Mr Speaker, at the start of the discussion of this Vote there are certain matters of interest that, with hon members’ permission, I should like to deal with briefly. I trust that what I have to say will promote positive discussion. They are concerned with further developments relating to South West Africa and Southern Africa in a broader context.

South West Africa

During the Joint Sitting last Thursday I referred to the events that have taken place in South West Africa since 1 April.

Since then several notable developments have taken place in the territory that have had worldwide repercussions, and are still drawing attention. Most important of these was the achievement of an agreement between South Africa, Angola and Cuba, with the support of the United States of America and the Soviet Union, at Mount Etjo in South West Africa, to rectify the situation after the violation by Swapo of the terms of its undertakings with regard to the settlement process.

†Firstly, it has become clear that Swapo calculatedly tried to mislead the international community when Mr Nujoma denied that Swapo had crossed the border into South West Africa/Namibia.

Secondly, there is no denying, as more and more evidence emerges, that this was not a spurof-the-moment decision, but a well-planned operation which was kept a carefully guarded secret, even, one suspects, from the Government of Angola.

Thirdly, by its offensive and aggressive action, in flagrant violation of its commitments, Swapo attempted to bring back the war to South West Africa/Namibia.

Fourthly, throughout this period the South African Government acted in full compliance with the agreements it had entered into.

Fifthly, the historic agreement which was reached at Mount Etjo and the course of events in northern South West Africa/Namibia, tragic as these may be, made clear beyond doubt that South Africa was prepared for any eventuality. It was precisely because South Africa was not lulled into a sense of false security that it had built precautionary mechanisms into these agreements to deal with any problems that could arise. Thus, the South West African Police Force remains responsible for the maintenance of law and order in the Territory.

The mandate of the Joint Commission created under the Brazzaville Protocol gives it the power to address precisely the kind of problem which arose on 1 April 1989. Successive attempts to allow Swapo bases in South West Africa/Namibia were resisted, a position with which virtually the whole international community now agrees.

Sixthly, in the light of the setback which Swapo has experienced, it is foreseen that that organisation will now attempt to regain some of the ground it has lost. It will no doubt try to present the actions of the security forces to restore order in northern South West Africa/Namibia, in a negative light and launch a propaganda campaign to discredit South Africa.

To those who will attempt to gloss over the Swapo violations of its commitments and drum up support for the organisation, I wish to say that the South African Government will continue to act in accordance with its undertakings and will adhere to the agreements which have been reached.

*In this regard I wish to convey my thanks and the thanks of the whole of South Africa to the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs, the hon the Minister of Defence, the Administrator-General of South West Africa and everyone who, in one way or another, was involved in the successful negotiations of the past week. In particular I include the officials who accompanied them.

We negotiated from a position of strength, and because I was in constant contact with them while they were at Mount Etjo, I know what happened there from hour to hour. Together with the security forces, they played an important part there in restoring a degree of stability as far as the independence process of South West Africa is concerned.

†I have been personally involved with South West Africa in one way or another for decades. The fundamental fact to recognise is that South West Africa was never South African territory. One of the cornerstones of the approach of successive South African governments in respect of South West Africa was that the RSA did not prescribe to South West Africa in the constitutional sphere.

A further point of departure was that the inhabitants of the Territory would decide their own future without outside interference. Hon members know that the dispute between South Africa and the UN dates back more than 40 years. It has become a large part of history for decades.

Towards 1977 the scene was once again set for a head-on confrontation between South Africa and the UN on the issue of South West Africa. This resulted mainly from demands that South Africa should withdraw unconditionally from the Territory and should hand over the administration of the Territory to the Council of Namibia to administer the Territory during a transitional period and to prepare the Territory for independence based on elections to be held under the UN’s supervision. In other words, no role whatsoever was foreseen for South Africa in the process leading to the independence of South West Africa.

This confrontation was avoided at the last moment when the Western Contact Group approached the South African Government for wide-ranging discussions. This was done to determine whether South Africa’s position on the South West Africa question differed that much from the position of the five Western governments. These discussions culminated in 1978 in the settlement plan which is generally referred to as Security Council Resolution 435 of 1978, and I sometimes wonder whether people who talk and speak about it, know what they are speaking about.

Many problems had to be negotiated over these years before the trilateral agreement was signed on 22 December 1988 in New York between South Africa, Cuba and Angola. Sometimes problems arose which seemed intractable.

*Crisis point

A crisis point to which I want to refer today, is the one which occurred in October 1978 when the entire world, including the Western countries in the Security Council of the UN, threatened to impose drastic penal measures against South Africa if the election in South West Africa in December, 1978, was proceeded with. The events surrounding this crisis are described in some detail in a book entitled Hard Choices, by Mr Cyrus Vance, a former American Minister of Foreign Affairs in the time of President Carter.

Without going into the crisis in detail, let me just point out that it began to assume such serious proportions that the then Ministers of Foreign Affairs of the five Western powers came to South Africa towards the end of September 1978. It was quite a turbulent time. It was difficult to overcome the deadlock and eventually the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs suggested that these gentlemen, the representatives of the five Western powers, should for courtesy’s sake consent to meet me in my office in the Union Buildings. I consented. The hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs went back to the five and said that I wanted to speak to Mr Cyrus Vance alone for a few minutes. What was said in the course of that discussion, will no doubt remain a secret between us for a long time, but I think it was a discussion of decisive significance. Subsequently I spoke to the other four Ministers as well. In this way we temporarily averted a serious crisis that day. At the time I had been Prime Minister of South Africa for scarcely two weeks.

Now I should like to quote a few extracts from Mr Vance’s book to hon members for the sake of history:

That is precisely what we have now experienced.

Thus more than ten years ago we foresaw some of the problems which have arisen since 1 April as a real possibility. This was clearly spelled out to the representatives of the five Western powers as well as to Mr Vance. I mention this example not in order to boast, but to emphasize that over the years we have been through deep waters—or should I say, deep desert sand—to find a solution to this dispute.

Cubans

A second serious crisis developed towards the end of 1980— the end of President Carter’s administration in the USA. A Multi-party Conference held early in 1981 in Geneva under the aegis of the United Nations failed completely. The main reason for this was that Swapo was openly favoured by the UN. The other internal parties in South West Africa were simply no longer willing to put up with this state of affairs, particularly since the internal parties were refused the opportunity to put their case in the UN context.

The South African Government accordingly had no option but to declare that in these circumstances we could not allow the military component of Untag to enter South West Africa. Moreover there had in the interim been a significant increase in the numbers of Cuban troops in Angola, and the Cuban forces in Angola therefore became a direct intimidatory factor as regards elections to be held in South West Africa.

In January 1981 President Reagan came to power in the USA. At an early stage his representatives began to put out feelers to the SA Government to see whether the process of negotiation on South West Africa could perhaps be got under way again.

The hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs, with my knowledge, held discussions shortly afterwards with General Alexander Haig and the President of the United States. In the course of the discussion with President Reagan the hon the Minister suggested that the President send a senior representative to South Africa and South West Africa in order to acquaint himself personally with the circumstances.

Allow me to say that looking back, I am grateful that we had someone in the person of President Reagan with whom we could communicate on a reasonable basis.

It was the standpoint of the South African Government throughout that meaningful discussions on South Africa and South West Africa could only be conducted if the other parties to the discussion had first-hand knowledge of the circumstances of Southern Africa.

Mr Justice William Clark

President Reagan consented and decided to send Mr Justice William Clark, who at that time was Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs, to South Africa. Mr Justice Clark arrived in Cape Town on 10 June 1981. He was accompanied by an imposing deputation consisting of Mr Elliot Abrams, Dr Chester Crocker and others—a whole party. This was the day of the celebrated morning breakfast in Westbrooke when hasty and extensive provision had to be made to provide breakfast for quite a number of people.

Frank discussions were conducted with the deputation, but when it came to South West Africa, deadlock was reached late on the evening of 11 June as regards the issue of the admission of the military component of Untag. I trust that one day it will be possible for everything that happened in the interim to be set down as part of history.

The Americans understood South Africa’s point of view that a large military component of Untag, together with the intimidating effect of a large Cuban force in Angola, would have a direct intimidatory effect on the inhabitants of South West Africa. This would be in conflict with the requirement of Resolution 435 that the election should be free and fair.

The Americans asked whether we could not show some degree of flexibility as regards this matter. If I remember correctly, the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the hon the Minister of Defence were present and they warned that the Cuban presence in Angola would not contribute towards a peaceful solution.

The Americans also asked whether South Africa would revise its point of view if the Cuban troops could be withdrawn from Angola. The hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs telephoned me late in the evening of 11 June 1981 and asked whether he and the hon the Minister of Defence could come and see me the next morning because Mr Clark and his party were leaving for Windhoek the next day and wanted to know from the Government what they called our “bottom line” would be. I received the Ministers in question at six o’clock that morning in Westbrooke. After an urgent discussion I myself decided that we could inform the Americans that we would be willing to accept the military component of Untag provided the USA could succeed in concluding an agreement in regard to Cuban withdrawal from Angola. In this way we established a direct link between the implementation of Resolution 435 and the withdrawal of the Cubans from Angola.

At that juncture—I refer to June 1981—it was only South Africa and the USA that favoured this standpoint. Today, eight years later, a timetable has been agreed upon in terms of which 50% of all Cuban troops must have withdrawn by 1 November this year and the rest on successive dates ending on 1 July 1991. I regard it as being of decisive historical importance for the peace and progress of the whole of South Africa that we succeeded in reaching agreement on a timetable for the withdrawal of all Cuban forces from Angola.

Throughout, in all discussions with African leaders and with representatives of African leaders that visited South Africa, I have repeatedly emphasized that should Cuban withdrawal take place, it would necessarily create a new situation in Southern Africa.

This does not, of course, mean that we had any illusions, either now or at any other stage, as to the innumerable problems that could crop up on South West Africa’s road to independence. We knew that it would be a path of suffering. Indeed, I myself issued warnings on various occasions concerning some of the problems that have now arisen. Nevertheless I was at all times convinced that the withdrawal of Cuban forces would result in new circumstances.

†Meeting with Dr Perez de Cuellar

One such an occasion was during the visit to South Africa last September by the Secretary-General of the United Nations, Dr Perez de Cuellar. During our discussion I stated three principles on which I believed he and I could have agreement. I quote. Firstly, I stated:

Secondly:

Thirdly I told him:

It was a most interesting and positive conference that took place in Pretoria. That was the broad basis on which we had agreement.

In this context I told the Secretary-General the following:

To this Dr Perez de Cuellar agreed to a great extent.

I continued with this theme and I told the Secretary-General:

*However, development must be supported by security. The contribution of our security forces and services is still not recognised everywhere. In certain circles reference is still being made to what is labelled as a sinister power group known as the “securocrats”. This is an accusation which one hears occasionally in certain circles. If by this term is meant those bodies whose task it is to ensure South Africa’s security, survival and orderly administration, then the credibility of our security services is at stake. The credibility of the entire intelligence community of the security services and substructures of State security is then at issue.

We are still living in a state of emergency. Let us remember the experience we had with Swapo a few weeks ago. This could very easily be repeated if we are not wideawake in future. The relative calm we are experiencing today did not come of itself. It is not the fruit of the goodwill of our enemies. The fact that we are in a favourable negotiating position today—internationally as well—did not simply happen of itself. It has been dearly bought and it had to be worked for. It is necessary to guard against derogatory descriptions of our men and women who have rendered loyal and unselfish service, are still doing so and will have to continue to do so in the future.

Co-operation with private sector

This kind of service and co-operation is essential, because what South Africa needs is development. That is why co-operation with the private sector, besides the steps we take to ensure security, is also of the utmost importance in our present circumstances.

I should also like to refer to a second, related matter, namely the co-operation between the Government of the day, the Government of the past, and the private sector. Since I became head of government of South Africa, I have gone out of my way to place the relations between the State and the private sector on a sound basis and to create a climate of mutual confidence.

Within the space of a few weeks we have learnt with shock and sadness of the tragic deaths of two of South Africa’s leading businessmen, Dr Fred Du Plessis and Dr Kerneels Human. Both have made a gigantic contribution to promoting the attitude of co-operation between the State and the private sector.

The closer co-operation between the State and the private sector is evident inter alia from the fact that on various occasions I have consulted with the private sector during organised conferences and with individual members. I call to mind the Carlton Conference, the Good Hope Conference and innumerable others subsequent to that, as also the conference between employers and employees last year. Each of these consultations not only afforded an opportunity for constructive discussion, but also promoted mutual understanding and bore positive fruit in the interests of everyone in our country and region.

The original Carlton Conference, the Good Hope Conference and others had several practical results. These included, for example, the establishment in 1981 of the Small Business Development Corporation, with a shareholding of 50% each by the authorities and the private sector; the founding in 1983 of the Development Bank of Southern Africa to channel funds to developing areas in Southern Africa; and positive ideas about practical changes in our regional development policy.

Evidence of the benefit that the entire Southern African region has derived from closer cooperation between the State and the private sector is to be found in the key role played by the Development Bank in the Lesotho Highlands Water Project.

During the Good Hope Conference of 1981 it was decided that the private sector ought to become more involved in the economic development of Southern Africa, that the policy of industrial decentralisation should be revised and that regional development should be given new impetus.

Moreover, the idea of the National Housing Fund took concrete form. This took place and also eventually resulted in large-scale job creation and training programmes. Even neighbouring Southern African states showed increasing interest and began sending people to South Africa to ascertain what upliftment, training and job creation programmes could be launched when the State and the private sector co-operate. It is imperative for the further economic development of South Africa that this co-operation should continue. Without it the whole South African region will suffer.

On my visits to African countries I repeatedly emphasized this fact, namely that Southern Africa needs increased practical co-operation to place itself on the road of development. I conveyed our standpoint inter alia to a group of bankers and businessmen in Switzerland last year, and I quote:

†I then asked them to pass this on to political leaders in European countries. I appeal to hon members today that this is the message that we should convey to others in other parts of the globe.

