I move—

I am glad to see that the Minister of Lands and also the Minister of the Interior are present here this morning. They are the two people who lately have become the great champions of double-medium schools and they are the people who want to do away with single-medium schools. This matter comes under the Minister of Education.

No, it comes under the Provincial Council.

But it is an educational matter and I would have thought that if any Minister had to express an opinion about it it would be the Minister of Education. His opinion at any rate would have been of some value to us. I am sorry that in this enlightened 20th century we should have to propose a motion here this morning in order again to confirm the educational value of mother tongue education because that, at any rate so far as part of the United Party is concerned, and also so far as part of the Press is concerned, is being doubted, and not only in regard to education above Standard VI but also in regard to primary education. What has happened in regard to this matter has made it necessary for us to raise the matter in this House. We know that the United Party has since 1940 been sending numerous motions to its annual congresses. This matter has been brought to the notice of people attending those congresses, and I understand that at the back of it all is the fact that they have found that the youth of South Africa has Nationalist leanings. They have been looking for a reason why the youth is Nationalistically disposed, and the people attending the congresses eventually came to this conclusion—and that happened at the congresses in Natal and in the Cape—that it was the single-medium schools which are responsible for the fact that the youth in South Africa is Nationalistically minded. A violent campaign was thereupon inaugurated with a view to destroying single-medium schools. Last year we had a motion on the Order Paper in this House aiming at the destruction of single medium schools. Notice of that motion was given by the hon. member for Boksburg (Mr. Klopper) but that motion was never discussed. I understand, however, from the hon. member who gave notice of that motion, that their ideal is not double medium schools but what they call dual medium schools. What really is the difference between a double-medium school and a dual-medium school is something I have been unable to find out. Perhaps the hon. member will be able to explain to the House this morning what the difference between the two is. The Press of the United Party has taken it upon itself with “Die Suiderstem” at the spearhead—a paper of which the Minister of Lands is the Chief—to proceed with this matter, and that also has made it necessary for us to discuss this motion here this morning. “Die Suiderstem” has written about this subject not once, but it has repeatedly contained articles on this subject, to prove why single-medium schools should be destroyed. The United Party Press goes so far as to say that schools in which the children of Afrikaans-speaking, as well as English-speaking people, can be educated through the medium of both languages, are the highest ideal which we can have in South Africa. What an ideal to strive for! But that Press goes even further. On the 2nd December an article appeared in that particul paper in which single-medium schools were most violently attacked. And this is what the paper said—[translation]

That paper took upon itself to boycott the single-medium schools. English as well as Afrikaans, until they were completely blotted out. There is therefore a serious danger, and that is why it is a matter of importance to submit this motion to the House. Throughout all the schools a booklet entitled “South Africa” has lately been circulated. In that booklet it is printed in heavy type that children are being sent to schools in which the mother tongue medium of instruction is used, and that there are political motives, and that those schools are permeated by Nazi racial theories. In that book it is stated that single-medium schools are pro-Nazi, and the booklet is being circulated free of charge to all schools. But there is yet another and even greater danger; The Minister of Lands —I don’t know whether it is the Minister of Lands or the Minister of the Interior—in August last year made this statement: “After the war we should have double-medium schools in this country.”

I never said a word about the matter.

Then it is the Minister of Lands who said so, and he further said this—

What are you quoting from?

I am quoting from “Die Burger”. But I don’t propose proceeding with that. Here we have a statement which the Minister made a few evenings ago—

And according to the Minister of Lands that can only be done in double-medium schools and not in single-medium schools. The Minister cannot deny that he said that. But it goes even further than that. There is not just one school board, there are numerous school boards, under whose jurisdiction there are areas where the people are practically a hundred per cent. Afrikaans-speaking, and if they apply for an Afrikaans-medium school, their request now-a-days is turned down. The Cape Town School Board is one of those. Since this agitation has been inaugurated an Ordinance has been introduced and passed in Natal completely destroying mother tongue medium instruction in that Province. I want to emphasise this, because “Die Suiderstem” intimates that we are worrying our heads about something which is untrue. “Die Suiderstem” pretends that there is no intention of tampering with mother tongue medium instruction. They say that it is a lie on our part to contend that that is the case. I want to prove that it is not a lie, but that the position has developed to such an extent that mother tongue instruction is actually in danger today. In Natal an Ordinance has been passed, under which the parents are given the right to choose in what language the child is to receive his education.

The position has never been any different in Natal.

If it has never been any different, then why was it laid down in this Ordinance?

On that point the Ordinance does not make any changes.

Then it simply means that Natal will do everything in English. Everything has been English in Natal, and the position under this Ordinance has now got to this stage, that the parents have the right to choose.

No, the parents in Natal have always had the right to choose. The position is that the second language is also being introduced now as a medium of instruction.

But it is stated clearly in the Ordinance that the parents will have the right to choose.

That has always been so.

Well, then, let it be so; it does not affect my argument. I am referring to these matters because there may afterwards be people who will ask why we raised this matter in Parliament, and who will say that it may now possibly become a political matter. It has already been turned into a political matter by the United Party. It has not just become a question of double-medium schools, or of bilingualism, but it has become a question of mother tongue instruction. In this connection, I wish to refer to what Dr. Bosman, who was with the Minister of Lands, said a few nights ago. In order to put the argument logically, I first of all want to say this, that Mr. Lambrechts is the man who is going to introduce an Ordinance here in the Cape which will raise the whole question of mother tongue education and endanger the whole position. He is the member of the Provincial Council for Paarl, and he is going to raise the matter. His opinion was asked, and this is what he said—

The further question was thereupon asked how the double language medium would be introduced, and Dr. Bosman thereupon said this—

Have we ever heard anything more ludicrous in connection with our educational system? It shows us at once that there is no educational science in these proposals, but that they are merely the result of political agitation. He was thereupon asked in what language the child would then have to answer his examination questions, and he replied that the questions must be answered in the language in which they were put. Now, assuming an individual is not fluent in the language, and he has to answer questions in the second language in which he is not fluent; he has to answer the questions which are put to him in that second language. All this shows that those people have not the slightest knowledge of what they are talking about. And now “Die Suiderstem” comes along and says that mother tongue instruction is not in danger, not in the primary divisions of the school, and that only in the secondary division will there be parallel classes. A double medium is being talked of. I want to point out that this issue in connection with language medium in our schools has not emanated from educational sources. It does not emanate from the educational bodies in this country, and even less has the matter been inaugurated in the interest of the education of the children in this country. No, it emanates from Party politics. It has its origin in an agitation by the United Party. If there is anyone who wants to misrepresent this motion by stating that it has brought the whole question into the political arena, then I only want to say that it is not we on this side who have dragged it into the political arena. We are trying to remove it from politics, and we on our side are trying to show that it is absolutely wrong to drag a matter such as mother tongue Instruction, which has nothing to do with politics, into the political issue, as has been done by the United Party. On the 7th December, 1942, “Die Suiderstem” had a leading article in which it pretended that the Dutch churches at their Congress in Pretoria adopted the unilingual course. The paper said this—[translation]

And then the paper went on to say—

“Die Suiderstem” thus acknowledges that the United Party at this stage has turned the matter into a political question. And then the paper goes on to say—

Now we see what they take refuge behind. What is the object of taking refuge, with this agitation, behind the fact that we must have bilingualism and national unity in this country? We should be very guarded in this respect. When we bring two sections together in one school and there is a small minority that minority will feel hurt in many respects, and the result will be bitterness and hatred and dissension it will never be possible to remove. The object of the school is to educate the child and to prepare the child for its task in life, to enable the child to acquire knowledge, to love and respect its language and its culture, to be proud of its history and its heroes, to have an inspired love for its Flag and its National Anthem, and to honour its Flag and its National Anthem, and to become good citizens of the country. The school in short is the place where the child by means of its mother tongue has to be developed spiritually, intellectually, morally and also physically. There is no other object. It is the object of the school to enable the child to share in the spiritual well-being of its nation. And there must be the closest link between the school and the home. The task of the teacher is the education of the child in loco parentis. In order to secure a fertile mind and to be able to develop the mind of the child it is essential for the teacher and the parent to hold the same outlook on life and the same world conception, both as regards Afrikaans-speaking and English-speaking. They must have the same religious conceptions. They must speak the same language, have the same outlook on national life, and receive the same inspiration from their own spiritual being. They must cherish identical ideals for the future of their nation. Now let us pause for a moment at the opinion of experts. We as laymen have to decide on this matter, and as we must do so I think it will be useful for us to study the opinions of the experts, not only in South Africa but throughout the world. A short while ago when that Ordinance was passed in Natal, several articles appeared in the Natal Educational Journal. It is an English paper entitled “Mentor”. In that journal a number of expert opinions were expressed and thus the principal of a school wrote as follows—

He does not speak about teachers, he speaks of educationalists. There is a very wide distinction between a teacher and an educationalist, and he goes on—

Another writer in “Mentor” said the following—

I hope the Minister of Lands has been listening to what is stated in Natal in connection with the Natal Ordinance. Let me refer to another educationalist—not a person in South Africa—but somebody from abroad, and this is what he says—

It would almost sound as though it were a South African making those remarks, but it is not a South African. It is a high educationalist from India who makes these remarks. And let me quote what the German educationalist, Wiesgeber, said on the same subject—

And then we have Michael West, an educationalist in England, who made the following remark—

But my hon. friends opposite now want to destroy the single-medium school. I went further than that; I felt that the matter was of such vital importance that I sent a circular to single-medium schools, both English schools and Afrikaans schools, which I knew. I am not going to quote all the letters which I have received, but I can assure the House on my word of honour that not one of those was in favour of double-medium schools; all of them expressed themselves in the spirit of the letters which I am going to quote. I have the reply here from the principal of an English-medium school, from which I want to make a few quotations. I am not going to mention the names of the people or of the schools. This particular person used to teach at the Orange School, Bloemfontein: She taught in a pure Afrikaans-medium school, and she also used to teach in a pure English-medium school. After that she taught in a parallel-medium school and this is what she says—

And then later on she says this—

She is concerned with the education of the child, and she is not concerned with political life as the Minister of Lands is. And this is what she says about the single-medium schools—

It is clear that to use the second language for a few subjects will perhaps cause the child to learn a few technical terms in that language; but the question is whether it will improve the child’s knowledge of those subjects. I have another letter from the principal of an English school—

Now, let us compare that with the futilities proclaimed by Dr. Bosman. And I have another letter here also from an English principal and this is what she says—

And now I particularly want the Minister of Lands to listen—

This lady puts the question whether it will improve friendly relations between the two sections. That, she says, still has to be proved. The Minister simply says that it is so; and I also have here an opinion of an English school principal and she says this—

Which school is that?

I don’t wish to mention the names of schools or school principals because we know that a few names have appeared in “Die Burger” and an attempt was immediately made to discount those people. I am prepared to hand these letters over to the hon. member opposite, on condition that the names of the schools and of the people are not made public, and the writer goes on to say this—

And thus the letters continue. Now, I want to draw the attention of the House to the results in the second language in these schools. I have statements here that children in English-medium schools are being taught in the higher grades and that large numbers of them have secured A passes at the end of the year. That means that they have secured between 80 per cent. and 100 per cent. of the marks. I have not got the time to read all these details to the House. In connection with the Afrikaans single-medium schools, however, I want to quote a few expressions of opinion: This particular school principal says—

And thus I can quote other opinions but that is all I think I need quote to the House. Do hon. members realise that here in Cape Town there is an Afrikaans-medium school where some children have taken English higher, and one of the pupils of that school was among the first six in the final examination. The Minister of Lands does not concern himself with that. As far as he is concerned politics come first. But these are the results which have been achieved. I have asked the schools to let me have the marks so that I should be able to see whether the single-medium schools stood higher in the second language, and as far as I am able to recollect both English-medium schools and Afrikaans-medium schools have achieved higher marks so far as the second language is concerned. Now, let me give another quotation from a letter from another school principal—

And yet another—

I could quote a great many more opinions but I might be wearying the House, and I shall now come to my final quotation. I have been quoting from letters by principals of English-medium schools and Afrikaans-medium schools. Now I want to read a quotation from one of our outstanding principals in the country. He is an inspector of schools today, and this is his reply—

We can quite imagine how an English-speaking child would sing Visser’s song “O Moedertaal, O soetse taal, jou het ek lief bo alles”.

