Mr. Chairman, when progress was reported last night, I was indicating that a total onslaught was in fact being made on South Africa. I produced the evidence to prove this.

This onslaught is not only making itself felt from outside; it is also becoming strongly evident inside this country. There is the denigration of our Police Force, which is aimed at undermining the acceptability of the police as maintainers of law and order. We are also experiencing an increasing onslaught on national service. Suspicion is being cast on the system of national service. The motivation of soldiers is being undermined by conscientious objections concerning a so-called unjust dispensation and a so-called unjust war which we are waging. We have even experienced it in this house on the part of the official Opposition. We have seen how some hon. members of the official Opposition have participated in this in debates in this House.

The onslaught and the attitude of some of our people towards the Defence Force in this country are incredible. A good example of this is Nusas, which has become one of the front organizations against the Defence Force. Nusas campuses have become nothing but hotbeds of anti-Defence Force activity. They keep propagating the idea that we are waging an unjust war. It is also on the Nusas campuses that conscientious objections originated.

The hon. the Prime Minister has asked the hon. the Leader of the Opposition to take a stand against this. We are still waiting for a reply from the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. We want to ask the hon. the Leader of the Opposition whether he is silent because he wishes to protect Nusas. Does he sympathize with these people who are campaigning against our Defence Force in this way?

South Africa’s military power is a great stumbling block to our enemies. Therefore our Defence Force is the chief target of our enemies. Moscow is very disappointed about Swapo’s poor performance in South West Africa and about the successes of our Defence Force. Moscow is getting impatient. Its instruments, Swapo and the ANC, are being subjected to enormous pressure to produce results. Moscow’s immediate objectives in Africa are to strengthen its influence in our hostile neighbouring States, to increase the military strength of those States and to engage South Africa’s forces on as many fronts as possible.

It is not alarmist to say that the Republic and its people must expect to be increasingly subjected to an onslaught which will be total in its magnitude and escalating in intensity. Between this Marxist onslaught and the Republic of South Africa stands our Defence Force, and because our Defence Force is too hard a nut to crack militarily, the propaganda machine is being used in a psychological war against our Defence Force with greater intensity than ever before. It is no exaggeration to allege that the Republic is at present being subjected to the greatest propaganda onslaught in the world. In this, the most important objectives are to break the will of our people and to demotivate our soldiers. About 25 big radio transmitters direct approximately 40 000 propaganda words against South Africa every day. They broadcast mainly hard propaganda against South Africa, based on half-truths and blatant lies. And the basic aim of this propaganda onslaught is to broadcast lies and to brand South Africa as the destabilizer in Southern Africa because of its action against terrorists and against terror.

Mr. Chairman, I say that our Defence Force must not suffer. If our Defence Force were to suffer as a result of this psychological campaign against it, South Africa would suffer. We have a fine and effective Defence Force. Our Defence Force has an outstanding disciplinary and military record. Our young men have shielded us from the acts of terror that have been planned and great sacrifices have been made in the operational area over the years. We pay homage to our young men for this. However, we must ward off this onslaught on us and we cannot leave it to our Defence Force alone. Each of us will have to make his contribution to the moral strengthening of our Defence Force men every day from now on. We must stand by them. They need us. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Bloemfontein North will forgive me if I do not follow him because I would like to deal with a couple of other things in the very short time available to me.

Firstly, I would like to take the opportunity of formally saying farewell to the former Chaplain-General. I want to thank him for the co-operation that we have always received from him. If I may, I would particularly like to thank him for the co-operation that he has shown to the chaplains of my particular religion. It is that particular subject that I would like to touch on briefly in order to express my thanks to the S.A. Defence Force for the manner in which they approach both the Jewish chaplains and the Jewish servicemen. The S.A. Defence Force goes out of its way to deal with the dietary requirements of Jewish servicemen in respect of the provision of kosher food for them. It also goes out of its way to assist them where they seek to keep the holy days of my religion and arrangements are made, both in respect of leave and the attendance of services, which are much appreciated by me personally and, I believe, by my community as a whole.

I would also like to express my thanks to the chaplains who render service to the members of my community in the S.A. Defence Force. The publication, for instance, of a special newspaper, Shma Koleinu and the trouble taken with it, is appreciated. I would also like to express my thanks to the members of small communities, where there are training camps, who go out of their way to assist Jewish members of the S.A. Defence Force, particularly in respect of Jewish holy days. This does not go unnoticed and unappreciated by us. Whereas there may be individuals who might abuse these privileges which the S.A. Defence Force gives to them, they are very small in numbers. I want to assure the S.A. Defence Force that the majority of the community and the community as a whole, as well as the servicemen, appreciate this. Every now and then one also has complaints that there are anti-Semitic acts by individuals, but I think that those are isolated cases. I can testify to the fact that the authorities act whenever they are made aware of them. We believe that religious freedom is allowed in full in the Defence Force. My thanks and the thanks of members of my community go out to the Defence Force for the approach that is adopted. It is perhaps not necessary to say it, because religious freedom should be axiomatic, but sometimes it is necessary to say the obvious, and I feel I want to say that today.

I want to touch on another matter. There has been some reaction to remarks which I made yesterday in this debate on the Defence Vote. I want to make it clear that I have persistently stated, long before I even became a member of this party, that the solution to South Africa’s problems lies in the political, economic and social fields. If anything, I, more than most politicians, have concentrated on the need for economic reforms to go hand in hand with political change. This is why I for instance have called for an extension of free education rather than for a retraction of it, as well as for greater efforts to remove discrimination in pensions, etc. It has always been my philosophy that change must come about by peaceful means, and to this extent I have advocated a shield theory which I have repeatedly tried to explain. It means that we must also have a strong Defence Force. I am opposed to violence and to terrorism. The Defence Force can only be strong if it has adequate manpower, effectively used and motivated. That is why I have asked over years and years, long before it became fashionable to do so, for a stronger, multiracial permanent force, which I believe to be cost effective.

An effective Defence Force must also be efficiently equipped. That is why I believe there are gaps, which it is my duty to point out and which I have tried to point out yesterday. My caucus has not authorized a request for an increase in defence expenditure, but it has to my knowledge not asked for a reduction in defence expenditure either. Nobody has suggested that the new procedure and the matters set out in the explanatory memorandum are not correct.

I believe that we must have a well-equipped, cost effective and efficiently motivated Defence Force. I believe that that shield is necessary. I want our soldiers to have guns that are as good as those of anybody ranged against them. I want our airmen to have aircraft which can keep up with those which they may have to meet in combat. I want an early-warning system that can alert us to an attack and I want our sailors to have ships that can keep our shores effectively guarded. If there are people who do not want that I want to make it clear that I am not one of them.

Mr. Chairman, the proposed Armscor development on the Bredasdorp coast falls within my constituency. I am very closely involved in it and I naturally take an intense interest in the project. Hon. members will understand that this is bound to be the case. It is interesting that the hon. member for Wynberg should have said yesterday in reply to a question that there is a Myburgh who owns land in that region. I should like to know from him whether this person is related to him.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: Is the hon. member insinuating that I have a special interest in the land and that that was my reason for raising the matter in this House?

Why did you not declare your interest when you spoke?

He has already declared it.

Order! The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South must contain himself.

If the hon. member would just allow me to finish my sentence, he will probably understand what I mean. I was going to say that if this person was related to him, I believe he should have declared his family’s interest in this House.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: It is quite clear that that hon. member is endeavouring to suggest that the hon. member for Wynberg has an interest in De Hoop. Such a suggestion is improper. The hon. member for Wynberg said in his speech that there was a Myburgh—there are many Myburghs in the country—who has land there. I believe you should rule the hon. member’s comment out of order because the hon. member for Wynberg has already said that there is a Myburgh who owns land there. He declared that. Because there happens to be a Myburgh there, there is no suggestion that it is a close relative or one of his ancestors.

The hon. member for Swellendam may proceed.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: Let us get the situation very clear. It is not proper in the House to advocate a matter in which one has a financial interest. The insinuation of the hon. member for Swellendam is that this is the case here.

I asked a question.

Either you rule, Sir, that it has not been done here or you rule that he should withdraw it. One way or another, this has to be cleared up. One cannot have the situation where an hon. member makes an insinuation and then sits down. Either he says there is no insinuation or, alternatively, he withdraws it. We cannot let this rest as it is now.

Order! What did the hon. member for Swellendam mean? Did he mean to insinuate anything against the hon. member or did he not?

I was not trying to make any insinuations. I was simply asking a question. I wish to know whether that Myburgh is related to the hon. member. All I want is that he should say so in this House if this is the case. I have no ulterior motives.

So you are making that insinuation.

I do not interpret the question put by the hon. member for Swellendam as an insinuation. The hon. member for Swellendam may proceed.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: Is it then proper for me to ask whether the hon. member for Swellendam has recently stolen any money? That, too, would only be a question.

Order! I have ruled that I do not interpret the words of the hon. member for Swellendam as an insinuation. The hon. member for Swellendam may therefore proceed. [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order …

I am not hearing any further points of order on this matter. I have given my ruling. The hon. member for Swellendam may proceed.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order …

Order! I am not hearing any further points of order on this matter. The hon. member for Swellendam may proceed.

Mr. Chairman … [Interjections.]

I think it is a scandal; a damn scandal! [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman on a point of order: Is it permissible for an hon. member to say in the hearing of other hon. members in this House that it is “a damn scandal”? I do not know whether this is a reflection on you or on the hon. member.

Order! Who used those words?

I said it was a scandal, and I was referring to the hon. member for Swellendam. It is parliamentary to say that something is a scandal. The hon. the Prime Minister has used those words repeatedly and has not been ruled out of order.

Is that a reflection on the ruling of the Chair?

Sir, I say it is a scandal what this man has said. If what he said is parliamentary, it is still a scandal that he said it.

Order!

With respect, Sir, …

Order! I am still dealing with another point of order.

I want to deal with the point of order of the hon. member for Krugersdorp.

Order! The hon. member for Hillbrow must resume his seat. May I ask who the hon. member is who used the words concerned?

Mr. Chairman, I was in the act of rising. I used those words. I withdraw them. They were aimed at the hon. member for Swellendam.

I also used those words, Sir, and I am not withdrawing them, because they are parliamentary.

You said it was a scandal, but the hon. member for Krugersdorp indicated that another hon. member had used certain other words, which he has now withdrawn.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: The hon. members do not understand the meaning of Afrikaans. That question contains no insinuation.

Order! I have already given my ruling on that. The hon. member for Swellendam may proceed.

Sir, I hope I may have some injury time. [Interjections.]

If you want to play dirty, you will get what is coming to you.

Order!

The undisputed success of our forces in their struggle against terrorism, recently as well …

Now you are dropping it, are you? Now you are afraid.

I shall come back to that hon. member. [Interjections.]

Order!

The success which our forces have achieved recently in their struggle against terrorism is something which every patriotic South African is proud of.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: Did the hon. member for Yeoville not call the hon. member for Swellendam a “rubbish” (“vuilgoed”) by way of interjections?

Did the hon. member for Yeoville say that?

I did not say he was a rubbish. I said he threw rubbish across the floor of this House.

The hon. member must withdraw that.

I withdraw it. Sir, but…

Order! The hon. member for Swellendam may proceed.

Sir, in spite of the pride we take in this, there are nevertheless people in this House who believe that terrorists are freedom fighters. The hon. member for Constantia, Di Bishop and others are people who want to pretend that terrorists are freedom fighters. I cannot believe for a moment that people …

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: Is the hon. member entitled to say that there are people in this House who believe that terrorists are freedom fighters? In my view, it is a clear indication of disloyalty.

Order! The hon. member for Swellendam may proceed.

In my opinion, those people who believe that terrorists are freedom fighters are simply sabotaging the forces that act against terrorism. One cannot say that a terrorist is a freedom fighter without opposing the Defence Force and Armscor in their attempts to combat terrorism; that would be hypocritical. [Interjections.]

When one looks at all those who hold this opinion, and when one asks who these people really are, there are, apart from the Di Bishops … [Time expired.]

Before I call upon the next hon. member to speak, I should like to read a statement to the Committee.

During the debate on the Defence Vote yesterday, the hon. member for Jeppe used an unparliamentary expression which he was ordered to withdraw, and having refused to do so, he was ordered by the Chair to withdraw from the Chamber. He left the Chamber through the door behind Mr. Speaker’s chair and kicked open the door with a loud crash which was heard everywhere in that part of the building, which is behind the Chamber, as well as in Mr. Speaker’s office.

As I told the Committee I was going to do, I have discussed the matter with Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker agrees with me that the hon. member was guilty of extremely reprehensible behaviour, which amounts to gross disregard of the dignity of this House and can be regarded as contempt of Parliament.

The hon. member appeared before Mr. Speaker and myself in Mr. Speaker’s office, where the hon. member undertook to apologize to the Chair and the Committee, and I now afford him the opportunity of doing so.

Mr. Chairman, after the incident that took place yesterday, I realize that in my anger I behaved in an undignified and contemptuous manner, towards the Chair as well as this Committee, by kicking the door at the rear of the Chamber while I was leaving the Chamber. I tender my apology to you and the Committee.

Mr. Chairman, during the discussion of this Vote yesterday, various hon. members stated or requested that we should not politicize the discussion of this department’s Vote. I should like to try to clear up this point so that we can know what is meant by the politicizing of this Vote.

A few days ago this issue was also raised during the discussion of the Law and Order Vote. On that occasion the Minister concerned said that there was no question of that Vote, dealing with the S.A. Police, being politicized if we talked politics during the discussion on it. I think that the same ought to apply in this case.

If there are hon. members who say that we should not politicize the discussion of this Vote, I say it is nonsense; I do not agree. It has now become fashionable, particularly on the part of hon. members of the NP, to appeal to us time and again not to politicize this or that specific Vote or matter. These days there are even hon. Ministers who rise to their feet and make that request.

I think it is time we made it quite clear to one another that it is the right of Opposition parties in this House to reveal and expose political conduct and the political management or mismanagement of the affairs of a specific department. If Government members are touchy or oversensitive about this, I feel sorry for them. This will not prevent us, as an Opposition party, from scrutinizing the political management by an hon. Minister of his office. One frequently gets the impression that when the Government members do not have arguments with which to counter a political attack from the Opposition parties they try to hide behind the smokescreen of “we must not politicize the matter”.

Gen. Malan, our esteemed Minister, is the political head of the Department of Defence, and in that capacity he must expect his political opponents to make the most vehement attacks on him. Surely there is nothing strange about that. I believe the hon. the Minister is also quite capable of defending himself, even against the request of the CP that he should resign from his post because of the Seychelles débâcle, as Lord Carrington did during the Falklands affair. I believe that the Minister will be able to defend himself properly in that case as well. I repeat, the hon. the Minister is quite capable of defending himself, in my opinion, defended himself yesterday when the hon. member for Wynberg wanted to get at him over the De Hoop test site. Gen. Malan—and I should like to make this very clear—was a great soldier and a man of sterling character. However, we must be able to distinguish very clearly between his political capabilities as Head of the Department of Defence and the Department of Defence as such. We have no quarrel with the Defence Force or with members of the Defence Force. If we have a problem with a specific set-up in the Defence Force, we feel ourselves completely free to go to Gen. Malan and his men and clear up the matter with them. Naturally we shall, during the discussion of the Defence Vote, touch upon matters we feel should come to the attention of the Defence Force. For example, I have a problem in connection with the rights and obligations of commando members who are used at police roadblocks. I do not have the time to discuss it this morning, but I feel completely free, and I shall do so after the discussion of this Vote, to approach the General and his men in order to clear it up.

I want to return to the question of the politicizing of this Vote. What is meant by that? One of my colleagues will refer to a contribution which Gen. Viljoen made in an edition of Paratus, namely “Die man in uniform se politiek”. I think it is necessary that all our hon. members should read that contribution by Gen. Viljoen in connection with the position of the Defence Force soldier in politics. I want to repeat, the hon. the Minister of Defence is not above reproach. He will constantly be called into account by his political opponents for the way in which he deals with his portfolio. He can be sure about that, and surely there is nothing wrong with that. One of the occasions when it can be done and ought to be done is in fact the discussion of this Vote of the Minister. He will have to reply to many questions, including whether the Defence Force is allowed to use a helicopter to convey the hon. the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning to Thabazimbi to hold a small, closed meeting at a private house. Is that permissible, Mr. Chairman? I say no, it is not. I say it is disgraceful. It is disgraceful that the Defence Force’s money is being squandered in this way to convey NP politicians in order to engage in NP political activities. [Interjections.] After all, this was State money, and to crown it all…

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: Does the hon. member Mr. Theunissen not accept the explanation of the hon. the Minister of Defence?

Order! That was not a point of order. The hon. member Mr. Theunissen may proceed.

Mr. Chairman, I really do not know what the hon. member for Kroonstad is talking about now. I have not yet heard any explanation from the hon. the Minister. All I know is that the hon. the Minister side-stepped the whole issue, and quite rightly so too. The hon. the Minister was acting completely within his rights. The question was not put to him correctly. That is why I am now putting it again. [Interjections.]

Order!

I believe that the hon. the Minister must reply to us on this matter. As I have already said, it was taxpayers’ money that was used to convey the hon. the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning over the enormous distance to participate in NP political activities, and it was done with the money of the S.A. Defence Force. Is this not in fact a good example of how the affairs of the Department of Defence are being politicized by or on the authority of the hon. the Minister?

Chris Heunis instructed him to do it. [Interjections.]

If the hon. the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning had only gone to address a public meeting instead of to hold a small, closed meeting, it would not have been quite so bad. The result of his meeting was of course that quite a few of the people who went to listen to him that night voted for the CP on 10 May. [Interjections.]

Order!

The hon. the Minister of Defence must please tell South Africa now whether it has become a permanent practice for aircraft of the Defence Force to be used to convey NP politicians all over the countryside to participate in political activities. [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr. Chairman, I could carry on for a long time quoting examples of how the Government is using public bodies to conduct NP politics. We must please not exhort one another not to politicize this Vote. [Interjections.] I repeat that it is absolutely absurd. The hon. member for Durban Point also knows this of course. Where is the once fiery hon. Vause Raw, who could hold his own in such a formidable way? Hon. members should go and read the speeches of that hon. member in Hansard. But yesterday he was the one who argued here that we should not politicize the Vote. All he is doing now is to make cooing noises in transit, on his way to the NP. [Interjections.] Where is that once powerful politician of earlier days, who could participate in such a formidable way in the discussion of this Vote and who in his day gave several hon. Ministers a really torrid time? Hon. members should read in Hansard the speeches which the hon. member for Durban Point made in earlier years. [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr. Chairman, I believe the hon. member for Kroonstad did this House a disservice yesterday by hiding behind the argument that we should not politicize this Vote.

It is you people that politicized it, and you are still doing so.

Mr. Chairman, I put it to the hon. member for Kroonstad that he is a political dry cleaner. [Interjections.] He must realize that in Kroonstad he is a political dry cleaner. [Interjections.] Yesterday he also abused his privilege of speaking in this House by impugning the integrity of an hon. member of this House.

You must remember that you are a guest of the NP in this House.

The hon. member did so by uttering an untruth here. [Interjections.]

I shall dry clean you free of charge in Kroonstad. You can be sure of that. [Interjections.]

Order!

The hon. member for Kroonstad impugned the integrity of another hon. member of this House by way of untruths. I think it is disgraceful. That is why, Mr. Chairman, I say he is a political dry cleaner. In fact it astonishes me that the NP in the Free State have become so politically bankrupt that they have appointed a back-bencher as spokesman in this House, one who is, to crown everything, a political dry cleaner. [Interjections.] [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I listened attentively to the hon. member Mr. Theunissen. On one aspect of course I agree with him, and that is that the hon. the Minister of Defence is quite capable of replying himself to any accusations that are levelled at him.

The hon. the Minister must simply accept it. [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, we have a splendid, wonderful, fine Defence Force.

All we have to do now is get rid of the hon. the Minister. [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr. Chairman, our Defence Force is doing wonderful work in the interests of South Africa and its people, and of course for the sake of our survival.

Similarly we have a wonderful hon. Minister of Defence. I would even go so far as to challenge anyone in this House to try to step into the hon. the Minister’s shoes. I do not think it behoves us to try to disparage the hon. the Minister or our Defence Force. That is why I think it is necessary for us on this occasion to emphasize the fine things, the goods things, which that Defence Force is doing in the interests of our country. For this reason I should like to devote a few minutes to the actions and the successes of our Defence Force in the operational area as well as here in the interior of the Republic of South Africa.