*This is the basis on which South Africa can make a contribution towards peace and progress in Southern Africa, and this is the spirit of positivism in which we can tackle the questions of the day despite our party-political differences, not only in order to make this country strong and great, but to make this country a contributory factor in bringing happiness where there is misery in our neighbouring countries, in bringing prosperity where there is poverty and in bringing development where there is decline.

I hope that this Parliament will at all times convey a positive message in this regard and that this will bear fruit, as has been the case with regard to so many points of conflict concerning which we have adopted a strong standpoint in the past.

Mr Speaker, I should like to reaffirm the good wishes which we expressed towards the hon the State President a while ago for a speedy and complete recovery after his indisposition. I should like to say that we wish him good health, especially to his family, and hope that he is capable of continuing his duties.

I must say, Sir, and you will permit an opposition party to do so, that we were surprised that the NP struggled so to solve the problem concerning the designation of a new national leader and the hon the State President’s desire to serve out his term. We were also surprised at the cold-blooded way in which his own people and his own media indicated that the hon the State President had to go. [Interjections.] I think that they are disappointed today.

The man who led the way with the great reforms, and who, today, is not even as old as Dr Malan was when he became Prime Minister at a stage when there were also quite a few more capable younger men, that man must now, according to earlier reports, leave the public scene precipitously. We all know that politics is cruel, but I did not think that the NP was that cruel.

I wish to raise two matters. The one is a matter the hon the State President has already broached about South West Africa. The other is the question of what is happening between our Government and Russia.

The NP caucus requested information about the military situation in South West Africa. Previously I attended such briefings myself. It is valuable, but to this day no opportunity has ever been offered to receive that briefing. It seems as if there has been an intentional severing of relations with the Official Opposition.

My side of the House—and I am certain all sides of the House—nevertheless welcomes the end to the bloodshed. We welcome what is to be hoped is now a clearer insight internationally into what Swapo and the ANC are—that they are terrorist organisations, that they are organisations with a false cry for freedom and that they are organisations which do not keep to agreements.

We welcome that fact that the South African Defence Force was allowed to intervene and give Swapo a bloody nose.

I wish to make a few remarks about peace. There is a simplistic, almost silly representation in certain circles and certain media that certain people and parties only want war and are obsessed with bloodshed. I make the statement that, to the best of my knowledge, there is no political party in South Africa which only wants war.

On the other hand there are those who put the situation as if peace must be brought about unconditionally and that it is wrong to build up military power and to use that power. If the CP was wrong in requesting the use of the South African Defence Force to protect people in South West Africa and to restore order—and we did request it—then it was just as wrong of the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs to request the aid of the Defence Force. Then it was obviously just as wrong that the security forces and the South West African Police used weapons, and that according to official figures, they killed 263 people. Then that was also wrong!

May I remind hon members of a few significant observations made by well-known persons. Gen Douglas MacArthur is often quoted by Americans as having said: “There is no substitute for victory.”

I refer hon members to ex-President Richard Nixon who is today surely one of the best experts on international politics. He said:

I want to make the statement that the situation in South Africa has not been resolved yet, not by a long chalk. Firstly there are about 1 800 members of the Swapo forces in South West Africa, like fish in the sea. Up to yesterday not a single member of the Swapo forces had come forward to be taken back to Angola. This morning it is headline news that there were four and they also came to attention under specific circumstances.

They remind me of the man who caught crayfish unlawfully. When the police arrived, he said that they were tame crayfish. The policeman asked him what he meant. He replied that they were so tame that he called them to him. The policeman said he wanted to see that. The man threw them into the sea and the policeman asked him what he was doing. The man pretended not to know what the policeman was talking about. The policeman asked him to call the crayfish and he replied: “What crayfish?” In South West Africa they have disappeared just like those crayfish.

Swapo has hidden itself with weapons and all! The weapons have been hidden, and they have disappeared among the population of South West Africa. Until yesterday there was still mention of 3 000 heavily-armed Swapos, ready to infiltrate South Africa. This morning it was denied. I should like to have definite confirmation from our military intelligence as to whether this is the case.

On Monday a spokesman for Swapo said in Luanda, and I quote from Die Transvaler from the day before yesterday:

This is from the Swapo head office.

This means that Swapo can still argue about the agreement for a long time! It is very clear that Swapo is not going to abandon the domination of South West Africa, and that its objective is to influence the election in its favour with its presence of virtually 1 800 members.

Furthermore, according to Mr Louis Pienaar, this implies that there is no question of a formal cease-fire before Swapo’s plans become apparent. The quote was taken from Die Transvaler of 11 April 1989.

I shall go further. Mr Sam Nujoma’s story about Swapo infiltrators who are returning to Angola on their own, is an obvious game to end all control regarding Swapo’s withdrawal from South West Africa. South Africa must not be involved and it must be portrayed as ridiculous.

A report in Die Burger of this morning has the headline:

This headline gives the impression that it is a very big move back to Angola. However, the contents belie the headline.

Another newspaper, the Cape Times, calls it a “Swapo fiasco”. The report reads further:

We can accept that it is unrealistic wishful thinking to believe that the Swapo terrorists will hand over their weapons and that they will accept the transport to Angola after they succeeded in doing what they could not do in 20 years of bush warfare.

Furthermore, the vacuum which the hon the State President warned against on 9 March 1979 and which has already cost us 26 dead and approximately 80 wounded—I say the vacuum— left a gap for the largest Swapo incursion into South West Africa since 1966. That gap still exists. It has not been plugged.

On 8 March 1979 the then Prime Minister, our present hon State President, said:

We gladly support this idea. The extremely important question of the Prime Minister then was what Untag would do once they had deployed in South West Africa and this, as he called it, so-called peace was brought about, when a sudden attack from over the border was launched on innocent people on this side of the border. What were they going to do?

That is the question he asked. We know the reply. Untag will withdraw to its bases!

The Prime Minister was still not satisfied. He asked who would protect the innocent people of South West Africa after we had withdrawn on their conditions and were no longer there to protect those people. Who would protect them? There was no reply. That question is now a very real one.

We must pay attention to a few things. That question asked by the then Prime Minister has not been answered by the UNO and no move has been made on their part to deal with that point.

The events of the past 14 days have proved it. Furthermore it is true that nothing has been done from South Africa’s side to plug that gap. We saw the danger approaching, and we knew that we were dealing with a treacherous enemy, with one goal, namely the so-called liberation of South West Africa/Namibia as they call it. We know that that enemy is biding its time.

We viewed the build-up of Cuban forces in Angola, as well as their communistic involvement, with alarm. A programme of withdrawal of the Cubans was agreed upon and my side of the House is appreciative of the success achieved, although it is not consistent with the earlier South African conditions which the hon the State President referred to last year.

Moreover, South Africa’s soldiers were withdrawn to their bases and that was done before Untag was deployed. Those are the facts. Even though they had already been deployed, they would not have been able to fulfil the role of a motivated defence force against motivated aggressors and terrorists. What one finds here are Hollanders who ask to be safeguarded instead of their providing the security!

Furthermore we must mention that our military intelligence was aware of a build-up of Swapo forces in Angola—and I assume that they were aware of it—then the fact is that we were either unprepared to cope with the situation in a military manner, or that we had rendered ourselves so powerless by our own promise to apply and implement Resolution 435, or that we were too gullible; that we trustingly believed that the other parties understood the agreement to mean exactly what we understood it to mean.

Surely it is very clear that exactly the same situation will exist after the independence of South West Africa, and prior to general elections in that country. The same situation will develop, with only one difference.

When the SADF is south of the Orange River— that is what I accept will be the result if they withdraw from South West Africa—when Untag has left a sovereign-independent South West Africa—they cannot remain in a sovereign state—and if Swapo comes to power so that there will be no independent population groups, there will be nothing that will prevent a Swapo Government from allowing Swapo, even Cubans, from Angola into South West Africa, and then the Red flag in Windhoek will be more than a possibility and even more than a probability. The Russian presence will then be an official reality in Windhoek. Then we shall pluck the overripe fruits of our failure to react in time to the warning of the then Prime Minister.

Nothing has happened during the past 14 days to alleviate these fears in the people of South West Africa or many people in the Republic of South Africa.

The question I now want to ask, deals with a subject which the media is having a field day with. I therefore accept that a party will raise it in Parliament. The question is what is happening between our Government and Russia, if there is anything going on. [Interjections.]

I said that the media was having a field day with it. Allow me to state it categorically. The hon the State President’s rejection of Marxism and his vigilance against Russian expansion in Southern Africa is well-known. Our Defence Force’s motivation to put a stop to communistic expansion is above any suspicion. I believe that our Defence Force agrees with what Pres Nixon said in this respect. He said:

Now we say that if we have now lost the friendship of America—it seems as if it is not a power to depend on in the interests of the peoples within South Africa, and a person never knows whether you really had the friendship— and are making attempts to cope with America’s sanction pressure and threats, I want to say today that we must not be so naive as to ameliorate the irreconcilable differences between us and Communistic Russia and think that we can become friends with Russia.

I am not impressed with Mr Gorbachev’s perestroika or his restructuring. I am not ecstatic about his new style or his overtures of peace and cooperation. I am not excited at all about Russian commissioners in Windhoek, something which is being envisaged, about Russia’s sudden presence now in the negotiations with Angola and Cuba, or about the friendly Russian “nature lover” Mr Adamishin. There was a time when some Americans became carried away with the great “agricultural giant” Dr Fidel Castro, and glossed over his communistic nature and goals completely.

If newspapers get excited about so-called “enormous benefits from dealing with the Soviets”, when repeated meetings between our hon Minister of Foreign Affairs and Russia’s Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs, Mr Adamishin, are mentioned—I refer to The Argus of 11 April—in the Russian embassy in Mozambique, Brazzaville, New York, and again in Maputo, with Adamishin on a flight over the Witwatersrand, then the CP asks: What are we doing? Are we, in this case, dealing with a different communism to the one in 1950? With what long spoon are we going to sup with Russia? Do we not know in advance that Russia’s demands for South Africa are the destruction of a people, the victory of the ANC, the establishment of a socialistic state and the dictatorship of a so-called “people’s democracy”? We shall be glad if we can be given further information on this matter.

Mr Chairman, I certainly join the hon the State President in paying tribute to the contribution, financially, economically and otherwise, of the late Dr Du Plessis and the late Dr Human. I also want to congratulate the hon the State President on the then appointment of the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Mr Pik Botha, as well as the hon the Minister of Defence, Gen Magnus Malan. I am not going to respond to the previous speaker with regard to Namibia and the other comments, except to say to the hon the State President that when the CP praises him he must be on his guard for then he is doing wrong. When they criticise him, he is doing right and should carry on.

On behalf of my party, I want to underscore the congratulations to the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs and his department for the contribution towards the settlement within the Namibian issue and which—I hope—will be a forerunner of a settlement in the South African situation. I want however, to remind the House that it is a sad reflection of the time and situation in which we find ourselves when the contribution being made is not recognised by people within Afrikan-erdom.

I want also to congratulate the hon the State President on the appointment of the hon member for Innesdal, Mr Nothnagel, as ambassador to the Netherlands. I think that is a “just reward” for a valuable contribution within the South African political scene. At the same time I want—from this rostrum—to pay tribute to Dr Quint who for three years was the ambassador to the Netherlands for the wonderful work that he has done within the Netherlands to bring people to other insights.

*Mr Speaker, thank you for the opportunity of taking part in this historical debate today. I regard this as an historical debate because of indications that it will be the last time that the Vote of the present hon the State President will be discussed in the present Parliament.

The LP does not hesitate to give credit where credit is due, and I should like to give credit to the hon the State President for his contribution and leadership which made it possible for me to be speaking in this House today. [Interjections.]

†We are particularly appreciative of the fact that great political risks—such as the risk of rejection by his own people—were taken to bring about this first step in the right direction.

*The LP gives the hon the State President credit for that. We are here because we are still full of hope, even though certain statements made two days ago have clouded that hope to some extent, but I shall refer to that again presently. Nonetheless, we should say in all fairness that much has happened in this country since our participation under the leadership of the hon the State President and with the support of his party. [Interjections.] In particular, I welcome the fact that one of the leaders of the DP has undertaken to criticize when necessary, but also to give support when that is needed. I think that one of the mistakes made in the past was that too many people refused to accept certain principles simply because they had been formulated by the NP.

†This augurs well for the future when we in our togetherness can seek solutions for the future. We are aware of the fact that we started with the repeal of the Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act and section 16 of the Immorality Act and the repeal of the Prohibition of Political Interference Act and laws on influx control. The other day when when we thought about Sharpville I said it was a sad reflection that a person like Robert Sobukwe, who could have made such a valuable contribution to the future of South Africa, spent so many years on Robben Island and that he eventually had to die almost in isolation without that potential being given an opportunity to play a part in finding solutions in South Africa. I can go on naming so many things that have happened and for those the LP gives the hon the State President credit.

*At the same time I should like to add that the LP, of all the participating political parties, probably took the greatest risk by participating in the present dispensation. Whilst we do not accept this dispensation in its present form, since it excludes the majority of South Africans, we nonetheless took that risk in order to lay the foundation for a better South Africa. The Eshowe decision of the LP gave peaceful negotiation in South Africa an enormous boost, which bears witness to the vision of our party and its leadership. Because of our participation, members of the LP have lost political allies of many years’ standing. In many ways our decision has caused the disruption and disintegration of families, but the party continued to do what it regarded as crucial to the future of South Africa. Before the NP proceeds to build on the sacrifices—which we appreciate— the Government should, for the sake of consensus politics, also give the LP credit for the fact that, as a result of our participation, we too have made those sacrifices.