Why should an English child not sing that?

Only a man without common sense would ask such a question. Now, let us turn to the parallel-medium schools. Hon. members opposite say that they want parallel-medium schools and not double-medium schools—there can be no doubt whatsoever that the principal of the school and the staff have to be neutral. They cannot choose sides; they are not allowed to be fish, flesh, or good red herring. They have to laugh with the English-speaking section, and they have to agree with everything the English-speaking section say. The principal has to remain neutral in everything; He is compelled to discourage propaganda in favour of one nation. Imagine! The spirit for the upbuilding of a nation has to be discouraged by the principal of such a school. He has no option. He has two sections before him, and he dare not allow it. And then the Minister of Lands came along a few months ago and said that after the war we would teach the children true patriotism, true love of their mother country. But imagine now, we have a number of children together, and they have to sing “The King” or “Die Stem”. It behoves every decent citizen, whatever his nationality may be, to honour the National Anthem of any other country. But one cannot expect me to be satisfied if the National Anthem of another country is rammed down my throat all day long, and one cannot expect the child to sing the National Anthem of another country in school all day long. It immediately creates bitterness. In other words, the principal of the school has to give notice that the singing of “Die Stem” and of “The King” is not to be allowed in school. Furthermore, no school will be able enthusiastically to take part in any national celebration. Whether it is a celebration pleasing to Afrikaans national sentiments, or pleasing to English national sentiments, they cannot take part in it. Perhaps it can be done on the quiet. Perhaps the Afrikaans-speaking section would celebrate Heroes’ Day on the 10th October, but it cannot be done openly, and the principal will have to lay it down that the children are not allowed to take part in national celebrations, and no flag will be allowed to be hoisted freely and openly. The principal of the school dare not put up a flag on the school roof. If in Germany or France the country’s flag is hoisted the whole nation is transported into feelings of ecstacy. The whole nation feels a sense of pride passing through them, but in South Africa we dare not put up any flag. One has to beware lest one hurts the feelings of the other section. That is what will happen in the parallel school. That is the consequence of the principle of parallel schools, and what is the reason for our standing for single-medium schools? Is there anyone who wants to disapprove of mother tongue medium instruction? Is not mother tongue medium instruction a principle adopted throughout the world? And if that is so, then it is illogical to want to teach school subjects through a foreign medium. And in conclusion, one goes to school primarily to secure knowledge and not to learn languages. The pure single-medium school is educationally and psychologically the natural school for both white races. In the third place, with the double-medium, the child will suffer so far as his development is concerned. The South African Teachers’ Union has unanimously expressed itself in favour of single-medium schools, and when the South African Teachers’ Union and the S.A.T.A.—which is the English Teachers’ Association—met together, the majority also expressed themselves as being in favour of single-medium schools. It is true that an amendment was passed at the joint meeting that it would be desirable to leave the matter over until after the war, but the majority was in favour of single-medium schools. The churches right throughout the Union have decided in favour of the principle of single-medium schools. But so far as double-medium schools are concerned, let us look at what happened in the past. We have our information in that regard. On the platteland today one has double-medium schools practically throughout the country. What does that mean? I, too, was educated in a double-medium school, and I think that applies to most of us. And all of us feel that the section which is in the minority today is being hurt and offended in school today in many respects. And where does one get a wider and deeper schism between English-speaking and Afrikaans-speaking than on the platteland? On the platteland a man is a S.A.P. or a N.A.T. and nothing else. That feeling is born in the schools, and yet the Minister comes here and says that double-medium schools will put an end to the division between the races. Where is there a deeper split than on the platteland between the two sections? We are gathering the bitter fruit of the double-medium schools. And in such schools, in double-medium schools, even religious teaching cannot receive justice. The difficulties and disadvantages of having children of various denominations together are self evident. Can the Minister come here and say that it is desirable to have such schools for the sake of bilingualism in this country? Let me say in parenthesis that I do not know what he means by bilingualism, because in actual fact there is no such thing. It is a fable. There is no such thing as bilingualism. But if the Minister means by it that people can speak English as well as Afrikaans then I only want to say that the principal factor for a promotion of bilingualism is the community in which people live. Bringing the children together in double-medium schools where they will be in separate classes will not do any good. Has the Minister forgotten the day when he was a school child? His friends whom he selected in the parallel school were not the children from another class. They were those who were in the same class as he was in. I went to school at Paarl and years afterwards I met someone and I said to him: “How is it that I never met you before?” Shortly afterwards we found out that we had attended the same school at Paarl, in parallel classes, in separate sections. I could not believe that he attended the same school that I had attended. He thereupon took a photo out of his pocket and on that photo we were sitting next to each other. Why had we never known each other? It was because we were in separate sections! One makes one’s friends among the children who are in the same class and not among the other section. On the contrary, it leads to conflicts and clashes. Here one has children in a class and they are not taught anything about national pride; they are not taught anything about the heroes of their own history. As soon as one starts teaching them those things bitterness and all kinds of difficulties are created. We know that it is so. I don’t want to repeat the story which we all know, the story about the children being told about the crucifixion of the Lord Jesus, and how they shortly afterwards chased a little Jew because he had killed Jesus. Those are the difficulties one comes across. Let me add that there is not the slightest doubt that the more languages one knows the better, and I do say very definitely that it is the duty of every Afrikaner parent, or of every English-speaking or Afrikaans-speaking person to see to it that his children learn the second language. To do what with it? To be able to use that language correctly both idiomatically and gramatically, and to be able to interpret the heritage of one’s own nation in that language. I have letters here from principals in which they say that the second language should not be introduced before Standard III, whereas others again say that it should not be introduced before Standard IV because by doing so one would overload the child with things which are detrimental to his future. Is there such a thing as bilingualism? Can anyone acquire the spiritual heritage of his own people through another language, as well as through his own language? One cannot do it. And furthermore, can anyone be just as much Englishman as Afrikaner? That is what the Minister tries to achieve. Psychologically it is definitely wrong. Complete bilingualism is a myth, and nothing else. Let me say in passing that I have offered copies of my speech to the English Press and to the Afrikaans Press. The English Press replied that they were not interested in it, and for that reason the Minister’s appeal did not even appear in the English Press. That is the sort of thing one gets from the satellite services of the Minister of Lands. At the United Party Congress they pass motions against single-medium schools, and what is the price which the Afrikaans-speaking people have to pay? Theft from the generation, contempt for their own heritage, murder of their own soul. Let me say that if the Minister is really in earnest in regard to national unity, then he should follow a different course. If the Minister and his Party are really in earnest about national unity, why then did not they interefere when politics were dragged into our grand national game, Rugby? Why did not they try to keep politics out of it? They allowed it, and their Press widened the split in that great sport of ours. National unity? They allow politics to be dragged into the sport of our nation. We had hoped that there at least we would be able to come together and forget politics. But the supporters of this Government are taking an active part in order to drive the wedge into our national game. Are they in earnest? If they are, they should not come here and drag education into the political quagmire. Here in the Cape Peninsula we have three Afrikaans-medium schools and I believe fifteen English-medium schools. The Minister of Lands comes along and says that he is appealing to them and that he expects them not to wait until the Ordinance compels them in a few months time, but that he wants them voluntarily to abandon the single-medium principle. The Minister is going to burn his fingers very badly. He refuses to listen to me because he tells people that I am his political child.

A very poor child.

Well, what can one expect from such a father.

The Minister has appealed to those fifteen English-medium schools and he has asked them to turn over to double-medium before the time comes. Is that sort of thing right? Is it fair to expect them to do what from an educational point of view is a foolish thing. Let the Minister make his appeal to the school boards. Let the school boards be asked to convert the single-medium schools into double-medium schools because it is in the school boards that politics play their part. But I say that this matter should be left in the hands of the educationalists. Let them decide. This Government is so keen on appointing Commissions. I must say that I have so much confidence in the Minister of Education that I know that if he were to appoint a Commission it would be a Commission of language experts, and educationalists, irrespective of their political feelings. If ever a Commission was required to investigate a field waiting to be investigated it is a Commission in regard to this matter which affects the root of the education of our people. I say again: leave this matter to educational organisations, to people who daily have to deal with educational matters. One can see that the Ministers who so far have expressed themselves about this matter have no knowledge of any educational value of this subject. And let me assure this House that they are making themselves ridiculous in the eyes of educationalists. To tell the truth, one can see with one’s eyes shut that there is nothing but politics behind this movement. I want to ask whether the time has not arrived to remove education from the Provincial system? If one has a fanatic at the head of a Province he may perhaps get things done, as is the case in Natal, which may be of the greatest detriment to the education of the people. At the next Session of the Provincial Council of the Cape this matter is also going to be raised. Has not the time arrived for the Government to realise that education should be removed from the Provincial Councils? Education should be under educationalists, and not under political agitators. Does not the Government feel that political agitators must no longer be allowed to play about with the education of our children? And therefore I ask whether the time has not come for education to be taken away from the Provinces and for a uniform system to be introduced? This is not a matter of building bridges. The child must come first, but who are the people often who are at the head of the Provincial Administration? Are not the appointments made from political points of view? The Administration should have a knowledge of educational values in regard to mother tongue instruction—but has he got such knowledge? Let me assure the Minister that the people of South Africa, English as well as Afrikaans-speaking, will not allow the youth of South Africa to be made the football of politics. The people of South Africa will not allow the education of their children to be sacrificed to the so-called bilingualism of the Minister of Lands. The people of South Africa are not going to leave this to any political party and the political party which will try to do so will be rejected by the people, because it is the birthright of the people to have mother tongue education, and the people will not tolerate that right being bartered away for the sake of the benefit of a political party. We have had a bitter struggle in this country in connection with our language. We have a bitter language struggle in our history, and if another language struggle has to be fought, if the rights of our Afrikaans-speaking people and of the English-speaking people are tampered with, difficulties and trouble will arise again. We cannot allow it.

I formally second.

The hon. member for Victoria West (Mr. D. T. du P. Viljoen) in the course of his speech got a bit heated from time to time. I shall try to take the House back to a quiet, educational atmosphere. The motion proposed by the hon. member would possibly have been more appropriate in the Provincial Council. It deals with the question of primary and secondary education which is principally a Provincial matter. There is, however, nothing to prevent this House from expressing itself about any Provincial matter, and this subject is certainly a very important one. I therefore do not blame the hon. member for having started this discussion on this important subject in the House of Parliament. The matter being so important, it is desirable that an opinion should be expressed also by a member of the Government. That is why I am taking part in this debate, and why I do so at this stage. I shall have to be in Another Place this afternoon, and I wish to express my thanks to hon. members opposite for having given me the opportunity to take part in the debate now. The Minister of the Interior will be present here this afternoon. He perhaps has more to do with this matter than I, because as Minister of the Interior he is really the Minister to deal with Provincial affairs on behalf of the Government. May I just say this at the request of the Minister of the Interior, and also arising out of what the hon. member for Victoria West has said on the matter, that the Minister of the Interior assured me that he has never yet expressed any opinion on the principle of the medium of education. He says that he has never yet expressed an opinion on the aspect of the principle.

