Order! I have to announce that Mr Speaker has received a letter from the Secretary to Parliament in which he asks leave to retire on pension with effect from 1 October 1988. The letter will be referred to the Rules Committee.

Mr Chairman, before the adjournment of the House yesterday I had been referring to the nature of the conflict against South Africa. I had also referred to the concept “people’s democracy” and the phases of the socialistic revolution of the ANC-Communist Party alliance. In conjunction with that I had referred to a book by Ambassador Netanyahu, entitled Terrorism: How the West can win, the result of a series of conferences which took place in the USA and in Israel, and to which well-known people also made a contribution.

In this book the role of the terrorist is defined inter alia as follows:

Terrorism is furthermore defined as follows:

Mr Chairman, I had also referred to how a distinction was drawn in that book between terrorism and guerrilla operations in order to prevent confusion of concept between these two divergent activities. All authorities and all students of this form of warfare will, I think, agree with this exposition. As I did yesterday I also want to emphasise again that the strategies of the terrorists are geared towards avoiding the security forces and committing their treacherous deeds against civilians. Once again I am quoting in this connection:

It is now appropriate to say something about the terror which is being planned and proceeded with against the Republic of South Africa by the SACP-ANC alliance, and about our actions in this regard.

The facts speak for themselves, except to those who do not wish to hear that terrorist techniques are being applied against South African society from inside some neighbouring countries. The question is what can we do about it. May we do anything about it?

In this regard I should like to share a few thoughts with this House, emanating from Mr George Schultz, the USA Secretary of State. I want to quote what Mr Shultz said in this book, which was edited by Netanyahu:

What Mr Schultz is saying here, we realised a long time ago. Preventive actions against the ANC, and against Swapo are being taken, as well as hot pursuit operations, about which the public has always been accordingly informed. The principle is clear: South Africa reserves the right to defend itself and its people, just as the USA, Britain, Israel and other countries reserve the right to do this.

However, the revolutionary onslaught on South Africa from terrorist ranks has another dimension. ANC terrorists reduce their exposure to preventive actions or counter actions in that they do not stay in permanent bases or residential dwellings in the neighbouring countries. They have reached the phase in which they blend in with the civilian population in residential areas in the neighbouring countries—and here I am referring specifically to Zimbabwe. By doing so they are acting according to the pattern of international terrorism. In the words of Netanyahu: “More often than not, they hide behind civilians”.

The ANC is hiding among civilians in neighbouring countries with the knowledge and approval of the governments concerned. Our intelligence services are good enough to ensure that we know this. [Interjections.] In this way the ANC terrorists are using the population as a hiding place. They are taking advantage of the population. But this is surely a well-known technique, as indicated in the book to which I referred: “… hide behind civilians”.

We have no conflict or swords to cross with the governments of the populations of our neighbouring countries. This is our fundamental point of departure, and I have frequently said so. But we cannot allow the ANC to proceed with its acts of terror against our own population from a safe hiding-place either.

Neighbouring countries must consequently realise that we have a right to act against the ANC, and the will to do so. Those governments are exposing their populations to violence because they offer terrorists accommodation in their residential areas.

This brings me to a level of action in regard to which I shall furnish only general guidelines. Below the level of official government action, when the Defence Force, for example, admits and announces that it is undertaking cross-border operations, lies the level of international espionage, of undercover operations and agents.

Southern Africa is a hotbed of international agents of Western and communist secret services. It is a grey world which the ordinary citizen frequently only hears about. It is world with its own rules and morality. South Africa, for the sake of its security, is inevitably involved in this grey world. We have no alternative. Just like other countries we are being forced by our enemies to venture unwillingly into this territory.

Hon members must not expect the Government to be able to speak openly about these matters. It endangers people’s lives. Our entire flow of intelligence depends on people who are prepared to co-operate with us. In this way they are making it possible for us to identify the ANC, their hideouts and their routes through Zimbabwe. In this way we were able to observe the southward movement of the Cubans in Angola, and report on it. South Africa cannot expect the Government to speak in public about matters about which all governments keep silent.

Let us look for a while at the reality in this connection. In spite of ostensible indications of a search for peaceful solutions to conflict situations, the Kremlin has clearly committed itself to the expansion of its sphere of influence by means of covert actions. These methods include propaganda, deceptions, agents of influence, bribery and secret financial support. These are methods which are used especially when other methods are tactically inapplicable.

Where the situation requires, the Russians have frequently, as a follow-up to covert methods, made use of more direct methods such as the incitement of revolution and terrorism, or even direct action as in Afghanistan and Angola. The question which arises is how these methods can be opposed on both the regional and international levels.

To deal with conflict one must be in the front line, particularly in regard to intelligence or information. The utilisation of methods—this includes agents—is a reality which has to be taken into account. In this connection I am quoting from a well-known work by Schultz and Godson, namely Dezinformatia: Active Measures in Soviet Strategy:

South Africa’s primary concern is its security interests. These security interests of all citizens must be preserved and protected in a hostile world. Internationally and on a regional basis South Africa is being placed in the dock, as was done again yesterday by the hon member for Claremont. In this way a perception has arisen that any case can be brought against this country and any action can be taken against us.

South Africa is expected to sit with folded hands, because if South Africa were to lift its hands it would be guilty of so-called destabilisation, suppression and all kinds of other so-called devilishness. After all we heard what that hon member said yesterday.

This has become the basis of a new morality in international politics. The gist of it is that everything detrimental to South Africa is just and everything which could be to the advantage of this country is unjust. From this arises the perception of South Africa as the bad guy, as against the perception of those opposed to South Africa, regardless in what regard, or ostensibly being oppressed by South Africa as the good guys.

That international law is being made ridiculous in the process and that double standards are being applied makes no difference at all.

Let us consider a few realities. Since October 1986 the USA Congress with its punitive economic measures, has taken the lead in economic action against South Africa. At present this is being taken further. Nevertheless it is being tacitly observed that South Africa is involved in the support of transport services and other essential services such as welfare services deep into Africa.

Technology is being withheld from the Republic of South Africa. Nevertheless Africa comes seeking help under cover of darkness to try to prevent its imminent collapse. Loans are being withheld from the Republic of South Africa. Nevertheless the world demands that South Africa should dramatically improve its education system and that housing should be attainable by all.

The agricultural produce of the Republic of South Africa is being boycotted. Nevertheless the Republic of South Africa is expected to accommodate foreign workers from Mozambique and other countries. Terrorism can be committed against the Republic of South Africa. It is being exported to the Republic of South Africa, but the Republic of South Africa may not defend itself. As the hon member for Springs correctly observed, we refuse to allow neighbouring countries to export terrorism to our country.

After bomb explosions on the street the RSA must simply clear up the debris, remove the dead and nurse the wounded. The RSA may listen to the triumphant statements of the ANC from neighbouring countries that they—the ANC— were responsible for these atrocities. Yet the RSA may not defend itself.

Leaders in Southern Africa—as Mr Mugabe has already done—may boast in international forums that they support the so-called liberation struggle, while we have to accept the bloodshed and violence, which is frequently aimed at women and children. Yet the world remains silent. Since South Africa is standing in the dock and is being kept there by the own interests of a diversity of groups, the morality of international politics sinks to the level of political prostitution. All these things are admissible, just as long as steps can be taken at the expense of the Republic of South Africa.

South Africa cannot live with such a morality. If the ANC, with world-wide approval, reserves the right to plant bombs against innocent people in South Africa, and continues to export revolution and terrorism to South Africa, the Republic of South Africa reserves the right to act against the ANC in neighbouring countries. South Africans not acting provocatively or tauntingly. We are not seeking confrontation, but when innocent people are murdered or crippled by terrorists beyond our borders, we cannot sit with our hands folded.

Let me remind hon members again of the words of Mr George Schultz: The civilised world will have to think long, hard and seriously about more active means of defence, namely defence through preventive actions against terrorists before they strike. Consequently to act against the ANC in neighbouring countries and destroy their facilities is a form of self-defence for the Republic of South Africa. It is based on a justified principle.

For this reason the ANC is being fought on all levels, although it is being done with a very important difference in premise. The SA Defence Force directs its actions purely against ANC houses, strongholds and training centres, and in the process warns the inhabitants not to become involved with the ANC. Time and again these warnings are directed at governments along specific channels. Last week Botswana was again warned by my colleague, the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs, about the Broederstroom terrorists who came to South Africa through Zambia, Zimbabwe and Botswana.

The actions of the SA Defence Force remain aimed purely at the ANC, as various operations in neighbouring states have consequently demonstrated in the past. The essence of the matter is that if the ANC, with world approval, reserves the right to plant bombs in South Africa which are aimed at innocent people, South Africa reserves the right to take steps against the ANC in neighbouring countries.

There is an important difference in emphasis in regard to the action taken. South Africa is not engaged in a conflict with the populations of neighbouring countries. Over all these years very close ties have always existed. South Africa’s actions beyond its borders are aimed purely at making a surgical incision against the ANC.

On an occasion such as this it is desirable to say something about our attitude to conflicts in Southern Africa. I am discussing this matter from a security point of view. It has frequently been said, in this Parliament too, that a country does not have any friends, only interests. South Africa’s course therefore follows the interests of this country and its people, and where it may best serve these interests.

South Africa is a country with a pro-West orientation. That is why our philosophy is one of pro-freedom and pro-independence. In this climate South Africa has certain game rules for peace. I discussed this matter fully last year. I should just like to make a few matters clear once again.

Firstly, South Africa has no interest in destabilising or disrupting Southern Africa. The contrary is true: We have an interest in stable, developing and progressive neighbours. Yesterday the hon members for Vryburg and Springs also referred to this.

Secondly, South Africa has no interest in controlling organisations and governments in Southern Africa; and thirdly, South Africa has no hidden plan or vision of territorial expansion. [Interjections.]

The tragedy of this situation is that while I am spelling out these points of principle here, the hon member for Claremont does not even know what his points of principle are and simply wants to make destructive comments. I shall make this statement again: He is the representative of the enemies of South Africa in this Parliament. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: The hon the Minister referred to me as being the representative of the enemies of South Africa. I consider that to be unparliamentary. [Interjections.]

Order! I must ask the hon the Minister to withdraw that statement.

I withdraw it, Mr Chairman. I shall come to that aspect again later when I discuss certain aspects of his speech. However, it is very clear that he is the hon member in this Chamber who speaks in hostile and derogatory terms of the security forces, and in terms of praise of the enemies of South Africa. I do not know what that means. [Interjections.]

South Africa consequently accepts the sovereignty of states on the subcontinent and is prepared to co-exist with its Marxist neighbours. We also accept the fact that we need one another in terms of interaction among states.

As a regional power South Africa has a role to play on this subcontinent, particularly because we have made great progress in technology and science during the past few decades, something which is very clear. In contrast our neighbouring states have begun to undergo a painful process of impoverishment and deterioration.

South Africa has adopted the course of broadening democracy. Nevertheless the so-called Frontline States, with their dictatorships, are constantly prescribing to South Africa what its ultimate political dispensation should look like, while their own political systems do not nearly comply with the demands they themselves are making on the RSA.

Zimbabwe is a socialist one-party state, and Angola as well as Mozambique are Marxistic people’s republics; Zambia is also a socialist one-party state. These states want to prescribe to South Africa, and according to their socialist consciences they resort to the Marxistic export of revolution to South Africa.

To these countries South Africa says loudly and clearly: We shall not accept the export of revolution. We shall fight it in every conceivable way, conventional and unconventional if necessary.

In this connection I want to refer specifically to Zimbabwe. While Mr Mugabe is leaving no stone unturned in accusing South Africa of so-called destabilisation and other atrocities, the official policy of his country includes moral, political and financial support for the ANC. ANC terrorists are being provided with clandestine military support and aid, as well as transit amenities. Since 1984 political asylum has been granted to the ANC. The ANC has office facilities in Harare where regular liaison with the Cuban, Russian and other embassies takes place. The ANC office in Harare, which was destroyed in the RSA operation on 19 May 1986, has in the meantime been moved to another building.

As in Mozambique there is an ANC political-military regional committee in Zimbabwe which is responsible inter alia for clandestine military activities, which include tactical matters such as reconnaissance operations and the division of support during attempted infiltrations into the Republic of South Africa. Many ANC members are accommodated in houses among the population in Harare and Bulawayo for example. The ANC has arsenals in Harare, from which arms are smuggled to the Republic of South Africa.

The landmine incident in December 1985 in the Weipe area, for which two terrorists were sentenced to death three weeks ago, as well as the attack on the farmstead west of Messina in February this year, are but two examples which confirm that the ANC is taking direct military steps against the RSA from Zimbabwean territory. The number of acts of terrorism traced back to Zimbabwe increased by 52% between 1986 and 1987. Add to this a large number of terrorist operations that are not retraceable to a specific country—under such circumstances there are many more from Zimbabwe.

In the area of propaganda the state-controlled and financed news agency Ziana is blazoning more and more anti-RSA propaganda abroad. In fact, as the mouthpiece of the Mugabe government it is surpassing Angola’s Angop, and Mozambique’s Aim. This is the information which the hon member for Constantia is helping to disseminate. He is probably on their payroll. I want to thank the hon member for Durban North for the level-headed and clear exposition he gave in this connection yesterday. Almost every day our own media carry reports on statements made by members of the Mugabe government…

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: I understood the hon the Minister of Defence as suggesting that I am on the pay roll of Angop. I take the strongest exception to that remark and I ask for your ruling in that regard.

Order! Will the hon the Minister explain to the Chair exactly what he said?

Mr Chairman, I asked whether the hon member was on the payroll of Angop. [Interjections.]

Order! Whether the hon the Minister said it explicitly or by way of insinuation, he must withdraw the remark.

Mr Chairman, I said he was “probably” on the payroll. Would he reply to the question of whether he is or not? [Interjections.]

Order! The hon the Minister may proceed. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: You have asked the hon the Minister to withdraw that remark, and I think he should do so.

Order! The hon the Minister explained that he had posed a hypothetical question.

No, Mr Chairman, quite clearly he did not. He said: “Hy is seker op die betaalstaat.” Those were his exact words. [Interjections.]

Order!

As the hon the Minister explained it to me, I was satisfied that it was put as a hypothetical question. The hon the Minister may continue.

Mr Chairman, I am prepared to withdraw it if the hon member gives me the assurance that he is not on the payroll.

Of course I am not! It is an absolutely outrageous statement! [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, I must add that the way in which the hon member is carrying on now, it seems even more likely to me that he is on the payroll. [Interjections.]

Order! No, as the hon the Minister has just put it, I must ask the hon the Minister to withdraw the insinuation.

I withdraw it, Mr Chairman.

The hon the Minister may proceed.

Mr Chairman, Mr Mugabe is known for his militant statements, of which the best known is probably that made on 15 June 1986—the so-called Soweto day. I am quoting what he said, because I think it is important that we should know this:

If that is not the language of war, I do not know what is.

Is he referring to us?

He is referring to us. He is referring to the Boers of our country.

†If this is not a declaration of war, then I would like to know how war is declared.

It should be noted that one of the serious implications of the discovery at Broederstroom of sophisticated weapons is the evidence that these weapons were brought in through Zimbabwe and Botswana. Zimbabwe is indeed directly and indirectly involved in the export of revolution and terrorism to South Africa.

Facts show that Zimbabwe is increasingly being used as a conference centre and a meeting place at which strident attacks are made on the RSA. At these international and regional conferences South Africa is condemned in the harshest, most abusive language imaginable. South Africa is condemned every time. It is at these conferences that international actions are planned. It is here that pressure for sanctions and the isolation of South Africa is co-ordinated.

As far as the future is concerned, it is quite clear that the Mugabe government will maintain its present attitude towards South Africa. In fact, it will strengthen and extend its support for the revolutionaries, and this despite Zimbabwe’s economic dependence on the RSA and the very unstable security situation within Zimbabwe itself. South Africans should have no illusions about this matter.

I would like to say to the socialist so-called Frontline States in Southern Africa that they could benefit by taking a leaf out of the book of their comrades in Eastern Europe. The political ideologies of the governments of Eastern and Western Europe are poles apart, but Eastern Europe has managed to develop a viable coexistence with Western Europe.

Although the two Europes do not have political ties, there is close economic interaction at all other levels. There are even contacts in sport! Eastern Europe has no option but to have economic links with the West in order to save itself from financial collapse. The Frontline States should take note of these developments in other parts of the socialist world.

South Africa would like to see the subcontinent removed from the power play of East-West politics. The disintegration and collapse of Africa has reached such a critical stage that the continent can no longer afford to be part of this power play. Africa cannot be the playground of the major powers. Africa must look to its own problems, on its own, and South Africa is an integral part of Africa, ready to extend the hand of good neighbourliness.

This is why I said on a previous occasion that South Africa does not want to prescribe a political formula for Angola. We expect the Soviet Union to show some flexibility on this issue. The Soviet Union can no longer afford to underwrite the conflict that has developed around a proMoscow MPLA government. The RSA is quite prepared to co-exist with a government in Luanda that puts the interests of Africa first and a government that will not export revolution as one of its chief policies. National reconciliation is imperative in that country in order to end the internal tensions.

The Angolan economy and standards of living have in any case deteriorated to the stage where it will take the rest of the century and even longer for Angola just to recover from the ravages of the civil war.

In the same way South Africa does not want to become involved in the internal problems of Mozambique. Frelimo and Renamo must sit down and discuss their problems. That is the only hope for reconciliation in that unhappy country, as my colleague the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs pointed out in this House last week. South Africa is prepared to help where it can, but the export of revolution must stop.

It is important to note that the export of revolution includes propaganda, accusations, allegations and disinformation through the written and spoken word. Mozambique must understand clearly that the RSA is prepared to help and to assist it but then Mozambique must stop all forms of export of revolution and violence to us. Incidents of terrorism originating from Mozambique continue despite the Nkomati Accord, and their news agency Aim in particular continues with blatant accusations of destabilisation.

Once again I state categorically in this House today that we do not seek to destabilise Southern Africa and that, in fact, we wish to stabilise the situation in Southern Africa and to establish conditions conducive to peace, progress and prosperity for all the countries and all the peoples of our subcontinent. As we see it, Mozambique’s problems can only be handled through reconciliation between the two warring factions.

I would like to clear up one important matter. I refer to newspaper reports of about a fortnight ago that South Africa is considering sending soldiers to protect the Cahora Bassa powerline or to train Mozambican soldiers for this purpose. These reports are unfounded. South Africa’s policy in this regard was stated when I spoke in this House on 18 May 1984. This policy has not changed since. Hon members can find it in that day’s Hansard, col 6918.

*This brings me to the following matter, namely the so-called right to know. I should like to thank the hon members for Germiston District and Durbanville for their contributions, as well as the hon member Prof Olivier for the very positive contribution he made in this connection.

The object is to state this matter in its proper perspective today. During the recent events in Angola—I am referring here to the past nine months when the SA Defence Force was involved there—a frequent reaction was that the public had the right to know. I accept that principle because an informed public is also a responsible public.

There is nothing wrong with the principle of the right to know; after all, democracy is an open system. One should therefore aspire as far as possible to a flow of information or expertise, particularly from government institutions to the public.

But what is also true—this is a principle in every democracy—is that there are boundaries, limitations or limiting factors in society. Naturally the interests of the public and society determine these boundaries. The security of all the people of a country is such an interest, and may also therefore serve as a limitation. If information were released which would harm the safety of the country or its people, or benefit the enemy, that is diametrically opposed to the interests of the country and its people. It is very clear to me that this is unacceptable.

The interests of information and security must therefore be weighed up against one another. This weighing-up process is in fact in the interests of the public and society. It goes without saying that security interests are the most important and decisive consideration. The main consideration is the interests of security, and I am certain there is no one in this House who will differ with me on this point.

The principle of “the right to know” therefore has realistic limitations. During the discussion of my Vote last year I had a great deal to say about security and its place in the administration of the State. I said security must be singled out as priority number one because it is the guarantee for the continued existence of all of us. This is the case because we find ourselves in unusual circumstances. We find ourselves engaged in an undeclared war. It is not a conventional war and it is not a guerrilla war; it is a revolutionary war which it is being waged with three instruments. The first instrument is expansionism, which is supported by Cuba and Russia, and South Africa is the ultimate target.

[Inaudible.]

Here it comes! I am going to speak about the hon member now. Secondly there is the instrument of terrorism which is aimed at the deliberate, systematic murder, killing, maiming and intimidation of innocent people—I want to emphasise “innocent people”—in order to instil fear so that political objectives can be achieved. These are the objectionable actions of the South African Communist Party’s alliance with the ANC, to which the hon member for Walvis Bay and the hon member Mrs Chait correctly objected so vehemently. In contrast the hon member for Claremont approved of them.

Thirdly there is the instrument of propaganda; the perception of guilt is attached to the Republic of South Africa. It is ostensibly the aggressor. It is the so-called bad guy that has to be eliminated. The Angop, Aim and Ziana agencies are in the forefront in this regard.

Against the background of an undeclared revolutionary onslaught on South Africa and all its people I now want to proceed to the so-called “right to know”. Above all, priority number one is the safety of our people; not only of our men and women in uniform or in the security forces but our entire population. A balance must be maintained between security interest and information interest. A weighing-up of interests must occur. However, the fundamental rule of the game is simple. If one has to choose between the interests of people’s security and the interests of information, the former is decisive. This is a recognised principle in the civilised world. In brief, the public’s right to know can never be a threat to the soldier, members of the security forces or the life and safety of the public.

In this connection I want to refer hon members to my statement on 11 February 1986, in col 5 of Hansard, pursuant to a question on the principle of “must know”.

If information is released unevaluated or haphazardly or if information is under certain circumstances even denied, it can be harmful to security. Therefore the security of our country, and so too the benefits the enemy could derive from a denial or confirmation of information and/or allegations, are considerations in determining the so-called right to know. Furthermore I want to refer our media again to what I said on 15 September last year in this House about propaganda. I am quoting from col 5945 of Hansard, with reference to a question about the principle of “must know”:

One cannot help noticing that many South African journalists and the hon member for Constantia obviously cannot wait for Angop, Aim and Ziana to blazon their propaganda abroad. In any case, I do not know how Aim can report with any authority on Angola. I do not understand it.

I now want to qualify the equilibrium between security interests and information flow in greater detail. Last year in November the hon member for Berea asked us to open the so-called Angolan involvement in a public debate here. Surely that cannot be done, because the lives and safety of our soldiers is the main priority of the South African Defence Force and this country. The Defence Force cares for its soldiers. That is why no unnecessary risks are taken. That is why actions are planned meticulously, purposefully and with a view to possible risks and battle situations. Nowhere in the world is publicity given to tactical or battle situations—surely one cannot disclose one’s plans to one’s enemy! One cannot allow South Africa’s enemies to benefit from an uncontrolled flow of information.

Besides, we are involved with Unita in an aidgiving role. Of course we serve and defend our own interests and values in this way, as well as those of Southern Africa, against being overwhelmed by foreign forces. Consequently the right to know has limits, and these limits must be retained.

Mr Chairman, I listened attentively to the hon the Prime Minister, I mean Minister. [Interjections.] Yes, he is probably on his way there. That is why I made a slip. I shall come to him later, but I think I should start today with the hon the Deputy Minister.

In yesterday’s debate which was supposed to have been a serious and responsible debate and was supposed to have conducted in such a way the hon the Deputy Minister of Defence sounded a dissonant note by referring to the 1987 tour of the border by hon members. Starting with the hon the Minister, the generals and the members of our party who were there, the feed-back we received about that tour was that it had been an achievement, a wonderful and excellent tour. Now, six months later, the hon the Deputy Minister comes forward with a hearsay tale and casts a slur on that tour as well as on my hon colleagues. [Interjections.]

We have had trouble before between the Ministry and the CP about that hon Deputy Minister’s statements about tours. The hon the Chief Whip of our party and I went to see the hon the Minister, and it was with difficulty that we mended that hon Deputy Minister’s bungling. We mended it after we received the assurance from the hon the Minister that he, as far as the hon member for Overvaal was concerned, knew nothing about any misconduct by that hon member on any tour.

Now, however, we have to tell that hon the Deputy Minister that there is a code between men, between “men’s men”, between officers and gentlemen…

He will not understand that. He does not know what it means.

He might not have any knowledge about something like that, but the fact remains that certain things are not spoken about and once a tour is over it is over. I can tell hon members that we on this side could speak about many things extending over a very long period of time in regard to overseas tours, border tours and internal tours, but there are certain things men’s men do not speak about. Once a tour is over it is over. [Interjections.]

Just take a look around you.

He said you must look around you.

I can say right now that we cannot and we shall not expose our members, our leader and our wives to the fickleness, the irresponsibility and the indiscretion of that hon Deputy Minister.

Hear, hear!

I want to tell him that he forms a sharp contrast to his hon Minister, whom I cannot help but like even though he has gone astray, politically speaking. I probably like him because he remains an officer and a gentleman, and also because he is a man’s man and can hold his peace.