The actions of the S.A. Defence Force during the past year have demonstrated on the one hand that the Defence Force is in full control of the operational situation, while the successes attained testify on the other to a highly effective operational ability. The S.A. Defence Force has consolidated its position in South West Africa and has shown time and again that whatever the whereabouts of Swapo may be, the Defence Force will take the initiative by means of aggressive and offensive actions in order to ensure the peaceful continued existence of the peoples of South West Africa. By the end of 1982, increasing pressure on Swapo by the Security Forces had caused the number of incidents within the operational area to decline to the lowest level in almost four years, although Swapo is deployed in depth in southern Angola where they enjoy the protection of Angolan and Cuban forces.

The defensive posture which Swapo has been forced to adopt, has, for the most part, caused its offensives in Kaokoland and Kavango to fail, while contact with Security Forces is being avoided in Ovambo. Swapo’s terror campaign has, as a result of its enforced low profile, been concentrated primarily on intimidation of the local population and an extensive landmine campaign against the security forces. However, the effective counter-measures of the Security Forces have led to 170 Swapo landmines being located, lifted and deactivated. The shooting down of a Mig-21 and the serious damage inflicted on a second Mig-21 by the S.A. Air Force in southern Angola during operations against Swapo have also shown that the S.A. Defence Force has an excellent air-defence capacity and will not tolerate interference by countries harbouring terrorist movements. At present there is irrefutable evidence that Swapo morale has plummeted to its lowest level since the bush-war began in 1966. In a desperate attempt to regain lost face and focus world attention on them, Swapo launched a large-scale offensive in February and March 1983 in an effort to penetrate to the White areas. Timeous and effective security measures and Security Force actions, however, defeated Swapo’s purpose and almost 300 infiltrators were killed during contacts with the Security Forces while most of the rest fled to the protection of their host country.

The combat services of the S.A. Defence Force, in co-operation with the S.A. Police, scaled new heights in respect of joint operations; at present they constitute a very formidable opponent in the insurgency struggle and are receiving wide support among the local population of South West Africa. During the past year 1 131 terrorists were killed, 72 wounded and 86 taken prisoner. There was a total of 325 contacts with Swapo, of which 250 were initiated by the Security Forces. The high percentage, viz. 76%, initiated by the Security Forces, gives one a good idea of the low morale and defensive posture of Swapo. The presence and the purposeful activities of the S.A. Defence Force in South West Africa continue to be the stabilizing factor in this area.

During the past year the medical support service of the S.A. Defence Force in South West Africa has made great progress. The surgical capacity of the medical services within the operational area has been considerably expanded and at present they have three fully-equipped operating theatres. The removal of an M-60 rifle grenade from the chest of a member of the S.A. Defence Force in February 1983 is an example of the service which is being rendered and clearly shows what the South African medical service is capable of; I think this is a wonderful achievement.

An exceptionally high premium is also placed on medical assistance to the local population in South West Africa. The hon. the Minister referred to that yesterday when he pointed out that more than 200 000 members of the local population had been treated by our medical practitioners.

Lesotho also took cognizance of the determination of the S.A. Defence Force to attack terrorists acting against the RSA in their base areas. During December 1982 the S.A. Defence Force carried out a very successful operation against a number of ANC targets in Maseru during which 32 ANC members were killed and a large quantity of documents and weapons were seized. These seized documents and weapons confirmed that the ANC in Lesotho is actively engaged in operations and plans for operations in the Orange Free State and the Eastern Cape.

The rendering of assistance by the S.A. Defence Force is not confined to South West Africa and the operational area, but is prevalent over a very wide spectrum both inside and outside the RSA. At the time of the cholera epidemic in kwaZulu the South African Medical Services made medical staff available that contributed to the successful control of the epidemic. With the countrywide drought assuming disastrous proportions, the S.A. Defence Force has already made a generous contribution for which we are just as grateful. Water supplies were provided at the request of kwaZulu, Ciskei and Transkei, while many other operations have been launched all over the country to help deal with the water shortage.

The rendering of service to the public is characterized by the large number of requests during emergencies. Airforce helicopters have frequently been the only hope of survival and hazardous rescue operations have had to be carried out over difficult terrain and under extremely unfavourable circumstances. The flying skills of helicopter crews have saved many a life after mountain climbing accidents, after searches for people lost in snowstorms and during rescue attempts at sea.

The S.A. Navy and the Maritime aircraft of the S.A. Air Force have also made a major contribution in search and rescue role through the location and rescuing and general rendering of assistance to a number of ships and yachts in distress.

The S.A. Defence Force has contributed generously to the internal safeguarding of the RS A by supporting the S.A. Police during country-wide road blockades, cordons and search operations. So one can continue.

The S.A. Defence Force also plays a very important part in the protection of national key points by means of area protection and direct support.

That is why the hon. the Minister and the S.A. Defence Force deserve the sincere gratitude and appreciation of the Committee, and we wish to give them the assurance that we are justifiably proud of them.

Mr. Chairman, before dealing with a number of specific matters, I want to turn first to a question which was asked of me by the hon. member for Constantia who is not here at the moment.

He challenged me yesterday by asking where I got it from that there would be a Joint Standing Defence Committee. Here is the official Government publication setting it out, and among the Standing Committees we find clearly, Justice, Finance, Defence, Foreign Affairs, etc. This is clearly shown in this official document on the new constitutional structure. It is interesting that that party which spends three days fighting the new constitution does not even know what is in it, what the implications are of its administrative structure and how it can contribute to a greater participation by Opposition parties in the governmental system. They vote against it, but they do not know what is in it.

I also want to deal with the question of the missile range and De Hoop. I was surprised that the spokesman of the official Opposition, after having asked for the privilege of the half-hour, should have devoted his whole speech, the total time that he used, to this one issue. Anyway, that is his business. I want to say that this party is as concerned as any other party which is committed to conservation and the protection of our natural heritage in South Africa. We particularly have an interest because of our connections with Natal and the Natal Parks Board with its tremendous record of nature conservation. Therefore, we believe and want to see that, if possible, there should be no interference with nature reserves. Unlike others, we do not believe that the way to go about it is to make a public hullabaloo. I thank the hon. the Minister for discussing the matter with me and for agreeing to meet a delegation, including people concerned with conservation, at a date still to be arranged. I hope that it may be found that there is some alternative which will avoid having to intrude in any way into what without any doubt’s a unique piece of our natural heritage.

I want to turn to the object of this debate, which is the budget. Strangely enough, nobody has referred to it yet! In the budget we are asked to vote R3 092 million for the defence of South Africa. When one looks at this and studies it, one finds that R772 million is allocated for personnel, while over R2 000 million is allocated for stores and equipment. I emphasize this to show how in modern warfare with modern weapons the weight of expenditure comes on the hard-ward and less than a quarter on people. I believe that makes it all the more necessary and important that we pay the greatest possible attention to the men and women who make up the Defence Force, to their problems and to their welfare and to do the best we can as a country to compensate them for the dangers they endure and the sacrifices they make in the operational area.

I am sorry to have to say it, but I believe that apart from the dedicated leadership of the S.A.D.F., and I pay the fullest tribute to it, there is sometimes a difference between those in the operational area doing the job on the ground and many of those polishing office chairs behind a desk in South Africa. I think we have to try to get across the message that we are in a war and that it is not just the soldier up there who has to work 24 hours a day, but everybody who is concerned with this defence effort. I know many who are, many who work long hours with complete dedication, never questioning the demands made on them. However, there are unfortunately many who look on it as an eight to four job, who come in, read the newspaper, have their tea break and pack up and go home at 4 o’clock irrespective of the workload that has to be carried over to the next day.

There is only R465 000 spent on management systems. I believe that this is a priority. If there are people in management positions who are not reflecting the necessary dedication, they must be moved out to make way for people who do show the necessary enthusiasm, ability and merit. We have a merit system. People are promoted on merit, but we cannot hold people with ability back because there is somebody occupying a particular desk but not putting the required input into it. I believe the management aspect has to be looked at, not in the operational area—where I believe our leadership is outstanding—but in some of the lower office positions where it is looked upon as just a job.

The result of this comes out in problems that people have, such as the hardy annual, pay. I must admit that national service and Citizen Force pay has been tremendously improved. There is still the odd complaint, but they are the exceptions now. There may be one or two a week or sometimes only a few a month. Those are exceptions which one always will have. However, unfortunately the Permanent Force pay position is far from satisfactory. Anybody joining the SADF Permanent Force today will be extraordinarily lucky if he receives a pay cheque at the end of his first month. His first pay cheque will come somewhere in the second month or at the end of the second month. There have even been cases of some having to wait up to three, four or five months before receiving the first pay cheque. This is not good enough. In the SATS, with 200 000 employees, a man who joins gets his first pay cheque at the end of his first month, not two months later. There have been cases—they can be confirmed—where families had to borrow money from the Defence Fund or the various welfare funds to carry them over the first month or two. This should not be so. It is unnecessary. It comes back to management. Pay is part of the management system. If necessary we have to engage civilian experts and keep them in a civilian capacity to help in this regard. This is done by other countries. Where they have a specialist job of that nature, they bring in specialists to do it, and not national servicemen or clerical members of the Permanent Force, however good they may be, who have not had specialist training. Although there has been a great improvement in regard to Citizen Force members and national servicemen, there are still gaps. I believe that specialist attention is what we need there. I can go on, but I do not intend doing that.

There are also other fields where the same principle applies. We have to accept the overall fact that everybody is involved in an operational effort. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I take pleasure in speaking after the hon. member for Durban Point in this debate. He acts responsibly and he always expresses positive ideas.

If I have time left at the end of my speech, I should like to come back to the speech by the hon. member Mr. Theunissen. It is very clear to me that that party is still licking the wounds inflicted upon it in Soutpansberg. We shall have to give some attention to them.

I want to pay tribute in a few words this morning to the wife of the Defence Force man. We appreciate what is done by the Defence Force and we take cognizance of it. Most Defence Force men, except perhaps national servicemen—although many of them are also married—have wives and families. Some of them are privileged to have their wives and families living close by and they can sleep at home every night. Some of those who are stationed near the border may be fortunate enough to have their families in bases closes by. Others simply have to leave their wives and children behind while they are taking courses, attending camps or doing border duty. Wherever the wife may find herself, she has to make sacrifices. One cannot conceive of the longing, and sometimes the fear, which these women experience. Just think of the woman whose husband has to go out to sea for a long period or the woman whose husband has to go and do battle in a fighter aircraft beyond the country’s borders. We cannot imagine the burden of fear and anxiety which she has to bear alone. I am thinking in particular of the woman living on a remote farm. Her husband sometimes has to leave the farm for a long period, up to three weeks, to attend a camp or to do border duty. Then she remains behind with their children and their problems and she has to take charge of the farming operations. No soldier can be happy or perform really effectively if he is constantly worrying about what is happening at home. He cannot perform effectively if he is always receiving negative letters or reports from home. No, Sir: In spite of the anxiety, the longing and the sacrifices, the wife of the Defence Force man pulls her weight and contributes her share. Therefore I believe it is appropriate to have it placed on record that we pay grateful tribute in this House to the wives of the Defence Force men.

I also wish to say a few words about the sport policy of the S.A. Defence Force. If it had not been for sport practised in the Defence Force, Northern Transvaal could have stayed at home tomorrow and they need not have come to compete here. [Interjections.] Where there is such a concentration of energetic young people, it is essential that opportunities should be created for them to practise sport. Provision is made in the Defence Force for the practice of 43 different sports, 15 of which have full provincial status. In those sports, therefore, the S.A. Defence Force can compete with full provincial status in national championships and against visiting teams from abroad. The gifted sportsman or woman is afforded an opportunity to succeed and to improve while doing military duty. Some of the best coaches and facilities are made available to them.

The list of achievements by the S.A. Defence Force in the field of sport is indeed impressive. I want to single out just a few. In 1982, 42 members became South African champions, 48 members were included in South African invitation teams, and 67 members were chosen as Springboks in 13 different sports. They reaped the highest laurels which a man or woman can reap in his or her country. However, that is not all. For the sixth successive year, the S.A. Defence Force won the South African wrestling champships. Western Province team of the S.A. Defence force won the South African fours bowling championships. This is an enormous achievement. The cycling team of the S.A. Defence Force won the Rapport cycling cup, and I could go on in this way, pointing out the achievements of the soccer teams, the weight-lifting teams, etc.

However, I want to refer to a further point. It is clear that sport is also being used in the total onslaught on the Republic of South Africa. More and more calls are being made in the international sporting world for boycotts to be implemented against the Republic of South Africa. Certain elements are drawing up blacklists of sportsmen and women who are well-disposed towards the Republic of South Africa and who still want to compete against us. Some are being forced to withdraw from participation.

This all forms part of the total onslaught on South Africa. In spite of this, the S.A. Defence Force is also practising sport at the international level. Not only do they practise it; they have been most successful. I do not have time now to mention all the achievements, but I want to refer to just a few of the sports in which the S.A. Defence Force has competed internationally during the past year. I am thinking, for example, of boxing, tug of war, fencing, wrestling, rugby, yachting, mounted sports and women’s hockey. I should like to dwell for a moment on women’s hockey, because there have been splendid achievements in this respect. I want to mention for the record that two women’s hockey teams, an A team and a B team of the S.A. Defence Force, visited Chile and Paraguay last year. The A team played eight matches, of which two ended in a draw, while the team lost one and won five. The B team played four matches, of which it won two, while two ended in a draw. This is a fine achievement for our people at the international level.

It is clear to me that the S.A. Defence Force has sportsmen and women of world stature. They are also being used to combat sport isolation. In doing this, they are contributing their share in this sphere towards warding off the onslaught on South Africa. We pay tribute to them and we thank them for that magnificent effort and the success they have achieved.

The hon. member Mr. Theunissen made a great fuss here this morning about the fact that we were allegedly blaming the CP for wanting to politicize the discussion of the Defence Vote. What matters to me is not whether they want to politicize it; it is the way in which they are doing it. The CP is collecting material in order to spread some more gossip. That is what they are doing. [Interjections.] I should like to ask them one question. They keep trying to get at the hon. the Minister. If the hon. the Minister replied to those questions of theirs, would they accept those replies? They do not accept those replies, because many of the questions they have asked have already been answered by the hon. the Minister. However, they keep repeating them, because they want to get the answers which would suit them. What is at issue, therefore, is not the politicizing of the discussion of defence matters, but the way in which hon. members of the CP are going about it. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I listened with interest to the hon. member for Winburg. Those of us who have been through the struggle of war, know of the problems that wives have and we fully appreciate them. I believe that the S.A. Defence Force also appreciate them. Furthermore, we are aware of the role sport plays in helping us to produce men who are able to withstand the rigours of battle.

I would just like to say to the hon. the Minister that last year during the discussion of the Defence Amendment Bill we drew his attention particularly to the effect that that Bill would have on the economy. When I went with the hon. the Minister to visit the Northern Natal Command, it seemed as if the arguments we placed before the hon. the Minister were reaping good benefits. It seems as if the S.A. Defence Force is paying attention to the economy to ensure that people are able to earn their livelihood as well as to do their duty. In addition, I should like to say that I do appreciate the fact that the hon. the Minister had large numbers of his staff here yesterday, and they are here again today, so that they can see in which way the supreme authority namely Parliament is responsible for the funds for the defence of South Africa. Parliament, the civil authority is the supreme authority over the S.A. Defence Forces and it is this House which will maintain that situation for ever in the future.

With the passing of the Defence Amendment Act all White males between the ages of 18 and 55 are now obliged to serve in the Defence Force. The rendering of military service carries with it a corresponding obligation by the State. The question I want to deal with is: What does the hon. the Minister consider the obligation of the State to be to the ex-servicemen, the veteran, the “oud-stryder”? For the purposes of this discussion I would prefer to call him the veteran. A few months ago I heard of an unfortunate incident concerning a young man of 20 years of age who happened to have an accident in the Defence Force and who is now a 100% paraplegic. Here is a man who for the rest of his life is going to be suffering because he will be unable to do anything. There are many men who are injured during a war or doing military service. I should therefore like to deal first of all with the Military Pensions Act, No. 84 of 1976. This name is a complete misnomer. It is not a military pension at all. It is a Military Compensation Act. I believe that it falls under the wrong department. It should fall under the hon. the Minister of Defence and not under the hon. the Minister of Health and Welfare. I believe that the time has come when this particular function should be taken away from the Department of Health and Welfare and placed directly under the hon. the Minister of Defence. I shall tell hon. members why. In 1976 the compensation for war veterans was fixed at R300 per month. In 1983 they are receiving only R450. In 1981 there was a 12% increase; in 1982 a 15% increase and in 1983 a 10% increase. The situation today is that the compensation which they are receiving is 50% up on what they received in 1976 while inflation is well over 100%. Is this all that the State is giving to those men who have served their country and who have suffered disabilities as a result of the service that they have given to their country?

I ask the hon. the Minister, if this matter is put under his control, that the question of discrimination with regard to colour should also be eliminated. At present the basis is on a ration of 6:4:2, namely six for Whites, four for Coloureds and two for Blacks. I believe that this discrimination should be avoided. I therefore make an earnest plea to the hon. the Minister to bring this Act under his control.

I have in my possession, and I am prepared to give it to the hon. the Minister, details in connection with all the federal benefits for veterans and their dependants which are given by the American Veterans’ Administration. It is amazing to see the benefits they offer and the way in which they look after their people. In addition to compensation, there are clothing allowances, pensions, hospitalization, nursing home care, prosthetic appliances, educational assistance, veterans education programme, vocational rehabilitation and GI-loans for homes, condominiums and mobile homes. These are the sort of things that the hon. the Minister must bear in mind because he now has all the males of the country under his control from the time that they turn 18 until they reach the age of 55. It is here that I believe that the hon. the Minister in trying to implement this must make use of the ex-servicemen’s organizations. There is the S.A. Legion which has done a tremendous amount of work, and they are pleading that there should be some overall veterans’ organization. At present there are 15 of these organizations. I should like to make an appeal to the hon. the Minister to call a congress of all these organizations together in order to try to form one overall veterans organization whom he can consult. Then, as a result of that, I should like the hon. the Minister to form a veterans’ division in the Department of Defence that would fall under his control. There is one but it is very small and it really does not give sufficient cover. I believe this should now be expanded and that efforts must be made now in order to obviate any future problems because the day may come when this will be really needed, and that day may come far sooner than we expect.

As I have already said, all affairs in respect of war veterans should be taken away from other departments of State and be placed under the jurisdiction of this hon. Minister. I also believe that there are certain international organizations to which South Africa could well belong, and which could be of great benefit to our country. I have sent Genl. Wally Black a copy of a document containing the name of one of these organizations, and I hope something will come of it. I hope the hon. the Minister will make provision in this regard for the future.

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the hon. the Minister whether there is any truth in the story I hear that Armscor has invented a new type of atomic bomb that can destroy things without hurting people. The story is told that somewhere in the Karoo, a short while ago, Armscor carried out an experiment at which the whole of the general Staff of the S.A. Defence Force in uniform attended to watch.

You must have got that story from the CP.

It was decided to drop this particular experimental bomb at Koppie Alleen. The bomb was dropped, destroying the whole mountain. There was a tremendous cloud of smoke but nothing else happened. Then, suddenly, out of the thick cloud of smoke came an old man with a long white beard. He had an old Mauser over his shoulder, and he was riding an old, broken down horse. [Interjections.] He rode up to the Chief of the Defence Force and said to him: “Is jy ’n Britse offisier? De Wet of te nie, maar ek hensop nou!”

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Bezuidenhout has raised objections relating to military pensions, which, according to him, are not adequate. I believe that not a single hon. member of this House would object to provision being made for these people within the financial means of the country, so that they may also receive their rightful share, irrespective of rank, colour or race. However, I believe that the hon. the Minister will reply to him fully as far as this is concerned.

I want to devote my attention today to an aspect of the S.A. Defence Force which I believe to be extremely important. Moreover, it is probably one of the cheapest elements in our Defence Force, namely discipline. It is a fact that discipline is necessary in every sphere of life. A lack of discipline impairs the smooth functioning of things. In fact, discipline functions in every sphere of life, and in this House as well. We have already seen what the consequences can be if an hon. member of this House cannot contain himself.

Discipline is an extremely important factor in the Defence Force. I want to emphasize this here today so that the public may take cognizance of it. Only too often, I believe, does one hear the remark being made in public that discipline in the Defence Force is perhaps unduly strict. The maintenance of discipline among people is essential for the mutual recognition of rights, to instil respect for what belongs to oneself as well as respect for the possessions and value systems of other people. Discipline in the S.A. Defence Force is the cornerstone on which the morale of our soldiers and the success of their striking capacity rest. After all, success boosts morale. However, success is not possible without the maintenance of discipline. Discipline creates mutual confidence and respect. It also causes subordinates to have respect for their leaders.

