Mr. Speaker, in the few minutes at my disposal, I should like to address myself to the hon. member for Wynberg. Yesterday the hon. member for Wynberg used the irresponsible words “slave labour” in this House in connection with the Bill under discussion. [Interjections.] In doing so he, as chief spokesman of the PFP on Defence, has hung an albatross around his own neck. [Interjections.] Not only that, Mr. Speaker, but he has also tied that noose around the neck of his party. That noose is going to choke him. Hon. members have probably all read today’s newspapers.

In his speech the hon. member also requests the hon. the Minister to make provision in the Act for people to be accommodated on ethical and moral grounds as objectors to military service. I want to know from the hon. member whether that is correct. I have his Hansard before me. Am I correct? I should like to know that from the hon. member for Wynberg. Very well, I repeat the question. Does the hon. member want the legislation to accommodate people on—apart from religious objections—ethical and moral grounds?

Read my Hansard.

I just want to know whether I understand this correctly. I believe that this is what is stated in the hon. member’s Hansard, Mr. Speaker. I want him to tell me whether I am right.

But there it is in my speech.

Good. From that answer of the hon. member for Wynberg, Mr. Speaker, I assume, therefore, that he and his party support those who advocate refusing to perform national service in cases where they do not regard it as morally or ethically justifiable. There is nothing sinister in this conclusion of mine. I just want to know whether I am right.

I repeat, read my Hansard.

So the hon. member for Wynberg implies that objectors of this kind … [Interjections.] This legislation applies to the S.A. Defence Force and to our unique problems in the Republic of South Africa.

Where do you read that?

This is not universal legislation which applies to other countries as well. It is legislation which applies to the Republic of South Africa.

Where do you read that?

The hon. member for Durban Central must just use his common sense, Mr. Speaker. This Assembly alone can decide on matters affecting this country. Other countries make their own laws which apply to their own situations. The hon. member for Durban Central may grow more mature later when he moves from the back benches to take up a more senior position here. [Interjections.]

Hon. members of the official Opposition are being particularly touchy, Mr. Speaker. I wish they would keep quiet for a while. The hon. member for Bryanston need not get so excited. We shall deal with him later. We know what his private opinion is. [Interjections.]

Thus the hon. member for Wynberg supports those people who object to the so called indefensibleness of the Defence Force. Consequently we can take this line of agreement further and say—according to the hon. member for Wynberg—that the Defence Force is engaged in unjustifiable operations. [Interjections.]

I never said that. Where do you get that from? [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr. Speaker, that is what I should now like to know from the hon. member for Wynberg.

You are making allegations about things which I never said. I did not say that. [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr. Speaker, now you can see the reaction of hon. members of the PFP. Yesterday the hon. member for Wynberg did not hesitate to accuse me of having made certain allegations. [Interjections.] The implication of the request by the hon. member for Wynberg in his speech yesterday is that people who are opposed to an “unjust war” should be accommodated in the Act.

That is definitely not what I said.

Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member for Wynberg analyses his speech, that is exactly what his argument yesterday amounted to.

That is not what I said. [Interjections.]

If that is not so, I put a second question to the hon. member for Wynberg. Is the hon. member for Wynberg perhaps opposed to the universal objector? If that is the case, by which criteria does he test these objectors? [Interjections.] Moreover, the hon. member made a whole committee stage speech here yesterday. [Interjections.]

Hon. members of the PFP have now left the door wide open, thus enabling us to take a look at the skeletons in their cupboard. [Interjections.] Unfortunately my time is nearly up. I just want to add that the objectors whom we do accommodate in terms of the legislation under discussion, are the 98% whom the hon. the Minister mentioned yesterday. It is the remaining 2% for whom hon. members of the PFP are pleading. We on this side of the House take pleasure in supporting this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to convey the CP’s congratulations to the hon. member for Standerton on his appointment as the main speaker of the NP on defence matters. I just want to add that if the hon. member is going to lead his study group in the same way that he participates in target shooting, I am convinced that that study group is going to score many direct hits for the S.A. Defence Force. We wish the hon. member everything of the best. We are certain that he will make a success of his task, and we hope that he will keep matters at a high level.

As far as his speech is concerned, there is nothing I want to add to it, because, as far as this legislation is concerned, the CP is batting on the same side as the NP.

In addition, on behalf of the CP, I want to congratulate the hon. member for Wynberg on his appointment as the PFP’s main speaker on defence matters. We also want to wish him everything of the best in his task.

As far as the speech he made yesterday is concerned, I also want to congratulate him on his style. He did not at any stage become personal or insulting, but merely stated the standpoint of his party. A good, clean style plays a major part in ensuring good debating and also in arriving at the truth.

You should be the last person to talk about good style.

As far as the contents of the speech of the hon. member for Wynberg are concerned, all I can say is that they prove the absolute, unbridgeable differences in principle between his party and the CP. Our defence policy differs fundamentally from that of the PFP. Whereas the PFP believes in a multiracial Defence Force, the CP in its turn believes in a Defence Force on a national basis; a structure in which each nation has its own Defence Force. [Interjections.] The CP supports the idea of taking joint action with the Defence Forces of other nations against a common enemy, but on an allied basis and not on an integrated basis. The CP rejects the idea of an integrated Defence Force. It would subsequently be interesting if the hon. the Minister were to formulate his party’s standpoint in this connection.

The hon. member for Wynberg pleaded for greater political change, apparently in an attempt to ward off conflict and confrontation. The CP’s standpoint on this matter is quite clear. We believe that a nation cannot be blackmailed into sacrificing its right to self-determination. If this leads to conflict, it is a great pity, but it cannot be helped.

The hon. member for Wynberg must please pardon my next statement but I believe it. Yesterday he acted as the advocate for the national service evader and in the process he totally ignored those citizens who are doing their national service. He even presented the position of the evader in an emotional way, as the poor fellow who has to spend 8 years in jail without really having committed any crime. He compared the Government’s action to the implementation of slave labour.

There is also another side to the matter, the case of the citizen who honourably discharges his military service. I want to ask: What about his risk, the man who does discharge his obligations? What about the risk he runs of being killed in the operational area? What about the risk he runs of being maimed, of being blinded, of being taken prisoner? The CP—and I am certain the NRP and NP as well—are on the side of the man who discharges his national service obligations honourably.

As far as the hon. member’s reference to slave labour is concerned, I want to ask him very courteously why he used that word. It is a loaded word which has had a very negative connotation throughout the history of man land. I want to put it to the hon. member in a very friendly way that we take it very amiss of him because it creates a completely erroneous impression. I am using the words “we take it very amiss of him” because I consider that to be the strongest possible parliamentary language. Outside Parliament I may have used other words. I want to ask the hon. member: What is the difference between the citizen who is obliged to do military service by the Government and the citizen who is obliged to do community services? In both cases the Government is obliging that person to do something. Surely military service is therefore slave labour as well.

We feel that it is a tremendous privilege for every citizen to do military service and we take it amiss of the hon. member for using the word “slave labour”.

In the course of this debate the CP will put certain questions to the hon. the Minister. We shall ask him for explanations and we shall also make remarks on the merits of the case. However, as far as the principle is concerned, the CP supports it. For that reason we shall not be able to support the amendment of the PFP.

Most of the subjects in this legislation are not contentious. The real debate is being conducted around the new provision for religious objectors. As far as that aspect is concerned, we have formulated a clear and firm standpoint. Out standpoint is that we would rather make it more difficult for citizens to evade military service than make it easier for them to do so. For that reason we shall go through the legislation with a fine tooth comb to ensure that there are no accidental loopholes that can be used by chancers.

The CP is not in favour of citizens being exempted from military service on the grounds of conscientious objections. We do concede that in exceptional cases provision could possibly be made for religious objectors but we are rather loath to do so. We are not very enthusiastic about this but we shall nevertheless support it. As far as the definition of such exceptional cases is concerned, the hon. member for Koedoespoort, who is a theologian, will elaborate on this further.

We have no fault to find with the minor mistakes which found their way into the legislation when it was being drafted. The mistakes which did find their way in would not seem to be very serious and in any case to err is human. However, this teaches us yet again that one can never be too thorough. That is why we must certainly go through this legislation with a fine tooth comb to ensure that such mistakes do not slip through.

I want to point out to the hon. the Minister that on page 34, line 63, and on page 36, line 18, the word “Adjutant-General” appears. I am not certain whether the word is being used in its correct context, but as far as I know, we have begun to use the expression “Chief of Staff (Personnel)” in the Defence Force. Perhaps this is a mistake or else it is possible that the word “Adjutant-General” has a specific meaning. I also note that on page 36, line 46, reference is made to the “General Officer Commanding, South African Defence Force”. The expression “Chief of the South African Defence Force” has become more acceptable and is a more modern concept. I am not certain whether the words appearing in the Bill are being used in a specific context. In any case, these are minor matters the hon. the Minister could possibly glance at.

As far as the commandos are concerned, the elimination of any vestige of a doubt as to whether the commandos are a component of equal value to the others in the Defence Force deserves praise. Any possible impression that the commandos are not a full-fledged component in every sense of the word has now been scotched. It is absolutely unthinkable that the Defence Force could at present fulfil its function without the commandos. The role of these men and women is highly commended and appreciated. Without any doubt they are a worthy component of the Defence Force.

As far as the organizational division of the Defence Force is concerned, I note that the word “corps” is now disappearing. I should therefore like to ask the hon. the Minister whether the word “corps” is only being used in the past tense, for example when we refer to the 1st S.A. Corps. Does it perhaps refer to artillery or infantry? Will that designation be retained? I think there is a degree of confusion about this.

As far as the right of recourse against third parties is concerned, there is a conservative estimate of a loss of R150 000 per annum as part of the losses. In our opinion, this loss is already sufficient justification for the Bill.

We do not have any fault to find with the provisions concerning mercenaries, but the question nevertheless arises what a mercenary is. From the clause I cannot ascertain whether or not a mercenary must in fact be paid. Is a mercenary, for example, a person who does the same work for some reason other than monetary gain?

This brings me to the crux of this debate, namely the provision for religious objectors. We accept that there are scarcely a hundred such cases a year and that in comparison with the size of the entire Defence Force this is a very small number. However, we also accept that this has become a source of irritation which causes offence every year and which could have a negative effect on the morale of the Defence Force. For that reason it is a good thing to go into this matter thoroughly.

As far as we are concerned, there is one key question regarding the matter of religious objectors. When it comes to the question whether or not a person is obliged to do military service, the key question is whether there are justifiable circumstances under which the government can tell one man that he must do military service, while telling another man that he need not do military service. Closely linked to this key question is a cardinal and critical factor which has a real effect on the reply to this question, namely built-in risks which are an integral part of the question.

The risks a soldier runs are threefold: Material, spiritual and personal. The material risks to a soldier are the negative influences that can affect him while he is undergoing military service, for example possible loss of salary, illegal vicitimization by his employers, forgoing of promotion and the like. That affects his pocket. The spiritual risks lead to negative factors such as the temporary deprivation of the soldier of his loved ones, his friends, his social life, his social enjoyment, which are precious to everyone and which no money can buy.

It is difficult to understand the personal risk if one has not run that risk oneself. Here I am referring to the risk that one may be killed on the battlefield, or that one may be maimed and may never be able to walk or see again, and this also includes the possibility that one may be taken prisoner, may be killed or tortured by the enemy or may not be able to see one’s loved ones for many years—perhaps for the rest of one’s life.

Part of the personal and spiritual risk is the fear factor; the fear that sometimes plagues soldiers, and is to be found in every person, although the extent to which it is present probably varies from person to person. However, this risk is part of the sacrifice a citizen makes when he undergoes military service, and this can never be rated highly enough. Soldiers seldom mention this fear factor, and one can understand this. But just ask chaplains about this. Ask them how young boys, and even hardened soldiers, sometimes come to them in tears, simply because they are afraid, which is surely only natural.

Perhaps this is not the right time and place for this, but I am sure no one will hold it against me if at this stage I put in a good word for the chaplains of the South African Defence Force. [Interjections.] The work they do to keep the morale of the Defence Force high can never be rated highly enough.

While I am on this subject, Mr. Speaker, allow me, on behalf of this side of the House, to convey our sincere congratulations to Brig. Naudé, who has now been promoted to Major-General and Chaplain-General of the Defence Force. I was privileged to know Brig. Naudé during our university years, and it was also my privilege to do operational duty with him at one stage. Our testimonial is that he is a true Christian and that we would be hard-pressed to think of a better Chaplain-General for the Defence Force. We assure him and all his chaplains that the CP wishes them well in the very important task they have to perform.

When one, therefore, debates this key question concerning compulsory military service, namely whether there are justifiable circumstances under which the government can compel one man to do service while exempting another, the risk factor must be given serious consideration. We feel that military service is the wonderful privilege and duty of every young man. We feel that every young man should look forward with excitement to his military service as an opportunity to make a contribution to stability and security in the country. Once a citizen has done his military service—and this is important—he enjoys and appreciates his fatherland so much more.

The man who refuses to participate—in the words of the national poet—is the man who betrays his nation. [Interjections.]

For that reason we support the idea of a loading of the period. If a soldier has done one year’s military service, with all the inherent risks involved, it is totally unfair for another person to serve basically the same period in a non-combatant service. The non-combatant service has no risks attached, and that person is in a totally privileged position as against the perilous position of the soldier undergoing military training, with all the risks that involves. That is why it rather surprises us that the category 1, religious objectors, basically incur no penalty. Persons in that category merely do service for the same period. Perhaps the hon. the Minister could just say something about this. We feel those people should do a few months’ additional duty.

Á great deal could be said about the principle of religious objectors. This is a creed that has been part of the history of the world for a long time. However, we in the CP stand by our point of departure that every citizen owes his country military service and that exemptions must be dispensed very sparingly. That is all we have to say about that principle.

There are a number of questions I should like to ask the hon. the Minister regarding the way in which this matter will be implemented in practice.

Let us consider the matter of the constitution of the board. We should like to know whether or not the word “judge” also includes “acting judge”. One can deduce from this that the services of an experienced judge are required. It is in any case a very sound principle to appoint a judge as chairman, because a judge is not only a highly qualified legal expert, but is also an absolutely independent person and he will surely see to it that justice prevails. We feel that since the person appearing before the board is not entitled to legal representation, this fatherly judge will take a paternal interest in him.

We are a little concerned about the theologians. Provision is made for four, three from outside and one chaplain. We are concerned about who will be chosen, which churches will be taken into consideration. Would a theologian from the church to which the applicant belongs be chosen or not? However, these are theological questions and the furthest I ever progressed in that field was to be a deacon for a week. [Interjections.]

On page 10 of the Bill the matter of alternates for board members is dealt with. Clause 9 refers to the proposed section 72A(3). We cannot ascertain whether it is the intention that an alternate member merely takes over from an absent board member in a case that is being heard. Let us assume that a case is being heard, in other words progress has already been made, and one of the members of the board dies, must the board rehear the case with a new member or can the alternate member merely take over?

I also want to mention at this stage that we do not consider this board to be a court of law. Nor do we see this process as a legal process. We see it as a fraternal discussion between an applicant who is an objector on very serious grounds, namely his religion, and four clergymen or chaplains, a fatherly judge and a soldier, who are trying to arrive at the truth through a discussion with the applicant.

The proposed section 72B deals with the applications. We should please like subsection 2(a) to be clarified. It provides that the applicant himself shall make an application in writing. We are not certain whether this means that he must do so in his own handwriting or whether he must do so without, for example, the aid of a lawyer. We interpret it as meaning that he can be assisted, for example, he may consult a lawyer to assist him in drawing up his application, but that the lawyer may not represent him.

The proposed section 72C(6) implies that the proceedings will be confidential. I should appreciate it if the hon. the Minister would say a few words about this.

In the proposed section 72D(l)(c) the word “vexatiously” is used. We are having difficulty in understanding that word. It is a little unclear to us. The question is whether this includes a chancer, i.e. a person who does not feel like doing military training and who merely makes an application therefore and takes a chance on being exempted as a religious objector. Let us assume the board comes to the conclusion that he is in fact a chancer and is just wasting their time. In such a case we suggest that that person should be punished by making him pay the costs.

I also want to refer to the proposed section 72D(4)(a) which deals with cases in which the applicant supports an enemy of the State. We are wondering how the board will ascertain whether he supports an enemy or not. Does this perhaps imply assistance from the Chief of Staff (Information), or how will they set about ascertaining whether an enemy is involved?

The proposed section 72E(2)(a) gives the Minister the authority to reduce periods of punishment. Does this imply a right of appeal or review? Could the hon. member please explain this, because another clause provides that the board’s decision is final. The question then arises in what respect one may appeal to the Minister. Is this procedure, or how does it work?

There are other aspects we should also like cleared up, but some of my colleagues will discuss this. In this Bill one regularly finds the application of the audi alteram partem rule for the applicant. The drafters of the Bill are to be congratulated on this. This indicates an impartial attitude and a search for the truth.