Thomas, what are you looking for? [Interjections.]

No, I have finished with that aspect. In a moment I shall cross swords with him, but I am now contrasting him with his hon Deputy Minister.

He is looking for a new Deputy Minister.

Are you fighting or trying to curry favour? [Interjections.]

It is much more serious than that, Wouter.

Unfortunately I have to devote more time and attention to that hon Deputy Minister. Yesterday he spoke about the CP’s 10 Black defence forces and a further three. He asked what nonsense this was.

His party’s hon Minister of Education and Development Aid himself said that the one aspect of apartheid which the NP was retaining was the liberation of and the granting of independence to the various Black states. He said he would proceed with it. Consequently there could theoretically be 10 independent states in South Africa. To tell the truth, there are already four. There are already four that have their own defence forces and their own security forces. I now what to tell him—that hon the Deputy Minister—that surely what he put to us as questions in his speech yesterday were a reflection on his own party’s policy. [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr Chairman, he then asked whether the CP would have the courage and whether a CP government would allow each independent state to import and purchase arms from any country. I now ask him whether it is not true that the NP Government allows the TBVC countries—even if only theoretically—to import and supply arms from and to whoever they like. If he tells me that that is not the case then those countries are surely what the Progs say they are. Surely they are the vassals of South Africa.

I now ask him whether each of the 10 Black states which, according to his hon colleague, are still going to become independent—he has as yet not been repudiated on that score—are also going to have their own defence force? I am reading his own questions addressed to us back to him. We now want to know whether, according to the NP approach, each independent people is not going to be allowed to build up its own defence force in contrast to the first four who were in fact allowed to do so? If having a defence force is a prerequisite for such a people’s independence is the NP Government going to provide them with such a defence force? He wanted to know whether the CP was going to do something of that nature.

Will the NP in future have the courage to spell out the financial implications to the voters of South Africa of possibly ten plus one—eleven—defence forces as opposed to the CP’s 13 defence forces? Sir, he must reply to these questions of ours.

Answer my questions!

However, Mr Chairman, that was not the issue yesterday. The issue yesterday was the NP’s set-up in relation to the Coloureds and the Indians. The day before yesterday the Coloureds sang the praises of the Defence Force in their House. [Interjections.] The Nationalists referred to that. However, the Coloureds sang the praises of a Defence Force in which they are not obliged to serve and instead only have to volunteer service. I now ask why they are not obliged to do national service as well. That is what we want to know. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, unfortunately I have to conclude now. Yesterday the hon the Minister of Defence very sharply criticised hon members of the PFP in connection with particular terms which they used. However, the hon the Minister himself used terms which we found strange. He spoke of a post-apartheid era in South Africa. He spoke about the broadening of democracy. I now want to put a question to him. I am of the opinion that as a good soldier he should preferably stay away from political philosophies. Today, when he spoke about foreign affairs he excelled. I want to know from him what he meant when he spoke about a post-apartheid era. Was he referring to post-apartheid chambers in this Parliament? Is that part of the post-apartheid era? Was he referring to post-apartheid residential areas? Was he referring to post-apartheid schools, post-apartheid elections, post-apartheid own affairs, post-apartheid independent states? [Interjections.] What kind of terminology was the hon the Minister using when he spoke of the post-apartheid era and the broadening of democracy?

I want to say that that is also the kind of language one hears from South Africa’s enemies and from the leftists and the Marxists. [Interjections.] I am asking whether that is the NP policy now. A post-apartheid terminology, the broadening of democracy and so on, form part of NP policy, not so? I am asking him whether the old NP was not also engaged in granting independence to the various peoples so as to broaden democracy. Surely they were also engaged for a period of 30 years in broadening democracy. Can one only broaden a democracy, as the hon the Minister said yesterday, by blending the components of the 21st century South Africa and the not yet or only just 20th century components of South African society? When that happens everyone will go back to the 19th century. [Interjections.] [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I am not going to react to the attacks which the hon member for Soutpansberg launched at the hon the Deputy Minister. I shall leave that to the hon the Deputy Minister himself.

However, I should just like to add to one point made by the hon member; he might otherwise feel a little neglected. On a previous occasion I adopted the standpoint in this House that the difference between the Official Opposition and the PFP was merely a question of degree. [Interjections.] Yesterday and again a moment ago, we experienced two such examples. I want to stop for a moment to consider only one of them, because other members will most probably react to the other example.

The hon member for Soutpansberg associated himself with the hon member for Overvaal by referring to the voluntary nature of the non-White corps in the Defence Force as opposed to the compulsory military service of the Whites. A question sprang to mind because it seemed to me they were inclining towards the ECC idea that we should all rather be volunteers. I shall leave it at that; I do not want to elaborate on it any further.

Another similarity between the two opposition groups on the other side of the House is that both the hon member for Overvaal and the hon member for Constantia compared our involvement in Angola to a local Vietnam. Once again we are very close to a rapprochement between these two groups in the House. [Interjections.]

In the rest of my speech I want to confine myself to a remark made by the hon the Minister…

Your introduction was rather feeble. Stop making such a fool of yourself.

That was very clever of the hon member. He is able to transplant hearts and that is about all; he knows nothing about politics.

You need a brain transplant.

You should go for a head amputation. [Interjections.]

The hon the Minister said South Africa reserved the right to defend itself and its people. It is true that it is the primary task of the State to protect the interests of its nationals so that development can take place in an orderly fashion and to the benefit of everyone. This protective function must maintain political sovereignty, norms and values and territorial integrity.

Abroad the Government uses international law to protect these elements. The fact is that international law differs from constitutional law inasmuch as there are no legislative, executive or jurisprudential functions, yet the fact remains that states have never denied the legal nature of international law.

What about the EEC?

That hon member will have an opportunity to speak.

They usually argue about the facts or about the existence of a specific rule in international law. That is what the argument is concerned with.

It is true that since international law came into existence in about 1625 when De Groot wrote his De jure belli ac pacis on the law…

That is a lot of nonsense.

The hon member is very clever, but he will have an opportunity to speak. [Interjections.]

Order!

I cannot allow a dialogue between the hon members for Bloemfontein North and Losberg. Only the hon member for Bloemfontein North may proceed.

Since the commencement of international law, specific sanctions and remedies have emerged. For example there are counter-measures, embargo’s, boycotts, sanctions, diplomatic actions and so on, but more specifically retaliation, armed violence, self-defence and hot pursuit. These last three elements incorporate the standpoint that an authority or state has a specific right to go to war.

It is interesting that the standpoint is that only states may wage war against each other. Individuals or groups of individuals cannot, strictly speaking, wage war against each other or against a state.

The question which arises in the Southern African context is: What would the position be if a group of individuals as an organisation, in reference to Swapo and the ANC, committed acts of aggression from a neighbouring country against a sovereign state? In this case does it mean that the host country is waging an undeclared war against South Africa or does it mean that the prominence and recognition given to elements such as Swapo and the ANC by the international community amount to a tacit recognition of a government in exile? Regardless of the reply to this question, South Africa has a right to wage war, and has this right on the grounds of interference on the part of a host country as well as assistance to seditious elements that are only interested in freedom through the barrel of a gun.

Furthermore, as far as the South African situation is concerned, South Africa has, on various occasions, made offers of non-aggression pacts to neighbouring countries. South Africa desires freedom and as a regional power also offers neighbouring countries the opportunity of jointly stimulating development and growth. Until recently, however, neighbouring countries have preferred to export revolution rather than to import peace from South Africa.

South Africa has one of three options in respect of the maintenance of its territorial integrity, namely hot pursuit operations, retaliatory actions or pre-emptive strikes, actions which are in fact valid acts of self-defence. The latest SA Defence Force involvement in Angola was extensive; it was necessary in order to prevent Swapo from establishing bases on the border of South West Africa under Cuban and Fapla protection. [Interjections.]

The precondition for a cross-border operation being launched is that the other state—in other words the host country—must not be capable of or willing to keep a tight rein on the terrorists. The Joint Monitoring Commission of 1984 did not in fact succeed, but South Africa gained valuable experience and familiarised itself with the enemy’s tactics as well as the enemy’s unreliability and inability to implement the expression pacta sunt servenda.

The idea of pre-emptive strikes, mentioned at the Nuremberg Trials, became an established practice in Vietnam and Lebanon, but the fact of the matter is—and with this I conclude—that South Africa is the target of an intensive international onslaught extending all over the world and from east to west and from north to south across this continent. To a large extent the solution lies in proceeding with cross-border operations so that the internal political problems can ultimately be solved. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I should like to thank the hon member for Bloemfontein North for his contribution in this debate. However, I want to turn to another aspect. In the first place I should very much like to express a word of thanks and in doing so make a request of the hon the Minister. I also want to discuss briefly the further expansion of our commando force.

The fact that we are threatened, but are not faced with imminent collapse; the fact that we are embroiled in a war, but can still live normal lives in this country; and the fact that we can still determine with self-respect and pride the course of history here in Southern Africa we surely owe to the Almighty but definitely also to the efficient functioning of our SA Defence Force.

The SA Defence Force, as we all know, consists of a defence family. The SA Defence Force itself and the results which it achieves are the final product of the application of a variety of aspects and resources in the struggle we have to wage. There are the resources of technology, training and knowledge but also the human resources, and it is this much-publicised person in the SA Defence Force uniform to whom I should like to direct a very sincere word of thanks.

Firstly I want to turn to our permanent force. We are always struck by the quality of people whom we find within the ranks of the Permanent Force, especially among our corps of leaders and the general staff. These are the people who ensure by means of day and night planning that this country remains safe and it is able to make it to the other side. I am convinced that if it were not for their effectiveness and the standard of training which is maintained by this echelon of top officers within the Defence Force we would surely not be debating here so peacefully, and the impact and scope of this debate would most certainly have been along quite different lines. I myself was witness to the standard of training which these people undergo and that is why I can tell hon members that they should have no qualms in leaving the young men of this country in the hands of those people.

I want to express a second word of thanks to the voluntary element within the SADF. I want to turn specifically to those members in the commando force. Today, because of a lack of time I cannot devote attention to the other members. The role played and the contribution made by the volunteer element, especially the leadership element, over the past 16 years in the commando force have increased tremendously in terms of scope and intensity. This is, to my mind, mainly due to three reasons: Improved training of the commando force, especially since the early seventies; the situation itself, which caused commando forces to be utilised in area and border protection tasks and since 1984 to be utilised to a greater extent internally; as well as the standard of the leadership element within the commando force which was drastically improved during this time due to the fact that, on the one hand, the first products of compulsory national service have been fed back into the commando force and on the other to the high standard of training and content of the courses followed by those senior commando officers. This has also contributed to the fact that the commando force as such has had improved acceptance as a full-fledged part of the Defence Force both by other branches of the defence force as well as by us, the public.

That has also contributed to commando and group HQs becoming miniature command HQs with the entire range of tasks associated with such HQs. Every week and every day many hours are spent by the leadership element and key personnel in those headquarters to attend to routine aspects as well as the administration of those units. In this way these commanding officer and group commanding officers posts have to a large extent developed into what are practically full-time posts. Therefore we want to say thank you very much to these people who perform this task for us every day with much enthusiasm. Many of these group commanding officer posts are also being transformed into permanent force posts now. Here I should like to make an appeal to the hon the Minister of Defence. It is that we continue to offer these group commanding officer posts to our commando officers for the sake of their own career planning within the SADF, even though it would imply that these people would have to go and qualify themselves by means of courses to be able to occupy those posts. I am, however, aware that a vacuum is created in many areas by commando officers’ careers ending in the position of commando commanding officer as a result of the fact that posts at group headquarters are now being transformed into permanent force posts.

I should like to discuss the further expansion of the commando force. We know the SADF consists of different components and various parts. It is quite correct that it must always be a supple and flexible force which can be used everywhere. However, if we consider the commando’s task we find that they are operational units with a specific task in the defence system of our country, namely counter-insurgency in the rural or urban areas. Their utilisation is territorial and they are there as a blanket covering for the whole country. That is in fact what they ought to be: A force drawn from the people for the people in every area where a situation could possibly arise.

If, however, we consider the onslaught it is true that the terrorists and the anarchists have to find another hiding place. In those parts of Southern Africa where they have fought thus far they had a hiding place from which they could function.

According to their own statements they also have to acquire a hiding place from which to operate within South Africa and according to what they themselves have said, that hiding place is going to be the Black residential areas, the townships, as well as the residential areas of the people of colour of our country. As far as I am concerned it is therefore very important that when one is waging a counter-revolutionary struggle one must control an area in its entirety and one must not merely deploy forces or have them present in areas which are peaceful, but one must deploy them everywhere, in those other areas as well.

If we consider the 1986 White Paper the following is said about national defence:

It is for this reason that I should like to appeal for the increased affiliation of Black members in our commando units. It can be done in various ways. It can be done in cases where it is acceptable to the communities. It can be done in such a way that no offence is given in cases where people might take offence at something of that kind. It is, however, of critical importance that in considering the threat and the possible employment of the threat in future we expand this component of ours and involve those people. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Winburg dealt with the commandos, and I propose to deal with different subjects. Therefore he will excuse me if I do not follow him.

I should like to start by referring to a publication which I received recently. It is dated May of this year, and has the picture of the hon the Minister of Defence both on the front and on the inside. What I find fascinating, is the caricature of the hon the Minister of Defence on the inside of this page. I have tried to find the resemblance between this caricature and the hon the Minister as I have been sitting here, and the only similarity I can find is actually that there is some degree of red in this caricature, and there appears to be some degree of objection to the red in the hon the Minister in what he has been saying most of the afternoon. Apart from that, it is a rather fascinating caricature, but it seems to demonstrate the allegation that the hon the Minister of Defence is the “Superhawk” in this Parliament. I thought there was some competition for that job. I should like to hear from him whether he really thinks he is entitled to be described as that because there are other people who lay claim to that particular position.

There is a fascinating little passage in this article, however, to which I should like to get an answer from the hon the Minister. When he was at Fort Leavenworth he met President John Kennedy in 1962. I quote from the article where it states:

What was the influence of President John Kennedy on the hon the Minister, what did they talk about, and is he now making these speeches because of the influence in those early days of no less a person than President John Kennedy?

He said, watch the liberals! [Interjections.]

Watch the liberals? Well, he should know, Sir. [Interjections.]

Having dealt with that in a somewhat lighthearted way, may I appeal to the hon the Minister for his support on something that the hon member for Mooi River and I both feel very strongly about. We have discussed this and I make this plea on our joint behalf. I am referring to the Black Second World War veterans and their plight, particularly those in the TBVC countries. These people were the colleagues in war of many of us, and we believe that the time has come to put an end to the problems that these people encounter. I make the appeal to the hon the Minister that he should intervene in that scene.

The second point that I wish to make, which is entirely unrelated, is that there has been a considerable amount of publicity given to the question of whether the ANC has or does not have a camp in the north of Angola called the Quatra camp.

If there is no such camp—as the ANC alleges— then there should be no objection to an international inspection of the area in order to see if there is such a camp. If there is such a camp, there should be no objection to an international inspection in order to see what is going on in that camp. I would like to appeal to the diplomatic representatives who pay a considerable amount of attention to this debate, that there should be an impartial international examination of the issue as to whether there is a Quatra camp and what is going on in that camp.

I would like to make a third point relating to the question of finance. It has to do with the loss which results from the inadequate stock and equipment control which has haunted the Defence Force for many years and still does. I wish to appeal to the hon the Minister that he should pay further and additional attention to this whole question. It is really pointless that every year in the report of the Auditor-General, we have the criticism which exists in respect of this situation. We should spend more time on training people. We should endeavour to have better trained personnel put there on a permanent basis, rather than take the transient people who are, in fact, put into this kind of job. We should also make a further effort to demonstrate to people that that equipment in many cases cannot be replaced. In fact, it costs a fortune to get that equipment. To have it lost in the fashion in which it is done, is very serious.

I would also like to cover another point, and that has to do with a question that is troubling me. I have advocated for many years the strengthening of the South African Air Force, for a variety of reasons that I need not enlarge on at the moment. We have had the various announcements in regard to what we are doing about helicopters and the refurbishing of aircraft. However, there is a very real problem that exists, and that is that there is no way that South Africa can have the kind of aircraft which can be supplied by Eastern Bloc powers to neighbouring states. There is no way that South Africa can meet that. No-one can say that the Eastern Bloc does not supply them, because the aircraft are all Mig’s. That is a factual situation.

Secondly, the quantity of aircraft which they can supply, is of such a nature that South Africa really cannot compete with it. Every aircraft that we lose, is a vital loss to us, whereas as far as they are concerned, they can use theirs as a testing ground. Spain, for instance, was a testing ground for the Stuka and for other German aircraft. It suits the Eastern Bloc countries to have a testing ground for aircraft. They can afford to lose them.

What is the answer to this? There is a similar problem in relation to armour, and that is the question of heavy tanks and the availability of tanks to neighbouring states which, again, are supplied by the Eastern Block countries. I would like to submit today that to my mind the key to this lies in air-to-air missiles. They are sophisticated and they can put an aircraft at an advantage over another aircraft. We also need air-to-ground missiles which can keep the aircraft at a high altitude and can keep them away. We also need ground-to-ground missiles which can hit the tanks. To my mind we should be spending more money, activity and energy on the production of missiles in order to provide an answer to this problem. I would like to make this appeal.

Finally, I want to deal with the question of using this House as a platform for statements which are disinformation statements, which are harmful statements and which receive a credibility from being repeated in Parliament so that they can be quoted elsewhere. I particularly want to deal with the question of the cost of the war in Angola. I find it rather remarkable that the Standing Committee on Finance went into the whole question of the cost of the war in Angola. We were given great details and there were hon members of the CP who sat there and listened. Hon members of all Houses listened to this. The issue of the cost of the war in Angola was fully covered.

The reality of this can be seen from one of the documents submitted to the standing committee. I quote:

Then follows an analysis which shows that there is no increase in the 1988-89 budget to be accounted for in terms of operations in Angola. Neither was an additional budget submitted during the 1987-88 financial year. They then analyse in great detail what has happened in regard to the units that served, what the costs involved were, and in particular—I quote—“what the situation was in regard to the use of ammunition”. As demonstrated in this document, most of the ammunition which was expended would in any case have had a certain shelf-life and would in any case have had to be used for other operational purposes. All these aspects are analysed in detail. In the final analysis, when it came to a question that I asked as to what the cost was of the SADF at war and the SADF at peace, we were given figures which, because of my limited time, I am unable to quote. These figures show that very little additional costs were incurred. Why then do we have the allegations that vast sums of money are being spent, when the people concerned know that that was not the case? [Time expired]

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Yeoville will forgive me if I do not react to his speech. He broached certain matters with the hon the Minister, and I am sure the hon the Minister will give him good replies.

Last year during the discussion of the Vote of the hon the Minister of Defence I spoke specifically about the organisation known as the End Conscription Campaign. I referred specifically to the origin and the establishment of this organisation. I also mentioned that this organisation was one of the extra-parliamentary instruments which our enemies were using, not only to discredit the Defence Force and its loyal troops, but also as a way of undermining the existing order and system in this country. At the end of my speech I addressed the PFP and asked them what their attitude to this organisation was. In reply to my question the hon member for Constantia referred me to the speech of the former Leader of the Official Opposition, Dr Van Zyl Slabbert, ie his Hansard of 29 May 1985, col 6465. I read the relevant excerpt, but could not find any standpoint in it regarding the ECC.

The question today still is what the PFP’s attitude towards the activities and the objectives of the ECC is. The hon members on that side need no longer reply to my question. I shall reply to it myself this afternoon. I submit that certain hon members of that party support the objectives of this organisation, because just after the Defence debate last year a report appeared in The Citizen of 14 October 1987 regarding a march to the Castle the previous day by ECC members:

It did not end there. Later in the year, on 10 December 1987, the ECC held a meeting in the Claremont civic centre, where the so-called “Angolan Report” was tabled. And who was on the platform? Whose name was on the posters? The name of the hon member for Pinelands.

It does not end there either. On 25 April 1988— just a few days ago—the Young Progressives held a meeting in the in Claremont civic centre, and according to the posters there were inter alia speakers of the ECC, as well as the hon member for Green Point. [Interjections.] It would seem that that party is linked to this organisation. Today I want to warn them and tell them that one is known by one’s friends. This organisation is not kindly disposed towards South Africa, and those hon members must not take it amiss of us if we accuse them of being soft on security if they are constantly involved with the fellow travellers of our enemies.

I now come to the movement of the hon member for Randburg. According to Die Burger of 29 October 1987 the hon member for Randburg addressed a meeting in Stellenbosch. The report appeared under the caption “ECC nie so sleg nie, sê Malan”. I am quoting:

This hon member was also a speaker at the “Five Freedoms Forum”, and according to a newspaper advertisement on 27 September 1987 he participated in a discussion entitled “Whites in a changing South Africa”, along with Mr Mike Evans, a former chairman of the ECC, Western Cape. This hon member and his movement will also have to tell South Africa and the Defence Force at some stage or other where they stand with regard to this sensitive matter. [Interjections.]

The ECC endeavoured to gain a foothold on the campus of the University of Stellenbosch, and their intention was for the conscientious objector, Dr Ivan Toms, to make a speech there. This request was submitted to the Student Council of the University of Stellenbosch, but the Student Council decided that the End Conscription Campaign was not welcome to disseminate its message on campus. Today I want to pay tribute to the Student Council and the authorities of the University of Stellenbosch, who in my opinion and in the eyes of all moderate South Africans acted very responsibly.

After the Student Council of the University and university authorities had taken this decision, there was a reaction in the form of a debate by certain of the student leaders. On Wednesday, 30 March 1988, a report appeared in Die Matie, the official mouthpiece of the Stellenbosch students, under the headline “ECC moet praat, sê leiers”. I want to quote from it as follows:

[Interjections.] The report goes on as follows on page 2, and I am again quoting:

This is a very important shift in emphasis on the part of the Official Opposition. They will have to explain in this House and to South Africa why the chairman of their youth branch at the University of Stellenbosch asked that an organisation which is known to collaborate with the enemies of the SA Defence Force, and which is not kindly disposed towards South Africa, should be allowed to disseminate its message of destruction among the students. [Interjections.]

The End Conscription Campaign has not ceased its activities. Our enemies are still using this organisation as an instrument to undermine the existing order in South Africa. I am grateful that the hon the Minister of Home Affairs issued a warning to Out of Step, one of the official publications of this organisation. I thank the Government for keeping a close eye on this organisation and that they are not being given the slightest opportunity to disseminate their message of destruction among the youth of South Africa.

In conclusion I want to say that a meeting of the ECC is going to be held this evening in the Rondebosch Congregational Church. They say “Ride safe with the ECC”, but I want to tell the young people of South Africa that they must steer clear of this organisation, because it will destroy them.

Mr Chairman, I should like to thank the hon member Mr Van Gend for the fine contribution he made here this afternoon.

To start with I want to convey my personal thanks to the hon the Minister, the hon the Deputy Minister and the ministerial staff, namely Brig Opperman, Col Van der Poel and Lieut Walkenshaw, for the excellent service which they give us as members of Parliament. They make our task as representatives a great pleasure.

I also want to join my hon colleague in conveying my sincere congratulations to Armscor and the SA Defence Force on their excellent achievements, particularly recently in South East Angola. I also want to wish the Government, namely the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the hon the Minister of Defence, everything of the best in the peace negotiations they are engaged in.

We acknowledge our dependence on God. For that reason the spiritual resilience of our SADF, and particularly our national servicemen, is of primary importance. During the past year 898 chaplains served in the SADF, which contains members of 117 churches and denominations. It is important to note that the SADF’s Chaplain Service is dependent on donations and contributions from churches and the private sector for the distribution of Bibles and literature. We want to take this opportunity to convey our thanks to the organisations which make such generous contributions to this important work, and appeal to them to carry on doing so.

During the past year 55 694 Bibles in 13 languages were distributed. It is also interesting that during the past year a Russian Bible was distributed in Angola. As regards Christian literature, R100 000 was spent on distributing pamphlets in Afrikaans, English and the various African languages. During the past eight years the SADF’s Chaplain Service has distributed more Bibles in Angola than all the other churches of the world together have distributed during the past three centuries! It is very important to take cognisance of this.

As regards the training of a chaplain, he first goes through the ordinary training at the different institutions, universities, colleges and theological institutions. Then he receives training in the SADF. First he is trained as a soldier so that he will be able to maintain his position as an ordinary soldier. Then he is trained as an officer so that he also undergoes that development to be able to behave correctly and with self-confidence. Then he attends a chaplain’s orientation course so that he can have the necessary knowledge and background to maintain himself in the military environment.

The preaching of the Word of God in the SADF is of the utmost importance; not only at the home bases, but also in the operational area. During the past year 73 chaplains served in the operational area. They served in the field with the national servicemen and found themselves in the trenches and behind the cannons. They experienced the hardships, sacrifices and challenges with the soldiers. Consequently they were accessible to the national servicemen. National servicemen felt that they were accessible and went to the chaplain for help because he had the same experiences as them. Owing to this exposure they understand the fears, the worries and the heartbreak which the soldier experiences in the operational area.