†In dealing with a future South Africa we have to accept compromise, which means give and take, but not with all the giving coming from one side only as has been expected from one side of the South African community up to now. It means that we shall have to give in order to receive. It is so obvious that the hand that is closed cannot receive. In order to receive and take, one has to open the hand and give. However, this in itself does not mean, as some people are inclined to conclude—particularly our detractors—that we shall have to abandon our principles in a cowardly way. We must accept that the inevitable give and take, the willingness to consider other people, is certainly important. We as a party believe that in the new South Africa there must be a togetherness which overshadows race, colour, culture, creed and sexism. Therefore it is essential that we start building now.

I believe that, with what is happening outside the country, with what is happening inside the country, with the amount of goodwill outside and inside, the time, the psychological moment, is now. We say, and the party accepts it, that the South African society cannot change in its entirety overnight. It is true and a fact that a future South Africa will depend critically on the foundations that are laid now. Therefore it is essential that we start building a future South Africa now. Whatever happens on the reform front, the choice we have before us is whether it will be a controlled change or whether it will involve radical transformation. An acceptable solution for South Africa cannot be found in the concretisation of apartheid legislation but in a movement towards the realisation of the aspirations of all South Africans and particularly of all people who are Black, which includes the Coloured, African and Indian. Until such time as cognisance is taken of and accommodation made for all aspirations, we cannot move away from the situation of violence and the escalation of violence which we are presently experiencing.

For the past two years we in this country have been shocked by the escalation of violence. We want to say to the hon the Minister of Law and Order that he has dealt very patiently with some of these people, particularly those who live on the whole question of the prevarication of the truth. We want to say that the handling of the situation, particularly over the past few weeks, has been very welcome.

The fact that moderate South Africans are looking anxiously at the future is cause for concern. We are allowing the so-called freedom fighters to persuade the silent majority that violence is the last resort in the fight against apartheid—and this while we have the power of reform with which we can ensure the future of our country. We will have to increase the pace of reform, otherwise South Africa is going to find itself in the spiral of ever-increasing violence.

I believe it is the wish of every South African who is a supporter of peaceful change in this country that increasing violence will never become a reality. In order for this to be prevented, the NP will have to relinquish its conservative view that we, the underprivileged, must be thankful for apartheid. It is solely the Government which is responsible for the fact that people are turning to violence. This was said during the previous debate as well. The solution lies in the hands of the Government to create a South Africa in which people will not move in the direction of violence.

We in the LP have tried to tell our people to wait just a little longer, that things will change and that there are indications of hope. However, it is we who are now experiencing frustrations close to despair, and yet we do not want to die in despair. Our credibility as leaders who have opted for peaceful change through negotiation is diminishing. We certainly will have to face that fact when we go back to the electorate some time this year.

However, this is particularly true of young people who are becoming impatient. Their attitude is a result of disillusionment, a sense of hopelessness, frustration and despair. They are now saying that they would rather die in dignity than continue to live in humiliation. I must remind hon members that the poet Adam Small rightly said the following, and I quote:

We therefore have to deal with the cause and not only the effect. I hope for God’s sake, and for all our sakes, that the Government in particular will begin to act humanely and compassionately.

I came to Parliament because I believe that violence can never offer the solution to the problems in South Africa. When people talk in terms of revolution and immediate upheaval and change, they are referring to a situation where there is a process between those who are grasping that privilege and those who want to grab it. This is not the answer to South Africa’s problems, because it would merely change the position between those who have and are gripping, and those who want and are grabbing. It would just reverse the grip-grab situation.

I believe that if we all seek a peaceful solution, we stand to ensure the continual existence of all South Africans. In our present situation the words of Martin Luther King junior still ring loudly and clearly. They were, and I quote:

I believe that cognisance must be taken of the goodwill of the majority of South Africans. We must look at those who are not to the right of the Government or to the right of our thinking. I have said before and I say again that in the South African situation and in the future of the South African nation the CP is of no consequence. [Interjections.]

We must take note of Dr Mangosuthu Buthelezi, of people seeking peace and who therefore command respect, people such as Mr Ramodike of Lebowa, Mr Mapedi of QwaQwa, Mr Enos Mabuza of KaNgwane, whom many people in world leadership hold in high regard, as with others. Furthermore we should take note of the willingness of Dr Mangope with regard to Bophuthatswana. He is prepared to look at a federal system on condition that we have true consolidation.

We must remember that warm welcome which the hon the State President received at Moria, where more than three million Black people accepted him as the State President and accepted what he had to say. These are the people whom we must continue to keep in our support.

*We cannot afford to alienate those people who are so kindly disposed towards us.

†I believe that the time has come when actual attempts will have to be made to abolish apartheid. Prof Andreas van Wyk of Stellenbosch University said quite rightly: “The greatest risk that South Africa can take today is an unwillingness to take risks.” Our country and the hon the State President at a time like this will have to be willing to take risks in moving in the right direction.

The present dispensation has, to a certain extent, succeeded in as far as it proves that consensus politics can succeed in South Africa. The LP, however, remains of the opinion that this dispensation within the South African framework is doomed to failure while the majority of South Africans are excluded therefrom. In the short term the present situation and dispensation can certainly have positive effects, as proven, but in the long run such a dispensation will only add to the frustrations and dissatisfaction experienced by those who are excluded.

In order to achieve a new South Africa the recent negotiations with among others the ANC by sporting organisations and academics should not be summarily dismissed as being of no consequence or significance. The fact that individuals such as Dr Danie Craven had talks in Harare with the ANC and Mr Pamensky had talks in London with Mr Dennis Brutus is proof of the indisputable reality now staring White South Africa in the face. We must not lose sight of the Stellenbosch experience. Those are young people who were prepared to risk their political future by making an investment for us all by going to Lusaka. The statement made by two of those young people is significant in that they said they were no longer prepared to be members of the NP because of their new perspective.

Increased resistance is now becoming evident among Whites in this country, in contrast to the vague and empty promises with which the NP has been leading the White community by the nose for so many years. I believe that the appeal made from this rostrum the other day to the now leader of the NP must be underscored, namely that instead of going to the electorate this year with false promises again they should go to them with the truth and tell them exactly where the NP stand.

As I said earlier in this speech, I am worried about the fact that hope is diminishing. My interpretation, for instance, of the fact that the referral of the Group Areas Amendment Bill to the President’s Council had been withdrawn was that it was a significant indication of a direction in which the Government was moving. However, it was a shock to learn—I unfortunately was not here—that the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning had said very clearly that he had withdrawn the amendment from the President’s Council and in so doing had clearly stated that the Act would remain on the Statute Book. [Interjections.] That was a sad day.

I also want to say that 23 years ago a decision was made to declare District Six a White area. I believe that the time is now that, as a significant sign of goodwill, the hon the State President should use his influence and his right of decisionmaking to declare District Six an open area. It is becoming increasingly clear that White South Africa is beginning to be of the opinion that if the NP has come to a standstill, we shall have to set the wheels in motion ourselves.

Again I want to emphasise that the time has come when the NP must begin to realise that it will have to begin negotiating with the broad South African community. As far back as 1979 the LP, at its congress in Port Elizabeth, made an appeal to the Government to release political prisoners. Allow me the opportunity to quote verbatim from what I said at that stage, and I quote:

I further believe that one of the things that the hon the State President will be remembered for is if he exercises that statemanship with a feeling of humanitarianism and at this particular juncture think in terms of pronouncing that amnesty. I would also in the name of humanity appeal to the hon the State President to think again in terms of clemency for those who have already been sentenced to be hanged. I believe that the time is now when capital punishment should be reviewed and all laws thereto should be repealed. I believe that a young man like Robert McBride, now sitting in death row, deserves another chance. He and his father were both members of the LP—senior and junior—but because of disillusion, frustration and impatience creating a situation where other people could exploit that frustration, he was lead to do the things which he certainly now regrets. From this platform today I would appeal to the hon the State President to think again—particularly in that young man Robert McBride’s case—in terms of clemency. The man who influenced him to do those things—Webster by name—has namely been sentenced to 25 years. However, the youngster who was influenced by that person and who then turned State witness is now on death row and waiting to be executed.

How long must the LP go on pointing out to the Government that it is the interests of South Africa and the future of the country that leaders who are now in incarceration must be released? I appreciate the leniency that already has been shown by the hon the Minister of Justice, but it is a tragedy that one of South Africa’s greatest sons has to spend his life in prison as a result of the policy of apartheid. It is in fact the policy of apartheid in the first place which caused him to end up where he is.

*The hon the State President should also give careful consideration to the state of emergency. We appreciate what has already been done in our residential areas. However, detaining our Black leaders, will not solve the problem.

†I want to remind members of the NP and Afrikanerdom particularly of what former president C R “Blackie” Swart, a prominent advocate, said on 17 February 1941 during his Ossewa Brandwag speech in the House of Assembly with regard to detention without trial during his attack on the then governing party— the United Party.

*I quote from Hansard of that year, column 3067:

He proceeds as follows in column 3068:

Furthermore he says in column 3075:

While I am mentioning the word “volk”, I think the time has come for us to look at the Afrikaans translation of “House of Assembly”.

†I think it is a misnomer to call it the “Volksraad”.

*Who is the “volk”, and who is represented by the “Volksraad”?

†May I remind the Government of the times when the government of Ian Smith was detaining its more radical opponents. However, the wheel has turned the full circle because the government of Robert Mugabe has arrested opponents of his government and even members of the Smith regime under the same laws which were introduced by Ian Smith. Do we want this to happen in South Africa? I believe not. Remember that though the mills of God grind slowly, they grind exceeding fine.

*Mr Speaker, I hope I will get another opportunity to continue my argument tomorrow, but nonetheless I would once again like to thank you for the opportunity to make a contribution in the debate on the Vote of the State President. Furthermore we should look at the whole question of building a nation with a view to creating the united South Africa which we all desire, in which we shall all live in peace and harmony.

Mr Chairman, in his speech the hon the leader of the LP dealt with matters extending over a very broad spectrum of the problems in South Africa. Obviously there is a great deal on which we on this side of the House differ with him, but there is also a great deal on which we agree. I thank the hon the leader for the tone of his speech this afternoon. I think that is the way in which we can discuss things with one another.

†He referred to the power of reform. The power of reform is in our hands and, as long as we dispense that power in a responsible manner, I am sure we will also in future find the answers.

*I also thank the hon leader for the good advice he gave the hon the State President. I hope the hon member for Waterberg took cognisance of it. [Interjections.]

I also want to associate myself with the hon member with regard to his good wishes to the hon member for Innesdal, and especially with what he said in respect of the good work done by the retiring ambassador, Mr Frank Quint, in the Netherlands.

The hon leader referred to the fact that there have been risks for the NP and the LP. That is true! He also said, however, that we give one another credit where credit is due. I thank him for that statement, and am in complete agreement with what he said.

I also want to refer briefly to the speech made by the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition in the House of Assembly. I find it very difficult to comment on his speech, because the hon member did not raise anything at all this afternoon concerning the situation in South West Africa which has not been discussed thoroughly in the various debates during the past few days. [Interjections.] The only new aspect he raised here this afternoon was in his concluding sentence, when he said neither the hon the Minister of Defence nor anyone else had done anything to allay their fears.

That is what it is all about! Those hon members live on fear. They encourage the voters not to believe, but to fear. [Interjections.] Their whole existence is based on fear. I want to tell the hon member he need not worry, and that also applies to the hon members of his party and the other members outside, because this Government and the responsible Ministers will continue as in the past with regard to South West Africa and other matters. They will display the greatest responsibility in dealing with these matters, and will protect everyone, also the CP members, in this process.

I believe the fuss the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition in the House of Assembly tried to kick up about what is going on between the Government and Russia is another of the bogeys with which he wants to frighten people. [Interjections.] I therefore repeat that the Government and the responsible Ministers will also deal with those matters in a responsible way.

As has just been the case in the previous speech, the debates of the next few days will shed light on all kinds of matters. I believe that to a great extent, however, the debates will focus on the incumbent of the position of State President. That is inevitable, because apart from the fact that the chief executive authority is vested in the office of the State President, he is also the symbol of peace, freedom and justice for the country and all its people. I want to say that enormous demands are made on the State President, both as a person and in his capacity as executive head of State. I want to go so far as to say that sometimes inhuman or superhuman demands are made of him. I am sure that few hon members in this House will differ with me on that point.

I want to make a second statement. I believe that few hon members will differ with me on this once I have subjected my statement to a specific test. The statement I want to make is that the dignified, balanced and dedicated way in which the hon the State President performs his task as the executive head of State, and the honourable way in which he serves the highest interests of South Africa and its people, will be to his credit for all time. I make this statement with the deepest conviction, and I may be accused of doing so on the basis of personal and party loyalties. That is why I say we must test it, and there is only one really lasting test for my statement in this connection. That is the Republic of South Africa Constitution Act.

In the first place I want to refer to section 11 (1) of the Constitution, and then I also want to quote a section of the oath of office that the State President takes on assuming his office. It is a good thing for hon members to take cognisance once again of the immensely important content of this oath of office, because that in itself may be a stricter test in some respects than the Constitution. The new State President swears the following:

They are referring at that point in the Constitution to the office and not the person!

Sir, that noisy hon member of the CP must go back to the Constitution and measure and weigh himself according to the oath of loyalty he took when he became a member of this House. [Interjections.]

He stands by it!

No, he does not, because the hon member for Overvaal in particular would fail the test. [Interjections.]

Most of, in fact all the elements of the oath of office, become larger …

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: The hon the Deputy Minister referred to the hon member for Overvaal as ostensibly failing a test in respect of the oath he took upon being sworn in as a member of Parliament. Is it permissible for the hon the Deputy Minister to make such a comment?

Order! The hon the Deputy Minister must withdraw it.

I withdraw it, Sir.

Mr Chairman, on a further point of order: There is another hon member who said the hon member for Overvaal was a liar. Is that permissible?

Order! I did not hear that. Which hon member said it?

Mr Chairman, I said the hon member was an empty shell.

Order! The hon member may proceed.