In dealing with the S.A. Defence Force, after all, we are dealing with a structure of authority in our country, a structure which has to maintain law and order and security in our country. A healthy, disciplined Defence Force is a prerequisite for security and order in this country. That is why it is perhaps regrettable that the tendency should have arisen among people these days to criticize and cast suspicion on the hon. the Minister of Defence. In the process, doubt is also lost on the credibility and good faith of the highest authority in the protection of our country.

In this respect I want to endorse the remarks made by the hon. member for Wynberg. When questions are asked to which the hon. the Minister has in fact replied, one should also have the discipline to accept the integrity of the hon. the Minister and the truth of what he has said.

Discipline is essential for the corporal in the operational area or wherever he may be, so that he may know that when he has given orders, those orders will undoubtedly be carried out to the letter. If he doubted whether they would be carried out, it would cause him to hesitate. On this it would depend whether an operation was going to be a success or a failure. This would mean the difference between victory and defeat. In many cases it could and would mean the difference between life and death.

The SADF gets a young man today when he is more or less in the 18th year of his life. To some extent, that young man has already been subjected to discipline or a lack of discipline in some or other direction. The Defence Force gets these young men from all spheres of our society. It gets the disciplined ones, but it also gets the other ones who are undisciplined and who have other problems as well. From this mixture of personalities, the Defence Force has to build up an effective force, and we realize how essential discipline is in this connection. The hon. member for Sandton referred to various branches yesterday where this discipline could be instilled into the young man. The disciplined young man who respects the rights of others, who respects authority and who carries out his orders conscientiously, will also be able to exert a beneficial influence on the other one through word and deed.

Discipline has always been regarded as one of the most important aids to military success, because the soldier still remains the single best asset of any defence force. We heard last night of the tremendous progress in the technological field and of the development of our weaponry. Behind every trigger, at the controls of every vehicle or aircraft, behind every gun or missile, there is a soldier who has to carry out an order but who can also carry out that order conscientiously and accurately. This is the result of discipline. The importance of discipline in a defence force was recognized from 1779 to 1879 by Jomini, and has also been recognized by Norman Copeland, the 20th-century military writer, and by Norman F. Dickson. They all rated discipline very highly. Jomini spoke about strict humane discipline and singled out previous successes. Norman Copeland spoke about leadership, discipline, professional training, good equipment and a record of success, and Norman Dickson spoke about military success, discipline and good leadership. I am just referring to this in order to demonstrate how extremely important discipline is considered to be, because good leadership also arises from discipline and military successes are a result of discipline. The Chinese writer Sun Tzu said the following about discipline—

The late Gen. Smuts also realized the importance of discipline when he was Minister of Defence in 1913, and due to a lack of time, I shall quote briefly from a speech by him in this connection—

Looking back on history, one will always realize that disciplined forces, such as the Roman Legion and the forces of Alexander the Great, were successful because of discipline, while those who lacked discipline went under. Such States were described by the historian Herodotus as “formerly great in the olden days”.

Jean Jacques Rousseau wrote that bringing up children was a profession in which one should know how to waste time in order to gain time later. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I want to devote a few minutes to a very important service in the Defence Force, i.e. the Chaplains’ Service. As I see the Chaplains’ Service of the SADF at the present moment, it is based wholly on Christian principles. I congratulate the department on the exceptionally high quality of the service furnished by the Chaplains’ Service.

This afternoon I firstly want to take the opportunity of very heartily congratulating the new Chaplain-General, Maj.-Gen. Chris Naudé, who just happens to be a voter in my constituency, on his promotion in this very important service of the Defence Force. I trust that he will be able to give long and fruitful service, in this connection, to his compatriots and his fatherland. When I think of Maj.-Gen. Naudé assuming this important post, it is special for me because, as far as I know, this is the first time in history that someone has taken over such a post in a church during an actual church service. I think that this is of the utmost importance to the Major-General at the commencment of his service.

The Chaplains’ Service of the SADF cannot be done full justice in a speech of 10 minutes; it is too extensive and comprehensive for that. In that work which is, in the first place, done at a spiritual level in the course of normal Defence Force activities, there where individual members of the Defence Force are spiritually cared for—including those doing military service—we are dealing with that very important spadework, that job of steeling the hearts of our soldiers. That is the work that must steel their hearts for that struggle they must engage in, that must imbue them with courage and must strengthen their faith so that they can devote every effort to the service they are to render. I believe that since the Defence Force, and in particular the national servicemen, are periodically embroiled in the active struggle—whatever form it may assume—the work of the chaplain is of the utmost importance. These people, in entering that struggle, risk losing their lives. In entering that struggle, they risk losing limbs, an arm, a leg or an eye. They may be maimed for the rest of their lives. In such a situation it is, as far as I am concerned, the service that the chaplains render to those people that enables them not only to take those risks but also, subsequently, if they become victims, to embrace life with their faith, in the full knowledge that the sacrifice they made for their compatriots and their fatherland was not in vain.

A medical doctor once told me that in his profession the minister of religion was that “sky-pilot” who helped him to keep his patients at the high level of morale necessary to help them recover from their illnesses. I believe that every chaplain in the Defence Force is such a “sky-pilot” who, to a large extent, facilitates the task of the Chief of the Defence Force and the hon. the Minister. I think the time has slowly come for the Defence Force to give attention to a problem to which the church has also gradually been giving attention to. Here it is not merely a question of any one church, but actually one of various churches. I am referring to the question of the steadily decreasing number of candidates for the ministry available each year for employment in the Chaplains’ Service over the period of their military service. I am concerned, because if this trend were to increase, with this supply continually diminishing, the Chaplains’ Service is probably going to suffer, since the permanent staff would perhaps be insufficient to help out at all those levels where these servicemen do such very important and excellent work as chaplains today. I know that this is not a very real problem to us at present because the faculties still have a reasonable supply. More and more is, however, being said about this in church circles, and articles are also being written, in church publications, about the fact of these decreasing numbers. As far as I am concerned, it goes without saying that it is going to happen; in fact, one is only being realistic in realizing that it is going to happen. I believe that if the Chaplains’ Service is to maintain its high standard of excellent service, it is gradually going to have to give more and more attention to the position of its permanent staff, so that if the temporary staff decreases in number, the service will not suffer as a result.

There is also another problem that I have. I have thought about this for a long time. I was very hesitant about raising the matter here, because it is a very delicate one. I do believe, however, that it is my calling as a Christian to say this here today. If I am to be condemned for doing so, let me be grateful that I can take it as a Christian. In the new dispensation that is going to be introduced in terms of the Constitution Bill, the concept of Christianity is built in by way of the preamble. The idea of a Christian view of life that must be adhered to, is built into the preamble. As far as I am concerned, the Chaplains’ Service of the Defence Force is based on Christian principles. I therefore want to make a serious plea to the hon. the Minister not to allow people of the Islamic or Hindu faiths to become chaplains. This is a very serious matter indeed. It is not something one can simply dismiss as further evidence of contemptuousness. It is very serious. I want to lodge a plea with the hon. the Minister not to have the Defence Force open its doors to such a situation. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I want to associate myself with the hon. member for Koedoespoort and also say a few words about the Chaplains’ Service of the Defence Force. This is one of the sources of great joy for the Church as a whole in South Africa. Today this special service is accepted as an integral part of the S.A. Defence Force. If there is one person today who deserves praise and appreciation for the particular role the Chaplains’ Service plays in the S.A. Defence Force, it is the hon. the Prime Minister. In the 14 years that he was Minister of Defence, he ensured that the necessary money and means were available to expand the service into the fine service it is today in the Defence Force. I want to praise him for that today. I also want to praise the heads of the Defence Force who fully supported him in this effort.

The finest thing of all is that it does not cost the churches a single cent to keep this service going, because the department itself bears the cost. I wish I had the time to give all the relevant figures to the House. Today, however, I just want to single out one aspect, i.e. what is done, broadly speaking, in regard to the distributing of Bibles.

In 1983 almost 20 000 Bibles, in four different languages, will be distributed amongst the local population in the operational area. Work is also being done in Angola, where almost 12 000 Portuguese Bibles are being distributed. Work is also being done amongst members of the South African Defence Force, where virtually 50 000 Bibles, more than 30 000 church periodicals and almost 2 300 Christian books are being distributed. More than 200 Christian films are also being shown on a continuous basis. In addition to that 35 000 hymn books are being distributed, as well as 250 000 pamphlets and brochures on religious subjects. This is all being distributed by this fine service.

It is therefore my privilege today to convey the thanks and appreciation of the Government and the S.A. Defence Force to the Chaplains’ Service for what they mean to people in the operational area and elsewhere. It is interesting to note that an opinion poll held amongst national servicemen indicated that 70% of them regarded the Chaplains’ Service with particular affection.

I want to put the hon. member for Koedoespoort’s mind at rest by telling him that he does not have to be concerned about any decreasing trend in the availability of chaplains, candidates for the ministry or ministers themselves—in other words, those labouring in the service. This matter is, of course, being given very high priority. At the moment the 1 062 chaplains, serving more than 100 different denominations, are doing work of everlasting value amongst their more than 30 000 members.

This service, to put it in a nutshell, has one aim in mind—this ought to offer the hon. member for Koedoespoort some consolation too—and that is to bring God’s peace to the hearts of our soldiers. This service thus complements the activities of the S.A. Defence Force.

This morning it is our special privilege to have, in the officials’ bay, the previous Chaplain-General of the Defence Force, Maj.-Gen. Koos van Zyl. Apart from his organizational abilities, and those involving service to his fellowmen, over the years he has made a very indelible mark in the Chaplains’ Service of the S.A. Defence Force. He has, however, done even more: As far as spiritual matters are concerned, he has laid down very clear guidelines over a very wide spectrum of Defence Force matters. Now one of his collegues, with the collaboration of other colleagues, has dedicated a beautiful booklet as a tribute to Maj.-Gen. Van Zyl, and today I want to appeal to hon. members in the House, as well as members of the general public, to get hold of this booklet, because in this small volume, entitled In hierdie Teken, many of the guidelines laid down by Maj.-Gen. Van Zyl are listed and spelt out. They involve cardinal issues, and I should like to highlight a few.

In the first place, just a few words about the believer and the onslaught against us. I cannot emphasize strongly enough: It is a fact that the revolutionary threat to us is a total one which is increasing in intensity. If the hon. member for Koedoespoort is concerned about certain things in the new dispensation, let me tell him that I am equally concerned at the tendency in his party, and in the PFP, to represent the onslaught aimed against us as being of lesser importance, even ridiculing this total onslaught against South Africa. Not only do I regard this as extremely irresponsible, but I also think it is extremely un-Christian to adopt such a standpoint. Not only is this onslaught a physical and military one, but it is also one that is aimed at the will and the spirit of our people. It envisages the total destruction of South Africa: Its life-style, its religion and its culture, and let us see whether we hear more about this from the CP in the future.

The believer’s answer to this onslaught against us is, in two words, spiritual preparedness. For the believer this is not difficult, because he is armed with Ephesians 6. Secondly, the Christian is an active soldier for Christ. Let met ask this morning: Does South Africa have an answer for this? I want to say that for the Christian believer the onslaught against our country is a reality, because he realizes the true essence and nature of this conflict directed against us. He realizes that it depends on him whether we shall survive or not. Therefore we must not, in the first place, be more concerned about what people outside can do, but rather about our primary responsibility within this framework. We must also ensure that we meet our responsibilities.

A second guideline from the discourses of Maj. Gen. Van Zyl, as contained in the booklet In hierdie Teken, relates to the Christian’s attitude to war as such. We cannot get away from the fact that war is a ghastly reality. When one is dealing with ABC weapons, one can no longer speak, in the ordinary sense of the word, of defence mechanisms. Then there are also questions such as that of pacifism, which, for example, denies that fact of sin. I shall come back to this in a moment. Sin has various manifestations, and it does flourish. The Bible warns us that there will be wars and rumours of wars. That is why spiritual preparedness is so tremendously important in this connection. Spiritual preparedness does not prohibit physical preparedness, i.e. military preparedness. Pacifism or militarism, on the other hand, is unacceptable, because it represents negative standpoints.

What is the correct approach? The approach of religious realism is the only correct approach there can be. One supports the defence of one’s country, whilst realizing, too, that war is not a solution to the world’s problems, but rather a result of that sin that will live on until the Second Coming.

In South Africa there are two specific matters that are of cardinal importance. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Brits raised a very important matter. Nobody would deny that promoting a state of preparedness among the people of our country is most important. In the light of that, I should like to raise another related matter.

†Before doing so, Mr. Chairman, I should like to associate myself with all the remarks made by various hon. members in connection with the hon. the Minister, the General Staff, the officers, warrant officers and men of the SADF, and in particular in respect of those who have lost loved ones during the course of the year and those who suffer from wounds and are in any way casualties.

I should like to refer to the speech made by the hon. member for Edenvale just to get a benchmark from where I can proceed in relation to the 80%-20% balance between political and psychological warfare as opposed to military warfare in counteracting insurgency or revolutionary warfare. I think that one must accept very clearly that the objective in any revolutionary war is a political objective. If we keep this very clearly in mind, we will realize how terribly important it is that we in fact do win the hearts and the minds of our own people as well as the enemy.

For that reason I would like to touch on one or two points of dissatisfaction or areas to which I think we should pay attention. I am talking about issues which are points of dissatisfaction amongst serving members. With the new system of military service, the SADF has a tremendous influence on the lives of all our men, particularly on the young men in their formative years undergoing their initial training. Nearly all of them will pass through the Army, Navy or Air Force. Resulting from that training and subsequent training they form attitudes about certain matters and I think that the SADF must be very careful in this respect.

The first question I want to raise is the use of both official languages. I know that this matter has often been debated long and hard and very emotionally. However, I do not believe that we are in a situation today where that sort of response will be evoked, but I do believe that the situation is far from satisfactory at certain camps and on certain courses. Whilst it obviously must be an ideal, and I accept it as an ideal, at top level to bring about a complete balance in this sphere, it is also important to note that despite all efforts it has not been achieved. Circumstances still pertain in which people attend courses that are largely unilingually conducted in some cases there is not sufficient course material or documentation and that sort of thing in one particular language. We know there are real problems involved in this matter. We also know that there has been a massive increase in the input of personnel who go through these courses and this puts the staff in a situation where they do not have the time that is necessary to do the translatory work. However, that has been an excuse for a very long time. I really think the hon. the Minister must set a campaign in motion to rectify this aspect entirely. I should like to know from the hon. the Minister whether it is an on-going effort, particularly at training level and particularly amongst the younger men who come into contact with this where their opinions are formed. One hears a lot of criticism about it and one needs to approach the problem with confidence and not be small about it. There are certain areas, however, where it is very difficult to combat this because one can only combat the problem by bringing the situation as near to the ideal as possible. It is no good our simply saying it is our ideal and that we are striving for it. A campaign must be instituted now to but the matter right. The S.A. Defence Force has gone through so many vital changes and it has done so much with regard to training and its weaponry that I think it is now time that we must look at our people and we must take a hard look at how we can improve that situation and put it right. We must have a specific on-going campaign to iron out this particular problem because it will not come about on its own. I say this because by sheer weight of the fact that there are, in fact more Afrikaans-speaking members than there are English-speaking members and by the natural use of one’s own language one finds a preponderance of one language or the other. This is an area of dissatisfaction and we must get rid of it. We do not need it any more.

Another area where I believe the hon. the Minister should get together with his staff and have a rethink is the method of introducing the new service conditions, particularly in the commandos. There is a tremendous amount of dissatisfaction with the present method of identifying priority areas and giving them all the attention and neglecting certain units whose few volunteer members have now become conscripts—for want of a better word—who are bearing the entire burden whilst many other people are sitting back and are not involved. We believe and the people with whom we have spoken believe that a far better way of doing it, whilst giving attention to the priority areas, would be to institute a phased call-up of people and let the units concerned get on with training their recruits. In many cases they will not be entering the Army for the first time, but they can be termed recruits. It can be pointed out to these units that further relief is on its way and that they are not going to have to go on carrying the burden for much longer. There are units which have become so thinned out where the hard core of the members remained behind, only because they knew legislation was being introduced—and it was a long time coming—and because they saw light at the end of the tunnel, and expected relief within a reasonable period after the introduction of the legislation, but they have in fact been told two things that have caused a great deal of, dissatisfaction. The one is that it is going to be some time before they can get any help in this respect and the other is that in the urban areas many of those who should be serving are not going to be called up. That might be incorrect, but the impression that has been created is that in the rural areas they are all going to be called up, but that in the urban areas they are going to be more selective and some of the urban people are not going to be called up.

I want to make two points in this regard. Since most of our people live in the urban areas it seems only logical to me that that is the major source from where our manpower will come. In order to ease the present situation, I believe, we will have to push the boundaries of certain urban commandos further out thereby decreasing the area of certain rural commandos. If necessary commando members in urban areas could even render services in magisterial areas adjacent to their own areas, as they have done in the past.

The second point I want to make is that if that is not practicable and if everybody in urban as well as rural areas cannot be used on an equitable basis, some arrangement should be reached with the hon. the Minister of Law and Order in order to utilize those extra people in the police reserve force. There is no doubt about the fact that our police force is understaffed. We are actually planning an expansion programme in the S.A. Police Force over a period of something like ten years. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for King William’s Town chiefly referred to two problems, which he also brought to the hon. the Minister’s attention. One was the question of bilingualism in the S.A. Defence Force and the other the question of the implementation of the commando system. I think it is unequivocally the policy of the S.A. Defence Force that bilingualism should prevail. I believe that where this does not happen, here and there, it would be possible to put the matter right under the guidance of the hon. the Minister. I am also convinced of the fact that the bottle-necks in connection with the implementation of the commando system—an overloading in urban areas and an under-loading in the rural areas—are also aspects that could eventually be put right. I think the hon. member will understand that it will still be quite some time before the system can be efficiently implemented.

I should now like to link up with a subject that was raised very effectively yesterday afternoon by the hon. member for Pretoria East. I am referring to the whole question of destabilization. For a long time now South Africa has been accused of purposely destabilizing some of its neighbouring States. There are, in particular, spokesmen of the State Department of the USA who hold this view, and at the end of last year an article also appeared in the magazine Africa Report under the title “South Africa’s hidden war”. According to this article a senior spokesman for Frelimo had the following to say, and I quote—

According to this article South Africa’s so-called destabilization efforts in Mozambique embody the following aspects, and I quote verbatim from the article—

In order to test these accusations, and also to determine whether South Africa really is guilty of that, one would have to obtain clarity about what precisely is meant by destabilization. I think this specific form of destabilization, of which South Africa is being accused, has certain characteristics. The destabilizer isolates certain resistance groups within a specific target area or target country and then lends them military support, the object being to get rid of the existing Government in that target country. These groups are then given military support because ideologically they are supposedly more acceptable to the destabilizer than the Government of the target country.

In the light of this exposition of this specific form of destabilization, it is now being alleged that South Africa is giving military support to certain resistance movements because the resistance movements concerned are ideologically more acceptable than the Government in those existing target areas. I believe, however, that that is a complete over-simplification of the situation. What are the facts? In terms of this specific exposition of destabilization it is surely as clear as daylight that it is pre-eminently the Soviet Union that is doing the destabilizing. Surely it is general knowledge that it is specifically the military wing of the ANC that is receiving military support from the Soviet Union so as to overthrow the existing Government by violent means, the reason being that ideologically the ANC is more acceptable to Russia than the existing Government. The Soviet Union uses the freedom struggle of the ANC with the eventual objective of establishing a Marxist system of government here. It is also interesting to note that at present the South African Communist Party and the ANC are so close that one could not even separate them with a pin. I just want to focus hon. members’ attention on what Oliver Tembo said in London last year during celebrations to mark the sixtieth anniversary of the South African Communist Party. He said—

I think that at the moment the ANC has a very dangerous ally which will eventually destroy it.

There is an interesting phenomenon manifesting itself in Africa. Wherever there are so-called freedom struggles against colonialism, colonialism is merely being replaced by a new form of colonialism under that great imperialist, the Soviet Union. What also worries me, is that London is actually pre-eminently the spot where each and every diabolic deed aimed at South Africa is planned in the offices of the South African Communist Party. One wonders what the position would be if there were such an office in South Africa which, day in and day out, planned Britain’s downfall. So much for that, however.