But he has taken an active part in motions at congresses of the United Party.

I should like right away to remove any misunderstanding. The hon. member for Victoria West remarked that this was a matter coming under me as Minister of Education. I have often said outside this House, and I want to say now again, that in South Africa the Minister of Education is a Minister who has absolutely nothing to do with 90 per cent. of the educational matters in this country. As Minister of Education, I have nothing at all to do with ordinary primary or secondary education, although I have to deal with certain parts of education. But I have never as Minister of Education taken it upon myself to express an opinion on Provincial educational matters. I do not regard it as part of my duty as Minister of Education to give a lead to the Provinces. The attitude adopted by the Department of Union Education is to co-operate with the Provincial Education Departments, and that is what we do, but it is not for us to give a lead or to direct the Provincial education authorities, which are autonomous bodies. It is in that spirit therefore that I am taking part in this debate, and not with a view to telling the Provinces what they should do. As Minister of Education, I cannot, and will not, do so. But I am taking part in this debate because the matter has been raised here, and because the subject is one in which I, as an educationalist—if I may call myself so—want to take part, and in which I also want to take part in view of the fact that I—a good few years ago now—was the Administrator of a Province, and in that capacity I very definitely had to deal with educational matters. I hope the hon. member in his sneering remarks about the appointment of Administrators for political reasons will exclude me from the implication of his remarks.

I did not say all.

My thoughts this morning go back to a period of more than fifteen years ago, when as Administrator of the Transvaal, I introduced a Provincial Ordinance which dealt with the very subject of the medium of education in our schools. On that occasion I very clearly expressed my view, and I said that to my mind, in a bilingual country, it was highly desirable that the child which understood one language better than the other should at the beginning receive his education through the language which he understood better—that the language which he understood better should be used as the medium of instruction. That was my interpretation of the mother togue principle and I looked at the matter from an educational point of view.

How far does that principle go?

I shall answer that later. The hon. member for Victoria West spoke about people who want to destroy the mother togue principle, and apparently he thought that that was the aim of members on this side of the House. I think he is wrong. I don’t think anyone wants to destroy the mother tongue principle.

What did Dr. Bosman say?

I don’t think anyone wants to destroy the principle. The object of the Ordinance which I introduced in the Transvaal 15 years ago was to let the mother tongue principle be carried out better in the schools of the Transvaal. The hon. member for Oudtshoorn (Mr. S. P. le Roux) remarked that I emphasised the word in the early stage, and that was an important word. I have never yet, neither in those days nor since those days, closed the door for the introduction of the second language as the medium of instruction from a certain stage. Let me put it this way: the question of the medium of instruction is of the greatest importance in the early stage, when the child gets its first education. From a pure educational point of view, and I am using the word now in its narrowest sense, the question of the medium of instruction becomes less important the further the education progresses. In the pre-war years—I am now taking an extreme example—many students attended universities in France or in Germany. There they received education through the medium of French or German, and nobody is going to say that from an educational point of view that was wrong.

Those were extreme cases.

Yes, I am using those in order to clear up my point of view, that the further one progresses the less important does the question of the medium of instruction become. I am not looking at the question from a political point of view but from an educational point of view, and I put this question to myself: Is it educationally correct to introduce the second language as the medium of instruction and if so, at what stage? That is the question which we have to ask. Before answering that question, however, I want to put a further question, and that question is what is really the object of education? There are two possible answers. The one is that the object of education is to supply knowledge to the pupil and to let him acquire knowledge. I believe that that would be the reply of the hon. member for Victoria West to that question. If that is the correct answer, if the object is only to supply knowledge to the pupil, then it is definitely not in the educational interest of the pupil to introduce the second language as the medium of instruction during his primary of secondary school years. In most instances—and there I agree with the hon. member,—a pupil in regard to the acquiring of knowledge will make better progress if he is instructed only through one medium of instruction, although—and I repeat that—the advantage of the one language medium of instruction system over the two language medium of instruction system—from that point of view becomes less and less the later the second language is introduced as the medium of instruction. But I do not regard that as the correct interpretation of the object of education. The correct answer to my mind is that the object of education is to prepare the pupil to take his place as a citizen of the State. And where one has a bilingual country like South Africa, it definitely is a fact that our educational object must be to train bilingual citizens to be members of one nation in this country. I may say in passing that that is where the real difference lies between the hon. member and myself. The basis of his plea was this—he thinks in terms of two peoples, of two nations in this country. When he speaks of “the people”, he means the Afrikaans-speaking people. So far as I am concerned, I think in terms of the people of South Africa. The hon. member asked whether one could be both Englishman and Afrikaner. No I don’t think so, but my answer will be that one can be a South African, one can be a person who regards the people as one people and who looks upon both languages of South Africa as his languages. That is the difference in the hon. member’s conception and my conception. I say again that to my way of thinking the object of education is to prepare the pupil to become a citizen, to take his place as a citizen of this country. I am sorry that I have deviated somewhat into a political sphere, but I am afraid I could not do anything else. Now, let me come back to the point which I made, that the object of education is to prepare the future citizen, and in a bilingual country one has to make a citizen bilingual. And I feel that it is very clear that the great defeat in our educational system today is the fact that we are not succeeding in training bilingual citizens.

If one looks at your side of the House that would appear to be correct.

If it is so, if I am correct, then I am prepared to say that here in South Africa a bilingual person, even with a little less book knowledge, will be a better citizen of the State than a unilingual person with a little more book knowledge. There are two factors which have to be weiged against each other: the one is the question of the degree of bilingualism and the other is the danger that by that the progress in regard to the acquiring of knowledge may perhaps be hindered to a certain extent. Undoubtedly the best way of learning a language is by using the language. The best way therefore of learning the second language in South Africa is by using that language also as a medium of instruction. We shall therefore be able to train better citizens if we use both languages as media of instruction. So long as we do not introduce the second language too early as a medium of instruction—I emphasise this—“provided we do not introduce the second language too early as a medium of instruction. Along that course we shall be able to achieve our educational object with better results. As an educationalist I therefore want to lay down these three doctrines. (1) The first instruction should be given through the language as medium of instruction which the pupil knows best. (2) Educationally it is desirable for the second language to be introduced as medium of instruction during the pupil’s school years; and (3) It is undersirable to do so too close to the beginning of the school years. Those are the three doctrines. Now let me come back to the question put by the hon. member for Oudtshoorn when we should introduce the second language as medium of instruction. So far as I am concerned I still think that in this respect the Transvaal Language Ordinance of 1911 was not far wrong. In that Ordinance it was laid down primarily that the home language was to be used as the medium of instruction up to and including Standard IV; and in the second place it laid down the right of the parent to demand the gradual introduction of the other language as the second medium of instruction from Standard V. In other words, what the legislative body aimed at in those days, and what the education lists subscribed to, was the possibility, even the desirability, of the introduction of the second language as the medium of instruction as from Standard V. I feel that that is still educationally sound, and in the light of that I should like to consider the motion now before the House. The hon. member asks us to express our disapproval at the abolition of single-medium schools. The question must immediately arise, what is the alternative to the single-medium school? Those who want to do away with the single-medium schools, what do they want to put in their place? The mistake which is sometimes made in dealing with this matter, the mistake which is made by both sides, is to put the matter in such a way that there would appear to be only two types of schools, namely the single-medium school on the one hand, and the school with parallel classes on the other hand; in other words, the school where a proportion of the children get their education through Afrikaans as medium, and the others through English as medium. Now I want to call this latter school the parallel-medium school, and I think I am entitled to say that most people think that there are only those two types of schools; they only think in terms of those two types of schools, namely, the single-medium school and the parallel-medium school. As a rule, one finds that those who are dissatisfied with the first type, with the single-medium school, are people who favour the parallel-medium school, and those who defend the single-medium school are of the opinion that they achieve their object when they condemn the parallel-medium school. But there is another type as well. The type which I shall call the double-medium school, which is a school which does not divide all the pupils into two groups, but where all the pupils receive part of their education in English and part in Afrikaans.

Not in the primary school.

Now what is the historical development of this matter? I want to confine myself to the Transvaal, where I am best acquainted with school matters. In the first place, in the Transvaal there were the Government schools which were only English-medium schools; and then followed the development in the Transvaal of parallel-medium schools. Those were not satisfactory from every point of view, and then as a reaction to those schools in most cases, not in every case, there followed single English-medium schools, and Afrikaans-medium schools. In regard to parallel-medium schools, the experience in the Transvaal has not been a very happy one. In theory it sounds very fine: bring the English-speaking and Afrikaans-speaking children together in the same school; let them work and play together, and all will be well. That is a theory, but in practice it does not always work like that. And that is why I am not one of those who advocate the substitution of single-medium schools by parallel-medium schools. From the point of view of the school principal, there certainly is nothing as difficult to handle as a parallel-medium school with two groups of children. One has two groups of children there, not in the same classes. One has the English section and the Afrikaans section, and in the great majority of cases one section is in the minority and the other in the majority. So far as the staff are concerned, some are English-speaking and some are Afrikaans-speaking. The principal is at the head, and he has to be an angel from heaven if he wants to give satisfaction to both groups, and particularly to both groups of parents. How can he always avoid the impression of being prejudiced in one direction or another, and that definitely was the experience in the Transvaal. I want to say that sometimes more racialism was caused in the parallel-medium schools than in the separate single-medium schools. I want to admit that at once, and I do not doubt it. If, therefore, the only arternative to single-medium schools were parallel-medium schools, I would not oppose this motion. If that were the only alternative. But that is not so.

Double-medium is still worse.

It is not worse. I is the sound alternative. It is the better system, and, so far as I am concerned, I want to express the hope that gradually the single-medium schools will be substituted by double-medium schools. I say “gradually”. It cannot be done by a stroke of the pen. One of the difficulties would be that we have not got the necessary staffs properly trained for that purpose. That perhaps is also the reason why there is a great deal of opposition from the side of educational authorities, who mainly think of the changed organisation which would be required by such a conversion. There are several double-medium schools in existence today, especially high schools and secondary schools, and I hope that especially the high schools will gradually be converted into double-medium schools, that they, to an increasing degree, will introduce the second language as the medium of instruction. That is already happening in the Transvaal. The Pretoria Boys’ High School took that step last year, and I believe that an English high school in Johannesburg did the same. We can work systematically in that direction and make progress in that direction. I hope that the second language will be introduced more and more as medium of instruction in the high schools, and I hope it will also gradually extend to our primary schools, as regards Standard V and VI—where those standards still exist in primary schools. To my mind it would be definitely in the interest of education if that policy were followed. I definitely feel that that is the right course for us to follow. For that reason I shall not be able, so far as I am concerned, to vote for the motion of the hon. member for Victoria West.