After the recent successful operation in South-East Angola an evaluation was made to determine the effectiveness of the Chaplain Service. It is interesting to note that 92% of all those who participated in these operations confirmed that they had grown spiritually. Of this number 97% testified that they had experienced the presence and the protection of the Almighty in the operational area; 81% testified that the Chaplain Service functioned effectively and efficiently; and 90% replied that the service was essential, while the remaining 10% replied that it was good. There is therefore no doubt that an excellent service is being rendered. We want to take this opportunity to convey our sincere thanks to our chaplains for this essential work which is being done.

In addition a valuable service is being rendered by the hospital chaplains in comforting bereaved families. This is also considered a priority. On behalf of this side of the House I want to associate myself with hon colleagues who paid tribute to those persons who had paid the highest price in the defence of our country.

We also want to convey our deepest sympathy to the families. In my constituency the chairman of the constituency council, Mr Gert Gauché, and his wife Hanna lost a son in the defence of our country. I also want to take this opportunity to pay tribute to them and to thank them for the positive way in which they reacted to the death of their son. We want to thank our hospital chaplains for the excellent way in which they perform their task of comforting and supporting the bereaved. This is a very sensitive part of their work and they perform this task with great maturity and empathy. We also want to thank them for this. The preaching of the Word is certainly the most important armour in the conflict. We thank everyone involved in this. I contacted the Chaplain General and asked him what appeal he wanted to address to the Minister or the general public; what was the greatest single need of the Chaplain Service? His reply was that he wanted us to convey the sincere thanks of the Chaplain General and all the chaplains to the general public for the prayers of intercession which are said in virtually every household every day for our Defence Force and our national servicemen. They ask us to carry on doing this.

It is important for every individual in our country to admit and confess his dependence on God. If God is for us who can be against us?

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Umfolozi has spoken about the Chaplain service and the spiritual comfort that they give to our soldiers on the border and elsewhere. I hope he will not mind if I do not follow him on this aspect in view of the fact that I have a very short time at my disposal and I have a particular subject which I want to raise.

It is was my original intention to raise a matter with the hon the Minister concerning ecologically sensitive areas which are under the control of the Defence Force. Over a period of time I have had several communications from various international agencies on this matter, who have expressed disquiet about the way the Defence Force is handling these particular areas. I do believe that the Defence Force could do a better public relations exercise in this connection. I have, for example, had good reports coming out of De Hoop. However, I refer specifically to the ecologically sensitive areas in South West Africa, which I will raise with the hon the Minister on another occasion.

I would like to come back to another point concerning yesterday’s speech by the hon member for Overvaal—a speech which I did not like at all. After that speech it appeared as if the Conservative Party was the sole repository for patriotism in South Africa. He made a speech which I thought was very divisive of the community. He spoke about Black, Coloured and Indian soldiers on the border and he took strong exception to the fact that on occasion White soldiers had to share accommodation with them. I cannot go along with this at all.

I may say that I come from a family which has considerable army background and that my father fought under Botha and Smuts in the South West Africa campaign in 1915. He was wounded twice in France in the First World War and he fought in the Second World War through the North Africa campaign and the Italian campaign. Members of my family were killed in that war. My son is in the army at the present time and I have had members of my family serving in the Permanent Force. Therefore, when I speak as an English-speaking South African, I resent the sort of slurs that come from both the party on my right and the other side of the House when they talk about the patriotism of people who are members of the PFP. [Interjections.]

There are thousands of sons of members of the PFP who are serving on the border and elsewhere in the Defence Force at the present time.

We do not deny that!

I do believe that when one argues defence matters in this House, it is always a very contentious subject. One should not cast slurs on patriotism.

Yesterday, for example, the hon the Deputy Minister of Defence made a passing remark about how the PFP had done themselves damage because they did not have the safety of the country at heart. I resent that, Sir. Of course we have the welfare and the safety of the country at heart, and the fact that we happen to differ with the hon the Minister of Defence on how one should go about it does not mean that we lack patriotism. I feel very resentful about that indeed. [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr Chairman, I want to come back specifically to the party on my right, the CP, in relation to their attitude to Black people in our forces. Actually, Sir, I should like to say that my father fought side by side with many people of those races. [Interjections.] They did a fine job for our country in a number of wars, and I am proud to be part of a South Africa of which those people are part and which includes them in its Defence Force. I must say the mind boggles when one thinks of the sort of scenario one would have in a country organised as the CP would like it to be organised. One would have a proliferation of defence forces with all sorts of officers and commanders with different views, different philosophies, different approaches and so forth.

The chequerboard they would like to have would be disastrously different from the chequerboard that is South Africa. I can think of absolutely nothing worse for the future of our country than the pursuit of the policies of the CP in any shape or form. I should like them to spell out exactly what they envisage. Is there going to be a Xhosa army? Oh, there is a Xhosa army. [Interjections.] Well, Sir, I must remind hon members of the CP that there are tens of thousands of Black people, including thousands of Xhosa people, who actually live in the so-called White areas of this country. [Interjections.] They are South Africans!

When our progressive people fight in the army we defend a total South Africa, which includes those Black people. [Interjections.] Our patriotism is directed towards a total South Africa, a whole South Africa, which includes people who may be… [Interjections.] [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, it gives me great pleasure to rise after the hon member for Bryanston. He has taken me to task now for something I said here yesterday. It is true that we fought the last election very much on those lines. I have no reason, however, to question the patriotism of the hon member for Bryanston and many other hon members of the PFP. That is so. They must, nevertheless, look at their leadership, and specifically their previous leadership. They must look at the Boraines and others who occupy themselves with extra-parliamentary activities. They should look at some of the hon members who have left their ranks. What have they done? Can we trust them with the security of this country?

Mr Chairman, may I put a question to the hon the Deputy Minister?

No, Sir, I have very limited time at my disposal. [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr Chairman, I want to thank the hon member for Bryanston for his stand on patriotism in relation to the forces. Many PFP supporters or their children are indeed serving in our Defence Force. I agree wholeheartedly with what the hon member said in this respect.

The hon member intimated that he intended to address himself to ecological matters. I must inform him that that aspect has been delegated to me, and I invite him to come and talk with me about that issue. Whatever problems he may have in this regard he may come and discuss with me. I will be only too pleased to discuss those problems with him.

I also want to thank the hon member for Yeoville, who made a most positive speech here this afternoon. His was probably one of the most positive speeches to be made by any opposition member in this House in all the years that I have been in Parliament. I want to thank him most profusely for what he said, especially about the financial aspect of the Defence Force. The relevant information was available. I share the hon member’s concern about certain aspects of the SA Defence Force such as the air force, certain missiles etc, and I can assure the hon member that we have those things in hand and we are taking care of them. The hon member will appreciate the fact that we cannot talk freely about those things here and now.

*This afternoon the hon member for Soutpansberg stood up here, levelled accusations at me, and made a personal attack on me. Yesterday it was the hon Chief Whip of the Official Opposition who made the same kind of remarks, and he should look up what he said. He is a person who at one stage occupied the Chair of this House in the capacity of chairman and from whom one would have expected better manners. I shall leave him at that. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Soutpansberg said that I introduced a discordant note into the debate. I want to tell him that I agree with him. Why do I agree with him? Because yesterday I spoke about the Defence Force policy of the CP, and that is at the moment the greatest discord I can think of! [Interjections.]

The incident to which I referred and in regard to which he said men, grown-up men, did not discuss such things, happened at the Wenela Base, the navy base for marines, when I was paying a visit there accompanied by those hon members. The hon member for Overvaal must listen carefully, because he is going to speak after me.

Remarks were made in which the Christian names of the hon the State President were used in a derogatory way in front of troops fighting for this country in the operational area. I maintain that that is unacceptable. I stand by what I said in connection with the request which I shall make to the hon Minister, and I shall make no apology for that, because if the hon the State President is discussed in front of me with operational troops in the way the hon members of the CP did—the hon leader of the CP found it very entertaining and had a good laugh with all the others at this incident—I find it unacceptable. [Interjections.]

The hon member said I had waited six months, and that there were certain things one did not discuss. Here I have various newspaper clippings from The Star and the Pretoria News on precisely the same incident. The hon member took it amiss of me for discussing this incident in the House of Assembly, but here the hon members said it in the newspapers. I can quote from The Star of 25 November last year:

The Pretoria News of 25 November last year also published a report on this incident. I shall quote only one paragraph from that report:

This reconfirms what I said yesterday. The hon members do not go to the operational area to be informed. They use operational tours for petty political purposes. That is what they demonstrated to us as hon members. [Interjections.] I shall leave hon members at that for the time being.

I want to thank my colleague on my right-hand side here, the hon member Mr D P de K van Gend, sincerely for his speech on the ECC which he made here this afternoon. I think it exposed that organisation as it has not been exposed for a long time. Among other things it also exposed the double talk of the CP in this connection.

The ECC is an organisation which campaigns against national service. They maintain that they do not believe in war and violence. They want to wrap themselves in a cloak of peace. Surely that is not true. Last week the SA Police announced an important breakthrough. Four suspected White terrorists were arrested in Broederstroom. Two of them were national service evaders.

In the possession of this terrorist gang was one of the biggest consignment of arms the Police had ever seized. The arms were of the kind used to commit acts of terror among innocent civilians. These are the kind of arms with which one commits murder; not the arms which a so-called pacifist would bear.

They were members of the ECC.

Yes, they were clearly members of the ECC.

Those who take those people of the ECC under their wing must now have the courage to rise to their feet and say that they dissociate themselves from this kind of radicalism and that they dissociate themselves from this suspicion-mongering aimed at the Defence Force and aimed at national service.

I also want to point out that the radical so-called War Resisters’ League with whom the ECC, according to a report in the Cape Times of 29 June 1987, has close moral and financial ties, states unequivocally that pacifism does not mean non-violence.

I am quoting from page 14 from the War Resisters’ Organiser’s Manual 1986:

Where is the hon member for Claremont now? He would also be in complete agreement with this statement. [Interjections.] I quote further:

That is why we are not surprised that people say they are opposed to national service, and that is why they take up the arms of terrorism. They are indoctrinated to believe that the defence against terrorism is criminal and that their revolutionary violence, under the cloak of pacifism, is justified. Once again I want to thank the hon member for his very positive speech on the ECC. I hope that it will serve as a warning to this organisation, so that they may know that they must expect no mercy whatsoever from this Government.

Mr Chairman, I should like to refer to the hon member Dr Geldenhuys, the former member for Randfontein. He would seem to have been elected as the NP’s chief spokeman on defence, and I want to congratulate him on this and wish him everything of the best.

I also want to refer to the contribution of the hon member for Germiston District. In his speech he suggested that the CP did not give any credit to the role played by people of colour in the Defence Force, and I want to tell him that I did not expect that of him.

I said “little”!

He should listen a little more attentively, because I expressly said—I am quoting from my unrevised Hansard:

[Interjections.] I did not expect the hon member to be so irresponsible, but because he and I are good friends I shall not pursue this matter. [Interjections.]

I also want to refer to the contribution of the hon member for Bloemfontein North. [Interjections.] He tried to make a very questionable connection here. He tried to link us to the End Conscription Campaign. I want to tell him this does not befit him. There is no one in our party who gave him any justification for doing so. He must please not do it again. [Interjections.]

As regards the hon member for Winburg, his speech, with the exception of his reference to more Blacks in the commando’s—we are opposed to that—as well as the contribution of the hon member for Umfolozi, were the kind of contributions which found favour in this debate, and I want to thank them for this.

As regards the allegation that there is a CP chairman in Stellenbosch who is supposed to have pleaded the cause of the End Conscription Campaign, if this turns out to be true—I do not know whether it is true; I take the hon member’s word for it—I want to tell hon members expressly that we repudiate it. It is not my party’s policy, and we dissociate ourselves from it.

†The hon member for Bryanston said they never cast slurs on patriotism. I want to tell him that we did not at any stage question the patriotism of his party or, for that matter, of any hon member of this House. I just want to give him the assurance that we never do that sort of thing.

*This brings me to the hon the Deputy Minister. He said there was a discordant note, and that discordant note was the policy of the CP. I want to read out to him what our policy is, and this has been said before:

This is the allied concept—

Does the hon the Deputy Minister have any objections to our policy now?

What about your own people?

I am asking whether he objects to this. [Interjections.] Is he opposed to what I have read out? It is our policy, and I merely want to tell him that I am quoting from Hansard of 1970, col 2919. These were the words of the present hon State President, who was stating the NP’s policy at this stage. [Interjections.]

He said that someone’s name was mentioned to the troops at Wenela and everyone burst out laughing. I suspect that it was the hon the Deputy Minister’s name which was mentioned. I think that is why they laughed.

It was the hon the State President’s name.

No, it was not. They were laughing at the hon the Deputy Minister. What I find incomprehensible is why, seeing that he was trying to motivate what the hon member for Soutpansberg had said, he waited six months and then said: “Here are the newspapers”, and started quoting from them. Then he started reading about something else, namely integration. If we see that something is wrong of course we are entitled to adopt a standpoint against it. This dealt with bad behaviour.

Yesterday people asked me what the reason was for the hon the Deputy Minister’s tirade against me, Koos van der Merwe. Today I want to tell hon members what is wrong with him. The answer lies in 23 October 1988, at Kroonstad. That is where the hon the Deputy Minister’s hatred for me originated. That evening he and I appeared together before his voters in Kroonstad. Seven hundred people listened to us and we debated for four hours. The reason why he hates me is because I showed him up for what he was that evening, a political palooka. His voters are still laughing at him. The other day I heard someone say that the hon the Deputy Minister had had a fainting fit when someone said to him: “Here is Koos”. Since that evening they have called him “punchie”. I made him “punch-drunk” that evening. [Interjections.]

I want to ask him, for the sake of the SADF, to moderate the hatred which he conceived for me that evening. However, I want to give him another chance—a chance for what is known in boxing as a “return bout”. Today I challenge him to another debate in Kroonstad. This time I am not only going to beat him on points; this time I am going to beat him to a pulp. [Interjections.]

I only have one thing to say about behaviour during visits to the border. That hon Deputy Minister violated a convention. He violated the convention several times by talking about behaviour during visits to the border. I then decided that I was also going to talk about this today and disclose a number of scandals. After all he was asking for this. There are hon Ministers, Deputy Ministers and former Ministers of the Cabinet, as well as hon members here, who now know what I am talking about. I am going to disclose their scandals. [Interjections.] I thought about this matter this evening. I see some hon members are now worried. [Interjections.] Do hon members know what I decided? I decided that Wynand Breytenbach did not have it in him to get me to violate a convention. I shall not talk about these scandals at the border.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Is it permissible for the hon member for Overvaal to refer to the hon the Deputy Minister as Wynand Breytenbach?

Order! In the context in which the hon member did so, I think it is in order.

This is a club which the hon the Deputy Minister will get to know, and his own people will reject him. In the interests of the SADF, I want to appeal to the hon the Minister, the members of the study group of the NP and the officers in the Defence Force to see to it that that hon Deputy Minister controls himself, because the harm he has caused has been enormous. He is sitting there laughing, because he does not understand. His lack of judgment is of such a nature that I cannot understand how they could have made him a Deputy Minister. I would not even have allowed him to lick the stamps in my attorney’s office.

In conclusion I want to say that as regards the CP, we are not going to allow ourselves to be put off by the NP’s politicising of the Defence Force. We shall continue to serve the interests of the SADF in our way. We shall continue to encourage our young men to do their military service with pride. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I want to deal with a different subject. The hon member for Overvaal must forgive me for not reacting to what he said. I should like to spend my time profitably.

†Mr Chairman, I have in my possession a PFP-pamphlet, dated October 1984, which sets out in great detail that party’s policy in regard to the use of the Defence Force in internal unrest situations. Mr Chairman, with your permission, I will read from the pamphlet. I quote:

Then the article goes on to say—

The political violence in our townships was not regarded by the PFP as a situation of extreme unrest and emergency—this notwithstanding the fact that for the period from 1984 to 1986, 2 261 people were killed in township disturbances, thousands and thousands were injured, 56 members of the police and security forces were killed and 711 were injured. More than 11 000 people were charged because of their involvement in unrest incidents. The township disturbances occurred over a wide area in all four of our provinces. Necklacing was the order of the day, and 672 people were burnt to death.

I mention these incidents and I quote these figures to show how horrific and dastardly these deeds were, and how intense and widespread the disturbances were. We all know it was the intention of the radical left to make the country ungovernable and to overthrow the Government. We all know who the perpetrators were— the ANC, the UDF as well as Cosatu and their sympathisers. They are all Marxists and every one an enemy of our State.

Yet, notwithstanding all this—the death and destruction, the loss of life, limb and property—the PFP was against the use of the Defence Force. Circumstances were not, according to the PFP, so extreme that the use of the Defence Force was warranted; on the contrary, the use of the Defence Force was widely condemned by the PFP.

I also have another document here. It is an amazing document with surprising contents. It is the copy of a press statement that was released in February 1988 on behalf of the PFP by its Natal provincial leader, Mr Roger Burrows, the hon member for Pinetown. The statement reads as follows—

He says, “the SADF should be fully utilised”. I submit that this is a complete somersault by the PFP. How could the PFP view the Edendale unrest as “exceptional circumstances” if the township disturbances were not? How could the PFP criticise the use of the Defence Force in one pamphlet and beg for the use of the Defence Force in another document? It cannot be said that the Edendale situation was more extreme than the country-wide township disturbances; on the contrary, the reverse is true.

The unrest situation in Edendale was on an infinitely smaller scale. It was localised. There were fewer deaths and many fewer thousands were injured. In fact, the Edendale unrest and the township disturbances cannot remotely be compared. The question is why the PFP was against the use of the Defence Force in the townships, but for its use in Edendale?

May I suggest that there are elements in the PFP who did not want the Defence Force in the townships because they hoped that the radical left, that is, the ANC and UDF, would triumph?

You are despicable!

Is it also not possible that they wanted the Defence Force in Edendale, because there was a fear among certain elements in the PFP that the UDF and the ANC would be trounced by a more conservative element, namely Inkatha. I pose the question.

Order! The hon member for Pinetown used the word “despicable”. Will he please tell me to what or whom he was referring.

Mr Chairman, I was referring to the hon member for Klip River. I said he was despicable.

Order! The hon member must withdraw that remark?

Mr Chairman, I withdraw it.

Mr Chairman, it is a pleasure for me to speak after the hon member for Klip River. It is always a pleasure to speak about the Defence Force. I also want to take this opportunity of thanking the hon the Minister for the privilege of having being able to participate in two tours. Last year there was one tour to the operational area, and a few weeks later there was the tour to units in Bloemfontein and Kimberley. I also want to thank the hon the Deputy Minister, and those officers who accompanied us, for their hospitality.

After the hon member for Overvaal’s attack on the hon the Deputy Minister, I also want to take this opportunity of telling the hon the Deputy Minister that I personally have great appreciation for the seriousness, enthusiasm and responsibility with which he performs his task. We are proud of him. In his dealings with professional soldiers we have seen that they also have great appreciation for the way in which he carries out his task. In discussing Defence Force matters, every South African has the right to be proud. During the past few years the Defence Force has become an integral part of our daily lives. Not only is it reassuring to know that the Defence Force is fully able to protect our country’s interests against those who do not have our interests at heart, but it is also good to know that the Defence Force, in conjunction with other components of the security forces, is ensuring the stability in terms of which orderly government and development in the constitutional, economic and social spheres in this country can take place. What is more, virtually every White family in this country, and many families among the other population groups, are directly or indirectly involved with the Defence Force because members of their family or friends are in the service of the Defence Force.

I want to dwell briefly on the role of the SA Air Force in the defence of the Republic of South Africa. A paragraph from the translated version of Helmoed-Römer Heitman’s book, South African War Machine, reads as follows, and I quote:

The Air Force has built up a proud history in numerous air battles and wars. Our pilots are keeping alive the reputation they gained, particularly in the Second World War and in the war in Korea. In the performance of its task the SA Air Force encounters various obstacles which other Western countries do not have to contend with. In this regard I am thinking, for example, of cost increases, the arms boycott and the fact that Western technology is being withheld from the RSA. These obstacles make the challenge to success even greater.

The SA Defence Force is effectively able to carry out its role and its function. Thus it is prepared to take counter-measures in aerial operations against a hostile Air Force by way of aerial interception or air-to-ground attacks, offensive aerial operations as part of ground-combat operations, aerial reconnaissance, aerial operations against strategic targets, air-transport operations, maritime operations and nocturnal operations. The Air Force’s nocturnal capability, in particular, has greatly improved during the past few years. In conjunction with other security forces, the Air Force makes an indispensable contribution to the combating of local unrest.

It should also be mentioned that the much appreciated assistance of the Air Force in numerous emergency or disaster situations is always forthcoming. Just think of the floods in the Free State, Natal and the Northern Cape during the past few months. Some of our neighbouring states can also attest to the Air Force’s assistance in the transportation of emergency provisions.

The Air Force has a very effective self-evaluation system which includes the carrying out of realistic exercises in conjunction with the SA Army and the SA Navy. The value of these exercises has been proven during operations in recent times. This has helped the Air Force to prepare for its role in the defence of our country.

Last year a new Air Force base was opened at Louis Trichardt. For the foreseeable future the Republic has an adequate network of main fighter bases, main bases and primary air fields. A further milestone was reached this year when 5 Squadron, equipped with the pride of the modern Air Force—the Cheetah—was reactivated at Louis Trichardt. This base will play a significant role in the protection of the RSA’s northern border.

Some of the Air Force’s best fighter pilots have been incorporated into a special unit, the Test, Flight and Development Centre near Bredasdorp. The function of this specialised unit is to thoroughly test and refine all new and highly sophisticated aircraft systems and/or weapons systems which are developed.

During the past year there has been a build-up of air power in the front-line states. It is the build-up in Angola which specifically gives cause for concern, because there one encounters the major concentration of sophisticated Soviet air support outside the Warsaw-pact countries. According to the Chief of the Air Force, Lt-Gen Earp, South Africa has the measure of these weapons systerns, however. There is no lack of willingness on the part of Angola’s sponsors when it comes to supplying sophisticated equipment, technicians and operators. Because of the threats by Swapo and the ANC in South-West Africa and in the Republic, it is important for the Air Force always to be prepared and to plan in advance in order to keep pace with the threats that are posed. Apart from future-orientated planning, keeping the Air Force prepared on an on-going basis is of the utmost importance. Notwithstanding the fact that the Air Force also has old equipment, satisfactory progress has been made on most development projects during the past few years. That, together with the improvement in the range of strike aircraft and more effective weapons, has contributed towards increasing the striking power and effectiveness of the SA Air Force.

In recent years the Air Force has made an indispensable contribution to joint counter-insurgency operations with the Army in South-West Africa and also in the sphere of conventional warfare. Where necessary, the Air Force also carried out operations to the north of the South-West African border. Although these were aimed at Swapo, contact was also made with the enemy Air Force with its Russian air-defence systems. Successful joint operations were carried out with other security forces against ANC groups in the Northern, Western and Eastern Transvaal and also in Natal.

Earlier on I mentioned the obstacles or restrictions encountered by the SA Air Force. Despite this, and thanks to the motivation, professionalism and dedication of its personnel, and also the good maintenance and effective utilisation of equipment, the Air Force plays an extremely important role in the protection of the RSA. The Air Force is a force to be proud of, a force which our enemies must duly take note of. To keep pace with future developments, I am advocating that the funding of the Defence Force in general, and the Air Force in particular, should not impede our Defence Force’s effectiveness in the overall onslaught being waged against us. As far as the Defence Force is concerned, we must continue to have enough money so that its strength can be augmented.

Mr Chairman, it is a great privilege to take the floor after my friend and colleague, the hon member Mr Aucamp. As an ex-pilot of the SA Air Force I can endorse a great deal of what he said today about the SA Air Force. I thank him for his substantial contribution. He referred to “Key Force”, our new facility at Overberg. It was my privilege to inaugurate that facility recently, and also to reactivate 5 Squadron at Soutpansberg. If there are people we can really be proud of, it is all our pilots in the Air Force, and we can be equally proud of the singular achievement of our helicopter pilots. They are all part of the SA Defence Force’s team. We probably cannot sing the praises of the various sections of the Defence Force often enough. I thank the hon member for specifically having emphasised the Air Force this afternoon.

I also thank the hon member for Umfolozi for having spoken about our chaplain services. Every man is a member of a team, and it is the teamwork of the various sections of the SA Defence Force, which form our defence family, and Armscor which are responsible for the fact that we are still in the winning team and that we will continue to be on the winning team in our country.