In the light of the overall definition of destabilization, it is also a fact that the ANC, which is now receiving military support, is also receiving that support from certain neighbouring States of South Africa with Marxist systems of government. What is also certain is that these neighbouring States are sheltering these terrorists which are then used to bring about destabilization in South Africa. Our Defence Force cannot, after all, watch people being harboured in neighbouring territories without lifting a finger. If it does lift its finger, however, it is accused of destabilization. I also just want to point out that according to the definition, South Africa cannot possibly destabilize neighbouring States such as Mozambique and Angola, because destabilization actually presupposes a condition of stability. Without a condition of stability, one cannot destabilize. Surely there has never been any condition of stability in Angola or Mozambique since their so-called independence when the MPLA and Frelimo took over there. Why not? If a certain group, with communist military support, takes over power, excludes all other groups from the decision-making processes and adopts an inadequate socialistic economic policy on the basis of its ideology, it is heading for chaos and is, of itself, responsible for the destabilization of its own area. I do not want to elaborate on this by showing that South Africa is actually a stabilizing force. I think the hon. member for Pretoria East has done so very effectively.

I want to conclude by saying that I really do not think that these territories need South Africa to destabilize them. They are doing it themselves. The great destabilizer in the area is, of course, the Soviet Union, and I think the Defence Force is entitled to take the action which it is indeed taking.

Business suspended at 12h45 and resumed at 14hl5.

Afternoon Sitting

Mr. Chairman, before business was suspended for lunch, there was a very striking discussion of the question of destabilization by the hon. member for Randfontein. Since I, too, should like to say something in this regard, I associate myself with his excellent contribution. The hon. members for Pretoria West and Bloemfontein North also discussed the same subject, perhaps more in the sense of the total onslaught or, as I should prefer to define it, the communist war. The hon. member for Kroonstad also touched on this aspect and he too spoke very effectively.

Then the statement was made—I think by the hon. member for Bloemfontein North—that the word “destabilization” is the term of abuse that is being used most against South Africa at the moment; it is being used even more regularly than apartheid used to be. I agree wholeheartedly with this statement. I think that in our isolated situation here on the southern tip of Africa we do not always realize the tremendous onslaught being made on us in the field of psychological warfare. We are not as profoundly aware that the word “destabilization” is used with direct reference to South Africa.

In my maiden speech two years ago I devoted some time to an effort to inform Parliament with regard to the threat facing the Republic of South Africa, particularly in the military sphere. Since then the threat has escalated further and acquired a new dimension, viz. the accusation in all the anti-South African propaganda media that South Africa is destabilizing this sub-continent, as I have just said. This accusation is levelled at us daily not only by the Kremlin, with the aid of Radio Moscow, but also by all the propaganda transmitters to the north of us. This is also done in several other countries, but one finds that Russia always leads the chorus, and in Southern Africa the Marxist leaders sing loudest in support of Russia.

According to these propaganda media, examples of South Africa being guilty of so-called criminal destabilization are legion, but one of the severest recent attacks turned out to be in respect of an habitual criminal who, having fled South Africa, allowed himself to be misused by being presented as a security force officer. He was supposed to be an officer who had gone to Mozambique to commit acts that could be presented as evidence of destabilization. Although this effort failed miserably, it nevertheless constitutes alarming evidence of what South Africa’s enemies are capable of stooping to in order to discredit us in this part of the world. Other examples are the allegation that Whites from the RSA had been caught in Mozambique, and Lesotho’s allegations concerning South Africa’s recent involvement in an incident near the Transkeian border.

In their efforts to brand South Africa with the word “destabilization” they will make use of any unscrupulous method and—and I regard this as important—any condonation of this in Parliament will only assist in the achievement of their purpose, which is to blacken South Africa’s name further. Particularly in view of the debate we conducted earlier this year, I want to thank the official Opposition for not having again cast the aspect of destabilization in a negative light in the course of the debate. I compliment them in this regard. I should like to quote what Dr. Jan de Villiers, an authority on communism, said in this regard in S.A. Forum, Volume 7, which deals with the war of words against South Africa. I quote the following from the final page—

Hon. members would do well to read this Position Paper. In my opinion it was written by an authority and it will give us all a better understanding of this exceptionally severe propaganda onslaught on us. Then, too, I should like to refer to an earlier edition by the same authority, namely his Position Paper No. 4. Here Dr. Du Plessis proves that there is indeed a Soviet blueprint for Southern Africa. It proves that they have indeed spelt out targets in our subcontinent and form a united front with the so-called liberation movements. He then concludes his pamphlet with the following words—

SACP is the abbreviation for South African Communist Party. I quote further—

All the leaders of the so-called frontline states and certain other States in Africa have thus far promised their absolute support, in one way or another, to the communist-inspired terrorist organizations such as the ANC, the PAC and Swapo in their so-called liberation struggle. I should like to ask: Why is this struggle in progress, and what is it about? In point of fact this struggle has only one aim and that is to overthrow the government and this Parliament in which I am speaking today. Surely there can be no further doubt on that score. In this they have the tangible support of the Russian Marxists in particular—in other words, the communists—and propaganda against South Africa is transmitted throughout the world. This propaganda is based on lies and half-truths. What is this but destabilization in its worst and most criminal form? South Africa may not defend itself. The Russian-inspired arms embargo is an eloquent example of this. Nevertheless South Africa—I need not go into this—is the biggest stabilizer of this subcontinent. I wish to stress that. South Africa keeps the economy of Southern Africa going by way of the provision of employment, the provision of infrastructures and its flourishing commerce. In addition, South Africa is a supplier of food, etc. And then these people still have the arrogance to make the ridiculous statement that South Africa is the destabilizer in Southern Africa. It is in a world of double standards that they succeed in doing so. The question the world must ask itself is, on the one hand, whether there would have been any conflict and, on the other, any domination of one State by another in Southern Africa, if Russia, the Cubans, the East Germans and other forces had stayed out of Southern Africa and had not poured weapons by the ton into the hands of the terrorist movements.

Another question is where Southern Africa would have been if this aid had been given to Southern Africa in the form of development aid. I wish to support this point of view by pointing out realities and providing cold facts. I am going to provide figures at the disposal of the S.A. Defence Force as regards what has taken place over the past five years. This is the result of an in-depth study into Soviet Russia’s contribution in Southern Africa in this regard. During this period Soviet arms worth thousands of millions of rands have been delivered to the so-called front line States by the Russians and their surrogates. Let us look at figures. In the case of Angola it amounts to R10 000 million over the past five years. This amount only refers to what has been spent on arms and ammunition, and not on general defence expenditure. In comparison the RSA has not spent nearly as much on arms and ammunition over the past five years. I therefore contend that due to this so-called “dumping”, we shall have to allocate larger amounts to the security forces, as the hon. member fo Yeoville also argued. I do not include in this regard President Dos Santos’ visit to Moscow in the past week, in which he managed to arrange for Russia to provide more arms to Angola.

Let us look at the figures with regard to certain other countries. The figure as regards arms and ammunition delivered over the past five years is R40 million for Zimbabwe, R350 million for Mozambique, R800 million for Tanzania, R200 million for Zambia and even for Botswana, R13 million. These armaments include aircraft, ships, tanks, armoured troop carriers, explosives, landmines and artillery and infantry weapons. When I speak about these so-called front-line states, I refer to their land forces and their air forces. I am very pleased that the hon. member for Simon’s Town referred in this debate to the threat to South Africa posed by the Russian navy. I want to say to our Navy that he is really a friend and someone who is an authority on the naval threat.

Apart from the figures I have already supplied, tens of millions of rands worth of arms are even supplied directly to Swapo and the ANC. Mindful of the blanket coverage provided to these two organizations by their host countries, this is a dangerous situation, because not one of these countries is arming itself to defend itself against any of its neighbours. The Russian aim is to build up a force in this way to be able to attack South Africa. Therefore, what I am saying here by implication is that the Republic of South Africa is the final objective of the Russians. The Russians are building up a force that they want to misuse to promote their own position of power in the world.

Apart from this contribution, the Russians and their surrogate forces have also contributed millions of rands towards the training of terrorists within and outside Africa. It is calculated that it has cost Russia directly R64 million rands over the past five years to help train Swapo and ANC terrorists in Africa and approximately R36 million to help train them outside this continent. It is also calculated that it has cost the Marxists R3 400 million over the past five years merely to keep military staff in Angola, and R720 million in the other so-called frontline States. The logistical costs for the frontline states over the past five years amount to the astronomical sum of approximately R2 400 million. Altogether 340 cargo ships have been concerned with communist aid to Angola and Mozambique alone, whereas 224 cargo aircraft have been used.

The tragedy of this Russian and Russian-inspired interference in South Africa has been the tremendous loss in human life in this part of the world. I think that this is the real tragedy, the end-product of this. It is calculated that over the past five years, just over 40 000 civilians have lost their lives in this sub-continent due to terrorism—the majority in Angola and Zimbabwe respectively—whereas no fewer than 83 000 have died in combat. A conservative estimate of what terrorism has cost Southern Africa in sabotage over the past five years, is approximately R690 million.

The activities in Southern Africa are confirmed in an article in the defence journal of the United States of America signed by no less a person than the Minister of Defence of the United States, Mr. Caspar Weinberger. The article appears on page 92 of the periodical Soviet Military Power, and in this regard I want to thank the hon. member for Bezuidenhout for having sent me a copy of this periodical. I think that this is a very important article and that all of us ought to read it.

The big question is where this sub-continent would have been had it not been for the selfish expansionary urge of the Russian Bear. In recent times much reference has been made to the anti-South African propaganda campaign. It is a campaign larded with hate and lies and half-truths. 70 to 100 hours of radio transmissions are aimed at South Africa daily, a substantial part of which emanates from behind the Iron Curtain. Apart from that, an average of eight Press statements are issued daily against South Africa. When I speak about Press statements, I refer to negative Press statements that fit in with the daily propaganda campaign aimed at us. The Angola news agency Angop makes a major contribution in this regard.

When we consider all these facts, it is incredible that there can still be people who have misgivings as to the reality of the new onslaught on South Africa, viz. that aimed at branding us as the destabilizer. We cannot permit Russia to proceed unhindered with its diabolical plans in our subcontinent. We must see through these transparent efforts whereby the Russians seek to conceal their own efforts at destabilization. It is tragic and pathetic that others can do as they like, that they have a licence to seek to destabilize us by word and deed, that terrorist movements are openly supported, while the world is outraged if we go and fetch those terrorists out of their nests in our neighbouring countries and that we do not have the right to prevent murder, misdeeds and sabotage on our own soil by taking timeous action.

I just want to give one assurance to this Parliament. South Africa will not hesitate to protect its territorial integrity with every possible means at its disposal.

Hear, hear!

The RSA does not seek to extend its territory by a single inch. We are not threatening anyone. We do wish to overthrow any government. We only want to be left in peace so that by means of the process of evolution we can comply with the aspirations of all the ethnic groups within our country’s borders. Indeed, not only do we wish to live in peace with them; we want to conclude non-aggression treaties and economic agreements with them to the benefit of all. This is a calling we want to fulfil. However, our neighbouring states must then oppose the persistent supply of modern armaments by the Soviet Union. The following statistics illustrate this escalation of the military potential.

Since 1977 there has been an increase of more than 300% in the joint ground forces of these States, and today the total is in the order of 300 000 soldiers. The number of tanks in our neighbouring States has increased by 200% over the past five years to 1 143. The number of aircraft has increased by more than 200% over the past five years, to a total of approximately 600. 20% of the total number of aircraft are of the Mig-17,-19 and -21 fighter attack aircraft. Some of these aircraft has specifications comparable with those of the Mirage 3 type which we possess.

Yesterday I tried to show hon. members very briefly how effective our security forces are. Spiritually the security forces have the right attitude. They are very well trained. They have some of the best weapons available and they are manufactured locally, in the Republic of South Africa. I hope we need never use our security forces in a war other than the one we are engaged in now. But if we have to, we shall strive for success and, what is more, we shall succeed.

I thank hon. members. I shall reply at a later stage to the questions put to me by hon. members.

Mr. Chairman, in the debate earlier this year we on this side of the House did express our concern with regard to the armaments that were flowing into the southern continent of Africa and also to the increase in manpower. Therefore I shall not now respond in much detail to what the hon. the Minister had to say, but we thank him for the information that he has given us.

Today Parliament is being asked to appropriate over R3 000 million for the S.A. Defence Force. I want to say that my party asks for no increase in this amount, and neither does it recommend that there should be a decrease in the amount. However, it is important to establish whether the money is being spent prudently and according to the right priorities as far as equipment is concerned and to see whether the S.A. Defence Force is exercising the powers and duties entrusted to it by the Defence Act in a responsible and efficient manner.

I know that to establish defence priorities is no easy task and in this regard the hon. the Minister is fortunate to have at his disposal a number of excellent officers to assist him. Defence priorities are not, however, arrived at in a vacuum. Of necessity operations conducted by the S.A. Defence Force are shaped and influenced by political considerations. What is militarily strategically sound may at times be politically foolish or vice versa. That is why in a democracy the Defence Force is itself politically neutral while being subject to the political dictates of the Government of the day, but political dictates in South Africa have also shaped and influenced threat perception and threat appraisal upon which the S.A. Defence Force bases its operations. Therefore I believe it appropriate that this Committee should consider the perceived threat and the way of dealing with it.

The hon. the Minister and the Government argue that there is an onslaught against South Africa. In 1980, the hon. the Minister said when addressing the Institute for Strategic Studies that the campaign against the Republic was not exclusively or even mainly a military one but that it included the political, diplomatic, religious, psychological, cultural, social and even sporting spheres as well.

He said that the action against South Africa would be directed at undermining our economic power base by way of disinvestment campaigns, labour codes etc. He said that there would be attempts at destroying our diplomatic contacts and political base by driving a wedge between South Africa and the West. He further expressed the view that efforts would be made to sap our socio-psychological strength by the creation of a feeling of defeatism and a lack of confidence in the existing authority structures of our land. Finally he contended that a military campaign would be waged against South Africa, that this would start with insurgency and would culminate in conventional warfare. As a counter to all this, the Government comes to the conclusion that the population of South Africa should be prepared for war at all times and in all spheres.

Yet, Sir, I believe there is something lacking in this approach. Of course there is a massive threat to South Africa and of course South Africans must be prepared to defend themselves. The hon. member for Yeoville already commented on the extent of preparedness that is required in this regard. But I believe the weakness in the Government’s approach is simply that the Government does not create a list of priorities. It does not set out a plan of action to nullify or counter that threat to South Africa. If South Africans believe that the whole world is our enemy and that every critical speech is a threat, the population of South Africa and its leaders will not be able to distinguish between a real threat and a spurious one.

Let me deal for a moment with what has emerged as a result of the Government’s conception that South Africa is in a state of total war. The hon. the Minister has often pleaded for the introduction of a total national strategy to deal with the total war. This strategy, known as the security management system was first introduced I think in August 1979. At the apex of that system stands the State Security Council, which is assisted by 15 interdepartmental committees and a number of local joint management centres. These joint management centres are charged with the implementation and monitoring of the various strategies which emanates from the system. The question is, and I put it to the hon. the Minister: To what extent are these joint management centres and the interdepartmental working committees involving themselves with non-military matters? I would like the hon. the Minister to give some attention to this question, because the suggestion that the S.A. Defence Force is seeking its own political solution was made in September 1982 when it was reported, I think it was in the Financial Times, that brigadiers from Military Intelligence were involved in plans to set up a new interim Government in South West Africa. I ask: Does the alleged involvement of military officers in the process of constitution-making for South West Africa mean that the S.A. Defence Force is now seeking to bring about its own political solutions, if not in South Africa then in South West Africa?

Let me repeat in more general terms what I said at the beginning. This Parliament I believe should set the parameters of political objectives for the S.A. Defence Force and not the State Security Council or the Minister himself. If my interpretation is correct and the hon. the Minister agrees with me that in order to win the revolutionary war 80% of the campaign must be political and only 20% military, then the military of course can only provide 20%. This Parliament, this Government, must provide 80%. The political section of the campaign must come from Parliament and can only come about by systematic reform. This means a commitment on the part of the Government to abolish those aspects to which the hon. the Minister referred in his speech, those aspects of life in South Africa which provide for economic, diplomatic and socio-psychological erosion by those who seek to bring about the destruction of South Africa. I believe that the only way in which to do this is by moving away from discrimination and by including all people in a new political dispensation. This is the only way, my party and I believe, in which the hearts and the minds of all South Africans can be won. If that could be done it would result in a situation in which we will be able to spend much more on social upliftment and on the education of all our people than on defence.

That is the kind of society which we in the PFP seek to create and for which we have striven for many, many years. I believe that in striving for a new dispensation the SADF has a major role to play. It is already playing a major role indeed in the sense that it creates a situation of peace in South Africa, a situation in which peaceful political change can be brought about without the fear of intervention from beyond our borders, and also without the fear of internal uprisings. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Wynberg requested certain things in his argument, but when we try to bring about those very things by means of a new constitution, his party boycotts us. However, for the moment I shall leave it at that.

Nowadays those persons and organizations supporting Swapo in its violent attempts to subject South Africa to a Marxist tyranny are engaged in a new kind of onslaught, which is applied more indirectly and subtly. Now that it has become clear that Swapo can never succeed militarily, these people’s support for Swapo has shifted from direct assistance, for example, the supplying of arms and the exerting of international pressure on South Africa, to a subtle undermining of South Africa’s will to offer resistance.

A start has been made with propaganda which amounts to the fact that this is not South Africa’s war, but the NP’s war; that the Defence Force is not fighting for South Africa, but for the NP’s ideology of apartheid. The morale of the troops must be absolutely undermined, and their desire and willingness to do border duty, must be assailed. This initial step has, however, been taken further by some clergymen, who are agitating for all religious and conscientious objectors to be exempted from military service or border duty. Young men in their thousands should simply be allowed to evade their military service. More recently this campaign has been taken a step further with the call for all South Africa’s troops to be withdrawn from South West Africa.

These three steps represent a subtle yet serious onslaught on South Africa’s desire to resist the Marxist onslaught. South West Africa is being used as a back door to get at South Africa. For that reason we cannot and will not withdraw our troops from South West Africa.

What are the facts in connection with South West Africa? In 1920 South Africa received a mandate from the League of Nations to administer South West Africa. The most important provision of that mandate was that South Africa had to promote the economic, social and educational development of all the people of South West Africa to the utmost. This South Africa has consitently done. This responsibility has required tremendous sacrifices from South Africa over the years. However, in the process South Africa has become familiar with the aspirations of the people of South West Africa.

After the Second World War a dispute arose regarding the UN’s claim to supervisory powers over South West Africa. Over the years this dispute degenerated into a political vendetta and campaign. South Africa committed itself to safeguarding South West Africa from aggression, and also to leading that territory to self-determination by constitutional means, because South Africa still considers its 1920 mandate to be valid, in spite of UN agitation.

The responsibility for the national security of South West Africa is therefore considered to be a government function by the Republic of South Africa until such time as South West Africa becomes independent. Surrendering South West Africa to Swapo would amount to an abandonment of principles and a breach of faith by the RSA. In South West Africa Swapo is waging a revolutionary struggle against the population and the Security Forces. This struggle forms an integral part of the onslaught on the RSA. It is general knowledge that it is part of the Soviet strategy to activate various fronts on the borders of the RSA, in order to pin down the Security Forces outside the metropolitan areas. These areas are then left vulnerable to urban terrorism and the ANC is given the opportunity to strengthen itself militarily within the borders of the RSA. It is therefore in the interests of both the Soviet Union and the ANC to attempt to deal the South African Forces in South West Africa a knock-out blow. When the Government of the RSA takes decisions about South West Africa, it must realize that the final aim of our enemy is the destruction and eventual conquest of South West Africa to complete the so-called liberation struggle. All the events in between are mere stepping stones in this process. Activities surrounding the South West Africa question are merely interim operations to alter, delay or speed up the time-scale. RSA withdrawal from South West Africa at this stage would have serious political, economic, social and security implications. The following are a few: It would lead to a loss of credibility for the South African Government not only among the inhabitants of South West Africa, but also throughout the continent of Africa and throughout the world. The loss of credibility would not only have negative political consequences for the RSA, but also negative economic consequences. This would only spur the Soviet Union into an intensified attempt at territorial expansion in Southern Africa with the aim of achieving their key objective, the RSA. Large-scale enemy actions against the RSA could become a reality far sooner. The UN, the OAU and other international organizations would be able to channel all their material and moral aid to the so-called freedom movements in Southern Africa such as the ANC and the PAC. The terrorist struggle inside the country would therefore merely be intensified. If South West Africa was left to its own devices, this would leave Swapo with a far freer hand in its campaign of terror against the inhabitants of the territory. It is not beyond the bounds of possibility that Swapo, with the direct assistance of Cuba as well as Russia and the Eastern Bloc countries, would take over control of South West Africa. There would be absolutely no suggestion of free elections of any kind. Swapo has repeatedly stated that it is only interested in a violent solution to the South West Africa question. The RSA will therefore also be faced by a communist presence on its western border, quite possibly Cuban proxy forces. Under those circumstances it is to be expected that the ANC and the PAC would immediately be given base facilities in South West Africa.