Mr Chairman, in applying this test today, with all due respect to the hon the State President, I want to recommend that every hon colleague will be sensible, also the hon members who were making such a noise, in testing themselves according to these laws as well. I am referring to the norms in the Preamble to the Republic of South Africa Constitution Act, and may it be placed on record once again today that that party, the Official Opposition in the House of Assembly, voted against this Constitution and against every paragraph in the Preamble to the Constitution, but nevertheless they are sitting here. They are participating in the system and they say they have sworn allegiance to the Republic of South Africa. How does one reconcile that?

Very easily!

We declare certain things and say in the Preamble to the Constitution that we are convinced of the necessity to co-operate and to strive for the following national objectives. The watchword is co-operation, because if we do not co-operate in this country, we shall go under. If there is one person in South Africa who has always appealed to people to co-operate and to strive for certain national objectives, it is the hon the State President. He also did this when he extended the hand of friendship to the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition in the House of Assembly, and it was roughly struck away. [Interjections.]

National objectives must be a binding and not a divisive force in South Africa, and the hon the State President has said so numerous times. I am referring to the first national objective of upholding Christian values—this is what the CP voted against—and civilised norms in acknowledging and protecting freedom of religion and worship.

The hon the Chairman of the House of Representatives referred to the hon the State President’s attendance of the meeting at Moria. The hon the State President’s own life attests to his adherence to Christian values, but what he will be remembered for is his consistent refusal to accede to the forces of darkness that want to subjugate South Africa and want to upset the order here in order to subject us to the enslavement of communism and death. We thank him for that. That he has maintained the independence of the judiciary and equality before the law—I need not even elaborate on that. It is common knowledge that the hon the State President also pursues this national objective and maintains it every day. The hon the State President maintains law and order in the country, and under his leadership the South African Police has been developed into a force which not only combats crime, but has also effectively curbed terrorism.

The one matter that I have probably omitted, is the second national objective, namely to secure the inviolability and freedom of our country. In his speech this afternoon, the hon the State President devoted most of his time to this facet, and referred to his involvement in this particular matter over a very long period. He was the main architect in developing a strong South African Defence Force and preparing it to face all eventualities, as has clearly been manifested recently. We are reaping the benefits of that today, and the SA Defence Force is once again a respected force far beyond our boundaries. Its record of success is undisputed. The success attained by Armscor during the short period of its existence in the face of arms boycotts is the direct result of the hon the State President’s far-sightedness and his insistence upon quality. This has become an investment in training and technology for our country.

Armscor is there today for everyone to see, and as what I regard as modern South Africa’s biggest success story. I should like to combine points 5,6 and 7 by saying that since the beginning of his term of office, the hon the State President has made it clear that continued reform should take place over a very broad spectrum in the economic, social and political spheres.

The RSA is a country of minorities, and it has a multi-cultural composition. Matters must be regulated in such a way that no one group can dominate another. I do not have enough time to elaborate on that. I want to conclude by saying that I hope that hon members will apply this test in discussing the office of the State President. I am not sure how many of them are going to pass this test. I think it will be difficult for certain hon members on that side to pass it.

With all due respect, however, I want to tell the hon the State President that he passes the test with distinction and with the greatest honour. I say that with great gratitude and appreciation, and we wish him everything of the best in performing his manifold duties from day to day.

Order! Before I call upon the next hon member to proceed with his speech I would like to indicate that it is parliamentary practice that the question of a capital sentence cannot be raised in debate while the sentence is pending. At this stage I would like to inform hon members of the rule and reiterate that that is the practice to be observed.

Mr Chairman, at the beginning of our participation in this debate we would like to say how glad we are that the hon the State President has recovered and is back in harness. We also note with great regret the demise of Dr Kerneels Human, who made a special contribution to our business community and our national life.

This debate developed into one of the highlights of the annual Parliamentary session. It is an important occasion during which the broad outlines of Government policy are drawn and then tested by argument. We believe this year in particular will be the year when the Government must clearly indicate in what direction the country is going.

We listened with attention and interest to what was said in particular about Namibia and related matters. I do not intend to spend any time on this because I want to speak about matters which are more closely related to this House. It is not our aim to make life more difficult for the hon the State President—least of all to attack him. However, we will be remiss if we do not now demand that the Government as a whole show us the way it now wants to lead us. I want to stress that time is running out. I join the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council in the House of Representatives in saying that as time passes, so the influence that our moderates have on the impatience in the South African community is declining.

It is almost 15 years since it became clear that the policy of apartheid had failed. The continued failure since then to put something coherent in its place, is daily costing South Africa dearly in many spheres. There is continuous conflict in our country.

The rule of law has been suspended for three years. Our international isolation is continuing in spite of the commendable progress that has been made on the question of Namibia, to which reference was made here. However, in recent times things did go a little better economically in certain respects, but our growth rate remains hopelessly insufficient. Our Public Debt is still accumulating, and the interest on it is increasing even more quickly. Inflation remains high, so, therefore do interest rates. Recently posts and telecommunications tariffs again rose sharply. The prices of the goods and services that our ordinary people require are still rising relentlessly. However satisfied the hon the Minister of Finance may be feeling about his Budget, it is not his opinion that is going to count at the polls, nor that of hon members. Anyone going around and making contact with ordinary South Africans of all groups knows that the pinch effect of rapidly rising prices and static or slowly rising incomes is causing great pain throughout the country.

Where are we heading? I took particular notice of something the hon the Minister of Finance said in his reply to the Budget debate. He said we had gained time with sound economic management to make political adjustments. I leave it at the open question whether we do in fact have such wonderful economic management in this country.

However, his remark brings us to the key issue of what adjustments are going to be made and when. The hon the State President said 10 years ago that we would have to adapt. Ten years later we still do not really know where we are heading. Yes, we did get a tricameral Parliament, but is there really anyone amongst us who thinks that that presents a long-term solution? Two people of colour served for a time in the Cabinet. Where are they today? The hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council in the House of Representatives left the Cabinet because he could not stomach the policy of the NP. The hon member for Arena Park left because a law commission found him to be without integrity. Racism and corruption is what resulted from the tricameral system. Months later—or is it already years later—neither of those two former Cabinet members have been replaced. The actual decision-making power in South Africa is solely in White hands. Whatever pious words are used, the party with 50% plus 1% of the members of the White House of Assembly controls South Africa. Is this going to remain the NP’s policy?

†Now I want to ask whether or not it is the intention of the Government that the White voters are to remain in exclusive authority over South Africa. It is very important that we and the country be told. Is it discrimination, or is it not, that the White voters are in a position to dominate the whole majority of the South African population? Is that discrimination, or is it not?

Given that geographical partition in South Africa is a policy which has already failed, does the NP now finally repudiate partition as a constitutional solution?

Where were you?

If partition is repudiated— and it seems that the hon the Minister is giving me a hint that that may be so—is each citizen in our common fatherland now to have equal rights, or is that not so? Does the NP propose to institute a voters’ roll for a sovereign parliament on which the names of adult South Africans will appear without distinction of race or does it not? As we ask where the NP proposes to take South Africa, there are other questions, perhaps not as fundamental as that of political representation, but in some sense more urgent in relation to South Africa today. Does the NP propose to maintain a policy of enforced residential segregation on the basis of race? Is the Act on separate amenities to remain on the Statute Book?

Here I want to remind hon members that the original purpose of the Act was not to allow separate amenities to be established—that right existed anyway. The purpose of that Act was to allow this to be done unfairly and inequitably and to exclude the rights of the court to interfere on grounds of equity. Is that Act to stay or is it to go? Is the Population Registration Act to remain?

Here I address myself particularly to the hon the chief leader of the NP who talks in conundrums about getting away from racism but still recognising race. I say that the Population Registration Act is the most specifically racist measure of all. As long as that stays on the Statute Book the NP will not escape the charge of being a racist party running a racist Government.

We are to fight an election this year. We last had one—a pure White one, of course—in 1987. The Government campaigned on the slogan: “Reform—yes, surrender—no.” We never knew what the surrender was that they were rejecting. The enemy was never identified. Now, two years on we ask: What reform was it? What reform of any consequence has taken place in these two years? What reform is now in contemplation? What mandate is the NP to seek this year?

What has impressed me more that anything during this session of Parliament is the sheer refusal of the NP to declare its policy clearly— confirmed here now in the past five minutes. Between the DP and the CP there are a number of clearly delineated issues. We disagree deeply and fundamentally but we understand each other because we talk in plain English and Afrikaans.

The DP wants shared political power via a common voters’ roll. The CP rejects that entirely. The CP wants the strict application of the Group Areas and the Reservation of Separate Amenities Acts. The DP wants those Acts scrapped. The DP wants to open all educational institutions. The CP wants them all to be segregated. Where do the Nationalists stand on each of these issues? The DP and CP present the voter with clear choices. The NP sprawls in the middle with one voice for the cities and another for the platteland—all things to all men and women.

The appointment of the hon the Minister of National Education as chief leader simply aggravates this tendency, for he is the past master of the smiling evasion. For a long time he was known as a verkrampte. For a few days after his election as leader of the party he appeared as a verligte. Now it is impossible to tell.

I am reminded of some lines written 30 years ago by a good South African poet about another prominent politician, and I quote:

The NP owes the voters a number of clear answers to important questions.

*The crux of the matter is the established fact of economic integration in our country. Economically we have long since been one single nation. Socially we are also moving progressively nearer to one another. Political integration follows like day follows night. There is nothing anyone can do about it. We shall live on politically integrated—we either accept this fact cheerfully and also accept the equality of all South Africans and continue negotiations for a mutual acceptable constitution, or we maintain the White minority domination in the midst of integration, but that can only be done by using violence. That is what we have in South Africa at the moment— minority domination through violence.

The Government simply must choose sides in respect of this matter. Before proper action with regard to the voters of South Africa can be taken, the questions I have put here this afternoon must be answered.

Mr Speaker, we have listened this afternoon to the hon the State President’s address in the dying days of this Parliament of ours. I would also like to associate myself with the previous speakers who complimented him on having started the reform process. We have a long way to go, but a start has been made and those who assume the mantle of leadership in the NP will have to go further faster.

Discrimination in all its forms will have to be removed. The most important question facing this country, on which everything else that has been spoken about depends, is the question of the participation by Black people in the Government of this land. That is the most urgent task facing this country. If that is not resolved in a satisfactory manner, then everything else pales into insignificance.

Black political participation is coupled with the entry of the Black people into the economic life of this country. I think it would only be fair to recognize the role which the hon the State President has played by acknowledging that, unless the wide and yawning gap between the haves and the have-nots in South Africa is closed, the possibility of political stability in this country will be challenged. That is a truism which reasonable and honest men will accept.

One may have a political solution in this country, but if the Blacks do not have a stake in the economic life of this country and do not benefit from the exploitation of the resources of this land, there will be political instability, irrespective of the kind of political order that is created for this nation. Nobody in his right mind can laugh that away or dismiss that fact.

Therefore, the coming into being of the Small Business Development Corporation and the removal of strictures which have inhibited the emergence of the informal sector are small contributions towards a solution, but much more has to be done if this two-fold challenge is to be addressed. We read in our newspapers statements made by Black business leaders of the difficulties they experience in raising money from banking and other institutions. Merely talking about Black participation is meaningless and writing about it is useless, unless something tangible and practical is done to make a positive contribution towards the capital formation within the Black community. The future of the advanced business sector in this country is at stake unless something is done to address that challenge.

Just like the Afrikaner started institutions like Santam and Sanlam which gave him the financial muscle when he needed it, something like that has to be created for the Black people in South Africa, and I pose this challenge to the White people, whether they be liberals or progressives, whether they belong to this party or to that party. Is there not somebody within the ranks of the business community of South Africa who can put up a proposal to fund something similar, possibly a mutual life assurance society, for the Black people, which may be supported by all South Africans but whose funds will be used as a capital base for their participation in the economic life of the country? There is a challenge, and we should not shy away from it.

As the political solution to the problems of South Africa is an urgent one, the underwriting of that solution will depend on the level to which the Black people see themselves involved in the real economic life of this country.

This is a challenge which of course can be dismissed at our own peril. If socialism and communism are not to pose a threat to the economic way of life in our country then to talk about a fair share of the good things in South Africa for all South Africans is meaningless, unless something is done to realise that ambition and goal.

I believe that South Africans have demonstrated in South West Africa that they are people who can be trusted and who honour commitments and undertakings made and given. They have faced a serious challenge in the past week and in that challenge have found an opportunity to demonstrate that they are responsible and reliable people who can be trusted. That has made a very positive contribution and will change the attitudes of people who hitherto have suspected us. This could very well help in bringing about a climate of change in the Southern African region to which we are tied by logistics, geography and history and to which we have to make a contribution whether we like it or not because the realities demand it.

Hopefully, the friends among the nations of the world to whom I refer will help us not only to bring stability to the Southern African region but make a contribution towards creating the climate within our own country that is necessary for the negotiation process to get off the ground. I hope that we will be able to arrive at a solution to our constitutional impasse which is a must if we are to look at, address and find opportunities in the larger challenges which face us in Southern Africa.

On this occasion I want to associate myself with the statements of hon members before me in complimenting the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs, his officials and the hon the Minister of Defence.

I would be failing in my duty if I did not make reference to some of the happenings in the House of Delegates. When we arrived here in 1985 reference was made to the fact that everything was not in order in regard to certain MPs and their involvement in interferences in the affairs of the Administration. Unfortunately, some four years passed before this problem could be addressed, and we who have to go and face the electorate will have to live with these consequences. I would like to believe that in future, whenever things of this nature are questioned, the necessary machinery will be available to address these issues so that they can be dealt with as speedily as possible to the benefit of all of us who are participating in this process.

I also want to take this opportunity to associate myself with the thoughts that were expressed earlier in regard to the passing away of Dr Human and Dr Fred du Plessis, both of whom it was my privilege to have known and to have served with for a number of years in the State President’s Economic Advisory Council. I considered them to be fine ambassadors of the Afrikaner business community and it is indeed a pity that, when we are facing enormous challenges where their experience and expertise would have been helpful, we have lost them in this very crucial time in the history of our country.