The country owes a debt of gratitude to the hon. member for Victoria West (Mr. D. T. du P. Viljoen) for the introduction of this motion, because there is an agitation going on in this country against schools which have got where they are today as a result of great labour and expense. In spite of what may be said on the other side of the House there is a feeling in the country, particularly in the towns, that the agitation against the single-medium schools is directed against the Afrikaans-medium schools. I agree with the Minister when he says that we have in mind one nation, English-speaking and Afrikaans-speaking, the nation to consist of Afrikaners, but if we want to achieve that we have to have one common foundation, and it is this, that South Africa is our only home and that we owe no loyalty to any other country, except South Africa. As a man who has grown up in this town my experience is that if there are institutions today which place obstacles in the way of that spirit it is the unilingual English schools in the towns. If there are places where that spirit of Afrikanerdom is not given expression to, it is in those schools. We on this side of the House also want Afrikaners to be thoroughly conversant with both languages, but we have had experience, especially in the past few years, and we find that our children, particularly those who have been educated in the Afrikaans-medium schools in Cape Town, enjoy other advantages in addition to those which we have enjoyed. I and many of my friends on this side, and also on the other side of the House, when we get into touch with the young Afrikaans-speaking boys or girls who have been educated in Afrikaans-medium schools, find that there is no such thing as an inferiority complex. They have a superiority complex. They are perfectly familiar with their language. In the course of a few years they have acquired knowledge which it has taken me much longer to acquire, and that is due to the fact that they did not have the trouble first of all to learn another language. Many of us on this side of the House had to be taught through a foreign language up to matric. We experience considerable difficulty in that connection. The children today go to their own schools, everything comes naturally to them, they adapt themselves much more easily, and they become citizens of the country, with a superiority complex, and when they meet their fellow citizens from the English-speaking schools there is no inferiority complex about them, just as little as I assume there is an inferiority complex on the part of the English-speaking young fellow who comes from an English-medium school.

Business suspended at 12.45 p.m. and resumed at 2.20 p.m.

When business was suspended I was dealing with the whole outlook of the youngster taught in the single Afrikaans-medium school, and I was trying to show that that youngster was not suffering from an inferiority complex, and I was emphasising that he was able to hold his own in every sphere of life. It seems to me that the debate has now developed to such a stage that it has now become a struggle between the single-medium school and the double-medium school. It now appears that the parallel-medium school is not meeting with much support. It is now asserted that the great demand of education in South Africa is not knowledge, but the great requisite is the training of a proper bilingual citizen. I contest that view. The great task of education is the acquisition of knowledge, and if we burden a child during the first years of his education with two languages we are going to find that the standard achieved by that child by the time it reaches the matriculation standard will not be of a high quality, and the result will be that our universities will have to deal with an inferior type of student. But if we have our single-medium schools we find that the child is able to do full justice to himself there; he is able to develop along his own traditions, and there is no trouble so far as language is concerned. As this motion deals with the advantages or disadvantages of a single-medium school I wish to confine myself to the benefits of the Afrikaans-medium school, and may I be allowed to state that for the last ten years I have been connected with an Afrikaans-medium school and that I know what I am talking about. If I look at the results achieved by that school I find that it produces bilingual citizens of a type which practically no other school in this country can produce. Before dealing with that point I first of all wish to say a few words on the matter which has been raised here about the feeling existing among the Afrikaans students towards their fellow English citizens. The Afrikaans-medium school does not foster hatred or envy towards anyone. It has no such thing in mind, because it is unnecessary, owing to the fact that there is no constant irritation as a result of there being two races in the school, and we have heard from the mover, and also from the hon. the Minister, that where one has the two races in a parallel-medium school or a double-medium school there is a great likelihood or irritation, and there is a possibility of a clash of sentiment. In the Afrikaans-medium school emphasis is only laid on the fact that the individual is an Afrikaner and an Afrikaner only. That is the only thing that is emphasised, and if we are to stigmatise as racialism the love which has to be fostered in the son towards his country and his people, then I say that it is going very far to do so—to say the least of it—because in every country in the world the educational system aims at educating the children to become citizens of the State, proud of the past of their people; and that is what we are doing at our Afrikaans-medium schools. Never will there be good relationship if one tries to bring the two races together in one place merely with the object to making them understand each other thoroughly. There must be some other common ground. Each has to develop along his own traditions and his own ideals, and if the Afrikaans-speaking youngster develops along his traditions and ideals and the English-speaking youngster develops in accordance with his traditions and ideals, one will find that these two people in life will afterwards understand each other and will appreciate each other’s outlook. There are many of us who have grown up in such surroundings. These facts do not in any way tend to interfere with our appreciation of our English citizens—they do not tend to interfere with the amicable relationship between us, but what we want is that they will do exactly the same. Only when that ideal has taken hold will one develop a love for our common birthplace, and not for a foreign country. But unfortunately there are at the present juncture still schools in this country which not only foster feelings against South Africa, but which go on fostering sentiments of affection for a foreign country. It has also been argued, not in this debate, but it has been stated in the past, that in our schools influences are at work which are foreign to our people. A member of this House has made the charge that there are prominent Afrikaans schools were Nazism is being proclaimed. I most emphatically deny that. There is no trace of that to be found in our schools. The Afrikaner wants to be himself and only himself. He does not want to be a German or an imitation German.

Why not a South African?

And now we get this charge of unilingualism, the charge that the Afrikaans-medium schools are sending unilingual students into the world. The charge of unilingualism is a popular way of attack of those who do not know the position, but I am convinced that if they study the results achieved by those schools they will find that they are lacking in their knowledge. I have here in my hand the results of the senior certificate examination for the school which I have mentioned. In 1941 I find that in an Afrikaans-medium school where English A is taught fourteen students took English A in the senior certificate. Eleven of them passed first class and three second class. Then I find that in the same school where 51 students took their English B twenty-six passed first class and 25 second class. Now we come to Afrikaans A. There is no Afrikaans B. We find that sixty-five students took their Afrikaans A; twenty-one passed first class, forty-three second class and one failed. And thus one can go on. One will find that the Afrikaans-medium schools are achieving excellent results in every respect. The hon. member for Victoria West, for instance, spoke about two students in a well-known school who had done excellently, but I have before me a list of the eight students in the senior certificate in the Cape who this year were granted the £10 bursary awarded by the Department. And I want hon. members to listen to their names and where they come from. We are told that on the platteland there are not enough facilities for the children to learn English, but here we find that student No. 1 is Villet, Daniel de Gouret, Bredasdorp High School. The one who passed second was Jordaan, Leon, H.J.S., Cradock; No. 3 was Swanepoel, André, Piquetberg High School; No. 4 was Shapiro, Ruth Sheila, Rustenburg H.M.S., Rondebosch. This is a single-medium school. No. 5 was Potgieter, Jacobus Ernst, J.H.S., Paarl; No. 6 was Beeby, Christiaan Francois, Jan van Riebeek, Cape Town (formerly of Montagu); No. 7 was Van Vuuren, Christofel, Colesberg High School; No. 8 was Hofmeyr, Arend Hermanus, Jan van Riebeek, Cape Town. Now I want to ask hon. members where they get the idea that the pupils on the platteland are not qualified bilingually?

They talk nonsense.

Then I only want to say this, that in the Afrikaans-medium schools every week there are eight periods for English, as against six periods for German, Latin, etc. There are two more periods set down every week for English than for any other subject. So far as oral work is concerned, too, the work of the English-medium schools compares very favourably in the second language with that of the other schools. In regard to English A at the senior certificate examination, we find that this school at Cape Town had a candidate who secured between 80 per cent. and 100 per cent. in his examination results, and now I ask this: Where is there an English-medium school with a student in Afrikaans A who has achieved those results? I go further; I have here in my hand the information supplied to me at the time when private schools like Bishops were being discussed. I shall deal with those schools later on; I only want to point out what happens in those schools to Afrikaans? I have here in my hand a memorandum, and I should like hon. members opposite, who are so very fond of this type of school, to listen to this. At Bishops Afrikaans is taught in the primary school. In the secondary division Afrikaans is encouraged, according to this memorandum, and it is an alternative choice for many subjects. But it is not a compulsory language. After Standard VI it is left to the pupil to choose whether he wants to learn Afrikaans or not. We are now told that we are to train bilingual citizens in this country. My contention is that under the system which is now in force we are training better bilingual citizens than we did with double-medium schools. The Department of Education appointed a Commission to make an enquiry into the position of the South African system of education. That Commission consisted of Sir John E. Adamson, Chairman; Prof. M. C. Botha, Prof. F. Postma, Prof. W. F. Mackie, and Mr. H. H. G. Kreft. This Commission had to enquire into the language position, and I want to quote the majority report on their finding—

1. (a) The Two Official Languages: So far as English is concerned, there is unanimity of opinion that the knowledge of the subject on the part of candidates who passed in English A is not quite satisfactory, and that the level reached by candidates passing in English B, generally speaking, is deplorably low. According to one report, most of the matriculants are not able to write English reasonably correctly. The reports show a tendency of placing a large share of the blame on the methods adopted in teaching English at many of the schools. It is contended that these methods are often too mechanical and too dogmatic, with the result that the pupils are not encouraged to read for themselves or to use their own imagination and intelligence. The language is not taught as an instrument, but as a subject which has to be learned. There is not sufficient co-ordination between the teaching in English, and that in other subjects in which English is used as a medium of instruction. In one report it is suggested that experiments should be made with “basic English” in the teaching of pupils whose home language is Afrikaans. Dissatisfaction is also expressed in regard to some characteristics of the matriculation syllabus in English, and in particular at the fact that by prescribing a few books for the course the pupils are indirectly encouraged to read as little as possible.

The conclusion therefore is that so far as English A is concerned the position is not satisfactory, and so far as English B is concerned it is deplorable. And then the report goes on—

That is the product of the single-medium school so far as English is concerned. The report is clear that the results so far as Afrikaans is concerned in both cases are more favourable than the English results. That is what we want hon. members opposite to realise. Among them there are people who are opposed to the Afrikaans-medium school and to the product of the Afrikaans-medium school, while they are forgetting the difficulties which they themselves have to contend with. If we go over to double-medium schools, then I want to know what the position is to be of the private schools in this country? Will it mean that the private schools of the various churches will have to be excluded from the provisions of the Act. All these private schools are English-medium schools; there are no private Afrikaans-medium schools. In the Eastern Province, in a place like Bedford—the hon. member for Somerset East (Mr. Vosloo) can confirm this—there used to be a good English-medium school. This school was gradually turned into a double-medium school. What happened there? The well-to-do English-speaking people gradually took their children away, and sent them to private schools in Grahamstown and I understand that there are only ten English-speaking children left at that school at Bedford. They are not even prepared to comply with the double-medium standard. They are not satisfied with it. I am convinced that if hon. members opposite try to apply their scheme to the whole country they will meet with the greatest opposition among their own followers. The Minister of Lands has announced such a policy but the papers of his Party keep as silet as the grave. In spite of all the goodwill which he tried to show here in Cape Town Gardens we find that from the English side they have had nothing at all to say about the double-medium schools. Nor is everything quite as it should be in Natal. A large section of the public are already beginning to object to it. The Minister of Lands is outheroding Herod. He is going to have difficulty with his own side. If we want to carry this thing through to its logical conclusion we shall also have to prevent the private schools from becoming single-medium schools. It will mean that the well-to-do class of English person will no longer be able to send his children to Rhodes or to Bishops to be taught there in English and not in Afrikaans. If the Government decides on making double-medium schools compulsory we on this side of the House will insist on the same compulsion being applied to those private schools, because the well-to-do class of English people go to those private schools, and when they leave those schools they take part in the Government of the country. They have a say in the Government and they come here to compete with the young men and women who have been educated in the double-medium schools. We don’t want that class of student in this country at all. I should also like to know from hon. members opposite, if they insist on this movement in regard to double-medium schools, whether they will tell the country that there is going to be an end to these private schools with one medium. I don’t expect that those schools will have to be abolished, but the rules applying to the other schools must also be applied to those schools and only then, when we have an assurance that the other side is willing to do so, shall we know that they are in earnest. Let them put Bishops, Marists, Kingswood, St. Andrews, St. Johns and so on under the same rules, and if they do so, we shall know that they are honest in their intentions. I hope the Government is not going to proceed with this movement. There is a feeling of uneasiness in this country, not only among the parents but also among the teaching staff. There is a feeling of uneasiness in the towns particularly because we know that in the past the children were not properly educated, were not taught through their own language as they should be. We don’t want to go back to those days which produced a class of people who were neither one thing nor the other. We want to produce the right product, and that is provided by Afrikaans-medium schools in this town, schools which we are proud of, and schools which have a great future.

