zyn, eene geheel andere wyziging te geeven.

He said that these so-called spirituals were the calumniators of South Africa and that they should be sent away as soon as possible. But when we tell Reeves that he must not return it is regarded as something terrible. But as far back as 1806 General Janssens said that these people did so much harm that they should be chased out, with a few exceptions. He called the missionaries miserable people (elendelingen) and said that those who were allowed here, should follow a different course, a different direction.

In conclusion I just want to say this. If we were to lend an ear to what is said about South Africa in the world outside, we will be betraying our past. Our forefathers, Afrikaansand English-speaking, the Voortrekkers and the Settlers took no notice of things like that. But we have people in South Africa to-day, the United Party in particular adopts this attitude, who maintain that if we make certain concessions to the Bantu and lend an ear to the criticism which is levelled against us, we will have peace and quiet. I want to quote something which was written in Rhodesia by a black man, one Sithole. He wrote a book called “African Nationalism” which was published last year and at the end of the chapter on “The African Himself” he quotes what Davidson, a British author and journalist, had written and expresses himself in agreement with it. This man Sithole is one of the moderate Bantu leaders in Rhodesia. He has something to say about the United Party in South Africa because he quotes the following and he agrees with it—

To-day, many people talk of the need for Europeans to make concessions and gestures which will help win confidence in European leadership. But the African does not ask for concessions, nor need gestures of European generosity. He is not asking, for privileges. The African is asking for his rights. He seeks to establish equality for all individuals, black, brown and white. In this demand there can be no half-way compromise, for it is either equality or superiority of one over the other.

He does not agree with the hon. member for Queenstown (Dr. Steytler), however, who says that there are certain Bantu who should not have the vote. Sithole says there should be complete equality. We know what the result will be in South Africa if that policy were followed. We know what the result will be if, because of the criticism which is levelled against us overseas we depart one inch from our course. That criticism may sound a bit louder to-day than it did 150 years ago, but that is only because we have loudspeakers and radio’s but it will calm down as quickly.

*Mr. E. G. MALAN:

Mr. Speaker, I think it would be quite pointless to enter into a long emotional argument with the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Dr. Jonker) over the origins of the Coloured people here in South Africa. It will suffice merely for me to read from “The Cape Coloured Peoples” by Prof. Jan Marais, in which he as a scientist wrote the following as a scientific discussion of this matter.

The miscegenation which in its various permutations and combinations was to produce the Coloured people began early with unions, regular or irregular, between Europeans on the one hand and slaves or Hottentots on the other. There were a considerable number of unions, mostly irregular between slaves and Europeans, especially in the early days of the settlement. During the first 20 years of its existence no less than 75 per cent of the children born at the Cape of slave mothers were half-breeds.

There is other evidence too. I think it will be a good idea if at some time or another a really thorough scientific investigation could be instituted into this matter. This is not a matter which should be exploited for political purposes; it is a matter for the scientist and the historian.

Like everyone else, Mr. Speaker, we listened attentively to the speech by the hon. the Prime Minister. He has accused us of having in effect adopted a new colour policy. I wonder whether I cannot level the same charge at him? In describing his colour policy, he used a word which is seldom heard, that is to say, he referred to a “four stream policy”. We on this side of the House have never heard of any such thing. I want to say that the United Party’s policy has two legs—White leadership on the one hand and justice on the other. Hon. members opposite have now brought forward a policy which dogs not stand on two legs, but on four feet—three black feet and one white club foot. I could almost say that this is a four-legged policy which reminds one of the abominable snowman of the Himalaya.

Of greater seriousness is the fact that the hon. the Prime Minister has not, in the opinion of all of us, replied adequately to the accusation that racial harmony is lacking in South Africa to-day. No one can deny, with a view to the events at Sharpeville and Langa, that there is to-day a greater lack of racial harmony between White and Native than in the past, or that there is a greater lack of racial harmony between us and the Coloureds, particularly after the recent statement by the Prime Minister, a statement in accordance with which the Coloureds will become outcasts with their own separate areas and with no hope whatsoever of ever being represented here in this House by their own people in the future.

The hon. the Prime Minister did, however, say something with which I agree. He has said that South Africa has a great reputation in other spheres, on the sports fields and in the economic sphere. I agree that it has a great reputation in those two spheres. On the sports fields and in sport we have a great reputation through the names of people like Avril Malan, Sandra Reynolds and Bobby Locke. In the economic sphere we have a great reputation as the result of the work of men such as Dr. Meyer, Dr. van Eck and Mr. Oppenheimer. We have a great reputation in those spheres because of the men who are responsible for those spheres. Why is our reputation in the political sphere, as a newspaper which supports hon. members opposite has put it, such that we are described as the polecat of the world? Who are the leaders in the political sphere? Hon. members opposite. They are responsible for our country’s reputation.

I just want to mention briefly another argument which the hon. the Prime Minister has used, namely that assuming there were to be Coloured Members of Parliament in the House of Assembly, it would still mean that more and more demands would continue to be made and that they would eventually dominate this House. This is a false argument in the logic on the part of the hon. the Prime Minister; the false argument of “the thin end of the wedge”. Our policy says that the Coloureds will be given the franchise on the basis of certain franchise qualifications. Their numbers will be limited. There is no danger that they will ever dominate this House. The Prime Minister’s analogy is false. It is false to compare them with a wedge. Sir, it is not a wedge; it is a weight. It is a weight to restore the balance here in South Africa and in this House as well. The ship of South Africa and of the House of Assembly is on an uneven keel to-day and our policy of giving the Coloureds this representation will provide the necessary ballast so that the balance can be restored. Is it for example a wedge that is being driven into this House when there are 40 or so English-speaking members in this House? Is this a wedge which will result in there being 160 English-speaking members in the future? Of course it is not a wedge; it is a weight! It represents a balance which is being created and that is what the hon. the Prime Minister will, I hope, realize in the future.

*An HON. MEMBER:

They are Whites, not Coloureds.

*Mr. E. G. MALAN:

I reject particularly the Prime Minister’s amendment in which he asks for confidence in this Government; I reject it not only because his party has not promoted racial harmony, but also because this Government to-day is beginning to show all the characteristics of a power machine which has governed for too long. To put it bluntly, this Government has become too big for its boots. Particularly under the present Prime Minister the political conceit has grown that the Government is the alpha and omega in all spheres, in the cultural sphere, the political and the moral spheres in South Africa, and that they have a monopoly on all wisdom. What has happened is merely this— and I am now going to use a word which the Prime Minister has used. He has said that the Government stands like granite on certain points of policy. What has happened is simply that a granite curtain has descended upon hon. members opposite, a granite curtain which has closed their minds and their mouths, politically speaking, and restricted their political freedom of thought on a scale no political party in South Africa has ever experienced before.

Fortunately powerful voices have been raised against this ugly phenomenon. They have come from a section of the intellectuals particularly in the ranks of the Afrikaner people, not all of whom are necessarily Nationalists, not all of whom are necessarily persons who can agree with everything I am saying here, but all of whom are men and women who held and hold firm convictions regarding the rights of an individual to speak and to think with a free mind, in the light of his own beliefs. Amongst them are the Stellenbosch and Pretoria professors and the 69 signatories to the statement relating to future policy. They include men such as Dr. A. L. Geyer. He is not a member of the United Party. They include men such as Mr. Anton Rupert and Dr. Tienie Louw. Are these people whose opinions must necessarily be ignored? This dissatisfaction found expression—and this was inevitable—a month or so ago in the columns of the leading Nationalist Party newspaper, namely the Burger. I should like to congratulate the Burger on having had the courage to allow that correspondence, but I know with what devilish intolerance any congratulations on my part will be twisted round and used to launch further attacks on people who wish to think for themselves.

*An HON. MEMBER:

Why do you not think for yourself as well?

*Mr. E. G. MALAN:

I am not seeking the support of the Burger or its Dawie or its Piet or its Paul or its Klaas; I am only asking that there should be a more tolerant approach to our national problems in South Africa. In the first place I accuse this Government of suffering from a political persecution complex. There is the hon. the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs who sees behind every corner a mining magnate, a capitalist or a British capitalist who wants to destroy the Afrikaner people and has wanted to destroy them for the past 300 years. But I shall come back to the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs later. He is one example of this phenomenon. There are many examples. There is the example of the hon. Minister of Bantu Administration and Development. I think the Minister also suffers from a political persecution complex. What has happened is this: Quite innocently the Burger expressed the opinion that a case could be made out for allowing the Coloureds to be represented in the House of Assembly by Coloureds, whether now or in the future, and quite correctly they added that the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration had also held such a view at one stage and that this was recorded in Hansard. What was the hon. the Minister’s reply? Did he discuss the matter on its merits? No, he immediately wrote two extremely angry letters in which the Burger was attacked and in which he in effect complained that he was being persecuted—that persecution complex to which I referred just now.

*Mr. S. J. M. STEYN:

And the Minister was wrong; the facts were against him.

*Mr. E. G. MALAN:

We know of course that the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration, as he says, is being persecuted by world opinion, by the Stock Exchange, by Communism and by the wind of change, but I never thought that the time would come when he would also feel that he was being persecuted by none other than the Burger itself. Listen to what the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration has written in criticism of his party’s leading newspaper. His letter refers to Dawie who is a columnist in the Burger, and more than a columnist, as we all know. The Minister wrote—

Dawie knows after all that I am not persona grata with him and his advanced friends. Unfortunately, as far as space in the Burger is concerned, I do not enjoy the privileged position of Dawie and his friends.

The poor persecuted Minister—

Their standpoint is front-page news and mine has no news value. Dawie should not try to take part of my argument out of context in order to use it in an attempt to create a fig leaf for himself and his friends. A line of thought which is based on confusion can definitely not be sound.

This was written by an hon. member of the Nationalist Party Government criticizing a newspaper of the Nationalist Party. And doubly incensed the hon. the Minister on the following day wrote a letter to the Burger. In it he said—

You know me well enough to know that I never sought personal publicity. Compare the space you have given Dawie’s liberal friends …

Here he is accusing one of the leading members of the Burger’s staff of consorting with liberal friends—

… with that which has been given to my speeches and statements. I know myself that subtle propaganda is being made to create the impression amongst the public that the Government is doing nothing to implement its policy. Why is the Burger assisting this propaganda?

Does the hon. the Minister still stand by that statement? Here we have the most violent criticism which has ever emanated from their own ranks, and it seems as though the Burger is now being forced behind the granite curtain as well. Who was behind that letter which the hon. the Minister wrote? Was it not perhaps the hon. the Prime Minister himself, who a day or two previously had made a statement in which he practically repudiated everything the Burger had said regarding Coloured representation? None of the hon. the Minister’s arguments are based on merit. It is merely “Dawie and his liberal friends”, “the Burger is confused”, “the Burger is assisting with subtle propaganda”. Mr. Speaker, I think that the Burger’s comments were rather enlightening. In its leading article of 30th November it said—

If someone is providing the hon. the Minister with cuttings of the Burger’s reports of his statements, then we can only say to the Minister: Read the Burger yourself and do not rely on such an unreliable cutting service.

Has the hon. the Minister now joined the ranks of those many members of the Cabinet and the party opposite who refuse to read the Burger nowadays? The columnist of the Burger went further and commented on the hon. the Minister’s criticism. It said—

If one is a no-man it must seem quite easy to destroy the intellectuals by means of stories that they want to lead us to-wards equality, miscegenation and non-White supremacy. Arouse the feelings of the masses and their racial consciousness and then act against them and silence them for ever. After all they are only a minority.

Who are the no-men, particularly after the statement which has been issued by the Federal Council of the Nationalist Party? There they sit on the benches opposite and here we have a full description in the Burger of them and their opinions and of what is behind them. The Burger has given a priceless description of the reaction of the hon. the Minister to the correspondence.

*Mr. J. E. POTGIETER:

That is no longer of any significance.

*Mr. E. G. MALAN:

No, the granite curtain may have come down, but these people still have their independence of mind. I think that the Burger’s comments should be quoted here. The Burger said—

It was the Minister who reacted as though he had sat on a puff-adder and who then hurled a flood of insinuations first over myself and then over the Burger as a whole, as though we were enemies of the people. When someone and moreover a Nationalist leader, without a shred of evidence and on the basis of completely inaccurate allegations accuses the Burger of deliberately undermining the Nationalist régime, then it calls for quite considerable self-control not to tell him his fortune from A to Z.

Possibly the hon. the Minister has been told that fortune at some time or another, although it has not appeared in the columns of the Burger. Allow me to put my second point of criticism at this point. It is that the Government is guilty of intolerance towards reasonable criticism and towards reasonable critics. We may never know how strongly those persons on that side who think for themselves criticized the Government in respect of its present colour policy, because we have not seen all the letters. We have only seen those which have been published, but we can form an idea of how strong that criticism has been when we read certain comments which have appeared in the Burger. Listen to the type of criticism which has been expressed. In passing, this is their comment or criticism of people in the Nationalist Party who want to think for themselves. The Burger wrote—

In recent times we have once again shown that we are not acting nearly as reasonably as we think …

That those hon. members are not acting nearly as reasonably as they think—

The ease with which certain Afrikaners can be persuaded nowadays to believe that other Afrikaners have suddenly become advocates of equality, defeatists and even advocates of miscegenation, the tendency to vilify any talk of concession as treason, the tendency eagerly to swallow even sham logic in this regard, all points to more than reasonable motives and to the existence of subconscious factors which can be galvanized into vigorous action by those who know how to do so.

Is this not what we have always said? Here we have an intelligent journalist who says that there are factors which can be set alight by the emotions and which can lead to ugly things—yes, very ugly things—in our national life. And then the Burger writes—

Then there is the opposite tendency, the tendency of “we alone and to the devil with the rest”. This is the urge to turn in on oneself, back to our own bitterness and sourness …

And I can see bitterness and sourness over there, Mr. Speaker—

… back to the well defined safety of tried and tested old emotions and attitudes. This urge, unlike the other, is strong, clear and definite and in its essence evil (once again in the true religious meaning of the word). That is why it is associated …

Let hon. members listen to this. This is how their own newspaper describes them—

That is why it is associated with naked ambition, vilification and abuse, and that is why practically its first expression is eagerness to destroy fellow Afrikaners who include some of the cream of our nation.

Yes, they must go behind the granite curtain as well. But allow me to tell hon. members opposite that those persons in their party who have protested, who have come forward with a new line of thought, are not few in number; their influence is not negligible, and I hope they will have the strength not to allow their mouths to be muzzled. Mr. Speaker, listen to who these people are. The Burger says—

Those people who are favourably disposed towards direct representation of the Coloureds are in the minority in the ranks of the Afrikaners but they are not few in numbers nor are they insignificant. Some of them have come to adopt their standpoint after deep thought and much struggle, some through prayer as well.

These are important people.

*Mr. F. S. STEYN:

They have a very unimportant champion.

*Mr. E. G. MALAN:

I am not acting here as the champion of any of the intellectual members of the Nationalist Party who have come forward with this standpoint. I am acting as the champion of free speech and free thought.

*Mr. J. E. POTGIETER:

At least you kicked out Sam Kahn.

*Mr. E. G. MALAN:

The Burger wrote—

A dangerous gulf has arisen particularly between what I shall call, to keep in fashion, a large and important group of the intellectuals and the far more numerous ordinary people. These intellectuals include spiritual leaders, professors, teachers, business and professional men, important public servants, all traditionally strong Nationalists and, from the nature of their work and contacts, influential.

These are important people. I think I should also read this paragraph, and I hope that these words will make an impression on hon. members opposite. The Burger said—

I want to say this to the ordinary Nationalist; Beware of the attitude that the intellectuals can go hang. Do not decapitate your own nation and think that it can move forward through its difficulties without a head.

I level the accusation at hon. members that they have in fact decapitated or tried to decapitate their own party and that the Nationalist Party in future will run around in the yard without an intellectual head, like a beheaded fowl. Behind that granite curtain there is and there will be retrogression and destruction. This is a curtain of fear, of suspicion and of pettiness Mr. Speaker, the question is: What is to be done? I am not here to suggest a cure for the Nationalist Party, but it is clear that today thinking people are in fact saying what in their opinion is wrong with that party. The difficulty is that if this party can go on winning elections on this unintellectual basis, on this emotional basis, there is no hope for South Africa as a whole because the day may come when as a result of this policy there may be threats from overseas, from the United Nations, threats of such a terrible nature that one does not even want to mention them now. And then it will be too late for them, for us, and for all of us. What is to be done? The Burger makes a suggestion when it says—

We can safely be cautious before we ask our spiritual leaders and our intellectuals to stop thinking, or to keep their thoughts to themselves. Our country needs intellectually independent men and women more than ever before.

Do hon. members opposite agree?

*An HON. MEMBER:

Of course.

*Mr. E. G. MALAN:

I wonder why there are so few “hear, hears” when one quotes from the Burger nowadays. Mr. Speaker, there is one bit of advice which is more of a humorous nature but which is of importance and which I should perhaps read to the House. This is the further advice which the Burger has given to the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration. He has been given this advice. When the charges of intellectual leaders are to be answered, then the Burger says—

Do not allow the answering thereof to be entrusted to subordinates. With all due respect to the information officers of Bantu Affairs, this is not a sphere in which we should like to see them move. This matter is quite out of their depth and it would have been better if the statement which was issued yesterday was never made.

Does the hon. the Minister agree? He does not say “no he probably agrees. The Burger has given this advice to hon. members opposite, and it has also given advice to the intellectual leaders or former leaders of the Nationalist Party; the advice is this—

Sirs, this is your nation; these are your people. If in your intellectual judgement they are so far behind, then you must do something about it. You cease to be the intellectual leaders of your people if you cannot persuade them to follow you.

Do hon. members opposite not agree? I think this is an appeal which has been made in all seriousness to these intellectual leaders. It is the duty of those leaders to follow this advice. I once again want to remind the ordinary Nationalist of the words which I have already read to the House—

Beware of the attitude that the intellectuals can go hang. Do not decapitate your own nation and think that it can move forward through its difficulties without a head.

Mr. Speaker, it is not my duty to make the task of these intellectual leaders more difficult. Perhaps the value of some of them is to be found precisely in the fact that they remain outside and even above ordinary party politics, but I say this: If this Government does not change its attitude, then we are doomed for all time to come, and the question arises whether this Government has changed its attitude or not? Are they prepared to allow a minor concession; are they prepared to allow freedom of thought or are they going to allow the granite curtain to descend on their party? The answer to that is to be found in the statement which has been made by the Federal Council of the National Party and seeing that this is a matter which I should like to discuss a little more fully, I should like to move—

That the debate be now adjourned.
Mr. HOPEWELL:

I second.

Agreed to; debate adjourned until 26th January.

The House adjourned at 6.30 p.m.

THURSDAY, 26 JANUARY 1961

Mr. SPEAKER took the Chair at 2.20 p.m.