In conclusion the CP wants to express its thanks and appreciation to the Chief of the Defence Force, Genl. Viljoen, the new Chaplain-General and other members of the Defence Force who specially visited our offices, addressed our caucus, replied to our questions and set out the objectives of the Bill. We thank them for that.

The CP supports the Second Reading of the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to thank the hon. member for Jeppe for his speech. I think he made a fine Nationalist speech. We are pleased that he agrees with the legislation in principle. We expected and were grateful for this.

It is a pity that yesterday the S.A. Defence Force had to be the victim of an attack by the consensus group of the PFP. The statement by the hon. member for Wynberg about slave labour was nothing but an unabashed attempt to try and discredit the S.A. Defence Force and the Government with the enemies of South Africa. For some reason or other, mudslinging has apparently become a new method of attack on the Defence Force and the Government. The destabilization slogan, which the PFP used before, has not been successful and now they are coming forward with a new kind of slogan, that of slave labour. It is a pity that this has happened. I do not think it is fitting for hon. members of this House to attempt to discredit members of the Defence Force. I shall tell hon. members why I say this. This morning, on my way to Parliament, I saw young soldiers on guard duty at a gate and this remark was made about them: “Look, there are the Government’s White slave labourers”. Once that label has been hung around their necks, it is going to be extremely difficult to remove it. Members of the S.A. Defence Force ought to take cognizance of this attack on them.

I wish to state certain facts in respect of the legislation on religious objectors. Firstly, at no time has religious freedom in South Africa ever been tampered with by the State or by Government institutions in any way. Secondly, religious freedom in the Republic of South Africa is expressed freely and unhindered in all its forms in all denominations, etc. and not only does it have the support and recognition of the State, but also the protection of the State. Thirdly, religious freedom is recognized as being one of the most important cornerstones of the constitution of the Republic of South Africa. Fourthly, the programme of principles of the NP provides for the recognition of the religious freedom of the individual. Fifthly, the State has always displayed a sympathetic attitude in the religious field towards the various recognized religious views, even acting as their patron, i.e. for as long as the State itself is free. It is equally true that the individual, and a member of any church or religious institution has a bounden duty, when the State is being threatened, to feel called upon to gladly accept and perform whatever task may be assigned to him. At present the RSA finds itself in such a position. The country’s freedom is being threatened. South Africa is engaged in a struggle, and the Defence Force, the instrument of the Government, is at present engaged in a real war against forces whose aim it is to destroy religion and the freedom accompanying it. This is what the conflict is all about. The communist onslaught we are experiencing at present, is aimed at destroying all forms of religion. There ought to be no doubt about that. Therefore the S.A. Defence Force is compelled to act in terms of the laws of the country and for that purpose it is essential that people be called up to perform military service. It is obvious that among these persons—this has happened in the past as well—it is not a strange phenomenon to have a small percentage who have religious objections. That is why provision is being made in this legislation to accommodate these people. Nor is this legislation simply the result of impulsive actions on the part of a Minister who has now decided that there should be legislation to accommodate these people. This is an effort which has extended over several years and in which many organizations have been asked to give advice in regard to this matter. The churches have also been consulted, since the views of the people have to be taken into account, i.e. the views of church leaders as well as the religious views of individuals, the members of the various churches. I have with me a report which appeared in the Star of 21 August 1981 which reads—

The churches have also made certain recommendations in this regard, that is why, to a large extent, this Bill complies with the recommendations and suggestions which the Defence Force has received from most of the churches. Once again I refer to the Star of 21 August 1981, in which another article states that—

Hon. members should take cognizance of this, since it is the recommendation of the majority of churches. The General Synod of the N.G. Church adopted a motion proposed by the Broad Moderamen in which all actions aimed at discouraging national service on the basis of religious or any other objections, were rejected. Furthermore, the Synod made an appeal to the youth to do military service in the interests of the defence of the country, with a view to a peaceful existence and the continued existence of Christendom and the preservation of religious freedom in our country. It is also necessary to observe that every national serviceman receives religious ministration, even in the remotest areas in which he is doing service, even on the dangerous front lines. The hon. the Minister, and the Chief of the Defence Force, Gen. Viljoen, ought to be thanked for the way in which chaplains are allowed to minister to these national servicemen, each according to his own religious views, even in the operational area. It is necessary that we address a special word of thanks for the fine work the chaplains are doing in this regard.

The provisions of this amending Bill in respect of religious objections are also in agreement with the recommendations of a commission of the South African churches. I am referring here to the Pretoria News as well. Perhaps it is interesting to note that these people drew up a memorandum which was apparently addressed to the hon. the Prime Minister as well as to members of the Cabinet. They recommended that religious objectors should appear before an impartial tribunal, which should be set up by the hon. the Minister of Justice. It is also important to note that this body also recommended that religious objectors be divided into three categories: Firstly, objectors who were prepared to do service, but not in a combat unit; secondly, objectors who did not wish to serve in the Defence Force, but who would be prepared to perform an alternative service, and thirdly, that those objectors who wanted to have nothing to do with the S.A. Defence Force should be tried in a public court. The PFP has also revised its policy in this regard. If the hon. the Leader of that party had not revised their policy a year ago, I should like to have heard what they would have had to say today. I am sure that the temporary consensus they reached at the weekend certainly had something to do with the fact that they did not come forward here and plead for people to be exempted for political reasons. The Transvaler of 24 April 1982 reports as follows—

Yesterday the hon. member for Wynberg spoke here about exemption on the basis of certain moral and ethical considerations. He must now tell us what the difference between these two groups is. The Leader of the Opposition went on to say that under the circumstances a method should be found to distinguish people who genuinely objected to national service due to their religious views, from those who merely used them as an excuse. He said that service which was rendered in lieu of military service in those cases, should entail a great deal more than military service. Sir, this is precisely what this legislation envisages. Why, then, is the hon. member for Wynberg complaining that this legislation is making provision for much longer terms of service? Yesterday the hon. member complained bitterly about this. Unless of course they are now advocating another policy. I do not know. I wonder what policy the hon. member for Pinelands is harbouring in his bosom.

What are you talking about now?

Conscientious objectors can state their objections before a board consisting of a judge and three theologians. They are appointed by the Minister of Justice in co-operation with the Minister of Manpower. Therefore the Minister of Defence has very little to do with that board. The additional two members are appointed by the Minister of Manpower in cooperation with the Minister of Defence. The task of that board will be to determine into which category the objector should be placed. Therefore it is not a trial. There are three categories: Firstly, those who wish to render military service but not in a combatant capacity; secondly, those who neither wish to render service in a combat unit, nor in maintenance units, etc., and thirdly the group which will have to render community services. This is all consistent with the ideas of the Leader of the official Opposition, as stated by him. The final category, the one which provides for the doubling of the period of service, is also practised in other countries. For example, this is the practice in France. It is not an inhuman measure.

This legislation is proof of the fact that the Government does not wish to take unjust action against religious objectors. This is model legislation and ought to be welcomed as such, except by those who wish to oppose an orderly State. For example, I am thinking here of the Hulleys, the Boraines and the Bishops and others who have very little love for the S.A. Defence Force. They have more love for Marxism than for nationalism. Together with a certain section of the English-language Press, which does not regard this legislation as …

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: I submit the hon. member is suggesting that the hon. member for Pinelands has more love for Marxism than for nationalism. Is he allowed to do that?

Order! The words used by the hon. member Mr. Vermeulen were “I think they have more love for Marxism than for nationalism”. It is merely a comparison, an opinion. The hon. member may proceed.

Mr. Speaker, it is true that if certain people walk the same path and wear the same dress it is extremely difficult for me to distinguish who is who.

I think you are a Marxist. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: I understood the hon. member for Pinelands to say that the hon. member Mr. Vermeulen was a Marxist. I submit that this is completely different from the previous comparison.

Order! Calling the hon. member a Marxist does not necessarily mean he is a communist. It simply means that he devotes himself to the creed of Marxism. The hon. member may proceed.

Mr. Speaker, together with certain sections of the English-language Press, the PFP does not wish to regard this legislation as being a sympathetic measure in respect of religious objectors. They would prefer to use this legislation as a means of getting certain of their like-minded friends, people with political objections, out of the Defence Force so that they may proceed with this mudslinging policy they have adopted towards the Government and towards the S.A. Defence Force. In this respect I should like to refer to an editorial in the Natal mouthpiece of the PFP. Of course, I am referring to the Natal Witness. In this editorial they refer in a fair way to a “step forward”, and they say that they should like to see what the contents of the present legislation entail. Nevertheless they say they think there could be some good in it. However, in conclusion they say: “Now perhaps we can give some thought to the objector whose objections are not based on religious but on political grounds”.

Now hon. members of the PFP must tell us whether they agree with this. I do wish the hon. member for Constantia would tell me whether he agrees with this.

He does not even understand Afrikaans. [Interjections.]

I wonder whether the hon. member for Pinelands agrees with this. [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr. Speaker, there is such utter confusion in the ranks of the PFP that I do not think any of them know what the others really think about this matter in their heart of hearts. [Interjections.] I think they will have to get together once again to decide what their approach should be in this respect. They always operate on such an ad hoc basis. Of course, it is their policy every time something happens, to get together, to reach a consensus and to determine who the majority is and who is not. [Interjections.]

I should like to know from the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North whether he would be prepared to go and do military service. [Interjections.] I also wonder whether the hon. member for Constantia would be prepared to go and do military service today. [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr. Speaker, if hon. members of the PFP agree with the final sentence in the editorial from which I quoted, I just wish to tell them today that they are hoping in vain if they think that the Government would ever allow provision to be made for this category of people—the political objectors, or those for whom the hon. member for Wynberg made such a passionate plea yesterday. [Interjections.]

We are living in extremely difficult and grave times in South Africa. Therefore we certainly cannot afford to exempt people of that kind from military service. Above all, we cannot exempt the leftist elements lurking in the PFP. These are people who liaise closely with the Black Sash movement. They also liaise with the ANC and with the … [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Is it permissible for the hon. member to say that we in the PFP liaise with the ANC?

Order! What were the precise words the hon. member used?

Sir, I said that the PFP liaised with the Black Sash movement.

Did the hon. member say that they liaised with the ANC?

Yes, Sir. They liaise with them.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw that allegation.

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw it. The fact is that this is a vicious circle, and there are people in the PFP who are prepared to support Swapo and to fight for the ANC, but not for South Africa, since according to them they would then be fighting for a “just society”. Concessions of any kind to these people, whether they have moral, ethical or political objections, would be unfair towards the thousands of national servicemen who have loyally and dutifully made their contribution and who continue to do so. We may never allow concessions other than those in respect of religious objectors to be made. We owe South Africa this legislation and we who love South Africa will also be prepared to fight for it. South Africa ought to welcome this legislation too, since through this the Government is showing its determination to keep the South African Defence Force strong so that it will always be able to take action against those people threatening this country, its people and its cultural heritage. In contrast, the official Opposition, with its soft attitude towards defence in particular, wishes to make provision for the enemies of South Africa to keep out of the war. This is what they are pleading for, and in so doing, they are playing directly into the hands of an extremely dangerous enemy, viz. the communists.

Mr. Speaker, during the course of the debate the hon. member for Standerton and the hon. member who has just sat down raised various concerning conscientious objection and I shall be devoting a large portion of my speech to this matter. Right at the outset, however, I want to state very clearly and have it on record that we in the PFP differ completely with the attitude adopted by the hon. member for Jeppe. We on this side of the House believe that it is essential in South Africa that because the Defence Force is there to defend all the people of South Africa, we should allow and encourage—and we hope that eventually we will have this system in South Africa—all the people of South Africa to contribute towards the defence of South Africa. I can think of nothing more dangerous than to have a whole lot of racial armies running around in South Africa.

During the course of my speech there are three points that I wish to cover. In the first place, I want to argue that this Bill should be referred to a Select Committee before Second Reading. Secondly, I shall argue that the definition of conscientious objection in the Bill is too narrow in that it does not take into account the case of pacifists who object to military service on a non-religious basis; and thirdly, I should like to refer to some of the actual shortcomings in this Bill.

In the first instance, there are principles dealing with conscientious objection in this Bill which are to be welcomed. The first of these is I think the provision that conscientious objection is to be based on religious beliefs rather than on the tenets of a particular religious denomination. This is a positive step. Secondly, the recognition of alternative service outside of the S.A. Defence Force for conscientous non-militarists is also a step in the right direction. However, I believe that the way the Bill is being handled, together with certain of its clauses, actually leaves us in these Opposition benches no alternative but to suggest that the Bill should be referred to a Select Committee before Second Reading. Unfortunately, often the good that the Government does, the positive steps it takes and the benefits of those positive steps are negated by the way in which changes are brought about. I shall be most disappointed if this Bill is not referred to a Select Committee before Second Reading. One would think that in a country like South Africa, a country of great diversity of religious and moral codes, this House would have been given the opportunity via a Select Committee to hear the various points of view. We are constantly told that we are in a political, socio-economic, psychological war. The hon. member for Standerton mentioned it during the course of his speech. Therefore I believe we should try to rally the support of all groups in South Africa, some of which are not represented in this House, behind us by giving them the opportunity to present their views to a Committee of this House.

Give us examples of those groups.

Coloureds and Indians.

If I have a look at the new constitutional dispensation that the Government is going to bring about, I understand that the idea is that where one has sensitive matters, they should be discussed in Standing Committees before they come to Parliament because it is considered inappropriate that we should discuss those matters in open forum. I can think of few things which are more deeply held than a person’s religious or moral views. It is no good to say that a committee of the Defence Force has looked into this matter, because it is no substitute for a committee of this sovereign Parliament of South Africa. Moreover, I do not think it is in the interest of the S.A. Defence Force because their task is to preserve the safety of all people of all religious, ethical and moral persuasions in South Africa. I think it is invidious to have them evaluate the validity of various religious, moral or ethical beliefs.

. I would go even further to say that not only the Defence Force but also the Government should be neutral in matters of religious, moral and ethical theory, doctrine and practice. The Government should neither be hostile towards any religion nor should it try to foster, promote or evaluate one religion, religious or ethical theory above another. In a country as diverse as South Africa we would be foolish to do otherwise. The PFP believe we must recognize this diversity and try to accommodate it to the best of our ability.

If one looks at the actual question of conscientious objections, one of the problems that one faces in the existing law is that it does not cater for this diversity. I think, however, that it would be true to say that the hon. the Minister of Defence in his interpretation of that section has in fact been more flexible than the actual letter of the law. In fact, Dr. James Moulder, who has studied this subject, argues that the interpretation placed by the hon. the Minister of Defence on the law is superior to the letter of the law. At present section 67 of the Act acknowledges those people who have conscientious objections to combat training for war or for military and paramilitary means of dealing with the prevention or the suppression of internal disorder in the Republic. It is a privilege, as the hon. the Minister has pointed out, restricted to someone who bona fide belongs and adheres to a recognized denomination by the tenets whereof its members may not participate in war.

The existing law therefore allows a conscientious objector to be a conscientious non-combatant. Such a person can be a accommodated in the Defence Force and he will be exempted from combat training. The law, however, makes no provision for conscientious non-militants. This means that such a person cannot be exempted from both combatant and non-combatant military service. Moreover, I think it is true to say that in the practical application of the law, the hon. the Minister of Defence today does not recognize or accept the concept of a conscientious non-militant. This Bill goes slightly wider than the existing law. That I shall accept. Firstly it recognizes the existence of conscientious non-militarists on a religious basis and secondly it shifts the emphasis from belonging to a particular denomination to the individual’s actual convictions, his own individual, personal convictions, and to this extent I think the Bill is certainly an improvement on the existing situation. We believe, however, that the definition in the Bill is still too narrow. For example, why is it restricted only to religious beliefs as distinct from ethical beliefs? [Interjections.]

There is a good reason why.

How does one define an ethical belief?

If one looks at the history of the Christian Church, or the history of the various churches, one cannot argue that the churches are necessarily pacifist. In fact, Dr. J. H. van Wyk has pointed out that the Christian Church, during the first three centuries of its existence, tended to take a pacifist viewpoint. In fact, one of the criticisms levelled against Christians by the pagans was that they were not good citizens of the state because of their belief in nonviolence.

That rings a bell!

There was, however, a radical change when the Church moved from a position of political powerlessness to one of political authority. Then, indeed, the Church tended to move from pacifism to militarism. One need only think of the number of wars that have been fought in the name of religion. Therefore it can hardly be argued that the only people who are valid conscientious objectors are those who base their objections on religious grounds. I think that one of the great shortcomings of the present Bill is that it discriminates between religious and other conscientious objectors. Since it has become apparent that the NP actually has a problem with political objections, what I am talking about here are the genuine pacifists.

What is their philosophy based on?

There are various philosophies of pacificism. [Interjections.]

Give us an example.

The Humanists, for example, or somebody like Kant. [Interjections.] The only form of objection that is acceptable is that based on religious grounds. There is a refusal to accept objections based on moral or ethical grounds.

Define them.