It is actually a pity that one has to waste valuable time and effort in replying to some hon members. The hon member for Overvaal stood up here, but did not give a single answer to the questions I asked him yesterday about the CP’s policy in regard to the Defence Force. The hon member quoted to me from the NP’s 1987 policy, but in the NP we have never spoken about allied forces. That has never been on the agenda. That is what I spoke about yesterday. The CP must spell it out for us, because from here we are going to the public and we are going to hound the CP from platform to platform about spelling out its policy. [Interjections.] It is not merely a question of their policy in regard to the Defence Force, but also their policy on many other levels. We are tired of their sanctimonious piety, the fact that they say one thing and mean something else.

Mr Chairman, may I put a question to the hon the Deputy Minister?

Mr Chairman, I am not answering any questions.

Are you going to appear with me in Kroonstad?

I almost caught a cold from all the hon member’s wild blows that missed me this afternoon. [Interjections.] He called me many names this afternoon. Amongst other things he said that I hated him. Let me say here in public this afternoon, where everyone can hear me, that I do not hate the hon member. As far as I know, as a believer I do not hate anyone, and it is only grace from Above that allows one to say that. For that hon member, in particular, and also for his Chief Whip, I feel only one thing, and that is pity. I really do pity them.

When the hon Chief Whip accused me of provocation yesterday, I told him to look at himself in the mirror. I told him that I could not believe that it was possible for a person to walk around with so much hatred and frustration in his heart and to go to sleep each night carrying such a burden. It cannot be pleasant. [Interjections.] We feel very sorry for them.

I do not want to make any further reference to Kroonstad. With the next election, at the relevant time …

No, within a month!

I do not accept these paltry offerings from the hon member for Overvaal.

Because you are afraid!

The fact that I was re-elected with a large majority in Kroonstad shows who won that debate. [Interjections.]

So why do you not want to return?

The voters of Kroonstad are well-balanced and reasonable people, and they and the voters in all the NP constituencies in the country will not allow the CP to gossip or lie them out of their constituencies.

Order! The hon the Deputy Minister must withdraw the words “lie them out”.

Mr Chairman, I withdraw them.

In conclusion I merely want to say, in regard to the SADF, that neither those hon members nor anyone else will outbid me when it comes to loyalty and dedication to the Defence Force and Armscor. Many nights, when those hon members are scratching around in the political dustbins …

We find you there!

… I am serving the interests of the SADF.

Order! The hon member Derby-Lewis has now made five interjections, and the hon member for Overvaal has made six. I think that is enough. The hon the Deputy Minister may proceed.

Mr Chairman, I pay tribute to every member of the SADF. The Defence Force is big enough—as hon members heard here this afternoon—to accommodate everyone in the country, whatever political parties they belong to, and it does so too. I have a great regard for the members of the permanent force, the commandos and the citizen force—for members of other parties who do a major job of work.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: I merely wish to point out to you that you referred to my colleague, the hon member Comdt Derby-Lewis, as the hon member Derby-Lewis.

Order! I am sorry. The hon the Deputy Minister may proceed.

I thank all the members of all the parties who are loyal members of the SADF and all its branches. In this country we can therefore join hands and co-operate on matters involving security, and in doing so we can win. I just think that this afternoon members of that hon member’s party cannot be very proud of the CP’s chief spokesman and his conduct in this highest Chamber in our country.

Mr Chairman, I always find it a pity when hon members try to outbid one another on the question of patriotism. In this instance the hon the Deputy Minister tried to do this again with the CP.

I should like to refer, however, to parts of the speech the hon the Minister of Defence made yesterday evening. He spoke about the SADF’s task and created the impression that it was the SADF’s task to protect values and value-systems in South Africa. I have the Hansard here, from which I wish to quote:

He also said:

In newspaper reports it was stated that the Minister saw the Defence Force’s task as being the protection and defence of values.

Within a system!

In my view it is specifically not a defence force’s duty to protect values. As soon as the Defence Force moves into the field of protecting values, it is moving into a field of responsibility reserved for the Government, political parties, the Church and cultural organisations. If one wants to protect values, of course, one has to pass judgment on what values one is going to protect. That in itself is a political choice, and the moment the Defence Force did that, it would be involved with something which had political overtones and which was political in nature.

If the hon the Minister, as Defence Force spokesman, says that the Defence Force is going to protect values, it is my submission that in making those statements he is entering the political arena. If he says that in the Defence Force it is their duty to ensure that there is a proper climate for broadening the democratic base, as Defence Force spokesman he is moving into the political arena.

Then one cannot blame the CP for saying that the Defence Force is promoting integration. If such steps have to be taken, the Government must be attacked. If the hon the Minister is speaking on behalf of the Government, that is something else. If he says, however, that it is the Defence Force which is going to do that, or that it is the Defence Force’s duty to do that, in my view he is moving directly into the political arena.

There were a few speakers, for example the hon member Mr Van Gend and the hon the Deputy Minister, who spoke about the ECC, a sensitive aspect about which NP supporters always get very excited. What one cannot get away from, however, is that there are national servicemen who are called up and who have a deep-rooted opposition to the idea of national service. Whether we like it or not, that is a fact. The Defence Act has now made provision for religious objectors. In yesterday’s Cape Times we again saw that Mr Paul Annegarn—the man who is apparently in the penal camp in Angola— apparently underwent a radical change in his political thinking, according to his family, whilst doing national service. He became a deserter, and thereafter apparently participated directly in radical, extremist politics.

There are other examples of young White South Africans who, as a result of their own personal experiences in the Defence Force, and because they were that type of person—underwent radical changes. In 1986 Eric Pelser was sentenced for his support of, or participation in, ANC activities. He was also a deserter. What I am actually saying is that we cannot deny that there are people with deep-rooted objections to that national service.

I therefore want to say that it is our opinion that the narrow definition of religious objectors should be extended to provide for conscientious objectors who, for deep-rooted ethical and moral reasons, cannot or will not do national service. There should be alternative forms of national service available to them, national service of a non-military kind. This should link up with Government and semi-Government institutions and with church and welfare organisations. One cannot get away from the fact that there are people who perhaps think differently to hon members sitting here and who have deep-rooted moral, religious and ethical problems with national service per se. I am therefore asking to have this sensitive question reconsidered, a matter one cannot simply sweep off the table. If someone raises that question, hon members cannot simply say at once that he is one of the enemy. Balderdash!

Another point the hon the Minister made in his speech yesterday related to the allegation that the NDM advocated the idea of a “people’s democracy”. He contended that that was the NDM’s approach. The term “people’s democracy” is an emotional term. There are, however, those who advocate a “people’s democracy” and are supporters of a Marxist-Leninist system. It is an oversimplication, however, and simply untrue to say that everyone who uses the term “people’s democracy” is a Marxist.

Ethnic democracy!

We do not support the idea of a “people’s democracy” if it is seen as the type of democracy being perpetuated in Eastern-Bloc countries. We are very clear on the question of democracy. We advocate a representative democracy, a multi-party democracy, in which the population as a whole has a chance of electing its representatives to govern the country.

People power!

We therefore do not understand the word democracy to be a term that was purloined by the communists. For us it is a very simple term, a representative multi-party system which is kept alive by elections, and not merely by one election.

The Government’s objective is to broaden the democratic base. Our objective is to arrive at a democratic system, ie a non-racial democracy. Whatever form it might take, it need not necessarily be based on any Western model. Our objective is therefore not merely the broadening of the democratic base, even though it may be necessary to do so whilst one is moving towards full-fledged democracy.

One man, one vote?

Ultimately …

No, the women too! [Interjections.]

Ultimately all South Africans will have to live together with the same franchise and the same rights in South Africa. That is our great …

In a unitary state?

Mr Chairman, I do not want to be become entangled in answering easy questions now. We can still speak about a unitary state. What we are speaking of is one South Africa. The NDM does not advocate a “people’s democracy”. We advocate the kind of democracy I have spelled out. [Interjections.] In our speaking about the politicising of the Defence Force in this House again, let me ask the hon the Minister to tell us clearly in what capacity he is berating the other parties here. Is he doing so as the representative of the Defence Force or is he doing so in his capacity as a Government representative? As a representative of the Government, of course, he is entitled to talk as much politics as he wants to. At times, however, he creates the impression that he is involving himself in politics here on behalf of the Defence Force. It is on such occasions that he accuses people here of unpatriotic behaviour and drags the PFP and many others through the mud. It is dangerous if the impression is created that that is the view of the Defence Force. The hon the Minister must make that clear to us.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Durban Central will excuse me if I do not react to his speech. Time does not permit me to do so. I shall therefore leave it to the hon the Minister to reply to him. In general I should just like to say that one finds it disappointing that instead of making positive use of this debate, using it as a non-political debate and making a positive contribution here in the interests of the security of our country, the Official Opposition and the other opposition parties made no attempt whatsoever to do so. [Interjections.]

I should just like to refer briefly to the hon member for Overvaal who, in his speech yesterday, expressed his concern at a possible take-over by the communists in South-West Africa. Why does he therefore object to people of colour who feel the same way? He said he was not prepared to accept that they were also prepared to sacrifice their lives to achieve the same goal.

When we look at our men lying in the trenches, we do not ask what the colour of their skin is.

Were you here when I spoke?

Of course I was here. That is why I am saying it.

You must open your ears and listen!

Order!

Mr Chairman, my contention is that in this way the Official Opposition is actually destabilizing the SA Defence Force and the Whites in this country.

Mr Chairman, I should like to speak about stabilization and the role of the SA Defence Force in Africa and in Southern Africa. I want to ask whether we actually realize what our problems are and what is going on around us, because we are being accused of destabilization in Africa and in Southern Africa. When we note the dangers around us, we see that Madagascar, to the east of us, is equipped with Soviet aircraft and tanks. To the north of us there are Mozambique, Zimbabwe, Zambia and Angola forming the so-called belt, equipped with the most refined armaments from Russia. We also know that there are Soviet submarines cruising around our coastline. Those are forces which want to destabilize us and force us to capitulate.

The Republic of South Africa has no interest in destabilizing any neighbouring state. We desire peace in Southern Africa. On occasion—in this debate once again—it has been said that one sometimes has to pay a high price for peace. We know that. Those who want peace must always be prepared for war. We know that there is a revolutionary onslaught against our country. We nevertheless feel ourselves called upon to play a stabilizing role in Africa. Africa does not talk to a weakling. I believe that the overwhelming role that the SA Defence Force has thus far played has also made it possible for the present discussions involving Angola to take place.

In a statement on 5 March 1988 the hon the Minister of Defence made it clear that South Africa’s presence in South-Eastern Angola was aimed at achieving stability and also at protecting our own interests against terrorist organizations such as Swapo and the ANC, but also at maintaining a balance of power in Southern Africa.

The hon the Minister also addressed businessmen here in Cape Town recently. He made it clear on that occasion that South Africa was not engaged in any policy of destabilization in Southern Africa. The contrary was true, ie that South Africa was geared to assisting in the development of Southern Africa.

He went on to say that South Africa’s relations with its neighbouring countries was based on power, but that South Africa did not want to use the power for aggressive purposes. Confrontation and conflict are not the object. The RSA has committed itself to granting assistance in Southern Africa so that those countries can build up strong economies with a view to improving the living standards of people in Southern Africa.

In Switzerland the hon the Minister of Defence also said, referring to South Africa, that no country was making a greater contribution towards stabilization in Southern Africa. What are the facts? More than 90% of the African states trade with South Africa, regardless of the fact that in 1963 the OAU imposed a boycott. In Southern Africa all countries except Angola openly have economic ties with South Africa. South Africa’s trade with Africa totals R3 billion per annum.

South Africa realizes that it has a major task to perform in Africa. So why would it want to destabilize Africa and Southern Africa? For the sake of our own stability we know that we have to take the initiative in improving the quality of life of the developing countries which are our neighbours.

South Africa’s self-sufficiency as far as armaments are concerned, however, is also one positive aspect of power. We have export orders to the value of more than R10 billion, a major portion of those orders having been placed at the arms exhibition held in Chile in March. Speaking about Chile, let me also compliment the SA Navy. All these armaments were transported to and from Chile in one of our own ships, the Drakensberg. This also includes heavy arms such as the large G5 cannon.

I am asking whether we have considered the fact that at one and the same time we have proved what this means to us in any conflict situation. The SA Navy has the carrying capacity to transport heavy armaments anywhere beyond the borders of South Africa. After all, the navy is not limited to our country’s borders when we are fighting locally. In this way we can also prove our strength in distant countries overseas. In my opinion this must command the respect of both friend and foe.

What is more, in spite of our so-called isolation, our navy joined the Chilean navy, which is a highly professional navy, on manoeuvres for a period of two months. In spite of communications problems as a result of language difficulties, the manoeuvres were an enormous success. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I was very sorry to hear this afternoon that in future the wives of the hon members of the Official Opposition will no longer be accompanying them to the border. As a result of the obstinacy of these hon members, the wives, sisters and girl friends of our national servicemen are being denied the information which we women usually get when we go to the border. [Interjections.]

Because I am a woman it is a great privilege for me to put in a good word for the women in the Defence Force this afternoon. We can no longer underestimate the role played by the woman in the Defence Force nowadays. Gone are the days when she only played a supporting role. I think it was Alphonse de la Martine, a French writer, who said the following, and I am quoting:

Today South Africa would have been a very different place if it had not been for the contribution made by women over the years. Recently we celebrated the Huguenot Festival, and we were again deeply struck by the sacrifices which those women made 300 years ago for the sake of their faith.

This year we are celebrating the 150th anniversary of our Great Trek. If we think of those women, we can ask what would have happened if they had refused to trek into the hinterland with their husbands. Would we have been where we are now? Frequently they also took up arms to protect hearth and home. What about the women who kept the farms going during the Anglo Boer War, so that the commandos could be provided with rations, and who frequently had to go on commando themselves? However it was during the Second World War that women became involved militarily owing to their involvement in the auxiliary services of the Defence Force, the Navy and the Air Force.

In 1970 women were actively recruited for our Defence Force in this country for the first time. This was the first time that our women could proudly wear the uniform of the Defence Force. Today women comprise one third of the Force, and they are not only there to free the men to do duty in the operational area. No, Mr Chairman, they are forging a career for themselves in our Defence Force, and their careers can take them to the very top. Today I can confidently say that the positions held by women in the Defence Force is anything but inferior. They hold the same posts, and have the same service and promotion opportunities, as well as salary, as their male counterparts. They need only have the same training and qualifications to achieve this. They shine specifically in spheres where great expertise is required, such as language officers, information officers, legal officers and air traffic controllers.

Today 250 women already hold ranks from major and brigadier. I should now like to ask a question. These women have the expertise, single-mindedness and integrity to hold all those posts. I merely want to ask whether the time has not come for us also to have a female general. I know this position is traditionally held by men, but I should like to put this question. [Interjections.] Two weeks ago we appointed two women in the Department of Foreign Affairs, in the diplomatic service, to represent our country at that high level, in Vienna and in Scotland. For that reason I feel that the time has now come to have a female general too. [Interjections.] The perception still exists today that a woman in uniform loses her femininity. This is by no means the case, because she is prepared, smart, neat and above all feminine. [Interjections.]

In 1971 the Women’s College at George was established. We are very proud of it. It is an asset to our country. Here women are selected to receive a year of training and to be militarily equipped to serve their communities. It is a privilege for every young woman. If it is taken into account that every year more than 750 applications are received for the 221 available places, we realise how popular the training at George is. There is only one intake per year, and every year, in the winter, women are selected. They must have qualities of leadership, be medically fit, between 18 and 22 years of age and never have been married. Once these women have completed the course and have decided to enter the Defence Force they receive recognition for the year-long course they completed. They are really an asset if they return to their communities, because they are not only prepared and fit, but they are also taught to handle weapons.

Washington Irving, an American, said the following as long ago as 1819, and I should like to quote him:

That is all I want to say about this. If the day were ever to dawn when we were threatened and the women in this country had to take up arms, they would be prepared to play their part fearlessly.

However there is one sphere in which the woman is not used in the Defence Force, namely in the front line in the operational area. The respect which the Defence Force has for women in this regard is really praiseworthy.

Today we have the strongest defence force in Africa. We are not only strong as regards armaments, but also as regards morale, motivation and loyalty, and all this is thanks to the woman who also plays her part in this connection.

Today I want to make an appeal to all the women and all the mothers in our country.

†They are the unsung heroines.

*They stand in the background and it is their duty to motivate their husbands and sons and to give them that moral strength so that they can go out and frequently pay the highest price there on our borders. This evening I take my hat off to those women who send up a silent prayer that their children will also come home free and safe.

All of us on this side of the House are proud of the women in the Defence Force. They serve as an example to all of us on how to serve a cause in which they believe single-mindedly—the security and the prosperity of our beautiful country, South Africa. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, I should like to address you on a point of order. I have just received the Hansard copy of the speech I made yesterday in which three interjections made by hon members of this House appear. On the second page it was reported that the hon member for Langlaagte was supposed to have said that I was a “half-tamed ANC terrorist”. On page 2 the hon member also said in reaction to something I had said that it was a lie. After that the hon member for False Bay said in his typical way that I was a communist. I maintain that all three remarks were unparliamentary and that they should be withdrawn.

Order! According to Hansard the hon member for Langlaagte said: “You are a half-tamed ANC terrorist”. To whom was the hon member referring?

Mr Chairman, I was referring to the hon member who has just raised the point of order.

Order! Then the hon member must withdraw that remark.

Mr Chairman, I withdraw the remark that he is a half-tamed terrorist. [Interjections.]

Order! No, the hon member must withdraw it unconditionally.

Sir, I withdraw it unconditionally.

According to Hansard the hon member for Langlaagte also said: “That is a lie”. To what was the hon member referring?

What I meant by that remark was that what he was saying was not the truth. I also withdraw that it was a lie.

Order! According to Hansard the hon member for False Bay said: “He is a communist”. To whom was the hon member referring?

Mr Chairman, I said: “You are talking like a communist”, and he was talking like a communist.

Order! Is the hon member alleging that the Hansard report does not correctly reflect what he said?

That is correct, Mr Chairman; the Hansard report is wrong.

Order! The hon member alleges that he said: “You are talking like a communist”. What did the hon member mean by that?

Mr Chairman, I meant that the hon member for Claremont was making statements in this House which one would normally expect a communist to make. [Interjections.]

Order! I think that completes the point of order.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: May I request that in view of the alleged mistake by Hansard, the tape concerned be listened to?

Order! The tape can be listened to for greater certainty. For the moment I must take the word of the hon member for False Bay.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Is it parliamentary to say that an hon member is speaking like a communist?

Order! There can be many similarities between the way in which a specific member talks and the way in which a communist talks. I cannot rule that this is out of order per se. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, it would seem that I am eventually being given the opportunity to have my say too. I have nothing to add to what the hon member for Edenvale said about Angola. I want to touch on a few other aspects. The first matter deals with religious objectors for whom provision is made in the Defence Act.

It is clear that an element of punishment is embodied in the Defence Act as regards people who qualify as religious objectors. This element of punishment includes community service which they must render. The Act provides that they may be used in two capacities for community service, namely in the public or Government service and in local service.

It is well known that the Department of Manpower is in fact experiencing problems in placing people in these two categories. It is also quite clear that some of these religious objectors are frustrated in the positions in which they are placed and in the work they must do. That work is frequently unrelated to the training they have received. It does not prepare them for their future lives either. It would seem to be essential—merely from a humanitarian point of view— that there should be greater accommodation regarding the categories in which those people may be appointed or placed.

Only the Department of Defence can effect this amendment, because this is how it is stipulated in the Defence Act. I understand that the Department of Manpower will have no objection to these categories being extended. I want to make a friendly request to the hon the Minister that consideration be given at official level to amending the Act. I want to ask that the possibility of community work for these religious objectors be expanded. I think that they could be very profitably used in welfare organisations. I know that the hon the Minister of National Education does not want to use these people in White public schools, but perhaps private schools will not have any objection to them. I am not asking for a general opening up. However I would be glad if there could be an opening up. Of course the discretion of the hon the Minister can also be retained. I am asking for greater accommodation in this regard.

The hon member for Yeoville also touched on a point with which I associate myself. This concerns military pensions for Black veterans. I am grateful that the hon member for Yeoville raised this point. I am very concerned about this matter. I know that the Department of Defence is not responsible for the payment of pensions. However it is the task of the department to provide the necessary particulars. My problem—the hon member for Yeoville touched on the same problem—is that those Black veterans are now living in the TBVC countries, not by their own choice of course. The pensions they are being paid are therefore lower than they would have been if they had been residing in the Republic. I want to make a friendly appeal to the hon the Minister to try to solve this problem, if needs be in co-operation with the Department of Foreign Affairs. This is an injustice.

I also want to talk in general terms about the role of the Defence Force. I want to do this in a positive way, by stating a principle. The Defence Force’s image is very important because of public reaction. Obviously in a country like ours with a plural population structure this becomes a matter of the greatest importance for a Defence Force. Deep-rooted party political and ethnic divisions and conflicts can cause major problems, in the sense that the image of the Defence Force must be maintained even in such situations. The Defence Force must be seen as being above these divisions and conflict.

Basically this is the statement I want to make. I believe that this is how the Defence Force sees itself, namely that it exists as a uniting factor and rises above these divisions which exist in our population. I also know that this is not an easy task under the circumstances. I can understand that it sometimes feels called upon to act outside its conventional role. The conventional role of any Defence Force is to protect the country and its people against threats from outside. I can understand that circumstances may arise when it must act and take action outside its conventional role. I will do everything in my power to convey and develop the image of the SADF, for which I have great respect, as best I can. However I want to add that if the SADF wants to retain its image as a uniting factor and being above divisions, it must see to it that its behaviour does not make it part of those dividing conflicts. This is a general statement I am making, and the hon the Minister will understand it.

In general terms, in its primary task the Defence Force cannot be involved in the ordinary maintenance of law and order, in other words the enforcing of laws and regulations. This is not its primary task. It can, as the hon member for Klip River pointed out, play a supporting role. It is the task of the SA Police to maintain law and order. In my honest opinion circumstances may arise in which the Defence Force may be called upon to assist the Police.

The Defence Force also runs the risk of being used for a specific ideology. This is the problem which the hon member for Durban Central addressed. However I want to touch on this in another way. I do not want to create a situation in which the Defence Force acts in the way it did in Nazi Germany or in communist Russia, particularly when one remembers how the Russian Defence Force was used to suppress the freedom in countries like Hungary, Czechoslovakia and Poland for the sake of an ideology. This is not the role of the Defence Force. If it were to do this it would do its image very great harm.

Thirdly I know that the Defence Force insists that its own people must not behave irresponsibly, because irresponsible behaviour harms the image of the Defence Force. The hon the Minister will forgive me if I say that I was disturbed about the effect or the impact which the Kataturu situation had, and I know it caused the Defence Force major problems about which it had to think seriously. I know it was not the Defence Force that issued that certificate.

That matter is sub judice.

Oh, is it sub judice? Very well, then I shall not pursue the matter.

I have no objection to the standpoint of the hon the Minister on the necessity for fighting terrorists. I agree that it is essential. However I want to ask the hon the Minister to be careful about terminology. I agree with him that the use of the expression “people’s democracy” is nothing but a smokescreen for communism. [Interjections.] However I want to add that this does not apply to the term “non-racial democracy”. If we use that term—and it is used in that way by many people—it can mean a democratic dispensation which is not based on race. Most people, those in my party in any case, who use the term “non-racial democracy”, mean a democratic dispensation which is not based on race. I want to ask the hon the Minister not to equate the terms “people’s democracy” and “non-racial democracy”.

In the short time at my disposal I want to come back to a certain matter. Yesterday I started by saying that I was very worried about what was going to happen in Angola. If the rumours about the movement to the south-west are true, it would seem to me that this could have three main objectives.

The first objective is to lure the South African troops out of the Cuito Cuanavale area, so that they can take control there. The second objective is to defeat Unita there. I want to say at once that we hope for peace, and we agree that Unita will have to play a role in every form of negotiation. Another objective is that they are taking that step to create the best possible position for themselves with a view to the peace negotiations, as has happened time after time in the history of peace negotiations. Another possibility is that they want to move towards the border of Namibia/ South West Africa. This will place us in an extremely difficult position. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, the hon member Prof Olivier will forgive me if I do not react to him; I am sure the hon the Minister will reply to him.

During the past two days many tributes have been paid to the SA Defence Force and to individuals in the Defence Force. I merely want to say that I associate myself wholeheartedly with these tributes. I want to tell the Chief of the Defence Force that he has a winning recipe. The Defence Force is like a soup cauldron; everything goes into it, but at the end of the day only one product comes out. This is a winner which acts in the interests of South Africa and which does a great deal to help to protect the territorial integrity of South Africa. I want to tell the Chief of Defence Force that he must carry on with that winning recipe and that very fine attitude.

Some hon members in this House spoke in favour of the ECC, whereas others strongly condemned it. I want to associate myself with the hon member Mr Van Gend and say that it is gratifying that two universities, namely the University of Pretoria and the University of the Orange Free State, presented to the Chief of the Defence Force with addresses. They gave very strong support to national service, and we thank them for their fine attitude.