In the main the revolutionary struggle is a struggle being waged for the hearts and minds of the people. If South West Africa were to be sacrificed, this would have a tremendous impact on the morale of the people of the RSA. It would to a major extent contribute to intensifying the revolutionary climate and lead to a spirit of defeatism among the conservative elements of all population groups. This would promote the perception that weapons are the most effective means of promoting one’s aspirations. If all facts are taken into consideration and analysed, there is no doubt that the RSA has to stand firm in South West Africa. Only then will it be possible for us to halt Russian expansionism in our part of the world and to prevent the RSA from being faced by a communist enemy on all its borders.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to say something to the correspondent of Die Burger. I notice that he referred to “Koos Boks” but it should have been “Koos Box”. [Interjections.]

Yesterday the hon. member for Wynberg attacked the SADF and made an appeal for the conservation of the area at De Hoop. I have sympathy for his plea, a great deal of sympathy, and I am also in favour of conservation. He had every right to appeal for the conservation of that area. Although I want to ask him a question this afternoon, I want to do so without making any insinuations; I do not want to commit character assassination on the hon. member. I think we on this side are fully entitled to ask him without making any insinuations—we can do so later if this becomes necessary—to give us a direct reply regarding his kinship with the Myburgh who owns property in that area.

He is a third cousin of mine.

Why is the hon. member ashamed to say so? I am glad I have now got a reply from the hon. member that he is a relative of his, but this is the first time I have come across someone who is ashamed of his family. I have always understood it to be a sin to be ashamed of one’s family. After all, one cannot help who one’s family is. If that person is his third cousin, he should have said so. He should have said so at the outset. They are always so quick to point a finger at this side and to imply that there is something wrong or something not quite open and above-board. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I should like to congratulate the hon. member for East London North on the speech he made, but I want to dissociate myself from that section at the end of his speech in which he referred to hon. members of this House.

For many years now it has been the custom for the SADF not to be drawn into the ambit of so-called active party politics. This surely means that the interests of the SADF are placed above the interests of political parties. All citizens of a State, including those of our State, are dependent on the protection afforded by the State. That is why it is correct, when discussing SADF matters in the normal way, to keep purely political issues out of the debate. That is also the standpoint of the CP.

What is also true, though, is that the people of South Africa are at present engaged in discussing the new constitution of South Africa, and the future composition of the SADF is of real importance to voters. It is therefore of the utmost importance that the hon. the Minister should spell out to us this afternoon the full political implications of the new dispensation as far as the future of the SADF is concerned.

This means that the hon. the Minister should spell out clearly what the position of the Whites, the Coloureds and the Indians will be in the SADF hierarchy, seen against the background of a possible new dispensation. The main question which arises is the expected number of Asians who enter the Defence Force and whether the SADF will appoint persons from the Asian group to meet their religious requirements. There is no doubt that the new constitutional dispensation will have a direct effect on the lives of soldiers. Their civil rights may be jeopardized and possibly their careers as well. For that reason it is reasonable also to consider the political inputs the soldier is able to make at present. The input he can make at present is his right to vote. He has the right to vote in an election or a referendum. As a voter of the country he therefore has the opportunity to express himself for or against proposals submitted to him which may also directly affect his future.

In this connection an article which appeared in Paratus of November 1982 and which was written by the Chief of the S.A. Defence Force himself is of vital interest. In this article Gen. Viljoen laid down certain guidelines as regards the political participation of soldiers. I am extremely glad that this article was published, because from time to time there is uncertainty as to the way in which the soldier should behave. In this article in which the general spoke to his people, he referred to the role politics ought to play and can play. A few points in this article deserve our attention and support, and I should like to refer to them. On page 56 of Paratus of November 1982 the Chief of the Defence Force wrote—

That is the first point he made. He went on to say—

He also made the following point—

His disinterest is quite possibly a result of his being uninformed. I agree with that. The national serviceman should acquaint himself with and keep himself informed about the country’s politics. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether national servicemen are allowed to attend meetings of the various political parties.

The Chief of the Defence Force also made another point, and I quote—

I have nor fault to find with that. I quote further—

The Chief of the Defence Force went on to say—

It is unavoidable that a soldier’s life will sometimes be affected by politics. As a citizen he has to cast his vote and, as the Chief of the Defence Force rightly pointed out, he has to keep himself properly informed of the politics of his country. He therefore has to keep himself thoroughly informed of the alternatives offered to him by the various political parties. This therefore requires, a knowledge of politics by the soldier. However, he is expected to practise politics in such a way that it does not interfere with his duties as a defender of his country. It should also be borne in mind that the members of the Citizen Force and Commandos are in many cases prominent members of civilian organizations and possibly play a political role in them. No one can therefore expect those people to moderate their political activities to an excessive extent. Of course it is true that the S.A. Defence Force is in the position that is has to take all these aspects into consideration and make provision for them. With the exception perhaps of a few areas of uncertainty which I trust the hon. the Minister will deal with this afternoon, I believe that the S.A. Defence Force is succeeding in making provision for all the aspects I referred to.

Of course one can expect members of the Defence Force to modify their own political convictions to such an extent that they do not force their political will on their subordinates. It is unavoidable that the members of the Defence Force will be more interested than usual in politics. Particularly now that a new constitution for South Africa is being discussed and negotiated, it is understandable that there will also be more life in the politics of members of the Defence Force. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, it seems to me as if hon. members of the CP do not always quite know whether they are coming or going because the hon. member for De Aar would seem to agree that politics should be kept out of the Defence Force debate, whereas the hon. member Mr. Theunissen specifically inquired how it was possible not to implicate politics. [Interjections.] The convention we have in this House is that the Defence Force will not be implicated in politics. We have a convention on that point with the official Opposition and with the NRP and they abide by it. However, the hon. members for the CP are dragging politics into this debate. They keep on doing it. The reason why politics should not be dragged in here, is that a soldier is expected to defend his country irrespective of what decisions the politicians in this House take.

Tell that to the Minister as well.

I shall deal with that. I now want to refer briefly to the way in which the official spokesman of the CP handled this debate. I maintain that he has neither the judgment nor the self-control to serve in this House as the official spokesman of a party on Defence Force matters because this is a responsible post and he is not acting in a responsible way.

In the first place we have already become accustomed to the CP dragging the new constitutional dispensation into every debate.

Are you afraid of it?

To drag politics into a matter, means to want to score political points off another party at the expense of the matter in question.

Go back to the academy.

They are trying to embarrass the NP here in respect of the constitution, regardless of the implications that their behaviour may have on the morale of the people in the Defence Force.

Let me give them a reply regarding the constitution and the policy of the Defence Force. I know they will not understand it, but one has to say this anyway. This constitution of ours does not mean integration. It means something else, but it does not mean integration. For that reason it does not mean integration in the Defence Force either. I shall leave the matter at that.

The hon. member for Jeppe raised the question of national service for Coloureds and Asians. Those hon. members know that that is an extremely sensitive matter. That is why they raised it here. This matter is not only sensitive for the NP, but also sensitive for the Defence Force. In the long run it is sensitive for the defence of this country and for our security.

The hon. member for Koedoespoort then went on to ask—fortunately he did not have quite enough time to do so—that the Defence Force should not open its doors to ensure the spiritual care of people who are not Christians. This is a sensitive matter. Why must these sensitive matters be raised here?

Yesterday the hon. member for Durban Point suggested that we conduct this debate in a Select Committee. The longer I listened to hon. members of the CP, the more I became convinced that the hon. member for Durban Point may have been right. Apparently one cannot prevent the hon. member for Jeppe and his colleagues from acting irresponsibly in such matters. It should therefore rather be discussed behind closed doors.

I just want to discuss one or two more points in this connection. The hon. member for Jeppe said that he wanted to put a few questions to the hon. the Minister. He made it clear that he did not want to get at the Defence Force, but at the hon. the Minister. He asked—

What has that question got to do with the Minister? He said himself that he knew that the matter was sub judice. The hon. the Minister, as a political head, can under no circumstances be held responsible for this. However, in his impetuosity the hon. member for Jeppe went so far as to bring this matter which is delicate for everyone and an embarrassment for everyone into this debate in order to get at the hon. the Minister. But what did he do in the process? He embarrassed the Navy, the Defence Force and the country by raising this matter. What can the reply to this question be? Why did the hon. member ask this question? He himself said that he knew that the matter was sub judice. The hon. the Minister cannot tell him anything else except that the matter is sub judice. However, the hon. member asked the question in this House merely to cause embarrassment.

However, the matter did not end there. I now come to his handling of the Seychelles affair. In this connection I want to raise two points. The hon. member tried to get at the Minister. He said that he had sufficient knowledge of the functioning of the Defence Force to believe that the Defence Force would not have attempted a task of such magnitude—the invasion of a foreign power—without political sanction. And what was the hon. member saying here? He was saying that the Defence Force undertook such a task. He was saying that the Defence Force undertook the task of attacking a foreign power. I believe that he did South Africa a disservice by saying that. He also did the Defence Force a disservice by saying that. In his over-eagerness to get at the Minister, he dragged the Defence Force into this.

The hon. member went further and said that a departmental committee had investigated this matter. The committee found that no responsible officer was involved in this matter. The hon. member then said—

It was not after all the hon. the Minister who investigated the matter; it was a departmental committee in the Defence Force. According to him the Defence Force therefore made the most ridiculous findings in our parliamentary history. In his over-eagerness to get at the Minister, the hon. member got at the Defence Force time and again. That is why we say that that hon. member is irresponsible or that he does not have the necessary ability to differentiate or that he cannot control himself. In this way he prejudices the Defence Force in his political speeches. Yesterday the hon. member reacted fairly vehemently here, and because he put a few questions to the hon. the Minister, I want to put a few questions to him now. Is it true that in July or August 1980 he visited the operational area, making use of private transport? Is that true? And did he join a group of military correspondents in Katima Mulilo? I am asking these questions because there are stories doing the rounds about that visit.

Now you are gossiping, not so? [Interjections.]

Order!

Did the hon. member get prior approval from the Defence Force?

He did not. [Interjections.]

Order!

How long before the time did he get that approval? Or did he arrive there and embarrass those people because they could not refuse him as a member of Parliament? [Interjections.]

I obtained permission in advance.

You did not. [Interjections.]

Order!

The question is: How long before the time did the hon. member obtain that permission?

You will hear that later.

Is it true that the hon. member joined a braai held for the military correspondents at that camp uninvited? Was he not at that braai?

Yes, I was there.

Oh, he was at the braai! [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I think it would be advisable for me to avail myself of this opportunity to dispose of a few of the unfinished points and the questions that have been put to me. I should like to commence with the hon. member for Wynberg. I agree with him that the Citizen Force and members of the commandos have a right to know what their remaining military obligations are. Since the present system of military service came into operation on 1 January 1983, serving members of the part-time force have been informed about their remaining obligations. However, there could be a few who have been overlooked, but as their cases come to light, they too are informed. I agree whole heartedly with the hon. member. One wants to have peace of mind about this when one is a member of the Citizen Force or of the commandos. The Defence Force has always endeavoured—this is the next question the hon. member asked—to give members of the Citizen Force and commandos a reasonable period of warning about their obligations for their next year of training service. As far as operational service is concerned, early warning of eight months is given, although there could be variations as a result of an escalation in operations. In other words, there is a degree of reasonableness, and I think that we can provide reassurance in this way. Therefore the hon. member’s point was a valid one. It also is one of the objectives of the Defence Force—and orders to that effect have been issued by the Chief of the Defence Force—that formation and unit commanders must carry out the necessary liaison with employers. The objective is to co-ordinate the utilization of labour with private employers as far as possible. If employers are having problems in this respect, they are invited to get in touch with the nearest commanding officer of a Command through the central or regional defence manpower liaison committees.

†As far as the national security system is involved with all matters affecting the security of certain areas, it would be foolish if only military matters were cared for, well knowing that in modern warfare military factors were not the only counter-measures for insurgency. Therefore the composition of the entire security management system is not limited to military personnel, but to all those who can contribute to other power bases of strategy as such.

*I now come to the hon. member for Standerton who, in his contribution to this debate, has shown why he is the chairman of the NP defence group. His vigorous contribution on motivation should serve as an inspiration to all South Africans. He also mentioned the serious drought which has the country in its grip, and the task of the S.A. Defence Force to assist those in the drought-ravaged areas.

†I should like to refer more to the drought aid provided by the SADF. I am sure hon. members will all agree that the devastating drought is causing much anxiety in all sectors of the national economy, especially to the Government, which must find ways and means to bring relief in the situation. The S.A. Defence Force has made an important contribution in this regard by making available 182 000 ha of land under its control for emergency grazing for approximately 16 000 head of cattle and 8 572 sheep. The S.A. Defence Force is also actively involved in supplying water to kwaZulu, the Transkei, the Ciskei and to Hogsback in the Eastern Province and has already transported more than 29 million litres of water for human and livestock use over a distance of 221 000 kilometres at a cost of R180 400. This service will be continued and will even be expanded where necessary until conditions return to normal.

*I want to thank the hon. member for Standerton once again for touching upon this point. We do not always realize what a really important role the S.A. Defence Force plays in crisis situations.

†The hon. member for Durban Point made his usual responsible contribution. His constant refusal, over a period of 25 years, to discuss sensitive defence matters in open debate and his endeavours to keep the SADF above party-politics deserve praise. We have differed in the past and still differ on many issues, but we do so with mutual respect and cordiality.

There will be no difference in the future.

That’s what you think. With regard to the reference of the hon. member for Durban Point to the allocation of funds it has been stated over and over, even by members during this debate, that South Africa is at war. However, it would seem as if the population at large are being conditioned against the hazards of war. This is truly reflected in their way of life. South Africans are still maintaining a very high standard of living despite inflation, the drought and the demands on our resources to combat the threats against South Africa. The SADF is well aware of the value of good management, especially to make ends meet with our budget. We are therefore continually looking at improving our management techniques and the quality of our personnel. The SADF cannot afford dead wood in its ranks, and a unit whose productivity is lacking is eliminated.

*We appreciate the words of congratulations the hon. member Mr. Vermeulen addressed to the S.A. Defence Force in respect of its magazines. He can rest assured that the SADF will do everything in its power to proclaim the message even more vigorously by these means as well. As regards his remark that members of Parliament should receive issues of Paratus, I want to assure him that those are the instructions. Therefore, if there is any hon. member who does not receive issues, he should notify my office so that this can be rectified. Furthermore, I wholeheartedly support the sentiments of the hon. member on 1 SSB and I also want to avail myself of the opportunity to wish the unit another 50 prosperous years.

†I wish to thank the hon. the Deputy Minister of Environment Affairs and Fisheries for his positive and valuable contribution, in particular his clear and unambiguous statement putting the unfortunate President Kruger incident into its proper perspective. This was very necessary at this time. The S.A. Navy is very much aware of the importance of time spent at sea in the training of professional seamen. Precisely to improve the calibre of naval officers and ratings a small training squadron consisting of SAS Pretoria and SAS Fleur was formed a year ago. These two ships have added a valuable new dimension to basic training in the Navy and two advancement courses.

It is indeed the aim to augment land-based training with as much sea experience as possible. The hon. the Deputy Minister is, I am sure, well aware of the limiting factors in this regard. Over the past 12 months strike craft and submarines alone have put in more than 500 days at sea.

As regards the development of a counter to a submarine threat and the outstanding value of corvettes in the naval inventory we are in full agreement with the hon. the Deputy Minister. In terms of presently more pressing priorities and financial limitations in the national sphere, however, it is expected that the construction of these vessels will not be possible in the immediate future. Conceptual design work is, however, progressing. In the meantime the remaining frigate is being utilized to maintain the existing anti-submarine tactics as far as possible. The importance of co-operation with other navies in the South Atlantic area is fully appreciated. To this end relations with three South American navies resulted, with regular contacts being maintained, an example of which is the present visit of Admiral Putter.

Naval control of shipping exercises on a multilateral basis are also conducted annually. This has been going on for some years already. I should like to thank the hon. member for Yeoville for his positive contribution to this debate, specifically referring to what he said regarding the motivation of members of the general public. Every effort is made by the S.A. Defence Force and by me to convey the nature and the extent of the real situation in Southern Africa, and the way in which it threatens our civilized way of life to the public outside. It is to be hoped that all other political parties represented in this House will follow this example and realize the importance of motivating the civilian population.

The different media play a very important role in the shaping of public opinion by the way in which they present and report facts and information. I request the co-operation of hon. members in influencing the media objectively to reflect the real situation in South Africa and to help with the establishment of a well-informed and properly motivated general population.

With regard to a bigger full-time force the necessity to increase the size of the permanent force in a realistic way has always been and still is the intention of the S.A. Defence Force. Towards this end service benefits have been dramatically improved Over the past two years. They are continually reassessed but it is obvious that the availability of money is an important factor in this regard. The S.A. Defence Force has engaged a research organization to establish on a scientific basis what the actual volunteer potential of the South African population is, and what recruitment benefits this potential manpower source would demand to enlist in the permanent force. I cannot but agree with him that a defence budget should preferably be more substantial. The S.A. Defence Force is, however, very much aware of the fact that a sound economy is the basis of a country’s welfare and security. In view of the depressed state of the economy and the severe drought we therefore had no option but to reduce the S.A. Defence Force commitment authority in real terms for the second successive year.

As the hon. member rightly said, this trend cannot be allowed to continue, and future defence budgets will have to be adapted upwards, and an even substantially increased additional budget cannot be ruled out.

*The enthusiasm of the hon. member for Vryheid was simply a mirror image of what I have experienced in his constituency too, as regards the implementation of this new system of national service there. If hon. members of this House were not prohibited by law from performing full-time service in the Defence Force, the hon. member for Vryheid would probably have joined members of the City Council and other community leaders in his constituency in attending commando training of the kind that has just taken place there. The splendid co-operation of the Vryheid City Council in the military sphere could be attributed to a large extent to the encouragement and inspiration of that hon. member. He really inspires his voters as far as the defence of our country is concerned.

The hon. member for Verwoerdburg referred to Armscor and its plans to achieve even greater penetration in the international arms market. [Interjections.] The hon. member said that unfortunately he would not be able to be present today, and he tendered his aplogies. [Interjections.] I am grateful that he referred to this and I thank him for his contribution, since a very serious aspect was at issue here. Hon. members will recall that during the Falklands-British war crisis, almost hysterical reports appeared concerning a so-called secret supply of arms by South Africa to Argentina. The British diplomatic mission put certain questions to us, to which we replied through diplomatic channels. However, this was not sufficient, since the South African Press and hon. members of this Parliamant insisted on a public statement as well. Although it has for many years been our stated policy not to divulge any details about arms trading, or to confirm or deny reports in this regard or to comment in any way, I was morally obliged, due to the pressure from the internal media and politicians, to depart from this policy for once. As I said, I made a single exception, and today I must report back to hon. members that this was a mistake, a mistake we are going to pay for. It has shaken the trust of our partners in many parts of the world. Today I want to place on record unambiguously that I will not make this mistake again. Even if there is a great deal of pressure, our trading partners must know that we shall protect them. Hon. members will appreciate this, since it is in the interests of South Africa and of our future. As soon as I deny something, our enemies are able to determine, by a simple process of elimination, whom we are trading arms with. South Africa cannot afford this in view of its present position, in which stringent arms embargoes are still being imposed on us today. No country that has to contend with an international arms embargo can afford the ordinary laxities of politicking in respect of those highly sensitive matters.

The hon. member for Pietersburg raised one aspect I wish to reply to now. I shall reply to the other aspects of his speech at a later stage. The hon. member for Pietersburg asked a question with regard to our policy on Coloureds and Indians. In this regard I want to refer the hon. member to an explanation in a letter written to him by the former Deputy Minister of Defence, dated 3 November 1978. The hon. member for Pietersburg told me that he was unable to be present here, since he is busy on the other side. The position has not changed at all since then, and this is the policy that will be adhered to in the new dispensation as well. Consideration will be given to whether the policy should indeed be adapted, and if so, to what extent. I think that reply will meet with the hon. member’s approval. The hon. member for Pretoria East, in a reasoned and scientific way, exposed to public contempt the false allegation that the Republic of South Africa was a destabilizing factor in Southern Africa. His speech is deserving of praise, and I should like to see it widely publicized. I have already furnished a reply as regards the question of destabilization.