Let me just tell that hon. member that we are discussing the principle during the Second Reading debate and shall define terms in the Committee Stage. [Interjections.] We in the PFP cannot accept that the only people who have valid reasons for objection to war are those whose objections are based purely on religious grounds. We believe that there are people whose opposition to war is based on genuine ethical or moral foundations … [Interjections.] … and here I am not talking about people who are draft-dodging and so forth. We do not believe that those people should be discriminated against just because their objection to war is not based on religious grounds. We believe that the sincerity of one’s personal beliefs is not necessarily dependent upon one’s membership of any particular church or the tenets of any particular religion. It is interesting to note that the courts of the United States of America have come to the same conclusion. The Military Services Act of 1967 empowered the Draft Board to grant non-combatant status or alternative service on the grounds of conscientious objection. I am referring to the United States because the United States recently fought a war in which this was a very controversial issue. The act laid down certain criteria for such objection. Section 6(j) stated—

To have a valid objection, therefore, this had to be based, at that stage, on religious training and belief. In 1970, however, the Supreme Court shifted the emphasis from the basis of the beliefs to the strength with which those beliefs were held. In the case of Welsh vs United States the court ruled that persons objecting to war because of deeply held moral or ethical beliefs are entitled to conscientious objector exemption, even if any religious basis for their belief is expressly disavowed. What is necessary, the court said, is that the person’s opposition to war should stem from his moral, ethical or religious beliefs about what is right and wrong and that those beliefs should be held with the strength of traditional religious convictions.

Would you allow for a free vote in your caucus about this? [Interjections.]

The court found, and I agree, that all persons whose consciences, spurred by deeply held moral, ethical or religious beliefs, would give them no rest or peace if they allowed themselves to become part of an implement of war are entitled to exemption as conscientious objectors. Religious leaders, I feel sure, would not argue against the validity of views based either in part or entirely on moral or ethical grounds. Indeed, it would be hard to say where religious motivation ends and morality begins. In fact, I think—and the hon. member for Pinelands knows more about this than I do—that to separate religion from other aspects of life is unacceptable to most churches. Indeed, it is hoped that our religious views will affect our ethical and moral standards. To say, however, which one predominates and which one is superior is impossible. For each individual it is a very personal decision. As Pope Paul VI stated in section 16 of the Pastoral Constitution—

We in the PFP believe that people can have sincere objections to war based on religious, moral and ethical grounds. Therefore we believe—and I should like the hon. member for Standerton to listen carefully to this because he voiced certain problems—that those people who, due to deeply held moral, ethical or religious beliefs, find it irreconcilable with their consciences either to serve in a combatant capacity in any armed force or to perform any task in or in connection with any armed force should be entitled to perform either non-combatant military service or non-military forms of national service.

I should like to say to the hon. the Minister that the legal acceptance of the concept of alternative service is to be welcomed. Not only is it a means of employing non-militarists usefully, but I believe it is of benefit to society in general. Moreover. I can see no reason why this should not be welcomed by the SADF. It is often said that the solution to our problems cannot be found by purely military means. If I can just give an example, in the Philippines where the army faced a similar threat to that being faced in South Africa, and overcame it. The army in fact built 4 000 schools, numerous roads and various other public amenities in its attempts to win friends and influence people. In South Africa Gen. G. J. J. Boshoff has argued that this war is an 80:20 struggle, which means that it is 80% socio-economic and only 20% military. I quote him—

Much has been done in this regard by the SADF and therefore there should be no problem in providing conscientious objectors with non-military forms of national service. In fact, one of the best reasons I have heard for allowing non-military forms of national service is the following—and I quote—

Those were the words actually used by the hon. the Minister of Defence, and I agree with them one hundred percent.

He is a “verkrampte” Prog.

I believe that the concept of alternative service is an exciting one. The point I should like to make to the hon. the Minister is that not only will it help to accommodate non-militarists but it will also benefit society. Hon. members on the other side need not be concerned because I am praising the Minister, because we are actually neighbours and it is just good neighbourliness. I hope though that under this concept of alternative service there will be an effort to place people accepting alternative service in exciting, challenging and demanding positions rather than merely trying to keep them busy for a certain number of years. However, one must question whether the periods laid down by the Bill for those doing non-combatant non-military service are equitable. I have argued that these people are not criminals and I think the hon. the Minister accepted it in his Second Reading speech when he said that these people are not criminals, but are actually useful people.

The hon. member Mr. Vermeulen pointed out that in France the alternative service is a double period. However, one must not forget that in France the period of military service is only one year. One is therefore talking of a total period of two years. In South Africa we serve a longer period.

We are talking about the principle now during the Second Reading.

One can accept that the period of service should be slightly longer. The hon. member for Jeppe pointed out that there is the likelihood of a serviceman being killed in action, a longer period of service would compensate for this in the case of alternative service. But if one looks at the figures it seems that the most dangerous place for military servicemen to be in South Africa is actually in a motorcar. Moreover, the longer period, I accept, would deter those who try to evade military service for non-conscientious reasons. Indeed the extra period of service would deter most people from trying to evade military service. However, I believe that if the board has found that the person is sincere and that double the period of service is too long, we believe, as the hon. member for Wynberg has pointed out, that the conscientious non-combatant who serves in the South African Defence Force should serve the normal period of military service, the same as now. Those who refuse to wear uniform should serve time and a quarter, while non-militarists should serve time and a half.

The implementation of the provisions of this Bill is going to be very important. We believe that not only should provision be made for conscientious objectors, but that the mechanics whereby it was done should be fair and just. In this regard we have a number of severe reservations about many of the provisions of the Bill and I should like to raise just a few of these.

It is going to be no easy task to determine whether a person’s grounds for objection are valid or not. Let us accept we want to get rid of the draft dodgers and so forth. John Yoder in his paper “Nevertheless: The variety and shortcomings of religious pacifism”; sketched and evaluated 32 varieties of conscientious objection. Therefore the composition of the board that evaluates a person’s objections is critical. We believe the main task of such a board—I think there seems to be consensus about this—should be to test the sincerity with which an objector holds his belief. The type of board envisaged by this Bill will be dominated by theologians. This seems to be directed at testing the validity of an objector’s beliefs rather than the sincerity with which he holds those beliefs. Theologians are surely competent to judge whether an objector’s beliefs are religiously valid or not. However, I doubt whether they have any special qualifications when it comes to assessing a person’s sincerity. They might give him the benefit of the doubt. Indeed, it would be extremely difficult for a theologian of one particular denomination not to be subjective when assessing the sincerity of the views of a person of a different religious denomination.

It is interesting to note that in World War II British tribunals that judged the question of conscientious objections had no theologians or ministers on them. Therefore we in the PFP believe that a judicial board consisting of a judge, or a retired judge, together with two assessors would be best suited to judge whether an objector’s views are sincere or not. If this board feels it is necessary it can always call for evidence from theologians or professors of philosophy or ethics. It could actually call for evidence from anybody it likes.

We in the PFP cannot accept that the potential objector should be denied legal representation when appearing before such a board. I believe it would be an experience which would strike fear into the hearts of most adults. Imagine what a daunting prospect it would be for a young man of 18 or 19. Moreover, the need for legal representation becomes even more compelling if one considers that under the present clause the onus for proof lies with the objector.

We are not trying criminals.

I know we are not. I am glad you accept that. We believe that if justice is to be done, then it must be seen to be done. In general, therefore, we in the PFP believe that the proceedings of all tribunals should be in public. But as is the case with many tribunals, there are sound arguments that the chairman of the board should be able to direct that the hearing of a particular case, or a part of a case, should be in camera and/or that the identity of the person involves should not be disclosed to the Press. We therefore believe that the chairman should be able to make such an order if good and sufficient reasons for this have been put before him.

The PFP rejects the concept that people should be allowed to buy themselves out of national service. This is provided for in this Bill. We believe that this is a dangerous principle to accept and we therefore reject it.

In conclusion, if one looks at the provisions made for conscientious objection in this Bill, one notes that they have many shortcomings. The Bill does not provide for those people who are genuine conscientious objectors on moral or ethical grounds.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member a question?

No. I do not have the time now. Moreover, the method for determining whether a person is a genuine conscientious objector or not has many shortcomings. The periods laid down are too long and the removal of civic rights from genuine conscientious non-militarists is too severe a punishment. The possibility that a person can spend eight years in gaol because he is a pacifist is unfair. The hon. member for Durban North has said he is not a criminal and the hon. the Minister of Defence has also said that we are not dealing with criminals. Moreover it is totally unproductive. This is a period of punishment normally meted out for most serious crimes. Clearly a pacifist should not be placed in a worse position than someone who commits a crime, such as rape or serious assault. I repeat, the hon. the Minister himself has said that they are not criminals.

For these reasons and many that I have not raised it seems to me that there is a convincing need to look at this Bill again. While it might be a useful first draft, I certainly do not believe that it is ready yet to be placed on the Statute Book.

Mr. Speaker, during the course of my speech I shall be dealing with several of the points raised by the hon. member for Edenvale. However, I think it is only fair to tell him at the outset that I do not see any justification in anything that he has said that would justify this Bill going to a Select Committee at this stage. Secondly, I think the argument that both he and the hon. member for Wynberg advanced as a reason why this Bill should go to a Select Committee, namely that we are about to embark on a new constitutional dispensation, is a spurious one. In any event, once we do have a new constitutional dispensation, it will be time enough to raise that kind of argument. It is a spurious argument for a number of reasons, and one of them is that both hon. gentlemen specifically mentioned that Coloureds and Asians should be permitted now to go and give evidence before the Select Committee which they propose. But the fact of the matter is that whilst Coloureds and Asians do contribute to the defence of this country at present on a voluntary basis, they are not subject to compulsory national service.

Will that always be the case?

Therefore there is absolutely no reason why they should come before a Select Committee to give evidence on a matter that does not affect them.

And next year when they have their own Parliament?

I said that when we have a new dispensation then it is time enough to raise this kind of issue. But now, at this moment, it is both premature and spurious.

Why?

Perhaps the hon. member had better use his earphone to greater effect.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member a question?

Later on. I should like to develop my argument a little further before hon. members of the Opposition ask questions. I do not think that one can put an intelligent question to me before I have spoken two sentences to any good effect.

*Sir, South Africa is a country that recognizes and respects the religious freedom of the individual. Religious freedom is not only recognized in our constitution. It is part of our traditional way of life. In a country with such a variety of population groups and cultures it could not be otherwise. That, too, is why there is in our country a multiplicity of forms of religion, of denominations, the doctrines of which may indeed, in some instances, be in conflict with the objectives of the State. By way of this legislation a positive effort is being made to eliminate such conflicts to the greatest possible extent and, once and for all, to resolve on a sensible and sound basis the whole question of religious objections to participation in military activities. I therefore welcome this legislation because it accommodates the bona fide religious objections of people as far as can reasonably be expected, because it accommodates the constitutional recognition of individual religious freedom and because, in broad outline, it is in line with the approach that is customary in the majority of Western countries today.

In contrast to the hon. members of the PFP, as represented by the hon. member for Wynberg and the hon. member for Edenvale, I also welcome the fact that this legislation is limited to bonafide religious objectors and does not include conscientious objections and/or ethical and moral objections. In my opinion this is not a weakness of the legislation, but one of its strengths. The test to be applied ought to be a objective test and not a subjective one. Anyone who apply to be categorized in one of the three categories for which provision is made in the Bill must be able to indicate that his participation in or connection with any military activity is in conflict with the will or commandment of the Supreme Being or deity that he obeys and worships. Therefore it is not purely a matter of his own personal subjective judgment, but concerns the judgment of the Supreme Being or deity to whose will be subjects himself and whom he obeys.

And what about his conscience?

I have not yet dealt with the question of conscience. I shall deal with that in due course. Objection on religious grounds can be tested objectively on the basis of the book of revelation of the individual concerned, the doctrines of his religion, his personal statements and his actions and conduct over a period before he appears before the board. The conscience of the person, on the other hand, is not susceptible to objective testing. It represents merely his own subjective feelings, perceptions and views. As far as I am concerned, therefore, there is a fundamental difference in principle between bona fide religious objections on the one hand and conscientious objections on the other. The subjective nature of conscientious objection and of ethical or moral objections for which the official Opposition wants to make provision in the legislation, makes it possible for it to be used as a cloak for political objections. I am under the impression—I hope the correct impression—that all of us in this House are unanimous that political objections should not be a valid reason for exemption from military services.

†Conscientious, moral and ethical objections in themselves do not bring the individual concerned in conflict with the will of the Supreme Being, the deity or godhead that he obeys, but merely in conflict with his own subjective perceptions. This means that he could seek to evade his military obligations for a whole gamut of purely selective and even selfish reasons, reasons that have nothing or very little to do with any religious tenents, individual or otherwise. What possible test can be applied to whatever anybody believes constitutes his conscience?

Although spokesmen for the official Opposition have so far been rather careful not to say so, one cannot but be tempted to suspect that their please for the inclusion of ethical and moral objections are intended to provide a loophole for those misguided individuals who one might term political and ideological objectors, particularly if one takes note of the references to just and unjust wars …

By whom?

… to just and unjust causes, to just and unjust societies that have appeared in certain editorials. Could the hon. Chief Whip repeat what he said?

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member whether the phrase “just or unjust war” was used by any members of this party?

I have not suggested it, at least not yet. An editorial of that nature appeared in yesterday’s Cape Times, and similar references were made in the utterances of certain clergymen and according to the Press in the private viewpoints of certain members of the PFP. I suspect the hon. member for Eden vale is one of the members of the PFP who holds such a private viewpoint because of the conflicting type of argument that he put forward in his speech. On the one hand he wants the board to test the sincerity of the belief of the applicant. Now, Sir, I believe that clergymen are as well equipped as anybody else to test the sincerity of a person’s belief. After all that is what they are trained to do, to advise people as regards their spiritual welfare and so forth. But on the other hand that same hon. member wants the person whose sincerity is to be tested to have legal representation. Here we have a contradiction in terms. Because how can a legal representative convey the subjective sincerity of a person’s belief? A legal representative is there to give a person who is less than sincere loopholes to get out of his military service on a basis for which the board has not been constituted or called into being.

Mr. Speaker, we live in an imperfect world, in a world of imperfect societies, and in the absolute sense therefore, in the objective sense, there are no just societies, only some societies that are more just than others or less just than others. By what criteria and by whose criteria does one decide whether a war or a cause is just or unjust. Let me say at the outset that every normal civilized human being finds wars abhorrent. Every civilized normal human being has moral and ethical objections to war. We all want to avoid war, and therefore that is not the criterion. The criterion is that if an aggressor attacks your country you have to overcome these moral and ethical objections and defend your country. That is the point, and that is another reason why that type of objection, which is universal to mankind, is not enough for being brought into the ambit of this Bill. Let me repeat: By what criteria and by whose criteria does one decide the justice or otherwise of a cause? Is there for example anyone in this House who would have the temerity to suggest that the Soviet Union is a just society or that its sponsorship of violent revolutionary terrorist organizations, such as Swapo and the ANC, organizations that attack civilians, organizations that attack women and children, that attack targets that are completely unrelated to their cause; can anyone have the temerity to say that they are fighting a just war or a just cause?

Can anyone who accepts democracy as an ideal which one should strive for have the temerity to suggest that the State should harbour and give comfort to these terrorists? Cases in point are the States of Angola and Mozambique, whose governments came to power without holding any elections. They have not held elections since. Furthermore, I can refer to one-party States such as Lesotho and Zambia, that have outlawed all opposition; countries like Zimbabwe, where Mr. Mugabe’s North Korean mercenaries are now engaged in a bloodthirsty campaign against all opposition to the government. Can one say that those are just causes; that those people are fighting just wars? Can anyone objectively say that their aggression against hapless civilians, women and children is more just than our defence of the victims?

Whereas religious objection has a universal quality deserving of sympathy, conscientious objection is frequently as subjective, and as often as not as unjust as the injustices it purports to perceive. Whereas those who propound it, as often as not see their responsibility only to themselves, their kin or to some exotic group that they may be associated with, the State has a wider responsibility.

*The State has the responsibility to defend and protect its territorial integrity and the lives and possessions of all its inhabitants, irrespective of their political or religious views, against attacks from outside or rebellion from within. The security of the State and its military preparedness cannot under any circumstances be made subject to the subjective views of individuals as to the relative justice or injustice of a specific situation. Similarly it cannot be subordinated to the subjective perception and ethical and moral views of the individual.

Therefore, when demands are made that this in fact be done, as advocated by hon. members of the PFP, there is one simple answer. It is that the welfare of the majority must be given precedence over the welfare of the individual.

Does that not apply to religious objections as well?

Wait, we are still coming to that. Hon. members of the PFP are so obsessed with their distorted views that they do not wish to listen. They are so impatient about being granted their Select Committee and their other strange perceptions that they have no intention of listening, nor do they want to be convinced. An orderly, stable State cannot be managed or maintain itself in accordance with any other criterion.