In the time at my disposal I should like to dwell for a moment on the preparation of our young men for national service. I want to refer specifically to the cadet system as a way of preparing young men for national service. Let we say right at the outset that any insinuation that cadet organisations have any sinister ulterior motive and that efforts are being made to turn cadets into anything other than they are traditionally supposed to be is simply not true. What is true, and this has always been the case, is that cadet training contributes to the preparation of our young men for the Defence Force, and it is a source of positive citizenship.

I think we should take a look at the definition of the aim of cadets, the aim is meaningfully to orientate and motivate cadets in respect of responsible citizenship, a love for their fatherland and a positive attitude towards national service. It will be interesting to hear whether the hon member for Claremont supports me with regard to this statement. [Interjections.]

Cadets have a proud and splendid history. Historically school cadets and the defence of our country have been indissolubly linked to one another since 1687. In that year Simon van der Stel established a boys’ brigade in which all boys from the age of nine years upwards underwent training in arms and drill in preparation for their entry into the national militia at the age of 16 years. This was followed by the first cadet corps or divisions as we know them today, during the 1870s in schools in Natal and the Eastern Cape. They were established specifically to protect hearth and home against the warlike native tribes.

It is interesting to note that Gen Louis Botha, who was the first Prime Minister of the Union of South Africa … I see the hon member for Greytown is looking at me. He must listen to what I am saying about a person who was a good fighter in the Anglo-Boer War and who was one of the first cadets in the corps which was established in Greytown in 1869.

Today cadet corps are in existence which date from 1873. Defence legislation in respect of the militia, which was promulgated in Natal in 1903, made the establishment of a cadet corps for each school compulsory at that stage. Our present cadet system, which involves more than 99% of all White secondary schools, including private schools, is serving to an increasing extent as a contribution to preparation for the SA Defence Force. All the cadet divisions are affiliated to the SA Defence Force, which acts as their guardian. There is therefore a close link between the Defence Force and the cadet divisions.

The cadet programme, or the syllabus of the cadets as such, is compiled by the Department of Education and the Defence Force, and the emphasis falls on its educational justification.

Order! The noise level in the House is too high.

Adequate opportunities are created to place the boy in a military milieu and prepare him for military customs, activities and circumstances with which he will be confronted during his national service. In cadet training particular emphasis is placed on gaining this kind of knowledge, leaving these skills and promoting this attitude towards life which will facilitate the boy’s adjustment during national service.

The cadet’s uniform also links him to the military uniform and the associated prescriptions regarding dress and codes of conduct which a uniform requires of a soldier. I myself was a captain in the Air Force, and there are specific codes of conduct which are required and it is very important for us to understand those codes of conduct and for these to be instilled in the boy and for him to live by them. There are few things which are as enjoyable as being a proud soldier.

Similarly the organisational composition of the cadet organisation, the rank structures and the designations and the functioning are orientated in such a way that the teacher, who is also a fully-fledged member of the SADF, is seen and accepted during cadet periods, camps and bivouacs as the wearer of a uniform and a member of the SADF. This means that the boy and the teacher, as wearers of the same uniform, traditions and customs move closer together and feel that they are part of the Defence Force.

Spiritual and physical preparedness are of great importance to the young people of our country, and I should like to emphasise the preparedness aspect further. In order to be strong our youth must be able to defend themselves against the onslaughts against us—the onslaughts of terrorism, anarchy, lawlessness and propaganda. It is the very important task of the cadet officer as well as the teacher to carry out the extremely important instruction of giving these people the ability to defend themselves. The teacher must not take his task lightly. In my opinion this is the most important task the teacher has, because it concerns the future of all South Africans.

I would have liked to have said more about cadets and their importance, but I do not have the time. Therefore I simply want to wish all cadet officers in the country everything of the best and thank them for the good service they render. May God bless them.

Mr Chairman, I should like to begin with the hon member for Pretoria Central who has just resumed his seat. It is always a privilege to speak after him. I have always thought he was a good representative of his constituency, and now I know why. It is because he served in the SADF. I want to thank him for the very positive contribution he made on the subject of school cadets today. These school cadets are a very important youth organisation which foster a great deal of positivism among the youth. In fact, I regard them as the junior SADF. I am in full agreement with the hon member that the teachers and cadet officers play an extremely important part. I agree with him that we must thank them for making that organisation so viable.

When I spoke a moment ago, I spoke about the right to know. I should like to refer to that again briefly, because there are certain aspects which require our attention. The one aspect is the media, and the other is Parliament.

With regard to the media, I want to put a few matters in perspective. One must remember that the media look at their reading and viewing public. Their concern is circulation and figures. The SADF looks at public safety and at the families and friends of its staff and the people of the country. The media’s business is news. They buy and sell news as a product. The Defence Force does not make a business of news. Consequently no profit motive or sales figures are involved. That is why the Defence Force does not intend to enter into a news competition with the propaganda organisations such as Angop and Ziana, or any other news service.

Journalists who move alternatively between the Defence Force and these propaganda instruments in attempts to verify their news must not be disappointed if the Defence Force does not want to play along in this respect. It is often said that the SADF must release more news.

It may be true that we sometimes keep things too quiet. I want to assure hon members, however, that the Defence Force and I are paying attention to that aspect. In this respect I spoke to a group of editors from the Argus company recently, and I had discussions with senior journalists. The SADF also presented briefings in this connection. What I regard as more important, however, is that we must not look at the quantity of news or information, but at the quality. The public needs quality information, rather than quantities of information, and that is what is important. As the responsible Minister, I want to appeal to our media to confer with the SADF about the quality of information. The concern of the SADF is public safety. That is their priority and I want to ask the media to assist in this regard.

I should like to mention a few examples in this connection. Recently the SADF released news about a group of children who had been kidnapped from Ovambo and taken to Angola. It is a report that I thought was very important, but it was merely mentioned incidentally on television. It got very little, if any, coverage in the newspapers. They were civilians. The kidnapped children were young children from South West Africa/Namibia. This is part of the Swapo terrorists’ campaign of intimidation and violence against the innocent. Should we not make more of this aspect, so that we can bring home to everyone the true colours of our enemies? I would say that in this case they could rather write too much than too little. I feel that they should repeat reports about this kind of reprehensible action, so that we can get to know the terrorist organisations in Southern Africa better, and so that we can call the public’s attention more clearly to what they do. Then we would not end up in this kind of controversial situation we experienced this afternoon, in which the hon member for Claremont missed the point completely. Then he would know what we were talking about, because it would appear in the newspapers.

I want to mention another example in this connection. Why do our media not address the true image of the ANC, as it reflects itself in its own documents, more often? Let us talk about the ANC in its indissoluble alliance with the South African Communist Party for once, the ANC with its two-phased revolution in which the Freedom Charter has no long-term right of existence. Let us talk about the so-called People’s Democracy—the one-party system which the ANC decided on during the Kapwe Conference in Zambia, and which the UDF proclaims loudly in some of our newspapers today. These are only a few examples of the quality of reporting that I would like to see in the handling of public safety—a measure which directly involves both the media and John Citizen. This is the kind of matter that affects our country’s system of values, and which can have a long-term influence on public safety. This is the kind of matter about which our public should be properly briefed in the revolutionary onslaught on our country.

This brings me to the right to know in Parliament, which I want to talk about briefly. Let me say immediately that I acknowledge and respect the authority and sovereignty of Parliament in its representation of the public. I am concerned, however, about a matter in respect of the handling of public safety. It concerns certain questions from the opposition ranks. In the circumstances we live in here in South Africa today, the sensitivity of matters which could serve as ammunition for our enemies should be dealt with more circumspectly. Here I include the insinuations, accusations, allegations and disinformation of the hon members for Constantia and Claremont. I think that was a disgrace. Secrecy for the sake of secrecy is unjustified, but certain matters that have reference to public safety and the combating of elements with the aim of assailing public safety cannot be bruited abroad.

There is a trend among certain extraparliamentary groups to seek out this kind of information so as to try to use it against the South African dispensation, its values and norms. This hon member is the instrument for that.

Nonsense!

I therefore ask for the support and understanding of the House when it comes to sensitive security matters. I should like to add that my door is always open to hon members who wish to talk about matters of this nature which cannot simply be made public. I request hon members not to discuss these matters across the floor of the House. That kind of thing counts in the favour of South Africa’s enemies. When hon members do that, they must not blame me if I say they are talking on behalf of South Africa’s enemies.

You are afraid of the truth!

I am not judging this hon member as an individual. I am judging him in terms of the questions he puts and the comments he makes, and in terms of the contribution he makes in the interests of South Africa and its people in this House.

You are telling lies! You are afraid of the truth!

I have not finished yet. I now come to …

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: May the hon member for Claremont tell the hon the Minister he is telling lies?

Order! Is that what the hon member for Claremont said?

Yes, Sir, and I withdraw it. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon the Minister may proceed.

Thank you, Mr Chairman. I knew he knew whom I was really talking to. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, I now come to my thanks and replies, and if I do not finish—after all, this is a relatively long process—I shall reply in writing to those whom I do not reply to now.

†I shall even write the hon member a love-letter. [Interjections.] I am referring to the hon member for Houghton; not to any other hon member over there.

Oh! I have just been wondering! [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, I begin with the hon member Dr Geldenhuys. In this hon member, the SA Defence Force has a staunch supporter, a fundamental thinker and a very sincere and good friend. I am very pleased that he referred in particular to Operation Reindeer. That was probably one of the Defence Force’s greatest operational achievements ever in air offensive operations. It was also one of the SA Defence Force’s great achievements in the fight against terrorism. The hon member spoke authoritatively about the threat of revolutionary forces. I want to tell him that our security forces are always prepared to crack down on these evil forces.

I am also pleased that he referred to the HSRC’s survey on attitudes in respect of the SA Defence Force in Angola. After all, that finding says our people care about their interests and their security. I also want to thank him for agreeing once again to be chairman of the study group on defence.

That brings me to the hon member Prof Olivier. He spoke about the protection of people. The hon member for Durban Central also referred to this. The SA Defence Force protects people. People have values and norms. The SA Defence Force therefore also protects values and norms which are directed at democracy.

I want to thank the hon member Prof Olivier sincerely for his participation in this debate. It is very clear that he is more firmly established in this respect than many of his predecessors were. I actually want to correct the hon member for False Bay in this connection. The hon member Prof Olivier is not the PFP’s fifth chief spokesman on defence during the past eight years; he is the seventh. It is a slippery road, therefore. We shall support the hon member and keep him on the right course. [Interjections.]

I replied to him on the nature of the conflict in South-Eastern Angola. The hon the Deputy Minister replied to him about the financial affairs of the SA Defence Force. I give him the assurance that financial affairs are managed effectively and with the greatest of care by the SADF. I have also replied to him in respect of the privatisation of Armscor. I thank the hon member for raising this important matter.

At one stage he asked me, since he was experiencing disinformation among his own ranks, for the real figures with reference to the losses in South-Eastern Angola. The hon member said he had heard about thousands of unannounced losses. The disinformants in his own ranks had begun to tell him about thousands of losses in South-Eastern Angola which were not announced. Once again I want to say that the South African Government announces all losses.

With reference to the SA Defence Force, we lost 31. With reference to the SWA Territorial Force, they lost 12. Those are the figures.

He went on to make representations in respect of the utilisation of religious objectors. I shall take a look at the Defence Act. I am quite prepared to consider this matter with an open mind. In addition he raised a terribly important matter—this is linked to what the hon member for Yeoville said—which concerns the veterans and their pensions. When that aspect was drawn to my attention, I immediately wrote a letter. Four of my colleagues are involved in this, and I confirmed this with the relevant colleague this afternoon. Unfortunately he is not here at the moment, but he will call a meeting, because I regard this as terribly important.

†We have to look after those gentlemen. We cannot leave them in the position they are in at present. The hon member can rest assured that I will do something about the matter.

I want to address a few remarks to the hon member for Yeoville. Today he again proved himself a friend and supporter of the SADF and a loyal South African. His suggestion about the international visit to the ANC camp in Angola was a wonderful idea, and I will see whether it can be done. The hon member raised other matters about missiles and so forth, and I invite him to come and see me. We can discuss it then.

I also wish to thank the hon member for Bryanston for his positive contribution.

*That brings me to the hon member for False Bay. I want to express a special word of thanks to this hon member. His service in respect of the SA Defence Force and Armscor attests to sincere dedication and responsibility. He is a mainstay of the defence family, and I am pleased that he touched on the crux of the people’s democracy and the Freedom Charter.

I now come to the hon member for Pietersburg. I am not always sure where this hon member is going to find his political future or home. He had kind things to say about the SA Defence Force, and I appreciate that. With reference to his enquiry about the minister of the Afrikaans Protestant Church, the SA Defence Force’s policy is that when a chaplain resigns from a particular church, his appointment as chaplain lapses. The new church that he then joins has to apply for an appointment as chaplain or as an administrative assistant in the Chaplain Service.

While the hon member was speaking, the hon member for Overvaal, with his usual impulsiveness, tried to complain by means of an interjection. He complained about a letter which the hon member for Pietersburg had quoted from, in which “u”, “jy” and “jou” were used. I do not think the hon member for Overvaal can understand that this letter was nothing but a brotherly or fraternal letter between brother ministers, viz ministers of the gospel who know one another.

The body armour to which the hon member referred was tested thoroughly in various roles, but was found not to be cost-effective.

Surely that letter … Why did you not mention that?

Over the years the hon member for Langlaagte has proved to be one of the Defence Force’s most loyal supporters. He spoke with care about the concrete action of the Defence Force in ensuring that men who do operational service are emotionally balanced when they return to society, usually as better and more mature people.

The fact that they are better and more mature people is something I regard as very important. Certain hon members on the opposite side, the hon member for Durban Central for example, always quote the negative aspects. The hon member for Langlaagte referred to the 99,999% which is positive. They, however, point out the remaining 0,001%, and say that is the rule. I thank the hon member for his positivism and for the fact that he exposed the attitude and conduct of the Official Opposition.

†That brings me to the hon member for Constantia. Yesterday he asked certain questions with reference to arms sales by South Africa. He referred to overseas magazine reports in this connection.

What makes this situation so lamentable is that the hon member is a member of his party’s defence committee. He knows that he can come to me to discuss such matters which directly affect our country’s security in a time of sanctions and revolutionary threats. Instead, he uses overseas sources and reveals his softness on our security or his willingness to spread disinformation about South Africa. For the record, I wish to repeat South Africa’s policy vis-á-vis sales and purchases of arms. I repeat the statement I made in this House on 24 May 1982. I quote (Hansard, col 7607):

During March of this year, upon enquiries by the Argus Group newspapers, I replied on alleged sales to Iran. I denied any sales to that country and I deny it again today. The Argus Group editors, who attended a meeting with me on 24 March, will surely testify to this. They will know how the particular report was handled. I have no intention to deviate from this policy, which has repeatedly been stated in this House. In any case, no country announces such deals, transactions or intentions. In this connection I refer, inter alia, to my replies to questions on the following dates: 11 February 1986, 8 April 1986, 17 May 1988. I refer to these questions, which deal with trying to break security or passing on information to the enemies of South Africa.

The hon member also referred to our limited involvement in Angola. He questioned and rejected Defence Force information.

No, I did not!

The hon member should be more responsible about the things he says and how he says them.

I merely asked you to give the same information in regard to the SWA Territorial Forces.

Sir, he did it in such a way that I gained the impression that we were back to 21 April 1982. On that day the hon member made allegations based on newspaper reports about 32 Batallion. He did so again yesterday. Six years ago I reacted to that tirade by the hon member by calling it one of the most irresponsible speeches I had ever heard. Hon members can read it in Hansard. It is obvious that in six years the hon member has not changed. He has not learned one lesson. He has not even taken note of voters’ rejection of his party’s softness on security. This hon member has fallen victim to the slanderous and malicious disinformation propaganda campaign which is being conducted against South Africa. This is the kind of disloyalty that plays into the hands of our enemies.

*Mr Chairman, I should like to thank the hon members for Durbanville and Germiston for their very fine and positive contributions. I want to congratulate the hon member for Durbanville on his election as the assistant secretary of the study group on defence.

I thank the hon member for Walvis Bay for an appropriate contribution. I am very sorry that he had to speak after the hon member for Claremont. There was a question as to the size of the hon member’s constituency. The hon member for Walvis Bay knows that it is not a matter of the size, but of the quality of the constituency.

†Regarding the hon member Mrs Chait, I would ask: Who doubts the value and capabilities of the woman whose heart beats for South Africa and the security forces? I appreciate her praise for our men in uniform, which must certainly warm the hearts of their mothers and loved ones. I again wish to thank her for her work in regard to the Southern Cross Fund.

*That brings me to the hon member for Middelburg. The hon member confuses me. It seems that he does not really belong where he is, but I shall leave it at that.

I take cognisance of the fact that he was the CP’s spokesman, who had to say that his party would not go on any more visits unless my hon Deputy Minister apologised for the remarks he ostensibly made here yesterday afternoon. For the information of that party, I want to say that my hon Deputy Minister does not need to apologise for anything; in fact, he acquitted himself extremely well.

I want to thank my hon Deputy Minister here in public for his excellent, positive contribution. I would not be able to fulfil my obligations without him. I want to thank him for his loyal support and for the sacrifices he makes for our country and our security forces. I can count on his support, and I appreciate that. He can count on my support.

And his bravery!

The hon member for Middelburg affected a rather pessimistic attitude with regard to certain matters. He was aggrieved, like Genis of “Koӧperasiestories”, about Whites with reference to his visit to Project Molteno in Kimberley. I can assure him that we give the Whites similar opportunities. We give them an opportunity to improve their basic skills and to undergo further training in maintenance teams and as artisan’s assistants and they are also trained as drivers and construction workers. This applies to those who are less skilled.

I want to convey my sincere thanks to the hon member for Umlazi. He is a tower of strength to the SA Defence Force.

I want to thank the hon members for Springs and Vryburg sincerely for their contributions with regard to the topical subject they broached.

This brings me to the hon member for Overvaal. I want to thank him for the positive tone he tried to adopt. The hon member said the NP and I had blatantly politicised Maj Du Toit to save the NP. In my view that is a ridiculous statement. I did decide that Maj Du Toit should not address purely political meetings, but his message to South Africa is one of motivation, something this hon member has no chance of ever being able to convey. [Interjections.] Wherever Maj Du Toit takes part in proceedings, he does so for South Africa, because his message totally overshadows that of political parties. If the hon member for Overvaal wants to take this any further, the people of South Africa will give evidence against him, because his message does not have the power, the depth or the experience of this officer. The sooner he keeps quiet on this subject, the better for all of us. I tell the hon members of this House that Maj Du Toit is doing excellent work. It is good to have him back in South Africa, and we are grateful to have him. [Interjections.]

The hon member spoke about compulsory military service for Coloureds and Indians. I endorse every word my hon Deputy Minister said on the subject. The standpoint of this side of the House is well-known, and I shall not repeat it. The hon member could learn from the attitude of the Brown people to the SA Defence Force.

The hon member asked why our Defence Force’s limited involvement in South-Eastern Angola has been so prolonged. I think that that question displays his wilfulness and his perverse attitude. If there is one man who should not ask that question it is he, because between 13 June last year and 28 March this year, he or his party was briefed, or went on visits where they were briefed, nine times. What does the hon member want to achieve with this kind of statement?

The Government’s standpoint on South West Africa/Namibia and Resolution 435 is very clear. The Cubans must get out of Angola—then attention can be given to this question.

You are still running away!

Order! The hon member for Overvaal has made a number of unnecessary interjections. I request the hon member not to do so; otherwise I shall have to forbid him to make any interjections whatsoever.

I want to come to the hon member for Claremont. There are few people in the world who have disappointed so many people so bitterly in such a short lifetime. When his country needed him, he fled and became a citizen of a foreign country. He was afraid to do his national service, and when he talks about security, therefore, he has no background. He is a layman. When things were going well in this country, he returned, and when the PFP was looking for a candidate for a constituency, he came forward. Then when the PFP ran into difficulties, he left them.

In this way he misled the PFP and his voters. According to the contribution he made here in Parliament today, and the questions he put, it is clear that he associates with South Africa’s enemies. He is going to disgrace Parliament as well. His contribution throughout consists of accusations against and attacks on the security forces. He always wants to put the security forces in a bad light. He has never said anything against the abuses of the ANC’s or the SACP’s terrorists. His record shows a lack of insight and perseverance, and possible disloyalty towards this country and its people. He is not on the side of the Republic of South Africa.

Order! I do not think the hon the Minister can say that the hon member is disloyal. He must withdraw that.

Which words must I withdraw?

Order! The hon the Minister must withdraw the word “disloyal”.

Very well.

Order! No, it is not “very well”. The hon the Minister must withdraw the word “disloyal”.

Mr Chairman, I withdraw it.

In the Hansard of April 1981, col 310, I said things about one of his kindred spirits. I had to withdraw large parts of it, but it applies to him as a whole. [Interjections.]

Order! I want to point out to the hon the Minister that it is unparliamentary to refer to sections of a speech that were withdrawn.

Debate concluded.

Mr Chairman, after the cannon-fire and heavy artillery of the past two days, it is a pleasure for me to say that the CP supports this Bill. We think it is an important piece of legislation which is being consolidated here, because it clears up certain matters that were obscure. We on this side of the House would like to support it.

I want to point out a few problems which are being dealt with in this Bill. The first aspect deals with the uncertainty which exists at present about the power of a person to act as trustee, because unlike an executor he has no certificate of appointment. This uncertainty is being eliminated in clause 6 by providing that the Master shall authorise a trustee in writing to act. This uncertainty is now being eliminated by this Bill.

I also want to point out that in clause 7(1) the Master is being authorised to appoint a trustee himself in certain circumstances. Consequently it is no longer necessary to apply to a court for a trustee if a trust does not make provision for the appointment of a trustee. This uncertainty, too, is now being eliminated by the Bill.

Clause 12 removes the existing doubt in regard to the effect of the sequestration of a trustee by providing that the trust property shall not form part of the personal estate of a trustee. This is a very important aspect and it is a good thing that this issue is also being resolved.

I also want to refer to clause 21. This has to do with the fact that if the trust instrument does not make provision for the resignation of a trustee, the trustee may as a rule only resign with the consent of the court. Clause 21 provides that any trustee may resign by notice in writing to the Master and the trust beneficiaries.

I also want to refer to clause 22 which provides that the trustee is entitled to a reasonable remuneration, if the trust instrument does not make provision for remuneration.

As I have said, the CP supports the Bill. However, I should just like to ask the hon the Minister to take note of one other little matter. In the case of an estate in respect of which a redistribution agreement has been entered into, it is being provided that no transfer duties are payable.

The Deeds Registration Act and the Transfer Duties Act, however, do not provide that with a redistribution agreement the same exemption applies in respect of a trust. Possibly attention could be given to this aspect on a subsequent occasion.

Mr Chairman, on behalf of this side of the House we thank the Official Opposition for their support as expressed by the hon member for Standerton.

We have before us legislation which has been very thoroughly studied. Not only is this a Bill which had its origin with the SA Law Commission, but the law advisers of the State also made their usual thorough contribution. On the standing committee careful attention was given to all aspects of the Bill, and matters in regard to which a difference of opinion could have existed were discussed in depth. I think that everyone who was involved in the standing committee can testify that minority standpoints and other possible views received very thorough attention and were dealt with in an extremely responsible way, even as regards the work done by the Law Commission itself. It is a pleasure for me to support this Bill.

Mr Chairman, trusts have become a widely used mechanism, not only for holding funds and property in trust, but also for administering and distributing the funds often a long time after the actual donor has any vision of what is happening with these funds. It is for precisely this reason that there is in any trust deed a great measure of flexibility, of discretionary powers, in the hands of the trustee. It is this factor which, in fact, has popularised trusts.

Although it is called the Trust Property Control Bill, I think it is apparent that it is essentially not a Bill which exercises strict control. It is more in the nature of a monitoring function. I think this is to be welcomed. As the hon the Minister quite correctly pointed out in his Second Reading speech the codification of the trust law may very well bring about an undesirable inflexibility and restrict further development of the law. It is a field of law which has developed very naturally without much interference from the legislator. While a certain measure of control is not only desirable in the interests of ensuring that the beneficiaries receive the full benefit that was intended by the donor, it is also obvious that minimum interference from the legislator is desirable to ensure the development of the trust in its natural way, as has always been the case in our legal history.

I believe this particular piece of legislation is completely in line with what is required in terms of limited control and limited interference in the development of the trust law. Therefore we of the PFP fully support this Bill.

Mr Chairman, I do agree with the hon member for Groote Schuur, which I seldom have the opportunity to do due to his political points of view about which he is very articulate and outspoken, which, of course, renders him more challengeable than any other hon member.

Nevertheless, I would like to point out that the memorandum on the objects of the Bill does not state that it is the object to control the law of trusts or trust property, but to regulate that control.