†The hon. member for Edenvale made what I would call a textbook speech in the sense that a very clear picture of the requirements for combating terrorism emerged. While I cannot agree with some of the hon. member’s deductions I would nevertheless like to thank him for a contribution that was made at the high level one expects in respect of debates on defence matters in this House.

*The hon. member for Middelburg, as well as the hon. member for Bloemfontein North, spoke knowledgeably and with insight about the revolutionary onslaught on our country. I thank those hon. members for their fine contributions; I should like to elaborate on this a little further myself.

One of the greatest misconceptions in the world today is that terrorist organizations in Southern Africa, viz. Swapo, the ANC and the PAC, are liberation organizations rebelling against so-called White domination. These organizations do not differ in essence from other international terrorist organizations and, like the PLO, otherwise known as the Palestine Liberation Organization, and others, they serve as instruments in the hands of people who want to create chaos. In the world revolution, in which South Africa forms perhaps the most important intermediate objective for ultimate Western and world domination by the Marxists, these organizations play a key role in the struggle to establish a new kind of enslavement here, viz. that of Russia.

The presence of the PLO in Southern Africa is no longer merely coincidental. This organization, whose members are regarded as masters in the field of terrorism, already has offices with full diplomatic status in Maputo and in Harare. A wellknown British military leader has said—

Oliver Tambo of the ANC held long talks with the PLO in Lebanon as far back as 1980, as a result of which the Palenstinian terrorists assisted the ANC with its planning and training. The leaders of the ANC also maintain very good relations with the PLO representatives in Mozambique, Angola and Tanzania. They already have ambassador status in Tanzania as well. We can expect the PLO to play an even greater role in terrorist activities against South Africa and South West Africa, particularly since there are already indications that the PLO is expanding its membership in Southern Africa.

The hon. member for Swellendam was only able to get in a few words.

That is his own fault.

I should like to thank him for what he intended saying. I thank him, too, for the assistance he gave me in establishing nature conservation in the Southern Cape.

I believe that the detailed description given by the hon. member for Ladybrand of the operational successes of the S.A. Defence Force will serve as a warning to our enemies that they are dealing with opponents who not only maintain the highest level of skill in the use of arms and ingenuity in operations, but are also inspired with the will to win. I thank him most sincerely for his striking contribution.

The expression of appreciation by the hon. member for Winburg to the wives of members of the Defence Force for their sacrifices is profoundly appreciated. He did not refer only to the Permanent Force in this regard, but also to the wives of members of the commandos and the Citizen Force, as well as the wives of national servicemen. I agree with him wholeheartedly—the woman is the golden thread of inspiration and motivation in our security forces. On behalf of this side of the House, I should like to convey our gratitude to these women. I am also grateful for the tribute paid to sport and our sportsmen in the S.A. Defence Force. I hope tomorrow’s match between WP and Northern Transvaal will enhance the chances of being granted Springbok colours of a few other members of the Defence Force.

†The hon. member for Bezuidenhout, as usual, made a constructive contribution. I am in full agreement with him that our war veterans should receive more attention. For this very reason a senior staff officer was last year appointed to my personal staff to attend on the highest level to matters relating to war veterans. There is a vast field which requires attention, one of which is the pensions and benefits of our soldiers of yesteryear. The new organization which is being staffed by veterans is working in close co-operation with the veterans’ associations, and all the matters raised by the hon. member will in due course receive the necessary attention. I am sure that the document he has sent me and for which I want to thank him will serve a good purpose in this regard.

*The hon. member for Beaufort West very effectively emphasized the need for a high standard of discipline in the Defence Force and pointed out how the S.A. Defence Force was complying with these exacting demands. It is a fact that a disciplined soldier is also a motivated soldier. Yesterday the hon. member for Standerton made it clear, in no uncertain terms, that this was the reason for the motivation of our soldiers. Our Defence Force record of successful operations testifies to a high standard of discipline and a will to win.

The hon. member for Brits, as well as the hon. member for Koedoespoort, by paying tribute to the Chaplains’ Service, focussed attention on the need for and the value of religious preparedness in the S.A. Defence Force. Religion remains one of the strongest-anchors of our country’s people. It is also a very important facet in our struggle against communism. That is why the work being done by chaplains in the more than 100 denominations in the S.A. Defence Force deserves the tributes paid to them in so effectively in this House today. It is the policy of the S.A. Defence Force that a member is served by a representative of his own church grouping, according to the tenets and dogma of his own denomination. Proselytizing is not allowed. For that reason it makes no difference whether a member is a Christian, a Jew or a Mohammedan. He is served as such. This policy will also apply in the new dispensation.

†The hon. member for King William’s Town was his usual self in contributing to the high level of today’s debate. With regard to the use of both official languages, I wish to point out that the policy on this matter is very clear. I believe, however, that the way to correct any irregularities should be to make use of the provided channels for all parliamentarians to draw the attention of the Chief of the S.A. Defence Force to such discrepancies. It must be kept in mind that for obvious reasons certain Citizen Force units are using only one of our official languages even though the units are classified as bilingual. It is a pity though that no more English-speaking South Africans are joining the ranks of the Permanent Force.

With regard to the hon. member’s views about the implementation of the new area defence system, I can only assure him that we are in full agreement with the ideal mentioned by him. Unfortunately, however, we can only implement the system according to the priorities as they arise.

*The hon. member for East London North proved today that he had made a thorough study of the problems surrounding the South West Africa issue. He gave a clear picture of what the struggle was all about. I want to thank him sincerely for this enlightening survey of the problems of the South West African issue.

The hon. member for De Aar discussed the new dispensation and the Chaplains’ Services. There are already part-time Indian chaplains serving in the S.A. Defence Force in accordance with the policy of religious freedom which I have just sketched.

The hon. member for Helderkruin effectively exposed the underlying reasons for the approach of the hon. members of the CP to the Defence Force and to politics. He proved that they had no notion at all of the political system. I shall elaborate on this later. Those hon. members, in their efforts to get at me politically, failed dismally to refrain from involving the Defence Force. They dragged the Defence Force directly into the political arena. I thank the hon. member for Helderkruin for the clear way in which he proved this.

Long before I became a member of this House, it was traditional not to involve the Defence Force in party politics. All the parties upheld this tradition. Yesterday, however, hon. members of the CP said that it was no longer the tradition because they were going to break it. I do not know why they are breaking the tradition now, for when they were sitting on this side of the House the hon. nominated member Mr. Theunissen, inter alia, was one of the loudest proponents of this tradition. Today, however, he said exactly the opposite. Now I ask: Why at this particular stage? Does he now intend, by involving the Defence Force in party politics, to derive political benefit from it?

I want to furnish an example with reference to the recent elections. This Government’s policy is not a policy of integration and, because it is not, the S.A. Defence Force cannot apply integration. However, it was said during the recent elections that the Defence Force was applying integration. What did those hon. members achieve by saying this? By doing so they immediately involved the Defence Force in party politics in an effort to derive political benefit from it. What should those hon. members do? They should come to me immediately and tell me: The following cases of integration are taking place, and they cannot be allowed to take place. Then I shall remedy the matter. Consequently if anyone has a problem with the policy of the Defence Force and he does not wish to derive party-political benefit from it, he can come and see me in my office or he can go and see the Chief of the Defence Force in his office. They could do this for the sake of the security of our country. The security of our country is too precious to drag this matter through the mud for political gain.

I wish to refer to the 1981 election and say what my objections to the HNP were at the time. With that I do not wish to say that the CP is not close to the HNP. However, the HNP, with its statements on the Defence Force and integration, caused polarization and in that way played right into the hands of the communists, because the communists are trying to bring about polarization in this country. Consequently, if hon. members have problems in regard to intergroup relations in the Defence Force, let them come and see me about the matter. We should not cause polarization in this connection though. The CP is falling into the same trap as the HNP if they cause polarization in that way and play into the hands of the communists. I know they do not want to do so, because they are just as patriotic as I am. The hon. member for Helderkruin explained the matter very well, and I want to thank him for doing so.

To continue: The hon. member for Jeppe said here that he did know what I meant when I said that the Defence Force should be kept above party-politics. I then told him that I would explain. During the no-confidence debate he said that he had come to see me in my office. This is correct. It is the tradition in Parliament that in the case of sensitive matters the chief defence spokesman of the various Opposition parties are briefed on these matters so that they will know about them. After all, we all want to elevate the security of the country and the Defence Force above party-politics. I then invited the hon. member to visit me and explained matters to him as they had been explained to all the other parties. Then he asked me: What do you mean by saying that the Defence Force should not be involved in party-politics? He had put that question to me before. I then explained the matter to him. I then learned that the Chief of the Defence Force had also explained it to him that same week. I want to say that the hon. member for Jeppe still does not understand it.

You told me that as political head I could get at you as much as I liked.

I said that he must not drag the Defence Force into politics.

You said I could get at you, and that is what I am doing.

Order!

The hon. member for Helderkruin demonstrated how the hon. member was doing so again today, and I have also explained it to him myself.

You are now going back on your word.

If the hon. member cannot understand it, then I really do not know what to say, for then the Defence Force and the scope of the security task is beyond him.

In addition, a question was put on the use of an aircraft. I agree that this is a question which ought to be put. He should also put it to me here—he need not put it to me in my office—because it is a matter from which he can try to derive political benefit if an aircraft of the S.A. Defence Force is used by a colleague. That would have been the correct thing to do. Can he see the subtle difference?

No, he does not understand it. He is a meathead (vleiskop).

As for the using of aircraft of the S.A. Defence Force …

Order! The hon. member for Kimberley South must withdraw the word “meathead”.

I withdraw it, Sir.

The use of aircraft of the S.A. Defence Force by Cabinet Ministers is not administered haphazardly, but according to a policy, a policy discussed and approved in the Cabinet. The day the Cabinet decided on this matter, the hon. members for Waterberg and Lichtenburg were also present. They had no objection to it. To tell the truth, this policy was being applied when they were still members of the Cabinet. I am certain that they still have a copy of that Cabinet resolution and I think the hon. member should ask them to inform him about this. There has been no deviation from that policy.

Would you not like to say what the policy is?

Then the hon. member should ask me about it. He did not ask me what the policy was. I suggest that he first ask the hon. member for Waterberg what the policy is, and if he is then still not satisfied he can come and see me. The cases in regard to which he made enquiries and in regard to which his colleagues made enquiries happened in absolute accordance with that policy. He can be sure about that.

Tell us what the policy is.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [Interjections.]

He is the big hole of Kimberley.

Order! The hon. member …

I withdraw it, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, it is obviously impossible for me to deal with the wide field covered by the hon. the Minister, but there are one or two matters to which I want to refer.

Firstly, I think the hon. the Minister used an expression unwittingly when he said that “no more English-speaking South Africans were joining the Permanent Force”. I know he does not mean that, but I do not want that to go on record. What he means is that he wished there were more …

That is right.

I just wanted to clear that up. This may to some extent reflect the point the hon. member for King William’s Town raised. I say in all sincerity that this could be a factor and that it is something that we have to look at.

The other matter I want to deal with very briefly is the sensitivity to the use of the word “integration”. This party believes that all South Africans of all races should contribute to its defence. We have welcomed the extent to which discrimination has been removed in the S.A. Defence Force. I hope that the hon. the Minister and other members who have stood up and said that they do not stand for integration, will not continue to create the impression that this is a reversal or a change in policy. In the operational area there is no discrimination. In the Navy on ships there is no discrimination. Why run away from it? Let us accept it and be proud of it and let us say that this is the progress we have made in South Africa. Let the CP shout their heads off. Let them make a noise. What has been done by the Defence Force has been correctly done and properly done and I welcome it.

I thank the hon. the Minister for his reply, but I must say that he very carefully avoided the issue of Permanent Force pay delays. How would he have liked it when he became a Cabinet Minister if he did not get paid for two or three months? He would not have liked it. This is the case not only when people join but also when they are promoted or when there are increases. There is always a long time lag. They get the arrears, but there is a time lag before it comes through.

I now want to raise a few matters which I could not raise earlier because my time ran out.

Under the budgetary system as it is now one appreciates the tremendous emphasis on savings and keeping expenditure to a minimum. However, I believe there is not enough flexibility to deal with matters of urgency which arise. For example, let us take the case of a security fence which gets broken as a result of a vehicle going through it. To get that repaired, an application has to be made that has to go into the sausage machine which is programmed to work on the basis of a five year plan. To me there appears to be insufficient scope or flexibility to deal with a matter that has to be dealt with immediately. The long process, the five year budget planning, should provide for exceptions, so that when something happens which requires immediate expenditure, this can take place without delay. In the operational area money is spent immediately when an operation has to be undertaken. There is no waiting and budgeting for it. Similarly where things are needed internally, particularly if they affect security, it should be possible to do something about them immediately.

There is one other sensitive point I want to raise, sensitive in the human sense and not in the political sense, and I know this applies to all armies all over the world. I believe the safeguards against the victimization of persons who complain through the proper channels are not working effectively. At present, if people complain—I know there is also a complaints office—the procedure is that a man complains to his own senior officer. This could be his commanding officer or his platoon officer. If he gets no satisfaction, he can then go to a higher level. However, if he does go to a higher level, then, not because he has done so, but for a whole host of other unarguable reasons, he is suddenly “undisciplined”, he is suddenly this or that and he finds himself chasing around the parade ground, and this for reasons that have nothing to do with the fact that he complained to a higher officer through the proper channels. Although I know the safeguards and assurances are there and although I know it is impossible to eliminate this problem altogether, I believe that if a person follows the correct channels with a legitimate complaint he should be protected against any come-back, because that is when we start getting the complaints, i.e. when they do not get solved within the machine through the normal channels. Then one gets the complaints via politicians. If the normal channels were operating and there was no fear of victimization, one would not receive the complaints that come via members of Parliament.

The hon. member Mr. Vermeulen raised the matter of Defence Force publications. I agree with him that there are some first-class publications. There is not only Paratus, but also the others such as Navy News, the Air Force paper and Uniform which is a sponsored paper. But really, Mr. Chairman, did the Defence Force not make an absolute monkey of itself when a picture of a beautiful young lady in a toilet in a tree was banned? I have similar photos showing my wife there and another of myself ushering a former Minister into the same tree! It is a famous landmark. Because Uniform published this picture it was banned. Uniform had to spend thousands of rands reprinting the front page. Hon. members must look at the picture. There is nothing wrong with it. The young lady is standing up fully dressed. She is not even sitting on the toilet!

It is nature conservation.

Yes, it is nature conservation. Then the Army comes along and bans the whole issue of Uniform. They had to reprint the issue after about 3 000 copies had been sent out. Somebody should really get what he normally sits on in the toilet kicked nice and hard for making an idiot of the S.A. Defence Force.

There is another small matter that I wish to raise. I do not like raising this sort of thing, but Paratus serves the Defence Force which reflects a cross-section of South African life and people. I got somebody to do a check on a few issues of Paratus. I find that roughly 80% of Paratus was in one language and 20% in the other. That does not reflect the cross-section of South African society. One particular issue which I took at random contains 51,5 pages in Afrikaans and 13 pages in English. I am referring to the text, excluding advertisements. Other issues follow the same pattern. I believe that if we are going to follow a policy, as we have done, of equality of the languages, it should apply equally to the publications put out by the S.A. Defence Force. I shall not have time to raise the matter of accidents but perhaps the hon. the Minister could give us information in connection with the progress made with the accident prevention campaign in the S.A. Defence Force. It is really a matter of concern. I am not only talking about accidents in which hitchhikers are involved but also accidents within the SADF, accidents which cost lives and inflict severe injuries.

Another matter to which, I believe, we are not paying sufficient attention, is a matter which I also raised in the Defence debate last year. That is namely the question of civil defence, for which approximately R13 million has been appropriated to be allocated to all four provinces for the purposes of civil defence. I believe we should pay greater attention to that sphere of our defence activities. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I, too, should like to take the opportunity to congratulate the hon. member for Durban Point on having been his party’s chief spokesman on defence for 25 years now. I also thank him for the responsible way in which he is still doing so. I just wish to point out to him that when we say that there is no integration in the Defence Force, he must not confuse the concepts “integration” and “discrimination”. It is not necessary to integrate entirely in order to do away with discrimination.

On this occasion I also wish to associate myself with the hon. member for Standerton, because in my constituency in particular, the Defence Force has been of great assistance to us in providing essential grazing in the acute drought crisis that we are experiencing there at the moment. We are also very grateful to the Defence Force for its assistance as regards the supply of water to our neighbours in kwaZulu.

I am grateful to say that I, too, can attest to the widespread realization of the importance of the system of national service that is now being implemented in my neighbouring constituency, the constituency of the hon. member for Vryheid. I am also gratified to hear that it is now to be extended to include Carolina, Nelspruit and Piet Retief. On this occasion I also wish to make an urgent request for my constituency to be next in line, and for obvious reasons. The people are ready for it. They are waiting for it, and we should very much like this to be given a high priority.

In the light of the threat against our country we expect that other speakers in this debate will show great responsibility and circumspection in this House, particularly in view of the total onslaught on us concerning which no one can any longer have the slightest doubt. It is uncalled for for an hon. member of whatever party to overstep the mark in this regard. In this regard we have of course had this from an hon. member of the CP. Instead of making a positive contribution, he attacked the hon. the Minister.

You must be very careful what you say now. [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr. Chairman, I want to put it to the hon. member for Kuruman that anyone can make a mistake.

You must take care what you say.

Whom are you threatening, Jan? [Interjections.]

Order!

Anyone can make a mistake, Mr. Chairman, but when the security of our country is at stake one must really be careful of what one says and does. The enemies of South Africa rejoice at what has happened in this House, viz. that an hon. member has called upon the hon. the Minister to resign. I believe it is absolutely scandalous that anything of the kind should happen. The hon. member for Jeppe received the assurance that the allegations and accusations he levelled at the hon. the Minister were totally unfounded, and he should accept it as such.

Where do you get that from?

I want to warn hon. members of the CP that they must not allow their hate of the NP to become greater than their love of South Africa.

That is already the case.

Their actions and their gossip mentality attest to the total lack of a standpoint in their party. They owe the hon. the Minister an apology. I want to tell the hon. the Minister that we are grateful to have a man of his calibre as Minister of Defence. [Interjections.]

The Republic of South Africa and its inhabitants are being submitted to an onslaught which is total in its extent and which is increasing in intensity, an onslaught which is being launched externally as well as internally. This onslaught comes from the Soviet Union, its allies and surrogates and fellow travellers, and in this regard use is also being made of elements from the Third World and from certain Western circles. The onslaught from the Soviet Union is assuming worldwide proportions and is initiated by aggressive Soviet imperialism which is striving to achieve the ideal of world domination. The Steyn Commission found that the Soviet onslaught on the RSA was increasing in intensity and would escalate rapidly during the rest of this decade.

Now we have the contradictory point of view of the PFP, who say that we are suffering from an emotional persecution complex in respect of a general communist threat. From the CP, however, we hear that we are exaggerating this onslaught or that the onslaught concept has been ridden to death.

The standpoint of the PFP that the so-called onslaught on the RSA is a product of the imagination, used for political benefit, is one that shuts its eyes to the realities. It cannot be reconciled with the realities of the situation. Those who think that the total onslaught on the Republic is a fabrication are living in a dream world. Those who think that the domestic political situation is responsible for the so-called liberation struggle and for the struggle in which we are engaged, are playing directly into the hands of the Kremlin. Those who disparage the total onslaught or contend that it is being exaggerated, are also playing directly into the hands of the Kremlin.

The standpoint of the Government is that it wants to live in peace with its neighbours, but good neighbourliness must come from both sides. Here I want to refer briefly to the attack on Maseru. During 1982 the regional head office of the ANC in Lesotho was responsible for terrorist activity in the RSA and Ciskei. Various incidents took place in the country which were positively connected with the ANC head quarters in Lesotho. In spite of the repeated warnings of the RSA to its neighbouring States not to accommodate ANC terrorists, Lesotho continued to support the ANC.

Apart from these incidents, a number of ANC terrorists who entered the country from Lesotho were arrested. The command structure of the ANC in Lesotho further decided to infiltrate trade unions, student organizations and churches with a view to promoting the aims of the ANC. The ANC did not succeed in the planned intensification of terrorism during the middle of 1982 and subsequently it was decided to launch the attack during the Christmas and New Year season of 1982. They decided to launch an attack on Black political leaders in the RSA, prominent officials in the RSA, the infrastructure keypoints of the RSA and national States and community centres for Blacks in the RSA. Here we have in mind in particular the Port Elizabeth Uitenhage area. Since Lesotho would not listen, an attack was carried out on 12 ANC targets in Maseru by the RSA Security Forces in 19 December 1982.