SELECT COMMITTEES

Mr. SPEAKER announced that the Committee on Standing Rules and Orders had appointed the following members to serve on the Select Committees mentioned, viz.:

  • Public Accounts: Mr. S. P. Botha, Dr. Coertze, Dr. Cronje, Dr. de Wet, Messrs. Haak, Keyter, Labuschagne, Dr. Luttig, Messrs. E. G. Malan, Martins, Miller, Pelser, Ross, Dr. Steenkamp, Mr. F. S. Steyn, Mrs. Suzman. Messrs, van den Heever, H. J. van Wyk, Vosloo, Waterson and Dr. Wilson.
  • Railways and Harbours: Messrs. Badenhorst, Butcher, P. J. Coetzee, C. V. de y illiers, Dodds, Durrant, Eaton, Gay, Greyling, Knobel, Kotze, H. Lewis, Russell, J. C. B. Schoeman, R. A. F. Swart, G. P. van den Berg, J. A. van der Merwe, van der Wath, Mrs. S. M. van Niekerk, Messrs, van Rensburg, G. H. van Wyk and Dr. W. L. D. M. Venter.
  • Pensions: Brig. Bronkhorst, Mr. H. R. H. du Plessis, Dr. Fisher, Dr. Jurgens, Messrs. J. Lewis, W. C. Malan, Dr. Meyer, Messrs. Oldfield, Rust. Scholtz, van Ryneveld, van Staden and Visse.
  • State-owned Land: Mr. Connan, Dr. de Beer, Messrs. J. D. de Villiers, Grobler, Hiemstra, le Riche, Mitchell, Schoonbee, Stander, van der Ahee. Warren and Wentzel.
  • Bantu Affairs: Messrs. B. Coetzee, Cope, P. W. du Plessis, Froneman, Hughes, H. Lewis, Miller, J. A. F. Nel, D. J. Potgieter, Dr. D. L. Smit, Capt. Strydom, Messrs. M. J. van den Berg and P. S. van der Merwe.
  • Irrigation Matters: Messrs. J. A. L. Basson, G. F. H. Bekker, H. T. van G. Bekker, L. J. C. Bootha, Bowker, de Kock, Faurie. Heystek, Mitchell, Sadie, van der Vyfer and M. C van Niekerk.
  • Internai Arrangements: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Lands, the Minister of External Affairs, the Minister of Transport, the Minister of Education, Arts and Science, Messrs. Barnett, de Kock, Faurie, Higgerty, Hopewell, Hughes, J. E. Potgieter, M. J. de la R. Venter and Williams.
  • Library of Parliament: Mr. Speaker, Messrs. Butcher, Higgerty, Mostert, Dr. C. P. Mulder, Dr. Radford, Col. Shearer, Mr. H. H. Smit, Dr. Steenkamp, Dr. J. H. Steyn. Messrs. G. L. H. van Niekerk and von Moltke
PERSONAL EXPLANATION *The MINISTER OF BANTU ADMINISTRATION AND DEVELOPMENT:

I should like to make the following statement. The Whip of the United Party, Mr. Hopewell, handed me a note in which he informed me that the hon. member for Transkeian Territories (Mr. Hughes) had been called away whilst I was speaking in the House yesterday. I read “had been called to the phone” and it will be noted that that is what I said in my speech, whereas it should have been that he had been called “home”. I have always considered it discourteous to accuse and to challenge a person who under such circumstances, due to domestic affairs, cannot be present. Therefore, and owing to the fact that my words are open to a narrower interpretation, I withdraw the following words: “My accusation against him is that in a subtle way he did everything to fan the trouble in Pondoland”. I hereby withdraw those words.

PRESERVATION OF COLOURED AREAS BILL

Bill read a first time.

NO-CONFIDENCE

First Order read: Adjourned debate on motion of no-confidence, to be resumed.

[Debate on motion by Sir de Villiers Graaff, upon which amendments had been moved by the Prime Minister and by Dr. Steytler, adjourned on 25 January, resumed.]

*Mr. E. G. MALAN:

When the debate was adjourned yesterday afternoon, I was accusing this Government, in plain language, of having grown too big for its boots. There are many examples of that. One example is the fact that, for the first time in our history, the Prime Minister has allowed a photograph of himself to appear on a stamp; another example is the fact that we learnt a few days ago that a tremendous tower is to be erected at Johannesburg, a tower of nearly 800 feet in height, for broadcasting purposes, and that that tower is to be called the Albert Hertzog Tower. It seems to me that that is the one concession which is to be made to the English-speaking section when a republic is declared, namely that the republic is to have an Albert Memorial.

I also accused the Government yesterday of suffering from a persecution mania and I referred to the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development. But we can likewise refer to the hon. the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs, the Minister who said that the British missionary societies wanted to make English “gentlemen” of the Natives. As though that would be such a terrible thing to do. The hon. the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs also said that the South African war was still being waged but that instead of the British Tommy the enemy was using the Native. The hon. the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs even said something worse, namely, that the mining magnates would benefit if we had a Black Government which they would be able to bribe, like Lumumba, who received £650,000. Or worse than that, when he said that the choice was between breaking the power of the Press of the mining industry or destroying the White man. That is a direct threat against the Press of South Africa and the freedom of the Press.

I accused the Government of being intolerant; of turning intolerance into a virtue and of elevating hatred of freedom of speech to a battle cry and in actual fact of having drawn a granite curtain—I am using the word “granite” which was used by the hon. the Prime Minister in order to describe his own policy. This issue, Mr. Speaker, came to an outburst in the Burger where a few well-meaning persons suggested that the Coloureds should be represented by Coloureds in this House. Immediately there was an outburst on the part of the ordinary members of the party opposite, and well-meaning Nationalist Party supporters were accused of being in favour of equality; of throwing in the towel and even of being in favour of miscegenation. The Burger, however, came forward with an appeal that we should handle this crisis, this confidential matter, with all the calm, self-control and statesmanship at our command and from the point of view of mature leadership. The Burger also issued a warning which read as follows—

Those who are well disposed towards the idea of direct representation for Coloureds constitute a minority in the ranks of the Afrikaners, but they are not few, neither are they unimportant. It cannot be a question of a minor and neat appendicitis operation. It is quite clear to me that unity cannot be maintained by a method of knocking down and dragging out.

There was a warning against the knocking down and dragging out of prominent thinkers within their own ranks. What happened? No notice was taken of this warning. The steamroller of the Nationalist Party steamrolled from the north on to the south, and behind it came the people who were described in a letter to the Burger by Nationalists as “infuriated Verwoerdians”. They arrived here, held a war council and the Federal Council of the Nationalist Party met here and it was prosecutor, judge and hangman at the same time. That Federal Council of the Nationalist Party gave a reply, a deadly reply, to all thinking South Africans. It appeared in the Transvaler under the heading “Government best able to decide The Government knows best in every respect, according to that report. In spite of the warning that they should not be decapitated, the Federal Council of the Government came along and tried to decapitate them and did in fact knock them out and tried to drag them away. What does the resolution say? In spite of the appeal that this idea of representation of the Coloured by Coloureds should not be destroyed for all time, the following appears in the resolution passed by the Federal Council—

So that there can be no doubt whatever, the Federal Council reiterates specifically that the party has adopted and again adopts, as a matter of principle, that Coloureds should not be represented by Coloureds where representation exists, namely, in Parliament and in the Provincial Council of the Cape Province.

Then the following appears—

Because this is a basic principle, and consequently not of a temporary nature, and does not hold out the prospect that, in accordance with National Party policy, the Coloureds may well at a later date be represented in Parliament by Coloureds, it must be clearly emphasized that the party believes in that principle for the present and for the future.
*HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

*Mr. E. G. MALAN:

What has happened to the plea made by the Burger that it is wrong to bind the party for the distant future?

This statement by the Federal Council contained a minor concession, namely that the Congress of the Nationalist Party may at some later date bring about a change in this policy. I will tell you, Sir, why that was added. Not because a change is envisaged by having Coloureds represented by Coloureds, but in point of fact because the Government envisages the total abolition of the Coloured representatives in the House of Assembly at a later stage. I now ask any hon. member opposite to rise …

*Dr. VAN NIEROP:

May I ask the hon. member a question?

*Mr. E. G. MALAN:

I am sorry but my time is limited and I trust, Sir, you will allow me “injury time” for all these interjections. I am asking any member opposite to deny that they envisage the ultimate abolition of the White representatives of the Coloureds in this House. Let them deny it. The way was paved yesterday by the hon. the Deputy Minister of the Interior when he referred to the extension of the Union Coloured Council and the granting of legislative power to them. What is the underlying aim of that? Simply to get rid of the four Coloured representatives here.

What is going to happen now? Are these thinking people going to capitulate, are they going to go down on their knees and ask for forgiveness for what they did in the past? Somebody interjected “Dawie is going to ask for forgiveness I should like to know whether that is the case, whether that has in fact already happened? It has happened in the past. A thousand years ago the Emperor of the mightiest empire in the world at the time had to go on his knees and had to stand for three days in the snow, barefoot, in order to confess and ask Pope Gregory VII for forgiveness at Canossa. Have hon. members opposite met their Canossa? Did they go to Canossa here at Groot Schuur to confess and now they are sitting silent behind the granite curtain. Perhaps you cannot blame them, Sir, because the grass is green behind the granite curtain, there are riches; there the mess of pottage tastes good. [Time limit.]

*The MINISTER OF JUSTICE:

The hon. member who has just resumed his seat has claimed injury time. I am afraid that nobody sustained injuries during his speech, yesterday or to-day. To his disappointment there was no injury time.

Never in all my years in this House have I ever seen an Opposition so obviously disappointed and frustrated as during this debate. The speech of the hon. member who has just sat down was really characterized by one main theme alone, viz. deep disappointment, and tears of inconsolable frustration because the hope which during the last few months had revived and flared up in their minds has proved to be a foolish one, and one which has shamed them. That is why one finds this bitter disappointment opposite. They thought that a microscopic crack had appeared in the gigantic democratic fortress of the Nationalist Party.

*Mr. E. G. MALAN:

You are now talking from behind the granite curtain.

*The MINISTER OF JUSTICE:

The eyes of the Opposition are not even quite dry yet after the crushing defeat they suffered on 5 October; their eyes are still red from the sorrows of yesterday, and now they are weeping again. This time it is about their cruel disillusionment. The rocklike fortress of the Nationalist Party still remains standing and towers far above all the political parties in South Africa put together, and it will not fall. All that the hon. member for Orange Grove —and with that I leave him—now has in his possession is a bundle of newspaper cuttings with which he has entertained us since yesterday. He can now store them away in his Africana of disappointments.

In the speech of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition there were a few unexpected disillusionments to which I would like to refer. After having condemned the Government on Tuesday from Dan to Berseba, he could not find even a solitary word of praise concerning a single action of the Nationalist Government to defend the Government. But then I was pleasantly surprised when he said that when he was overseas he found himself defending the Government. His deep subconscious thoughts, which here in South Africa he tries to repress, found expression overseas. A deep subconscious admiration, a sneaking admiration for this Nationalist Government! But then in his speech he made a less pleasant revelation, and that was the last thing I thought we could expect. He attacked us vigorously because the Government last year during the riots acted so speedily and forcefully under the emergency regulations against the vagrants and the tsotsis and the robbers and the rioters and the disturbers of the peace. It now appears from the hon. member’s remarks that he is really acting as their champion. Here in the Cape Peninsula and environs the skollies and inciters wanted to take action, and they will be the first to be grateful to the hon. gentleman for what he has said here, perhaps unwittingly. He asks: What will the world say about us for having arrested them in such large numbers? I add “to restore peace and good order in South Africa”. He asks why we arrested such large numbers and eventually brought only a small percentage of them before the courts? What will the world say about that? He says in his speech—

Many thousands were detained, some of them for weeks and months.

These poor lawless vagrants and tsotsis and robbers and thieves! He continues—

Only an infinitesimal portion of them were charged.
*Sir DE VILLIERS GRAAFF:

How many?

*The MINISTER OF JUSTICE:

The hon. member will understand that I cannot give the figures now, because there are still some of them who will have to appear before the courts. He goes on to say—

Is the world wrong when it assumes that a very great percentage of these people who were arrested were arrested without any proper evidence whatever? If the Government had the evidence, why did it not charge them?

Has the hon. member now forgotten for the moment that he is talking about a state of emergency, about a time when there were emergency regulations in force in South Africa and when the Government could detain people for longer than 48 hours without bringing them before the court? What did he want? These thousands who were arrested under the emergency regulations, in connection with which the Government was thanked so much from all sides because it restored peace and quiet to these areas where the people suffered so much under these burdens …

*Mr. J. LEWIS:

Why did it happen?

*The MINISTER OF JUSTICE:

That is quite a different matter. But does he now forget for the moment what the position was? Did he want us to charge individually all these thousands who had been arrested, all within 48 hours (because that is the existing law if there are no emergency regulations)? Should a proper indictment have been framed for all these thousands within 48 hours, and should they have been brought before the courts and tried ?

*Sir DE VILLIERS GRAAFF:

But now you must give the information.

*The MINISTER OF JUSTICE:

No, the hon. member will understand quite well that I cannot do so at this stage, for the simple reason that all those cases have not been disposed of yet. I hope to be able to give the details within the near future, but the hon. member will still have to wait a little. I am not complaining about the fact that the hon. member says that only a small number were eventually charged, but what I am complaining about is that he accuses us of not immediately having brought those people before court and led the evidence. How on earth could we do that?

*Sir DE VILLIERS GRAAFF:

That is not what I said. I said “after weeks and months”.

*The MINISTER OF JUSTICE:

What is the implication if the hon. member says: “If the Government had the evidence, why did it not charge them”? Surely the hon. member knows how the police set to work in such cases. It takes the police a long time to interrogate these people properly and to correlate the evidence, etc. I need not say more about the long time which elapses in an investigation in which thousands of people are concerned. I see the hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Lawrence) looking at me. It also happened in his time when he was Minister of Justice. It takes a long time before the police are able to frame a charge against people, particularly when thousands of people are involved in a case. I say that South Africa is grateful to-day, and also the people in those places. They are grateful to the Government for having taken swift and decisive action at that time, and for having proclaimed emergency regulations so that under those regulations it could act not only swiftly but also decisively and could remove thousands of people from the streets, people who were breaking into motor-cars and stealing. By putting those people behind bars, peace and order could be restored and maintained in South Africa. It is obvious that thereafter, when we could find no evidence against these people, we again had to release them, and that is why a large number of them were released. I would like to see who will get up in this House and blame the Government before the public by saying that we acted wrongly by arresting these people in their thousands when they were responsible for these things!

Mr. LAWRENCE:

They were locked up without evidence and again released without evidence.

*The MINISTER OF JUSTICE:

I think there is a great feeling of jealousy opposite because the Government succeeded in restoring peace and good order in South Africa through adopting forceful measures.

Another rude awakening for me was that the Leader of the Opposition found it necessary at all to discuss in the way in which he did the case which Abyssinia and Liberia brought before the International Court in connection with South West. That is a matter which only very partially falls under my Department, and therefore I just want to refer to it in passing. What was the object of this portion of his speech? I studied this portion of his speech carefully and I asked myself what the object could have been of a Leader of an Opposition in discussing this matter at this stage and in the way in which he did. Does he want to frighten South Africa away from the course it has adopted? I must honestly admit that I do not know what his object was. He told us what frightful results there would be for our country if South Africa loses the case. But there was not a word of praise, not a word of encouragement that South Africa should fight and win. There was not a single word to say in what a favourable position South Africa will be if it wins the case. He did not even ask whether we would fight the case. He did not even say that he would support us if we did fight it. No, he tells the House, with all the responsibility resting upon him, what the results will be if we lose the case. I say that if he wanted to be fair in his discussion, he should also have voiced a note of praise for foreign consumption.

*Sir DE VILLIERS GRAAFF:

When I offered you my co-operation, what was your attitude?

*The MINISTER OF JUSTICE:

Now the hon. member evidently feels hurt. I do not believe that the way the hon. member put it is correct, but even if he feels hurt over what happened he should still have had enough sense of responsibility as the Leader of the Opposition, as the Leader of a strong party, to handle this matter in such a manner that no finger could be pointed at him, particularly in view of the prejudice existing overseas. He says—

I wonder if hon. gentlemen opposite know what the position will be if the case preferred by Ethiopia and Liberia before the International Court in respect of South West Africa is successful? I wonder if they realize what may happen?

And then he says that the Security Council will be the “sheriff charged with the duty of carrying out the judgement He asks us—

Do they realize what steps might be taken? There have been occasions when the United Nations Organization acted very drastically indeed.

And then he further lays this at our door—

They must carry the responsibility if the judgement goes against South Africa and the Security Council starts talking about sanctions …

Does he want to invite sanctions? I just want to return to that portion of the hon. member’s speech, and I hope the Prime Minister will deal with him in that regard, but I say that he is sailing very close to the wind …

*Sir DE VILLIERS GRAAFF:

Which wind?

*The MINISTER OF JUSTICE:

Very close to the wind of which those who attack South Africa at UN are so fond.

*Sir DE VILLIERS GRAAFF:

I just pointed out what could happen.

*The MINISTER OF JUSTICE:

But surely the hon. member is the leader of a party. Now he comes here and only points to one side of the matter and tries to frighten South Africa in regard to what might happen if we lose, but he does not deal with the other side, what will happen if we win. He does not get up and say: “I will stand behind you. If you fight, fight to win.” I can imagine, and the hon. member can surely realize with what complete satisfaction and pleasure people at UN will quote this part of the speech of the Leader of the Opposition, and I am not sure whether Ethiopia and Liberia will not feel encouraged to quote this part of the speech of the Leader of the Opposition in South Africa before the International Court.

But now I want to conclude by referring to what came to me as the greatest surprise. Instead of, as I expected, there being severe criticism from that side of the House because the Government decided to table the Sharpeville and Langa reports at this stage instead of later, the hon. member attacks the Government and says that we waited too long.

*Sir DE VILLIERS GRAAF:

And so you did.

*The MINISTER OF JUSTICE:

Give me a chance to deal with the point. At the very least he accuses us of a neglect of duty because we tabled those reports only on Monday. He says we should have done it much earlier, and he has now repeated it. He says that we should even have published them in July.

*An HON. MEMBER:

And what did the Burger say about it?

*The MINISTER OF JUSTICE:

Yes, I accept that the Burger did not have the facts available. They could not have the facts at their disposal because we could not give them the facts. I shall explain the position in a moment. Then the hon. the Leader of the Opposition says that Bishop Reeves is now a jump ahead of us with his book. That is the man who did not want to make use of the opportunity given to him by the Government to come and give evidence in connection with dum-dum bullets and such statements he had made in regard to Sharpeville. Now I want to tell the hon. member this. Even though one humbly asks the Angel Gabriel to bring out a report about Sharpeville and Langa, and that report is in our favour, that will still not stop Reeves from distributing his book right throughout the world. Nothing will stop him, neither before nor afterwards.