I also want to wish the hon member for Innesdal well in his new task as ambassador for our country in the Netherlands. At the same time I sincerely trust that there will be many more members of Parliament with his outlook because from time to time his utterances give us cause for satisfaction and encourage us to pursue our goals to a peaceful means.

Mr Chairman, I shall refer to the matters dealt with by the previous hon speaker during the course of my speech, but first I should like to refer to certain matters that were advanced by the hon member Dr De Beer.

He had quite a lot to say about verlig and verkramp. I think we can tell the hon member he may have been a verligte Prog, but he passes as a verkrampte democrat. That brings me to an interesting and appropriate remark made by one of the voters in the Cape Times, 13 April 1989, page 7:

This comes in the midst of a lack of confidence in the leadership of the new party and uncertainty about the direction they are taking with South Africa.

The hon member for Parktown is also struggling with this problem of leadership, because he and the voters outside are aware of the difference in principles that prevailed before the decision was taken by these three leaders to unite. By omitting to display the national flag at its founding meeting last weekend, the DP was preparing the ground for people who are constantly going to object to the flag’s being displayed at their subsequent meetings, as happened at a meeting in Cape Town on Tuesday night. This flag is not the flag of any political party. It is the national symbol of the Republic of South Africa in terms of section 4 of the Constitution.

Another thing that alarms voters is the standpoint of the hon member for Randburg that Whites must either resist so-called Black liberation or be part of it. If it is his intention that indirectly Whites must be part of the “liberation struggle” of the ANC, whose view is that the present Government is illegal, the same Whites to whom he has appealed will reject him and his party, because South Africa’s people are sick and tired of the ANC and its violence. If in his opinion Black liberation means Black domination in a so-called people’s democracy, he will also be rejected. In fact, I should like to know whether the hon member adheres to his own standpoint that we cannot permit the process of change to take place in such a way that the other people get rights and we lose them, and that we cannot think in terms of domination, but must think in terms of joint control and joint rule. It would be a good thing for us to tell the DP that emotion cannot replace balanced leadership.

It is a pleasure to take part in a discussion of the hon the State President’s Vote, especially against the background of the reform that has taken place under his leadership during the past few years. I want to state that the Republic of South Africa is a country of opportunity for all its residents, and that is why the NP’s objective is a South Africa in which the democracy can be extended in such a way that every group and every individual in the political sphere and every other sphere has an equal chance of full participation. The point of departure in principle is that the prosperity of South Africa and its population must be promoted and protected within the framework of free enterprise, private initiative and effective competition.

A debate such as this one will be more successful if one compares that which the NP offers with the modus operandi of the ANC. That is important in the first place because the NP emphatically rejects the ANC as an alternative option, and refuses to have talks with this organisation as a result of its use of violence in trying to get people to come round to its standpoint.

There is a second reason for having to refer to this, however, and that is the destructive consequences a right-wing radical government would have with regard to South Africa. One of these is the take-over of power by such an ANC movement, because such a right-wing government would deny 80% of the country’s people their rights. The smaller the power base of a government among a country’s residents, the greater the danger of a successful revolutionary struggle. It is striking that after implementation of the new constitutional dispensation in South Africa, this ANC-SACP alliance did everything in its power to give its revolutionary onslaught against the Republic greater momentum. Their objective is to obtain the broadest possible acceptance of the struggle that has been conducted against the Government.

Reform on the other hand creates a condition in which it is becoming increasingly difficult for this alliance to influence the population. For this reason one must continue to eliminate measures that are obstacles to orderly reform, because moderate people of all population groups have as their objective not the destabilisation of the existing order, but the upliftment and development of underdeveloped communities.

Unfortunately the superficial observer sees the contrast between prosperity and poverty displayed mainly with regard to the dividing lines of colour. As a result violent organisations find acceptance among the developed population groups more easily with slogans of oppression and revolution. This in turn results in misconceptions arising about a political take-over of the country, the distribution of wealth and the way in which people can improve their economic and social status.

The improvement of an own quality of life is not created by revolution under the banner of the ANC, but by labour, knowledge, initiative, drive and self-development.

Certain Whites are under a misconception, viz that the Whites have a future in South Africa only if they alone have political power. No single population group may lay claim to sole discretion in the constitutional and economic spheres.

The NP is creating a new vision for a greater and better South Africa with room for all population groups, and where everyone’s powers and talents can be used best. In order to effect that and promote and maintain a broad Africanism, it is essential that all participants be given an equal opportunity to enter and take part in a free and strong economy, irrespective of differences in respect of colour or other aspects.

Unlike the right-wing parties and the radical groups, the NP wants to unite everyone in a feeling of security and a spirit of mutual trust, solidarity and joint national responsibility. We must create living conditions in South Africa which will make it possible to ensure a proper living for every section of its population, and to protect every individual against exploitation of whatever nature.

This stability and development cannot take place if the prosperity that is achieved is reserved only for the White population group. That is CP policy. It creates conflict and is a constant breeding ground for revolutionary acts that cannot be checked by the use of weapons. The onslaught against South Africa is not aimed at a specific population group. It is aimed at South Africa as a whole, and can be resisted only if we have the will and the confidence to do so together. This confidence must be the result of patriotism that is based on the principle that we are partners in one future with the same rights, liberties and obligations. The NP has committed itself to giving everyone, individually and in group context, an effective share in the decisions with regard to government which are decisive in respect of his own life, aspirations and needs.

We have reached the end of an era in which the White population group took decisive decisions which affected other population groups. We are entering a new era in which separate and joint decisions will be taken by all population groups, without domination and in the interests of “South Africa First”.

The residents of South Africa have come to realise that concepts used by the ANC, such as free political participation and a mixed economy, have no meaning, since the final objective of the ANC-SACP alliance is a so-called classless, communist society. The number of moderates has grown as a result of the actions of radical and reactionary groups. This Parliament must therefore convey a message of hope so that opportunities for dialogue can be created in which a new South Africa can be discovered by and for all its people.

Having said all that, it remains true that the degree of acceptability and the right climate for orderly change can be created only in people’s hearts, from which each of us must emit a signal of understanding and acceptance.

Certain groups to the left and the right do not want any part in this, but the most important interests of South Africa require that moderates from all population groups join hands now and move ahead. Just as left-wing political parties should not wait for ANC acceptance, the NP should not wait for AWB and CP acceptance of the balanced thinking of right-minded people who have the interests of our common fatherland at heart.

Mr Speaker, I am very grateful that the hon the State President is here. Although we know that he listens to the debate when he is not in the House, it is easier to talk to him when he is here.

In the first place, I should like to tell the hon the State President that we are delighted that he has recovered to such an extent that he is able to resume and carry on his duties for the RSA. In the second place, I should like to tell the hon the State President that I believe he is now in a position to do something prodigious for South Africa. The standpoint he has adopted that there must first be a delimitation before an election can take place, is a logical one. It is putting the cart before the horse to hold an election first and then delimit. [Interjections.]

I think the advice the hon the State President was given that it would not be possible to undertake a delimitation this year and then hold an election was incorrect. I think that the people who negotiated with him, misled him.

An election for the House of Assembly can take place at any time. It could have started a few years ago and it can take place at any time up to 1991. There are no problems with that. A delimitation commission need only start on 12 June for the House of Delegates and the House of Representatives, after which delimitation can commence.

The previous delimitation took three months. If a start is made on 12 June, with the delimitation for those two Houses, it can be completed in September, and then we can vote in November, or before the end of the year. I want to put it to the hon the State President for consideration that it would be in the very best interests of democracy in South Africa if he were to adopt that procedure.

In the first place a delimitation after the election would be of purely theoretical interest. It would be an expense incurred and an effort made, which would be of no practical value, because it would only come into force for the next election, and then it would already be outdated.

[Inaudible.]

No, we want the election this year.

But you are going to get it!

We want the election after the delimitation, because it is in the interests of democracy to remedy the distortion which has developed in the representation owing to population migrations. The fact is that there are constituencies which have 4,8 times—almost five times—more voters than other constituencies. This applies to the House of Assembly. These voters’ votes are worth almost five times as much as other voters’ votes, and it is not in the interests of democracy for this to be the case.

I want to ask the hon the State President in all seriousness to think about the most important consideration. If the hon the State President announces the election for November, it will take place after the election in South West Africa. [Interjections.] The fact is that what is happening in South West now, is being envisaged for South Africa by members of the hon the State President’s Cabinet.

I want to quote to hon members what the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs said on 15 December of last year in Port Elizabeth, when he addressed a gathering there. He said:

In other words, the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs is saying that if these negotiations and what is taking place in South West Africa, could happen in South Africa too, it would be a great day. What is taking place in South West Africa now is a one man, one vote election. I am saying here today that I will go to the voters in this election and tell them that the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs says that what is good enough for South West Africa is good enough for South Africa. That is true … [Interjections.] … and hon members cannot explain that away. He said he wished what was happening in South West Africa could happen in South Africa. He wished that.

For that reason I am turning to the hon the State President. The hon the State President knows that it is difficult to get an answer out of the NP. The fact of the matter is that everyone knows precisely what the policies of all the parties sitting here in this House today are, except that of the governing party. Everyone knows precisely what each party’s policy is, but one does not know this in respect of the governing party. Here is an opportunity, and I ask the hon the State President, in the interests of future generations in South Africa, to give them the opportunity to decide for themselves on South Africa’s future, once they have seen the truth materialise before their eyes. This would be a prodigious step in the interests of democracy.

The hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs followed up this statement when he spoke a while later, on 18 March, at Piketberg. There he said that the remnants of the old era had to disappear and South Africa had to enter a new era, not based on laws and threats, but on achievement, standards and values free of the burdens of the past and full of hope for the future. He referred to the Group Areas Act and the race classification legislation. That was what he had in mind when he said those things. In other words, he was stating impartially that those laws had to disappear. There is simply no other fair and logical conclusion than that if one views South Africa as one undivided fatherland with all the people as its citizens, one will want these laws to disappear.

This hon Minister has said so, but the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning said, after he had, at the beginning of the year, created the perception he is so fond of using, that these laws were now being led to the slaughter. Yesterday he came along and said that they were not going to be led to the slaughter. The hon the State President will understand why this cannot be said now, because there is an election in the offing.

I want to remind the hon the State President of his own words when we discussed the Group Areas Act in the report of the President’s Council. At that stage he said:

This is the dilemma facing the governing NP— the two factions that are speaking with two voices, and no one knows what the policy is.

This is the responsibility of the new hon leader-in-chief. We will pressurise him and he will have to take an opinion, but I want to ask the hon the State President, because of the position he holds and because he is the head of the Government and holds the powers of State in his hand, to put the voters of South Africa in a position where they can assess the course the Government is adopting.

If I can see that what the Government is engaged in is going to place South Africa in the same position as that in which South West Africa now finds itself, and if the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs can see this, I think one is justified in saying that with his experience the hon the State President will also be able to give his considered opinion on the direction in which South Africa is heading, because this is the one answer one cannot get out of the NP, namely the direction in which they are taking South Africa. They do not want to answer that question, and that is why we see the phenomenon—as we saw the hon the Minister of Finance do yesterday—of statements being made which are absolute nonsense.

Yesterday the hon the Minister said here that the politics of numbers was the politics of violence. He went on to say that they were going to negotiate themselves into an unassailable position, and he said they were not going to be in a subordinate position. If the majority of the people with whom they are going to negotiate, do not want to place the hon the Minister in an unassailable position, how is he going to put himself in an unassailable position? It is only fair and right to say to the voters of South Africa: “We are entering into negotiations, and it must eventually be accepted that what the majority wants will be done”, and to tell them what the hon member Dr De Beer has just told them: “These are the consequences; accept them and do this.” [Interjections.] If those hon members do not want to do that and they want to try to manoeuvre themselves into a position in which what the majority wants is not done, they cannot ignore the numbers, and if one does not give the majority what it wants, surely it becomes the politics of violence. [Interjections.]

That is why I am saying that numbers are not a myth; they are a reality in South Africa. When one forces those numbers together and one does not afford those numbers the opportunity to decide impartially, one is engaging in the politics of violence. However, there is only one way in which the politics of violence can be avoided, and that is by adopting the policy of partition of the CP, where each nation has its own number and where numbers do not play a role. [Interjections.] Numbers do still play a role there, but it does not matter what role they play, because those numbers play a role in the same nation. Politics is based on numbers; it is not based on anything else. If those hon members want to eliminate numbers, they will be removing the essence, the basis and the foundation on which politics is founded from politics.

Mr Speaker, I am one of the multitude of South Africans who recognise and acknowledge the great qualities of a great South African in the person of the hon State President. One of these qualities, tenacity— interpreted by people with a shallow understanding of human nature as hardheartedness, unyielding stubbornness, obstinacy etc—is one which few of us have and which we all envy when we recognise it in other people. It is the quality of resoluteness, determination, single-mindedness, perseverance, staunchness, etc. However, tenacity can work for good or ill. We who have felt the impact of discriminatory legislation, in particular the Group Areas Act, remember with what single-minded tenacity it was applied in a period when the hon the State President himself was part of the NP leadership which was bent on implementing their policy of apartheid.

However, for almost a decade and more now, the hon the State President has directed that same tenacity towards bringing about major reforms in this country. That is what he will be remembered for most in the years to come. Since his historic utterance “adapt or die”—meaning that the old apartheid ways would lead to the destruction of our country if we continued along that road—which marked a watershed in the thinking about South Africa’s problems, and right up to his final expression of what the basis of a universally acceptable political system for South Africa should be, namely, power-sharing, the hon the State President has pursued this goal with complete dedication.

The existence of an amendment to the Constitution which is already on the Statute Book and which will make Black participation in decision making a reality, is testimony to the hon State President’s resoluteness to bring about power sharing. Those who shout “when” and “how long” are precisely those who have been the stumbling blocks in the way of effective negotiation and speedy results.