On this occasion I wish to convey our sincere congratulations on behalf of this side of the Committee to the SADF for that highly successful operation. 30 members of the ANC were killed in the attack. Although the RSA attacking force did everying in its power not to injure or kill children and non-ANC members, nevertheless some were killed in the crossfire. However, we cannot bear responsibility for that; it happened because our neighbouring States continued to accommodate these elements. The ANC headquarters were deliberately accommodated in the homes of civilians, distributed across the residential area of Maseru, and this made action against them difficult.

Notwithstanding positive statements made on occasion by Premier Jonathan, it nevertheless appears that they are persisting in accommodating the ANC. Specifically due to its links with the banned South African Communist Party, the ANC is playing an important role in Soviet strategy. Although the S.A. Communist Party is attempting to maintain a low profile, it is in fact in control of the ANC. As regards the provision of arms and training to the ANC, Russia and other communist States are playing and important role and all arms and explosives are of communist origin. The ideological objective of the South African Communist Party is to establish a socialist and ultimately a communist system in the RSA. Therefore neighbouring States that grant support an accommodation to the ANC, from which they are able to launch an attack on South Africa, must therefore be prepared to bear the consequences. Through their support of the ANC and of sanctions against South Africa, the Black States are engaged in a process of destabilizing the RSA. The hon. the Prime Minister and the hon. the Minister of Defence have repeatedly warned them not to persist in doing so, and on this occasion we wish to convey our sincere thanks to the Government for looking after the security of everyone in South Africa in a responsible way. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I do not wish to follow the hon. member for Umfolozi in his argument. I want to refer to some remarks that were made earlier in this debate today by the hon. member for Swellendam and the hon. member for East London North. I believe that their insinuations in respect of the hon. member for Wynberg were deplorable.

During the debate yesterday the hon. member for Wynberg referred to a distant relative and during the debate today he reaffirmed the fact that he happens to have a third cousin or some relation of that nature living there. However, he has no financial interest whatsoever and therefore has no personal interest to declare. I believe that the behaviour of those two hon. members was highly irresponsible and I sincerely hope that the hon. the Minister will admonish them.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: Do the remarks of the hon. member not imply that he is criticising the ruling by the chair?

Order! The hon. member may proceed.

Thank you, Sir. Hon. members on that side appealed to the hon. member for Wynberg to act responsibly and to co-operate but I do not think the chances of his doing so are very good if that is the way hon. members opposite act.

There are two matters I should like to discuss this afternoon, and the first of these concerns administration. There are tens of thousands of people in this country involved in national service and in the Citizen Force. I am sure that most hon. members receive numerous queries in regard to problems that arise from time to time. I should like to compliment and express my personal sincere thanks to the officers on the staff of the hon. the Minister and the Chief of the Defence Force for the co-operation and assistance that they give very promptly indeed. I believe that they do an excellent job, and the liaison procedures that exist so far as members of Parliament are concerned certainly appear to work very well in that respect.

The most frequent problems with which I am confronted are problems relating to deferment, pay and, occasionally, to transfers. I believe that many of these problems should not arise in the sense that they end up with a member of Parliament which then means that the time of senior officers is taken up sorting them out. Routine problems very often end up as last minute crises and, particularly during the recess, one becomes involved in telephoning Pretoria and leaving and taking messages and so forth.

The biggest single problem in this regard appears to be slow or non-existent replies to letters and telegrams. I may say that this even applies on occasion to registered letters. I suggest that the procedure be investigated, in particular in regard to the prompt acknowledgment of letters and attention to requests for deferment, and that a hard look also be taken at pay procedures. I do not have the time now to illustrate this by means of examples but I am quite sure that the hon. the Minister and his staff are aware of these problems. If there is no on-going improvement in this sphere—there may well have been an improvement compared with the past—then there will continue to be a considerable waste of time and money. Equally harmful are the negative attitudes towards the Defence Force itself that this creates among the people serving in it, in that they become frustrated and irritated at the inability to solve problems that they may have.

A second aspect I wish to refer to is the question of party political involvement in Defence Force matters. I accept entirely the fact that the Defence Force takes its instruction from the government of the day. I do not quibble with that at all. I think equally, however—the hon. the Minister spoke at length on this this afternoon—that the hon. the Minister will accept that the Defence Force should not be above criticism. In particular, the Opposition, and for that matter hon. members on the Government side too, have a duty to criticize things which they consider wrong or which need attention. I think also it is worth bearing in mind that just as we should attempt to keep the Defence Force out of party politics so the Defence Force itself should keep out of party politics. It is of vital importance that it is kept out of the party-political arena. I am afraid that I am not satisfied that this has always been done. I believe it is the duty of the hon. the Minister of Defence to ensure that lapses do not occur. Unfortunately, this is not just a recent phenomenon either. I should like to quote 10 examples, spread over a number of years, which I believe give justifiable cause for concern.

The first example was in September 1975 when at the Cape NP congress in East London the Minister of Defence at that time made a speech on defence matters. He took the unprecedented step of invoking the Defence Act to prohibit publication of some sections of his speech, the implication being that there were things which members of the congress could hear but which were not for the ears of the general public. I think that was regrettable.

In October 1977, during a general election campaign, at an NP meeting in Knysna the Minister of Defence at that time used the occasion, a party-political meeting, to announce from the platform that young men had been killed in action in the previous 24 hours. He gave no names but said that further details would be announced later. I think it was a most inappropriate occasion to do that. His comments were reported and caused considerable consternation among parents because they did not know whether it might be one of their sons who was involved.

In October 1979 the hon. the Minister himself, in this previous capacity, at a defence information seminar in Port Elizabeth said the following—

I think members of the Defence Force, and particularly senior members, need to choose their words very carefully and should not take it upon themselves to interpret what Government policy is or is not.

I now come to the fourth example. In February 1980 that well-known Defence Force document—an action plan to nullify the Opposition’s attack on the Prime Minister during the Defence Force budget debate—was drawn up. It was pointed out that there were a number of contentious subjects which would probably arise in the defence debate. It was stated that it was understandable that they would be exploited by the Opposition to the detriment of the Government. The document also set out steps to be taken to achieve the objectives of nullifying the Opposition’s attack.

There is also a fifth example. In August 1980 the hon. the Prime Minister announced that the Chief of the Defence Force at that time was going to become an NP member of Parliament and be appointed to the position of Minister of Defence in October that year, some six weeks later. I believe the hon. the Minister in his previous capacity should have resigned immediately from his post in the Defence Force, but he did not. Let us make a comparison. If a doctor in the Cape Provincial Administration intends standing for political office he is required to resign, even from that sort of non-political position. I think it was an unfortunate incident.

Early in September 1980 when Gen. Malan was still the Chief of the Defence Force and therefore in uniform, he apparently sent a telegram to an NP candidate, Mr. John Wiley, to congratulate him on his by-election victory. Again I believe that was a totally unacceptable gesture.

I want to quote a seventh example. During last year in confused and extraordinary circumstances it became known that the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Information had become an honorary colonel of No. 3 Squadron of the S.A. Air Force. I do not think that honours should be bestowed in that way on active politicians.

In the eighth place, in October last year it was reported that a film shown to national servicemen allegedly misquoted Dr. Allan Boesak as part of a reference to the Church’s role in the total onslaught against the Republic. I have not seen that allegation denied.

In November last year Mr. Boet Botma, the NP candidate in the Walvis Bay election, was asked what contribution his party made towards achieving peace on South Africa’s northern borders. He began his reply as follows—

Then he went on to say other things. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, you will excuse me if I do not follow up on what the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens has said. I should like to react to his speech, but I want to keep out of party politics.

I should like to take this opportunity to indicate what steps are being taken to ensure that the members of the S.A. Defence Force are properly remunerated. In the nature of the matter, this division of the Public Services does not have the right enjoyed by others to negotiate on a collective basis by way of trade unions and staff associations. They are therefore dependent on the authorities for a remuneration package which will assure them of the same standard of living as that of their counterparts in the private sector. Practical considerations dictate that the remuneration package must be such that young men are attracted of the service and the experienced and skilled members remain in the service. To maintain this balance, recommendations are made from time to time by the Commission for Administration in terms of section 82 of the Defence Act of 1957. The project Manpower 2000 has had an influence in the S.A. Defence Force as well, and has resulted in the S.A. Defence Force and the Commission for Administration developing a management method through which it has been possible to establish competitive conditions of service for the S.A. Defence Force. The Commission for Administration is the umbrella body concerned with the improvement of salaries in the Government sector. The S.A. Defence Force determines its own priorities every year, and after the Commission for Administration has received the inputs of all the bodies in the public sector, each priority is determined during a meeting at which all the departments are represented.

Investigations by members of the office of the Commission for Administration and the S.A. Defence Force have resulted in an improvement in the remuneration package of 19 occupational groups. I want to mention some of these occupational groups in order to indicate the wide spectrum of occupational groups whose interests are being investigated. They are, inter alia, artisans, technicians, engineers, typists and secretaries, telephonists, psychologists, firemen and health inspectors. One must not see and judge the S.A. Defence Force in isolation as regards remuneration and other conditions of service but rather as a component of the Public Service. It must also be pointed out that the entire technical family of the Permanent Force has been benefited. Moreover, the allowances paid to specific members of the S.A. Defence Force have been rationalized and adjusted upwards. A new dispensation has also been introduced for military jurists, and for test flight personnel and technical personnel attached to the Navy shipyard.

At the beginning of February last year, the hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs said that the target was to investigate all occupational groups before the end of the 1984-’85 financial year with a view to introducing a competitive dispensation. After this, all occupational groups will be subjected to an investigation, according to priority, in order to ensure that the competitive circumstances be maintained.

Service systems, too, are regularly investigated and adjustments are being made constantly. At present an investigation is being carried out into the problem being experienced in respect of the retirement of staff who go on pension at the age of 60 years. Hon. members will realise that due to the unique character of the duties of many of the members of the S.A. Defence Force, the first 20 years of service are the most efficient and productive, and that after that it is difficult to utilize some of them productively until their time of retirement. As a result of this, investigations are now being carried out into the introduction of service in the short, medium and long term. The greater involvement of the other population groups in the S.A. Defence Force is also being investigated.

All this shows that constant consideration is being given by the Government to the working conditions of the professional soldier. I want to give hon. members the assurance that constant attention is also being given to the remuneration package of the Citizen Force, members of the Commandos and national servicemen. The circumstances of members serving in these branches differ in many respects from those of members of the Permanent Force. Nevertheless an effort is made to pay them, too, in accordance with what would be paid in the private sector. Since 1979 members of the Citizen Force and Commandos are being remunerated in accordance with the minimum salary notches applicable to corresponding ranks in the Permanent Force. In 1982 it was also accepted that members should be remunerated for post-school qualifications. This principle is being introduced systematically as money is voted by the Treasury. To the wages should also be added the value of free accommodation and rations received by members during military service and the allowances paid to members of the Citizen Force and Commandos in specific conditions of service. Then, too, there is the tax concession which applies in respect of national servicement who do not pay tax on their military pay in the initial period of service.

The remuneration of members of the Defence Force engaged in the initial period of service is based on the salary notch of a private in the Permanent Force with a standard eight qualification. In the case of privates it is once again the minimum salary notch of the military ranks of the Permanent Force in the case of lance-corporals and higher. A daily allowance is paid to national servicemen occupying professional posts. In the case of trained members of the Defence Force attending camps, the remuneration and allowances are also based on the formula applying to national servicemen. Moreover, as regards the possession of post-school qualifications, the measures relating to professional national servicemen also apply.

People who have been professionally trained are remunerated in accordance with the minimum salary notch applicable to the corresponding professional rank in the Permanent Force, in the case of the lowest rank, and in accordance with the higher salary level in the case of the higher ranks.

Our country has a defence force of which we are proud and their remuneration must reflect that. The Government does everything in its power to repay all members of the Defence Force for their services with a comparable remuneration package. When one considers the salary scales provided by the hon. the Minister in reply to questions, one sees what progress has been made by way of comparable remuneration packages. That is not to say, of course, that it is not necessary to consider new dispensations. In this regard I wish to make an appeal to employers to pay the full salaries of their staff when they have to perform national service. If it is expected that the military remuneration be repaid to the employer, the minimum wage received by a defence force man should be repaid, so that the man who performs national service is also urged by his employer to qualify for a higher rank with the associated higher remuneration. I also wish to ask whether the Commission for Administration and the Defence Force would not consider whether the salary notch of Citizen Force and Commando members could not be adjusted so as to be fully in line with that of the Permanent Force, so that progress from the minimum to the maximum of the salary scale could be possible in all ranks. Possibly consideration could also be given to the desirability of paying a service bonus to the Citizen Force and Commando members after completion of a specific period of service as to motivate the members to perform active military service for as long as possible.

The hon. the Minister and the Chief of the Army and his staff deserve praise for the way in which our Defence Force is being controlled and administered.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member will excuse me if I do not react to his speech. In the first place I want to thank the hon. the Minister for the privilege he gave me of visiting the border areas in November/December in order to meet the medical staff and discuss the problems there with them. I also wish to thank the Surgeon-General for the outstanding tour he arranged for me. I also thank Gen. Scheepers who accompanied me and the other people whom I met there. I am now referring to people from both Cape Town and Johannesburg.

It is interesting to note that a week after I was a guest of the hon. the Minister, I was the guest of the Minister of Defence of Rumania, where I also investigated medical services and worked in a medical hospital for three weeks. Three weeks later I was in Maputo in Mozambique. Again I was involved in the medical services of another country. It is a pity that there is no time to discuss the differences in approach during the discussion of this Vote, but I would like to discuss them one day with the hon. the Minister or the Surgeon-General. The approach is medical, and thus is in the best interests of man. Anywhere in the world one finds the dedication of the medical staff stimulating. I regard myself as very fortunate and I regard it as an honour to also be a doctor.

What did I see on the border? I just want to present a few impressions. First, I must admit that I was impressed by the total dedication of the medical staff there. There was not only dedication but also enthusiasm, enthusiasm that I found tremendously inspiring. I met people there, not only doctors, but also the ordinary staff who are concerned with these matters, about whom one thought at first: What do they know about this problem? However, when one speaks to them and discusses with them the problems they have there and when one sees the way in which they approach their work, then one can only praise them.

There was something there that troubled me. As the hon. member is aware, there are military medical services and in addition, medical services that are normally provided by the State. What troubled me a great deal—and I think that the hon. the Minister must think about this—is the question of what is to become of the health of those people if South Africa’s military force has to be withdrawn from there? Personally I think that if there are such plans—and fortunately I am not involved in that—the hon. the Minister and his staff must begin to consider that, because who is going to fill that vacuum there? One cannot move away there without leaving doctors and medical staff there. I saw what happened in Maputo in Mozambique. When the withdrawal took place there, only 40 doctors remained behind. There were only 40 doctors for a population of 11 million people. Today there are 400 doctors for a population of 12 million people. I do not think this is the direct task of the hon. the Minister, but to achieve any success with a withdrawal, the gaps must be filled. I must say, and I say this here without any hesitation, that what our medical staff are doing there, not only for our military personnel but also for the public and the population of that country, is something for which I have only the utmost respect. It is not only what they are doing there, but also the way in which, and the spirit with which, they work there.

I visited sick-bays and hospitals there; they are not the best hospitals and equipment one could get. That is understandable. I saw that there were deficiencies because the medical treatment given there is only the absolute emergency treatment that can be given there. If the case is a very serious or a chronic one, the patient goes to the military hospital base in Pretoria or other parts of the country. I had sympathy for these young doctors, who even build their own buildings there. They do it themselves and they themselves collect the money to construct these buildings. I believe that this is praiseworthy, but I wonder whether a little more money could not be spent in that way. For example, I saw an examination table there that had been fixed so often with “elastoplast” that it looked as if it came out of Noah’s Ark. It is true that it was usable and that it was a place where a person could lie, but I felt that the personnel there should perhaps be given more help in that regard. I note that an amount of R45 million is specified in the budget and I should like to have a little more information in that regard.

There are certain other problems, too, that I wish to discuss with the hon. the Minister. I wish to deal with the question of the medical staff in the Permanent Force and the medical staff who are involved in the national service system. There is a great deal of concern in the medical profession in this regard with regard to the way in which their services are used and with regard to the opportunities they miss in civilian life.

†I should just like to quote a letter to the hon. the Minister that was written by a senior member of the medical profession. He speaks about the handicaps experienced by those members of the medical profession who become eligible for military service. He does it very sympathetically because it is not an aggressive letter. He says—

This is the stage at which they should be devoting all their time to their profession. He goes on to say—

The hon. member for Durban Point may well be interested in what follows. He goes on to say—

I know that this is a very difficult problem. However, I wonder whether the hon. the Minister is aware of the problem and, if so, whether there is any way in which he can ensure that these young doctors who have to elect when to do their military service, either immediately after qualification or after having specialized, cannot be assisted in some way or the other. This is a very difficult decision for them to make when they are only 24 or 25 years of age. I want to make a special plea in this regard because I have seen this for myself. They must not in any way be penalized in that they have, after having done their military service, to start at the end of the queue just because other doctors who have done all their schooling and received all their university education in South Africa are at the front of that queue simply because they do not need to do military service in South Africa as they are not South African citizens. That is the point—that they are not South African citizens.

I should also like to ask the hon. the Minister whether the military authorities make proper use of the services of these medical personnel. Once again, I do not wish to criticize in saying this but I have visited hospitals where medical staff are desperately needed and where medical personnel of that nature could be receiving wonderful training. The hon. the Minister knows that I have already approached him in regard to one such hospital. I accept the fact that the needs of the military authorities have first to be satisfied. However, as far as additional staff are concerned, I should like to know how they are selected to serve at various places and what indication there is that such additional medical staff is required. As a doctor, I believe that this is a problem that should be carefully investigated. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I want to compliment the hon. member for Parktown on the constructive speech he has just made.

I thought the purpose of the discussion of the Defence Vote was to enable Parliament to appropriate money for all the various branches and facets of the Defence Force and, secondly, to discuss the defence policy of the Government and the hon. the Minister. In the third place, I thought the purpose of this discussion was to discuss the S.A. Defence Force itself in its capacity as the instrument for the protection of our country and in the process, of course, to give credit where it is due, as the hon. member for Parktown has just done, and also—this is very important—to voice constructive criticism with a view to making the S.A. Defence Force a better instrument for the protection of our country.

However, what have we been experiencing in this debate over the past two days? We have listened to the two chief defence spokesmen of the two biggest Opposition parties in this House, and instead of discussing the defence of the country, one of them devoted 90% of his first speech to an unfounded attack on Armscor in connection with the proposed acquisition of a piece of land in the South-Western Cape to be used as a test site, while the other one devoted 100% of his first speech to an unsavoury personal attack on the hon. the Minister of Defence.

And in the process he nearly kicked the door to pieces.

Yes, he did that in the process.

He nearly took the door with him. [Interjections.]

Apart from that, all the hon. member did was to gossip about the Defence Force. This is what we got from the two chief spokesmen of the two biggest Opposition parties in this House. Now the question may rightly be asked whether either of those two hon. members has made any contribution to improving the image of the S.A. Defence Force; or do they not care two hoots about the Defence Force?

Do not start giving us your half-truths again. [Interjections.]

[Inaudible.]

I can give you the answer, Mr. Chairman. [Interjections.]

The closest you have ever been to a war was when you shot your grandmother with a catty. [Interjections.]

You had better keep quiet, Barney. [Interjections.]

The answer to this question is … [Interjections.] They have done precisely the opposite, for what they have in fact done is to cause friction between the S.A. Defence Force on the one hand … [Interjections.] Mr. Chairman, if the hon. member for Standerton and the hon. member for Rissik have finished talking I suppose I can continue. [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, I say the answer to the question is that no positive contribution has been made to this debate by these two hon. members. They have only helped to create friction between the S.A. Defence Force on the one hand and the public on the other with their attempts to sow suspicion and of course with the abusive language they used. The hon. member for Wynberg used expressions such as “the hole-and-corner and underhand” conduct of Armscor. “Despicable” was another word he used. On top of that the hon. member for Jeppe raked up a lot of old issues.