Now what are the facts? When the Government recently decided to publish the findings of the Judges, it was proper and correct, I say, to decide to lay the reports on the Table of the House instead of giving them to the Press. Apart from the fact that reports tabled in Parliament are less susceptible to possible distortions or important omissions, Parliament has the right to demand that wherever possible such reports should first be tabled in Parliament. Mr. Speaker, there are still many people on both sides of the House who are jealous of the traditions and privileges of Parliament. The hon. the Prime Minister announced in the House last year that he would appoint two commissions. If that was our only reason for the delay for which we are being blamed now, it would in my opinion have been sufficient reason. The Langa report came to hand on 30 June already for consideration. That is correct, although the hon. member said that we should really have stated what it contained in July. But it was wise of the Government to decide that the two reports should be published simultaneously.

*Sir DE VILLIERS GRAAFF:

Why?

*The MINISTER OF JUSTICE:

The first reason is that both deal with certain matters which are similar. After the Judge had finally scrutinized and approved of the Sharpeville report, it was put into the hands of the Department of Justice on 25 October to be rounded off and thereafter to be studied by the departments concerned, and to make the usual departmental résumés of it. After study and comment by the departments concerned, the report was put into my hands on 28 November. A few days later it was in the hands of my colleagues in the Cabinet, who had to study and consider it. Sir, if this course of events which I have just briefly sketched were the only reason for the delay, it would in my opinion still have been a good reason. But there is sufficient reason for delaying the release of the reports until Monday, after Parliament had met. If I mention it, I think the hon. member, who is a lawyer, will be the first to realize that he should not so easily accuse us of neglect of duty when in fact we took well-considered and wise action as behoves a responsible Government. The Government was faced with a dilemma, and after careful consideration had to choose the lesser evil, viz. to lay the reports on the Table of the House. In both reports, both in regard to Sharpeville and Langa, there are findings about the credibility of some of the witnesses who appeared before the commissions. Some of these witnesses were charged because of their actions in regard to the riots, and the cases against them were gradually disposed of during the final months of last year. However, a number of them have not yet been disposed of. Some of the other witnesses before the commissions are also witnesses in criminal cases, and in some cases findings were made about their credibility.

*Sir DE VILLIERS GRAAFF:

But that cannot be used in evidence at the trial.

*The MINISTER OF JUSTICE:

The Government also has its law advisers.

*Mr. RAW:

That is necessary.

*The MINISTER OF JUSTICE:

If that hon. member were to go there, I am afraid he would not even understand what they say. The possibility therefore had to be considered that these findings could prejudice the Crown case or the accused, or both, if the reports were released before the criminal cases were disposed of.

*Sir DE VILLIERS GRAAFF:

I do not understand that.

*The MINISTER OF JUSTICE:

I will explain it further. As the result of the Sharpeville riots, a large number of persons were charged. Approximately 85 were charged with violence. In connection with Langa, there was a smaller number, which at the moment is not yet available to me. They were, however, fewer. As I have said, in recent months these cases were speedily disposed of, but a number of them still remain over. In regard to Sharpeville, there are still about 22 cases awaiting trial; at Vanderbijlpark 13, and in connection with Langa there are still about 20. Therefore there were still dozens of criminal cases which could possibly be prejudiced by the publication of the reports. Then the hon. member says that everything was done so secretly and that we did not acquaint the public with the position from time to time. I cannot understand how during the course of the hearing of a commission one can be expected to inform the public about it from time to time, because the daily Press continuously kept the public au fait with the course of events. Strong pressure was exerted on the Government by the Press that we should please hand over these reports to them for publication, and we can understand that. On the other hand, the Government’s advisers and particularly the Attorneys-General strenuously urged the Government not to publish them in these circumstances. Under those circumstances we did not publish those reports until a certain stage. Now the number of cases has diminished appreciably, and now something has happened which made the Government decide that in all the circumstances, with the pressure exerted on us and in view of the questions that would be asked, we should publish these reports. Because you will realize, Mr. Speaker, that if the Government throughout these months were to have said “We cannot publish and do not want to publish because it will affect certain people who still have to be tried”, not only would we have prejudiced them but we would also have prejudiced the State and its case. How much conjecture would it have resulted in the Press? There would have been speculation as to what these reports embodied, and then we would have had to publish the reports. But we would have had all those speculations in the Press inside and outside South Africa.

*Sir DE VILLIERS GRAAFF:

I would like to put a question to the hon. the Minister. I understand him to say that one of the reasons why the reports were not published was because it could have prejudiced certain cases which were still pending. There are, however, still cases pending, and am I now to understand that publication will not prejudice them?

*The MINISTER OF JUSTICE:

The Government has now decided to publish the reports because a whole number of these cases have been finalized. The remaining ones are still pending. But I want to repeat that great pressure was exerted on the Government to publish, and when we met here there was immediately further pressure. The hon. member opposite wanted us to publish earlier. Now I say that the Government had to say that it would not publish and could not publish because people would be prejudiced. I repeat that if this were to have been done, one would not have been able to see the end of the conjecture in the Press as to what the reports contained. The question would have been asked: But what is being hidden? What are you hiding; what is there which cannot be divulged? Therefore the wise course adopted by the Government on the advice of its advisers was to say: Wait a little, let us go slowly, let us first finalize some of these cases; and now there are still a number of cases over. The Government had to choose between two evils and it had to choose the lesser one, viz. to publish. Something happened which encouraged the Government in this standpoint. Suddenly, during the first week of January, Kgosana, the leader of the rioters here, committed contempt of court and broke his bail. He fled together with four others.

To the best of our knowledge, and that was published in the Press, he went to Basutoland. This leader is being charged under various Acts of inciting riots. There is no expectation that these four men will return to South Africa soon, if ever. I want to repeat, if ever. Kgosana and the others are some of the most important of the persons who still have to be tried. There are others also, but their cases are not quite so serious. Therefore I say that the Government had to choose between two evils, and it chose the lesser. On both sides the road was strewn with thorns. On the one hand, if we published we would have prejudiced people who still had to be tried. If we did not publish, I would have been asked the question day after day, and quite correctly: Why do you not publish; what is the Government hiding, and what is there to hide? I repeat, and I think it is correct to say, that the Government did not neglect its duty. It chose the lesser of two evils. The Government acted cautiously and judiciously.

*Sir DE VILLIERS GRAAFF:

Am I now to understand that there are still cases pending apart from those of the people who fled?

*The MINISTER OF JUSTICE:

I have given the figures of the remaining cases, and I have just answered the question of the hon. member for Salt River. But I say we chose the lesser of two evils, and I consider that you must agree that the Government adopted a very wise attitude.

*Mr. J. D. DU P. BASSON:

Mr. Speaker, in the party political sphere, I have always attached particular importance to the spirit and the attitude which a political party reveals in handling the country’s affairs, its sympathy for the ordinary man and his difficulties and the methods which it applies in carrying out its policy. This has always been far more important to me than the written programme which it advocates at a specific time, because I do not know of one single party which in the long run and from time to time has not radically changed its written policy. To tell the truth, political parties nearly always take on the outlook and the character as well as the plans and the programme of its leader. That is why there is a vast difference between the Nationalist Party of General Hertzog and the Nationalist Party of to-day just as there was a great difference between the United Party after 1939 and the United Party when General Hertzog led it. I therefore believe that it is the duty of every politician from time to time, and particularly after the election of a new leader who imposes his outlook on a party, to make a critical valuation of his political party to see whether he is not simply serving his party out of habit and out of sentiment, although that party is not furthering the interests of the country to the best possible advantage.

As far as the Nationalist Party is concerned, I can say that I have always been prepared, and still am to-day, to give it the fullest credit for those things which it has done which are good and which have enriched the country. No reasonable person would for example deny that the Nationalist Party has carried out great historic tasks in South Africa. After all it is the Nationalist Party more than any other party which has made South Africa a sovereign independent country, which has gained for the Afrikaans language its due, and which has given South Africa a political personality of her own, based on her own constitution; a citizenship of our own; and a South African National Anthem and flag with which to symbolize our freedom. I personally have always regarded it as a source of great satisfaction that I as a Member of Parliament for the past ten years have played a constructive part in this House in several of these steps. And I want to say frankly that if these matters were still to-day, as they were on occasion in the past, the dominating issues in our political life, I would without hesitation throw in my weight with the Nationalist Party. But our political needs have changed drastically in recent years. New ideas have arisen in the world, particularly in respect of human relationships. They have aroused new aspirations amongst the peoples of the world, particularly the unfree peoples. Furthermore it has in the space of a few short years completely changed the map of the world, which in turn has affected the composition of every international organization in the world, and has created so many new circumstances and so many new power groupings that it has become necessary for even the strongest of these nations to initiate drastic readjustments and revaluations, not only in their foreign policy, but in their domestic policies as well. And it is in the handling of this problem of human relationships and the spirit in which it does so and is still doing so, more than anything else, that we must judge the Government to-day and decide whether South Africa can afford this Government any longer.

Mr. Speaker, one can only judge a government in one way, and that is by the results of its actions. One cannot really compare it with a previous government because each previous government was faced with different circumstances. Nor can one compare it with any future government because no one can even prophesy correctly what will happen tomorrow. We can only judge a government by its own norms, by the expectations which it itself aroused and by the practical results of its own régime. And I feel that it is only a person who is completely without any vision and completely blinded by his party prejudice who would say that it is impossible to make of this country a finer and happier land than this Government has made it. Of course we shall never have perfection and on one expects this Government to be perfect. Nor does any opposition party offer perfection. But it always surprises me when I hear the argument from hon. members opposite that if the Opposition should come into power with its present policy in respect of race relations, and if they concede anything, the demands would become ever greater. Mr. Speaker, have the demands ceased now that this Government is in power? I have never heard such a weak and futile argument as saying that if one makes a concession or an adjustment, one will always be faced with new demands. Of course there are always new demands. Are all the Whites then satisfied? Half the Whites are opposed to the Government. We shall never satisfy everyone completely and there will always be demands. If the Government can tell me to-day that its policy has resulted in the non-Whites ceasing to make demands, then I would immediately give it my support. There will always be demands. Whether there are three Native representatives in this House or none, the demands remain. What the Government’s argument amounts to in effect is that if one cannot give a man caviare, then he should not eat bread either. No, Mr. Speaker, the task of a good government is not to satisfy everyone completely because that one can never do. The task of a good government is to strive to provide the greatest measure of satisfaction to the greatest number of people. I ask the Government: Is it completely impossible for them to govern in such a way and to create a political state of affairs under which the English-speaking people of this country can also participate in the government of the country? Is it impossible for them to govern in such a way that we would at least have some strong friends in the outside world? Is it impossible for them to govern in such a way that they treat the non-Whites with greater fairness, and give them, if not complete satisfaction, at least greater satisfaction without the White man being destroyed? Is it impossible for them even to apply apartheid on such a basis that it can be implemented in a more humane manner?

Mr. Speaker, this Government has now been in power for nearly 13 years and during that time it has insisted that it has the only and the final solution for all our problems; and in the fixed belief that it has the final solution for everything, it has not allowed anything to stand in the way of the implementation of its policy—neither the constitution, nor the composition of Parliament, nor the courts, nor moral considerations, nor its best friends in the outside world, nor world opinion. It has not allowed anything to stand in its way. Here in this House it has had a large and willing majority behind it with which it could do and pass everything it wished. Acts have streamed from this Parliament at the rate of 70, 80 and more per session; the Statutes are no longer issued in one volume; they are now nearly always issued in two volumes annually. I am mentioning this to show that in the past 13 years the Government has ruled as though it is an army of occupation. It has placed every aspect of our lives under legal control: What one’s race is and what one’s colour is and how it is to be determined; where one may live and where one may own property; with whom one may eat and talk and where one may do so; when one is an official, even how one should greet a Bantu if one does not want to lose one’s job; on which benches one may sit; where one may relax; in which taxi one may ride; what type of work one may do; whether one is allowed to travel abroad; what one may read—to a far greater extent than ever before; where one may sit in a bus and in which bus one may travel; through which entrance one may enter a public building; … [Interjections.]

*Mr. VON MOLTKE:

You voted for all of them.

*Mr. J. D. DU P. BASSON:

I am merely putting the facts. To say that I voted for all these things is wrong because most of them were done by regulation. Every aspect of our life in South Africa has been placed under law and regulation. One must even have a Government permit to take a sick servant to his home. All this if one is fortunate enough to be a White man. If one is a Native, there are ten additional regulations for every one to which a White man is subject. The Minister of Bantu administration recently even issued regulations making it obligatory that when a Native dies and his family wish to place a gravestone on his grave, they must obtain the permission of the local director of Native Affairs for the wording of the inscription which they wish to place on the stone. To-day one is therefore controlled from birth to the epitaph on one’s grave. As far as I know, Mr. Speaker, there is not a single country in the world without exception in which the life of the citizens is subject in time of peace to so many regulations as the citizens of South Africa under the strong hand of the present Government.

I have always regarded the task of a Government in a democratic country to be that it should make the life of its people as easy as possible. Apparently this Government regards it as its task to make the life of its people as complicated and as difficult as possible with as much control and as many regulations as it can devise. I have said that 13 years have now passed. They have carried out everything they wished to carry out in the way they wished. And, Mr. Speaker, those who did not support every action of the Government were summarily ejected from the governing party. At the end of this period it is surely right and just to ask: With all these laws, with all the control and all these regulations, has any problem of importance really been solved; and if so, which problem? What has been solved? Has the White man been saved? Is there anyone in this country who feels safer, who feels that his future is safer and whose mind is more at east? No, Mr. Speaker, listen to the speeches made by hon. members opposite and listen to the speeches which they make outside. These are still the same speeches as they made 13 years ago. It is still the same hopeless back-to-the-wall policy—just a little worse. The Whites are now in greater danger than before, and despite all the anti-communistic legislation there are now—if I am to judge by the speeches of Ministers—more communists in South Africa than ever before. I think that if we analyse the position correctly, this Government has not become the solver of problems, but the creator of problems. Take our main problem, the relationship between White and non-White. It is useless for the hon. the Minister to say that in the past there were also disturbances among the Natives. That is so. But have we in South Africa ever had a position such as we had last year during the parliamentary session in the Cape when Parliament looked like an armed camp, when tanks and machine guns had to be erected in Parliament Street and when Ministers had to be guarded by soldiers with drawn bayonets? Have we ever in time of peace experienced so much disruption as we did last year, and this in areas which had previously been peaceful, such as the towns of the Boland and a place such as Windhoek? Have we ever had such large-scale arrests as we have had under this Government? Twenty thousand people in one fell swoop.

*Mr. B. COETZEE:

There have been many more in the past.

*Mr. J. D. DU P. BASSON:

Then we have had the interning in time of peace of nearly 2,000 citizens most of whom were simply taken in the night and incarcerated for five months without being charged, without trial and without even having the elementary right of obtaining legal advice. During the Second World War, during a time of war, the then Government considered it necessary, rightly or wrongly—I am merely putting the facts—to intern the German citizens, most of whom were in South West, and the Nationalist Party raised violent objections. Hansard is full of speeches in which Nationalist Party members and present Ministers objected to people being interned without trial—and this in time of war. And the German people of South West gained the impression that in the Nationalist Party they had democrats of firm principle and they gave the Nationalist Party their full support. But two decades later, now that they themselves are in power, they are not only doing the same thing, but to a far greater extent. They are interning people in time of peace, and they are doing so to born citizens of this country. Have we ever had a position in this country where an important Minister has had to make an admission to the world such as the following? In November last year the Minister of Bantu Administration was forced to make the following statement. I am reading from the Burger of 8 November 1960. He said—

I have decided to review and to consolidate all the laws and regulations affecting Bantu living in White areas. This is being done with a view to the elimination of all irritating measures …

In other words, he admits that there are irritating measures for which he is responsible. But he went on—

The elimination of all measures which entail unnecessary hardship for the Bantu.

When we on this side of the House said that there were measures causing hardship and which should be removed, we were accused of being agitators. But here the Minister himself admits it. “Hardship” is a strong word; it means suffering and privation. Not only does the Minister admit that there are regulations, for which he and his predecessor are responsible, which are causing hardship, but regulations which are causing unnecessary hardship. This statement was issued on a Sunday and I think that had something to do with the frankness the Minister revealed on this occasion. I cannot think of anyone in this House who has ever given our enemies in the outside world so much ammunition as this Minister by this admission which he has made. A little while later he made another statement to the Press which the Burger of 12 December 1960 reported as follows—

One of the great weaknesses, particularly in the large cities, has always been that senior officials do not have sufficient time to maintain regular contact with the Bantu and the city councils …. In many places the Bantu Commissioners are in the same position.

Precisely what we have said. When they abolished the Native Representatives from this House, we made the point that there was insufficient contact between Parliament and the Native but the Minister said the officials were there. More than a year later he admits that there is insufficient contact between the senior officials and the Bantu of this country. The question arises: Can South Africa at such a time afford such a Minister and such a Government who admit before the world that they have done things which are causing the Bantu unnecessary hardship? I think that if there is a Minister who deserves to be replaced, it is this Minister. And I now want to say that we in South West would rather not be linked with such a state of affairs, and I shall later ask pertinently that control over the Native affairs of South West should be handed over to South West itself.

Take the relationship between the White man and the Coloured. I sat yesterday and listened to the arguments of the hon. the Prime Minister when he tried to justify his racial policy on moral grounds. He used the metaphor of four pillars, i.e. the Whites, the Bantu, the Indians and the Coloureds, and he said that each group could rise in its own sphere to equally great heights in every phase of life— without any limitation. In other words, the Coloureds would eventually obtain what the Whites have to-day, only on a separate basis. Mr. Speaker, that proposition may be correct in the case of the Bantu who live in the Bantu areas such as the Transkei, if the Government ever gets as far as implementing what they have promised, but it is not true of the Bantu outside the Bantu areas. Nor is it true of the Indians in South Africa, and it is definitely not true of the Coloureds. What is the highest level which the hon. the Prime Minister foresees for the Coloured while there is not, nor will there be, any question of his having a separate state and while the Coloured’s whole social, economic and political future is bound up with that of the Whites? The most the Prime Minister and his Deputy Minister of the Interior can foresee is an Advisory Coloured Council which will eventually be able to control local affairs, while it will be this Parliament which will take the final decisions over all matters affecting the life of the Coloureds. As a matter of fact, under the Government’s policy, the Coloureds who are the closest to us are treated the least fairly. The hon. the Prime Minister has had much to say about the material benefits which they are being offered and I readily concede that all improvements must be welcomed. But has the Government forgotten the history of the Afrikaner people? In the old imperialistic days the Afrikaners were also told: Look at the material advantages the Empire offers you, safety, security, economic stability; drop the idea of secession and we shall look after your material welfare. What was the Afrikaner’s reply? Rather the ash heap in freedom, than all the fine materialistic promises of the Empire. There is no nation which thinks any differently and the Coloured people do not think differently either. It does not matter what material benefits one gives the Bantu or the Coloureds. Eventually every nation will say: Rather the ash heap and freedom than be restricted and humiliated with a whole pile of materialistic goods. Under the Prime Minister’s policy the Coloureds are far worse off than the Bantu; and I want to emphasize that the Prime Minister was not correct when he put forward the proposition that the Coloureds would be able to progress as far as the Whites in all spheres, including the political sphere. And as far as the Coloured policy of the Government is concerned. it does not have a moral foot to stand on. It is no wonder that the main spiritual leaders of South Africa who have all reached the top through their knowledge and merit have now come out in open rebellion against the Prime Minister and the Government’s policy.