Apart from that it may be expected in all fairness that those who share in the benefits arising out of orderliness and stability should also contribute towards the defence and maintenance of that orderliness and stability. I now put it to the hon. member for Green Point that in the nature of the matter this includes religious objectors. Moreover, I want to put it to the hon. member for Green Point that this legislation now makes this possible for them. Whereas in the past they had to serve a sentence of three years in detention, and were therefore removed from society for three years and accordingly were also unproductive during that period and were not able to make any contribution, they are now able to serve, within the ambit of the Defence Force, in a non-combatant capacity, or perform a community service outside it. Therefore they are able to make a constructive contribution to the society in which they live.

However, in the nature of the matter it is true—and the hon. member for Wynberg and the hon. member for Edenvale have conceded this—that it would be unfair if these people were better off than those who are in fact prepared to make the greatest sacrifice in the defence of their country; who exposed themselves to tense situations and to dangers. Therefore it is only right and fair that their service, depending on the category to which they are allocated, should extend over a longer period than that of the national serviceman. We have a different perception of how long, and how much longer, it should be than those hon. members seem to have, but I want to tell the hon. member for Edenvale that to stand up here and make out that those people must now serve an eight year prison sentence, is simply in conflict with the reality and the truth and is quite unjustified. [Interjections.] Before the hon. member for Wynberg gets cheeky about this statement I have made, I also wish to remind him that to compare this extended period of national service with slave labour is not only improper but also untrue. To compare it with an improper withdrawal of civil freedoms, which the hon. member also did, is not only uncalled-for and improper, but an extreme case of playing politics. I want to say to that hon. member that it will do him no good, and it befits no one, to stand up in this House as he did yesterday and make a moving plea for sober, non-political debate …

You have a fearsome appearance.

At least I am not nearly as horrible as that hon. member.

*… to find solutions that will benefit everyone, and then make such uncalled for and extravagant statements as can only be to the detriment of this country and which are like manna from heaven for organizations like Cosawr and other enemies of South Africa.

The hon. member for Wynberg has been duly informed about the envisaged statutory amendments by the highest officers in the Defence Force. In his speech yesterday he thanked them for the information he had been given. Therefore he knows that the proposed amendments arise out of comprehensive and in-depth consultation with all the relevant religious organizations and other organizations that could be affected hereby. In all fairness, he must also admit that they accepted and even proposed the idea of longer community service or non-uniformed service in general. After all that has been said, the hon. member ought in all fairness to be able to perceive that there are good reasons why the legislation must be concerned with religious objections and not conscientious objections. Moreover he ought in all fairness to admit that this legislation brings about a considerable improvement to the position of such religious objectors. Taking all this into account I can see no reason why this legislation need be referred to a Select Committee, either now or at another stage.

†Mr. Speaker, I should now like to make a few remarks in regard to another aspect which strangely or perhaps not so strangely has received rather less attention than is warranted. I refer to the question in regard to mercenaries and the attitude of this country towards their activities. As early as 1974, the hon. the Prime Minister—who was then the Minister of Defence—made the attitude of the Government towards this issue very clear. This is what he said—

Now, Sir, nothing could be clearer than that.

In the no-confidence debate this year the hon. the Prime Minister repeated this statement and repeated the promise made last year that legislation would be introduced to prohibit members of the Defence Force from taking part as mercenaries or as recruiters of mercenaries or in association with them in any way. This legislation is now before the House and I for one welcome it.

The House will forgive me, I trust, if I express the opinion that certain Opposition politicians will welcome it somewhat less enthusiastically than I do, because it will once and for all and finally put paid to the kind of irresponsible politicking in which they revelled, for example, over the Seychelles affair. It says a great deal for the unconventional morality of those politicians …

Whom are you talking about?

The hon. member knows very well about whom I am talking. [Interjections.]

… that they have a proclivity towards punishing the victim of a misdemeanour rather than the perpetrators of it. At least in this sphere the opportunities for this kind of politicking at the expense of our country are over once and for all.

Wynand, read his notes and tell us what he means.

South Africa finds itself in a dangerous and threatened position, caught in the ideological struggle between the superpowers, in the trench facing the vanguard of communistic expansionism and with the unenviable task of having also to play a stabilizing role in the whole subcontinent for the sake of all its own people.

[Inaudible.]

If the hon. member wants to be heard, he must please make his interjections a little louder.

In these circumstances South Africa cannot afford the uncontrolled and undisciplined actions of adventurers who want to sell their services as mercenaries, regardless of the consequences for our country, but if we cannot afford that, then we are even less able to afford irresponsible political exploitation of such actions. In the handling of this matter—and now I am replying to the question of the hon. member for Yeoville—the PFP, in my opinion, went too far. If the PFP went too far, then words fail me to describe how far the CP went in harming South Africa in this way. The way in which they quoted selectively from the findings of a judge of the Supreme Court of Natal…

Chris, you are a scandal.

Order! The hon. member for Jeppe must withdraw that statement.

Sir, I withdraw it.

… to promote their distorted political aims, in my opinion justifies …

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Is the hon. member dealing with the Bill?

Order! The hon. member for Benoni may proceed, because he is discussing the question of mercenaries, which does constitute an element in the Bill.

… a charge of contempt of court. They distort the finding of the judge that the Government was not aware of the fact that certain members of the Defence Force were indeed involved in the Seychelles affair as mercenaries.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: May the hon. member say that this side of the House is in contempt of court?

What does the hon. member mean thereby?

I was referring to the distortions in this pamphlet drawn up by someone outside this House. I was not referring to hon. members on that side of the House.

The hon. member may proceed.

… the finding of the judge that the Government was not aware of the participation of certain members of the Defence Force in the Seychelles affair as mercenaries is twisted, in this pamphlet, into the libellous allegation that the hon. the Minister—

Imagine, Mr. Speaker! How on earth can the political head of a department be in any way aware of what his people in the lower ranks are up to if even their seniors were not aware of it, and were therefore unable to report it to him? However, the irony of the matter is that this smear pamphlet was drawn up by one C. P. Mulder who, when he was still in this Parliament as a Minister, was fully aware of irregularities in his department, but nevertheless merrily took part in them and even lied to Parliament … [Interjections.] … and is now no longer here. [Interjections.]

Did you not vote for him? After all, you voted for him as a candidate for the Prime Minister ship.

The hon. member for Jeppe was my colleague and bench-mate. [Interjections.] I want to say to that former colleague and benchmate of mine that I am disappointed in him. [Interjections.] It is pointless to say that one supports the rules for the defence of the country, that one supports the generals, brigadiers and others, and then to use the officers in uniform—which is an infringement of the rules—to promote one’s own political aims. Apart from that, the conduct of that hon. member and his party since they left us has not only been an embarrassment to South Africa, but also a lasting blot on our country. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, I shall be dealing with a number of the matters raised by the hon. member for Benoni in the course of my speech, and therefore I do not wish to deal with them specifically at this stage. [Interjections.]

Order!

If those involved in that little private war would just declare a ceasefire for a little while, I should like to express to the hon. the Minister the appreciation of this party for the briefing that we received on this matter, and to Brig. Naudé and those who helped him for the information they gave us, and also for the offer to follow up the briefing with any queries that we might have. We took the offer up and discussed those questions we did have. Let me say at the outset, however, that there are still some problem areas in this legislation for us as members of the NRP, problems with which I shall be dealing in my speech, as I proceed. Let me also congratulate the two new defence spokesmen. I congratulate the hon. member for Wynberg and the hon. member for Standerton on their appointment as spokesmen for their respective groups. I hope that they will give the sort of leadership and guidance that their predecessors gave in this field.

Having said that, I must, however, immediately say that I cannot congratulate the hon. member for Wynberg on his speech in this House yesterday. [Interjections.] He appealed to hon. members in this House, when he started, not to try to score petty political points. I certainly have no intention of scoring any petty political points. [Interjections.] This is not, however, a question of a petty political point. He made a speech yesterday in which he made utterances which I totally and absolutely reject and from which I, with contempt, entirely dissociate this party. [Interjections.] I want to quote those statements. This is not a question of scoring petty points, but this is stating a fundamental division in philosophy between the NRP and the PFP. Speaking of the regulations that can be promulgated, the hon. member said—and I quote his Hansard—

He was not satisfied with that, but he repeated that statement. I quote again—

That is a little bit like Nazi Germany used to be. Perhaps the hon. member for Yeoville will remember.

When a member of this House can stand up here and accuse South Africa and the Defence Force of introducing slave labour in terms of this Bill, I believe that goes beyond the pale of what is acceptable to any decent South African who has any respect for South Africa. [Interjections.] I have heard few more irresponsible, unfounded and reckless statements. It goes together with that of his colleague about Swapo and freedom fighters, with the objection of another colleague of his to a poster which said “Roei Swapo uit”, and with the allegations raised by another colleague of his to 32 Battalion. I say that these statements cumulatively are symptomatic of an attitude which we in this party totally reject.

Let us look again at the statement about slave labour. Because the regulations provide for the control of people, does that mean that every child in boarding school who falls under the regulations of that boarding school from morning to night is a slave?

Vause, you can do much better than that.

Does it mean that a national serviceman who falls under the discipline and control of the Defence Force and whose whole life is controlled from the moment he enters the camp is a slave?

He did not say that.

I quoted what he said. [Interjections.] I say it is a disgrace. It is a damned disgrace too. [Interjections.] Every soldier is controlled in the same way as it is provided that those doing alternative service should be controlled.

That is not true.

A national serviceman cannot issue a political pamphlet. He cannot publicly take part in politics.

Yes he can.

A member of the Permanent Force cannot either. A person cannot whilst he is doing national service …

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member a question?

No. I am used to that member’s sort of question and I shall answer it before the hon. member asks it. [Interjections.] I say that a national serviceman or a member of the Permanent Force is not entitled whilst on service to participate in party politics. He may vote and he may retain his membership of a party, but he may not participate in active politics. I have had cause to raise cases where this has been disregarded, and disciplinary action has always been taken to see that it did not happen again. To suggest that the prohibition of politics turns a person into a slave is, I think, “verregaande”, to use the hon. member’s own word.

After the rambling tour of Mozambique and Zimbabwe and axiomatic platitudes about 80% of the war being civil administration etc., with which we all agree …

Do you?

… ultimately the hon. member came to the real objection of the official Opposition to this Bill. In his speech it was neatly camouflaged with moral and ethical principles and feelings, but the real issue is that the national congress of that party took a policy decision. I want to quote from a report, referring to the congress, in the Citizen of 23 November 1981—

I also want to quote from a report in the Star, referring to the hon. member for Yeoville—

This means that the PFP has totally reversed its attitude towards conscientious objection. I hope that those who in the past have followed the same attitude and approach as we follow today will tell us where they stand so that South Africa can know where this Parliament and those who sit in it stand on this matter which affects the security of our country.

The hon. member for Wynberg gave a selective historic justification for the amendment he has moved. It was selective, and I want to put the record right. In 1967 there was a measure before this House which went to a Select Committee before Second Reading. If my memory is right, the hon. member was correct when he attributed the proposal that the matter should be referred to a Select Committee to myself. I think it was I who moved that. It was agreed to and the matter then went to a Select Committee. In 1972 another measure, one to which the hon. member for Wynberg did not refer, went to a Select Committee after Second Reading. In 1974 another measure, to which the hon. member did refer, went to a Select Committee after Second Reading. In 1977 a contentious measure was not referred to a Select Committee, while in the same year a civil defence Bill, which was not contentious, went to a Select Committee. In 1982 a Bill, to which the hon. member again did not refer, was referred to a Select Committee after Second Reading. I therefore cannot go along with that argument why this measure should go to a Select Committee before Second Reading. Whether it goes to a Select Committee after Second Reading or whether it is debated in Committee of the Whole House, I am not terribly concerned about.

You are sitting on the fence.

No. I believe a Select Committee can only do effective work if it is going to get down to detail without fundamental confrontation, which makes all its efforts futile. If we could find close enough agreement here …

Like last time.

Yes, like last time. It was a waste of time. If the official Opposition is going to persist with its total confrontation to this measure, it will again be a waste of time and then we might as well debate it here. The purpose of a Select Committee is to try to find each other and to reach agreement. It is clear that we have fundamental disagreement on this measure. It is a highly emotional subject. It has been debated over generations and reviewed over the years. As the nature of warfare and of manpower requirements of different wars has changed so the nature of objection to military service has changed.

In the First World War Britain started with volunteers. A white feather was the symbol of the contempt of society for the person who did not enlist. That was enough for a long time—the contempt of one’s fellow-man that acted as a deterrent to not serving one’s country. Ultimately conscription had to be introduced. South Africa participated in both wars, without the war taking place in our country, but with her forces acting as volunteers, as part of a world force. In the Second World War the hon. member for Yeoville, the hon. member for Hillbrow, the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, the hon. member for Sea Point, the hon. member for Umbilo and myself all volunteered to serve. It was a war in which we fought—that was how we saw it and still see it so today—a world struggle for freedom against Nazi and Fascist dictatorship. There were others in South Africa who disagreed with us, but we went as volunteers. The war was not in our country. There were others who subverted and sabotaged. Some were interned without trial, and it was my party’s predecessor that did so. Others were tried and sentenced for treason. All this is history. But this is a new generation with new challenges which I believe we have got to look at, not from the point of view of yesterday, not by dragging up things that happened two generations ago, but by looking at the kind of war that we face now, and we face a real war. There is armed invasion of the borders for which we are responsible. There is urban terrorism on our own soil.

You don’t say!

The battlefields are far away. That is why people treat them contemptuously, like the hon. member for Sandton who has just said: “You don’t say!” when I say it is a real war. The battle is far away. It is remote and people are not personally involved unless they have members of their family fighting there. They read of the occasional bomb blast and sabotage, but it does not create the fervour and there is not the glamour of the sort of war that we fought from 1939 to 1945 or in the First World War. [Interjections.] There was a gregarious feeling when people joined up because they were part of a big emotional movement.

That is correct; you cannot argue about that.

It is true. It was not glamorous in the sense that the war was glamorous, but there was a feeling of being with your mates, of doing what you believed you should be doing, of serving your country and your cause. Today, despite the remark of the hon. member for Sandton, I repeat, it is a different kind of war that we are facing.

In a new Republic.

It is a lonely war, but still a real war. I know that there are conflicting reasons that are given for the situation, but that is not a subject for debate today. The fact is that innocent people are being killed, intimidated and abducted. Our children are involved. I have children and other hon. members have children who have been or are involved in this war. I am proud of the fact that I have a daughter and a son who wear the Pro Patria Medal. So are other hon. members here. For them it is real. Another thing that is real and is a fact is that if terrorism should succeed, if the revolution should succeed, there will be chaos and anarchy in South Africa and ultimately a Marxist enslavement of all the peoples of this country, Black and White. This is a difficult war to fight, particularly for our youth who must serve long and protracted periods repeatedly. Therefore it is as well that this question of the refusal to serve be looked at again by this Parliament and that we grasp the nettle as we are busy doing. I see in one of the objections I received from one religious group that they complain that everything was going to be in secret and that there would be no debate. Here is that debate now. It is taking place in this House now, and I am putting the standpoint of the NRP. I am doing that clearly and unequivocally, as it is, I believe, the duty of all political parties to do. We have never wavered. We are totally committed to the defence of South Africa, whether it be against armed aggression or against terrorism or subversion or violent revolution. We are equally committed to work for political change which will lead to long-term security and peace in this country through the legal and constitutional process. We do believe, however, that in order to make that possible every young man has to bear an equal responsibility to South Africa. As far as possible he should also have an equal liability in respect of the sacrifice and the danger involved in carrying that responsibility for our defence—the defence of the country and all its people; not only the White people; not only the Government, but all the people in South Africa. This Bill deals only with those who have this liability.

On another occasion we can talk about the people of other races, to whom hon. members of the official Opposition have already referred.

Parliament has always held that there are people with deeply held religious views against the taking of life, and we have always provided non-combatant service for those people. I must admit that, although I have changed my mind, in the past I personally thought that that was enough. I thought the need was met by non-combatant service. However, I accept that there are groups of people whose convictions go beyond that, people who have served long periods in detention because they refuse to be associated with any military service. I also accept that this is a waste of young lives and that we do need to find an alternative. We accept and we support the principle of community service as an alternative, as it is contained in this Bill. However, we also support the principle of differential liability to compensate for the advantages of community service over military service.

Furthermore we emphasize the fact that we support religious objection to military service but not conscientious objection. This is not a Bill dealing with conscientious objectors. It is a Bill aimed at providing for religious objectors. I find it difficult to understand how one can have ethical or moral standards if they are not built upon a religious base.

That is a problem that the NRP has with itself.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Bryanston is only a clown. He has to clown even when we are dealing with something like religion and faith. [Interjections.] He cannot even control himself long enough in order to treat a sensitive matter such as this with respect. [Interjections.] As I have said, I find it hard to understand how one can have ethical or moral standards unless they are based on a religious foundation.