It is a pity that the hon. member who has just sat down brought the private schools into the discussion. I was never at a private school. When we talk of legislation in connection with schools, we talk of schools which are indirectly or directly, subsidised by State funds, schools over which the State has authority. I make bold to say that the private schools that are being attacked here do astonishing good work.

I do not deny it.

No-one attacked them.

What seems so good to me is what I have seen recently, for example, that students from Bishops, a single-medium English school, are sent to Stellenbosch. That is a fact. We get it at the other schools too. We have the peculiar position that this question in connection with our schools is taken up as something that is aimed against the Afrikaans schools. There can be no greater error. What is peculiar to me is that we on this side, when the matter came to be discussed, found that it was the English-speaking people who remarked that their children are not properly instructed in Afrikaans, and that they want to make it compulsory so that the children can take part in the work of the country. The English-speaking people who support this side of the House are advocating more and more that there should be more compulsion, so that their children may be better instructed. That does not mean that they should learn more English, but more Afrikaans. It is said that the Afrikaans child must be taught that we have only one country to which we owe allegiance. If we talk of South Africans, then we all have only one country to which we owe allegiance. If there are other persons who have a different allegiance—I do not want to accuse members opposite of that, but there are people who feel that they owe allegiance to other countries, and we have that difference of opinion—but if we talk of South Africans, then we think only of our allegiance to our own country. There is no difference of opinion over such things. The purpose of education is not to obtain a divided allegiance. There is no such thing. Then it is said further that the children who go to dual-medium schools will get a feeling of inferiority. We have men like the Prime Minister and many others here in this House who were at dual-medium schools, and I want to know from members opposite whether any feeling of inferiority has been noticed among them.

We notice it every day in you.

When little children talk in a big place, we may expect that they will lower themselves in that way. I cannot see how members opposite can allege that education at a dual-medium school will give anyone a feeling of inferiority. The opposite is the case. It enables a person to use more than one language. I agree that in the lower standards education should be in the mother tongue. There we are at one. But to be able to use two languages is better than to be able to use one language, and to be able to use four is better than to be able to use two. We have not the slightest doubt that a spirit is arising more and more on the English side to learn Afrikaans. That is undoubtedly the case. Members opposite may doubt it, but it is so. Several members of Parliament could not use a word of Afrikaans when they came here. What is the position today? They cannot make a speech in Afrikaans, but they can understand Afrikaans well, and if we meet them here in the lobbies, they can conduct a good conversation in Afrikaans.

We do not object to their learning as much Afrikaans as they want to.

The position is that we on this side are being attacked in a malicious fashion, and it is made out that we are making an attack on Afrikaans. The hon. member opposite read out results of certain schools, children from which did excellenty in examinations. That is precisely the fault we find in connection with languages. Someone may do a good examination in a particular language, but let him speak it! I make bold to say that in the best universities of our country you find persons who passed well in Afrikaans or in English, but they cannot speak the language. That ?s not right. As I said the hon. member for Victoria West (Mr. D. T. du P. Viljoen) indicated here that we are calling mother tongue education in doubt. There is not the slightest truth in such an allegation.

Above Standard Six.

On that we must have expert opinion. I am not a teacher, like the hon. member, to be able to determine those questions. But mother-tongue education is recognised by everybody as being essential. We have had experience of what it means for children if they can learn languages in their early days. The other day I came across a case of a child of parents who have to live here temporarily, who is not yet six years old, and the child already has four languages. She can speak and read four languages.

Yes, one may also go mad in four languages.

There are more people who may go mad. The position is this. If the children of other countries can learn languages without its being detrimental to them, our children can do it too. We are not inferior to other nations in learning languages. The Minister has said that we are a bilingual country. If we talk of the Afrikaans-speaking section of the population, I do not stand back for any member opposite, but I accept this principle that if we talk of the South African people and of our people, we must accept that our people consists of two races. Hon. members know what recently happened in the manifestoes that were issued—in them they agree that equal language and cultural rights should be given to all sections of the people. It is no longer a question. If we accept that our people consists of two races, I say that a good patriot is someone who is well bilingual. If he is in a bilingual country, and he wants to be a good patriot, he must be well bilingual. In a bilingual country we must accept that both languages have the same rights. If we talk of a patriot, we must not think of only one section of the people, but we must take the people as a whole, and we must in the future build up things for the people as a whole. It is said now that we have brought this matter into politics. I am sorry that there was ever an idea that this matter was being handled as a political matter. It is an educational matter. There is a great urge among a large section of the public for our children to be more bilingual. Well, there is not always a chance on other occasions to discuss certain things, than through certain organisations which exist in the country and which give the people a chance to raise those matters. If they raise those matters then, it is not with the object of making politics of them. It is unfortunate that it should be taken up as politics. There can be no doubt that among a large section of the population the feeling exists that the two races are going further apart, and that section very much wants to create a better understanding between us. How must it be done? I think that hon. members opposite will admit that the best bonds of friendship that we could get in our lives were begun in our early days at school. In my own life bonds of friendship started there which I shall never forget in my whole life. We find later perhaps that we may differ in the political sphere, but towards those persons we have a very great measure of tolerance which we would not have had if we had not spent a great part of our young lives with them. The Minister replied on the question of good citizens. If the Afrikaans-speaking section of the population now wants to separate itself from the rest of the people, it astonishes me how hon. members can think that in that way we can shape good citizens. I cannot think that our Afrikaans-speaking section can separate and isolate itself with success. The future of the Afrikaans-speaking section of the population, and I say it in all seriousness, because I do not identify myself with any other section, does not lie in isolation. When these difficulties of today are past, we must build up a great people, and I cannot see how the Afrikaans-speaking section of the population can contribute its share if it isolates itself. It will prejudice the people and itself. If the Afrikaans-speaking section of the population isolates itself, it will keep itself on one side in the future of the world, and the result will be that it will become the water-carrier of other people. Let us take what we have in our country; let us not besmirch one another; let us stand on an equal footing, and then we can build up together. Why should we isolate our own people? It is said here that our boys achieve great success in their examinations. I know of many instances where Afrikaans-speaking people went through their school, and they achieved good results. Afterwards they went to seek work in commercial and industrial life. They were not able, however, to speak English as well as the English-speaking persons to whom the businesses belonged, and those people did not have a good chance because they could not speak English as well as they could speak Afrikaans. The hon. member opposite read out that one cannot learn something that is unknown to you through the medium of an unknown language. I had the good fortune perhaps or the misfortune after the Boer War to go to an English-medium school, where we were taught no Afrikaans. Before that time we had an Afrikaans school, then we had to go to an English school, and later also to a university, where the medium was English. I never felt that I was oppressed by the fact that I had to learn a different language. It was extra work, but by living with the other students, we soon picked it up, and in my later life I am convinced that that small measure of sacrifice that occurred then was a great asset to us. I repeat again. Take Stellenbosch. Previously practically everything there was English. It was mostly an English-speaking place some years ago. All the instruction was given through the medium of English, and look at all the prominent people who came from Stellenbosch. They are not inferior, and there is nothing wrong with them. No, I do not find it. They are not all of one political opinion, but they are perhaps better persons because they learned by means of more than one language. We are told that a child loses its self-confidence if it has to learn a language with which it is less acquainted. I cannot understand in what respect that is the case. If a child understands something, it understands it or it does not understand it, but I cannot agree that it will give less self-confidence for a child to learn an extra language, in addition to its own language. We have been told that we cannot learn through a foreign medium. There, as the Minister said, lies the whole essence of the matter. As long as one section of the people regards the other section’s language as a foreign language, it is hopeless. The English-speaking people cannot regard Afrikaans as a foreign language, and the Afrikaans-speaking people cannot regard English as a foreign language. They are two languages which belong to South Africa, and which will be here to the end. But if you brand it as a foreign language that you have to learn, we shall never make progress. There are, of course, people in the country who still regard themselves as English. I do not deny it. But that certainly does not apply to the great mass of English-speaking people in the country. This attitude is simply propounded to get something that you cannot get in another way. Let us rather leave it alone and create a better understanding among ourselves. There has been talk of the danger of making a political football of our children. It is really a danger that arises from our quarreling. I say again that if the Afrikaans-speaking section wants to do its duty for the future and in the interests of our country, it must ensure that it makes itself proficient in both languages, and the same applies to the English-speaking people. I want to support the idea of dual medium schools. We have already had the example in the Free State republic. There it was compulsory to learn English. Did the Free State become more English in sympathy as a result? Not at all. But that was already the position before the Boer War, and the old fathers saw further than some of us can see today. They realised that their children should be proficient in the other language. The difficulty that I see is that we in this country use the other language too much as the medium of education. What I mean is that in the normal colleges and high schools and universities we get the wrong language as a medium. For that reason I am in favour of the dual-medium schools, such as they had in the Free State, because in this way you can make better citizens in our country. I want to appeal to hon. members opposite. When we talk of the people, we do not only think of the Afrikaans-speaking section of the people, but when we talk of the South African people it is a people that consists of all sections of the European race. That is the position that we must accept in our country, and that we must take as a basis. You cannot get away from it. In the circumstances I want to propose the following amendment—

I second. In general I can congratulate the House with the handling of this motion. There is no reason to become heated about the matter. Unfortunately the hon. member for Victoria West (Mr. D. T. du P. Viljoen), who introduced the motion, deemed it necessary to go out of his way to drag in and attack this side of the House, the United Party. The hon. member makes the allegation that where objection is made against the influence of single-medium schools, it can be attributed to the United Party. The hon. member is quite mistaken. I do not think that it is possible to prove that in all these various bodies in which the United Party has a majority, any steps are taken to suppress single-medium schools. The misapprehension arises from the fact that the hon. member finds that the idea is beginning to arise among the people that it can possibly be fatal in our political life in South Africa if we continue with single-medium schools after a certain standard, and the people are beginning to give attention to the matter. The hon. member confuses the people with the United Party, and I do not take him amiss, but our party as such has not taken a single step. If perhaps motions in this direction are moved at party congresses, then the party has not accepted them, and has not laid it down as official policy. Apparently this also happened during the time when the hon. member was still a member of the United Party, but seeing that the motion has apparently been introduced with a view to the political aspect, I want to go a step further, and I want to ask the Opposition what their policy is in connection with bilingualism.

All members of Parliament must be bilingual.

Must we assume that the question of bilingualism leaves them cold? We would like to have a definite statement from the other side. The hon. member who introduced the motion tried to evade this. Let them tell us whether they want bilingualism or not. The hon. member depends upon an accumulation of what experts on education have to say about the matter, and then he comes with the expert, but technical attitude that such a thing as bilingualism does not exist. In the sense that no one can ever become so fluent in a foreign language that he can regard it as his own language, this might be true, but if this is the policy of the Opposition today, that bilingualism is a farce, and that we must aim at a people with two sections of the public that will be unilingual on both sides, then I would like a definite statement from them about it. There are special reasons why we must have clarity on this point. We all know that there will probably be an election shortly. As far as the United Party is concerned, the election is going to be fought on the war policy, almost exclusively on it. As far as the Opposition are concerned, it is clear that they for the past twelve months already have been looking for something else on which to fight the election. We have in the course of this Session already had three dust clouds. First they came with social security, then with Communism, and now they come, thirdly, with single-medium schools. If the Opposition wants to make a strong case of it, let us have clarity and let them tell the country that their policy is unilingualism.