I want to go further and say that the Government is not even consistent as regards the Coloureds either. A little while ago the Nationalist Party appointed a commission under the chairmanship of the M.P.C. for Paarl. That commission had to investigate the question of the municipal rights of the Coloureds. In its report that commission accepted the principle that the Coloureds could continue to sit with the Whites on the Cape Town City Council. Mr. Speaker, 200 yards from this Parliament of South Africa the Cape Town City Council sits on which the Coloureds have direct representation. Whites and Coloureds are on a Common Roll, and Coloureds even represent Whites in the City Council of Cape Town. I have wondered whether the Cape Town City Council with all its committees does, not sometimes sit more than the 100 days which Parliament normally sits. Now I ask: What is the difference in principle between direct representation for the Coloureds in the Cape Town City Council and direct representation for them in this Parliament?

*Mr. VON MOLTKE:

May I ask a question?

*Mr. J. D. DU P. BASSON:

My time is too limited. What is more, Sir, the Nationalist Party for years had Coloured organizers and Coloureds sat with their leaders, with great men like Dr. Malan, on the same platform at Nationalist Party Congresses. For many years Coloureds sat on the provincial council, on the divisional councils and on the hospital boards of Cape Town, and they sat there with Nationalists. Were the Whites destroyed as a result? Did the Whites suffer as a result of that form of direct representation for the Coloureds? What the hon. the Prime Minister has forgotten is that the Coloureds are a minority group. They do not even number half the White population of South Africa. How on earth can one say that the Coloureds as a minority group can represent a threat to the White man or his civilization?

*Dr. DE WET:

Which congresses?

*Mr. J. D. DU P. BASSON:

The hon. member should read something about the history of his party. At many congresses in the Cape, Coloureds sat with the leaders on the platform. Does the hon. member deny it? I shall now wager him £1,000. I said so last year already, and I do not want to repeat it, that separate representation for the Coloureds in Parliament will only have a fair, just and moral basis if they have the right to send their own people as their representatives to Parliament, and I am particularly glad that this has been clearly accepted by the Leader of the Opposition as his policy. I want to say this to the Coloureds: It will come. It may take a while. As certain as we sit here, we shall see the Coloureds being given direct representation. That is just as certain as it is certain that the régime of this Government will come to an end.

What hurts me as an Afrikaans-speaking person most is that the population group in South Africa which is paying the highest price for the attitude of the Government towards the non-Whites is the Afrikaans-speaking people. The Nationalist Party consists mostly of Afrikaans-speaking people and because it always takes unto itself the right to speak on behalf of the Afrikaner, the unfortunate position has arisen that everything the Nationalist Party does, every hurtful statement it makes, every oppressive step it takes, is chalked up not against the Nationalist Party as a transient party which can disappear tomorrow, but against the Afrikaner people and the Afrikaans language as the language of that people. That is why one finds that the hatred of the other groups in South Africa is concentrated not on the White man as such but on the Afrikaner in particular. The devastating effect of this process can already be seen from the fact that more and more Coloureds are turning their back on Afrikaans as their home language. Last year the Burger published an analysis, and this was the conclusions it reached on the basis of the census statistics as regards the use of Afrikaans as their home language by the Coloureds. (The Burger, 1 January 1960)—

The future of Afrikaans is closely linked with the attitude of the non-Whites towards Afrikaans …. The danger that the Coloureds, out of animosity towards the Afrikaners, will deliberately Anglicize themselves, is greater than in earlier times.

And they then use these significant words—

The 1951 census report indicates that, as far as the non-White races are concerned, Afrikaans is losing ground.

And a man such as Mr. Danie du Plessis, the General Manager of Railways, recently stated at an A.T.K.V. congress at Hartenbos. (The Burger, 21 September 1960)—

There is a large section of the Coloured people, particularly in the cities, who are becoming so estranged from the Afrikaans-speaking section of the population that they no longer even want to read Afrikaans newspapers and magazines.

There is much other evidence. Just go and watch a football match at Newlands against a visiting team. The Coloureds, who were the most enthusiastic supporters of rugby and of the mainly Afrikaans teams, are now openly antagonistic. Watch the scenes we see there.

*Mr. VON MOLTKE:

That was always the position.

*Mr. J. D. DU P. BASSON:

That is untrue. For the language-conscious Afrikaner it is a disturbing development which is taking place, and the animosity which the Government is generating against the Afrikaner is also making itself evident in animosity towards the Afrikaans language. If this attitude should develop, not only amongst the Coloureds but amongst the Natives as well, Afrikaans as a language will have a difficult future in South Africa. Seen from all points of view, this Government, as a result of its attitude, its policies and its actions, is actually a disaster for the Afrikaans-speaking people. Let us remember one thing. Look what happened to the German people under the leadership of Hitler. Last year I toured through Europe. When one goes to Norway, one still finds bitterness 20 years after the war. One goes to Oslo with its gigantic city hall and on the one whole wall we find immortalized scenes from the occupation period depicting the actions of the Gestapo. They stand there permanently. One goes to Holland and one sees the monuments which are a reproach to the army of occupation. The hatred which Hitler caused will not be eliminated for generations to come and I tell you, Sir, this Government is generating this same type of bitterness amongst the non-White peoples of this country, with this difference that it is actually we, the Afrikaans-speaking people, who will be singled out and who will feel the full force of this hatred in the future. For that reason I am glad that Afrikaans Church leaders, Afrikaans businessmen, Afrikaans farming leaders, and Afrikaans academic leaders are coming forward one after the other and taking their stand against the oppressive actions of the Government. The day will also come when the majority of the ordinary Afrikaans-speaking people will realize and see what is happening and will join these leaders. There is already a tremendous movement taking place in the Christian consciousness of the nation, and the Government can do just what it likes, but it is not going to escape the final effect of this movement. I said at the outset that I attached decisive importance to the spirit and the attitude of a political party, and if ever a newspaper wrote a true word, then it was written by the political correspondent of the Star not long ago. He said—

A study I have just made of overseas Press comment on South Africa shows that the unpopularity of this country—now at the crest of a new wave—derives much less from racial separation as such, than from the unnecessary harshness and rigidity with which law and custom generally are applied. The lesson of this survey is that South Africa could have had apartheid, and friends too, if we had gone about things in a more adult and less impatient way.

That is true. It is the Government’s absolutism. It is the way in which it applies the Group Areas Act—always to the detriment of the non-White sections. It is its inhumane application of job reservation. It is its continuous threats against the freedom of the Press. It is the intolerant attitude of its leaders and their over-sensitivity to criticism. A witch hunt is set afoot against everyone who does not follow the leader, who does not walk where the leader walks and who does not become angry when the leader becomes angry. There is the unfortunate way in which the human dignity of the non-White is being continually detracted from; the large-scale interning of citizens, without charge and without trial. There is the continuous refusal of passports and the withdrawl of passports which represents nothing but intimidation of those people who differ politically from the Government. It is these things and this attitude which has resulted in our being without friends in the West and in our membership of the Commonwealth hanging on a thread. It is these things which are making our position at the United Nations untenable, so much so that yesterday we were brought before the Security Council and to-morrow we shall once again be brought before the International Court. It is these things which are causing us to be completely isolated in Africa, which have brought immigration to a halt, which have caused race relations to deteriorate to such an extent that the position has sunk to a point unprecedented in our history, and which are causing us to be threatened by boycotts from every corner of the world, with the result that the hon. member for Aliwal (Capt. Strydom) was forced to say in an interview with the Burger on 5 July 1960—

If the Western powers continue with their attacks on South Africa and if certain countries continue to boycott our products, we shall eventually be forced to trade with Russia.

Then we shall have to call in Russia’s help. [Interjections.] That is the stage we have already reached. Unfortunately it is particularly we who live in South West Africa who are going to be the main victim of the Government’s actions. When I was still a Government member, how often did I not plead and ask that the Government should not go to such extremes with its policy that it would become impossible for the few friends we still have in the world to support us? When the Native Representatives were expelled, I stated specifically that there are only a few friendly nations such as Australia, Britain and New Zealand who supported South Africa fairly regularly on the South West issue at the United Nations and I said: Do not make it so impossible for these people that we eventually do not have one single nation supporting us. But they simply pushed aside my representations and what has now happened? Last session we sent our biggest and most expensive ever delegation to the United Nations, and not once did any country which had supported us in the past support us again, not even, on points where technically we were correct. The best we could do was that on one occasion 11 countries abstained from voting. No one wishes to be seen any longer in the company of our Government on the foreign stage, and the final result of all this is that we have now reached the stage where there is active opposition to us. Earlier it was just talk, verbal attacks, and these were not so terribly dangerous, but we have now, as a result of the persistent blindness of the Government, reached the stage where active opposition to South Africa is threatening and we in South West run the danger that we shall have to pay the highest price. I therefore believe that if ever there was a Government which deserves a motion of no-confidence it is this one and if ever there was a time when it should be given that motion of no-confidence, then it is now.

*Capt. STRYDOM:

Mr. Speaker, I will deal with the hon. member who has just sat down at a later stage, I am pleased that I am able to say a few words here to-day. I want to delve into the history of South Africa since 1910, for a moment, and talk about the disturbances which took place then, disturbances in which I unfortunately had to take part. I want to refer to the strikes which took place in Johannesburg in 1913, 1914 and in 1922. I had to take part in all those strikes and we know what the results were, people even had to be deported from the country. Now I come to 1938. At that time we had the so-called purified National Party. We were 27 and the mighty Government consisted of 111. A few of them are still in the House to-day. The hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Lawrence) was a member of the Cabinet at that time. [Interjections.] When England negotiates with Russia it is quite in order, and may we not do so? We were only 27 in 1938 but we carried on and in 1948 the present Government came into power. At that time the Transvaal had only one single representative, namely the late Adv. Strydom, and we know what the position is to-day. We came into power in 1948 and I told the Government that we would come into power. That is recorded in Hansard. My prophecy proved correct. Now I come to what this Government has done since it came into power. There was chaos. I want to be fair and add that it was just after the war. I was never in favour of a German victory, because it is bad to serve under the British but it is worse to serve under the Germans. We tackled all the problems. What is the position to-day? There is a young member over there, I remember the days when he was an organizer of the United Party Youth Front and he is more fanatical to-day than he was in those days. I notice that he has made such progress that he is able to finance three newspapers these days. He has a great deal of money.

*An HON MEMBER:

Where does he get it?

*Capt. STRYDOM:

He is a hard-working lad. I come now to the Leader of the Opposition. I knew his father and mother; they were noble people and I have known him for many years. He is an honest politician but he is out of touch with the people of South Africa and prevailing circumstances and the necessity to maintain White civilization. For three days we have been discussing this motion of no-confidence and what have we achieved? The hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. E. G. Malan) and a few other members spoke, and what they said was absolute nonsense. Sir, we must be careful. I have no other home, neither have most other members. We must be careful because every word which is uttered here against South Africa is published overseas and used against us. even if most of it is only 50 per cent true. I was speaking, how ever, about the strikes and the disturbances which took place. I took part in those because I was a soldier and had to carry out instructions, but during the régime of this Government we have experienced the most peaceful period we have ever had. What is happening in Kenya and Rhodesia? I was in Kenya for three years. There you find partnership and equality. A friend of mine from Rhodesia told me recently that the position was very serious; his property is valueless. He shares on a fifty-fifty basis with the Native but the latter is not satisfied. The Natives say “You must get to hell out of it ”. They say that they appreciate what has been done for them. They also say: “We appreciate what you British have done for us; you have allowed us to attend your universities at Oxford, Cambridge and London; you have taken us unto your confidence; you have brought a certain amount of civilization here. We appreciate all these things but this is our country and you must go.” That applies to Tanganyika and it applies to Uganda. I shall deal with the Congo at a later stage. What did Banda say the other day? He said: “We are not even going to listen to you.” He does not even wish to argue with the British. He simply says: The White man must go.

I now want to address a few words to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. I simply cannot understand why a man with his background and his knowledge—he is an advocate and he has been through the war; he has a wonderful record—is not sitting on this side of the House. He ought to be sitting here because what are we doing? We merely want to keep South Africa white. We did not take this country by force of arms; we brought civilization to this country; we civilized the Natives and to-day we are living in a country where the Native and the Coloured receive better treatment than in any other country in the world. Everywhere there is trouble; here we have peace and quiet. I am sorry for the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. I am sorry for him because he is a friend of mine and I am even more sorry for Jannie Steytler. I am sorry for the two of them because they are good people. I know Jannie’s family. His father and I fought together for a republic in the Second War of Independence.

*The DEPUTY-SPEAKER:

Order! The hon. member should address hon. members in the customary manner.

*Capt. STRYDOM:

I know who and what they are. Mr. Speaker, I will be courteous; I am always courteous. In that case I will address the hon. member as “the hon. member ”, but “Jannie” is a more exalted title than “the hon. member ”. As I have said, those two hon. members are both sons of South Africans. Their parents played an important role in South Africa. We all recognize that. To-day they are sitting there, divided. They talk about an alternative government. Where must that alternative government come from? Hon. members opposite grew up together; South Africa is the only home they have but they fight like cat and dog amongst themselves. What is happening to-day at Green Point with the by-election? The one says this and the other one says that. Yesterday they were friends but to-day they are enemies. They stand together, however, against South Africa and against us. I say “against South Africa” because the speeches to which I have listened here are not aimed at promoting the interests of South Africa. All their speeches are based on enmity towards South Africa. Mr. Speaker, as an old man and as the oldest member in this House, from the point of view of years of service, I am grieved when I listen to the arguments advanced by that side of the House, arguments which do not contribute anything towards solving the problems of South Africa. We should realize that we are talking like children and that we are insulting each other. That is stupid; it is not fitting.

*Mr. E. G. MALAN:

[Inaudible.]

*Capt. STRYDOM:

I remember the days of the Kruithoring. I remember what he said in the Kruithoring about those hon. members with whom he is sitting now. He has turned a complete somersault and where is he to-day? He is representing Orange Grove where you dare not speak Afrikaans, Sir, you must speak English alone. That is “fairplay ”. I want to make a suggestion. We dare not carry on in the manner in which we are carrying on in this House; we are committing suicide. The world is very turbulent, as all hon. members know. We know what is happening in the Congo, we know of the murders which are being committed there. Catholics are murdered, Christians are murdered, people of all nationalities are murdered, but not a word is said at UNO about that. There they only talk about what is the best to be done for the future. They do not talk about the murders which are committed in the Congo. Has murder ever been committed in South Africa on such a large scale? Never. I participated in all the big strikes in South Africa. Sharpeville and Langa were nothing compared to those.

*Mr. G. F. H. BEKKER:

What about Bulhoek?

*Capt. STRYDOM:

We shot and killed 500 people there and I gave the order. I spoke to General Smuts and we sent Colonel Truter there with 1,200 men. Those people were mental defectives. Some of them had committed crimes and the Natives refused to hand the criminals over to the police. Negotiations were carried on for more than a year and then we left Pretoria by train at two o’clock in the morning for Bulhoek. I wrote a note to Enoch, the chief of the Natives there, and he wrote back: Do what you want, your bullets will turn into water. General van Deventer then asked me to write another note to the effect that they were surrounded. We had guns and machine guns and surrounded them with 1,200 men. I wrote: “Be sensible and hand the criminals over.” What happened? Enoch did not reply. A column of smoke rose on a hillock and they attacked us. They all wore a white type of frock over their dirty clothes with red caps. They attacked us and shot at us; not a single Native returned. I remember one. He had been shot and lay a few yards away from my feet. He had an old imitation weapon in his hand. Both his legs had been shot off. I took the weapon away from him and threw it away. He was so bloodthirsty that he crawled after it in an attempt to recover it. In any case, of the 600, 500 were killed.

*Mr. VAN MOLTKE:

During whose régime was that?

*Capt. STRYDOM:

That was in 1921. That is what happened then. If that were to happen to-day, Sir, you can well imagine what a cry would go up in the world outside. Natives have been shot in Rhodesia, in Salisbury, but nothing was said about that. In Ghana the Opposition dare not show its face otherwise it is locked up. Mr. Speaker, I know the hon. the Minister of Justice. I have served under many Ministers, inter alia, the hon. member over there (Mr. Lawrence). The hon. member is a Christian; he is an honest person, he is a cultured person. When he makes a speech he does not have as many notes as the hon. member for Namib (Mr. J. D. du P. Basson) usually has. He speaks from memory and what he says goes home. He does not forget anything. He knows human nature and in his position he has to. It is because I know human nature that I have achieved a certain amount of success in the business world. The moment I meet a man I know whether or not he will cheat me.

I now want to deal with the Leader of the Coloured Representatives. I know what he has done for them over many, many years. He was a United Party supporter, however, and one of his colleagues has already left his little group. The hon. member for Peninsula (Mr. Bloomberg) and his two colleagues do a great deal for the Coloureds but they should not throw in their lot with those hon. members. During all the years those hon. members have had the support of the Coloured people but what have they done for them? What is the position of the Coloured people to-day? Today you, find them in industrial schools. They are served by their own people. We are progressing and progressing fast. Have you ever heard one word of thanks from those hon. members opposite, Sir, for what the Government has done for the Coloured? No. Look at the Bantu states to-day. I know the Native —I speak his language—and I can assure you, Sir, that never before have they been as happy in the Transkei as they are to-day. According to to-day’s newspaper each of them is contributing £5 towards the damage they have done. They are all sorry for what they have done. That is what we have done. But when you listen to hon. members opposite, you will think that everything we do is wrong; nothing that we do is right. No, that is not the attitude to adopt; we should be tolerant. Mr. Speaker, I know Natal. In 1914 I obtained 500 recruits in Durban. I can assure you, Sir, that Natal is of the opinion that this Government is doing the best in the circumstances, with the wind against it and in the face of world criticism. I want to say this to the Government to-day: Do not worry; you must learn. “We die learning” as the English saying goes. This Government is doing its best; it has its problems and it makes mistakes, but it is doing its best to keep South Africa for the White man, to advance the interests of the Native and to uplift the Native and the Coloured to a higher standard of civilization. I live near the border of Basutoland. I met a certain Basuto chief some time ago and in the course of conversation he said to me “You are my neighbour ”. I said “yes ”. I then asked him what he thought about Bantustan and his reply was “Well, we are free, but we want the English personnel out in two years’ time ”. Those were his words: “the English personnel ”. We are doing our best for South Africa. If only hon. members opposite would lend a hand, we will have a model state here in South Africa, especially under the republic. I am the only member here who has fought for a republic and I shall die happily if I live till 31 May. I want to assure you, Sir, that within a year even those people who voted against us will support us, as happened in the United States of America. People who fought against each other in the past are united to-day, and under the new republican form of government we will stand together and we will show the world what we can do for our subjects.