It is called the Trust Property Control Bill.

Yes, but I am referring to the memorandum, which actually coincides with the hon member’s point of view. However, the point of view that I in fact am trying to convey to the hon member is that we are not trying to control, but that we are venturing to regulate the control.

I congratulate the hon the Minister.

Thank you.

In this spirit I want to express my gratitude to the hon member for Groote Schuur that in a moment of enlightenment he has expressed something with which I can agree.

*I want to tell the hon member for Standerton that the point he raised does not have an immediate bearing on the Bill. We shall look into it and establish whether rectifying provisions are necessary, either in regard to the issue of transfer fees or estate duty. As I understand the hon member, and as I interpret the legislation, the point he made is not immediately relevant as far as the Bill itself is concerned.

This brings me to the hon member for Sundays River. He was actually wearing two hats when he participated in today’s debate. He was also a member of the law commission at the stage when this Bill was being created. He also made a material contribution to the solution the law commission arrived at, namely that codification was not desirable, but that the common law position should develop naturally. The instruments of control which do exist must, however, be regulated, so that the trustees can do their work properly. Proper distinctions must be drawn between concepts. We must ensure that our law of trust develops in a natural and orderly way. I thank the hon member for his contribution on the law commission, and here today. This matter was dealt with very thoroughly by the standing committee.

Debate concluded.

Bill read a second time.

Mr Chairman, we on this side of the House, as you know, Sir, supported the original Bill. All that this amendment does is to extend the period applicable to 31 March 1994. We have no objections and we will therefore support this amending Bill.

Mr Chairman, it is as the hon member Mr Derby-Lewis has said. This measure contains only one amendment, and it is intended to extend the period. We also support this amending Bill.

Mr Chairman, a short Bill deserves a short speech. This Bill only extends the effect of the agreed measure for a few more years. We are happy to support it.

Mr Chairman, that speech was short and sweet and I will try to be sweet as well. I thank hon members for their support.

Debate concluded.

Bill read a second time.

Order! I have to announce that Mr Speaker has received a letter from the Secretary to Parliament in which he asks leave to retire on pension with effect from 1 October 1988. The letter will be referred to the Rules Committee.

Mr Chairman, I move without notice:

Agreed to.

Mr Chairman, I think publications control is a very important function of this particular department and I would, at the outset, like to say something about it.

There are persons and organisations who regularly express their concern about the level of morality and who insist that the authorities pay urgent and continued attention to the protection of our moral and ethical values.

In addition to all the arguments over the matter it is justly and understandably brought into relation with our Christian view of life, upon which it is based and from which it emanates spontaneously.

That the State is concerned with the matter, and has a responsibility in this regard, is confirmed by the Preamble to the Constitution in which we not only profess our dependence upon God, but also undertake to protect these values.

It is also clearly stated in Section 1 of the Publications Act, 1974, that:

It therefore means that the controlling bodies constantly use this statement as their point of departure and in this way protect the values which are of paramount importance to us.

The State and the publications controlling bodies have never and will never shirk from accepting this responsibility and task, especially where it is an undeniable fact that worldwide and also within the borders of our country a blunting and lowering of spiritual and ethical norms may be detected.

However, with the stand taken in this section 1 which I have quoted, all problems are not solved. In the first instance, the legislators purposely refrained from defining “Christian norm” in order that the differences in the doctrines of the various Christian churches were not unnecessarily brought to a head. It had obviously been supposed that there would be no doubt among the various churches and even within the different religions in our society, amongst all people that strive for decency, about what is meant by these “Christian norms”. Furthermore, it is clear from the purpose and contents of the Publications Act that control and judgement must be exercised according to the norms of society and that consequently there must constantly be an evaluation of that which is prescribed by these standards. Such an approach unfortunately does not solve all the problems, since morality is not only different within different communities, but also within particular groups within the same community. In this regard it is interesting to note the view of an American judge, Cardozo, in The Paradoxes of Legal Science. I quote him:

Fortunately publication committees and the Appeal Board can, to a great extent, rely upon court judgements in similar cases in the execution of their difficult task. In the course of time these courts have defined all the words used in the Act to indicate “undesirability”—words such as obscene, indecent, offensive, harmful and blasphemous.

*The control bodies do have aids, therefore, that protect them against subjectivity and at the same time define the boundary outside which one may not move without ignoring or pushing aside important principles.

In order to gain firmer ground, the former chairman of the Appeal Board, Mr Justice Snyman, moved over to the standards of the “reasonable person” in 1977 in the case of the SABC v O’Malley when he said, and I quote:

A few other events served to emphasise that one cannot simply adhere to standards of society, particularly if one understands this standard to be that held by the majority of the community. In the first place, the Appeal Court ruled in its finding in the well-known Magersfontein case that the Publications Appeal Board had erred by evaluating the publication in terms of the norms of the average reader. A publication that has literary merit, and of which the satirical basis would not be understood by the man in the street, should be evaluated according to the standards of the probable reader, and not that of the mass. This ruling had a far-reaching influence on all later considerations, because the determining opinion would now no longer be that of the majority, but in certain cases even that of minority groups.

With regard to the visual elements, such as films, videos and plays, the criterion should be the norms of the probable audience. The determination of such norms and standards does not depend on external factors such as who is the real spectator, or where the piece is presented, but on the contents of the piece itself.

The contents indicate which group is the target of the presentation, whom it wants to address and to whom it wants to give a message. In accordance with that, a decision is taken on whether or not a particular work should be passed.

It is true that people who do not make up part of the target group sometimes find themselves in a group of spectators, and are then upset by what they have to watch. If such people find that the presentation does not comply with their own norms and standards, they must be honest with themselves in admitting that they cannot really be regarded as probable spectators.

This whole approach was consolidated in the Publications Act itself by means of amendments that were made in 1978 to provide for publications to be released on certain conditions, for example “with age restriction”, “only in service libraries” and “only upon application”.

Possible restrictions as far as films are concerned are that they can be shown only in small art theatres, or even that a restriction can be placed on the number of times a film is shown, as is the case at film festivals. This also applies to public entertainments in which it may be provided that performances may take place only in small, experimental theatres, that such performances may be attended only by people above a certain age, and that the season be restricted to a specified number of shows.

A further amendment provides for committees of experts which can advise the Appeal Board on art-literary and linguistic merit. It is intended that such qualities be taken into account when rulings are given and they can even be decisive. One must keep in mind that the Act does not define what is “desirable”, but what is “undesirable”.

†It is therefore obvious that no attempt is made to describe that which is “acceptable”, as that would indicate an educational and evangelical directive. A search for the tolerance level of the reasonable reader or viewer must be conducted, but then within the framework of the aforementioned Christian norms and community standards.

That there will from time to time be attempts to test the tolerance of the controlling bodies is clearly illustrated by the creators of resistance art. Under the banner of art and literary merits, these people want to bypass the Act and attack those interests which the Act is intended to protect, namely the morality, the religion and the dignity of sections of the inhabitants, relations between sections of the inhabitants, and the safety of the State.

Resistance art did not, of course, originate in South Africa. It has been known for ages in countries where authors and other artists masked and subtly camouflaged their works for security reasons.

Locally, resistance art is mostly expressed in the form of plays, popular theatre, recitals and music. The purpose of all this is to create a climate which fosters a spirit of resistance and revolt, and which can then lead to labour unrest, civil disobedience, protest marches and, in the final instance, to revolution.

In certain communities a type of popular drama is actively performed, especially during times of political tension. The community gathers for a “play” which has no text or preplanning. A specific protagonist or leader, mostly in a political sense, then starts by making certain statements on the contemporary political, social or labour situation. The audience reacts by replying. All the time this is in an act of improvisation, and nobody actually knows where it will all lead to or end.

Good theatre!

Emotion plays a basic role, and consequently the audience finds itself in a particular stage of agitation. When the show ends, the audience is so emotionally charged that they will not calm down before everything in the vicinity— from buildings to cars and even other people— has been attacked. It is impossible to control this form of spontaneous theatre. There is no text, the performance takes place at a different venue every evening and it is also presented differently every evening.

Another form of resistance art is biting satire in which an attack is launched on personalities and specific aspects of the “establishment”. The purpose is obviously to make the viewer critical of the existing order and to create a spirit of general dissatisfaction and even revolt.

Something which is becoming more prevalent is recitals and song evenings during which recitals from the poems and other works of so-called “national” artists and prohibited publications are given. The recitals are usually alternated with the singing of freedom songs, which often serve as a catalyst for the creation of an emotionally explosive situation.

The State, as well as the bodies concerned with publications control, have noted with concern a new tendency.

*It is the trend among certain playwrights and directors today to exceed the accepted norms in their plays and openly to challenge and shock the sensitivity of the reasonable members of the community. In this respect they usually rely on the artistic value of their work and the judgment of the probable spectator. The ordinary man’s judgment is then dismissed as being stupid and uninformed.

Naturally one would like to accommodate one’s artists and do justice to possible artistic and dramatic merit. One also wants to acknowledge that the true artist often has a far-sighted and prophetic view which makes him see and express things which either do not exist for the man in the street, or are still invisible to him. But in presenting these creations, there will also be boundaries that are laid down and determined by the codes and standards of a Christian community. One must not simply rush headlong over these boundaries.

There is no doubt that the Government regards the protection of the spiritual and moral welfare of the community and the maintenance of the necessary balance between the freedom of the individual and the interests of the community as extremely important.

This was recently confirmed once again when the whole matter was subjected to close scrutiny and interested bodies were invited to make proposals which could ensure additional improvements in and consolidation of the policy.

Naturally there were people who made overhasty deductions and came to certain conclusions. Certain column-writers saw in this the beginning of a period of restrictive and oppressive censure which would take us back to the Middle Ages. Others warned that writers would move “underground” and that one would then be able to read their work only abroad. It was said that we in South Africa would not get any of what they had produced unless it reached us along secret channels. The fear was expressed among certain writers that the reasonable calm that had prevailed for the past 10 years would now be upset.

Certain column-writers, who had never abandoned their opposition to every form of control, but were constantly casting suspicion, dropping hints and even making accusations of “strangling censure”, reacted immediately. They tried to sow as much uncertainty and doubt as possible, and emphasised that they had always warned that there would be danger as long as the Publications Act was on the Statute Book. They regard this Act as a permanent and threatening sword, which can be wielded at any time to satisfy the caprices and whims of certain individuals.

I should like to make it clear that although I have often been amazed and even concerned about the creations of our young writers and dramatists, I accept their good faith in the interests of art. Consequently I am just as eager as they are to see the peace and good relations of the past 10 years continuing without being upset.

In summary I want to say that the authorities cannot and do not want to create morality or exercise a moralising function, because then they will be trespassing on the province of parents, educationists and the church. The Government will do everything in its power, however, to defend and protect the good morals and habits which are recognised and accepted under the concept of the decent, Christian norm by all the population and religious groups in our community.

Mr Chairman, permit me at the commencement of this important debate on the Home Affairs Vote to wish all Moslem friends, including the hon members for Toekomsrus, Griqualand West, Nuweveld and Gelvandale and the hon member Mr Solomon, a pleasant Eid. May they enjoy the festivities.

I want to pay tribute to one of Africa’s greatest sons in the media field, namely Percy Qoboza. The Home Affairs Vote is an important and sensitive issue. Without a doubt it is the Vote which is the driving force behind our internal politics. I should like to say something about those aspects which to me are of cardinal importance, namely the media regulations and the Population Registration Act. This is problematical to us because we know how valuable the news media are to our people. We cannot support the Government at all in its attempts to restrict the alternative media.

Since the imposition of the state of emergency in 1986 the news media have been practically paralysed by more than 1 000 laws and the whole range of emergency regulations.

There is no doubt that since the new range of measures was approved, South Africa has had the most sophisticated government-controlled Press in the world.

This type of action makes me wonder what we are actually doing. Are we engaged in reform and negotiation or is the Government imposing reprieve measures? How sincere is the South African Government in its attempts at reform?

By this time hon members will have heard all the slogans. Two examples are “We may be banned, but we will not be silenced” and “The voice of the people must be heard”. It is important for the people living in the country to know what is happening in a changing South Africa. The South African Government’s success in controlling the Black uprising should receive serious attention. The fact that community newspapers are restricted gives free rein to the officials in uniform, allowing them to silence democratic opposition by legislative and authoritative means.

I am no prophet, but I think that the hon the Minister should correctly inform those prophets of doom who proclaim that the world is going to end on a certain date. The truth is that South Africa has practically been driven to the point of despondency, bitterness and an increased conflict potential by its selfish bureaucracy. This country does not need that. It was completely unnecessary to add all that fuel to the fire.

I believe it is the task of the Press to try to find out why certain things have happened in South Africa and why other things have not happened. The Press must look at South Africa as a whole. The Press should be freed to inform the overall spectrum of inhabitants about facts of which they have no knowledge. We should, however, not lose sight of the realities. When we consider the unreasonable aspects of a system based on race conflict, we cannot but try to place the state of affairs in a wider perspective, or try to analyse why conventional thinking about South Africa has its shortcomings. For some time now the media has been suggesting to the American public that South Africa is on the brink of collapse and that the violence in the Black towns will unavoidably intensify into the long-awaited revolution. This and the sanctions campaign would be enough to lead to the country’s downfall and then apartheid, which was the cause of all the discord, would also come to an end.

I want to make a serious appeal to the hon the Minister to lift all these measures immediately and to concentrate much more on the internal political conflict. These days pigs’ heads are placed in front of a Jewish synogogue without any respect for people’s feelings. Such actions are provocative and display no respect for the religious beliefs or culture of the population as a whole.

I should now like to concentrate more on internal events. We know that thousands of people have been repatriated to the independent states and self-governing territories. Can the hon the Minister perhaps tell me how many of these people were removed in terms of the Influx Control Act? Are these foreigners not protected by the repeal of that Act? How many Whites are there who perhaps use Bophuthatswana as a point of entry into the Republic of South Africa? What punitive measures are imposed on such persons? On what grounds are passport applications approved and why was Govan Mbeki’s application to go abroad refused?

In the light of this question I should like to ask the hon the Minister how many visas have been refused by his department and why. Many immigrants have come here in the past year. How many of them applied for permanent residence and how many are used by the department as employees for the other departments?

The Population Registration Act is also considered to be one of the most ungodly pieces of legislation on the Statute Book. One becomes hardened and bitter when, under the burden of such legislation, one’s humanity is put to the test. This kind of legislation is the reason why the rest of the world still views South Africa as the polecat of the world. Some South Africans find it difficult to show their green passports when they are abroad. The stigma of colour has also worked against South Africans abroad. If one is Black, one is viewed as a second-class citizen in the country of one’s birth.

Our party believes in the rights of the individual. That is why it is essential for such things to get through to the Government. South Africa should be freed from the restrictions of oppression.

Order! The hon member’s time has expired.

Mr Chairman, I rise merely to give the hon member an opportunity to utilise the time allocated to him.

Order! The hon member for Rust Ter Vaal may continue.

Sir, I thank the hon Whip.

Every inhabitant, every citizen, should be able to share in the benefits of our progressive country, and should contribute to the protection of all those panic-stricken right-wing elements. One should be proud to be a South African. It should give one a feeling of dignity and let one feel that one is being given recognition for coming forward when this country needs one. I hope and trust that the hon the Minister will seriously consider the Population Registration Act and speedily remove it from the Statute Book.

Mr Chairman, thank you for allowing me these few minutes.

I think the policy of the Government of the day, in particular this department, is to eliminate people or newspapers who seem to inform the community of what is happening in South Africa. The battle cry and the weapon used by the Government is the emergency regulations pertaining to the media. Who are the victims of these regulations? The victims are none other than the newspapers which are circulated in the townships.

Let us go back and look at what has happened over the past few months. The publishers of these newspapers were called in by the hon the Minister and were given a brief explanation. They were told that they could publish certain criticism of local authorities and of the Government. The moment, however, that they praised extra-Parliamentary organisations or pointed out to the people at large what was happening in South Africa, they found themselves in hot water.

The hon the Minister has banned New Nation and he has banned South. I should like to ask him today, therefore, whether he intends banning the Weekly Mail. I looked at the word “subversive” and at the word “subvert”. To “subvert” means to overthrow. Now I should like to ask the hon the Minister a question, and I do so with respect. I think that when one wants to ban a newspaper which is read in a certain area, the obvious thing for one to do is to take a census to find out how many people are reading this newspaper. Furthermore, when it comes to banning newspapers, a crucial issue is the intelligence of the people who read these newspapers. That is the main question—the intelligence of the people who read that particular newspaper.

I want to say this afternoon without any fear of contradiction that people have different perceptions. I, for one, think that the newspapers are doing a good job. Irrespective of what the Government says, I think the newspapers are doing a good job. Since the Nats came into power they have been haunting the newspapers. If the Nats are on the right track—I say “if”—if their policies are correct, if they are busy with reform, they will not ban any newspapers.

The moment, however, that one does not speak in favour of this Government, it opens its jaws and wants to ban one. I think democracy contains certain institutional preconditions; these are: Freedom of speech, freedom of the Press, freedom of movement, freedom of association and academic freedom. These freedoms are basically absolute, intolerant and admit of virtually no compromise. The Government professes freedom of speech, freedom of movement, freedom of everything. However, I want to say that every time a state of emergency is declared, the first to suffer are the newspapers. I want to ask why that is so. What have newspapers done? I should rather ask what certain newspapers have done, because we are not banning all newspapers; we are banning certain newspapers. If one writes a good story about the Government of the day, it is quite acceptable. However, as soon as one points out that apartheid is a heresy, a bad policy and unchristian, then one has had it.

What do the people say who preach to us? They say that the South African Government must turn back and reform. What do we mean by reform, or how do we understand reform? Everyone will remember that this party, of which I am a member, believes in absolute freedom of the Press. We ourselves should pass judgement on what is given to us by the Press.

What do certain newspapers write? I want to take as an example the release of Mr Govan Mbeki. If I should read in a newspaper such as The Evening Post or The Herald that Mr Govan Mbeki was released, then I have been informed of what has happened. Is that newspaper trying to overthrow the Government of the day? We know that that is a fallacy. We know that a newspaper cannot overthrow the Government; we know that very well. However, I think the Government of the day does not want the people to be informed of what is happening. The funny part about this is that the moment one bans a newspaper or a person, people suddenly became interested in that newspaper or person. People would then want to read that particular newspaper. People want to read New Nation, South, and now the Weekly Mail. I want to ask the hon the Minister emphatically whether he is going to ban the Weekly Mail, because he has already threatened this newspaper. I want to tell the Government of the day that they are doing more harm to themselves. Irrespective of how many newspapers are closed down, people will still search for freedom. Banning these newspapers will strengthen the resolve of these people.

Whether the newspaper was right or wrong, we are intelligent enough to distinguish between what is right and wrong. It is not the function of the Government to tell us what is wrong or right. Does the Government feel that it is on trial? When one starts banning newspapers, one makes it seem that one is on trial, because one is doing something which one thinks is not right. As a consequence people must not be informed.

As I see the strategy of the Government, they only want to consolidate power in their own hands. That is their strategy! They want to control everything. We have seen throughout the world how the rise and fall of governments follows the same path. Power is a difficult thing to handle once one has it. As a consequence we have inroads into freedom, we have injustices, and all sorts of things happening.

I want to repeat that in the South African context one should be careful of how one goes about one’s business. One should be careful, because in terms of regulation 7 (a) and since September 1987 they have been working full-time on this. The monitoring of the media throughout the country has been intensified. Periodical publications that have potential to foster a revolutionary climate have since been analysed scrupulously with a view of taking combative action.

We are for ever being indoctrinated about the “revolutionary onslaught”. One has to analyse this revolutionary onslaught. Is it an onslaught towards freedom which we term revolutionary? Any Government should be by the people for the people, but can we say the same in South Africa? Is this Government a government of the people? If so, why do I not see all the ethnic groups represented in one Parliament? We have fought and clamoured for representation and we have said over and over again that we shall not rest before everybody in this country is represented in one Parliament.

The newspapers must be allowed to inform the people of what goes on in this country. In the last 40 years, from 1948 to 1988, the freedom of the Press has been steadily eroded. Newspapermen do not know what to write, because if they write the truth, they are in trouble. That is one of the great flaws in South Africa, viz that one should never point out the truth. One has to praise something which is not praiseworthy. How far are we going to take this?

We see all over the world what is happening to people who are from South Africa. Let me point to the example of athletics. What do the newspaper and other media say about it? They say those people are suffering because of the policies of this country. That is the only reason.

The hon member for Rust Ter Vaal spoke about sanctions.

Order! The hon member’s time has expired.

Mr Chairman, I rise merely to afford the hon member the opportunity to complete his speech.

I thank the hon Whip.

We know what hardships we have to go through because of the policies of this Government. Once again I want to ask the question: Is it right that we have to suffer because of the policies of a minority Government? Is it fair? Is it a Christian attitude? No, it is not. The hon the Minister may get up and try to justify the policy of this Government, but I want to tell him that that policy cannot be defended. We see what happens overseas. South Africans cannot play sports there; they must romp around here in South Africa. My question this afternoon is: Is it fair to the future generation of South Africa? If one comes to the conclusion that it is not, one has to change one’s policy.

I think, ultimately, all of us are concerned about the future of South Africa. There are many ways in which one can view the future, but the least one can do is to let people get the necessary information.

Mr Chairman, I should like to welcome the hon the Minister and his officials here today. I am convinced that one day their department will be just as good as their golf, but today we must first come to the point.

*I want to begin by quoting from The Star of 11 January 1988:

Mr Chairman, up to 31 December 1987 a total of 4 752 997 ID books were processed and dispatched. Up to that date 252 608 requests for corrections were received. This totals over a quarter of a million. According to the Cape Times of 7 January 1988 “the Department of Home Affairs officials have said the Pretoria computer was at fault.” Surely the people who programme the computer are at fault. I would like to ask the hon the Minister how many more requests for corrections have been received since 31 December 1987.

The department has given the undertaking to correct all documents that reflect an incorrect date of birth without charge. Does this include reimbursement of transport costs for poor people who live in rural areas and have to travel to the nearest post office? Does it include reimbursement of stamps and costs incurred to certify the postal article? Does it include the cost of photographs? And, above all, does it mean people will now be asked to produce birth certificates which were not needed with their original applications? Mr Chairman, I believe these questions need to be answered. I also believe the public must be given the assurance that they will not have to cut through red tape and that they will not be intimidated when they request that the necessary corrections be made.

I believe the Government’s policy of divide and rule is still very effective, alive and well. One has only to read page 13 of the department’s 1987 annual report to get an idea of what I am getting at. Why do people wish to be reclassified? Surely man must be proud of his identity! But not in South Africa, Sir. The whiter—or the lighter shade—one can be reclassified too—the more advantages one gets in all spheres of South African society.

Out of 1 356 reclassifications in 25 different categories, 494 were classified White; 708 were classified light—when I say “light”, I mean just below white but away from black; 135 were reclassified from Coloured or Malay to Indian for either religious reasons or, in many instances, for business or residential convenience; and—some may think this is a pity—19 have been reclassified from Coloured or Griqua to Black. This shows how people are making every effort to take advantage of their colour—some of them to such an extent that they are ostracized by their families. That is why I find it a total anomaly when I read on page 15 of the report that the completeness of the register with regard to the Whites is 101,9% and 101,9% in respect of Chinese. One will find that at this rate Whites, Coloureds, Indians and Chinese will exceed 100% in the next few years and Blacks will diminish to a very small percentage. I suppose this is what the Government wants in order to will away the Blacks.

What a catastrophe, what a shambles, what a shame and what denigration when a person is ashamed of his birthright. This can only happen in South Africa. Therefore I cannot agree with the department when it says that our net loss to emigration of 6 396 people—of which 3 855 are either in professional or managerial positions—is because of prevailing economic conditions and resultant unemployment. No, Sir, it is because of our apartheid policy.

The legal classification of people into race groups is the cornerstone of apartheid and its implementation in South Africa. In 1950 the NP enacted the Population Registration Act, No 30 of 1950. The Act made provision for a central population register in which all people were classified as Whites, Coloureds or Blacks. Were it not for the Population Registration Act, administered by the Department of Home Affairs, the Separate Amenities and Group Areas Acts would not have been necessary, because there would not have been race groups. Since 1948 the NP Government has legally formulated measures and customs of separate development and has concerted its policy of apartheid. Despite the slow progress that has been made under the new constitutional dispensation, our system can only be described as a partial democracy which has been built on the segmentation of the population on the basis of race—a situation, needless to say, that enhances such conflict and tension as we are presently experiencing.

A clear distinction must be made between crimes in terms of racial discrimination and crimes of damage. I believe race cannot determine a person’s legal status, and in this regard I would like to quote from page 64 of the HSRC’s investigation into intergroup relations.

Yet, it is apparent that several race-related crimes take place in terms of the Population Registration Act. I wish to quote certain passages from The Star of 22 February 1988:

Order! I regret to interrupt, but the hon member’s time has expired.