Even in the USA, where there was a court case—and I do not have the time now to quote extensively from the record of that case—the law of their Congress states specifically that religion does not include essentially political, sociological or philosophical views.

What court case was that?

I am quoting from an article dated December 1981. It quotes the position as in the Second World War and as during the Vietman war. I know there has been another court case since. The law, however, specifically excluded political objectors.

But that law has been changed.

Vause, you are one of yesterday’s men.

Mr. Speaker, I am talking about the attitude of the USA to the …

When?

During the height of the Vietman war. Mr. Speaker, I will not allow myself to be diverted. I am dealing with this measure and I am putting on record our views. We reject the view of the PFP that one can have other than religious reasons for wishing to avoid military service and we support the limitation of objection to service to religious grounds.

There are certain matters that we shall be dealing with at the Commitee Stage in regard to which we shall be moving amendments. In the first instance, there is the question of the three categories. We think that two categories should be sufficient. Like the PFP, we dislike the cash alternative. We believe that there should be an alternative in respect of time served in community service and not in respect of cash. We also believe that the proposed periods of one and a half times and twice the period of national service in respect of categories 2 and 3 are not a fair reflection of the position in respect of continuous service as opposed to non-continuous service. As far as categories 2 and 3 are concerned, we will suggest that in the case of the former, those who serve out of uniform on maintenance tasks should do one and a half times the normal basic and periodic requirements while those doing community service should do one continuous and fixed period of service amounting to six years which is also one and a half times the cumulative total rendered by the serviceman.

We should also like to see an applicant before the board having his own minister of religion in attendance to assist him. We also wish to discuss the question of whether a person should be permitted to attend university before becoming a religious objector or whether such person should first do community service and then attend university. Unfortunately, I do not have the time to discuss that matter now.

We also accept the composition of the board. I must say that I am surprised at the objections in this regard. We totally reject the absolute nonsense that has been written about so-called secret trials. This board is not a court that has been set up to try a person, find him guilty and then punish him. It is a board set up to identify the sincerity of personal beliefs which we feel are very intimate and personal things. They should therefore be discussed behind closed doors unless the applicant himself waives his right to such privacy and the chairman decides that he will hold the inquiry in public. I am amazed that the official Opposition and the churches themselves reject a board comprised entirely of ministers of religion with the exception of the presiding judge. This appears to me to be a strange attitude towards religion itself—to say that ministers of religion are not the proper persons to judge religious beliefs. I do not have time to elaborate on this matter either but other hon. members in these benches will do so at a later stage.

In conclusion I want to say that those behind this orchestrated campaign, behind the groups that are leading this orchestration and the publicity that they are getting, reflect a fundamental divide in approach towards South Africa itself and its defence. I wish to make an appeal to all those hon. members like myself and the hon. member for Umbilo who fought in the last war: Please, please repudiate this attitude that has developed, this apparent takeover of the PFP by the left wing of that party which is heading along the road of all the radical groups in South Africa. [Interjections.] I say to those hon. members: Bring your party back to loyalty and dedication towards the defence and security of South Africa, otherwise that whole party will be tarred with the same brush. If that is not done, that party will leave this debate branded as the party which states that this Bill creates slave labour in South Africa. I ask the hon. member for Yeoville to tell me whether he agrees with that statement.

Vause, if you were a bit more Wiley; you could also become a Cabinet Minister.

Order! The hon. member for Bryanston must give the hon. member for Durban Point the opportunity to continue with his speech.

Sir, I am merely trying to help him.

Order!

Sir, I treat that hon. member with the utter contempt he deserves.

The only time I saw cheerfulness on that side of the House, a real smile, was when the hon. member for Wynberg was talking about slave labour. Then the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens had a smile right from ear to ear, and that is what the official Opposition must stop in the name and the interest of South Africa. We cannot go along with people who, often unwittingly, become fellow-travellers with Swapo and the ANC, the justifiers of violence. I have here a cutting from the Cape Times. I know this man. He is a sincere passivist and he says that he is now out of step with the South African Council of Churches because they believe that violence might become necessary to change a seriously unjust and oppressive society. We reject that violence is justified or can ever be justified in the changing of a legitimate Government by violent and illegal means. We are not prepared to go along with the squeal which was put up here for the rights of so-called conscientious objectors to use their hearing and their community service as a platform for political propaganda, for distributing pamphlets and propaganda to push the cause of not serving one’s country and not fighting for it. Very often when I hear some of this sickening stuff, I feel that the easiest way would be to stick them up against a wall as they did in the good old days of long ago. I realize, however, that one cannot do it now and that we must provide a fair system of alternatives. We shall vote for the Second Reading of the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I listened attentively to the hon. member for-Durban Point and I should like to thank him and his party for supporting this Bill. His was a very sound and responsible contribution. The hon. member also put certain questions to which I believe the hon. the Minister will give him an answer in due course. Before I leave the hon. member and go on to other matters, I want to tell him that it is truly pleasant to listen to a citizen of South Africa who is loyal to his country.

Yesterday we had an opportunity of listening to two speakers of the official Opposition. I found it very interesting, since we had taken prior cognizance, with great expectations, of what was predicted in their Press, that the hon. member for Wynberg, the principal spokesman on Defence, adopted a very careful approach. It was clear to me that he tried to wrap up his speech in cotton wool. It was very clear that he had to speak for the moderate Progs, but also for the more aggressive Progs. While listening to him and afterwards to the hon. member for Edenvale, I could not help thinking of two porcupines engaged in a courtship ritual. [Interjections.] Talking about courtship and love, it was also very clear to me yesterday that there was no love lost between the hon. members of the official Opposition and the hon. the Deputy Minister of Environment Affairs and Fisheries. Allow me to say to the official Opposition that we understand the disfavour and dislike with which it is sometimes regarded. In the course of my speech I shall try to refer to a few other statements made by those hon. gentlemen.

At this point, however, I should like to draw attention to something to which various speakers have already referred. I am referring to the guidelines laid down by the General Synod. I think this is very neccessary, because if we look at what preceded this legislation, it is very clear that these things came into the limelight after the Defence Force had applied punitive measures—whether imprisonment or detention—to members of the Jehovah’s Witnesses. This question of conscientious objection was then rapidly brought into prominence and various bodies, various churches, made representations asking for consideration to be given to the more effective utilization of these conscientious objectors. It is very necessary for us to consider these guidelines, because they indicate to us possibilities for alternative national service. They spell out alternatives which can help one to assess a very delicate situation such as this. It is stated that the possibility of alternative military service is determined by the grounds on which refusal to do military service is made. When arguments are used, for example in the case of a difference with the policy of the Government party, or in the case of ethical objections, for example against a so-called unjust society or against an unjust war, an alternative form of military service should not be considered because these are not acceptable grounds for alternative military service. When religious objections prevent a person from participating in any violence, it is also not correct to protect him excessively by withdrawing him from violence and elevating him to a protected position over that of his compatriots who do have to render service. It would be unfair to those national servicemen who are discharging their obligations. On the other hand, imprisonment is not seen as a meaningful rendering of service either. From the foregoing, therefore, it is clear that it was not the Defence Force which initiated this statutory change. In fact, it was a result of representations by the churches and other bodies that this matter of alternative national service was referred to a committee of inquiry. I think it is from that inquiry that this legislation proceeded and these guidelines were laid down.

In clause 72D provision is now being made for the three categories to which reference has already been made. This is being done because there is great understanding and compassion in South Africa for people who have firm religious convictions, because it is felt in South Africa that if a person feels so strongly about his religion that he is prepared to endure punishment, he should be regarded with sympathy. In the past provision was only made for members of these so-called Peace Churches. It was so arranged that three years’ detention were imposed on these members, and after that they could not be called up again. However, this did not apply to other objectors from other churches. They could be called up and punished repeatedly. This anomaly is also being rectified now. It should also be noted that in South Africa, among the general public, there is no sympathy for other objectors, whether on political, ideological or ethical grounds. There is no sympathy and that is why we can give scant attention to those grounds. It is interesting to note that in none of the East European States, Russia, the USA or in the West, with the exception of Denmark, is any objection other than an objection on religious grounds recognized. The official Opposition, on the other hand, now wishes to accommodate other grounds in this Bill. They wrap it up in cotton wool and all kinds of fine-sounding words because they wish to cover up the great division, the rift. Now they are preparing over the rift and hope that the wind from the east will not begin to blow.

We should really take cognizance of the fact that this argument is concerned with only 0,026% of all national servicemen. Of these 0,026%, or approximately two out of a thousand, 98% are Jehovah’s Witnesses. They are religious objectors. What remains after that? Why this fuss? I want to emphasize that the number of religious objectors is so negligible that one cannot understand why propoganda is being made over this issue, propaganda which makes it look like a tremendous campaign against the group of people who are involved here. It is out of all proportion. It seems to be an organized propaganda campaign.

The question is: What does the PFP and the Press which supports them want to achieve with this? Are their actions aimed at creating a situation in the country by means of which the country can be disrupted and the Government overthrown? Is the PFP joining a choir of destabilizers who seem to delight in the suffering and deprevation of people, also in our neighbouring states, as we understand? Some of the neighbouring states give active support to Swapo and to other terrorists and subversive organizations as well as to internal unrest and terrorist attacks such as the recent bomb explosion.

Taking about bomb explosions, I want to say that I find it truly tragic that when an incident occurs, as happened quite recently, in which the S.A. Police are involved, an incident we are extremely sorry about, a snap debate is called for and the S.A. Police are reviled here.

Not once!

However, I have never heard of a snap debate being requested in connection with a bomb explosion. No one criticises that.

What are you talking about?

Those people are then referred to as freedom fighters. The entire hostile outside world describes them as freedom fighters. Mrs. Di Bishop of the PFP described them as freedom fighters. The hon. member for Wynberg referred to Swapo as “geweldenaars” (killers). In my Afrikaans dictionary it is stated next to the word “geweldenaar” that one may also use the words “verdringer, aanmatiger, onderdrukker, verdrukker of tiran” (supplanter, usurper, suppressor, oppressor or tyrant). However, none of these words put me in mind of a terrorist or a murderer. I now wish to ask the hon. member for Wynberg whether he is prepared to label Swapo as terrorists.

Of course.

I know the hon. member for Yeoville will do it. I have great respect for him.

He does it as well.

Is the hon. member prepared to refer to Swapo as murderers? Are the Houghton Progs prepared to do so? If the hon. member is prepared to do so, why is he wrapping Swapo up in cotton wool? Why is he not prepared to call Swapo by its name?

Ask Hulley.

The hon. member for Wynberg said the PFP would enlarge the Permanent Force on a voluntary basis. It is not very clear to me whether he also wishes to accommodate the national servicemen on a voluntary basis. The question arises whether the hon. member has really not taken cognizance yet of the onslaught on South Africa. [Interjections.] His solution is political change.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: An hon. member on the opposite side—I do not know who it is—said that we in these benches are part of the onslaught against South Africa.

Which hon. member said that?

Mr. Speaker, I did.

The hon. member must withdraw it.

I withdraw it, Sir.

The hon. member for Wynberg said that his solution was political change rather than military action. It is equally significant that when the Government initiates change the PFP in fact boycotts it. Why is the mighty America spending astronomical amounts on arming itself? Or should America, too, merely take refuge in internal political change? Does that only apply to South Africa, and not to the outside world? Or is the hon. member envisaging change as we have experienced it in our neighbouring states such as Angola, Mozambique and Zimbabwe? This is a transparent attempt on the part of the PFP to create a forum for other objections besides religious objections, to involve other people in this as well, to induce other people to climb onto the bandwagon and in that way promote leftwing propaganda against authority and government. In this way an opportunity is created for the Black Sash and others to demoralize our youth on campuses and elsewhere. If that is not the standpoint of all hon. members of the PFP, it is at least the standpoint of the left wing of that party.

The Defence Force is the pride of South Africa. The Defence Force ought to be the pride of every right-minded South African. Our young men are wonderfully motivated. They are disciplined, undaunted and they are the guardians of our borders. It is they who stand guard so that we can live peacefully in this country and so that the Bishops can even demonstrate with the Black Sash. If it were not for our Defence Force and police, we would not even be able to conduct a peaceful debate in this House.

A question which keeps on recurring to one, is whether these efforts are aimed at subverting their will to fight for South Africa. Can the PFP deny that if these representations of theirs succeed, if these groups are to be able to object to national service in any other way, it will lead to a sharp increase in the number of objectors? Surely that cannot be denied.

The numbers will be insignificant.

If it is so unimportant, why the great argument about it?

It is the principle involved.

Or does the PFP perhaps derive pleasure from the weakening of our Defence Force so that the Russian urge to dominate, and everyone who is involved in that, will eventually be benefitted? Such a weakening will benefit Swapo. I want to emphasize that Swapo is our enemy. Our young men are fighting in South West Africa against Swapo. Our young men are dying at the hands of Swapo, but here Swapo are classified as freedom fighters or, at worst, as killers (geweldenaars).

Who said so?

The hon. member for Wynberg labelled Swapo as killers (geweldenaars) and nothing more. It is extremely important that the voters of South Africa should know where they stand with the official Opposition. It is extremely important that the parents of South Africa should know where they stand with the official Opposition. The hon. member for Wynberg did not tell us what he meant by the “expansion” of the Permanent Force. He would do well to tell us how much additional money he will require if he wishes to create a Permanent Force to replace our national army, or is he only envisaging political change? We must note that national service was previously for nine months; after that for 18 months and now for two years. Was this period extended merely to punish our young men or to withdraw them from the economy? Absolutely not. It was extended because the onslaught on South Africa has intensified, because the threat against South Africa has become greater, and for no other reason. That is why South Africa has to fall back and rely on its national army. I want to emphasize that this entire argument is concerned only with a small group of people. It is our bounden duty to look after the silent majority as well. We must also look after the 99,974% who are in fact serving their country with great honour. We must thank them. We must pay tribute to them. They must knew that we appreciate their sacrifices. We must know that we support them in our prayers too. They must know that the Government, authorities and subjects, are working untiringly here to give them a better future. They must know that we are working for internal peace and progress, stability and security. They must know that employment opportunities are being created; that we are striving for a high standard of living and that more and more academic opportunities are being created so that when they return after privation and struggle, they will also reap the benefit of all these efforts. If the PFP wants change, let them do it at the polls. They must state their standpoint in Waterkloof. They must appoint candidates in Soutpansberg and Waterberg to put their standpoint to the test there.

I also want to point out that when the hon. member for Wynberg dealt with these three categories, particularly with category 3, he spoke about slave labour. However, he did not spell out specifically to us whether he also considered the two years of national service to be a form of slave labour as well. Does he consider time and a half national service to be slave labour, or only the double period of national service? We must remember that the responsibility to be classified as a religious objector rests with the individual. The hon. member for Standerton spelt this out very clearly. He has the opportunity to choose and he will be advised to choose to the best of his ability. We should like to see this unfortunate choice of words continuing to hang around the necks of the official Opposition.

Now I should like to put something else before the hon. members. When we are referring to these objectors, I want to point out to hon. members that apart from service under arms, in which the largest group of our national servicemen are and are being involved, there are a great many other duties which can be performed. I just wish to present a few of these to hon. members. For example, there is the sphere of education in the operational area, and this applies to education for all language and colour groups. Then there is the medical sphere, medical practitioners, medical orderlies at clinics and hospitals; the sphere of agricultural, for example agronomy, animal husbandry, veterinary services and so on; the sphere of community services, for example the maintenance of sports fields; in mobile veld kitchens, at bases or at training camps; in the sphere of transportation, for example ambulance services, fire-fighting services, supplies, airports, administrative work and hundreds of other duties. I am convinced that this House will look after our young men with great care. I gladly support this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I hope the hon. member for Walvis Bay will forgive me if I do not deal in detail with what he has said because actually I have always had a great love for whales and for species that need to be protected. I should therefore like to approach him in that particular light, in having this kind of protective attitude towards him. Quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, he has said quite a lot of things, particularly concerning the hon. member for Wynberg, things that, if he had thought about them, I doubt whether he would have uttered because they were utterly illogical and completely without substance. Let me just take one simple example. He tried to turn a particular word which was used by the hon. member for Wynberg—I think that word was “geweldenaars”—into something ominous. By using that word, he, with his somewhat convoluted mind, comes to the conclusion that that means that the hon. member for Wynberg said that Swapo were freedom fighters. How anyone in his right mind, with great respect, can come to that conclusion is utterly beyond me. With great respect, Mr. Speaker, I would expect a little more sense from that hon. member, and not that sort of convoluted argument in this particular debate. [Interjections.]

I hope I shall be forgiven if I leave the hon. member for Walvis Bay at that. I want to come to another issue, which is the real issue we have to debate now. That concerns the question of whether this particular Bill should indeed go to a Select Committee before Second Reading or whether it should not. That is the real issue that we have put before this House.