He is an old hand at doing that. [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr. Chairman, the first speech made by the hon. member for Wynberg yesterday was very predictable, of course, because two Cape Prog newspapers published editorials yesterday on the line of attack which that hon. member and his party should follow during the discussion of this Vote. This was an excellent example of scene setting on the part of the Prog newspapers, where they tell the hon. members of the PFP in advance what attitude they should adopt in this House and what they should say and how they should handle a debate. I want to quote from the editorial in yesterday’s Cape Times. I shall quote only two sentences. Referring to evidence given by Mr. Player before the committee of the President’s Council, they said—

Allow me to make three brief remarks about that sentence: The hon. the Minister has already explained to this House that De Hoop is not involved anyway. So the newspaper has also committed a factual error in presenting the matter to its readers. Furthermore, the newspaper says that such alleged action would only be justified if the country were in real danger. So there are people in this country who believe that South Africa is not in real danger. When it is said by the Government, by responsible authorities and by the hon. the Minister of Defence that South Africa is in danger, there are people in this country who say: Oh no, pay no attention to that; that is not true. In its editorial the newspaper went on to say the only other justification would be “if life-and-death issues were at stake”. One should tell the newspaper editor that if he has not been there yet he should pay a visit to the operational area. One should take him there so that he can see with his own eyes that there are in fact life-and-death issues at stake in this country.

In the next sentence the newspaper says—

There they have let the cat out of the bag. That party and the newspapers which support it are not intent on promoting the SADF in South Africa, but on subtly undermining it. I want to make this quite clear. The newspapers are creating a whole atmosphere within which that party and its hon. members in this House can debate the Defence Vote. One could go on in this way. I have said that it is a carefully calculated strategy. I want to mention another example.

Order! Did the hon. member say that hon. members were undermining the Defence Force?

No, Sir. I said that an atmosphere was being created by people in this country within which hon. members of that party are launching attacks on the Defence Force. [Interjections.] If what I said was unparliamentary I shall withdraw it.

Order! The hon. member has withdrawn it and he may therefore proceed.

After withdrawing it, you may look for a better example.

I want to mention another example of the strategy which the PFP has planned for its attack in this debate. I am referring to a report in Die Vaderland of 18 May. It tells us that the hon. member for Constantia had an interview with Mr. Morsbach, the Director of Nature Conservation of the Cape Province. The hon. member said yesterday that he had seen Mr. Morsbach and I now want to ask him a few questions: When did he see Mr. Morsbach? He must tell us when it happened. Did he see Mr. Morsbach recently, only this week? The second question which the hon. member should answer is this: What did he go to discuss with Mr. Morsbach in connection with the test site?

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

No, I am not replying to questions; I am asking questions now.

We should like to know from the hon. member for Constantia what information he asked Mr. Morsbach to give him in connection with this matter. The last question I want to put to the hon. member is whether he knew, when he visited Mr. Morsbach, that Mr. Morsbach was a member of the committee appointed by the hon. the Minister of Environment Affairs and Fisheries to conduct an environment impact study in that area, because if this is so, I want to submit that the hon. member was guilty of improper interference with a committee which is engaged in carrying out its activities. [Interjections.]

I also want to ask the hon. member for Jeppe a few questions. Does he believe, as his party’s chief spokesman on defence, that the S.A. Defence Force is the principal instrument employed by the Government in its struggle against the communist onslaught on South Africa? [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, with great respect to the hon. member for Ermelo, do members of the Opposition not have the right to raise any matter offering the SADF? The hon. member says we do not have that right. Surely we have as equal a right as all other members of Parliament.

The hon. member also criticized the hon. member for Wynberg, but the hon. member for Wynberg raised a very important subject with regard to Armscor. The hon. member for Constantia also raised that point. The fact that so much time has been spent on this issue shows how essential it was to raise this important issue. In fact, I think he has covered all the various aspects of the Vote extremely well.

We are dealing today with a highly equipped army and with an army which should be alert to dangers. Security should therefore be kept tight. To have tight security, one needs a very competent and thorough intelligence section, which I take it we have. What has been absent from this debate in regard to intelligence and the security of the country is an indication from the hon. the Minister where our intelligence services were at the time of the Seychelles incident. Were they not alive to it? Was there a gap in our intelligence services in regard to the Seychelles incident?

The same applies to South Africans who have crossed into Zimbabwe. Surely Intelligence must have known something about it or could have anticipated it.

There was also no mention made of the incident involving a high naval officer, Comm. Gerhard. Nothing was said either about the killing of Cristina. I think the hon. the Minister owes the House some form of explanation.

I want to go a bit further as far as Intelligence is concerned. I want to deal with another aspect of Intelligence altogether, namely the question of modern electronic aids in the age in which we live. Satellites are orbiting the earth and monitoring the activities and military movements of various countries. Many reports have been made of various sightings of mysterious flying objects. Many of them have not been identified and no country has claimed to have identified any of them. Are these craft conveying military and other intelligence to their places of origin? Has someone in fact created a myth about unidentified flying objects as a subterfuge to spy on other countries and to pass on military intelligence? The SADF cannot ignore this sort of activity. Obviously it must have some way of dealing with it. The hon. the Minister will recall that I asked him a question last year in regard to unidentified flying objects. In his reply on 2 June 1982 he stated that there had been no sightings in which such objects had been identified. He also replied that persons reporting sightings had been sent questionnaires but that none of these had ever been returned. With great respect, I do not blame a person for not returning a questionnaire.

The hon. the Minister sent me an example of such a questionnaire in a letter dated 13 August 1982. Incidentally, this circular originates from Alan Hendry of the International Association in the USA. The questionnaire is so detailed. Surely the hon. the Minister does not expect a normal person, unless he is very intelligent, to go through all these questions and be able to answer them in a decent and intelligent fashion.

In regard to the recording of sightings of unidentified flying objects in the Republic, I came across a book called Let the People Know written by Oliver Knaggs. I quote from page 29—

He goes on to say—

I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether that is true. Does he have a file bulging with these reported sightings.

As a result of my questions, I received a very nice letter from a lady, Cynthia Hind who wrote a book on the subject. She told me she had sent a copy of it to the hon. the Minister as well and I trust he read it with as much interest as I did. Let me say that I and, I think my colleagues in the House, are very pragmatic people and that, unless we have positive scientific information placed before us, we are not going to believe all kinds of stories. I do not believe that there are little green men floating around. I believe that many of the objects that are flying around in fact are sent by other countries to gather intelligence.

Can we, however, ignore some of the actual incidents which have been reported? For example, on 31 July 1975 Daan van Graan of Loxton said he saw four strange people. He says he actually saw the way they were dressed. He described them as looking almost like human beings except that they wore silver suits. However, the matter was not investigated any further and the Defence Force apparently knows nothing about it. On 26 June 1972 at Fort Beaufort Bernardus Smit sent a certain Boer de Klerk off to inspect a reservoir. Boer de Klerk came back very agitated and spoke of an object he had seen hovering at treetop level. The chap went to fetch his .303 and also telephoned the police. The station commander, W.O. P. R. van Rensburg and a Sgt. Kitching went to investigate and actually saw the object as well. On 27 June 12 policemen arrived and found footprints there. Is that all myth?

On 12 November 1972 at a place called Rosmead near Middelburg—this should interest the Army—Rifleman Stephanus Johannes Rousseau, No. 7038224N, who was on duty at a military camp and who was lying outside because it was very hot, the temperature being 110°, saw a strange object with strange lights. He called Rifleman T. K. Nel and Private G. J. Buitendag. A little later Sgt. Goosen of the S.A. Police, walking along Meintjies Street, saw an object in the sky. Then he saw that a tennis court on which this object had allegedly landed was all churned up. This was verified by Col. B. J. van Heerden on Monday 13 November.

Obviously, there are encounters of the first kind, the second kind and the third kind. We are hard put to recognize or accept these things. Only last month, however, an article appeared in The Cape Times of 21 April under the heading “UFO seen by hundreds across S.A.”. Initially the UFO, as far as I can see, was sighted at 10.20 p.m. in Muizenberg. It was then seen at 4.30 a.m. in Johannesburg, at 6.00 a.m. in Upington and at 6.30 a.m. in Beaufort West. A public servant by the name of Truter said—

I believe that our intelligence services that are working for the defence of our country should be aware of and be able to monitor such sightings. I do not believe that the public need be concerned, but I believe that we should alert the public to the fact that the Defence Force in fact has a questionnaire which anybody who claims to see a flying object can complete. However, I do not think that this questionnaire should ask for details such as those borrowed from Ufon, the mutual UFO headquarters in Illinois in the USA. The form could be a simple one. If there is a sighting then it should be possible to detail an officer of the Defence Force to interview the person concerned to check his credibility and so on.

I actually met the lady who wrote the book to which I have referred. She came to see me and we had a long chat. As I assessed her, she did not start off with a lot of fancy ideas about UFO’s. She is not as convinced as I am, but she has investigated cases very, very carefully. She was a journalist for over 10 years and was assigned to assist another journalist to do a certain job. It was as a result of that that she started gathering this kind of information and produced this book. There are lots of other books all over the world on this subject and there have been thousands of sightings. There are stories of pilots and of aeroplanes disappearing. I do not believe them. I want to tell hon. members that straight. I do not believe in little green men. I do believe, however, that there are objects flying around which need to be identified. I have the feeling that they are from other countries in this world that are using them as a subterfuge to gain information in regard to military intelligence which they are conveying to their own countries. I believe that we should tackle this in an adult and intelligent way and should try to monitor these phenomena. Let us see whether the intelligence section of the Army can assess and interpret what is going on in this regard.

Mr. Chairman, … [Interjections.]

I find it a very peculiar phenomenon in this House that whenever I get up, the interjections start before I have said a word. I do not see why that should be the case.

While I do not want to suggest that Unidentified Flying Objects, whether from this earth or from elsewhere, should not be investigated, I do think that I should rather bring the debate back to earth.

Something that has concerned me very much, is that as long as I have been in this House, this side of the House has stated very clearly what it understands by the totality of the communist onslaught on this country and on the world at large. What concerns me is that in spite of its having been explained time and again that the military part of the onslaught is only 20% of the total, we still have the tendency on the part of two largest opposition parties in the House, namely the PFP and the CP, to negate the nature and the totality of the onslaught.

I want to remind those hon. members of something that I found it necessary to say in this House before. The world has had another total onslaught in its history. A characteristic of the preamble to that total onslaught is what I call the Daladier-Chamberlain-syndrome. Hon. members will recall that on the eve of the outbreak of the Second World War, which unleashed one of the most barbaric scourges in the history of mankind, the British Prime Minister, Mr. Chamberlain, and the President of France, Mr. Daladier, went to Munich. Although they saw what the Chancellor of Germany was about to do, although they saw that he was going to proceed with his onslaught on Poland, the Sudetenland and other countries in that region, the prospect of it was so unpleasant that they shied away from reality. They knew very well what was going to happen, but the prospect was too unpleasant. They went home to their people and said: Everything is fine. Hitler is not going to invade Poland. There will be peace in our time. Three weeks after those misguided statements were made the Second World War broke out. I want to tell those hon. members that Mr. Chamberlain and Mr. Daladier, through neglect, became part of the total onslaught against Europe and their countries at the time. Those hon. members of the two main opposition parties who refuse to recognize the nature of the onslaught on this country, are in the same way running the risk of becoming, inadvertently and involuntarily, part of it. [Interjections.] The hon. chief defence spokesman of the CP should stop interjecting now.

*That hon. member said various things here yesterday before displaying his instability to this House. I want to say to the hon. leader of Waterberg …

He is the leader of Waterberg and the CP.

Yes, of the CP. I acknowledge that. I want to say to the hon. member for Waterberg that if he wants to entrust defence matters to a shadow Minister he must see to it that he has a stable member to undertake that responsibility. I shall come back to the hon. member for Waterberg again shortly. The hon. member for Jeppe added that they wanted a Defence Force for every people and population group. I do not wish to become involved in a party political dispute here concerning the viability or otherwise of separate armies for Coloureds and Indians in separate heartlands and homelands. However, the fact is that that hon. member also said that he wanted to co-operate with the independent Black peoples by way of an alliance against the enemies, viz. the communists. That is what this party stands for too. It is true that Transkei, Ciskei and the other independent national States now have armies of their own. Moreover, we have concluded defence treaties with them, but one cannot conclude a contract with such people and have them as allies, while displaying towards them the attitudes displayed by that hon. member and his party. When the hon. the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning spoke here about the reconciliation philosophy implicit in this party’s approach to the whole question of relations politics and constitutional politics in Southern Africa, the hon. member for Waterberg asked by way of an interjection: “Do you, then, want reconciliation with the Blacks?” I want to say to the hon. member for Waterberg that in a sense … [Interjections.]

Order! Hon. members must give the hon. member an opportunity to make his speech.

Everyone heard it. Therefore I now wish to say to those hon. members that in the sense in which we want peaceful co-operation and coexistence with independent States in Southern Africa to form a joint alliance against the communist onslaught, an onslaught by White communists, Russians, East-Germans and Coloured communists from Cuba, by North Koreans in Zimbabwe, Asian communists and Black communists such as Swapo, the ANC, the PAC and the SACP, we naturally want a spirit of good neighbourliness, friendliness etc. One cannot obtain that with the attitude displayed by that party in its attitudes towards people of a different colour. [Interjections.]

Perhaps there was an excuse for Mr. Chamberlain and Mr. Daladier.

When are you going to ask me the question?

I do not wish to ask you a question. [Interjections.] I said that I wanted to say something to that hon. member, and I have now said it to him and to his leader. I said that with that attitude they would not be able to achieve an anti-communist alliance in Southern Africa. Accordingly they too, like Chamberlain and Daladier, are becoming part of the onslaught on South Africa; the onslaught on the Whites in particular. The communists, in contrast to Hitler, say exactly what they intend doing, and then they do it. They have said that they want to destabilize this part of the world as well. They have done so, and they also do so by way of a propaganda onslaught and by way of disinformation. One of those forms of propaganda is the story that South Africa is destabilizing other countries. I want to warn the hon. member for Jeppe. The action taken by the Defence Force against the ANC in Maseru and Matola was an entirely different kind of operation. We warned those countries that if they had this kind of base, we would raid them, and the Defence Force makes no apology for doing so. When the communists—and hon. members must listen to Radio Moscow …

I do not understand Russian.

They broadcast in English. [Interjections.] Then those communist broadcasting stations in Russia, behind the Iron Curtain, in Berlin, in Brazzaville and Ethiopia link the Seychelles affair to this kind of thing and they call it destabilization. When that hon. member of the CP speaks about the Seychelles in the same breath as those people he finds himself in very strange company, just like the hon. member for Brakpan, who stood up for a Marxist-socialist Government in France, that held a conference at which Swapo was praised and South Africa attacked, when the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Information said that the Administrator-General of South West Africa should not attend a function at which the French ambassador was to receive an award. In protest against this, that party objects. It is an absolutely untenable situation that one should hate White South Africans to such an extent as to take the part of the communists against the Government. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, at this late stage in the debate it is a pleasure for me to be able to speak after the hon. member for Benoni has spoken. I must say that it will be difficult not simply to repeat what other speakers before me have said. One matter that we ought to emphasize in this debate is the efficient manner in which the hon. the Minister of Defence has succeeded in the past, and still succeeds, in cultivating in each member of the Permanent Force, the Citizen Force and the commandos, a pride in the defence of their country. When one looks back at what the hon. the Minister managed to do when he was still head of the Defence Force, what he achieved in regard to people’s attitudes towards the defence of the country, and also what he did since becoming Minister of Defence—he and the other commanding officers—it is absolutely remarkable to see how every soldier making his contribution to the defence of the country today, does so with real pride. This is because soldiers have been efficiently trained to do this.

It is also very obvious that as soon as an hon. Minister in South Africa is administering his department efficiently, certain hon. members of the PFP and the CP level personal attacks at such a Minister. I think it is necessary for us to take note of such attacks which are normally based on the allegation that the relevant hon. Minister is not competent to perform his task. It is also obvious, of course, that some hon. members praise the present command structure of the Defence Force to the skies, whilst in the same breath being completely disparaging about the hon. the Minister. I think that is as arrogant as one could possibly be in one’s efforts to denigrate someone who is achieving some measure of success, but who is nevertheless being denigrated because he is apparently begrudged that success.

Initially there was some degree of antagonism from the private sector, commerce and industry—or at least certain people in commerce and industry—as a result of the fact that from time to time they would have to sacrifice some of their staff for the purpose of compulsory military service. Successful efforts have, however, been made in getting these people to understand the fact that we cannot solely rely on a full-time Permanent Force. People have begun to accept the fact that an interruption of the service period of their staff is essential to their own survival, that of all the people in this country and, of course, the undertaking in which they are actively engaged.

I want to allege that those bodies who still believe today that there should be a bigger Permanent Force are by far in the minority in relation to those who accept that the present system is the most efficient. There are, of course, malicious politicians and others who very subtly try to attract attention by denigrating the present Defence Force structure and alleging that a full-time Permanent force would be better and more functional. No one in South Africa today can determine what the complement of a Permanent Force would have to be if there were no Citizen Force and Commando Force too. In their speeches the hon. members of the Opposition were clearly sowing suspicion about a total onslaught being planned or having been planned against South Africa. I want to allege that these accusations are being made for cheap political gain, and also to provoke the counter-strategy being planned by the Permanent Force, Citizen Force and Commandos to ward off onslaughts that are indeed being launched. They want to provoke that strategy so that the enemy can merely begin with another offensive. They must stop acting so provocatively in regard to Defence Force strategy. The fact that some people advocate a larger Permanent Force, with no other alternative, is blatant evidence of the fact that they are not serious about defence strategy.

Let us look at the changes the present system would have to undergo if we were to convert to such a system. Firstly I want to point out that when, a few years ago, the UN was planning a sea blockade for the purposes of a general boycott against us, reference was made to certain possibilities. What it amounted to was that between 50 and 60 warships would be needed to make this possible, with as many as five aircraft carriers and about 93 000 troops. They also went further. They determined that the UN casualty figure would be in the region of 18 900 men, and they also said that there would be 37 800 South African casualties. This indicates to us that if we were only to make use of a Permanent Force, we would not effectively be able to withstand any such onslaughts planned against us from time to time.

In conclusion I should like to lodge a plea for the present system of national service. I want to advocate that it be extended and accepted by private bodies and all members of the public. I think it is in the interests of South Africa that this system should continue.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to thank all hon. members who have made contributions to this debate since I replied to the debate this afternoon. Unfortunately there is not enough time to reply to their requests and to matters they raised. I promise to deal with all outstanding aspects by way of correspondence.

During the debate conducted here, the salient characteristic throughout was, in my opinion, the communist threat and the communist war we have been involved in for the past 17 years—the onslaught being waged against all South Africans here in the Republic of South Africa. When discussing such a matter, one does so with a view to the seriousness of the situation, but one does not always realize how very real it is. There were certain hon. members who specifically spoke about the question of motivation and who advocated bringing home to all South Africans the seriousness of this onslaught.

It is therefore with regret that I have to make an announcement to this Committee. The South African Air Force’s headquarters are situated in a building housing civilians in Church Street, Pretoria. The reason why it is housed in that building, is because there are not sufficient military facilities in areas where one would like to have the Air Force headquarters situated. In this building there is a public parking area where civilians can also move to and fro. This afternoon at 16h33 there was an explosion on one of the parking levels. People were killed the streets have been blocked off at the moment and everything is under control.

It is with regret and commiseration that I should like, on behalf of the Government, to convey my sympathy to the next-of-kin of those who have died in the—can I say—cowardly, criminal communist war being waged against all South Africans.

Mr. Chairman, it is with shock that we have heard the hon. the Minister’s announcement. I immediately want to express my sympathy, and that of my party, with the families and next-of-kin of those who were killed. If there are any casualties, we want to wish them everything of the best for a speedy recovery.

I do not think one can let this occasion pass without again pointing out that violence is not the answer to South Africa’s problems. We condemn the violence with all the force at our command. We are really shocked at the hon. the Minister’s announcement. I want to express the hope that those responsible for this deed will be caught as soon as possible and given the punishment they rightfully deserve.

Mr. Chairman, the CP expresses its shock at this abhorrent act of terrorism and trusts that the cowards will be speedily caught. We pray that the eventual losses will be few. The CP assures the S.A. Defence Force and the Government of its unqualified support in these moments of crisis. The enemies of South Africa will find that in such cases they will, as far as we are concerned, encounter a solid wall of resistance.

Mr. Chairman, my immediate reaction to this is one of anger. Shock—yes, but one has to expect this sort of event. My reaction is one of anger and contempt, bitter contempt for people who can stoop to this level to kill and injure innocent people not involved in any way with the war. I hope that what comes to them, will be quick, ruthless and permanent because this is the certain way to unite the people of South Africa against terrorists and against those who harbour, sympathize with or give aid directly or indirectly to them. Let them take this message from this Parliament.

Vote agreed to.

Chairman directed to report progress and ask leave to sit again.

House Resumed:

Progress reported and leave granted to sit again.

reported that the Standing Committee on Vote No. 14.—“Health and Welfare”, had agreed to the Vote.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Agreed to.