*Dr. CRONJE:

I do not doubt the sincerity of the last speaker, but I do wonder whether he should not use notes in future whenever he makes a speech.

I listened to-day to the Minister of Justice when he made his speech. It is certainly one of the most remarkable speeches ever made by a Minister of Justice in any democratic parliament in the world. What did the Leader of the Opposition ask him? The Leader of the Opposition asked him whether he could explain why such a great number of persons were arrested who were held in prison for months and finally released without any charge being brought against them. In most democratic countries I would assume that the Minister would have tried to explain why this happened. We all understand that all persons arrested by the police are not necessarily guilty, and that a certain percentage of them have to be released after having been arrested. But one does not expect only a small percentage of them to be found guilty. What did the Minister of Justice do? He attacked the Leader of the Opposition for having asked that question. It is clear from the words he used, because he called the arrested persons robbers and thieves, that he still considers them guilty in spite of the fact that no charge can be brought against them. That reminds me of an old story which is often told at the Pretoria Bar concerning an old magistrate who was appointed shortly after the Anglo-Boer War and who did not know much about law. Every time an advocate or an attorney had to defend an accused before him, the magistrate would ask only one question, and that was “But why did the police arrest him if he is not guilty?” After all, it is a basic principle in all democratic countries that a person is not arrested unless there is at least a prima facie case against him.

*The MINISTER OF JUSTICE:

Surely you know that there were emergency regulations.

*Dr. CRONJE:

It was only to be expected that there would be a certain number of arrests, but does the Minister suggest that those persons were all robbers and thieves? I know of personal acquaintances in Pretoria who were arrested, people who were members of the Liberal Party but who certainly were not robbers or thieves. At worst they were perhaps woolly-headed intellectuals or woollyheaded idealists. So far as the excuse is concerned which the Minister offers for the delay in the publication of the reports of the judicial commissions, I only wish to say that of all the arguments he has put forward, only one has some validity and that is that persons who may be prosecuted later may be predidiced by the publication of these reports. But as I understand the law, and I assume the Minister’s advisers have also so advised him, no court of law can take any notice of any finding concerning the credibility of witnesses who appeared before a judicial commission. Such evidence would simply not be admissible. Surely the Minister must weigh all these other reasons which he has given against the one great point made by the Leader of the Opposition, namely, that for more than six months South Africa’s case has had to remain undefended abroad, and that all kinds of false accusations could be made against South Africa and against the police regarding what had happened without any contradiction and without the true facts having been brought to the notice of the world. The hon. the Minister should consult his colleague, the Minister of External Affairs, so that he can realize what modern propaganda is. If a charge is made against you to-day and you do not react immediately, it will not avail you to reply to the charge six months later, because by that time the world will have forgotten all about the original charge. I think the Chief of the Information Service will confirm what I say here.

*Mr. M. J. DE LA R. VENTER:

Then the charge could not have been very important.

*Dr. CRONJE:

There were very serious charges throughout the world that the police here had fired on unarmed masses who had assembled peacefully. We waited nine months before replying to that accusation before the forum of the world. Mr. Speaker, the whole tragedy of South Africa and also of this debate is the unrealistic attitude adopted by the other side. On the one hand we have a multiracial state, whether we like it or not. On the other hand we have a Government which refuses to accept that fact. That is the great anomaly leading to all the difficulties in South Africa because in so far as the Government does perhaps accept the fact that we have a multi-racial state they have only one policy to cope with the situation; they say that we must immediately undo this state of affairs, that we must sort out the races. To use the new terminology of the Prime Minister, the four races must flow in four streams because according to the argument of members on the other side, it is impossible in a multi-racial state where you have more than one nationalism ever to uphold democracy as we know it, because in the end the strongest national group will dominate the others. That is the basis on which the whole philosophy of the Nationalist Party rests, that it is impossible to have a multi-racial state in a democratic state, and that if therefore you fortuitously have a multi-racial state you must undo it. Their definition of nationalism is clearly reflected in an advertisement which was probably carefully considered before publication in the London Times on 18 December 1960. There it was stated—

White South Africans have their own nationalism. There, said Mr. Macmillan in Cape Town, was the first of the African nationalisms. They know what the origins of nationalism are—and they are simple. They are the ties which form a special kinship amongst people who sing the same sort of songs, who cry and laugh at the same sort of things and who have the same sort of rituals and who use the same sort of symbols.

What a ridiculous definition of nationalism, what a narrow definition of nationalism. According to this definition—and then it is still published in England—the United Kingdom has no nationalism, because what do we find there? There we find three large racial groups, the Welsh, the Scottish and the English, who definitely do not laugh at the same sort of thing. They usually laugh at each other. They are people who definitely do not sing the same songs and who to a great extent have differing symbols and rituals so far as I understand them. And what about Switzerland? Just imagine the Italians, the Germans and the French all singing the same song, each in their own language and at the same time. That shows how narrow and ridiculous this definition of nationalism is. My hon. friends do not realize that there can be a greater nationalism which can embrace smaller cultural groups; they do not realize that there can be a nationalism of an entire country, such as there actually is in other multiracial countries such as Switzerland for example and such as we should try to create here in South Africa, and such as the United Party has already created between the English-speaking and Afrikaans-speaking sections. We on this side of the House fully realize the difficulties resulting from having more than one nationalism or more than one race in a democratic state. We do not shut our eyes to those difficulties and therefore do not believe in the mathematical democracy of the Progressive Party. We realize, for example, that all persons who have passed Std. 6 do not necessarily have the same views on life. We realize that you cannot have complete equality between various races which have different cultural backgrounds and different political concepts. However, just as we realize the difficulties involved in maintaining democracy in a multi-racial state, we realize even more clearly the impossibility of ever separating the races in South Africa. The Nationalist Party runs away from the difficulty of maintaining democracy in a multi-racial state and tries to do the impossible, namely, to separate the races. I am sorry the Minister of Transport is not present; he would understand what I mean because he is a hunter. It is like a man who sees a lion and jumps down a precipice to escape the lion. He lands in much greater trouble in his attempt to escape a lesser danger. That is what the Nationalist Party is doing nowadays. They are afraid of the problems arising from a multi-racial population in this country, problems which we on this side of the House fully realize, and then they try to do the opposite and that is to undo the multi-racial character of this country; they try to separate the races. Mr. Speaker, apartheid can only be justified morally if there are actually four streams in life, if there are actually four separate territories in which each nation will be able to live its own economic, political and social life and where it can realize its aspirations so far as possible.

*Mr. KEYTER:

Would that be morally right if it were possible?

*Dr. CRONJE:

Naturally it would be right if it were possible. That would be the only possible justification for apartheid, and as I understand the position, apartheid is justified on moral grounds by Church leaders on the basis that you have complete territorial segregation.

*Mr. KEYTER:

Then your formula too would be impossible.

*Dr. CRONJE:

That, of course, is the beautiful picture that is always painted by speakers on the other side of the House. We have listened to the Prime Minister, the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development and the Deputy Minister of the Interior. They spoke here of the beautiful picture of South Africa, of the four groups, each in its own stream in which each group can attain full human dignity and develop its economic, political and social rights to the utmost. That is the lovely picture always painted here by speakers of the Nationalist Party. But what is the true picture of South Africa as it has developed during the past 12 years? I would like to give the House that true picture and, in order to do so, I should like to make use of the 1960 population census, because the population census gives a much better picture of what actually happened than all the fine words and speeches by hon. members on the other side. What happened between 1951 and 1960? Let us first take the Asiatics and the Coloureds, two large separate racial groups in this country. When we look at their growth, we find that in those nine years the Asiatics and Coloureds increased by 496,000, almost 500,000, compared with an increase of 426,000 in the case of the Whites. The increase in the White population was 70,000 less. Where did this increase in the Asiatic and Coloured population occur? In the White areas of the country, not in a different stream. They have been absorbed into the stream of South Africa, the stream of the White areas, the economic stream flowing there. I do not know whether the hon. the Deputy Minister of the Interior was being sarcastic or ironical, but he spoke of the homelands of the Coloureds.

*The DEPUTY MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:

When did I talk about that?

*Dr. CRONJE:

Well, he spoke of the rural areas of the Coloureds, if he does not like the term “homelands”. What are the so-called rural areas of the Coloureds? Two million morgen of land, most of it situated in the arid north-west with a population of 30,000—land which, other than in the case of the Bantu areas, has no industrial potential, where no attempt has ever been made to bring about any industrial development. To describe these areas as the “rural areas” of the Coloureds is irony of the most cruel type. What about the other 1,500,000 Coloureds? For the rest, all that the Deputy Minister could tell us was that the Coloureds now have better residential areas, that they can get more trading licences, that they can become dentists and serve their own people a situation which has always existed but which has admittedly been improved during the past 12 years; that we concede, but do hon. members on the other side expect that no special improvements should have been made during the past 12 years? We have become a much richer country. But as soon as there is a small social improvement in any particular sphere the Nationalist Party claims the credit for it. It would have been fantastic if there had been no improvements. Even this Government could not prevent that. The hon. the Deputy Minister should try to put himself in the place of the Coloureds for a moment. Would he be satisfied with the prospect of a separate residential area from where he would have to go out every day to work in the area of the Whites, where he might be deprived of his job any day through job reservation, where he would have no hope of ever serving in the highest political body which determines his future and that of his children? And if he would not be satisfied, then he should remind himself of the greatest moral law which is to be found in all religions, namely, that you should do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

*An HON. MEMBER:

Does that also apply to the Blacks?

*Dr. CRONJE:

Naturally, all moral precepts apply to every person in the world.

*An HON. MEMBER:

Must the Black man also be allowed to sit in this House?

*Dr. CRONJE:

The hon. member is on an entirely different subject now. Give me a chance; I shall come to it later. These separate streams for Coloureds and Asiatics exist only in the imagination of the Deputy Minister of the Interior and of the Prime Minister. In reality there is no such thing in South Africa as a separate stream for the Coloureds and Asiatics. There never could be because they do not have the basic requirements for separate development in separate areas. The hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development himself has said that they are not in favour of discrimination, that they are against every form of discrimination. If those people have to live for all time in the White areas where their economic and political rights are restricted, how can the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development and the hon. the Deputy Minister of the Interior talk of non-discrimination? The fate of these people simply is that they will be discriminated against for all time, a thing which the hon. Minister himself has condemned as immoral. It is not we who say this, it is they themselves who say it. So far as the Natives are concerned, the Government has made certain efforts. For example, they appointed the Tomlinson Commission. The question is to what extent they have followed the advice of the Tomlinson Commission, to what extent a new stream has come into being in South Africa, a stream in which the Bantu can realize his aspirations. Let us look again at the 1960 census figures. There we find that even as far as the Bantu are concerned the numbers in the White areas are increasing much more rapidly than in the Native reserves. We find that the stream of Bantu to the White cities is flowing more and more strongly—and I have always understood from hon. members on the other side that this absorption of large masses of Native workers in the large cities of South Africa is the highest form of integration and the most damnable form of integration. Let us see what has happened over the past nine years, according to the census figures. Take Johannesburg. In Johannesburg the number of Whites has increased by 31,000 or roughly 18 per cent and the number of Natives by 158,000 or 34 per cent. In Johannesburg therefore, the largest city in South Africa, the increase in the Bantu population has been five times as great as the increase in the White population during these nine apartheid years. It is said that New York has the largest Polish, the largest Jewish and the largest Irish settlements in the world. Johannesburg can now certainly qualify as the city with the largest Xhosa, the largest Basuto and the largest Zulu settlements in the world, and this is taking place increasingly under the apartheid policy of this Government.

*Mr. HIEMSTRA:

Under a United Party City Council.

*Dr. CRONJE:

What about Cape Town? There we find that the White population has increased by 30,000 and the Native population by 15,000. Here there has been a smaller increase in the Native population, but the increase in the Coloured population has naturally been much greater than the increase in the White population. In terms of percentages, however, the increase in the Native population has also been greater, namely, 30 per cent compared with a White increase of 12½ per cent. In Durban the White population grew by 41,000, the Native population by 47,000. When we come to Pretoria, the city of Paul Kruger, we find that the White population increased by 52,000 and the Native population by 80,000. And there we have a Nationalist City Council. In terms of percentages the White population increased by 34 per cent, the Native population by 65 per cent. Under this apartheid Government Pretoria for the first time in its history is in the position that the Native population has caught up with the White population; the numbers are almost equal; there is a difference of only a few hundred. Pretoria, which could still perhaps have been called a White city in South Africa because its White population was bigger than its Native population, has reached the stage, for the first time in its history, where it has just about as many Blacks as Whites. In the case of Port Elizabeth we find a White increase of 15,000 or 19 per cent and a Native increase of 47,000 or 72 percent. We thus find in every case that during the nine years of so-called apartheid the stream of Natives has not flowed towards the Bantu areas but to the economy of the Whites, and that the flow has been faster than ever before. I think this census of 1960 will go down in history as the Doomsday Book of Apartheid. The hon. the Prime Minister will have to choose, he will either have to drop apartheid or he will have to stop taking censuses, because all the stories which he and other Ministers tell here year after year are contradicted every time the census results are published. I suggest that the Federal Council should consider prohibiting all censuses. Otherwise they will find themselves in the same difficult position as the missionary who tried to convert an old Native to Christianity. On the first day he told him about the miracle of Jonah and the whale. The Native found this hard to believe but finally accepted it as the truth. The following day the missionary told him the story of Daniel in the lions’ den. This the Native found a bit harder to swallow, but finally he also believed it. On the third day the missionary told the story of the three young men in the pit of fire. Thereupon the old Native shook his head and said: “No, Boss, now I no longer believe the stories of yesterday and the day before either.” The Cape Nationalists are beginning to shake their heads about apartheid so far as the Coloureds are concerned, and when the results of another three censuses become known they will begin shaking their heads about the Asiatics and also about the Natives. The Prime Minister must therefore choose between continuing either his censuses or his apartheid programme. It is precisely because the apartheid programme has been such a terribble failure that the Government has had to resort more and more to discriminatory measures, the long list of measures read out by the hon. member for Namib (Mr. J. du P. Basson). The Government is trying to regulate the life of every non-White from the cradle to the grave. Because if the policy were really practicable, if it were possible to separate the four groups into four streams, it would not be necessary to resort to more and more discriminatory measures. Take job reservation as an example. If it were really possible to reduce the number of Natives in our large cities and to develop their own large cities for them in their own areas, job reservation would not be necessary. There would then be a shortage of White workers. There would be no choice. The fact that the Government is compelled year after year to resort to more and more discriminatory measures is evidence of the total failure of apartheid, because surely if you really separated the peoples, all discrimination would disappear, as the hon. the Minister for Bantu Administration himself has always stated. After 12 years we see what a failure this Government is, this Government which refuses to accept the fact of multi-racialism. We see how completely their attempt to sort out the races, to unscramble the scrambled egg, has failed. We have heard it on the authority of a man like Dr. Geyer that in this modern world with its dangers threatening from all directions, within as well as from outside the country, we do not have more than ten years perhaps to solve our problems ourselves in this country. In 12 years under this Government nothing has been done, and integration has increased more rapidly than ever before.

What about the future? What are the chances of ever implementing this impracticable policy? The Prime Minister naturally has now come forward with a new idea, the idea of the development of border areas, the development of industries in border areas. What are these border areas? They are still cities within the White areas where the Whites will still have the final say. At its best this will only be a diversion of labour from the white stream closer to the Bantu areas. It is not the establishment of a separate economy for the Natives themselves. In any case, judging by the promises made to the Federated Chamber of Industries at its latest congress, this border areas development is so limited now that it will not make much difference. There will be a small measure of industrial decentralization, but it will not alter the basic pattern of South Africa; it will not turn the enormous tide of Natives flowing to the present industrial centres. We shall find that in these border area industries there will still be job reservation. The Natives will still be under restrictions. In other words, the Natives will still remain “bywoners” (share croppers) in the White economy. But we shall soon see how serious the Government is about this new policy of theirs when we get the Estimates and see how much money is voted for the development of the border areas. But unless enormous sums are voted, it will make no basic change in the pattern of South Africa as we have known it in the past 50 years, and it will not halt the enormous influx of Natives to those centres where industries are developing most rapidly at present. If the Government is really in earnest and really convinced that racial separation, a total separation of the two racial groups, is the only solution to the problems in our country, then they must tackle the problem in a way entirely different from that of the past. In the first place they should ask themselves why there is this strong inclination on the part of the Natives, which we have experienced in the past nine years, to move from the farms and the Native reserves to the large cities. If they answer that question for themselves they can determine what measures they should adopt. Because what is the reason? In this social system as we know it the White man is the leaven bringing about all economic activities and all economic development and progress. Because in our capitalistic system there is only one type of person who can initiate new economic development and that is the entrepreneur or the capitalist who has the knowledge of organization and the knowledge of business that is necessary for the initiation of new industries. Who is that person in South Africa in the light of our history as we have experienced it and of the cultural situation that we have here? In all cases it has been the White man who has initiated new economic activities, who has started new industries. That is why all economic growth also takes place in the White areas, and that is why the Natives are drawn as by a magnet from the farms and from their reserves to our large cities where these capitalists and entrepreneurs are. And then Nationalist members on the other side of the House say that the Natives must develop their own industries, must build up their own economy. But, Mr. Speaker, we have seen in the past 12 years what a slow process that is. I do not suppose there are more than three or two so-called Native capitalists in our country who could begin new industries. I know of two about whom we can read again and again in the Digest published overseas by the Minister of External Affairs. One of them has a furniture factory near Umtata, and the other has a factory near Pretoria (North). Those are the only new factories that I know of which have been opened by Natives in the past 12 years. For historical and other reasons they simply do not have the attributes and qualities to promote new economic activities. The Minister of Finance always says that the policy of this Government is one of private initiative. He believes in the uncontrolled system of free capitalism. But that system will never bring about a separation of the races in this country. If the Government is in earnest with regard to the separation of the races in this country, in the first place as far as the Natives are concerned, the Government will have to become the entrepreneur. It would involve the investment of hundreds of millions of pounds if they really want to turn the tide of Natives now moving from the farms and reserves to the large cities, because if that does not happen economic growth will have to continue to take place in the White areas. The Natives themselves will not be able to start those economic activities and the Government will have to become the entrepreneur. What does that mean? It means that we shall have to have an economic system in the Black areas which differs from that in the White areas. We shall have to have a socialistic system or a system of State capitalism in our Balck areas, and if we bear in mind that the Bantu population in this country is increasing at the rate of 150,000 per year and further that a capital expenditure of £1,500 is needed for every person who is placed in industry, hon. members on the other side can work out for themselves what sums of money would have to be invested in the Native areas. It would cost hundreds of millions per year to turn the tide of the Natives now flowing to the White areas. Is the Government prepared to do this? Is it willing to have two systems, to develop a socialistic or state-capitalistic system in the Black areas and to retain the system of private initiative and private capitalism in the White areas? And who is going to have to pay for it? In the first place it will have to be the White taxpayer, either by means of direct taxation or by means of money which can be borrowed and on which he will have to bear the interest burden for many years to come. That is the only practicable method if the Government is in earnest about the separation of races. The only practicable way in which it can be done is for the Government itself to begin the economic development in the Native reserves on a massive scale. There is no other way.