Mr Chairman, I rise merely to give the hon member an opportunity to complete his speech.

Mr Chairman, I thank the hon member for Swartland.

I quote further:

It goes further to say:

Sir, one can just believe how humiliating it must be.

If law is to regulate conflicts in society it must be in a just manner. Therefore we must look at the administration of this justice in terms of our legislation.

After all, the hon the Minister and myself and also all other hon members are legislators, as well as public representatives. The public look up to us to administer all laws in a just and equitable manner. Human rights in international law, inter alia, the European Convention of Human Rights of 1950 and the American Convention of Human Rights of 1970, include the basic ideas of the well-known universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948. The basic aspects of this declaration are today accepted as rules of international common law. One of the rules is the prohibition of racial discrimination.

In conclusion, may I sincerely appeal to the hon the Minister, whom I believe is a Christian and a democrat—we heard from the document he quoted that we strive to live by Christian views of life, as well as by democratic doctrines—to do everything in his power, in conjunction with his department and his hon colleagues in the Cabinet, to remove this Draconian law, viz the Population Registration Act, from our Statute Books.

Mr Chairman, I should like to associate myself this afternoon with the good wishes and the congratulations which the hon member for Rust ter Vaal extended to our Moslem friends and their families. I want to wish them every happiness and success. I hope that everything they experience now and in the future will be wonderful, lovely and most praiseworthy.

It is significant that the hon the Minister addressed the same aspect to which I want to refer this afternoon, viz publication control. That is the main theme of debate in South Africa these days, and I should like to confine myself to it in the short time at my disposal. I am not going to talk about newspapers per se, however, but about books, photographs, videos and films.

As we all know, publication control is a sensitive affair. I want to make bold this afternoon to say that I do not think it is by any means an easy task for the authorities to apply the measures which have been instituted in this regard in order to protect the country’s citizens against these things which can break down moral values. I do not believe it is easy to ban publications—publications which, according to the Government, disturb peace and order—without making inroads into people’s rights to read, to listen and to see things on which they themselves will have to pass judgement. The critics of the Publications Control Board simply cannot accept that the State has “arrogated” itself the right to be the only guardian of the moral values of its people in South Africa. It is also the point of departure of all right-minded people that the State is not the only protector of peace and good order amongst the people in our country. We believe too that there can be no doubt that our churches, schools, parents and various communities should all be involved in the preservation of our public morals and also in the preservation and maintenance of peace and good order in this beautiful country of ours.

I feel that every society should be allowed to project its own inherent balance of values, and I should like to state here that I believe that the critics of these measures have quite a strong case as regards their view that the State has no right to impose upon everyone the values defined in the Publications Act.

I believe we have intelligent people in South Africa. We have people who know their values and their rights, and so I feel we should not be overprotective. I have said this many times in the past, and I want to emphasise it here today: I believe that we in South Africa are overregulated. Honestly, we do not need the Publications Act.

Let us look at what is happening now. Our people are streaming across the borders of South Africa to independent states like Bophuthatswana, Transkei, Ciskei, Lesotho and Swaziland where they unashamedly go and see those things which they may not see in South Africa, and take delight in seeing them. People no longer even have to drive very far to go and see the things that have been banned in South Africa. The Manila Sun is a mere 20 minutes’ drive from Pretoria. It takes less than two hours by car to get from Johannesburg to Sun City. The Thaba Nchu Sun is a mere 35 minutes’ drive from Bloemfontein. The Wild Coast Sun is a mere two hours’ drive from Durban. The Amatola Sun is virtually in East London’s backyard.

You go to those places often, eh?

All those places are within driving distance of the big centres in South Africa. If one were to go to these places over a weekend one would be shocked to see which people visit these places. It is significant that the inhabitants of these areas no longer worry about these places. We South Africans are the ones who go there. I am ashamed to say so, but we, the people who wear the white collars and ties, the leaders in the church, are first in the queue to go and see these things—things which have been banned. Then they say we are protecting the reasonable man! [Interjections.]

Order! Let us give the hon member the opportunity to proceed with his speech.

I have already spoken about the theatres. At the bookstalls too, one often finds the people looking through the books on the shelves. [Interjections.] One would be surprised to see which people go through those books.

Order! The hon member for Robertson should allow the hon member for Southern Free State to deliver his own speech. The hon member may continue.

Some of these people disguise themselves. I heard from a priest of my church recently that when he was overseas in Soho in London he also visited one of these places. When he tried to slip away from the theatre unnoticed, he walked into one of his fellow churchmen who had apparently also been attending a conference there. He asked his fellow churchman: “Say brother, are you here too?” The other replied: “No, I came to see if you were here!” [Interjections.]

We have been prohibited from seeing these things here, and that is why we drive far to see them. At the end of August the Miss Nude competition is again going to be held in Maseru. Sir, I want to invite you to go and see—you do not have to go inside—who the people are who support this competition.

Take the Chairman with you!

Hon members should go and see the people who are at the front of the queue.

Order! Which hon member made that remark?

Mr Chairman, I said, “Take the Chairman with you.”

Order! What was the hon member implying?

Simply that they should take you with them, Sir. [Interjections.]

Order! Is that relevant? The hon member for Klipspruit West should please be careful of what he says. The hon member for Southern Free State …

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: I do no believe there is anything wrong …

Order! Will the hon member please take his seat? Unfortunately the hon member for Southern Free State’s time has expired.

Mr Chairman, I rise merely to afford the hon member the opportunity to complete his speech.

Sir, the question of the composition of the Appeal Board is also cause for concern. In my opinion there are definitely too few Coloureds serving on the Appeal Board, and I am making a fervent appeal to the hon the Minister to see whether more Coloureds cannot be appointed to the board in future in order to make its composition more balanced. That will result in the various communities having better representation on the Appeal Board. Attention can then also be given to matters which the White component may find offensive, but which may be completely acceptable for our people. We have to achieve a balance.

You will know, Sir, that some Black communities do not find it at all offensive that women walk around topless. The White component, however, finds that offensive. A restaurant in Hillbrow, at which we were being served by topless White waitresses, was raided recently. A major court case followed. I do not want to say much about it, Sir, but it is not offensive for some people. It does not give rise to any offence in certain Black communities. However, the Whites find that it does cause offence.

There is another aspect which is a cause for grave concern. How can the hon the Minister ensure that undesirable publications are not brought into this country and distributed here? There are no controlled boundaries between South Africa and the independent states. If someone were to return from the Thaba Nchu Sun and a video tape or publication which is regarded as undesirable were found in his possession, he would be prosecuted. He bought it legally there, but here it has been declared undesirable. That poor man is then prosecuted. In many cases, however, those people are not prosecuted, because the material is passed from one person to another until eventually someone who is completely innocent is trapped with it in his possession. The one who was actually responsible for bringing the material into the country is not prosecuted then, whereas someone who is innocent but who has the article in his possession is convicted.

I want to come back to the hon the Minister’s speech. In his speech the hon the Minister expressed his views on spontaneous theatre. It often happens that recital evenings and song evenings include the singing of freedom songs, and there are indeed people who abuse these opportunities. I want to say with all respect that many of our Black people today have no other platform on which to express their political aspirations. They then use these recital evenings and song evenings as an outlet valve for their pent-up emotions. Often people do not show any interest in such evenings, but as soon as they are prohibited the attention of the community is focused on them. Had they not been prohibited the community would not have shown any interest in them.

Years ago Gibson Khente staged a play in the Black residential areas. The play concerned the political system of that time. No one showed any interest in it and many people did not want to go and see it. As soon as the play was banned, however, the Blacks swarmed to the performances. I wonder if we are not sometimes responsible for our people’s showing unnecessary interest. I believe these things should be allowed, because that which is right and just will always win, regardless of what anyone says.

If we believe that South Africa is on the right path we need not fear anything that is said. We should hold on to what we have and we should strive for that which is right and just. I believe that we are on the right path of reform and if we continue to give the reform movement in South Africa momentum, we need not fear anything or anyone.

There will be a bit of upheaval here and there, but that will not be important. I do not want to find fault with the order and discipline in our country, because those two aspects are very important, but I believe that we shall benefit more if we give the reform movement greater momentum and build upon it than if we allow small things to frighten us off or prohibit people from going to see things which they can see at other places in any case.

Mr Chairman, it is a pleasure for me to participate in the discussion on this Budget Vote. First of all, I note that there has been a decrease of R179 000 in the budget for the current financial year. The budget makes provision for inter alia the 1991 census, purchases for the Government Printer and the establishment of the Chief Directorate: Media Relations. These steps are to be welcomed.

I want to address the question of elections and I want to confine myself in particular to the voters’ roll that is so mixed-up. We discovered that in the recent by-elections when we went to look for people at addresses at which they no longer stayed. We often found that the people were either no longer living or that they had moved house. I want to begin by mentioning a figure which I think is no longer correct. The figures in respect of the House of Representatives are as follows: In the Cape Province we have 1 429 931 voters; in Natal 66 358; in the Orange Free Sate 31 456 and in Transvaal 161 482.

The department is doing outstanding work with regard to new registrations, but it does mean that this voters’ roll is only supplemented and that deaths and changes of address—in the case of people who move house or who move from one constituency to another—are not taken into account. The voters from one constituency appear on the roll of another constituency. The hon the Minister will agree with me that it is far more expensive and difficult during an election campaign to look for people at an address when they are no longer staying there. One also has to take into account how much time is lost in the process. For this reason I am making a serious and urgent appeal to the hon the Minister today to get the entire voters’ roll up to date before the next general election.

I should like to compliment the hon the Minister and his department on the new identity documents being issued by the department. They are bringing us a little closer to true citizenship of our beautiful country, South Africa. Still, I want to ask the hon the Minister whether these documents cannot be issued more expeditiously. In some cases people are still encountering problems with the issue of these documents.

Talking about identity documents, I cannot pass up this opportunity to talk about those people who enjoy higher status than I enjoy in the country of my birth—the immigrants. I have already referred to this in a previous debate, but it seems that the situation has remained the same. I understand the position of the professional people who immigrate to South Africa, but we do not regard those ordinary people who come here and try to push aside and take the place of the people who were born here, as citizens of this country, our own country. During last year a total of 7 953 people settled in South Africa as approved immigrants. I should like to know with which norms an approved immigrant has to comply.

I should like to take this further, but I have to conclude now because I have to get to the airport. For this reason I should like to apologise to the hon the Minister for not being here when he delivers his reply.

Mr Chairman, in the first place I wish to quote the department’s purpose from its annual report. This purpose is:

This immediately brings us to a story in Oorsig of 1 April 1988. On page 51 read the following tale:

I read further:

Hon members must listen carefully now—

[Interjections.] Sir, I should like the hon the Minister to tell me whether he has received an application from this foundation for territory where they are to establish this “Afrikanervolkstaat”. It does say “buiteparlementêr” and “afgesonder van die Republiek van Suid-Afrika”.

I want to speak honestly now. History teaches us splendidly that the Afrikaner people have always been a rebellious nation. In the nineteenth century, when they did not want to submit to the government of the Cape Colony, they moved away; this was how the Great Trek started. Now Prof Carel Boshoff is involved in a new trek. We do not know where they intend trekking to now.

To the Kalahari.

It will depend on Prof Boshoff to which area they trek. I believe there is no place in South Africa for such a “volkstaat”. [Interjections.]

I want to add, Sir, that after all South Africa is a Christian state. Specifically for this reason I want to quote from a book by John Gladwin with the title of God’s People in God’s World. [Interjections.] I read in this:

[Interjections.] That first part, namely “Sometimes salt stings when it touches the wounds of corruption”, forces a person to ask whether that is not why Prof Carel Boshoff and his Afrikaner people are so eager to leave the country. It hurts them to see that we are all trying to become true South Africans now. [Interjections.]

Sir, I now get to the major section of my speech. It is related to the annual report of the Department of Home Affairs. I want to discuss staff development first of all. We see on page 6 that staff were granted bursaries for in-service training. I should like the hon the Minister to tell me how many bursaries were granted to persons of colour and also how many such persons were promoted after they had used those bursaries and qualified themselves for those posts.

When I reach page 11 where civic affairs are discussed—civic affairs are very important here—I see that 7 332 people were naturalised. I should very much like to know how many of these people who applied for naturalisation were people of colour and whether their applications were accepted.

Population group identification is dealt with on page 13—the hon member for Rust Ter Vaal referred to this too. I really think we are discrediting our country here. It is a ridiculous affair. It is said here that a total of 1 356 people were reclassified. I should like to know whether these 1 356 people changed colour in any way; if not, I want to know what yardstick is used for reclassification. Why does the NP Government use this Department of Home Affairs as a machine to manufacture racial classification as it were? This is a machine. One throws a White in at one end and a non-White emerges at the other end. If one throws in a Black, a Griqua emerges. According to the list on page 13 this is what happens; it is merely a machine. What leaves me totally dumbfounded, however, is that the Department of Home Affairs also has to manufacture Chinese here in South Africa! Yes, Chinese are also mentioned here. I want to know whether this department obtained permission from China and received the necessary ingredients and raw materials to manufacture Chinese. I should very much like to know this.

If we go through the reclassification list, we note one missing entry. Hon members could well read the list on page 13. One important entry is missing; that race machine did not produce South Africans. No South Africans were produced! That is strange because we in this country should all be South Africans.

I shall quote from John Gladwin’s book again. On page 133 it says:

A person can change that, but to change people’s colour or race is meaningless. It means absolutely nothing.

I now reach the classification of deaths in this report. On page 14 I read in paragraph 4.3 (c) that 112 825 deaths were registered. On page 16, paragraph 4.5 (d), I see that 23 163 death certificates were issued.

On page 18 I read in paragraph 4.15 that 268 344 deaths were registered. These three different figures confuse me somewhat; I do not quite understand what is going on here. Perhaps the hon the Minister could explain this to me.

Order! I regret to say that the hon member’s time has expired.

Mr Chairman, I rise merely to afford the hon member the opportunity of using the time allocated to him.

I thank the hon Whip.

I now get to migration, which was also dealt with by the hon member for Retreat. On page 23, paragraph B, which deals with visitors requiring visas, 172 stateless persons are indicated as having entered the country. I should like the hon the Minister to tell me how a person is declared stateless and where such a person was born.

Paragraph 5.1 on page 26 deals with illegal sojourn. I should like to know how many people are in the country illegally. How many of those people are of White descent?

On page 32 we read that the country lost 2 019 economically active persons over the past year. On page 36, paragraph 7.1, one finds the following:

I now come to immigrants who entered the country to work here. It is stated on page 36 that work permits were issued to contract workers. What type of contract workers? According to statistics on page 37, paragraphs 7.2 (a) and (b), 9 858 work permits were issued to aliens. [Interjections.] Next I read in paragraph 3.3.2.1. on page 43 of the National Manpower Commission’s annual report that a total of 124 309 unemployed were registered in South Africa at the end of November 1987. My question is whether not one of the 124 309 unemployed could have filled the posts allocated to the 9 858 aliens. [Interjections.]

I now come to The Argus of 17 May 1988. It reported that many South African Airways pilots were leaving this country to assume posts in the East where they receive salaries one and a half times greater than those they earn locally.

I am able to state proudly that South African pilots are among the best and the most highly trained in the world. [Interjections.] Now we are losing these capable people to positions overseas.

Why is this happening? It is because these people are not remunerated in accordance with their ability. Why can they not be remunerated adequately for their services? It is because South Africa is paying too high a price for apartheid. Apartheid demands money; it demands a great deal of money. Now the country is faced with the brain drain in which people go overseas to earn money. Whom do we import? [Interjections.]

In conclusion, Sir, other countries frequently criticise South Africa for its internal policy. In this regard I want to quote again from John Gladwin’s book, p 86:

The time has come …

Read that again. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member for Robertson must please come to order and confine his attention to the debate. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, with reference to the quotation, I want to point out that the NP Government should now start to realise that it cannot retain apartheid legislation in the Statute Book for the sake of a handful of Whites who are too lazy or too weak to make the grade themselves and have to be protected by an apartheid structure. Over the past 40 years we as non-Whites have not had opportunities equal to those of the Whites who have been protected by these laws, and if they cannot make the grade yet, they are the outcasts of the country.

I want to quote further from page 178 of the book.

Order! I regret to inform the hon member that his time has expired.

Mr Chairman, I rise merely to afford the hon member the opportunity of using the time allocated to him.

I thank the hon member. I shall quote further:

If a handful of Whites still require the crutches of apartheid to keep them erect and to protect their position, I do not see why we have to pay taxes to perpetuate this. [Interjections.] It need not be like this. [Interjections.] We do not want to live among the Whites. We do not want their women. I can quote from the Annual Report of the Department of Home Affairs again. It says on page 17:

We therefore do not want the Whites’ women. [Interjections.] The reverse is more likely. [Interjections.]

Order! The debate cannot proceed if hon members carry on like this. The hon member may proceed.

Mr Chairman, all I ask is that we should have the same opportunities as the Whites in this country. As citizens of South Africa we shall uphold the name of this country together with the Whites. The hon the Minister of Home Affairs has been entrusted with the task of solving this problem internally and I want to tell him to solve it internally. Give us equal opportunities, because then we can say to foreign countries with justification: “We challenge you to accord all your citizens equal opportunities too.” We know that racial discrimination also occurs in other countries, but the accusing finger is pointed only at us. [Interjections.] This is simply because we have apartheid legislation. [Interjections.] Abolish it. Give us equal opportunities; then this country will be the promised land in comparison with the rest of the world.

Mr Chairman, permit me first of all to thank hon members sincerely for their sturdy contributions to the debate. I can say without any hesitation that they were good contributions. Obviously I cannot associate myself with all the sentiments expressed, but I am convinced of the honesty and goodwill which emanated from every hon member who addressed this House. I thank hon members for all the positive messages. They are truly encouraging and I thank hon members once again for their attitude.

Mr Chairman, permit me to wish all Muslims the very best on the occasion of this important day in their religious calendar. May they receive all the blessings for which they hope and for which they have attuned and prepared themselves for the past month.

I want to start at the beginning. The hon member for Rust Ter Vaal informed me that he could not be here now. He referred in particular to media regulations. The hon member for Haarlem also concentrated on this subject. I know that he is very busy in a standing committee at this moment. If I had not been here, I should have been with the hon member. The hon member for North Eastern Cape also indicated that he could not be here.

I should like to refer hon members to the media emergency regulations and tell them that these regulations apply only to particular matters. This is mentioned specifically in the special Government Gazette in which the measures were announced. Certain specific actions are mentioned and explained and the emergency regulations apply exclusively to these actions. The multitude of laws which affect each of us, as well as the media, make no provision whatsoever for eventualities which the Government wants to curb with these measures. These emergency regulations are nevertheless applicable to all newspapers in the country and definitely not only to community newspapers. If any of the other newspapers contravene these regulations—to which I shall refer briefly in a while—if Die Burger is guilty of this, for instance, I shall not hesitate for a moment to take steps against them too. I therefore want to state clearly that it was no arbitrary action which compelled me to take steps against the newspapers against which I took action. I definitely did not select a specific group of newspapers against which to act either. These regulations apply to all newspapers in the country. I want to attempt to give reasons in brief as to why the emergency regulations were imposed in respect of newspapers.

The intention was actually to stem propaganda aimed at the overthrow of a state—not a government or a political party, but the structure of a state, and this includes the economy of that country as well as its constitutional and social dispensation—by means of violence. These regulations do not apply to ordinary criticism which anybody may level at the Government. The Cape Times and The Argus lash out at the Government every day; we all know this.

That is right.

That is right and proper because we need it. Every state needs it. Hon members of this House are also criticised from time to time and it is a good thing that this should happen. I know that hon members do not object to this. The point I want to make is that the regulations and actions concerned were not imposed to eliminate such criticism. I cannot take steps against newspapers because they remain within the limits of criticism which does not incite or inflame people to revolution. Hon members of this House are informed representatives of this Parliament and some speakers referred to the freedom of the Press this afternoon too. We are all in agreement that the Press should be as free as necessary for the security of the State, as well as for its economic and social structures.

Some newspapers are now asserting that it is merely criticism which has compelled me to act against them in my capacity as the Minister of Home Affairs. That is definitely not so. The question I want to ask hon members and critics of the Government in this regard is whether the Government should simply permit certain publications to fan the flames of hatred, fear, intimidation, murder, mutilation and other evils in the name of democracy. This is what we object to. I shall now refer to one of these regulations.

†Mr Chairman, this regulation specifically determines which actions will elicit a response from me. If a series of articles is published—not only one article, but a series of articles—which promotes or fans revolution in the Republic, or if there are other acts aimed at the overthrow of the Government otherwise than by constitutional means, they will elicit response from me. The point I want to stress is that a publication can propagate the overthrow of the government in any constitutional manner it wants, but not in an unconstitutional and violent manner. That is what we object to.

Let me take another example. If a series of articles stirs up or ferments feelings of hatred or hostility among members of the public towards a security force or towards members or employees of a local authority, or members of a security force, or towards members of any population group or section of the public, in other words if it stirs up this feeling of enmity between people— not the usual sort of criticism, but an active sort of criticism—we would object to it and would want to eliminate it.

*Editors of newspapers have addressed a letter to me now and it has been published in newspapers. By the way, I have not received the letter from them yet; I have also merely read about it in the papers. They contend that the temporary suspension of the publication of newspapers to which the emergency measures apply is assisting the revolution because it is inciting those who think they have a valid standpoint which is being silenced, to resistance.

No, that is not true!

That is what they say and that is what hon members sometimes think too—that we want to silence them—but this is not so. We do not want to do this! We merely want to prevent them from becoming part of the revolution. The pen is just as mighty as the sword.

Even mightier!

Right, even mightier, Mr Chairman, and that is what forces me to act! Let me add that if the suppression of these papers were to lead to clandestine resistance, the Government would have to act against that too, because any government worth its salt must ensure that law and order are maintained. Hon members quite rightly commented here this afternoon—I found this very positive—that we should look ahead and proceed with our reform, but that we could not bring about reform if we did not have stability and peace as well.

Hear, hear!

It is not pleasant to act like this, but the Government will not hesitate to do so in order to ensure that hon members of this House and hon members of the other Houses and all the other people in South Africa who strive for prosperity and peace have the opportunity of being able to do so; that they have the opportunity of sitting around a table and talking to one another. That is why I shall not hesitate to take steps against those little papers which want to prevent this and encourage atrocities. [Interjections.]

This type of propagandist reporting is nothing new. I think it was 2 500 years ago that Tsung Tsu, a Chinese—this was perhaps one of the people the hon member for Hawston spoke about—pointed out these methods of subversion. They still apply today and include things like the following—and I want hon members to listen carefully to this: Casting suspicion on leaders, disrupting and impeding government activity, encouraging a condition of ungovernability and undermining discipline, especially in the security forces.

These are the same things on which the ANC and the SACP are intent in South Africa today. The primary purpose of revolutionaries in this country is to gain support which may be useful on the way to their ultimate goal. Their ultimate goal is the violent overthrow of the current dispensation in South Africa and its replacement by a Marxist system. In their efforts to accomplish this, they require publicity for their ideology and actions. They require publicity—especially as regard acts of terror. I am thinking of the planting of car bombs, hurling of hand grenades into private dwellings—especially those of law enforcement officers—and of similar deeds of which hon members are aware. This also applies to leaders in Government. Hon members themselves know that sharp vigilance is required here too.

Those revolutionaries require henchmen in this process. So-called “media terrorists” are in a position to provide these revolutionaries’ cause with publicity. They do this in two ways: By proclaiming the revolutionary message and by providing deeds of terror with publicity. It is common knowledge worldwide that certain members of the media are frequently informed in advance of planned acts of terror, such as the explosion of bombs, so that they may be given the greatest possible degree of publicity.

†I want to take the matter a step further. Sir, have hon members noticed that certain newspapers present terrorists as “freedom fighters” or “guerillas”, rather than as perpetrators of political violence seeking publicity? Do hon members find that revolutionaries are presented in a variety of ways aimed at promoting their acceptance by the public? Do they find that people are sometimes indoctrinated in favour of the communist ideology—without all its real implications being spelt out? Sir, since we want to have a clear understanding of what is going on in the country, I want to put more of these questions to hon members. Do they find that fear and anxiety have increased as a result of the fact that incidents of intimidation have been given special publicity by newspapers? Do they find that, in certain newspapers, there are recurrent allegations—sometimes put subtly and sometimes blatantly—carrying the false message that the days of the established order in South Africa are numbered, or that the country is succumbing to the violent onslaught of the ANC?

Those hon members who have noticed these things have a good understanding of the nature and extent of the part played by the alternative revolutionary Press in the onslaught that is being made on the established order and the community in South Africa. If they understand this, the reasons for the action taken by the Government to combat such revolutionary propaganda must also be evident to them. If hon members do not notice this, are they themselves not perhaps victims of the kind of propaganda I have described?