Are you really so stupid?

I do not believe that the people as such will take much notice of the Opposition’s bogey. The election will be fought exclusively on the war policy. We have for years heard the taunt: “Go to the people”, and this will now perhaps be realised. And now we can understand why hon. members come along with this matter. The hon. member made a long plea for mother tongue education. But no one on this side is against that. We all agree with mother tongue education to a certain extent. There you have a case where the layman associates himself entirely with the expert. Our education experts are very strong on the point and the practical layman agrees with them, but I refuse to allow myself to be led further by education experts when it comes to a question of that is in the national interest. When it comes to that then there are probably more experts in this House than in the whole education profession in South Africa. When it comes to the national interest of South Africa, I will not allow myself to be led by education experts. In the educational sphere they can perhaps give advice, but when we come to bilingualism, then we come very close to the question of what is in the national interest. A few remarks have been made with which I can definitely not agree. The hon. member for Gordonia (Mr. J. H. Conradie) has said that there was no doubt that education aimed at knowledge, the accumulation of knowledge. I disagree entirely. If that must be the chief characteristic of education, then I am afraid that I have a totally different view. My view is that a person who has accumulated a vast knowledge, but who at the same time is an undesirable person, definitely does not fulfil the aim of education. The hon. member for Victoria West has said in his attack, which was of a political nature, that the United Party now wants to combat single-medium school because the United Party finds that in single-medium schools the youth of South Africa are found to be Nationalist. The hon. member does not think any further. There are very many more English-medium schools in South Africa and the hon. member will surely not contend that the schools mentioned here by the hon. member for Gordonia (Mr. J. H. Conradie), are schools where Nationlists are cultivated.

Imperialists.

We accept the principle of mother tongue education as far as it is desirable, but we see danger in leaving it totally in the hands of education experts. It can become dangerous for our national life. If a person grows up in an Afrikaans environment, surrounded by everything that is pure Afrikaans, is educated in Afrikaans tradition and culture, then there is the danger that you become cut off altogether and become removed from the other tendency which is also present in the country, other people who must also live. It is unfortunate for South African children to be locked up in one single groove. There is something that is inexplicable to me, and that is that to the Opposition it has not become clear long ago, as far as the Afrikaans language is concerned, if it is put into the mouths of English-speaking people, then you immediately have people who are real South Africans. There is no doubt about it that anyone who grows up in an English-speaking environment, but who learns the Afrikaans language to such an extent that he can freely make use of it, cannot be anything else than a South African.

If someone learns German, does he become a German?

If one consults one’s experience, then one sees that this is the case. You find that the people who follow the middle course are mostly people who are proficient in both languages.

Is the reverse also the case, that an Afrikaner who learns English, becomes an Englishman?

That does not follow logically and it is not a question of logic, but what experience teaches us.

Do your children go to an Afrikaans-medium school?

The plea for mother tongue education, with that we agree entirely until a stage is reached that double-medium education becomes a matter of national interest. With a view to what I have said, I heartily support the amendment. It is reasonably drafted and we welcome it. I do not see how hon. members there can object to it.

I am very sorry but I must say immediately I would have liked to see an English-speaking person on the other side of the House move the amendment.

They use only other people for the work.

It is a pity that the English-speaking members remain so silent. And that we cannot find out what is in their minds, and whether they are using the hon. member for Potchefstroom (Mr. H. van der Merwe) to let this side of the House understand that they are prepared to tackle education in such a way that good citizens will be trained, and they seem to think that they should give us information in this respect. The first requirement of education is to develop a child’s mind, so that the child can think in all directions. The first principle is certainly not aimed at educating citizens for political purposes who will be able to think in only a certain direction. I want to point out to hon. members how repeatedly it is dished up to us in the newspapers how Hitler is busy cultivating a certain spirit among the youth in Germany, and how it is deplored that this is being done there. And then you have in Germany only one nation, a homogeneous nation. Here we have not a homogeneous nation, but two definite sections, an Afrikaans-speaking section and an English-speaking section who live in the country, and who live together. I want to use the example of our friend Matabele Thompson, that if you press the heads of the two sides together, and you say that they must kiss, the result will be that they will scratch one onother. We do not want to give a kiss of treachery against our language. We do not want anything less and nothing more than what we are entitled to. We want to see the 50-50 principle applied. That is what the laws give us. We ask for it in the education of our children, just as they have the right to ask for it in respect of the education of their children. They can realise their language and culture. We want to realise our language and culture. As soon as we understand one another on this basis, it will not be necessary to make political propaganda in a roundabout way like the United Party has made at its congresses in order to kill Afrikaans-medium schools in the country. That is the pith of the whole matter, as I see it, and it appears even from the speech of the Minister of Finance. We have the position in our country that as soon as a war comes, then the “top-dog” policy begins to show itself from the English-speaking section. We have seen what has happened in Natal. There Afrikaans-medium schools were established and they received an allowance from the State. But soon after war broke out, the position changed suddenly and the Afrikaans-speaking schools must no longer have the right of existence as they had until the war broke out. Here you have the same situation. Attempts are being made to kill the Afrikaans-medium schools that exist today. They are making too much progress, and now suddenly the idea has sprung up on the other side that they want better citizens in the country. I want to advise hon. members on the other side, if they want to get better citizens, to send all their children to Afrikaans-medium schools. Then they will be doing the right thing. Then they will in the first place see that they are in a country where their fathers have made their fortune, in a country where their children saw the light, the country to which in the future they must give all their love and their all, and where they will eventually have to die. Then they will get the right perspective. In the legislation that has been applied systematically since 1908, we have had the position that every child, Afrikaans-speaking and English-speaking, has been given the right to develop. What have we found? Inspectors went round and inspected schools and one inspector after the other reported that the children were not up to standard intellectually, that they did not approach any subject with intelligence. Our teachers said in those days: The difficulty is that our children when they come to school immediately come face to face with two foreign languages. The child learns at home that “die perd ’n stert het”. Then he comes to school and hears: “The horse has a tail”. He does not know what it is. In Dutch the child was taught “Het paard heeft een staart”. That was the explanation why the Afrikaans-speaking child in the years that have passed did not reach the standard intellectually which for example the English-speaking child who went to an English-medium school reached, and who had received his instruction in his home language.

Nobody disputes that.

Therefore we have taken the attitude that there must be a mother tongue education for our children. The Minister of Finance said this morning that it was definitely necessary that there should be mother tongue education in the lower standards and he said that the higher education went, the less the language question was involved. What is the difficulty then of hon. members on the other side. We ask in the first place for education so that we will get citizens who will be able to think and decide for themselves. That is the democratic right of the child; that we must place our education on a basis where a child can develop his mind on a scientific and evolutionary manner, and if the child receives the development, he can decide himself what kind a citizen he wants to be, a citizen who loves his own country or another country. But now we get the position that in a roundabout way all kinds of smokescreens are laid in connection with the question of single-medium or double-medium schools, while the real aim behind it is to kill the Afrikaans-medium schools. Now I want to put a question to the hon. members on the other side: Let us take the generation of the last 30 years, that is since 1912, when the language question was placed on a healthy footing in our schools. Now take the children who have been educated in English-medium schools. Let them get up in this House and make a speech in Afrikaans. Take the children that were educated in Afrikaans-medium schools, let them get up here and address the House in English. Then we will see what section of the population it is who wants to adapt himself to conditions of 50-50, and who want to give the English-speaking people their rights, but also want to retain their own rights. Let us make this the test. It is as clear to us as anything in the world. If they must get up and speak Afrikaans, you would witness a horror in this House as never before. When a few words in Afrikaans are spoken in this House then it is said: “Just see how we respect your language susceptibilities; see how we try to learn your language; here is proof that we want to be one with you.” The vast majority of the members who sit on this side of the House can speak Afrikaans and English, but let hon. members on the other side try to do so. There lies the test of goodwill, not in the type of legislation that must be introduced slyly here, namely that we must make better citizens of South Africans. If the children are bound to a less extent to laws of the kind which they want to make now, they will sooner learn to understand one another and be able to live together in the country much better, I want to come back again to the point where I said that it was nothing but the “top-dog” policy that rears its head as soon as the English-speaking section think that they hold the reins of government in their hands, and the sooner my hon. friends withdraw the Ordinance they want to propose in the Provincial Council, and the sooner they put a stop to this sort of calculation in the United Party, the better. We ask nothing more of the Government than to leave us alone; grant us the right which we have; let our Afrikaans-medium schools develop; let our English-medium schools develop. The money belongs to the general taxpayers. It is the money of the Afrikaans-speaking section as well as the money of the English-speaking section in the country. If this is done then the two sections in this country will agree, and the English-speaking section wil learn to love this country more: Necessity will teach them that.

I did not intend to take part in this debate today. I did not prepare a speech, and my hon. friends on the other side need not fear that I will take up the time of the House for long, but I would like to support the amendment of the hon. member for Potchefstroom (Mr. H. van der Merwe). But also I think that it would be desirable if something is said by a member who largely represents the English-speaking section. I am purposely speaking in Afrikaans today, and I do it in spite of the fact that I know that my Afrikaans is very weak, but it is that weakness that is my best argument against the single-medium system.

You mean the English-medium system.

Most of us are the products of that system, and I regard myself as a living warning against the single-medium system. I was educated in Natal, and there at school I learnt Dutch, but learnt it as a foreign language. Later as a teacher, at one of the Natal schools I saw how Afrikaans was taught there, also in my opinion too much like a foreign language under that English-medium system. I wonder whether the opposite also applies in this House? There are perhaps among my friends on the other side products of that same single-medium system.

No, not on this side.

There are perhaps members who will have just as much difficulty in making a speech in English as I am having now in making a speech in Afrikaans, and I think that the reason for it is that both are the products of a system in which we allowed one of our national languages to be taught as a foreign language. I do not pose as an expert. I merely speak as an earnest, and, I hope, an honest South African. To me there is no question of a “top-dog” policy. I am the citizen of a bilingual country, which is bilingual and will remain bilingual, and we—I am speaking about thousands of South Africans in my own Province and also in other parts of the country—we hope that our whole population will become really bilingual. For this reason I support the double-medium system, and for this reason I regret that I myself was educated under the single-medium system. No, I admit that during the first years of a child’s education, his mother tongue is the best medium for his education, and in the educational sphere I agree entirely with the point of view mentioned by the hon. Minister of Finance this morning. I agree with his point of view that as soon as possible—and in my opinion it is desirable not later than the Fifth Standard—the system in both languages should be introduced. I will not take up the time of the House any longer. I just want to say this that when I listened to the hon. Minister, I thought of a story about a Scotsman. That old Scotsman was always discerning and thrifty in words. He did not like long speeches like many of my hon. friends in this House. But that old Scotsman was also very religious by nature, and he never omitted to say his prayer to the Almighty every night. He wrote the prayer “Our Father” on a piece of paper, and hung it above his bed, and when he went to sleep, he put out the light and pointed with his finger to “Our Father” on the wall and said: “Lord, them’s my sentiments.” In this same spirit I say that I accept the point of view mentioned by the Minister today.

Might I also address the House as a product of a single-medium school, and the remarks which I wish to address to the House today, I wish to address, in the first place, to my English-speaking friends opposite, but before I do so I should like to say that I endorse practically every word of the speech made by my hon. friend, the member for Heilbron (Mr. Liebenberg), except in one small part of it, and there I think you will agree that the interpretation which I put on his words is one which he meant also, and that is where he spoke of a fifty-fifty basis of English and Afrikaans in South Africa … I am not in favour of a fifty-fifty basis. I am in favour of a hundred-hundred basis. I am in favour of the English-speaking people in South Africa having the right to use their language where and when they desire, I am in favour of their having the right to have their children taught their own language, when and in the way they desire, and, on the other hand, the corollary also holds that we on our side want to use our language when we want to and how we want to; and we want to teach our children in the way we want them taught and when we want to. That is all we ask from our English-speaking friends—not fifty-fifty, but a hundred-hundred. That is what we want, because we feel that every man is master in his own house.