Those of us who are fair in our judgements will readily acknowledge the tremendously valuable role the hon the State President played just recently in bringing European bankers to new and different insights vis-à-vis South Africa, all of a positive nature. The precursor to getting the implementation of Security Council Resolution 435 off the ground at last, and peace on our borders, was—apart from the years of effort before—no less than the hon the State President’s successful visits to certain African countries and his talks with their leaders shortly before his illness. Only a statesman of the calibre of the hon the State President could have achieved so much.

However, it also took a superlative politician, which the hon the State President is by any standards, to have handled the problems that flowed from his resignation as leader-in-chief of the NP. He handled these problems very well. Despite the storm of speculation, gratuitous advice and open pressure on the part of large sectors of the media, that party has not been dented in the least. As things stand now nobody doubts that the NP will be returned to Parliament in the next election as strong as ever. My one regret, though, is that it seems very likely that the hon the State President will not be able to finish what he has started. However, he is not and will not be short of renown for all that when the history books of the future are written.

I have some unfinished business I want to complete while I am at the podium. The hon member for Port Elizabeth Central made a jibe at me when he followed me to the podium on Thursday 9 February this year.

I want to quote Hansard in this regard. In column 294 of Hansard, 9 February 1989, the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central says:

[Interjections.] The colour of my skin seems to be very important to the hon member. [Interjections.] He continued:

I am far more aware than that hon member of what the NP has done to my people, as he put it, than he will ever be. As a White person he has nothing to complain about. Unlike his political predecessors, such as the UP whose liberal high point as far my people were concerned was White leadership with justice and segregation, the NP is the first White party in Government which has embarked on the road of powersharing, rolling back the racial carpet by removing discrimination.

Our political memories are long and I want to remind the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central that his political forefathers were the ones who laid firm foundations for the discriminatory edifice that arose in South Africa. For example, who were the first people to introduce racism in education here in the Cape? None other than a certain Progressive Party under the leadership of a Dr Jameson. When they won the 1904 Cape Parliamentary elections, they immediately set about planning a law, the 1905 School Board Act which effectively limited admission to well-subsidised State schools to children of European descent, meaning Whites only, of course.

Many of us will be surprised to learn that the newspaper here in Cape Town which assiduously used its columns in 1904-5 to promote race discrimination in education, was the Cape Times.

I doubt that the DP, of which the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central is a member and which is the political descendant of the Progressive Party of 1904, will be given a chance by history to make amends as the NP is doing now. I am amazed at the remarks of the hon member, who is one of the three leaders of the DP. He clearly implies that the White voter dominates in this country. He said there should be an end to this. However, his party is extremely busy rooting itself deeply into the ranks of the White voter. One of the three leaders—he has not been repudiated by his two co-drivers—even expresses the ambition that the DP will at some time become the governing party. Are they then simply using White voters to achieve goals other than those which the White voters aspire to? That question has not been answered yet.

Then there is the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council in the House of Representatives who today at this podium directed an emotional appeal to the hon the State President to hasten the opening up of District Six. He is not the only one of his party who has recently called for open areas. It passes all understanding that people who vehemently opposed the passage of the Free Settlement Areas Act now call for its urgent implementation. No wonder that their supporters, like those whom I met in Loerie this weekend, are fading away and looking elsewhere. [Interjections.] No normal person can put up with such contradictory behaviour for much longer.

Mr Speaker, it is a privilege to speak after the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition in the House of Representatives, but I am not going to react to his speech, since I should like to talk about the national symbols of the Republic of South Africa, in particular the flag and the coat of arms. [Interjections.]

Among all peoples a distinctive national flag and coat of arms are the most commonly recognised symbols of an own nationhood. The Republic of South Africa can boast one of the most beautiful and most historical symbols in the world. This afternoon I should like to draw hon members’ attention to our national flag and coat of arms and their symbolism.

†The national flag of the Republic of South Africa is the same as the one used in the former Union of South Africa until 1961 and was originally adopted in 1927. It did not come about without struggle. The flag is based on the old orange, white and blue flag of the Dutch House of Orange, which was in use in Van Riebeeck’s time and upon which is superimposed in miniature the flags of the territories which formed the Union of South Africa in 1910.

In order to give these three miniature flags equal treatment as far as was possible, the design committee arranged them as follows: The Union Jack representing the Cape Colony and Natal has the prime position nearest the flagpole, but it is flying in the opposite direction to the main flag. The flag of the Orange Free State is hanging vertically in the centre with its red, white and blue canton nearest the flagpole, and in fact within the canton of the main flag. The Vierkleur representing the Transvaal Republic is furthest from the flagpole, but it is the only one which is flying in the correct direction, namely in the same direction as the main flag. [Interjections.]

*The final product reveals an expertise of the highest degree and one can only pay tribute to those who managed this at the time. In the more than half a century that has passed, the flag has never elicited any protest. [Interjections.] On the contrary, that vexillologist’s work played an enormous part in there not being any further struggle after 1927. Who says heraldry has no task any more in our modern society! This proves it.

Two months before the actual commissioning of the flag at the end of May, viz on 30 March 1928—this is actually very interesting— the new national flag was unfurled for the first time at an international conference in Havana. Not only was this the first time the flag was seen abroad, but also the first time it was flown in an official capacity, both inside and outside the country.

The official hoisting of our national flag throughout our whole country took place on 31 May 1928. Surely no more appropriate day could be found than Union Day, which today is Republic Day. That was the day on which every South African became aware once again of his people’s highest ideals and their endeavour for the complete fulfilment of an own nationhood and national unity.

It was decided that as from 1927 the national flag and the Union Jack would both be used as official flags, but in 1938, the year of the Centenary, only the Union flag was flown at the festivities, and after that it was officially used on its own at military parades, for example, often without the Union Jack, because the then Prime Minister, Gen Hertzog, argued that the Union Jack was merely indicative of our Commonwealth obligations. In the same way Die Stem was played alone at official functions, because God save the King was regarded by South Africa merely as a prayer for the British king.

Since 1938 the own flag and national anthem have expressed an own national feeling. This led to a considerable amount of political disquiet, but in March 1957 legislation provided that Die Stem and the Union flag would be South Africa’s only national symbols of this nature. This practice was continued in 1961.

A national flag is the generally acknowledged symbol of independence and an urge toward unity, as well as the characteristic of an own continued existence. Nations are proud of their flags, and it is by their flags that they swear true loyalty to the fatherland as it were. Respect for the flag indicates love, faithfulness and patriotism in respect of the fatherland. An own national flag is indispensable in the case of a free and internationally recognised state. On 15 May 1926 Dr D F Malan described a flag as follows, and in doing so was referring to our national flag:

[Interjections.] The authority and dignity of the State are also symbolised by the display of its flag. The flag is not only a symbol of the collective loyalty and patriotism of the residents of a country, however; it is also apolitical, and therefore a binding factor. In listening to one of the hon members on my left who is constantly making remarks, it is clear to me that the hon member for Addo has none of that loyalty in respect of our flag.

No, none at all!

It is clear to me that the hon member also does not understand that we in this country would do well to take a look at the example set by a country such as the USA, where one flag was used for many years, while an enormous differentiation of groups was converging there. They were united under one flag and their loyalty to that flag was their highest objective within their differentiation. That is why they can make progress as a nation. That is what we in this country of ours should strive for.

We also have a beautiful coat of arms, and would do well to take another look at its symbolism. The four former provinces and the lion that appeared in the British and Dutch coats of arms, were combined with our own symbols. These include the protea, and this led to the protea’s becoming South Africa’s national flower.

I want to make an appeal this afternoon. In 1984 there was a request from the Office of the State President that the use of our flag be reconsidered and that we should utilise the flag as the symbol of our country more correctly. [Interjections.] That is precisely why an office was ultimately opened in order to begin a campaign promoting our flag and other symbols. I really want to appeal to every one of us present here, as well as every citizen in the country, to go out and begin to associate ourselves with South Africa’s national flag. That is the one thing that can unite us in our differentiation, because ultimately it is by the flag that we shall stand or fall.

Mr Speaker, if I may be excused from following the hon member for Kempton Park I would like to say a word about the hon member for Southern Cape who attacked one of my colleagues.

I must tell hon members that I find it difficult to understand how a man can expect to play a role in the politics of today when he believes that the PFP and now DP is a successor of the Progressive Party of 1904 under Mr Jameson. I think his knowledge of history and the realities of South African politics is somewhat lacking.

One of the things that the hon member perhaps should try to remember and to know, is that it is natural to fight for oneself. I accept that it is the right, duty and obligation of anybody who feels he is oppressed to fight against oppression. However, I would imagine that when in fact someone is fighting for his rights he would not reject a person who on principle wants to be on his side to help him.

I can tell you, Sir, that in my own history I know there was a time my people looked for allies and in the world they could not find any. The world should have been ashamed because there were no allies in order to stand alongside the people who were being sent to the gas chambers.

I must tell hon members that there are many people in South Africa who are Black who are very happy and contented and realise the reality that there are Whites who believe in their cause—who do not pretend to speak for them but believe in their cause because they adhere to principle. I think those hon members should go and look in their own community to see whether their own community accepts that they do not want Whites to stand alongside them in a fight for liberty and freedom. I think they should think twice about that before they launch and unwarranted and unjustified attack.

[Inaudible.]

Let me tell the hon leader something. You should stand up today and say that you want one House and you want everybody in this Parliament. You would not stand here in order to defend a divided House if you really stood for what your people believed in. [Interjections.]

However, that is not the topic that I wanted to speak about.

Order! The hon member for Yeoville must keep to the rule that hon members be addressed as hon members.

I will, Sir, I will try to.

It has been said that “the evil that men do lives after them, the good is oft interred with their bones”. If I may paraphrase that to apply to politicians—to their opponents policitians seldom do anything right; if they make mistakes they are never allowed to forget them, but what they do for their country is seldom mentioned during their lifetime.

We all make mistakes and are constantly reminded of them. The hon the State President is—with respect—no exception to this and I do not think that he will pretend to be.

We have differed on many matters and have debated fairly toughly in the past but, bearing in mind the general election, this is perhaps the last opportunity that we may face each other. I am sure we will face each other in other capacities in the future or perhaps be alongside each other when we meet again, one never knows. With this in mind I would like to place some matters on record.

One in particular which is close to my heart, because unfortunately I will be unable to participate in the Defence Vote, concerns the SADF. When the story of the SADF comes to be written, it will be said that the hon the State President, while he was Minister of Defence, changed the nature of the SADF, removed the language differences as an issue in that Defence Force, laid the foundations for all races to participate on a new basis in that Defence Force, was in charge when the plans were made to re-equip the Defence Force in the face of an arms boycott and was instrumental in building an effective fighting force for South Africa.

After the sorry state of affairs which had existed previously when the morale was low and when equipment was inadequate, the situation changed under his Ministry and his leadership. Those of us who may be wrongly described as hawks by others, will always remember this with gratitude, and those who are not hawks but who care about the safety of our country, should be grateful for the fact that there is a SADF of the nature that there is now, and one which owes much to the work of one P W Botha, who was the Minister of Defence and is now the hon the State President.

I do not know what is going to happen after the next election and I am not privy to anybody’s personal decisions, neither am I privy to the decisions of political parties other than my own. However, I would like to make some submissions as to what perhaps should happen in the next few months.

The hon the State President, by his choice, has separated the office of party leader and Head of State during the remainder of his present term of office, and the future is a matter for his concern and decision which one leaves to him. The reason was said to be not only a question of workload, and I am fully appreciative of the issue of the workload, but also a question of his being able to act above party politics in certain respects.

There are many people in South Africa who would want, with him, that he should end his office on a high note. I do not want to be presumptuous to suggest to him how he will do that. I am sure that he is doing that himself. However, there are four matters which are close to my heart and which I would like very briefly to put to him for his consideration.

The first one is completely non-political. It is what I would like to call “Operation Safeguard the Environment”. There are young people, and many of us who are not so young, who are concerned about the environment. The fauna and flora of our country are dear to all of us. So is the beauty of our land, the air that we breathe and the water that gives us life.

There are threats to the environment from many directions, whether they be the elephant hunted for their tusks, the rhino for their horns, the plant life, the ozone layer and much more.

I would like to appeal to the hon the State President to call a conference of all those who are concerned about the environment. He should call a conference of organisations, individuals, spokesmen and concerned persons and not only present the Government’s plan but also listen to the ideas of those people and formulate new plans for the safety of our environment for our future.

The question will always be asked: What inheritance are we leaving to our children and our grandchildren? While we may differ on many political issues, we should not differ on the issue of preserving our country, our land, our air, our sea, our fauna and our flora. I make the appeal that that step be taken in order to achieve that.

The second matter I would like to touch on—I will do it very briefly—is the question of a Job Creation Operation to improve the quality of life and to really get job creation in South Africa off the ground and to see to it that money is spent in order to improve the quality of life of people in South Africa, particularly in areas where they do not have clinics, recreation centres, parks and other facilities. I believe that if we get that going, we can actually, as a result see to it that jobs will be created in South Africa and thereby the quality of life will be improved. We will also create greater stability in South Africa. By this we will get the process of inward industrialisation going.

Inward industrialisation needs fiscal and monetary incentives but it also needs an impetus which must come from the State and cannot come from private enterprise alone. I would again like to appeal to the hon the State President. There is R1 billion in the Budget and everybody is telling us what to spend it on or telling us not to spend it at all. I would like to see some of that money spent on creating jobs in order to improve the quality of life and to launch a major campaign in this regard.

The third proposal I wish to make relates to the issue of consultation. The 1987 election was fought on the basis of bringing Blacks into the process of central Government. We are now on the eve of another election and the issue is unresolved. Before this Parliament ends, I would like to see some major initiatives on the highest level to bring about change and consultation. It is not for me to tell the hon the State President who should be invited to tea at Tuynhuys. However, if some people were to be invited to sit there without agendas and without preconditions it might well be a dramatic act which would change the face of South Africa before the next election. On this issue I wish to say one more word and maybe I shall come back to it, if I am permitted to do so, after just mentioning briefly the fourth idea because I do not want to miss that.