If the hon. the Prime Minister and hon. members on the opposite side really believe that there is only one solution to our problems and that that solution is territorial separation of the races, then they must go to the people and tell them what the consequences are going to be. They will have to give an estimate of what it will cost, what the taxpayer will have to pay, and how much money will have to be advanced for this gigantic development. They will have to make it clear that we shall then have a country in which the one half will be socialistic and the other half capitalistic. If the voters still want it, then, they are entitled to it. But if the voters know what the true implications of apartheid are, I do not believe that they will vote for such a system. Give them a chance and let them judge, because otherwise nothing will happen except that we shall hear nice speeches in this House about how the races will be separated at some time or other in the future. For the rest nothing will happen.

*Dr. VAN NIEROP:

Why did you not put up candidates in the by-elections?

*Dr. CRONJE:

That is a fantastic proposition, but if apartheid is taken seriously at all and an endeavour is made to carry it through to its logical consequences, it will be a fantastic policy for our country in any case.

In actual fact, therefore, if this Government does not make this serious attempt which I suggest to bring about apartheid, and if in reality they have no policy to separate the races, as has been evident in the past 12 years in spite of the fact that they say they have a policy for racial separation, what then? They are doing nothing to separate the races, either as far as the Indians, the Coloureds or the Natives are concerned. What becomes of the wonderful picture which the Prime Minister has painted here of four streams each flowing in its own direction, where every individual can attain full human dignity and develop to his full capacity? What is the Government creating here for us for the future, for our children and for our children’s children? Nothing but a multi-racial state in which you have a steadily shrinking White minority and in which, on the other hand, the non-White majority will grow bigger and bigger. But not only is the non-White majority growing bigger and bigger, their cultural and economic status is constantly improving, and because they are being drawn more and more into our economy, our factories and all our economic activities, their economic power, inevitably, is growing. It is only the political, economic and social rights of the non-Whites that are shrinking. That is the kind of state that the Government is actually creating for the future, a state in which the shrinking minority receives more and more privileges and in which the mounting majority has its political, social and economic rights constantly curtailed.

*Mr. J. E. POTGIETER:

In their own areas there is no curtailment.

*Dr. CRONJE:

But I have been pointing out for the last half an hour that there is no flow to their own areas, that they are coming into the White areas. If you had read this morning’s Burger you would have seen that we have now reached the ridiculous position where a Coloured is not even allowed any more to enter the library to borrow a book.

The Prime Minister and hon. members on the other side must ask themselves whether that is a stable form of civilization that they are establishing for us and our children’s children, a state in which the governing minority is steadily shrinking while its privileges are increasing and in which the non-White majority is constantly growing while its rights are diminishing. They should ask themselves what loyalty they can expect under those circumstances from that community.

*Mr. J. E. POTGIETER:

What are you suggesting? You condemn everything.

*Dr. CRONJE:

We are now attacking the policy of the Prime Minister and at a later stage I shall explain what we suggest.

The third question which hon. members on the other side must ask themselves is where they think the sympathies of the non-White majority will be in the struggle between Communism and the West? In spite of all this fine talk about “tribal policies” and that they can develop their own traidtional ways of life, and so forth, it must be remembered that in to-day’s world there are only two systems which are competing: Communism on the one hand and Western civilization, democratic capitalism on the other. There is no third system.

*Dr. VAN NIEROP:

And are you fighting on the side of the communists?

*Dr. CRONJE:

I am trying to explain to this House that the present Government is creating a classic revolutionary situation in this country. That is what their whole policy amounts to. And they are driving the sympathy of the non-Whites towards the communists. Do hon. members on the other side really believe that the only way in which the Whites can maintain themselves is by building some sort of granite wall around their privileged position? Have they never heard of the Maginot Line? Have they never heard what happened there? If you lack the courage to go out and meet dangers, it will not avail you to surround yourself with walls. [Time limit.]

*Mr. B. COETZEE:

This is the third time that I have listened to that speech by the hon. member for Jeppes (Dr. Cronje). The only difference between the speech he made to-day and the previous two speeches is that his delivery of the present one was worse than that of those in the past. This is the third occasion on which he has tried to prove how difficult it is to apply our policy in practice. If the hon. member were to make a fourth speech and suggest an alternative to our present policy, it would be much better. We should like to know what suggestion they have to make. The hon. member referred to the great number of Bantu who have flocked to the urban areas under this Government. Nobody on this side has ever suggested that an immediate end could be put to this influx to the cities. No one has ever suggested that it could be stopped in a decade. I think the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration said that he expected the influx to be controlled by 1970. But what do the hon. member for Jeppes and his kindred spirit suggest? They are not satisfied with the number of Bantu who are flocking to the urban areas according to the census figures. They want to abolish influx control completely so that millions more may come in. As a matter of fact, they want to do away with the whole idea of migrant labour. In other words, instead of one Bantu coming to the urban areas, his wife, his four or five or 10 or 12 children should come as well. We have already had experience of that position in this country when a great number of squatter towns developed around the whole Witwatersrand, towns which teamed with criminals, where disease was rife and which became a canker in the whole social life of Johannesburg. It is this Government with its apartheid policy that remedied that position and that housed the Bantu people properly.

The hon. member for Jeppes says that just as little as you can maintain democracy in a multi-racial state, just as little can you separate the races. So, if you cannot separate the races, Sir, a multi-racial state must follow, something which they favour. And now the hon. member says that you cannot maintain democracy in such a state.

*Dr. CRONJE:

I did not say that. I said that was your argument.

*Mr. B. COETZEE:

Very well, I accept that their policy is to have 100 per cent democracy in a multi-racial state, a state where all the inhabitants will have the vote.

*Dr. CRONJE:

I spoke about the responsible citizens.

*Mr. B. COETZEE:

That does not mean a thing. If you have that position it is inevitable that you will have to give the vote to everybody, unless you intend keeping the Coloureds, the Asiatics and the 9,000,000 Bantu in a perpetual and everlasting state of subjugation. Unless you do that, you will ultimately have no alternative but to grant them all democratic rights. What the hon. member for Jeppes said is exactly what the former hon. member for Kimberley (South) (Mr. Oppenheimer) said recently in his presidential address to one of his big companies, namely that if you accepted the idea of a multi-racial South Africa, there was only one thing which we could be sure of and that was that we had a White political majority to-day but that we would have a non-White political majority in future. That was really the crux of the speech of the hon. member for Jeppes to-day, and that is the inevitable consequence of their policy. It is therefore quite unnecessary for the hon. member for Jeppes to say that we should tell the country what the consequences of our policy will be. We have already done so on numerous occasions. The Opposition now introduces a motion of no-confidence and asks the Government to resign. If the Government were to accede to their request, I take it there will be a general election, in which event it will be the duty of the hon. member for Jeppes to tell the electorate what they suggest should be done in South Africa. They hold out only one prospect to South Africa and that is that in the near future there will be a White political majority but in the distant future there will be a non-White political majority. That is their policy and that is the charge which we will level against them before the people of this country.

For more than 20 years, Mr. Speaker, I have been listening to motions of no-confidence in this House—firstly from the Press gallery and now from the floor of the House. Those were the days when we had debates of a high standard, the days when Dr. Malan was Leader of the Opposition, the days when General Smuts was here and General Hertzog. Then we had a period of no-confidence debates of a lower standard. Those were the days when Mr. Strauss was Leader of the Opposition. Under the present Leader of the Opposition, however, the no-confidence debates have deteriorated into nothing less than school debating society discussions. I have already heard the hon. the Leader of the Opposition make a weak speech, but I have never heard him make a weaker speech than the one he made last Tuesday. As Mr. Strauss used to say, I think he has now reached “rock bottom ”. We will see next year whether it is possible for him to be weaker. However, the most pathetic attempt came from the hon. member for Hillbrow (Dr. Steenkamp) and the hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. E. G. Malan). Those two gentlemen tried to capitalize on the fact that there has recently been an exchange of ideas within the ranks of the National Party on the Colour question and the desirability or otherwise of Coloureds being represented by Coloureds in Parliament. As the hon. the Minister of Justice said: one can well understand their disappointment because they expected a split in the National Party, a major split, and now the National Party is on a sounder basis than ever before.

*Mr. E. G. MALAN:

What about the thinking Nationalists?

*Mr. B. COETZEE:

All Nationalists are thinking people. In order to hide their disappointment they come with the ridiculous accusation that we are living behind a granite curtain, that the hon. the Prime Minister is muzzling us, as the hon. member for Orange Grove said, and that it is a tragedy that no one on the Government side has the courage to admit that he differs from the Prime Minister, as alleged by the hon. member for Hillbrow. But what are the facts concerning this exchange of ideas which took place within the National Party? The fact is that there is no party which is more democratic than the National Party. There is no party which allows greater freedom of speech and affords better opportunities for criticism than the National Party. I know of no Leader of any party who has muzzled the mouths of his members less than the present Prime Minister. This episode about the Coloured people has been one of the most refreshing episodes in the history of the National Party that I know of. It was indicative of deep thinking, of healthy frankness and of deep-seated confidence in each other. But above all it was indicative of wonderful political maturity. What has happened now? Certain persons, stimulated by the idea that they should do everything in their power to retain the goodwill of the Coloured people, advanced the idea that Coloureds should be represented by Coloureds in Parliament. The Burger allowed a candid discussion on that subject and then the Prime Minister said: “That has never been the policy of the National Party and neither is it its policy to-day.” What about it? What actually happened? Where is the granite wall? In the statement issued by the Federal Council those people were told that they could place that point of view before the congress via the usual channels.

*Mr. E. G. MALAN:

What happens to a Member of Parliament who declares himself publicly in favour of that?

*Mr. B. COETZEE:

I am coming to that. What happens to a Member of Parliament on the other side of the House who publicly opposes his party? The hon. member for Hillbrow accused us of not having the courage to differ from the Prime Minister. The position is that on this question we do not differ from the Prime Minister. Where is this alleged granite curtain? But let me tell you, Sir, what happens in the party opposite and in their Press, when its members differ from party leadership. The Burger allowed a free and frank discussion to be conducted and had a frank discussion on that subject itself. After that discussion the Prime Minister stated his policy, a policy which has always been the traditional policy of the party, and which should be the policy of any democratic party in a democratic country. But what happened in the Press of that party when their editors differed from them? I have in mind the case of Mr. McCausland, the editor of the Cape Argus. He did not even criticize General Smuts; he did not even criticize General Hertzog who was leader of the party at that time. All he did was to dare to criticize Mr. Chamberlain of England, and he was given 24 hours’ notice and kicked out of his position. That is the freedom of the Press and that is the democracy about which those people have such a great deal to say. Take the case of Mr. Morris Broughton. Their Constitution lays down that their members are free to plead for a republic if they wish to do so. Mr. Broughton did not plead for a republic. He merely pleaded for a little tolerance towards the idea of a republic, and he was kicked out as editor of the Cape Argus. That is their idea of freedom of the Press. But we come to the party itself—that party which we are told is not behind a granite curtain, that party which enjoys so much freedom of speech, where democracy is practised so freely within its ranks. What happened to Frank Waring, Baily Bekker, Abraham Jonker, Vernon Shearer and me? We exercised our right to criticize Strauss, not publicly, but in the caucus and in the conference chambers of the United Party itself. Because we criticized Mr. Strauss and because we voted against a motion of confidence in him, and because we refused to say that we would never criticize him again, we were kicked out of the party. The hon. member for Springs (Mr. Tucker) must not purse his lips. He was one of the members who did that. That, Mr. Speaker, is the freedom which you find in that party. I also want to say this, in parenthesis, that when they kicked us out, because we had criticized Mr. Strauss and because we had told him straight to his face that we did not have any confidence in him, the present Leader of the Opposition, the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) and the hon. member for Springs were already holding the dagger in their hands to stab Mr. Strauss in the back. When he sat with his arm round Mr. Strauss’s neck and when he patted him on the back, it was not on account of any love for him, but in order to locate the soft spot into which he could plunge his dagger. Those are the people who are now talking about the freedom of the Press.

But let us go further, Sir, and deal with more recent history. What happened to Dr. Barnard Friedman? After the National Party had removed the Coloured people from the Common Roll Dr. Friedman said that the United Party should make a statement to the effect that they would restore the Coloureds to the Common Roll. Mr. Strauss said no, they would not do that, and when Dr. Friedman said that in public he was kicked out. Hon. members of the Progressive Party remained within the United Party for a little while, but they were muzzled. They were behind the granite curtain. They were not allowed to say that the Coloured people should be restored to the Common Roll. And when they did say it they were also kicked out. But the hon. member for Hillbrow is the person who said yesterday that the only moral principle there was to have the Coloured people represented by Coloureds in this House; or he wants them on the Common Roll. That is the only moral policy for South Africa. That is the only moral stand which one could adopt if one wanted to be an honest and moral person. Mr. Speaker, why is that hon. member in this House? He sits here because Bernard Friedman said that the Coloured people should be restored to the Common Roll and he said no, they should not. He sits here with a mandate from Hillbrow that the Coloured voters should not be restored to the Common Roll. They do not admit anyone in their party who advocates that the Coloured people should be restored to the Common Roll but now they want the Prime Minister to admit people to his party who plead that Coloureds should be represented by Coloureds in this House. Now the hon. member for Hillbrow also pleads that the Coloured people should be represented by Coloureds and that they should be restored to the Common Roll. He ought to resign now and return to Dr. Friedman his seat. They should re-admit the members of the Progressive Party to their party. If they, as a party, say that the Coloured people should not be restored to the Roll and their members are forced to agree with that, then that is freedom and democracy! But when the Prime Minister says that it is not his policy to have Coloureds represented by Coloureds, then he is drawing a granite curtain, then he is a dictator and then he is muzzling us. Now the hon. member for Hillbrow says it is a tragedy that nobody on this side has the courage to go against the Prime Minister. The only reason why nobody on this side goes against the Prime Minister is because as far as this matter is concerned, this side is in complete agreement with him. But there are people in his party to-day who do not agree with the Leader of the Opposition and they dare not open their mouths.

*An HON. MEMBER:

Who are they?

*Mr. B. COETZEE:

In the first place, the hon. member for Constantia (Mr. Waterson):.

*An HON. MEMBER:

That is nonsense.

*Mr. B. COETZEE:

We’ll see whether that is nonsense. Then there is the hon. member for Wynberg (Mr. Russell). It was none other than the hon. member for Constantia who, after the Bloemfontein Congress led that little group out of that party. Was it not the hon. member for Constantia who said that he did not agree with the policy which was accepted at Bloemfontein, a policy which is today still the policy of the United Party? The same applies to the hon. member for Wynberg. When they arrived in Cape Town they found that the Leader of the Opposition was adopting a fairly firm stand. The Leader of the Opposition called the hon. member for Queenstown (Dr. Steytler), he called the member for Durban (Berea) (Mr. Butcher) and the other members. He said to them: Look, if you adopt that attitude, then you must leave the party. Those hon. members had the courage to resign. But the hon. members for Constantia and Wynberg turned back, and hat in hand, asked for forgiveness.

*An HON. MEMBER:

And what about Clive?

*Mr. B. COETZEE:

He was in and out, in once again, and now he is out completely. He himself does not know where he is at the moment. Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Constantia has not changed his opinion. They still follow the policy laid down by their Congress, a policy which he said was bad. That is what he thinks but he dare not say it because the Leader of the Opposition has muzzled him. He dare not open his mouth, nor the member for Wynberg. Then they have the temerity to say that the Prime Minister is muzzling us. If the hon. member for Springs differed from the Leader of the Opposition, he too would have to keep his mouth shut. Now we hear about a granite curtain and an iron curtain. But behind which curtain are they sitting? They are sitting behind, what I will call, a “bikini curtain”. They think they are hiding something, but we can see everything. I am afraid their bikini is revealing their political curves. They should rather dress themselves in a hessian bag; they do not look pretty in a bikini.

The charge against the Prime Minister and the Government is that they do not promote national unity. Mr. Speaker, no man in this country, no leader in this country has done more to gain the friendship of the English-speaking section than this Prime Minister. Time and again he has extended the hand of friendship to the English-speaking section. He did so before the referendum; he did it again after the referendum, but that hand of friendship was brushed aside by the Leader of the Opposition by the English Press and also by the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. Mitchell) in the most unfriendly and wreckless fashion. Where could we get a better and finer opportunity to bring about national unity than the establishment of the republic? We held a fair referendum and we obtained a reasonable majority. It was the Rand Daily Mail which said before the referendum that it would be quite satisfied with a majority of 60,000. In fact there was a majority of 75,000. We have a Constitution without much change—precisely what they asked for. Is it not reasonable to expect then that with the establishment of the republic there will be a reasonable measure of peace and unity? But no, Mr. Speaker, they have to sow the seeds of hatred and jealousy and suspicion against the republic. They have to sow the seeds of hatred, jealousy and suspicion in the minds of the English-speaking section, who are told that they will be deprived of their language rights, that their freedom of religion will be suppressed; that their freedom of speech and the freedom of their Press will be suppressed. As far as that side of the House is concerned, they are not content to allow the republic to be born in peace; it has to be born in hatred and envy and bitterness and suspicion. Let me quote what the hon. member for South Coast said after the election—

Mr. Douglas Mitchell, Leader of the United Party in Natal, said here yesterday that the Government might take the desperate step of extending its life for five years without holding another election.

Here are his words—

If no election takes place next year, don’t be surprised if the Government decides to extend its life for a further five years, without another election.

And then they say that there must be unity. They say that the Prime Minister must make some gesture with a view to obtaining national unity. And then the hon. member comes along with this irresponsible, false statement that elections will no longer be held in South Africa. That is what he tells his people in Natal. But let us go further. Let us hear what the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Miller) says …

*Mr. SPEAKER:

Order! The hon. member is not allowed to use the word “false” and he must withdraw it.

*Mr. B. COETZEE:

I withdraw that word then and say that it is very far removed from the truth. The hon. member over there knew that elections would be held again, and he ought to be ashamed of himself for saying such a thing. But listen to the hon. member for Bezuidenhout—

Mr. Miller warned that if the President of the republic had the same powers as the Queen—and Dr. Verwoerd had said he would have—he might have the right of veto. “And if the Nationalists don’t get their way in the Assembly and the Senate, they could use the right of veto to ignore the will of the people.”

In other words, the President will be a dictator; he will use his veto right even if the United Party has a majority in the House of Assembly and in the Senate. Can we get unity when these people sow such ill will and suspicion in the minds of the English-speaking section? But coming from the hon. member for South Coast—the wild “wragting” man from Natal—one can still forgive these things.

*Mr. SPEAKER:

Order! The hon. member must withdraw that word.