The hon. member for Durban Point, after going through the history of a large number of matters, said we could not have a Select Committee before Second Reading because we could only have a Select Committee before Second Reading if we had the degree of unanimity which would enable us to come to terms before a Select Committee. [Interjections.] I understand the rules of this House to mean that when one asks for a Select Committee before Second Reading it is before the principle of a measure has been agreed to so that one can effect alterations to a Bill which would not be allowed if one were to agree to the principle at Second Reading.

Quite correct.

That means that although one may have certain differences, one can bring about changes. The question I should like to put to the hon. Minister is the following: What prejudice is there to him? What problem does he have that does not allow him to let this Bill go to a Select Committee before Second Reading? I should believe that with a delicate matter of this nature, which involves the religious aspect, service in the Defence Force, and also matters which, the hon. the Minister himself accepts, are delicate, everybody would imagine that the logical place to deal with it would be in a Select Committee before Second Reading.

Another matter which is quite clear to me is that if one wants to bring about changes to a measure, which, by the reason of the technicalities of the rules of this House, one cannot do once the Second Reading has been agreed to, the question then inevitably arises of why one should want to close the door to that possibility. That is indeed what the real issue is all about. With respect, Mr. Speaker, I should like to deal with the issue of what we are really discussing today in respect of the concept of a conscientious objector. Again I must differ with the hon. member for Durban Point because he said this measure had nothing to do with conscientious objectors. He said it only dealt with religious objectors. I must obviously be somewhat confused because I read the hon. the Minister’s Second Reading speech in Hansard—and I have it here in front of me—and he says (unrevised Hansard, 21 March 1983, page GG.4)—

Is that not what we are discussing, Mr. Speaker?

But have you read the Bill, Harry?

You must read the Bill.

One of the difficulties which exists in respect of this particular measure—if it does not go to a Select Committee before Second Reading—is that the Bill, as it presently stands, deals with people who have objections based on religious grounds only. Therefore, the moment that the Second Reading of this Bill has been taken, the door is closed to that form of objector. That is the real issue. The point that I wish to put to the hon. the Minister is therefore whether it is in fact logically correct that there can be no one in this world who has a reason based on moral and ethical grounds, not based upon religious beliefs, for refusing to do military service? Is there no reason other than religious beliefs why such a person would not want to serve in any war—not in a particular war but in any war? I venture to suggest that when we look at the realities of the situation we find that there are in fact many such reasons. I think that I am a religious person and I do not doubt that the hon. the Minister and other hon. members in this House as well are similarly inclined. A number of my beliefs are based obviously upon my particular faith but I am suffciently open-minded and broadminded to accept the fact that there are people in this world who have philosophical concepts that are honestly held and which are based on sound ethical and moral grounds in pursuance of which they say that they do not wish to serve in any war.

Give us an example.

I can give the hon. member for Durban North an example. There are, for example, many cases of people who do not wish to kill another living being. There are people who hold that belief.

For religious reasons? [Interjections.]

Not necessarily for religious reasons. That is the whole point. I do not wish to go into competition with the hon. member for Durban North on the question of who has the better religious background or basis or philosophy or anything else. However, I believe that one has to be sufficiently tolerant to accept the fact that there can be people who do not hold the same views as oneself which are unconnected with politics and which are based on ethical concepts. There are, for example, Eastern concepts that are unrelated to religion, beliefs that are as strongly and sincerely held as are religious beliefs. I want to point out with great respect to the hon. member for Durban North that in America this very concept has been the subject matter of an investigation by the Supreme Court. They have accepted the fact there that there can be these moral and ethical concepts related to opposition to all wars, not a specific war because then one becomes involved in political issues. However, there are those people who object to wars generally. I shall deal further with my philosophy in a moment but I find it very difficult to understand why the door should be closed to at least a debate on that issue in a Select Committee.

How does the State of Israel treat this matter?

I find that sort of remark remarkable. Why does the hon. member ask me about the State of Israel? The hon. member could ask me about Germany or any other country but coming from him, I find it remarkable.

I only ask the question because they are in the same position as we are.

I should like to tell hon. members what my faith tells me. My faith tells me that there is no such thing as conscientious objection. However, if one cares to read the Old Testament it also says something else. I should like to quote one or two passages from the writings of my faith in order to illustrate my point. The first one reads as follows—

That is what I believe in. Hon. members may remember what happened when Gideon had to attack the Midianites. He did not take with him the people who did not have the courage and the guts to do so. I should like to quote these remarkable Biblical statistics. He started off by saying that those who were faint of heart could leave and 22 000 people left! In the end he was left with 300, and he still won. This proves that if one can motivate one’s people, if one can get people to believe in something, to say: This is what I want to fight for, this is what I belong to, then one will be able to deal with the situation much more easily.

That still does not answer my question.

So I say to hon. members that they must not tackle me on my beliefs. [Interjections.] As a religious person I can tell the House that many sins have been committed in the name of religion. That does not mean that those who have faith are wrong; it does not mean that those who are religious are wrong. I can tell the House of wars where the arms have been blessed on both sides by the people of the same religion. I can tell the House of lots of things done in the name of religion. With great respect, let us not now suddenly have a situation where the only people in the world who are entitled to have ethics and the only people who are entitled to have morals are the ones which are carefully selected by some hon. members of this House. No, with great respect, I think one has to be open-minded and one has to be tolerant …

You are pleading for anarchists.

Nonsense, I shall deal with anarchists in a moment. The reality is that South Africa is a divided nation. It is divided geographically, it is divided racially, it is divided on language, but it is also divided politically. It is divided politically, not party-politically, but politically on the issue of those who believe in peace and those who believe in violence.

One of the real issues which we have to face in South Africa is the issue of whether violence is going to bring about change here or whether we are going to bring about change by way of peace. Those of us who sit in this House, those of us who are members of this Parliament are part of a system, and that system is a particular system of government which some of us would like to change by peaceful means. The reality, however, is that we participate in the system and therefore the stability of the system has to be maintained. Part of the maintenance of the stability of that system is the fact that one needs a police force and a defence force, and one cannot, with great respect, ask anybody else to do for one what one is not prepared to do for oneself.

That is one of the reasons why I believe one has to have conscription in South Africa: We have to be defended. If one believes that one wants peaceful change, if one believes that there should be a shield behind which one brings about change in South Africa, then the very essence of that means that one must oppose violence. In exactly the same way as one cannot say to another man that one wants him to do something for one, but one shall do nothing for him, one cannot pick up the telephone and phone the police to ask to be protected against crime if one is not prepared to participate in the system to assist the police. One is not entitled to be protected against terrorism if one is not prepared to participate in that. That is to my mind beyond question, because that is where the system is. If one believes that there should be peaceful change, if one believes in the shield theory as I think we in these benches do believe, then one has to oppose violence because when violence triumphs, where does one go?

One of the real problems which exist is that the whole question of conscientious objection, the whole question of religious objection has been complicated by people who try to abuse, for a political purpose, that which very often is the sincere religious or ethical belief of an individual. I shall give examples of this. I have here some pamphlets, one of which is called The Resister. These are pamphlets which are issued in order to encourage young South African men not to serve. What do they do? On the one hand they talk in this pamphlet about conscientious objection, about religious objection, about morality and on the other hand they advocate the cause of communism and are lauding non-existent Swapo victories. They tell one here how to get out of South Africa, how to avoid military service, and what is happening is that too many young people are being lead astray by sincere religious beliefs which cause them to be exploited politically. That is the issue that I think we have to face. That is the position we have to look at, because we are obscuring this whole issue by trying to paint everybody with the same brush, whereas in fact there are ordinary, sincere people with reasonable beliefs who do not constitute any problem, and they are not large in numbers. Because of what is happening in South Africa, however, a completely wrong impression about conscientious objection and religious objection is being created. I want to say, with great respect, that we are not talking about South Africa not being defended. It is not, as was said by the hon. member for Walvis Bay who has now disappeared, that we are linked to or associated with the enemies of South Africa. Far from it! Fundamental to the whole philosophy for which this party stands, which is peaceful change, is an objection to violence and the assertion that stability must be maintained in South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, may I put a question to the hon. member?

Yes, if it is a decent question.

Yes, it is a very good question. Does the hon. member believe that the war being fought by the SADF is an unjust war?

Oh no! [Interjections.] No, I am not going to run away from the question. Do not get me wrong. I do not run away from any questions.

You ran away from the one I asked you.

I think that the Defence Force, which is led by the Chief of the SADF, is not fighting an unjust war. [Interjections.] I do not believe it is. I make no secret of that. That does not mean, however, that I do not think that there are things that are fundamentally wrong in this country, and nor does it mean that I do not want to see the necessary changes brought about. [Interjections.] The very reason why I want people to be on the border, the very reason why I want them to stop terrorism, is because I think that there are indeed things wrong in South Africa, and they have to keep the line intact whilst we in this House try to change things. [Interjections.] The fact that I am here, and the fact that these other hon. members in this party are here with me, means that we believe that changes can come about in South Africa, that we can change South Africa. We believe it can be altered. We believe there is hope for the people who feel deprived. I can understand people without shelter, people who feel there is no hope, people without jobs, feeling frustrated, feeling helpless. We who sit here in this House, however, have a duty to give hope to those who feel there is no hope. That is what our job is. That is what we should be here for. [Interjections.] That is why I believe that one can actually change South Africa and give those people who are sitting out in the bush, and those others outside there, the hope they need.

I do not think there has been no change in South Africa. There has not been enough, and it may not have been in the right direction, but there has been change in South Africa, and there will still be more change in South Africa. Let me also tell hon. members something else. Just as hon. members in those government benches were saying that what we said years ago was wrong, yet are now advocating the very same thing, they are still going to be saying what we say, except they will always be saying it a little later. [Interjections.] That is what gives me hope. The reason why there must be a Defence Force, the reason why there must be protection against violence, is because there is so much in South Africa that needs to be preserved for all of us for the future. There is no reason why we should have destruction and violence, but there is every reason why we should sit around a table and talk in order to see to it that everything that is good in South Africa is preserved for all of us. [Interjections.] The very fact that we are sitting in this House and participating in the process of government is similar to our taking petrol from a petrol station. Somebody has taken the trouble to get that petrol past someone who wants to have sanctions imposed against South Africa. Taking that petrol is exactly the same as participating in any other facet of the system. If one does, take the benefit, one has a duty to contribute. That does not mean that one should not recognize that there are people who ethically and morally, whether on religious or other grounds, feel they do not want to kill another human being. The fact that I utterly differ with such people does not mean that I think they should be forced to do something to which they are so absolutely opposed.

As I see it, if one were actually to motivate the people of South Africa more, if one were to make the people of South Africa understand what is happening in South Africa, if one were to make them understand why it is necessary to defend, one would have a far better motivated Defence Force and one would find again that the 300 men under Gideon were better than the 29 700 who went away because the 300 won. One of the things in which, with great respect, I believe the Government has failed is in getting the people of South Africa to understand what in fact it is all about, in motivating them and getting them going. That is where, with great respect, I think the Government has failed and gone the wrong way.

When I say to a young man “Go and do your national service”, I do not tell him that he is going to fight for apartheid, I do not tell him that he is going to fight for an oppressive system, if that is what he believes. The reality is that he is fighting for South Africa, for the State of South Africa, and not for apartheid or anything else. [Interjections.] That is what it is all about and that is what needs to be done.

With great respect, Sir, I should like to direct an appeal to the hon. the Minister. Let him show us the statesmanship which I think he could show and which he did show when he was still Chief of the Defence Force. Let him get up and say that he is going to refer this to a Select Committee before the Second Reading. Let him sit down with us and try to work this one out. The reality is that the Defence Force should not be politicized. If one can take it out of the political scene, one will be doing a service not just to one group of South Africans but to all South Africans.

Let me give another example. We are going to have a new constitutional dispensation. It is said that under this new constitutional dispensation majoritarianism will no longer prevail. It is said that there is then going to be a form of consensus government. If there is going to be a form of consensus government, could there be a better example set than for the hon. the Minister to say today: “I will show you that I am prepared to work towards consensus. I will show you that I am prepared to sit down with you to discuss this matter.” That is the way in which it is said that the new dispensation theoretically will work. I think this is a test. If we have a Coloured Chamber, and and Indian Chamber and a White Chamber and we are faced with Defence legislation, what are we going to do? Are we going to use majoritarian principles? Are we going to impose the will of the President? Are we going to impose the will of the President’s Council. Or are we going to try to find each other and consensus? I believe that, if one is going to try to find consensus, there is no better time than the present in which to try to do it. I should like to appeal to the hon. the Minister to do this and to tell us that this Bill will be referred to a Select Committee before the Second Reading.

Before resuming my seat, there is one other matter I should like to touch on, namely the question of the mercenary. I have asked for legislation in respect of mercenaries, legislation to stop the recruiting of mercenaries, and I am pleased that provisions to that effect are contained in this Bill. But for the life of me I cannot understand why it should only be an offence to recruit a man who is in the Defence Force as a mercenary while it is not an offence to recruit a person who is not a member of the Defence Force. I was not here yesterday and I apologized to the hon. the Minister for my absence, but I went through the hon. the Minister’s speech and he did not say a word about that. What is it all about? I believe one should stop anybody from being recruited as a mercenary, whether he is a member of the Defence Force or not. I believe that that change must be brought about and I hope it will be brought about, but I do not know whether the hon. the Minister can do it if this Bill is not referred to a Select Committee before the Second Reading. The trouble is that, if we were to change the relevant provision, we would be changing the principle of the Bill, which is something we cannot do. Therefore, in respect of this too, I believe the Bill should go to a Select Committee before the Second Reading. We cannot have a situation that we are not allowed to recruit people in the Defence Force, but not people outside it particularly as there are a lot of people in South Africa at the present moment who have served in Defence Forces in other parts of the world. I think we will have a very dangerous situation if we do not cover that. That again is a reason why this measure should be referred to a Select Committee before Second Reading.

Before I sit down, I want to make a very simple statement to the hon. the Minister. If he takes the Defence Force out of politics, as it should be, he will then also contribute to lifting the political debates relating to defence out of politics. I have tried to keep out of the party-political scene in what I have said here now. One cannot have a politicized Defence Force. If one has a politicized Defence Force this country will be divided. It is all very well that people talk about the Second World War and the fact that there was not conscription. The reality is that South Africa was divided at the time of the Second World War. No amount of enthusiasm and no amount of anything else that existed among some of us then, can avoid the fact that South Africa was divided at that particular time. Whether there should or should not have been conscription, whether it was right or whether it was wrong, it is all history now on which we can all look back. If South Africa is divided now in respect of defence on political lines, I think the hon. the Minister will lead South Africa into a very serious situation. Therefore I appeal to him to show the statesmanship which, I believe, he is capable of, to show the non-political attitude which many of the leaders in the Defence Force show at every opportunity, and also to show us that he can be big enough, despite anything which has been said in this House, to say that the Government will in fact meet us and talk to us to try to find an answer in order to draft legislation that is acceptable to the people in South Africa as a whole on a consensus basis. I ask him to do that.

Mr. Speaker, I normally listen very carefully to speeches by the hon. member for Yeoville because I do know that he is a man with his feet on the ground, especially when it comes to defence matters. While he was speaking and while I was listening very carefully to him, I heard a remark floating around in the House to the effect that the hon. member was making a Jekyll and Hyde speech. I would not say that. I would say that his speech was a “hand” speech; on the one hand this and on the other hand that. I understand the situation and the dilemma of the hon. member: I quote from the Citizen of 23 November 1981, and in doing so I should like hon. members to recall what the hon. member for Yeoville said in the House today. One thing is certain, and that is that the hon. member did not change his stance. He has remained true to himself. What he said at the congress of the PFP in 1981 he still stands by today. He has not changed. The question is: Did his party change? I do not think it has changed either. I therefore think we still have a problem in that party because the majority of them are soft on security. This is the message which I should like to carry out. I should like to tell the people of Waterkloof that the majority of the hon. members of the PFP are soft on security. I should like to read what the hon. member for Yeoville said in 1981—

In essence this is exactly what he said today. But what was the decision of the congress of the PFP in 1981? Then they said the following—

The whole matter here concerns and revolves around political objectors. The PFP is cloaking it in very fine language, but that is really the essence of the matter.

The hon. member for Yeoville, as I have said, made a “hand” speech. On the one hand he said that his religion states that there is no such thing as a conscientious objector. That happens to be my belief as well. But then the hon. member gave us an example on the other hand. He referred to Gideon of the Bible who was a prime example of a person who said that when people’s knees turned to water they should go home. However, we must not forget that that decision of Gideon was based on religious grounds. It was based on a belief in a Supreme Being who commanded him to do certain things. So this is a religious matter again. In this instance the one-hand speech and the other-hand speech are not reconcilable.

I now want to say a few words about the request for a Select Committee. A Select Committee is now being called for by one of the parties in this House. The CP do not require a Select Committee, the NRP do not require a Select Committee and the NP do not require a Select Committee. One party alone in this House requires a Select Committee. The question is therefore: Why do they require a Select Committee. Is it perhaps to help them out of their dilemma? It is now possible for them to take a stance and to argue very selectively. They have based their whole argument on the question as to whether or not this Bill should go to a Select Committee. That is exactly what is happening in this regard.