The fourth idea I wish to mention is the Reservation of Separate Amenities Act. We want this Act repealed. There is no doubt about the fact that that is where the DP stands on this issue. There is, however, a very important issue. If the Government does not want to repeal this Reservation of Separate Amenities Act then, at the very least, what they should do is to introduce legislation during this session which would determine that where any facility has been opened it may not be closed again. That is vital.

We support that.

You support that? Yes, because it is a step in the right direction. Please bring it in during this session of Parliament.

While we want it to go altogether, I think that if the Government stops the closing of facilities which have been opened, it will at least demonstrate its good faith. I would like to see that done.

There is one last thing I would like to say and I have got a few seconds to deal with it. It concerns a statement made by an MP to an extra-parliamentary organisation. He said that parties to the left of the Government should identify themselves with the freedom struggle and avoid forging alliances with non-democratic groups like Inkatha.

I, like others, identify myself with freedom and believe that I cannot be free if others are not free. However, I think it is presumptuous of the hon member in question to be the judge on the Chief Minister of KwaZulu and his political party and to regard him as not being democratic. To my mind—and I know because I signed a document with him at Mahlabatini years ago—he committed himself to human rights and democratic processes. I believe that Chief Minister Mangosuthu Buthelezi has a major role to play in the process of consultation in South Africa and in bringing about peaceful change. Any effort to denigrate him and his party must be rejected out of hand. [Time expired.]

Mr Speaker, I too would like to associate myself with other hon members in congratulating the hon the State President and his senior Ministers on their initiative and efforts in bringing about peace and independence in Namibia. Their efforts are worthy of great commendation.

When the constituent assembly began its deliberations in 1984 that historic occasion envisaged the constitutional structure of one of the world’s newest and smallest democracies. If I may allude to the words of Joseph Storey:

In as much as I have asserted that the foundations of the Constitution were solid, I would also like to point out with respect that the foundations have been shaken by the folly of the people, by the indiscretion of some politicians and by the negligence of some of the elite. In just five years we have reduced somewhat the noble processes of the Constitution to almost a level of claptrap and hypocrisy. Nobody expects politics to be synonymous with ethics and even more so, politicians with ethical conduct.

At this moment when the country stands at the crossroads of changes there has already been talk of amendments to the Constitution. Such suggestions have gained wide circulation and have been favourably and adversely received.

What is eminently in the public interest and in the Government’s own interest, is that constitutional amendments should be the subject matter of an open public debate and not a whispering campaign. These changes that I have talked about inevitably include the office of State President. Whatever system is propounded it is imperative that it be cognitive of the commitment to broaden democracy even further. We cannot merely look upon the constitutional process and political developments in sorrow and lament our feelings. The problems facing the country have to be addressed urgently.

Here I would like to appeal to our honest and knowledgeable people outside Parliament to review the stand to which they adhere, that is of opting out of the democratic process. They must devote themselves to educating public opinion. The ill-informed are often confused about three distinct concepts which have wholly different connotations. Equality is often quoted in the popular rhetoric of one man, one vote, but actually refers to equality before the law and equal opportunity. Equality before the law is the very foundation of the Constitution. Equal opportunity is the very foundation of social justice, but equality per se is achieved only in the graveyard. Granted equality before the law and equal opportunity, men will still attain different positions in life depending on their intelligence, character and capacity to work hard. However, does this Government, over which the hon the State President presides, offer these positions?

Every progressive country must have an aristocracy of talent, knowledge and character. It is this aristocracy which must involve itself in public life, however distasteful it may be. If democracy is to survive in South Africa, this Government must go all out to grant the highest recognition to ability, knowledge and integrity. This cannot—I emphasise, cannot—be achieved by the exclusion of certain people.

I should like to reaffirm my conviction that it is not the Constitution which has failed our people, but our chosen representatives who have failed the Constitution. On the other hand—and I must stress that I am of this opinion—if the thoughtful and selfless have failed the country at this juncture, the only other option available, apart from going to the polls for a fresh mandate, would be to have a second look at the type of democratic set-up which is embodied in our Constitution.

The question is: How does one get a government of experts in place of a government of professional politicians? I believe that the hon the State President should start an in-depth nationwide debate or—this has often been campaigned for—a national convention or national forum— call it what one may—as to how changes facing the country may be brought about.

To shut our eyes to the gravity of the situation would only invite the forces of authoritarianism of the type which overran and still overruns many a country. Our national bird must not be replaced by the ostrich.

I believe a start to realising the expectations of the people must then be made by the lifting of the state of emergency. Let us not suspend the Constitution any longer. The state of emergency has served its purpose. There is relative peace in South Africa and the maintenance of law and order can be managed by the security forces. History will record that the true gains of the state of emergency have been the unification of the opposition, both to the extreme left and to the extreme right as well as the sharp awakening of the political conscience of the nation, especially the unfranchised.

My appeal is that the short-term beneficiaries of the abrogation of the rule of law should not become its victims. We must ensure that arbitrary power does not wear the garb of constitutionalism. Today the people are in a mood which comes rarely in the life of a country. They are looking forward to a new direction, a new era and a new life. It is time not only for firm rule, a new Budget or a new economic policy but also for a new nation policy, a moment for shaping and moulding a new society and for giving a new, clear orientation to the nation.

Mr Speaker, no doubt the hon member for Moorcross will excuse me if I do not react to him, except to congratulate him on a positive contribution.

It is a particular honour for me to be participating in the discussion of the Vote of the hon the State President. The hon the State President is a person who has dedicated his entire life to South Africa, and I would like to associate myself with the thanks and praise expressed to him from various quarters. Mrs Botha also deserves our praise and thanks for her support for the hon the State President over the years. We are grateful that the hon the State President was able to resume his duties, and we pray that his recovery will be complete.

In the annals of history, the period in which President P W Botha was Head of State, will be known as the period of reform—a period in which other population groups obtained the right to sit in this Parliament, and even to form part of the electoral college for the election of a State President.

We need only think of executive committees in which people of colour have become fellowgovernors. Regional services councils, as an extension of local management, are the forum in which joint decision-making forms the cornerstone of the upliftment of backward areas. These are the bodies which assist in the elimination of duplication and overlapping and which assist in bringing about the maximum utilisation of available funds. Reform in the constitutional sphere also goes hand in hand with economic development. The Government has made a large contribution in this sphere as well and has already spent R400 million with regard to employment creation and in-service training, so far. I believe that the private sector also has a large responsibility in this regard and should be encouraged to make a larger contribution in this sphere, because it is true that idleness and an empty stomach become the breeding ground for all sorts of evils.

With regard to Walvis Bay, I am grateful to be able to report that all is well in that small enclave nearly 2 000 miles from this Parliament. On behalf of Walvis Bay I want to say thank you very much to the hon the State President, who, after a visit of the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning to Walvis Bay, decided to grant Walvis Bay its own representation despite its small voters corps. In this way Walvis Bay has once again become part of the political and economic process. We are grateful for that and we can feel the protective hand which South Africa is offering us.

With regard to South West Africa, the hon the State President played an enormous role as Minister of Defence, Prime Minister and later as State President. Those of us who lived and worked with him, know of his concern for the people of South West Africa. We can bear witness to his sympathy, understanding and love for those people, as well as for the large and extensive country—that country which enchants everyone with its uniqueness and magnetically draws them back time and again.

South Africa has afforded that region armed protection for 23 years, and has controlled South West Africa for 74 years. During this period the interests of the inhabitants have been closely guarded. The various Government bodies have been assisted with advice and action, economic assistance and the provision of an infrastructure. We need only think of the network of roads and power lines which span South West Africa and which stimulate industrial development. A railway network with rolling stock, buildings and everything which goes along with that, equipment that was donated to South West Africa by the SATS at the time of the take-over of the network, also falls into this category.

Vitally important connections which give South West Africa access to the South African markets and industrial complexes, were created in this way. We need only look at the developed towns and cities, profitable agricultural sectors, tourism and recreation resorts, mines, the fish industry, irrigation schemes and many others. These are undoubtedly a credit to any country.

Compare South West Africa with any of its neighbouring states, or with any other country further north, and hon members will realise that South Africa was a worthy guardian and man-date-holder. The hon the State President and his Government can look back with pride at a gigantic task which was well done.

The degree of literacy in South West Africa is one of the highest in Africa. Ninety percent of its inhabitants belong to one or other Christian church, and with international recognition, a promising future awaits South West Africa and its people. Foreign capital is necessary, employment opportunities must be created and industrial development is essential. It is good to note that various Western countries have already indicated their intentions in this regard. Recognition of the 360 km fishing zone will put an end to the over-exploitation of the valuable fishing resources, and give South West Africa the opportunity to extract its rightful revenue from that source. I believe that a rail link with Botswana is now becoming a greater possibility. The RSA Government has always stated unequivocally that it would be prepared to negotiate with a friendly government in South West Africa with regard to the use of the Walvis Bay harbour and facilities. I would like to associate myself with that.

I once again want to appeal to the Government to also adhere to its other undertaking, namely that Walvis Bay will remain RSA territory. The recent violation of a written peace agreement by Swapo is further proof of the need to keep Walvis Bay in safe hands. In my opinion, the time has come, however, to seriously consider declaring Walvis Bay a free port. That should be far more acceptable to all parties involved, as well as to an independent South West Africa.

A final thought with regard to South West. For many years, since the early years, West Germany has assisted private schools in South West Africa by means of subsidies, personnel, etc, and we trust that if it were ever to become necessary in the future, that South Africa would also be prepared to assist schools in South West Africa, because schools, as educational institutions, are the backbone of every community.

I foresee a strong victory for the democratic parties in South West Africa. I foresee continued aid to South West Africa from the RSA Government. I foresee the maintaining of the customs agreement which exists at the moment. I foresee co-operation in many other spheres. Good neighbourliness, good friends—these are dear to the heart of every Southwester. For that reason I want to express my sincere thanks to our hon Minister of Foreign Affairs and the hon the Minister of Defence for what they have again achieved in South West.

Having said all that, peace and stability are a prerequisite there. The election date is in jeopardy. The present situation makes canvassing in Owambo impossible. We believe that this date will be approached circumspectly, because if that situation does not stabilise, attention will have to be given to the extension of this period.

It is a great privilege for me to be able to state South West Africa’s case here, to say thank you for what is being done there. If there is still time, I would like to mention some of the articles which are appearing in the newspapers at the moment. For example, the following is said:

That is not correct. The appropriation aid was R310 million last year. This year it is R80 million. If one subtracts R80 million from R310 million, it is impossible to arrive at the figure of R500 million.

Apart from that, South West Africa obtained R390 million last year from the customs and excise agreement. A further sum of more than R300 million for loans was guaranteed by South Africa. I think, therefore, that South Africa can look back with pride at what it has achieved.

Mr Speaker, the hon member for Walvis Bay referred to the victory the democratic parties would achieve in South West Africa. I wonder whether the DP should not perhaps have sought its salvation there.

I do not want to bid farewell to the hon the State President this afternoon. He has not yet said he is parting company with us. I am glad that he looks so well. It seems as if we will still be able to have many a fight with him!

Earlier today and during the week repeated reference was made to moderation and the so-called moderates who should have a place in South African politics. I just want to refer these moderates to what the late President M T Steyn said on 4 January 1910, and I quote:

According to him, moderation in politics was virtually synonymous with a lack of principles and the moderates were the most immoderate of the lot when it came to giving away the rights of their people. I do not want to enter into an argument about this. If hon members disagree with me, they disagree with the insight of President Steyn, brilliant man that he was.

However, I want to raise a few other matters. The hon Leader of the NP said that we were afraid to put our case in this House. He said that that was why we were afraid to come to this House. Nevertheless it is characteristic that all the members in this House consistently take note of what we say when we take the floor here and that every hon member knows exactly what we stand for and what we envisage.

Whether or not they disagree with it, we take the floor here and everyone knows we stand for separate development. However, nobody in this House can tell us what the NP stands for. I want to ask them today when the apartheid signs in this House will be taken down, since they are quite obsessed with the signs the CP has put up in Boksburg? [Interjections.] When are the apartheid signs going to be taken down here? When is the apartheid we find here going to disappear, if it is no longer the policy of the NP? When are hon members going to take down the apartheid signs in their constituencies, or are they going to do what was done in Mossel Bay? The mayor was telephoned at twelve o’clock at night to take the signs down quickly before the television cameras appeared the following morning. As soon as the international television cameras were gone, they were put up again.

When we put our signs up we put them up for everyone to see, because we know that this is the way to ensure a well-ordered state of affairs at that lake in Boksburg.

We do not want to argue the point any further with hon members. We merely want them to reply to the question about whether, in this country, they intend moving in the direction of one nation? We have been asked why we differ. Is the Coloured who speaks Afrikaans not an Afrikaner? We want to ask those hon members whether, in their eyes, the Coloured is an Afrikaner and therefore part of their people?

Yes! [Interjections.]

Yes!

I am glad the hon member for Langlaagte said that. The hon member over there also says so. Now all I want to ask, is: If the Coloured is, in fact, part and parcel of his people, his country and his culture, why is he sitting over there? Why is he not sitting with him? Why, then, is he separated if he is part of his group? [Interjections.]

That will still come.

Those hon members say it will come. Does the hon member also say so, and is that what he is striving for? Tell us, and tell the voters of South Africa, so that we can know what we are talking about and what we will be fighting him about in the coming election. [Interjections.]

I am glad those two hon members have now stated that it is their policy that that man is part of their people, because in doing so they have proved one thing, and that is that they are discriminating purely on the basis of the colour of his skin. [Interjections.]

He is part of my nation.

I ask whether they were part of your people, not your nation.