*Mr. B. COETZEE:

Well, the Burger used it and I thought it was a fine word. I withdraw it. I shall then refer to him as “the thing that the Burger called him” of Natal. Let us take the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, a man who is supposed to be a responsible person. What does he say, according to the Sunday Times?—

Sir de Villiers warned of the possibility of South Africa’s being converted, under a republic, into a fully-fledged dictatorship, freed of restraint from the British parliamentary system.
*Sir DE VILLIERS GRAAFF:

Who said that?

*Mr. B. COETZEE:

Did the hon. member not say that? Here it appears in the Sunday Times of 14 August 1960 and it appears in quotation marks. It appears on the front page of the Sunday Times as an interview that they had with him. He says that under this republic there will be a “fully-fledged dictatorship No, we have to make some gesture of friendship and national unity, and then the Leader of the Opposition comes along with this sort of thing to sow suspicion amongst the English-speaking people. Why do they not make some gesture also and show a little friendship towards South Africa? Why do they not show some good will towards this side and towards the Government? Why do they not make some gesture so that we can establish the republic in love and peace, instead of in a spirit of suspicion and hatred? But according to them the Prime Minister is not making any gesture towards the English-speaking section. The hon. member for Hillbrow says that he might at least have appointed an English-speaking Senator. An English-speaking Senator was elected—Senator McCord. But what is the attitude of members on the other side towards any English-speaking person who is appointed in the Senate? There was some speculation that Mr. Frank Waring would be appointed in the Senate. I do not know whether there was any justification for that speculation. What was the reaction to it, and what did the Rand Daily Mail write about Frank Waring? It said that it would be a smack in the face of the English-speaking section if Frank Waring went to the Senate. Why? Frank Waring is an English-speaking person whose home language is English. His children were in English-medium schools and his mother is an English unilingual lady. Frank Waring is a person of good character from an old South African family which is well known on the Witwatersrand. He is a man who represented South Africa at rugby. He is a man with an honourable war record. He did everything that can be expected of an English-speaking South African, but oh no, it would be an insult to the English-speaking section if he became a Senator. Why, Mr. Speaker? Because Frank Waring genuinely wanted to co-operate with the Afrikaners in this country. And then we are expected to make this gesture. Whom are we to appoint if we are not allowed to appoint Frank Waring? Must we appoint the member for South Coast? Must we appoint the member for Wynberg? Are we to appoint the member for Kensington (Mr. Moore)?

Mr. MOORE:

Forget the idea that I am going to be a Nationalist Senator.

*Mr. B. COETZEE:

And what happened to Mr. Trollip? When the late Mr. Strydom made the gesture of appointing Mr. Trollip as Administrator of Natal, the English-language newspapers made venomous attacks upon him and represented him as a renegade. When those gestures are in fact made, then that is the reaction of the other side. No, Mr. Speaker, it is they who do not want national unity. The hon. the Leader of the Government again made an ardent appeal for unity in his broadcast after the referendum. What was the reaction of the Leader of the Opposition? He says that there can be no unity unless there is “a change of heart on the part of the Government ”.

*Sir DE VILLIERS GRAAFF:

Hear, hear.

*Mr. B. COETZEE:

“A change of heart on the part of the Government.” They do not want a change of heart on their part; they do not want a change of heart on the part of the English-language newspapers; they do not want a change of heart on the part of Bishop Reeves and Joost de Blank. They do not want a change of heart on the part of the people who are besmirching South Africa. No, Mr. Speaker, we are expected to undergo a “change of heart”. I say in the words of the hon. member for South Coast, “change of heart be damned ”.

Mr. Speaker, has there ever been more bitterness on the part of the English-language newspapers than there is at the present time; has there ever been more bitterness on the part of certain clergymen against the Afrikaner? Let us hear what Joost de Blank said during the Union celebrations—

What in heaven’s name are we in this country supposed to be celebrating to-day and on Tuesday, Union Day? This is no time for celebration but for shame and penitence, for amendment of life and change of policy, for sober self-examination and profound sorrow of heart … We ought not to be rollicking at this time in Bloemfontein, but beating our breasts in Sharpeville. We ought not to be roistering in Pretoria, but lamenting in Langa. And I dare say in the name of the Lord that to indulge in officially-sponsored jollification at such a time is both immoral and indecent.

Are we expected to make a gesture towards those people, and is that the sort of thing that will bring about a spirit of unity? Is that the spirit that will bring about unity in this country? But I want to mention one of the most venomous cases of hatred of the Afrikaner that we find to-day, hatred on the part of members of that party, that party which says that we must make some sort of gesture for the sake of national unity. When the trouble broke out in Pondoland troops were sent there. The troops were going to be there over Christmas. Mrs. Hans Abraham then wanted to arrange for a little money to be collected in order to provide certain facilities, sweets and things of that kind for the troops who were going to be there over Christmas. She made an appeal to all the people in Umtata to make contributions for that purpose. After all, it is a noble cause. The troops, after all, did not go there of their own choice. They were sent there and this was a noble attempt to bring them a certain amount of happiness over Christmas. She made this appeal and the Umtata and District Chamber of Commerce then passed the following resolution—

The Executive of the above body is extremely concerned at the appeal being made to the public and business houses of Umtata and district to raise funds to purchase comforts for the troops and police now stationed or to be stationed in Pondoland. This appeal is felt to be most unnecessary and we append our reasons for asking all members NOT to support this appeal.

They then go on to give the reasons. And the hon. member for Transkeian Territories (Mr. Hughes) is a member of this “Chamber The town council of Umtata then came along and passed the following resolution—

At the Umtata Council meeting on Tuesday night, Councillors decided to associate themselves with the views expressed with the Chamber of Commerce and not support the appeal for funds to enable Christmas cheer to be sent to the troops and police serving in Eastern Pondoland.

What pettiness! Money cannot be collected for Afrikaner lads who are going to be far from their homes on Christmas Day, but the City Council of Cape Town lends out their orchestra in order to raise funds to support people who are charged with high treason. Maintain law and order, send soldiers to maintain law and order, but you dare not buy Christmas gifts for them; it is condemned by official bodies. But commit high treason, and then United Party supporters will lend out their orchestra in order to raise funds to assist those people. And then the Leader of the Opposition says that we do not want unity. Mr. Speaker, it is they who do not want unity, because they know that they exist for one reason only and that is to exploit English sentiment in South Africa. They do not want the English-speaking section to listen to us. That is why they do these hateful things. But with the republic we are going to get unity between Afrikaansand English-speaking, unity that will be based on love for South Africa. We are going to get unity in the republic in spite of the Leader of the Opposition and the English-language Press and the clergymen who are continually besmirching us.

The third charge against the Government is that we are not protecting the good name of South Africa abroad. How can we protect our good name abroad when the whole of the Opposition is continually attacking South Africa’s good name in the outside world? How can we protect our good name if the English-language Press disseminates untruths and venomous statements abroad about South Africa day after day? How can we protect our good name when there are certain English-speaking clerics who are continually opening the sluicegates of hatred against us in the world? Everything that happens in South Africa is placed in the worst, most unreasonable and most incorrect light by those gentlemen on the other side. Take the case of Pondoland. The hon. member for Transkeian Territories had a great deal to say about Pondoland. In parenthesis I just want to ask: What does he really know about the Transkei? A large furniture factory for the Bantu has already been established a mile from Umtata. I have seen it myself and it is something of which one can be proud. Last year the hon. member for Transkeian Territories came here and referred to that factory as “a glorified carpenter’s shop ”. When he was invited there during the recess, he expressed his surprise and stated that he did not know that it was such a large factory and he wanted to know why he had not been told about this. He does not know what is happening within a mile of his house in Umtata. How can he know what is happening in the rest of the Transkei? But let us see why they are not giving us the true picture of Pondoland. Why do they not tell people the true facts, that it is just a handful of communist agitators who are active there and that this has nothing to do with Bantu Authorities? Why do they not tell people that now that the communists have been locked up, these people are living together in peace and quiet, that of their own free will they are coming forward to pay their taxes as they have never done before? This is not the first time that there have been disturbances amongst the non-White in those areas of the country. The hon. member for Aliwal (Capt. Strydom) referred to the case of Enoch and his Israelites at Bulhoek, when 500 of them were shot dead. But the picture that is being presented to the world is that in Pondoland the most terrible oppression is taking place. Let us hear what the hon. member for South Coast has to say about the position in Pondoland—

In the Transkei there was the Congo in miniature, he said, a situation brought about by Nationalist Party policy … In the Transkei people were murdered, stock slaughtered, and recently when the police could get no evidence to make convictions against those they had arrested, they went and took the men’s wives to get the evidence from them. The wives camped near the courthouse and during the night a Native gunman came and shot two of them.

Then the hon. member for South Coast goes on to say—

In the Transkei there was the Congo in miniature …

Is he not ashamed of himself? He knows what world opinion is about the Congo, about the large-scale chaos, the wholesale murder and arson, the numerous incidents of rape on a scale which the world has never seen since the Middle Ages. But he loves South Africa so much, he loves the good name of South Africa so much, that he, the Leader of the United Party in Natal, proclaims to the world that Pondoland is looking like a miniature Congo. And yet he tells us to protect the good name of South Africa. There sits the calumniator of South Africa.

Mr. MITCHELL:

Do you think that this speech of yours is going to do South Africa’s name any good?

*Mr. B. COETZEE:

Mr. Speaker, the more we expose these people and the more we let the world know that they have no love for South Africa, the better it will be for our name because then the world will realize that those people are continually calling in the enemies of South Africa in an attempt to oust this Government. What was the attitude of the English-language Press with regard to the deportation of Bishop Reeves? This is not the first time in the history of democratic countries that a bishop is deported if it is considered to be in the interests of the country concerned. England did not hesitate for a moment to banish a bishop for three years from Cyprus—not even their own country. They did so because they considered it to be in their interests. Nobody wrote against it.

But what was the reaction of the English-language newspapers in South Africa? What do they tell the world as to the reasons for Bishop Reeves’ deportation? They do not tell the world that he was deported because he was participating here in incitement; they do not say that he was deported because of the terrible lie which he had told overseas that dumdum bullets had been used at Sharpeville. That they do not say to the world. No, they tell the world that Reeves was deported because “he was the revealing voice of a practising Christian ”. Let us hear what an English minister says about this deportation—

It is a sorry condition in which we now find ourselves that because we cannot refute a man’s opinion, and we find his criticisms unanswerable, we should deprive him of his liberty and in this case deport him from the country.

Which is totally untrue. But listen to this. This was said by the Rt. Rev. Barron—

He described the deportation of Bishop Reeves as persecution of the Church because she speaks out on the truths of the Gospel.

Reeves was deported for propagating the truths of the Gospel! That is what is stated here. That is what certain clergymen and the English-language newspapers say, and then members on the other side continually protect them. Let me say this to members on the other side of the House. One cannot defend the good name of South Africa by continually defending her calumniators. One cannot defend our good name if one is not willing strongly to rebuke the slanderers of South Africa. I want to go further. This is described as an “act of banditry ”, and let me quote what was said by the Rev. Luyt of Vereeniging, with whom I shall take up this matter at Vereeniging. The report reads—

Mr. Luyt said that the dogma of narrow nationalism in this country had become the most dangerous rival of the Christian principles. It made general belief in one God impossible and it sought to enslave the Christian Church.

The truth is that there is no country in the world in which there is more religious freedom than in South Africa, but they tell the world that we want to enslave the Christian Church in South Africa. And I have never heard the Leader of the Opposition utter a single word of condemnation in that regard, but he has the cheek to say that the Government must resign because we are not upholding the good name of South Africa. [Interjection.] I challenge the Leader of the Opposition to tell us where he attacked all the slanderers of South Africa and where he ever contradicted them. Has he ever contradicted Reeves and de Blank? What is their attitude towards Alan Paton, a man who pleaded overseas that force should be taken against South Africa, a man who committed high treason, who asked that foreign powers should come and invade South Africa physically. His passport is taken away, and what is the attitude of those hon. members and of their Press? That step is condemned, just as the hon. member for Namib (Mr. D. J. D. du P. Basson) also condemned it to-day. Mr. Paton committed what is tantamount to high treason. His passport is taken away and those hon. members do not condemn Mr. Paton but they condemn the Government for refusing to allow Mr. Paton to continue his travels abroad where he does these things. The calumniators and the enemies of South Africa sit over there; they are the people who make common cause with the slanderers of South Africa. [Time limit.]

*Prof. FOURIE:

Mr. Speaker, after listening to the hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee), and I think he was quite near to the truth, one really wonders how on earth there will ever be unity between the Whites of South Africa. And when one in turn considers the greater problem of establishing better relations between White and non-White, then one wonders what are the factors that can possibly work in this direction. When one looks at the world to-day, it is clear that the world is multi-racial and multi-coloured, just as South Africa is a multi-racial and multi-coloured country. But the hon. member for Jeppes (Dr. Cronje) and so many other members refer to South Africa as a multi-racial state. I believe that on occasion we need greater clarity about the words we use. As far as I am concerned, although South Africa is undoubtedly a multi-coloured and multiracial country in which various population groups live, we are only in the initial stages of a multi-racial state. Furthermore, in considering what factors play a decisive role today between the various groups in our own country, between the nations of the world, and between groups of nations, then we argue here, sometimes reasonably and sometimes rather unreasonably, but nevertheless we place trust in reason, in logic, in its being an instrument which may lead us to a solution to our problems in South Africa and in the rest of the world as well. But wherever one looks it is not reason or logic which applies and which triumphs. There is apparently a different logic in the world, the logic of blind emotion. The hon. member for Vereeniging has discussed national unity. We all talk about it. I listened ad nauseam to such statements in my former party which was always talking about national unity, and the same applies to hon. members opposite. Nevertheless it seems as if we are moving further away from that national unity without which the Whites will have a very sombre future.

Why can we not achieve these ideals? It is quite clear to me that in the background of our history emotions have been built up on both sides which are resuscitated on the slightest encouragement, as we recently saw into Natal under the leadership of the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. Mitchell) a tragic phenomenon with the result that during this very week we have had amendments moved to motions which prove to me that I have wasted the 50 years of my life because for 50 years I have in all sincerity held out my hand to my friends here so that they can try to abandon their own tribal gods, as I have tried to abandon mine. But apparently it has been of no avail. Those emotions and the worship of tribal gods are apparently too strong. To me it is as clear as daylight that at least two or three dominating factors were evident in the formative years of South Africa and unless we can understand these factors and adjust ourselves to them, national unity will never be achieved. The first is that the Afrikaner has a background of freedom and independence in a particular form, the republican form, and that nothing can keep it from him, and whatever others may say, it is right and just that the Afrikaner should struggle for that ideal. But even at this stage the Opposition begrudges it to the Afrikaner, although the people have given unequivocally their judgement.

Mr. HOPEWELL:

On a point of order, I understand that it is not permissible to refer to the republican issue during this debate, and I should like to have your ruling.

*Mr. SPEAKER:

The hon. member may proceed.

*Prof. FOURIE:

Sir, I do not want to discuss the Bill. I am referring to the background which forms the basis of national unity. Until my friends here realize this, they will wage a struggle of self-destruction and they will make it impossible for this country of ours to achieve national unity. I leave it at that.

Another factor is that I believe that the English-speaking person also has a background, a quite different background which consisted of those Empire links which they have had all these years and in which they saw their security in the past. It was a false security, but I can understand, appreciate and respect this feeling. But these old Empire links have long since disappeared and in their place has arisen, as a result of the work of great South African statesmen, including Gen. Smuts and Hertzog and Dr. Malan—and I hope the Prime Minister will also make his contribution —the concept of the Commonwealth, which is the true heritage of the Englishman. What they should really be proud of is not the fact that they forced the British Crown down the throat of the Afrikaner 60 years ago, but the creation of the Commonwealth concept which has carried the “genius” of the British political system to its highest peak. This is something of which my friends here can be proud, but they must know how to use it. During the referendum the hon. the Leader of the Opposition used that concept in a way which made me feel—and allow me to say frankly that no one in South Africa is more proud of the Commonwealth—that if this was the interpretation which the Leader of the Opposition is trying to attach to the Commonwealth on behalf of the English-speaking people, then I would become one of the strongest advocates of secession from that Commonwealth.

Mr. HIGGERTY:

On a point of order, I do not think the hon. member’s speech is relevant.

*Prof. FOURIE:

I am trying to show that the Leader of the Opposition has accused the Government of doing nothing to achieve that unity which is so essential. That is what I am discussing. My hon. friend probably cannot understand Afrikaans. I say that the Opposition and the English Press—and I have never before allowed the words “English Press” to cross my lips, but to-day I do so— have used the Commonwealth and our membership to try to frustrate the Afrikaner in his noblest struggle, and this is something which I cannot swallow. If they continue along these lines, then they can be certain that no one will be more responsible for destroying our membership of the Commonwealth than this very Opposition. I am thankful to the Prime Minister that he has at least put this matter in the correct perspective.

I say there are two main factors. Unless the people of South Africa, unless both sides learn to respect one another, there will not be unity. The Afrikaner must learn to respect the concept of the Commonwealth because that is the background of the English-speaking people. Not that I idealize the Commonwealth as such. It is entering a dangerous stage to-day, a multi-racial stage, and whether it can continue to exist remains to be seen. But I say that the Afrikaners must respect the Commonwealth concept of the English-speaking people. This is the one factor which can make a contribution to unity; there must not only be a negative and neutral attitude towards the Commonwealth as we have so often seen, but the time has come when every Afrikaner will have to start thinking positively and constructively about the Commonwealth because if it fails it will represent one of the additional problems which we must face in the future in this world which is already so hostile to South Africa. In it to a certain extend we still have an anchor to which we can cling and I think we must adopt a very much more constructive attitude towards the Commonwealth concept, which is the contribution of the English-speaking people. But by the same token my hon. friends on this side must realize that when they oppose the republic so vigorously—as they are still doing—then it is not a question simply of constitutional or political opposition. They are opposing the highest cultural struggle of the Afrikaner and as such this opposition in fact represents an anti-Afrikaner attitude. As long as that is so, do not let us throw stones; let us be reasonable. As long as that is the position, there will be no unity in South Africa. That is the situation as I see it and we are now faced with the overwhelming problem of the relationship between White and non-White.