It is a smokescreen argument.

It is a smokescreen argument. It is a mechanism to soften the effects of Mrs. Di Bishop’s speech and the effects of the congress decision of the PFP with a view to the Waterkloof by-election. That is all it is. It is a mechanism, a smokescreen. I am waiting for the hon. member for Bryanston to make an interjection. He has really been working himself up. He has been thinking very hard to make a very good interjection. I am listening now. Does he have one to make. [Interjections.] This is really a very simple matter. The question contained in this Bill is not of very wide compass. It is very simple, namely: should a political objector be free not to do military service?

That is not true.

That is the simple question. Should it be only religious objectors or should the provision be widened? That is the whole question.

No.

The hon. member can say “no” as much as he wants to, but that is the question and it has a very small ambit. It is a matter of principle upon which we have to decide in the debate on the Second Reading of this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member whether it is not possible that a man who has no political grounds at all—he may even be a member of the NP—may be an objector? He may be a pacifist in the sense that he is opposed to any kind of war, not on any political grounds and not in respect of a specific war, but he does not want to kill anybody? Is that not possible?

Let me say immediately that everything is possible, but I shall come to that aspect later in my speech.

The hon. member for Benoni used the words “just” and “unjust wars”. Immediately I noticed the hon. Chief Whip of the PFP was on his hind legs. He did not particularly like this usage. I just happen to have the feeling—I might be wrong—that…

It had never been used before in this debate.

Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member for Groote Schuur would rather sometimes make his own speech it would probably give me the opportunity of interjecting while he is speaking. It seems to me as though he never stops interjecting. [Interjections.] The hon. member was immediately on his hind legs, and I just happen to have the feeling that word went out in the PFP caucus that these words should not be used. [Interjections.] The question is of course why, because this is a purely semantic exercise.

But what did I say?

Mr. Speaker, what the hon. member for Yeoville says and what his party says happen to be poles apart. [Interjections.]

I am still tempted to come to this so-called unjust war situation. It seems, however, as though I have to deal with a lot of opposition from the PFP though. The real question is, however, why do people say there is such a thing as an unjust war? They are saying that for political reasons.

Yes, of course.

Hon. members of the PFP are arguing an unjust war situation in a different guise. That is exactly what they are doing.

Who is?

The PFP is doing that. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout does not seem to know the policy of his own party.

*I now wish to state the case as follows. This strategem of the PFP of insisting on a Select Committee at this point is a transparent one, and it must be clear to all of us that there is division in that party which they must try to cover up in this sphere. For the sake of the voters of Waterkloof I want to put it as follows. Do those voters want to vote for a party that is in point of fact divided on the defence of this country? The most important thing in South African today is that the Defence Force be kept strong. There is division in the ranks of the PFP concerning a facet of this, and I believe it is perhaps more than one facet. I want the voters of Waterkloof to take cognizance of this. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Bryanston has now been making interjections for almost six minutes. I hope that he is going to be quiet for the next six minutes. [Interjections.]

I believe that I am speaking on behalf of all hon. members on this side of the House when I say that Defence affairs must be treated with great care and circumspection. However, it is also necessary to show great resolution when dealing with them. When I speak of decisiveness I wish to point out that we should not forget that the survival of the state is in fact at issue here. The issue here is, indeed, the survival of the state, and accordingly this is a matter concerning which we must show great resolution. When we discuss religious aspects we do so with circumspection, because the NP and the Government are very sensitive about this and have very deep Christian convictions in this regard. In addition we want to do the best we can, within limits, for those with strong religious convictions. The Government is not atheistic. It believes in a Supreme Being that controls “the destinies of nations and peoples”. Therefore, when the Government passes legislation of this nature it wishes to do so with circumspection; it wishes to do so in a Christian manner; the Government also believes that other faiths have an equal right to exist. After all, we in South Africa have religious freedom and freedom of belief.

I should also like to associate myself with others and convey my compliments to the Naudé Committee. I should like to thank Brig. Naudé for the years of hard work and the discussions in this regard which also, of course, contributed towards making a Select Committee superfluous, since this matter has already been discussed in depth. I am also very grateful for the sensitivity with which the matter is being handled and for the profound sincerity that it attests to. Whereas we value religion very highly—and I believe that one should try to help people—unfortunately I cannot say the same for a person who has only a conscientious objection. I cannot say the same of such a person, and I shall come back to that again. However, since I am discussing it now, I do also wish to refer to the speech about slave labour which the hon. member for Wynberg made. [Interjections.] He spoke about slave labour.

In the first place I wish to say the following to the hon. member for Wynberg. The religious objector himself who is going to perform community service will regard it as service he performs in the name of his own God. He does not regard himself as a slave. That is his own approach. But the facts of the matter are that he is not a slave. I want to urge the hon. member to read the legislation. If the hon. member looks at the proposed section 72G he will see that it is stipulated inter alia that the State President can make regulations relating to employment, training, qualifications or obtaining of qualifications. Here we have the question of obtaining qualifications, and the hon. member speaks about slaves—that is incompatible. I think the hon. member owes this House an apology, because he is a very senior member of that party. To tell the truth, he is that party’s chief spokesman on Defence affairs.

There is a second matter I want to discuss. The hon. member knows that when he says that those people who perform community service are dealt with as slaves, he is paving the way for saying that national service is also slavery. That is the next logical consequence of his argument.

May I ask a question?

No, not at the moment. I am trying to develop my argument.

*I want to take this point further. One can therefore say of any law with which one does not agree that it is slavery. In this country there is not only an onslaught in the military sphere; there is also a semantic onslaught on this country. We are being subjected to a verbal onslaught; the trick is to attach certain concepts to certain words. This is the onslaught in the sematic sphere. Vague words are used to give a certain emotional content to something that is very far from the truth. That is the semantic onslaught on South Africa. There are expressions such as “unjust laws” and “rightful convictions”. I call upon the hon. member for Wynberg not to lend himself unwittingly—I believe that—to the semantic onslaught on South Africa. He is too important in this country to do that. He must weigh his words. [Interjections.]

I also wish to address the hon. members of the CP in this regard, particularly the hon. member for Jeppe. The hon. member for Jeppe issued a certain pamphlet on the Seychelles affair and I want him to listen to what he said here. He says the following—

How can the hon. member discuss the Seychelles affair under this legislation? [Interjections.]

I cannot understand why the hon. member for Rissik is so sensitive at this point. I am now speaking to the hon. member for Jeppe in a very friendly way and I know the hon. member for Jeppe is a person who is fully able to defend himself if he wishes. The hon. member for Rissik need not fight on his behalf. He is good enough for that. On what does the hon. member for Jeppe, who is a lawyer, base his argument on the finding of the Supreme Court?

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: May the hon. member discuss the Seychelles affair in this debate?

No. That matter is not being discussed. The hon. member is merely using it as an example, and I shall see to what lengths he takes it.

Thank you, Sir. I am using it as an example of the semantic onslaught. The hon. member said that Mr. Justice James had the following to say in the Supreme Court—

Two people—

The hon. member for Jeppe is saying two things here. He says that the Supreme Court found that the Defence Force had known and then he immediately says “The court must therefore accept that certain members …” There were two of them. The hon. member now wants to interpret the finding of the Supreme Court in a certain way. The court found that “certain members knew”. The hon. member for Jeppe is now seeking to intimate that the whole Defence Force knew about it. [Interjections.] If words have any meaning, then this statement is something that requires investigation. I want to say here and now that I believe that the hon. member for Jeppe is well-disposed towards the Defence Force, but I just want us to be cautious in what we do, even though we do it for political purposes.

Is that not what you are doing now?

No, I am speaking very honestly and sincerely.

I am just as honest.

The point is that when we want to keep the Defence Force out of politics we must do so in a proper way. That is all I am saying. We must do so because we have a semantic onslaught, a verbal onslaught on us.

You are part of the semantic onslaught.

There are a few thoughts I should like to air at this stage before dealing with what is in fact the central point of my speech.

When one talks about a religious objector, one must define what one is talking about. One must draw a distinction between a religious objector and a person who is guided by his conscience. This is an important distinction, and if the hon. member for Rissik will give me the chance, I shall try to draw it. It ought to interest him because he is or was a theologian.

When one talks about religion there are four things one has to take into account in drawing a distinction between religion and conscience. The first is that religion is based on a revelation of God; it is therefore based on a revelation from Above. It does not derive from one’s own conscience or one’s own conviction, but is a revelation from Above. Secondly, the teaching which is in accordance with this revelation of God is expressed in articles of faith. The revelation of God is therefore worded so that it can be read. This is not the case with a conscience. Thirdly, it is also true that religion is a system of laws; there are rules that one has to obey. Fourthly and finally, this obedience is the way in which one serves God. I think that that, basically, is what constitutes religion.

Why I have sympathy with a religious objector is that he believes that God, rather than man, should be obeyed. I understand that argument. However, when one comes to the man who puts conscience first, makes an absolute of conscience and says that conscience is the important thing, then one is dealing with a person who wants to equate his conscience with religion. But that cannot be. After all, conscience is something that comes out of oneself and is determined by influences that have an effect on one over a wide spectrum of perceptions. There is one’s education, and it is also, for example, a matter of how one interprets one’s perceptions. That can never be allowed. I therefore say to the hon. member for Langlaagte that that is the difference between conscience and religion.

Conscience comes from within and the other is on a different level. [Interjections.]

What we find when conscience is given primary importance is that there is an exaggeration of the free actions of the individual. There is a socalled human right of absolute free conscience. This is preached, but that is just the basic problem. It has been argued over the centuries that one’s right io obey one’s own conscience is a human right and is therefore primary. It is clear that if everyone were only to live according to his conscience, it would not be possible for a State to exist. In Latin one encounters the expression quot homines tot sententiae—there are as many opinions as there are men. [Interjections.]

I contend that a democracy cannot survive if everyone is able to go his own way. By definition it is impossible if everyone follows his own conscience. Ultimately, therefore, it is the primary human right, the right to live, that is forfeited, because the State cannot survive since everyone goes his own way.

This brings me to the third point I wish to raise. It is surely not only the individual that has a conscience. The Government as such has a conscience, too, and the Government’s conscience makes it necessary for it to protect the people against the onslaughts of Satan and the powers of darkness. The conscience of the Government is a collective conscience. If, then, one does not like the conscience of the Government, there are ways to bring about a change. This brings me to the forth aspect. There is no perfect community, and we all know that. It is also true that it is necessary to render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s. [Interjections.]

With these basic principles as a background I should now like to dwell for a moment on the question of pacifism. I promised that I would get to that. There is such a thing as absolute pacifism, but absolute pacifism makes a society impossible. If evil is not averted, it merely becomes worse. If one is a pacifist, however, one cannot avert the evil because that would be in conflict with one’s convictions. That makes a society totally impossible. Then there is the partial pacifist. The partial pacifists say that violence may only be used to protect defenceless people like children, women and the elderly. But one aspect of this argument is untenable, because it is a man capable of defending himself who has to defend these defenceless people, and that immediately nullifies the argument of pacifism. It does not exist. Pacifism, whether absolute or partial, must be rejected because it means absolutely nothing to anyone. It cannot be defined. It does not withstand the test of reason, and that is the most important test that we, as representatives of the nation, must apply here.

What is the situation in South Africa today? The onslaught against us is a total onslaught. I think we all agree, or do we not all agree? [Interjections.] I think we all agree that the onslaught on South Africa is a total onslaught, even in the semantic sphere. I am now going to quote something, and I should like members of the public—particularly those in Waterkloof—to reflect on what I am going to quote. I want to quote what Lenin said in 1920 (see The Total Revolution, by Dr. Billy James Hargis, page 48 etseq.)—

He says that people must play their role in the Parliaments. However it goes on—

When I say this, I want hon. members to realize that this Parliament can be, may be and also, in my opinion, sometimes is an instrument of communism. I quote further—

†Lenin said—

Having said that, let me ask hon. members of this Parliament to weigh up carefully what they say and when they say it. Saying, for example, that “murderers”—I think the hon. member for Durban Central mentioned that—get shorter sentences, reveals an illogiccal process of thought, because it is a fact that murderers normally get sentences of 10 years or more. Apart from that, however, here, in this amending Bill nobody is being convicted under common law, as in the case of people being convicted for murder, because here one is merely making a statutory provision to reflect the seriousness that Parliament thinks should be accorded to such a misdemeanour. Talking about “murderers” creates a connotation which, I think, merely plays into the hands of our worst enemies. Bearing in mind the fact that we Parliamentarians can be made use of, I ask hon. members of this Parliament to be very careful about the words that they use.

*I must be brief. We are dealing with the Second Reading and I want to say that there will certainly be amendments to some of the clauses. There are some clauses in this Bill which, in my humble opinion, must be changed. The hon. member for Wynberg referred to several clauses that he felt were wrong, and I agree with him as far as some of them are concerned. Therefore amendments will be moved. However, I do not believe that one need go so far as to appoint a Select Committee to draw up an amendment. It would really be very strange. Then every Bill would have to be referred to a Select Committee. Therefore that argument simply does not hold water.

What are we trying to do by way of this Bill? I think that is the important question. By means of the Bill we are trying to say to our young men in uniform: “We appreciate what you are doing. We do not take lightly the sacrifices that you make. Your hardships are our hardships. Our hearts are with you.” We tell them that as regards those people who, unlike them, do not do their duty, it will be seen to that there will be a balance between the service performed by the men in uniform and the service performed by the other people. That is what we are telling our young people. We are telling them that what they do is important to us and that as regards those people who do not perform that service but perform some other service, there must be a weighing-up of interests, so that we feel there is a balance between the man who serves and the man who perhaps does not serve, on religious grounds. That our people must know.

My church, like that of the hon. member for Yeoville, believes that there is no such thing as an objector who can evade national service on the grounds of political considerations. Indeed, my church goes so far as to state that there is no such thing as a religious objector. Nevertheless, I feel that our people must be afforded the opportunity to state their case, even though they belong to another church. This Bill makes that possible. [Time expired.]

Mr. Speaker, I am very sorry that the hon. member for Pretoria West as well as the hon. member for Benoni have used this specific debate for party political purposes. The hon. member for Pretoria West even went so far as to say that he was talking to the people of Waterkloof. It concerned the election in Waterkloof, therefore. I just want to tell him that he will see that those hon. members are going to find it difficult to fight on two fronts, the left as well as the right, in the forthcoming elections. [Interjections.] I do not wish to cross swords with the hon. member about the matter he referred to. I do not think it merits any further attention.

The hon. member for Pretoria West waxed eloquent about how he reconciled religion and conscience. One could say he almost revealed himself as an expert in this field. With reference to one sentence of his, though, I wish to illustrate that there is a difference in emphasis between the CP and the NP. The hon. member spoke about the guidance of a Supreme Being who ruled the destiny of countries and of nations. This party says that we believe in the guidance of a Triune God—Father, Son and Holy Ghost—who will rule the destinies of countries and of nations.

You know it is the same.

It is not the same. That theologian ought to know that.

I want to deal with the Bill which is before us. Of the six components that make up the amendments in this Bill, the amendments that are being proposed in clauses 5 and 6 and in clauses 8 and 9 are of essential and vital importance. Clauses 5 and 6 provide for the composition of the commandos, and serve to bring the establishment of commandos into line with the other two arms of the Defence Force, namely the Citizen Force and the Permanent Force. The repeal of section 45 of the Act means that commando members will henceforth be subject to exactly the same Military Discipline Code and other disciplinary regulations as the rest of the South African Defence Force. It also means, therefore, that the impression which may hitherto have existed that the commandos are not treated on an equal footing with the other sectors of the Defence Force is now being finally removed by means of the amendments which are before us. I consider this to be extremely important, because in the days of voluntuary commando service, there was some reason for the impression that the commandos were an inferior arm of the Defence Force. The impression existed that there was a material difference between the commandos, the Standing Force and the Citizen Force. This was due to various reasons, including a shortage of proper equipment, proper permanent accommodation, proper arms and transport, as well as the voluntary element which was involved and which seriously hampered proper discipline. There were times when one was actually astonished to see the meagre equipment with which a commando was provided during a training camp, for example. This contributed substantially to the declining numbers and interest of the corps of volunteers. What is very important, however, is that fortunately, a nucleus of truly motivated people nevertheless remained in most commandos, people who are going to be invaluable under the new dispensation of commandos in future, especially in respect of the locality-bound task of the commandos. The leaders of commandos are usually inhabitants of long standing in the community who have all the relevant information concerning their region at that fingertips. This is very necessary in the operational task of our commandos.

In some commandos, however, a component is still lacking which does create the impression that they are not on an equal footing with the rest of the South African Defence Force. I am referring to the fact that some commandos still have no permanent headquarter accommodation. Some commandos are still using hostels which have been evacuated but which belong to the province. However, if our rural population were to increase, the province would start using these buildings again. This gives commando members the impression that they are only there in a temporary capacity. I do not think this is in the best interests of the morale of the commandos concerned.