The Government’s resistance to this revolutionary propaganda must not be misconstrued. Certain elements within and outside the Press try to create the impression that a situation has developed in which the Government and the newspapers in general are in a state of conflict with one another.

That is not the case. The Government is not in conflict with newspapers which accept the existing order in South Africa, but we are convinced that it should be reformed peaceably. The Government itself is engaged in reform and, as hon members know, much has been accomplished. This is even being acknowledged abroad.

Just speed up the reform process.

That is what hon members can talk to us about. We must talk about it every day and do something about it. We are doing it, but in the meantime we must be afforded the opportunity to be able to talk.

There is no fundamental dispute between the Government and those newspapers which are committed to a better South Africa through the process of constitutional reform. There are certainly differences of opinion about methods and details, but the responsible attainment of the final objective is what the political debate is about today. It does not concern only the Government and the Press, but also the Government and the other political parties in the country.

I was struck by the sincerity exhibited by each and every hon member who participated in this debate this afternoon. They are sincere in wanting a stable, happy and free South Africa and that is what we should all aspire to. The Government has committed itself to that.

We should not allow ourselves to be misled by revolutionary propaganda. It is the duty of all of us, particularly those in Parliament, to be alert so that our judgement does not become clouded. We should be on our guard against those whose aim it is to create confusion and doubt about that which we believe to be in the best interests of our country.

*The hon member for Rust Ter Vaal put various questions to me on the institution of these media regulations. It is the Government’s desire that these emergency regulations be lifted as speedily as possible but the Government cannot and will not lift the measures while they are still regarded as essential. A question was put about people on the other side of the political spectrum in our country who make use of pigs’ heads in trying to state a point. The Government does not hesitate to act against this either. The SAP conducted an expert investigation into the matter and people have been prosecuted. The case will be tried soon and then we shall hear what the true facts are.

The hon member for Haarlem is not here at the moment, but I should like to say that he spoke very responsibly. He obviously has clear, definite standpoints with which I cannot agree, but he spoke responsibly and I thank him for the calm, well-argued speech he made. He said inter alia that he believed in absolute freedom of the Press.

†With respect, I do not think that is correct. I do not think it is accepted anywhere in the world that the Press should have absolute freedom. That is not the case. At times we have to limit certain actions on the part of the Press and we shall do so.

He also said that apartheid was bad. The Government has committed itself to eliminating the apartheid that we have experienced in the past and everything else that is discriminatory.

We have been doing so. I have been here in this House and together with hon members sitting here we have removed discriminatory legislation. We will continue doing so in a responsible manner and hon members must give credit where credit is due. Hon members must work on that legislation which they believe is not proper for our country in this stage of our development, but hon members must do so in a responsible manner, in that they must put their case on merit and come to sit around the table to talk about these things.

Why did the NP ban the mayor of Durban?

The hon member is referring to the mayor of Durban. The hon member knows that any party must have discipline and the hon member showed excellent discipline this afternoon when the Chair called on him and he stopped playing the fool. So, he showed good discipline … [Interjections.] Therefore, what I did with the mayor of Durban is a matter of party discipline. I will not interfere with the hon member’s party discipline, because I know that they also have party discipline.

Then a question was asked about the Weekly Mail. The hon member wanted to know whether I was going to ban it now. As I have indicated before, the decision is up to the editor of the Weekly Mail, because there are specific prohibitions in regard to propaganda which a newspaper may publish. If the editors decide to continue publishing the matter which is referred to in this document they have taken the decision in their own hands. I hope sincerely that it will not be necessary for me to take further action in this regard.

*The hon member for Retreat referred to identity documents and I want to furnish him with the latest statistics.

†Since the issuing of identity documents similar to the document which had been issued previously to the other population groups commenced, 6,5 million applications have been received from Blacks. This is a fair number. We believe that the total number to be issued will be 11,6 million. So, about 56% have already applied in a matter of about 18 months, which is quite good progress.

The hon member referred to wrong dates of birth. I can say that the particulars that had been obtained in the past about dates of birth proved not to be correct in all cases and now, where a much stricter control is being applied, some of the people are not quite sure what their date of birth is and they, of course, have to obtain the best possible evidence in regard to the correct birthdates. That caused, at a particular time, some mistakes to be made.

I can assure hon members that the process has been put right; and to the best ability of the department, the particulars are now correlated and checked, and we expect no further problems in future. We have really tried to streamline the application, processing and issuing of these identity books to the best of our ability, and I may say that this section of the department is now being run like a well-oiled machine. Hopefully we will process more applications in the course of time.

The hon member also referred to racial discrimination in legislation. I want to say categorically that I cannot defend anything that supports racial discrimination. There is racial differentiation, but racial discrimination is something I most certainly do not want to defend, and nor does the Government. The process is thus an ongoing process of identifying the issues with regard to which racial discrimination serves absolutely no purpose. We have the Population Registration Act. I know exactly how hon members feel about that. We debated the issue in a private member’s motion here and I respect hon members’ feelings about it. Although the individual right is indeed a fact, the group right is also a fact. It is a fact of life and the group must, therefore, also be identified.

How does one identify the group? That is something which hon members and the Government will discuss in time to come. If there are better methods of identifying the individual and the group, the discussion must proceed. I want to assure hon members, however, that my department, in its application of the laws it has to administer, always endeavours to ignore the fact of ethnicity or race. If discrimination is taking place, it is most certainly not worth the sanction of the Director-General.

*This brings me to the hon member for Southern Free State. I understand quite a number of hon members visited the Directorate of Publications. I thank them sincerely for this. The directorate appreciated this highly and I hope it also provided hon members with insight. I believe this happened.

Mr Chairman, I want to know from the hon the Minister whether a White man who marries a Coloured woman automatically becomes a Coloured person.

No, he remains a White man.

The provinces say something different.

So what about Arrie Paulus?

The hon member should really bring me the letter. It is probably a case of the implementation of the Group Areas Act, that is to say where that married couple may live. [Interjections.]

That is discrimination.

That is precisely why the Group Areas Act is being examined and this is what I told the hon member before too. I suspect that that letter refers to the implications of the Group Areas Act, that is to say where the couple may live. Nevertheless I invite the hon member to send the letter to me and I should like to look at it.

The hon member for Southern Free State spoke most expertly on publications control. I thank him sincerely for his interest in this extremely important matter. I agree that this body is very definitely not the only guardian of people’s morals. A significant part is played by the church, parents and the community, as I explained earlier.

The hon member for Southern Free State is not here now … Oh, there he is. The hon member complained so much about people who go to casinos over the border. I want to ask the hon member tongue in cheek whether he would prefer us to go to casinos in our own country. [Interjections.] I shall not insist on a reply now, because the hon member may get into trouble at home if he answers me on this. I thank the hon member for his contribution, however. The hon member indicated very clearly that we did have a future, but we were not to concern ourselves with trifles. I also wish to add that we should not allow ourselves to be frightened to death. If we keep to the straight and narrow way and if we do the right things, we shall reach the other side together. We shall succeed.

The hon member referred to people of colour in the structure of the Appeal Board. I want to say that since I have been the Minister of Home Affairs, I have appointed people of colour to the Appeal Board and to committees on the advice of the Ministers’ Council. Dr Coetzee, who heads the directorate and is sitting here, has sent me a note. To be appointed to committees, people have to reply to advertisements which we send out. I then appoint them to the various committees on a two-year basis. Thirteen Coloureds applied in the most recent group and seven of the 13 were found to be eminently suitable. They were appointed to those committees. Hon members should make recommendations and advise their people to apply for these posts. We could then appoint more people. It is also a process of becoming accustomed to what is required and so on. I agree with the hon member that one requires a diversity of people. We should like to do it like this. We have appointed Blacks to the Appeal Board as well now.

[Inaudible.]

I beg your pardon?

[Inaudible]

That is excellent. I think therefore that we are complying with what the hon member requested.

The problem of improper magazines which come over the border can be controlled by the customs officers there. They stop many people, but obviously cannot search all luggage; they sometimes search suitcases. The man whom the hon member regards as innocent, who has that thing in his possession, is not innocent. He knows exactly what he has there and he is very guilty too. If he is punished for that, it will do him no harm.

I have a problem with people from Bophuthatswana …

Order!

The hon member for Northern Cape—who is not here at present—requested inter alia that voters’ rolls be brought up to date. I may mention in this regard that we are involved in doing this. I do want to mention that change of address is very important. As there are to be municipal elections in October, the department has come across an interesting phenomenon: Since 2 January till recently, 13 May, more than 225 000 changes of address have been received; these are from Whites, Coloureds and Indians.

This indicates an average of 51 100 changes of address per month; this is a 70% improvement on the previous year’s figures. It seems to me that one should hold an election to encourage people to report changes of address. Hon members can also furnish a very important service, however, by encouraging people to report their changes of address.

As regards identity documents, I may mention that 90,4% of all Coloureds who are entitled to identity documents have them. This is an excellent figure and a splendid achievement. The great problem concerning voters’ rolls is that people neglect to report their changes of address. Hon members here also serve on the joint committee which I appointed to change the Electoral Act. I hope that hon members will soon come up with proposals on which method we may follow for the better organisation of the question of changes of address than is the case at present.

The hon member for Hawston always does his homework very well. When he rises, I am concerned, because he goes through the annual report from cover to cover and catches me out time and again. He put 10 questions to me which I cannot answer. I shall have to do my homework first too and then reply to him in writing. Nevertheless the hon member stated his standpoint very well, although I cannot agree with everything he said. I feel rather uncomfortable about some of his questions but I shall see that I write him a satisfactory letter. [Interjections.]

The hon member scolded me about our pilots who are leaving the country, but I am not the Minister of Transport Affairs. He should scold him about that. The hon member wanted to charge at me with everything at his disposal. [Interjections.]

The hon member also mentioned another truth. It comes down to the fact that we Whites cannot make the grade alone and he is quite right. We cannot make the grade alone and this Government has never claimed that we can. That is why we changed the Constitution and why hon members are sitting here today. They must help us now, however, and not torpedo us. We cannot make the grade alone and that is why we have to move forward step by step without blackmailing, frightening or angering one another, to tackle the huge task together. We must look only at realities. It is also very important that people exhibit mutual regard and respect. We must also have confidence in one another in the full knowledge that we are all South Africans through and through and that we should all like to succeed. [Interjections.] We must not hesitate to track down and eliminate the creepy crawlies between us, because they are hampering us. I thank the hon member for the very positive contribution which he made. He concluded the debate in a very suitable vein and it was a great privilege for me to appear in this House.

Debate concluded.

Mr Chairman, it must be said, first of all, that the Labour Relations Act is one of the finest pieces of legislation to be found anywhere in that it has succeeded to a large extent in finding a balance between the rights of employers and employees. The Act is also non-political and non-discriminatory insofar as race or sex is concerned.

These principles were uppermost in our minds when the standing committee considered the amendments to the Act. There appear to have been vast misconceptions with regard to what the amendments entail, and the perception has been created that the Bill was a retrogressive step with regard to labour relations. This can largely be ascribed to the fact that the organisations which commented publicly were commenting on the Bill as it was originally published. Since then the standing committee has considered written representations from a large number of employers and employer organisations and trade unions and listened to oral evidence from, amongst others, the Bar Council, Cosatu, the Chamber of Mines, the Manpower Commission and the Industrial Court.

The standing committee went to great lengths and spent a considerable time in considering the reservations expressed and the suggestions of further amendments. The end result is that the Bill before the House has been substantially amended and is an improvement on the original draft. Some of the improvements in the present Act are as follows: The establishment of conciliation boards has been streamlined. Whereas applications previously had to be channeled through the Minister, a board can now be established by an inspector, and he has to establish such a board as the applicant’s right. The procedures applicable to the settlement of disputes by industrial councils are now more closely aligned with those of conciliation boards. Unfair labour practices have been written into the Act and are largely based on precedents of the industrial court. This does not preclude any party from seeking redress from the industrial court, should they feel aggrieved.

Both employers and employees can now claim damages for losses suffered through illegal strikes or illegal lock-outs. Section 17(ll)(a) has been retained and this will enable the industrial court to grant interim relief pending an order made under section 43(4).

A labour appeal court was established, which will deal with questions of law referred to it by the industrial court or any one of the parties. The industrial court is empowered to make interim orders, pending an appeal, and can for example order reinstatement, pending the decision of the labour appeal court. There is therefore no doubt that the Bill is in the interest of both employees and employers and also in the interest of the country’s economy. This side of the House therefore supports the Bill.

Mr Chairman, the Bill before us is surely one of the Bills which has received most publicity since it was first published in December 1986. During 1987 an amending Bill was published and forwarded to us on the standing committee. Members of the standing committee had long, tiring hours from 9 am till 7 pm for two weeks in Pretoria, listening to arguments for and against. The Bar Council, Cosatu, the Chamber of Mines and many others argued before the standing committee to effect more and more amendments. This the standing committee did. In fact, we effected about 113 amendments to the Bill originally published. Surely—this is what I personally think—this speaks for itself as far as the changes to the original draft are concerned.

Some aspects of the Bill constitute a definite improvement on the present Act and I would say this is long overdue in a country like South Africa. A conciliation board can now be established by an inspector, instead of going through the uncertainty and delays that resulted when such applications were channeled to the hon the Minister. The application for a conciliation board now has to be lodged within 21 days of notifying the other parties of a dispute and within 90 days from the date on which the dispute arose, once an application is lodged for the establishment of such a board. The procedures for settlement of disputes by the industrial council are now more closely aligned to those applicable to the conciliation boards. The prohibition, which was to prevent an industrial council from dealing with a dispute similar to the one which existed during the previous 15 months, has been dropped.

No longer will Section 17(ll)(a) of the present Act be repealed. It enables the Industrial Council to act as a court of law and hear urgent applications. The industrial court is still able to grant interim relief, pending an order made in terms of Section 43 (4). The establishment of the labour appeal court is a positive development. It will deal with questions of law referred to it by the industrial court. In order to prevent any party from using the appeal court procedure to drag out disputes or to exhaust the other side, the Industrial Court is empowered to make interim orders pending the appeal.

Although farmworkers are not included in clause 2 of the Bill, there are already four Bills which affect farmworkers. I also want to appeal to the hon the Minister that further negotiations must take place in order to give them further relief. There was a lot of argument as to whether the schedule specifying unfair labour practices should be included in the Bill or left out, or whether the schedule should be an addendum to the Bill. After a lot of deliberation the standing committee agreed that it be part of the Bill.

A lot of criticism has come from the outside, saying this Bill is a sjambok with which to give trade unions a good hiding. I emphatically deny this as a total untruth. No trade union or employers’ union acting in a responsible manner has anything to fear about this Bill. There are enough provisions in the Bill to protect both trade and employers’ unions. The most important milestone of this Act is the stabilisation of labour relations in the country. Any employer or employers’ organization which in the past acted in an irresponsible manner, will find eventually that this Act stabilises rather than curbs labour relations. I want to conclude by saying that we on this side of the House support the Bill.

Mr Chairman, the legislation before the House today is of a highly sensitive nature and it is probably one of the most controversial Bills which will be tabled during this session of Parliament.

†It is so that on the one hand we are dealing with a majority Black population without representation in the echelon of government in this country. It is also true that by its very nature, this Black majority forms the bulk of our work force in both industry and mining. Under these circumstances it was to be expected that this work force would organize itself into unions and there is nothing wrong with that. Under our special circumstances, however, it is not unexpected that elements within these unions should use these vehicles for political expression also. Under normal circumstances the collective bargaining process between worker and management should largely be left to go its own way. No one, I believe, can dispute that the Bill before us today largely allows this to take place.

On the other hand, under South African circumstances as we know them, it would be foolhardy and naive to expect that the collective bargaining process would not be exploited for political gain. The State has a fundamental responsibility to provide the channels to ensure that the democratic rights of the workers, as well as their unions, are not unnecessary curtailed. It must also ensure that the rights of employers, as well as its own interests, are not jeopardised. That is the thin edge of the wedge. In debating this legislation, one must of necessity examine the reason for its introduction. One must examine the conflicting interests which are at work in the economic field, as well as the political elements exploiting the workplace. One cannot do justice to this legislation unless one takes a look at all these elements.

My hon colleagues have discussed various clauses. They have also explained today the many hours they have put into discussing and changing various provisions. It is so that the three-week National Union of Mineworkers’ strike last year was largely a failure and I take this as an example to motivate my case today.

This has been admitted by the NUM itself and it is interesting to note that this union maintains that in times of big co-ordinated strike actions, the private sector can rely on the help of what it sees as “allies”, such as financial institutions and obviously our security forces. It would seem as if the major mining unions had totally misread the depth of support for their cause among the major mining houses. They have forgotten that while they represent members’ interests, these mining houses represent the interests of people who have put a lot of money into their concern and who obviously expect a return on their money.

These largely liberal-minded private sector companies might have much sympathy with the unions’ objective to improve the socio-economic and even political position of its members, but they will not do so at the risk of affecting their own financial capabilities. After all, they have a fundamental responsibility to provide a fair return to their investors. It is also the case that Black political groupings will use the shop environment for their own political ends.

Analysts have identified one of the major factors in last year’s NUM strike, for example, as being a lack of unity and co-ordination. It is no wonder, then, that this year we have seen Cosatu launching its strategically refined living-wage campaign, a campaign which is underwritten with the best intentions in the world, but obviously there are also other hidden reasons.

With gold and coal amongst the State’s chief sources of income, it is to be expected that concerted efforts will be made in future to cripple the economy, and hence the State, in this regard. The legislation being considered by this House today clearly addresses the question of wild-cat or even sympathy strikes. This is an element which can be used by the unions to their own advantage if they desire a big co-ordinated strike.

Let us remember that last year’s strike took its toll on mining houses, and consequently also on the State. After all, Anglo American, for instance, reported drops in gold production from 3,9 million tons to 3 million tons. Gencor reported a 17% drop in total taxed profits for the September quarter during which the strike took place. If a bigger and better co-ordinated strike were to take place, it would—to my mind—have disastrous consequences for both the mining houses and the State.

While I believe there is much sympathy in this House for the trade union movement, one has to weigh this up against the responsibility towards the employers and the interests of the broader South African nation. In this regard it must be pointed out that the absolute definition of an unfair labour practice, as well as the special provision for redress if employers are wrongfully affected by strike action, goes a long way towards meeting the demands of both the worker and the employer. Only those—my hon colleague for Elsies River mentioned this earlier—who wish to use the union field for aims other than improving the work conditions and compensation of its workers will feel frustrated and angered by this legislation.

There has also been considerable pressure by foreign governments who do not want this legislation passed by this Parliament. These Western governments must ask themselves whether they would allow their workplace to be misused against the state, but also the interests of the employer.

I believe that this legislation takes us a step nearer to achieving the Wiehahn Commission’s objective of the labour relations system—the right to work, to association, to bargain collectively, to withhold labour, to protection and to development. Above all, however, it also protects the capitalist system.

Mr Chairman, as on previous occasions I want to say that it is a pleasure for me to be able to participate in the proceedings of the House of Representatives today. I want to begin by thanking the hon members who took part in this debate for their contributions. I want to thank them in particular for the high standard they maintained in their contributions. This attests to their having made a very intensive and in-depth study of the important legislation that is before us today.

†The hon member for Belhar said that as a result of certain comments that had been made, the impression was created that this legislation represented a step backwards. He went on to say that the Bill was improved substantially by the standing committee. I want to extend a word of hearty thanks to the members of the standing committee—especially to members of this House—for their contributions. They were aimed at the improvement of this specific piece of legislation. Sir, I think the standing committee system is a fantastic system. It enables us to make better laws in this country. There are also more opportunities for the public at large to make contributions in order to improve our legislation. I want to thank the members of the standing committee for the time which they spent on this Bill. I know they were under pressure, but they did their very best to bring this Bill before Parliament early in this session.

The hon member also mentioned the importance of the intended introduction of the Labour Appeal Court. I think this is a very important step forward. In my opinion there was really a great need for an appeal court to be established.

I come now to the hon member for Elsies River. He gave an interesting review of the history of the amendments. He also mentioned the excellent work done by the standing committee, about which I, of course, agree with him wholeheartedly. The hon member mentioned the question of farm workers. I can give him the assurance that the actions which we have undertaken together have my full support. I am sure we will be able to find a solution which is acceptable to all parties concerned.

The hon member made a very important remark by saying that this legislation was not being passed in order to give trade unions a hiding. When the original Bill was published, it received very favourable comment, especially from some of our English newspapers which hailed it as the most moderate piece of labour legislation in the world. Then, afterwards, people seemed to be making a deliberate attempt to present this Bill as legislation which is meant to curb trade union activities. They referred to it, for example, as the “Boss’s Act”. I am afraid that the impression was created that this was anti-union legislation. Unfortunately, at the time none of us was in a position to defend the Bill as it stood, seeing that it was a sub judice matter while the standing committee was deliberating on it. However, I think now that the Bill has been published, much of the resistance to the law will be cleared.

I also want to question the credibility and the intentions of certain foreign governments who went out of their way to present this Bill as an anti-union Bill. I think they want to use this to further their aims of destroying this country.

The hon member for Diamant mentioned the sensitivity of labour relations and the importance of handling these matters with great care. I agree with the hon member that there are individuals in certain trade unions—not all of them—who want to misuse the unions as a vehicle to serve their questionable political aims. We are watching that tendency carefully and I want to say openly that the task of a trade union is to involve itself in labour affairs and the labour matters of its members. They are not political parties. If those individuals want to play politics they can join one of the existing political parties in this country or establish their own political party, for that matter. They should not politicise labour matters in this country, however, because that is to the detriment of all our workers.

Despite the fact that I have many a time been attacked on political platforms on account of the Government’s labour policy, I constantly refuse to allow labour be drawn into a political debate in this country. If I allow that I shall not be serving the best interests of the workers in this country.

The hon member for Diamant also mentioned the importance of the mining industry to the country as a whole and to all its peoples. We have to be very careful how we deal with strikes in such an important industry as the mining industry in South Africa. There are only two primary industries in this country, viz agriculture and mining. Our country would not have been in the position in which it is today if it had not been for our mining industry. As the hon member rightly pointed out, there are two parties to this issue, viz the workers and the owners of the mines. One cannot favour the one party to the detriment of the other. It is a partnership between labour and capital and there must be a balance in the bargaining powers of both sides.

That is exactly what this amending Bill is all about. In my opinion this amending Bill is very fair and I am prepared to defend its fairness against anyone who opposes it anywhere in the world.

The hon member mentioned the question of an unfair labour practice as it is being addressed in this Bill. In my opinion this will bring greater certainty to employers as well as employees; it is a great step forward.

People allege that we are surrendering the principles laid down by the Wiehahn Commission. That is not true. This Bill is only a step forward in the direction of the principles that were pointed out by the Wiehahn Commission.

The time may come—maybe it will be next year—when we will have to amend this Act again. As we go along we identify the problem areas and we address those problem areas. So, we can again improve this piece of legislation.

What I want to say—this is a fact—is that I know of very few countries in the world, if any, whose labour relations legislation includes a clause that it is unfair labour practice to discriminate against anyone on account of colour, sex or religion. I think this is a challenge to many of the people who criticise us.

Another point I want to make is that certain gentlemen in the USA make it their job to discredit this country and promote boycotts against our country. It is a fact that the Labour Relations Act of South Africa—this can be tested in any court—gives more protection to our workers than the American laws give to their workers. It is much easier in the USA to discharge a worker than in South Africa, because our workers enjoy much better protection under our Labour Relations Act than workers in the USA do.

I want to conclude by thanking this House for the way in which hon members received me here this afternoon and for the contributions they made. I wish them luck.

Debate concluded.

Decision of Question postponed.

Mr Chairman, I move without notice:

Mr Chairman, I want to associate myself with the sentiments expressed.

I also want to add that when that unfortunate happening was taking place, the hon the Minister was responding to some unfair and totally unnecessary criticism which had been levelled against him. That scenario will always remain a mind picture for me.

Mr Chairman, on behalf of the Peoples Party of South Africa I also want to associate myself with the sentiments expressed by the hon the Chairman of the Ministers Council and the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition. From our side we also wish to extend our condolences to the hon the Minister and his family. We pray that the Almighty grants him the courage to bear this irreparable loss.

Mr Chairman, I crave your indulgence to take this opportunity on behalf of this House and also on behalf of the Administration: House of Delegates to wish all our Muslim members of this House and the Muslim citizens of this country a happy Eid.

We have made certain arrangements arising out of the fact that a large section of South Africa is celebrating Eid today. I also particularly want to mention that some members of the Muslim community of this House, in spite of the fact that it is Eid, are here to do their duty.

All religion has two aspects: religion in theory, and what I would describe as applied religion, namely service to humanity and service to society. Let us pray, on this very auspicious occasion, that the Almighty gives us all the wisdom and the courage to pilot not only this House, not only the affairs of the Indian community, but the affairs of the Southern African region, in such a manner that we shall have what the Lord wishes— brotherliness, goodwill, peace, stability and prosperity for all God’s children.

Hear, hear!