Who is stopping you?

Hon. members opposite say this, that those of us who are in favour of single-medium schools are in favour of a unilingual population. That is not so. No one more than the Afrikaans-speaking people in South Africa have realised in the past the necessity of having a bilingual population in South Africa. We have gone out from the point of view that it is necessary for every child to be bilingual, and let me say that the bilingual section of South Africa is not the English-speaking section, but the Afrikaans-speaking section. Some hon. member over there shakes his head. Well, let him look at his own Cabinet. Practically half the members of the Cabinet are unilingual. Then look at members on this side of the House. There may be members on this side of the House who have difficulty in expressing themselves in English, but they could express themselves if the necessity arose. How many members are there on that side of the House to whom it is impossible to express themselves in Afrikaans? There are even Cabinet Ministers who have to have an interpreter sitting next to them, when hon. members from this side address them in Afrikaans, because they are not able to understand us.

That is the fault of the unilingual schools.

No, it is not. If it is the fault of the unilingual schools, why is it that the section which has always fought for unilingual schools is the most bilingual section in the country today? How is it that our children are the bilingual product of education?

Because you do not really want the English-speaking people to learn Afrikaans.

What nonsense!

Is the hon. member for Umbilo now blaming the Afrikaans-speaking people for the unilingualism of the English-speaking people? I always credited him with very bad views, but with a certain amount of common sense.

I am sorry I cannot reciprocate.

I wish to address my remarks to the English-speaking people in this House. I want to tell them that in the first instance the Afrikaans-speaking people are very agitated at the present moment. We are not only agitated; we are wounded, and we are wounded very deeply, we are wounded in perhaps our most vulnerable part, and that is that emotional approach which we as Afrikaans-speaking people have to our own National objects, to our own language, which we honour in South Africa. Nothing can touch us more deeply, there is nothing we are more touchy about than our language. We are very touchy about our language, and we are easily wounded by anything which we may think, perhaps wrongly think, constitutes an attack on our language or on our language rights. And there is a reason for that touchiness, there is a very deep-seated reason, and the reason is that our language, what it means to us, what we have achieved for it, the place it takes in our social life and our educational life, must all be viewed in relation to the historical background of the Afrikaner people. It is part of our historical background, of our Nationalist existence, and we have an emotional attitude towards it, which the English-speaking people probably can realise if they try to place themselves in the same position as we are in today in this country. I say that our language in part of our historical background. We have had a very long struggle to bring Afrikaans where it is today, a very long struggle indeed, a very hard struggle, a very bloody struggle, a very bitter struggle. I don’t want to go back into history. I don’t want to rake up old scores of the past. We want to bury them. But we can bury them although we have to realise that they were there, and that they had existed. We have to realise that the Afrikaans-speaking people have fought a very bitter struggle for nearly a century—it has been a struggle from the beginning to achieve what we have achieved today, a long struggle and a bloody struggle, a bitter struggle, a struggle which has left very deep wounds. Those wounds, many of them are beginning to heal, but if you are going to do anything which makes the Afrikaans-speaking people feel that this is an attack on his national rights, on his language, you are going to open every one of these wounds which we all desire to see healed in South Africa, and that is the appeal I want to make to our English-speaking friends. Don’t play with fire. It means much more to us than they can realise. They may say that there are Afrikaans-speaking people who agree with them. There are, but in the struggle which lies ahead, if they go on with this thing, those Afrikaans-speaking people are going to be called renegades by the rest of the Afrikaans-speaking people, they are going to be called people without National pride, whose heartstrings do not tingle for things which are theirs, and theirs only, things which it is impossible for them to share with anyone else, because they have not got that pride in them. I say it is something which means much to us. It is not only the pedagogic value of being taught in your own language. That is very great, but that is not the greatest thing. There is a spiritual value in being taught in a school which is yours, which is nationally yours and yours only, and that is the value which is much greater than any pedagogic value, however great that may be. Our language is to us the dearest thing—it is unbelievably dear to us—unbelievable to the English-speaking in South Africa. The Englishman from England especially has his own towns, his own national monuments which stand to him as part of his national life, he has his old places, his old cathedrals with their mental and moral values. These are all things which have grown up into the life of his Nation over many centuries. They constitute the essence of his national outlook of life. Well, we on this side of the House belong to a younger race. We cannot look back with pride on three hundred, four hundred or five hundred years of national existence and greatness. We only have a few things which we can look back to—we have a few heroes, we have our language, but because they are few they are dearer to us, or they are as dear to us as those things which constitute the essentials of the whole national life of the English-speaking. And I want to stop with these words, that rightly or wrongly, you can say what you like, but rightly or wrongly the Afrikaans-speaking people are going to look upon this agitation as an attack upon our language. That is a fact, and if that is the fact then you are going to open a new struggle in South Africa which is going to open wounds which are healing, a struggle which is going to create new wounds, a struggle which is going to make amicable relationship between English- and Afrikaans-speaking people much more difficult to achieve than it would have been otherwise—and what is more, you are going to drive apart the English- and Afrikaans-speaking people, you are going to drive them away from you in an attempt — however well meant, to bring them together. The hon. member for Heilbron said: “Leave us alone.” That is all we ask. We are a small and a young nation. We have a few things and those few things are dear to us, and I ask everyone to leave those things that are dear to us alone, because no one on the other side can realise the true meaning of these things to us in our National existence.

It almost appears to me when the hon. member for Humansdorp (Mr. Sauer) spoke as if he and I belonged to the same party, if I must judge by what he has said. You will never make South Africa bilingual if you want to drive either side to it. Bilingualism for English-speaking as well as Afrikaans-speaking persons is something that must be accepted voluntarily. And there I think that the hon. member is right when he says that you cannot tamper with certain things. If you say to the Afrikaans-medium school: You must have English as well as Afrikaans as a medium, then you are going to injure the whole matter. If you say to the English-medium schools that they must have Afrikaans as well as English as a medium, then you are also going to have a revolution. The best progress in connection with bilingualism that has been made in the Union of South Africa was made, in my opinion, in the Orange Free State. If you take the generation that has just grown up, you will find that the Free State scholar is bilingual to a greater extent than the children from the other three provinces. After the Free State comes the Transvaal. What did you find in the Free State? In all your best schools, where in the secondary schools you had six subjects, you found that three of those subjects were taught in Afrikaans and the other three in English. The result was that when those children one day came to their final examinations, then they were more proficient in both languages than the scholar who had been educated in a school where a second language was thrust on him, as it were. I think the House would be taking an unwise step to make bilingualism compulsory. There are other methods of encouraging bilingualism. If you make it compulsory it will lead to a revolution and you will again plant a seed for jingoism.

That is what the Minister of Finance wants to do.

I say that you will have a revolution on both sides. We see already that some teachers express the opinion that it should not be made compulsory. The country gives the necessary facilities to everyone who wants to become bilingual, and if he cannot become bilingual, then it is his own fault. If a school principal, whether in the Transvaal or in the Free State, is so stupid that he does not realise that he is living in a bilingual country and that he must arrange his staff in such a way that they will be able to teach in both languages, then it is a sad state of affairs. He must say to his staff: In this school the children will learn Afrikaans as well as English; three subjects will be taught in Afrikaans and three in English. That is my view. And I am not making a political matter of it. The more we do that, the more we will injure the case. I feel sorry for my friends in the English areas who have suffered under the single-medium system, but I say that they became the prey of a stupid school principal.

They did not want to learn Afrikaans. You and I wanted to learn English but they did not want to learn Afrikaans.

I still remember the days well when I was small and when a board was hung around my neck because I did not want to learn. For this reason I did not want to learn English, but later when I grew up I became sensible, then I realised that I must learn English. When they wanted to force me I did not want to learn. This is a question where force must not be applied in any way, and in all modesty I want to give this advice to the Government: If you are going to do that, then you are going to get two teams of jingoes in this country. One team will pull in the one direction and the other in the other. I think however that the State can indicate clearly to school principals that they must arrange their staffs so that they will be able to teach in both languages. Where is the most ideal secondary school in South Africa? I think today it is the Grey College.

You cannot say that; you do not know it now.

That is true, things may be different today. I will not dispute that.

What about Boshof?

A few years ago Boshof was one of the best schools in the country. The English results from Boshof beat even Natal and the Cape Province in the final examination. There you had the fruits of a school principal who realised that it was necessary that the young generation in South Africa should be trained to be proper bilingual citizens, not like we had under the Milner system, a “Dutch-make system.” Where the bilingual policy is applied in schools in a tactful manner, it will give good results, that was proved in the Free State. The hon. Minister may ask me what I suggest. I say that the Government must get every school principal understand that this House notices that there are certain schools who do not make an effort to produce bilingual children and that they continue to produce unilingual children. Let us say to them clearly that it is undesirable, that the result of this is that you may get a student who is successful in his final examination but who will get into difficulty when he gets to the Orange Free State. That is if he is educated in Natal; he will not be able to help himself. Then again you find a student who in the Free State passed his examination with honours but who cannot help himself if he lands in Natal. Why must a question of this nature be brought into politics? It is a pity that the school principals have allowed this matter to become so difficult, that year after year students have matriculated without being as bilingual as they ought to be here in South Africa. For that reason this motion serves a good purpose because it gives us an opportunity to express ourselves on this matter. I cannot express my disapproval strong enough if a school principal consistently closes his eyes to these facts. I express my thanks for this opportunity and I think that this discussion in the House of Assembly has served a good purpose in bringing the matter to the attention of our school principals and to let them realise that South Africa is a bilingual country.

There is not much time left for this debate, but after the speech of the hon. member who has just spoken, I feel compelled to say what the position was in the Free State. Efforts were made to do all these things which are now being held out to us here. We had a Crown Colony Government, and then we had only single English-medium schools. When I first went to school, I cried on the first day because I did not even know how to say in English: “Please, teacher, may I leave the room?” Thereafter we had self-government, but we still had single English-medium schools, as we had during the Crown Colony period. In 1908, however, the Hertzog Act was introduced. That was an Act which brought into operation the dual-medium. The law was that until reaching Standard IV the child would receive instruction in his mother tongue, and that thereafter he would be compelled to do what the Minister of Finance now desires, namely, to use both languages as the medium of instruction. He must make use of English and of Netherlands as media of instruction. That was the best way which was devised at that time to bring about bilingualism. What happened then? I should like hon. members who talked so nicely about bilingualism to pay attention to this. The English-speaking people in the Free State sent a deputation to London to kill the dual-medium Act. They held protest meetings, and were up in arms against it. They refused to have the dual-medium school; they wanted only the English-medium. They wanted their own mother tongue, and they did not want to be taught in a foreign language. I do not find fault with them, but those are the facts. They did not support the dual-medium, and they then established what are known as the Council schools which were to have been English-medium schools. They broke away from the Government schools and established unilingual English-medium schools. There was not at that time the goodwill of which hon. members on the opposite side spoke. We still remember the days when we had to walk about with the board “Jack donkey” because we did not speak English.

That did not do you any good.