Here we have the same difficulty. I want to say this. After very full consideration and deep meditation on this matter, the hon. member for Jeppes as well as my friends opposite have spoken of alternative policies, but the question which comes to my mind is whether there is an alternative. Are we not all emotionally in favour of separation? Who of us really wants to advocate a multi-racial state with all its implications? I am still waiting to hear the Leader of the Opposition or any member here do so and I have never heard anyone do so during the past eight years. Year in and year out we talk about a multi-racial state, but we do not want to face real implications of such a concept. That has always been my difficulty with my hon. friends. They talk integration and they want apartheid, while my friends opposite talk about apartheid and have allowed integration. What do we find to-day? The census figures show what the position is. It is quite clear to me that the Government and the Whites are faced with forces which are too strong for them, despite the efforts which have been made hitherto. Or if that is not so, if the forces of integration are not too strong, it is quite clear that the methods which the Government has used hitherto have been quite inadequate. What is the choice with which we are faced? I believe that the White people of South Africa and the non-Whites as well believe emotionally in separation. The question is whether the Whites as well as the non-Whites wish to adopt the methods required to achieve that final aim of separation. As far as the Whites are concerned, there are few signs that they wish to provide the necessary means. I want to tell the Prime Minister and his Government that if they really do proceed to apply apartheid, real apartheid, it is the only policy which may solve the problem—but I believe that the possibility is very slight. I say that if real apartheid is applied the policy which may bring salvation for White as well as non-White, then I am prepared to give it my wholehearted support, but not sham apartheid; I am referring to real apartheid. But let us realize and let us tell the people what it will mean. It is not child’s play to undo the history and facts of 300 years, particularly in the economic sphere where for 300 years we have become ever more interdependent and where this process is still continuing to an increasing extent day after day and year after year—it will not be child’s play. We must not think in terms of millions or even in terms of freedom. Last year I said here that one of the greatest prices which the Whites would have to pay for this means of salvation, for apartheid, would be subjection for how long I do not know, and even the surrender of his own personal freedom. We speak of Press freedom. These are things which are of incalcuable value to democracy, but if we really wish to seek the greatest prize, i.e. salvation of the White man by means of apartheid, then I doubt most strongly whether it can be done by the ordinary democratic methods under which Press freedom, etc., will be permitted. I am mentioning this so that the people can realize what it may mean. The material sacrifices will be small, comparatively speaking, enormous though they may be. But let the Government also realize that if we are to achieve this apartheid which may bring salvation, then the Prime Minister will forgive me if I say that he must first think a little more deeply about the problem. When he spoke the day before yesterday, I could not help thinking of a type of ornamental fountain with four beautiful fountains of different colours. He speaks of four streams, separate from one another. If I understand his policy correctly, there are at least 11 or 12 such streams because there are ethnic differences even between the various Bantu tribes. The 12 beautiful coloured jets of water rise high into the sky, but sooner or later that water will have to descend. We shall not be able to avoid that economic synthesis. There will have to be integration. I want to place particular emphasis on the Coloured policy which does not satisfy me at all. The Prime Minister is not here at the moment. I should like to put one test to him. Are he and the Government also prepared to allow our Coloureds to have the right to establish their own factories in the urban areas in competition with the Whites?

*An HON. MEMBER:

They already have it.

*Prof. FOURIE:

Are they prepared to accept that no restrictions will be placed on them in that regard? If that is the policy I shall believe in it, but I should like to see what the reaction of the Whites will be once this process really gets under way.

There still remains the overwhelming problem with which the nation is faced. I find it alarming to see the latest census figures. I hoped that we would see a different tendency to the old tendency, but I find it disquieting that the same tempo is still evident despite all our attempts. Because what does it mean? The entire 300 year period of economic integration and of mutual interdependence has not been nearly as important as the integration which has taken place over the past 20 or 30 years. In the early days we had what I call quantitative integration, where the Whites and the non-Whites were spread over the entire country and the non-Whites did the unskilled work. We employed them in large numbers because their labour was cheap. But over the past 20 years there has been a quite different phase, that is to say, we have had the phase of what I call qualitative integration in the economy during which phase the non-White has done and can do skilled and semi-skilled work and has had to be given a certain degree of technical and academic training. This has given the non-White tremendous economic power and while this integration continues at the present tempo, we are giving political power to the non-Whites through their economic power which will make anuallity of any policy of apartheid in the foreseeable future, because the pressure which is being exercised on our country from without and within will not allow us much time to play with. The great dilemma facing South Africa is that it is necessary for us that the non-White should become more and more skilled and productive because on these factors depend the prosperity of every section of the population. But as we succeed in doing that, we give the non-White power, not merely economic power, but political power as well. Let us get away from the idea that the political power of the Native was represented in this House by three representatives. That is meaningless. The political power of the non-White is represented by his economic power, on which we are dependent, and if we continue along that road and a halt is not called, then I can tell my hon. friends opposite that no matter how much I should like to help them—and I want to help them because I believe that emotionally the people want this; it is not a question of logic or argument; the people want this and the non-Whites want it as well to an increasing extent. Whatever one may think in terms of logic, one simply has to do what the people want, and if a people really want something, then such a people can achieve wonders. But let us realize that the means to achieve this object of possible separation which we to-day rightly or wrongly see as our only salvation must be provided by the people, and the Government will have to take the necessary steps to obtain those means. I want to say frankly that I respect my friends on these benches. They are putting forward an alternative policy. I cannot say that of my other friends over here. But they will not take it amiss when I say with all due respect that they are taking an extremely superficial view of the matter. They are logical from A to Z, but measured in terms of the real forces which move mankind, those deeply rooted emotions, their attitude is in my opinion completely lacking in psychology, although exceptionally logical. For that reason I genuinely believe that there is not much hope at this stage that we can still find salvation along their road. That is the position. It is not a question of reason. It is a question of what the people want. Whether what they want is based on reason or on emotion does not matter. I believe that it is based on emotion, and do not refer disparagingly to emotion. This is a deeply rooted aspect of every human being and nation. It originated in the far distant past, and has been developed year after year and century after century and when reason sometimes leaves one in the lurch, it is often the emotions, the intuition, the instinct of the masses which has saved them. Now, I hope that here we shall again have a case where the feelings of the masses, of the ordinary man, have been right and where reason can only delve so far into the deeper motives of the people. That is why we are sometimes filled with doubt as to what should be done in the future. I make an appeal to this Parliament that we as Whites should try to come together and forget those old gods of the past. It is useless the Afrikaner trying to hide in his tribal tent and hoping that the Englishman will drag him out and bring him to national unity. Just as little will it avail hon. members on this side trying to hide away in their tribal tents and expecting the Afrikaners to go in and drag them out by the scruff of their necks. Let us stand together on the basis of our love for South Africa and let us try to forget those unhappy things which have kept us apart in the past. If we cannot stand together at this stage then I am absolutely certain that it will not be long before we will go under together.

*Mr. F. S. STEYN:

It is really a pleasure to follow the hon. member for Germiston (District) (Prof. Fourie) because I think it is more than fitting in a debate such as this that we should be taken to the basic issues underlying the matter under discussion as the hon. member has done. Towards the end of my speech I hope to comment on certain aspects to which the hon. member has referred.

I want to concentrate mainly on the third section of the motion of no-confidence moved by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, namely his charge that the Government has failed to maintain South Afirca’s good name overseas. Just before doing so, I want to say a few words about the paragraph which criticizes the Government for failing to maintain sound race relations. When I saw the motion on the Order Paper I thought that that paragraph would only relate to colour relationships and I regret very deeply that the United Party has brought in the relationships between the Afrikaans-speaking and the English-speaking population groups in South Africa. The mere fact that the United Party has done so substantiates once again the charges which the hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee) has so effectively levelled at them because if there was ever a period in our country’s history when we should not make reproaches regarding past Afrikaans/English relationships, it is now. I am guilty, all of us are guilty for having done and said certain things in the past which have harmed those relationships. But we are on the threshold of a new beginning, and if, just prior to making this new beginning, we once again go back and reproach one another for the mistakes of the past, then it shows in what state of mind we are entering the new era. By doing so the United Party has blatantly condemmed itself and substantiated the charges made by the hon. member for Vereeniging.

The main theme of the speech by the Leader of the Opposition was that this Government had failed to maintain South Africa’s good name overseas. What is the object of this speech of the Leader of the Opposition, what is the object of this motion? It is to divert this country from the policy of apartheid, from political separation, from separate development, and to persuade the country to support the United Party’s policy of integration. That is the object of this whole debate, and as his main theme with which to achieve this object, the Leader of the Opposition has used the argument that this Government policy has caused unfavourable reaction abroad. In other words, he has sought to base his arguments on the outside world’s condemnation of our apartheid policy. He is basing his arguments in support of his alternative policy on the fact that the outside world is not favourably disposed towards this Government’s policy. This is a most important aspect of this debate. In the first place this represents an admission by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that he can no longer go to the people of South Africa themselves and say: “In the interests of South Africa, in view of South Africa’s circumstances, I submit that South Africa wants my policy and not that of the Nationalist Party ”. This is an admission that he has no arguments with a South African basis in support of his apartheid policy. The second aspect of this approach is that it gives us a golden opportunity to judge the patriotism and the South Africanism of that party. The mere fact that their Leader justifies his policy by submitting that it is acceptable abroad shows that he is appealing to foreign opinion and prejudice to justify his domestic policy. Mr. Speaker, to do so, merely in passing is one thing, but for the Leader of an official Opposition, in his main policy motion of the year, to adopt an approach in which he says: “I want to point out that the outside world disapproves of the Government’s policy and for that reason my policy must be acceptable ”, does not befit the leader of any opposition in any country. His own party and his own supporters must judge what kind of patriotism this is, what kind of statesmanship this is, and what political wisdom this approach contains. I say his own supporters and his own party must judge because the people have already judged. Quite recently the people expressed their judgement on this attitude of the Leader of the Opposition and they rejected him by a very big majority. Now his own supporters, the minority, must judge what type of patriotism and statesmanship are revealed by this approach.

But a second aspect—and the hon. the Prime Minister has already referred to this— is the question: Where must our good name be maintained? In terms of the motion, the criticism is expressed that South Africa’s good name has not been maintained overseas. In other words, it is worded very widely. Our good name must not be maintained with the governments of these foreign countries; the motion refers to the outside world in general— that is where our good name has not been maintained. Consequently this includes the great populations of the outside world and there are so many schools of thought to be found amongst these foreign nations. In the outside world we find conservative groups there are even the reactionary groups; there are the large leftist-inclined groups; there are the large doctrinaire communistic groups; and there are the neo-nationalistic groups, particularly in the Afro-Asian countries. And amongst which of these groups is South Africa’s name particularly bad? Is it particularly bad amongst the conservative groups overseas, or is it particularly bad amongst the leftist-inclined groups? Does South Africa have a bad name overseas amongst the responsible financial interests, or does South Africa only have a bad name amongst the doctrinaire communists overseas? Does South Africa have a bad name abroad among those who judge a state by its manifestations of normal dignity and financial reliability, etc., or do we have a bad name among the neo-nationalists of Africa and Asia? The tenor of this motion is that the Government should not have let South Africa acquire a bad name, in other words in those quarters where the greatest animosity towards South Africa has developed, we should have taken countermeasures; this Government should have ensured that that animosity did not develop in those quarters. The accusation of the Leader of the Opposition is therefore the following: This Government has failed to maintain our good name amongst the leftists, the doctrinaire communists and the neo-nationalists of Africa. Is that an accusation which will enjoy any support in South Africa? Because I say this without fear of contradiction: Amongst the ordinary members of that party there are just as few people who want to seek the favour of the communists, the extreme leftists and this new Afro-Asian bloc, as there are amongst the supporters of the National Party. In this motion the leadership of that party is untrue to the feelings of its own supporters.

The hon. member then gave a number of examples which he considers prove that this Government has failed to maintain South Africa’s good name overseas. The first instance to which he has referred is the message which the United States sent via its State Department to the Union of South Africa after Sharpeville and Langa to the effect that they deplored certain events and certain policies in this country. We concede that debating point to the Leader of the Opposition. This is proof that a power with which South Africa has always maintained the friendliest relations has shown a tangibly unfavourable reaction. But we must now investigate whether his accusation is correct, whether this Government can be reproached for the fact that this incident took place. And here I ask again: Does it perhaps not behove the Leader of the Opposition to investigate whether the great United States is possibly under a misapprehension rather than to hold his own Government directly responsible for that deterioration in relations? Would it not be a more patriotic approach if the Leader of the Opposition in referring to this incident would first say: “I now want to investigate whether the other party is not in error” before making the accusation that we are to blame? Perhaps the hon. the Leader of the Opposition did not want to do so because it is not desirable to discuss relations with other states in public. I do not want to do so either, but I want to ask the hon. the Leader of the Opposition whether he has in fact considered certain of the factors involved. Has the hon. the Leader of the Opposition considered the fact that it was America who intervened in the Suez crisis in August 1956, and that since then the Pan-African movement has developed and become powerful with Cairo as its base. Has he considered the fact that as long ago as October 1958, in voting on the special political committee of UNO, the United States associated herself with the motion of “regret and concern that the Government of the Union of South Africa has not responded to the appeals of the Assembly concerning its racial policies ”? These are things which happened nearly two-and-a-half years ago. Has the hon. the Leader of the Opposition considered the fact that a large number of fraternal delegates attended the great Pan-African conference at Accra in 1958 on behalf of the United States of America? And it was at that conference in Accra that the non-White African states adopted the resolution in which they condemned colonialism and appealed to all independent African states to support freedom movements in countries where Natives did not rule, and in which they gave their support to peaceful methods of gaining freedom but also approved the use of violence in the struggle against violent oppression. And has the Leader of the Opposition considered the fact that the then Secretary of State, Mr. Dulles, gave his sympathetic support to the activities and resolutions of that conference? And after taking all these factors into account has he come to the conclusion that this Government must be held responsible for America’s change in attitude which became so strongly evident last year? Has the hon. the Leader of the Opposition considered the fact that in its policy statements dealing with Africa, including the recent policy statement of Mr. Kennedy who pointed out that they should provide education to the Black states of Africa, that they should provide capital, that they should provide food, and in which Mr. Kennedy promised his support for the rising flood of nationalism, etc., in all these policy statements the United States has never said where it draws the line on the continent of Africa as far as communistic aggression is concerned. As the world stands to-day, the world only knows this about Communism in Africa: The world knows that America in general is opposed to Communism, but they know that south of the Limpopo all life and wealth will be sacrificed in order to halt Communism. This is the only definite international line which has been drawn against Communism. And I ask whether the hon. member, if he had considered all these aspects, would have made the unqualified statement that this change of heart on the part of America is the fault of this Government and should be attributed to this Government. No, we believe that if all the facts had been considered and if a patriotic approach had been adopted, the Leader of the Opposition would probably not have raised these aspects at all, and we believe that if he had raised them, he would have raised them in quite a different way and probably in a way which was critical of the United States and favourable towards this Government.

Then I turn to the other example he has mentioned, namely the complete lack of support for the Union of South Africa on the motion that the discussion of the position of South West Africa should be postponed. That is true and here we once again have to concede a debating point—this is concrete evidence that South Africa’s international position has deteriorated. But must we not take the facts into account? It has been indicated —and this is generally known that the great powers of the world, practically all the powers at the United Nations, attach great importance to the friendship of the Afro-Asian bloc and that they do not want to do anything which will cause the Afro-Asian bloc any offence. And what is the Afro-Asian bloc? Do they want South Africa to qualify its policy? No, the Afro-Asian bloc demands the destruction of our White people or alternatively our subjection in South Africa. They are not demanding the bloodless compromise which the Leader of the Opposition offers, and the great powers will have to seek the friendship of the Afro-Asian bloc on the terms laid down by those states. The great powers cannot say to them: “Look, we shall go so far as to support the United Party’s conception of integration in South Africa and on that basis we seek your friendship.” That is ridiculous. They must give the Afro-Asian bloc their full support, their whole-hearted support, and the same applies to the demands made by those states. As long as the Afro-Asian bloc demands our head as the price of their favours, for so long will support be given to anti-South African motions at the United Nations, irrespective of what this Government does and irrespective even of what an alternative government should do. For so long as the great powers hope to gain the support of the Afro-Asian bloc, for so long will South Africa remain on the rack. I think South Africa’s position can quite fairly be compared with the procedure which was often followed during the late Middle Ages in trying and sentencing alleged witches and magicians. It was often the custom to apply the trial by water, i.e. to bind the witch and to throw her into the water. If the witch drowned then it was proof that she was guilty because if she was not guilty she would miraculously float. Or else there was the other trial by torture of stretching the accused on the rack and torturing him. And if he survived it was proof that the tortured person was innocent but if he died, it was proof that he was guilty. In the international sphere South Africa is to-day undergoing trial by torture as a result of the international position which has developed. Seeing that we as a state, as fellow-countrymen, are being tortured and humiliated together through this trial by torture, I ask: Is it a patriot who protests against this trial by torture or is it a patriot who approves of this being done and says: The fact that we are being tortured is proof that this Government is guilty.

Mr. Speaker, in this international crisis I do believe that the most elementary requirements of our patriotism calls for us as a people to stand together and not try to score debating points off one another nor to cast various petty reproaches at one another, because this situation has developed around South Africa without our being responsible for it and without our being able to do anything about it. Our international crime is not that we are immoral; our international crime is not that we are acting unfairly; our international crime is not that we are violating human rights. Our international crime is our lack of atomic energy and strength. If we were powerful we would be moral, but because we are weak and because we are a pawn to be used for possible international gain, these reproaches are being levelled at us. When we take these factors into account, then my question is whether the Leader of the Opposition has by any stretch of the imagination adopted a reasonable approach, a fair approach. I believe that we can only earn South Africa a better international reputation by doing two things, and not by changing our Governments and making minor adjustments in our basic policy. We must achieve this object by removing the possibility of any profit from this hatred of South Africa. At the moment it is profitable to propagate hatred against South Africa because the propagators of this hatred believe that they can achieve results; they believe that they will achieve the subjection of South Africa. The communist believes that he will gain South Africa for Communism. The PanAfrican and the Black nationalist believes that he will gain South Africa for a Black united Africa. In this way each hostile group has a possible interest in this process, and South Africa’s reputation will improve and South Africa’s position will become easier if and when we can convince the outside world that South Africa will maintain herself permanently in her present form. Her position will become easier when they no longer cherish the illusion that they will gain anything by this campaign. Mr. Speaker, how will we achieve this state of affairs unless the Opposition and their Press co-operate or at least keep silent. Because who are the people who arouse doubts in the mind of the world; who are the people who keep this illusion alive in the minds of the communist; who are the people who keep this illusion alive in the dreams of the Pan-African nationalist, the illusion that this part of South Africa will crumble? It is those people who are suggesting that this Government which interprets a way of life will come to a fall, and that another movement will come into power in South Africa and that they will start undermining these basic foundations of South Africa. This suggestion of the Leader of the Opposition that if he comes into power a policy of compromise and of racial integration to a certain extent will be adopted makes these people who are hostile to South Africa say: “Ah, there is hope; have you seen that the Leader of the Opposition says that he is going to move in our direction? At some time or another the Government will fall; at some time or another this Leader of the Opposition will surely come into power and open a small gap through which the communistic agent or the dark forces of Africa can enter and force it even wider open.” This gives them courage and then they persist; then they continue attacking South Africa in the belief that we must eventually crumble and fall under these hammer blows. We can therefore only make our position easier and stronger if we remove this illusion that the South African way of life which this Government interprets will ever be destroyed in South Africa. And how will we remove that illusion? In this respect I want to link up with certain thoughts which the hon. member for Germiston (District) has expressed, but I think this is an opportune time for us to adjourn and I therefore move—

That the debate be now adjourned.
Mr. J. E. POTGIETER:

I second.

Agreed to; debate adjourned until 27 January.

The House adjourned at 6.28 p.m.