Don’t play with words.

Don’t try to wriggle out of it now. [Interjections.]

Next I want to say something about the question of delimitation. I want to tell the hon the State President that it is in conflict with our Constitution for one voter’s vote to count twice as much as that of another. [Interjections.]

I cannot understand how 13 702 voters in Green Point, which is an urban constituency, are entitled to one representative, while the 30 159 voters in Bethal are also entitled to only one representative. [Interjections.] Naturally I greatly appreciate the abilities of these two people, and it is true that the one in Bethal could possibly represent 30 000 people, while the other person would find it difficult to represent 10 000. [Interjections.]

With all due respect, Mr Speaker, we cannot enter into an election on this basis. We cannot have a situation in which North Rand, which is a peri-urban constituency, has 40 000 voters, while Parow, with its 16 000 voters, is also represented by only one other member. [Interjections.] It is a fact that if one listened to the hon member for Parow, one would think he had 60 000 voters, but the fact of the matter is that he represents only 16 000, and the good, modest hon member for North Rand represents 40 000 voters.

Do hon members think that Port Elizabeth Central, with its 14 660 voters, is entitled to the same representation as Pretoria East with its 37 000 people represented by its member, or that the complaining hon member for Claremont is so superior that he can represent 16 851 voters, while Mitchell’s Plain with 39 548 voters also has only one representative? [Interjections.] Is the Coloured vote then worth so little that 2½ Coloureds in Mitchell’s Plain are equal to one White in Claremont? We surely cannot go on like this.

I therefore appeal to the hon the State President to have a delimitation. With the modern aids at our disposal delimitation will not take months to complete. The last delimitation was completed within two months. [Time expired.]

Mr Speaker, the hon member for Bethal stated here that everyone in this House knows where the CP stands. Surely that is not true, since before they can tell us where they stand, they need the permission of the leader of the AWB. I want to quote what Mr Terre’Blanche had to say according to a report in the Wednesday, 15 March edition of Die Burger:

Hon members should listen to this:

The hon member must go and tell that to the voters of the Transvaal and South Africa in the next election. [Interjections.]

It is a special privilege and an honour to be able to participate in the discussion of the vote of the hon the State President. Needless to say, the activities, actions and vision of this department are undoubtedly of the utmost importance for every inhabitant of this country, because from this office and department the co-ordinating functions of the country’s administration are evaluated, initiated and planned. It is thus an even greater honour and privilege to be able to participate in this debate.

Today I should like to express a few thoughts on this country, South Africa—a leader, and preeminently a leader in Africa. This country, which comprises a mere 4% of the total population of Africa, and which appears daily on the agendas of the international forums of the world for condemnation, is not only the leader in Africa, but the source of life, the artery, the ray of hope and the key to survival of a major part of Africa’s population.

It is sad, indeed tragic, that an official balance sheet cannot be drawn up every year which could be shown to every country in the world, to enable them to see not only what this small country at the tip of Africa does for its own population and inhabitants, but also what is being done for the majority of the underdeveloped countries north of its borders. Accordingly I should like to try to present such a balance sheet to the world today because it is time South Africa, which has become a country of prosperity and hope— under the leadership of an NP Government and its dynamic leaders—tells the world precisely what the facts are.

This country currently mines approximately 97% of the total coal production, approximately 98% of the total iron ore production and approximately 82% of the total chrome production in Africa. The farmers of South Africa produce 94% of the total wheat crop in Africa and 71% of the total meat production. In South Africa South Africans possess 80% of all agricultural tractors and motor vehicles in Africa. This country, which is condemned so bitterly, has 63% of the total tarred roads in Africa and 57% of our railway network, and this country generates 77% of the total electricity and is responsible for 75% of the total exports of this continent. In addition, there are at present approximately 300 000 foreign workers lawfully in this country. One is justified in asking why they stream in their thousands into a country of so-called oppression.

South Africa also looks after its immediate neighbours. We are responsible for most of the power supply of certain countries on our borders and in the case of Lesotho, for 100% of it. South Africa provides its immediate neighbours with millions of doses of veterinary medicine as well as the necessary vaccines for human consumption. I could continue in this vein, providing hon members with one statistic after another in support of my contention.

What makes this country so important to Africa is the fact that its people—people of all population groups—have the will to survive, and they will survive. South Africa is not only a leader in the technological, industrial and other spheres; I contend that this country, despite its condemnation, will also set an example to the rest of the world as regards the regulation and accommodation of the aspirations and rights of the various population groups.

No other country in the world has to contend with more complex problems as regards relations and peoples. Only South Africa and its people, under the leadership of an NP Government, can resolve this problem. Political reform, supported by a strong and vital economy, will always be a top priority for this Government. If the South African economy is permitted to extend its influence far wider, the total area under its sphere of influence could become Africa’s shop window in the world.

We all appreciate the gravity of the times we are living in. While we realise this, we may never overlook the challenges and opportunities this affords us. Seldom in our history have we been faced with such challenges and opportunities to make a contribution to regulating South Africa in such a way that greater prosperity, peace and happiness for all its people is assured.

Therefore South Africa has for decades enjoyed positive leadership. Today, however, we honour and pay tribute to the leadership which the hon the State President has given this country, particularly in the last ten years as head of the Government, thus placing South Africa in its current strong position in Africa and in the world. His positive leadership and sacrifices for this country, and particularly his peace initiatives, will always stand as a living monument.

However, leadership cannot come only from a State President or the head of a country. Leadership is a combined task emanating from a combined action, namely the combined national will to survive and conquer in a new attitude of co-operation.

Apart from that, leadership requires of all of us a willingness to be of service, a willingness to work and give more than we receive, and a willingness to encourage others to co-operate in a team.

In the future we dare not separate our task for the future from our responsibility. We are building a heritage for those who come after us, and that also demands self-control and a mature and orderly approach in order to display the necessary flexibility and adaptability.

Finally, positive leadership demands of everyone in South Africa, and from South Africa as a leader in Africa, that we look ahead with faith, go forward with faith and that we be of service, with confidence and responsibility, for the sake of something greater than ourselves.

South Africa is a leader in Africa. South Africa is a world leader and we thank the Almighty for the men of unquestioned integrity and quality who have always led us and will continue to do so.

Mr Speaker, it is a great privilege for me to be participating in the debate on the Vote of the hon the State President for the fourth time. I am grateful that the hon the State President has recovered to such an extent that he was able to take his place in Parliament today. We trust that he will continue to recover in this way so that he will be here in our midst for the rest of the Parliamentary session.

†Every South African has the basic desire to be treated with dignity and with justice. Those of us on the wrong side of the notorious colour line are even more sensitive in this respect. We become extremely volatile and vocal when injustice is done and when our dignity is infringed upon.

On the other hand, when justice prevails and wrongs are set right, we as fair-minded and positive thinking South Africans feel duty-bound to express our gratitude and give credit where credit is due.

Allow me to apply this principle to the hon the State President. He is in the twilight of his political career which spans not merely years, but decades. All these years in the political arena alone demand respect, but I wish to applaud him too for the positive changes he has initiated. It was the hon the State President as head of State who ushered in an era of change in our recent political history.

Allow me, for a while, to take hon members back in time. The NP came into power with the slogan “Separate or Die’. In the Verwoerdian era the slogan became “Separate Development”. In the time of Mr John Vorster that was changed to “Peaceful Co-existence”. When the hon the State President came to power as Prime Minister he made an about turn, at great cost to the NP, when he coined the dramatic slogan “Adapt or Die”. This was followed by new criteria of Christian Western standards, norms and values.

This gave the majority of South Africans new hope. Personally, I fully supported him in 1979. In my opinion it was the introduction to the most dramatic and important era of reform in our history when the Government acknowledged openly, for the very first time, that people other than Whites should be accommodated in Parliament. The hon the State President took those first decisive steps towards the tricameral Parliament. Furthermore, he was instrumental in the abolition of a large number of dehumanising laws of discrimination, for example laws dealing with job reservation and influx control. He also—this is important to me—did more than his share to improve the quality of life of the poor people of South Africa.

*No one can bear witness to that more than I, because he and I literally uplifted thousands of poor people out of poverty in the George constituency.

†I give him credit for this. Because of this new air of change and reform we in the LP were prepared—as so-called non-Whites—to defend and promote South Africa’s cause overseas. This was possible because South Africa had become marketable. Unfortunately, after the last House of Assembly election the reform process began to lose its momentum.

*The process of reform would have progressed further, if the present and former followers of the hon the State President had allowed him to continue with the steps which he had in mind. In this regard, the Nationalists of the Transvaal placed a spoke in the proverbial wheel of progress, and I am going to prove that. [Interjections.] I am convinced that the Nationalists of the Transvaal are actually responsible for the present delayed pace of reform.

If it was not for the poor results which the NP achieved in the Transvaal, if it was not for the fact that they did not do their homework, and that they did not fulfil their duty to educate their people in the Transvaal so that they could change, and in so doing avert that fear, we would have progressed much further a long time ago than we have done up to now.

However, it is encouraging that the hon the leader-in-chief and the NP have undergone a change in attitude, but only their future actions will show whether or not they are actively going to strive towards that vision of a new South Africa which we all look forward to. Those of us in the LP are looking forward expectantly to the further speeding up of the reform process in terms of true democratic principles.

Hon members must be aware that the new Constitution is not based on the true principles of democracy. That is why the LP rejected it, and still rejects it. The obvious reason for the LP’s rejection of the Constitution is as old as the hills and has been the single cause of most wars in the history of the world, namely man’s inhumanity to man.

New life must be injected into the reform process. That is the only way in which the correct climate for negotiation can be created, and it is only by means of negotiation that a new dispensation can be devised. For the purposes of the LP, a new dispensation means inter alia a new constitution for South Africa, which will be acceptable to the majority of Afrikaners. The NP is therefore under an obligation to negotiate on an equal basis with everyone who is involved, and not as one in authority.

†With bated breath we look forward to the day when South Africa becomes a true democracy in which the rights of the individual are paramount and protected.

Sad to say, South Africa’s record is not very good in this respect, especially where colour, and the White man’s fixation with it, are concerned. People cannot and must not be divided into groups with skin colour as the criterion. That has been done and the results have been disastrous for South Africa, not only emotionally and spiritually, but also politically and economically.

Let us, for a moment, examine the ridiculous lengths to which this fixation with colour has gone. In doing so, I will repeat myself, because this has been said on many occasions. Skin colour determines where one is born; skin colour determines where one is educated; skin colour determines where one recreates; and skin colour even determines where one will be laid to rest one day. We in the LP do recognise concessions of recent times, such as the opening of all hotels, theatres, trains, certain CBD areas and private schools, but unfortunately we abhor the permit system. Why must we as South Africans get permission to reside in the area of our choice?

*Those of us in the LP realise that we must educate the Whites of South Africa in that delicate sphere of accepting so-called nonWhites as fellow South Africans. I have an educating task with regard to many Whites in South Africa. I shall have to teach them to accept me and to accept the Black man as a fellow citizen of South Africa. [Interjections.]

The LP also realises that an enormous task lies ahead of us to socially and economically uplift the disadvantaged and those who are less fortunate than ourselves, so that they may become acceptable to people who do not want to accept them. However, this can only be done in a community which is free of any of our statutory discrimination.

I want to again make an urgent appeal to hon members on my right to free themselves from that out-of-date criterion to which they have been clinging for so long, namely the colour of my skin. If I am fat, I can go on a diet and become slim. If I am stupid, I can go to school and become clever. If I am poor, I can work hard and become wealthy. However, what can I do to change the colour of my skin? Absolutely nothing! For that reason I am making an appeal to hon members on my right in particular. Let us free ourselves of this criterion which I, as a creation of God, can do nothing about.

South Africa is a large and beautiful country, with the promise of just as large and beautiful a future if we would only take the trouble to sincerely strive for what is in the interests of every South African.

South Africa is a country with great potential wealth, and in this regard I am not even thinking of gold, diamonds, silver and platinum. I am thinking of the untapped wealth of our nation— our people in all their diversity. As members of the LP we respect our diversity. We are not ashamed of it, but we are opposed to the discrimination on the grounds of that diversity. †The past has played havoc with our diversity. Too much has been made of that which makes us different from one another, especially skin colour, but nothing has been made of that which binds us together as a nation. Nothing has been made of that which we have in common. Let us emphasise that which we have in common as South Africans. Let us consider the following: Our greatest common heritage is this land of ours, South Africa. We all have a common love for our land, South Africa, regardless of our diversity. The fever of patriotism runs deep in our land, South Africa, regardless of our diversity. We would make the supreme sacrifice for this country of ours, South Africa, regardless of our diversity. [Interjections.]

Surely all the essential elements necessary for the creation of a new South Africa have just been mentioned: A common country of birth, a common love for our land, a common sense of patriotism and, last but not least, a common willingness to make the supreme sacrifice. Surely this is what counts.

*I want to tell that hon member who had so much to say about peoples and nations and who addressed the NP that we must be accepted as members of the people, and so on—he can look it up—that in a book entitled Nasionalisme, Dr Kotzé states that in the seventeenth century the word “Africaander” was intended for those of colour who were born in South Africa. The word “Africaander” was used for us.

A man under the influence of alcohol, by the name of Hendrik Bibault, was the first White man who, while having an argument with Magistrate Starrenburg, said in his inebriated state:

That word “Afrikaner” is our name. Who spoke Afrikaans first? Why does Sarah Goldblatt say that Afrikaans was first a Hottentot language and a kitchen language? My forefathers’ name “April” was a slave name. My forefathers and my ancestors were the first to use that language, because we could not speak High Dutch.

We in South Africa have the same religion. As many as 85% of the Coloured people are Protestants. We have the same religion. We have the same territory. We have the same essential characteristics of a people. Why are they ignoring us? Why do they want to discriminate against us? We belong together. South Africa should have only three groups, namely English and Afrikaans-speaking people, and the Nguni and the Sotho-speaking people. That is all.