On the other hand, however, one must realize that the defence of our country is a matter which involves the people and that everything should not come from the State. We recognize this in the sphere of health and education services too. It is particularly true in the case of commandos, which are primarily responsible for the protection of the local community. For this reason, it is gratifying to see that there are local authorities which are making their inhabitants aware of this matter and which have indicated—many local authorities have already made a major contribution—that they will actively given attention to this matter. However, I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether the aid provided by the State and by local authorities cannot be co-ordinated so that this extremely important objective can be achieved as soon as possible and permanent accommodation can be provided for our commandos. The commando should be a source of pride to every community. It should symbolize and reflect the morale and inner strength of every community. The commando should serve as an important deterrent to any enemy who would dare to violate our borders and to attack us. Because the amendments in clauses 5 and 6 are putting an end to this apparently inferior status of this extremely important component of the Defence Force, establishing beyond a doubt that it is on an equal footing with the other arms of the Defence Force, we on this side of the House wish to give these amendments our full support.

In clauses 8 and 9, important amendments are being proposed in respect of religious objectors and military service. At the moment, provision is made, in respect of bona fide members of recognized religious denominations which object to military service on the doctrial grounds, for a single period of detention varying from 18 to 36 months according to circumstances. Although this does not create a major problem for the S.A. Defence Force for the moment, since there are only between 100 and 110 of these objectors every year, it does remain a headache for the S.A. Defence Force. A real danger exists, therefore, that the morale of the fighting soldiers may be affected, especially if there is an increase in the number of cases of this nature. I for one continue to find this an inexplicable situation, one which I simply cannot understand. When one asks these people, and I have confronted them more than once, what do they say? If one were sitting in one’s house and someone broke the window and climbed through, entered one’s room, opened one’s wardrobe, removed one’s possessions and then walked out again, what would one do about it? Would one just look on without lifting a finger, or would one react violently? Usually they say: “Of course I would stop him—even if I had to use violence.” If the same situation develops in respect of one’s fatherland, what happens then? Surely no patriotic citizen of a country would surrender life and propery to aliens without striking a blow. However, such is the conviction of these people. I have tried to change their minds, but that is impossible. On the other hand, we are a free democratic country which wishes to uphold the principle of religious freedom as well. It is essential, therefore, that we should try to accommodate these people without damaging the moral of fellow soldiers. We must try to use these people as productively as possible, in such a way that they can be at peace with their religious convictions.

It is interesting to note the experience in the USA in this connection, although one has to concede at once that the circumstances there are substantially different, with regard to the nature of the military conflict in which a country such as that is or has been involved, for example. However, we may examine a few examples of the reasons advanced by the various groups for their refusal to do military service. Firstly, certain peace sects are active there, as in this country, which object to military service on the basis of religion-orientated pacifism. In the second place, there are the humanists, especially since the Second World War, who regard any compulsory military service as a violation of basic human rights. Thirdly, there are the radical leftists who seize upon resistance to military service as a demonstration of their resistance to an unsatisfactory existing social order. Then, fourthly, there is the group which had a specific conscientious objection to participating in a war such as the one in Vietnam. In the fifth place, there is the ordinary cowardly and frightened citizen of the country, who could easily slip in unnoticed, especially if we were prepared to widen the concept of religious objector to include a so-called conscientious objector. In the sixth place, there are the outspoken enemies of their own countries, people who live here, but who simply refuse to defend the country against the enemy.

The strategy of these people has gradually developed into an organized campaign. They have grouped themselves into organizations which have tried to undermine not only the system of national service itself, but also the ultimate aim which a country wishes to achieve in its struggle against hostile forces. In this way, communist-inspired organizations opposed to military service have come into being, such as the Committee on South African War Resistance, the South African Liberation Support Committee, and others. I have with me a circular published by the Durban Conscientious Objectors Support Group. It was sent out after a public meeting on 7 March. Listen to what they say—

Now I ask: What is the attitude of the PFP towards these groups which want provision to be made in this legislation for these conscientious objections? In the Sunday Times of 20 March I read the following, after a PFP caucus meeting—

I agree: Even in families there is disagreement about this, especially in the PFP family. There is great divergence of opinion among them about this matter. The hon. member for Constantia, for example, holds a completely different view from the hon. member for Yeoville. But now the official spokesman of the PFP says the following—

There are 33 countries that allow no exceptions. In those countries, everyone has to do military service.

Now the hon. members say, furthermore, that the Permanent Force should be integrated. The hon. member for Edenvale, for example, said that there should be a fully integrated Defence Force. But what are we going to do when we reach such a situation? In Rapport of 30 January I read that leaders of the Coloured Labour Party expressed themselves as follows: The Rev. Hendrickse, for example, said that people who talked about compulsory military service for the Coloured man were talking nonsense. Mr. David Curry said—

Hon. members should tell me how they can go and wage a war with people such as these in an integrated Defence Force. [Interjections.] Concerning the standpoint, Mr. Speaker … [Interjections.]

I do not understand you. We defend those people, but you attack them.

But do our people not defend them too, Harry?

Of course. I am not denying it. [Interjections.]

Concerning the standpoint of the CP, therefore, there should be no doubt whatsoever. We regret that there should be any ways at all in which South African citizens can evade their national service. Since we are now affording other people, who do not belong to the religious denominations which reject military service on doctrinal grounds, the opportunity of appearing before a board to put their case on religious grounds, I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he does not agree that the danger does exist that other ordinary conscientious objectors, people with well-known, leftist, liberal theological arguments, could possibly pass as belonging to the first, second or third categories of religious objectors. Such a person would in fact be a person with leftist ideological convictions. This is because there is in fact such a small difference and because people can conceal their ideological or political convictions behind all kinds of philosophical or ideological arguments.

Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, we must not lose sight of the fact that experience has shown in America that the number of conscientious objectors in that country rose from 17 900 to 40 000 between 1964 and 1970. I submit that once there is a loophole which people can use, one must expect that there will be an increase in the number of applicants. Therefore we should like the hon. the Minister to give the assurance that if there is any abuse whatsoever of these statutory amendments which are before us, he will not hesitate to come back to this House and to formulate the measures even more strictly so that any form of evasion of national service which may occur can be nipped in the bud.

The freedom and independence of this fatherland of ours has been defended by armed forces more than once. At the turn of the century, it had to be done against a mighty world empire. Then, too, there were evaders of national service, and even defectors or joiners. Surely this is true.

The “hensoppers” and the joiners.

Of course. We cannot deny it. It happened, after all. Surely we cannot deal gently with those people. We did not deal gently with them then, and we must not be prepared to deal gently with them under the present circumstances either. Therefore the CP wholeheartedly supports this Defence Amendment Bill.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Pietersburg has alleged, among other things, that his party disagrees with the NP when we speak of the sovereignty of God. As far as I know, the sovereignty of Almighty God is mentioned in our country’s constitution as well. Therefore I should like to inquire of the hon. member for Pietersburg whether this party intends to rewrite even the constitution if the opportunity were to present itself. Would they do that, too, in order to incorporate this expanded definition of theirs?

I really want to put it to the hon. member for Pietersburg that this seems to me rather like a case of petty hairsplitting, something which is not really typical of him as I have come to know him. Instead, I know the hon. member for Pietersburg to be a dignified hon. member of this House.

He also mentioned the fact that the Government was going to find it difficult to fight on two fronts. However, he omitted to sympathize with the Government in that it has to govern a difficult country while being hampered by unbalanced Opposition parties in this House of Assembly, parties which belong either to the extreme left or to the extreme right and which never approach the road that actually has to be travelled in order to resolve matters in South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, I have no fault to find with the rest of the speech made by the hon. member for Pietersburg. As usual, he was responsible and sympathetic towards the National … the S.A. Defence Force. I almost said towards the NP; that that he certainly is not. [Interjections.] The hon. member’s speech was quite balanced, and I can agree with the rest of the remarks he made.

Now I want to examine the true essence of the legislation we are discussing at the moment. The true essence, the primary principle contained in this, was clearly spelt out by the hon. the Minister in his Second Reading speech. It is to make much more meaningful use, in the service of our country, of our people who find themselves in detention barracks today. Strangely enough, there was not a single indication from the chief spokesmen of the official Opposition as to whether he agrees with this primary principle, as the hon. the Minister called it. On the contrary, he only said that he also wanted to request that conscientious objectors—and I shall come to that later—should also be considered. That was all he asked, without, as I say giving any indication of whether he agrees with the primary principle contained in this legislation. This is the better and more meaningful utilization of our manpower which is completely unproductive at the moment. It is also to prevent our manpower from being sucked into the quicksand of alien ideologies.

We are faced in South Africa—and that is why this kind of measure is required—with a growing and burgeoning massive onslaught on South Africa by international communism. It is clear, after all, that South Africa is one of the advanced and long-term battlefields of the Third World War, and surely it is the duty of every man—I would call it his sacred duty—to defend his country in a defensive war such as the one South Africa is fighting. After all, we are not attacking any other countries. We are not using our Defence Force to gain any territorial advantage whatsoever in any part of the world, and especially in Southern Africa. All we are concerned with is the defence of South Africa against communism and against communist expansion in Southern Africa. We are concerned with the defence of a way of life, with the defence of a Christian civilized order to which the electorate of South Africa attaches very great importance. I want to go further. I want to say that the vast majority of those who are not part of the electorate in South Africa also attach very great importance to this Christian civilized order and are prepared to fight for it.

The hon. member for Wynberg, the chief spokesman of the Opposition, argued that there was a difference in philosophical approach between his side of the House and this side. That is one of the truest statements he made. Surely this is so. It concerns, among other things, the question of whether we should have a bigger permanent Defence Force to defend South Africa or whether we should entrust the protection of South Africa mainly to what we on this side call a citizen army. I think that any objective observer, taking into consideration the magnitude of the onslaught on South Africa, would agree at once that only a citizen army would be able to arrest and ward off this onslaught on South Africa. What is more, there are philosophical differences within that party as well. We know that every time this matter is brought up, it precipitates a crisis in the PFP. Their newspapers spelt out this matter in big black letters in front-page headlines last week, one newspaper after another. The Sunday Times summed it up very well, I though, by saying on Sunday that this was actually a traditional difference within the PFP. Then the hon. member comes along and talks about a difference between our philosophies.

The hon. member for Wynberg also said that we should not politicize defence matters. I can only agree with him wholeheartedly. Immediately afterwards, however, the hon. member got in a political dig himself by saying that certain persons in the NP and in the CP regarded the Defence Force as a shield behind which the status quo should be maintained. What does this vague concept of “certain persons” in the NP mean?

It means that if the cap fits, you wear it, and if it does not fit, you do not.

I shall come to that argument. I just want to say to the hon. member that if it is really true that only certain persons hold this view, why does he mention it? Surely, then, it is not important after all, because there are no philosophical differences in the NP such as there are in his party. We got rid of those in a very painful way. The hon. member makes this vague allegation which is a subtle suggestion that this side of the House is using the Defence Force as a shield in order to maintain the status quo in South Africa, in spite of the fact that the Government has repeatedly assured this country that it intends to bring about orderly change in South Africa. I wonder how he and the hon. member for Yeoville reconcile their standpoints, because the hon. member for Yeoville said so unequivocally. The suggestion which was made was actually veiled reference to the old idea of an unjust war and an unjust society. This is undoubtedly so. The hon. member for Yeoville said—and he was very clear about it—that no unjust war was being waged at the moment. [Interjections.] What is more, the hon. member for Yeoville stated unequivocally that he recognized that changes was taking place in South Africa. The other hon. member, however suggests that we are using the Defence Force as a shield in order to prevent change in South Africa. I want to warn the hon. member that they must be careful in making this kind of remark. One really wonders about the sincerity of his request that the defence of our country should not be politicized. One really wonders about that when one looks at this, for what is the S.A. Defence Force actually shielding South Africa from? He himself admitted that it was a shield against the onslaughts that are being made on South Africa by Swapo and the ANC.

There is one serious question which I want to put to the hon. member: What does he think the effect of this may be on the thousands of young men—who are members of his party—who are rendering very loyal and outstanding service to South Africa in the S.A. Defence Force at the moment? I ask him why he is questioning in this way the motives of the Government in its utilization of the S.A. Defence Force.

It will inspire them.

On the contrary; there is surely a real danger that our young men may be negatively influenced. The hon. member for Yeoville showed us a pamphlet which was being published in order to influence people not to do military duty, but in spite of that, the hon. member for Wynberg, with this suggestion of his, plants a poisonous seed in the minds of his own young men, where it will eventually germinate.

I have referred to Swapo’s onslaught and that of the ANC. Swapo, in the words of its leader, Sam Nujoma, is a self-confessed Marxist organization. We know that the ANC’s military wing is led from Mozambique by a self-confessed South African communist, Joe Slovo. He is at the same time a colonel in the Russian KGB. Recently the fact that the ANC is a communist-Marxist organization was literally proclaimed to the world by a group of Black South Africans who testified to this effect before an American Senate Committee. One of them, Mr. Thlapane, recently paid for this with his life, when he and his wife were killed by ANC terrorists.

I am not alleging for a moment that the hon. member for Wynberg is implying by this that he would be prepared to put up with the kind of change that the ANC and Swapo would bring about in South Africa if they were to overcome the resistance of the S.A. Defence Force, but I am warning him that there is nevertheless a subtle correlation which he has to bear in mind in this particular connection.

Hon. members also argued that national service should not play such an important role. It was also said that South Africa’s wars had always been fought by volunteers. To a large extent this is true, of course, as far as the two major wars are concerned, but surely the situation at that time cannot be compared in any way with the present situation. Surely South Africa did not stand alone in the face of a powerful Red Bear whose young were being encouraged to go for South Africa’s throat.

Was South Africa not endangered in the Second World War? [Interjections.]

But surely that is not relevant; what I am saying is that we were not standing alone with our backs to the wall, facing a colossus that was threatening us.

However, I want to come back to the essence of the Bill. As I have said, it is primarily concerned with the question of religious objectors, and it attempts, with their co-operation—that is what makes the Bill such a positive measure—to create a better and more meaningful dispensation for them in South Africa. After all, we know—this has been mentioned by quite a number of hon. members, and therefore I am not going to dwell on it—that in many cases, conscientious objections, moral objections, ethical objections, whatever one likes to call them, merely serve as a smokescreen for people who are actually political objectors. This reminds me of an occasion at which I was present a number of years ago, when a senior Portuguese general, Genl, de’Arriaga—some of the other hon. members probably heard him as well—addressed us and brought us this message: “I want to warn you that the communists will increasingly attack the principle of a system of compulsory military service and the loyalty of your national servicemen in South Africa.” He sounded this warning on the basis of Portugal’s experience in this connection. Now I want to say to the hon. member for Wynberg: for heaven’s sake, when you talk about reducing the importance of compulsory military service, do be mindful of these considerations and do not play into the hands of the people whom, I hope, you fear as much as I do.

I want to come back to the need to expose ideological objectors and to the ANC as a communist organization. As I have said, the hon. member for Yeoville has shown that pamphlets are published by other organizations as well. We know that apart from its military wing, the ANC has other wings, arms, organs, whatever one wants to call them. One of these is the Internal Reconstruction and Development Department, whose clear aim and task it is to recruit White and non-White students and lecturers for this particular organization. There is another arm as well—it was mentioned by the hon. member for Pietersburg. I am referring to the Commission on War Resistance. It is the clear and definite aim and task of this commission to discourage national servicemen from doing military duty. This is an organization which says of itself that it wants to become the cancer in the blood of the S.A. Defence Force. Nor is this an idle threat. They are already succeeding. In a paper which is one of the most responsible publications supporting the official Opposition in South Africa today, namely the Star, the following report appeared on 2 May 1981 under the heading “South Africa in a state of civil war—Yeats”—

Here we have the clearest indication of the fact that these people are succeeding. They have recruited this man as one of the men they have influenced. Who is he? He is a young man with very fine talents and with leadership qualities. He was head boy of his school and Natal schools’ rugby captain. Him they have influenced and taken with them on the road which can only lead to destruction for South Africa. If we open that road to a few people, then, as has rightly been said, it could eventually become a destructive torrent as far as South Africa is concerned.

I must make haste. My time is running out. The hon. member made another statement which I want to refer to. Actually, I hesitate to do so. He said that we should remember—this was another subtle suggestion—that under the new dispensation, the same legislation would have to be submitted to a House of Assembly which would be differently constituted. This gave me some food for thought. I think it greatly upset a number of people outside, people of a different colour from ours. Is the hon. member actually suggesting that those people who will be with us under the new dispensation will be less loyal to South Africa, its cause and its struggle for survival than the White electorate of South Africa? I should like to inquire of him whether this is what he is suggesting. Why this subtle reference to the fact that it will come before those people as well? I do not think they are going to thank him for this. I think what he said was a very ungrateful slap in the face of people who are defending South Africa’s borders with great distinction in their hundreds and even in their thousands today, together with our *sons.