No, certainly not. I wish today that I could have used Afrikaans as the medium of instruction throughout my school days and throughout the university. Today I am in this position that as a result I do not know my own language well enough. I do not know my own language as well as I know English. The point I want to make here is that the English-speaking people in the Free State definitely refused to accept the dual-medium schools. They established English-medium schools; and now that we ask for the establishment of Afrikaans-medium schools, a fuss is made, and we are told that we are bringing about racialism. When the English-speaking people in the Free State did that, they were fighting for something which was sacred to them; we do so because of racialism! After the introduction of the Hertzog Act in 1908 dual-medium schools were then introduced, but in practice it was still almost impossible to use Netherlands or Afrikaans as the medium of instruction, because the school higher examination and the Matriculation examination only had to be written in English. The examination was under the control of the University of the Cape of Good Hope, and the examination had to be written in English. After the introduction of the Hertzog Act of 1908 the split came. The English-medium schools then came into existence. At Kroonstad there was a dual-medium school. The English-speaking people of Kroonstad sent a deputation to Bloemfontein, and they got a single-English-medium school at Kroonstad. In Bloemfontein they were also up in arms against the dual-medium schools. They asked the Afrikaans pupils in the Brebner School rather to go to another school, and they then changed the Brebner School to an English-medium school. The Afrikaans-speaking pupils were transferred to the Preparatory Technical School, which later became the Central High School, and which is today the biggest Afrikaans-medium school in the country. I mention these facts in order to show that on every occasion it was the English-speaking people who said: “No, we want schools where English is the medium of instruction throughout the school”. They founded schools in Kroonstad and at Bloemfontein, at a time when there were no out-and-out Afrikaans-medium schools in the Free State.

That is quite correct.

I say it to their credit. Then the Afrikaans-speaking people said that they, too, wanted Afrikaans-medium schools. In Bloemfontein the Central High School came into existence, the largest in the country; there was the Oranje School, which adopted Afrikaans as the medium of instruction, and which repeatedly took prizes for the best English student in the whole of South Africa. We have no objection to the establishment of English-medium schools, but why must a movement now be set afoot to suppress Afrikaans-medium schools? That is the position in the Free State, and I say that the English-speaking people are the last people who can say that it is wrong to establish Afrikaans-medium schools. In 1939 there were 272 private schools in South Africa, all single-medium, with English as the medium of instruction. The number of pupils in those schools was 27,270. They were all schools with English as the medium of instruction, and those schools and the number of pupils prove my point. Are they going to convert all those schools into so-called dual-medium schools? No, they will not do it, and I give them credit for it that they do not want to do it. But then they must not come and tell me that we must convert our schools. I want my children to go right through the primary school, the secondary school, and the university with Afrikaans as the medium of instruction, and, in addition to that, they must learn English thoroughly. I have the right to expect that, and the proof of that right is to be found in the 272 English-medium schools which exist in the country. I want them to learn history, mathematics, and those subjects through the medium of Afrikaans, but I concede that the second language must be learned. In the Free State a pupil cannot pass the Junior Certificate or Matriculation if he does not pass in both English and Afrikaans. That is as it should be. But we must not bring compulsion to bear on the Afrikaans child by saying that he must take two or three subjects through the medium of English, nor should we compel the English child to take subjects through the medium of Afrikaans.

At 4.10 o’clock p.m. the business under consideration was interrupted by Mr. Speaker in accordance with the Sessional Order adopted on the 28th January, 1943, and Standing Order No. 26 (1), and the debate was adjourned; to be resumed on 17th March.

The House thereupon proceeded to the consideration of Government business.

When this discussion was adjourned I had brought a matter to the attention of the Prime Minister, because I considered that the Minister of Agriculture had failed in his duty because he did not meet the consumers in respect of a fall in the meat prices. I just want to mention one other matter and with that I will conclude. I would like to know from the Prime Minister whether it is so that the Dried Fruit Board recommended a higher price for sultanas than that fixed by the Minister. I am informed that the Dried Fruit Board recommended 3.18d. and that the Minister fixed it at 3d. I would like that information and then I would be satisfied.

Amendment proposed by Dr. Malan put and the Committee divided:

Ayes—43:

Badenhorst, C. C. E.

Bekker, G.

Bekker, S.

Bezuidenhout, J. T.

Boltman, F. H.

Booysen, W. A.

Bosman, P. J.

Bremer, K.

Conradie, J. H.

De Bruyn, D. A. S.

De Wet, J. C.

Erasmus, F. C.

Fouché, J. J.

Fullard, G. J.

Grobler, J. H.

Labuschagne, J. S.

Le Roux, P. M. K.

Le Roux, S. P.

Liebenberg. J. L. V.

Loubser, S. M.

Louw, E. H.

Malan, D. F.

Naudé, S. W.

Olivier, P. J.

Oost, H.

Pieterse, P. W. A.

Schoeman, B. J.

Schoeman, N. J.

Strydom, G. H. F.

Strydom, J. G.

Swart, A. P.

Swart, C. R.

Van der Merwe, R. A. T.

Van Zyl, J. J. M.

Viljoen, D. T. du P.

Viljoen, J. H.

Vosloo, L. J.

Warren, S. E.

Werth, A. J.

Wilkens, Jacob.

Wolfaard, G. v. Z.

Tellers: J. F. T. Naudé and P. O. Sauer.

Noes—62:

Abbott, C. B. M.

Abrahamson, H.

Acutt, F. H.

Allen, F. B.

Bawden, W.

Bell, R. E.

Blackwell, L.

Botha, H. N. W.

Burnside, D. C.

Christopher, R. M.

Clark, C. W.

Collins, W. R.

Conradie, J. M.

Davis, A.

Deane, W. A.

De Wet, H. C.

Dolley, G.

Du Toit, R. J.

Egeland, L.

Fourie, J. P.

Gluckman, H.

Hare, W. D.

Hayward, G. N.

Henderson, R. H.

Heyns, G. C. S.

Hirsch, J. G.

Hooper, E. C.

Howarth, F. T.

Humphreys, W. B.

Johnson, H. A.

Kentridge, M.

Klopper, L. B.

Lawrence, H. G.

Lindhorst, B. H.

Madeley, W. B.

Moll, A. M.

Mushet, J. W.

Neate, C.

Payn, A. O. B.

Pocock, P. V.

Quinlan, S. C.

Raubenheimer, L. J.

Reitz, L. A. B.

Robertson, R. B.

Rood, K.

Shearer, V. L.

Smuts, J. C.

Solomon, B.

Solomon, V. G. F.

Sonnenberg, M.

Steyn, C. F.

Steytler, L. J.

Sturrock, F. C.

Trollip, A. E.

Van den Berg, M. J.

Van der Byl, P. V. G.

Van der Merwe, H.

Wallach, I.

Warren, C. M.

Waterson, S. F.

Tellers: G. A. Friend and J. W. Higgerty.

Amendment accordingly negatived.

Amendment proposed by Mr. Louw put and the Committee divided:

Ayes—46:

Badenhorst, C. C. E.

Bekker, G.

Bekker, S.

Bezuidenhout, J. T.

Boltman, F. H.

Booysen, W. A.

Bosman, P. J.

Bremer, K.

Conradie, J. H.

De Bruyn, D. A. S.

De Wet, J. C.

Du Plessis, P. J.

Erasmus, F. C.

Fouché, J. J.

Fullard, G. J.

Grobler, J. H.

Labuschagne, J. S.

Le Roux, P. M. K.

Le Roux, S. P.

Liebenberg, J. L. V.

Loubser, S. M.

Louw, E. H.

Malan, D. F.

Naudé, S. W.

Olivier, P. J.

Oost, H.

Pieterse, P. W. A.

Schoeman, B. J.

Schoeman, N. J.

Strydom, G. H. F.

Strydom, J. G.

Swart, A. P.

Swart, C. R.

Van der Merwe, R. A. T.

Van Zyl, J. J. M.

Verster, J. D. H.

Viljoen, D. T. du P.

Viljoen, J. H.

Vosloo, L. J.

Warren, S. E.

Wentzel, J. J.

Werth, A. J.

Wilkens, Jacob.

Wolfaard, G. v. Z.

Tellers: J. F. T. Naudé and P. O. Sauer.

Noes—64:

Abbott, C. B. M.

Abrahamson, H.

Acutt, F. H.

Alexander, M.

Allen, F. B.

Bawden, W.

Bell, R. E.

Blackwell, L.

Botha, H. N. W.

Burnside, D. C.

Christopher, R. M.

Clark, C. W.

Collins, W. R.

Conradie, J. M.

Davis, A.

Deane, W. A.

De Wet, H. C.

Dolley, G.

Du Toit, R. J.

Egeland, L.

Fourie, J. P.

Gilson, L. D.

Gluckman, H.

Hare, W. D.

Hayward, G. N.

Henderson, R. H.

Heyns, G. C. S.

Hirsch, J. G.

Hooper, E. C.

Howarth, F. T.

Humphreys, W. B.

Johnson, H. a.

Kentridge, M.

Klopper, L. B.

Lawrence, H. G.

Lindhorst, B. H.

Madeley, W. B.

Moll, A. M.

Mushet, J. W.

Neate, C.

Payn, A. O. B.

Pocock, P. V.

Quinlan, S. C.

Raubenheimer, L. J.

Reitz, L. A. B.

Robertson, R. B.

Rood, K.

Shearer, V. L.

Smuts, J. C.

Solomon, B.

Solomon, V. G. F.

Sonnenberg, M.

Steyn, C. F.

Steytler, L. J.

Sturrock, F. C.

Trollip, A. E.

Van den Berg, M. J.

Van der Byl, P. V. G.

Van der Merwe, H.

Wallach, I.

Warren, C. M.

Waterson, S. F.

Tellers: G. A. Friend and J. W. Higgerty.

Amendment accordingly negatived.

Vote No. 4.—“Prime Minister and External Affairs”, as printed, put and agreed to.

On Vote No. 5—“Defence”, £48,000,000,

I want to make use of the half-hour. In connection with this vote so little information is given that it is very difficult to criticise. It is very difficult to show what has really happened in the Department of Defence, since the information is very meagre. We only know a few little things according to the report of the Auditor-General. I just want to read one point out of it to prove that in the Department of Defence all is not in order. On page 4, paragraph 3, the Auditor-General says—

I am not going to quote further from the report. But it is very clear that irregularities still exist and that many irregularities took place in connection with Defence. We have now been engaged in the war for four years, and order has not yet been restored. Well, if such large sums, such colossal and gigantic amounts are being spent, there may be small items of which full account cannot be given. But we cannot allow that large amounts should disappear of which no one can give account. We on this side are not in favour of devoting a penny to the war, because we do not believe that you can correct anything through war or that you can solve differences through war. I want to try to indicate in what way the money that is being wasted at present could be used for the benefit of the country in spite of the fact that we are against spending any money on the war. How is money being spent today? What work are the soldiers doing today? Today thousands of soldiers are lying around everywhere in the country, they must have a certain training. Certain fortification works had te be built, but one comes to the end of the period, and if there are thousands of people who are being pushed around and have no work, you must expect difficulties. Can the soldiers not be used for useful work? We do not know how long the war will last, perhaps one year, perhaps two years, or three years, and all the time a large number of soldiers will be maintained. I feel that they should be used to the advantage of the country. Why can they not do certain work as in England and America and Australia? There is, for example the building of dams and the checking of soil erosion, work that can be done for the progress of the country. Here in South-Africa we are doing nothing of that sort. The soldiers must be well treated, but give them work to do. It will be exercise for them at the same time. We hear continually: “Our land is being washed away.” Let us use the soldiers to prevent it. You can send them to different parts of the country to combat the enemy of soil erosion. I feel that this should enjoy the attention of the Minister, then we will at least get something for the money we vote, and they will do no harm if they work. Even members of Parliament here, if they have no work, tend to do harm. I do not say that they do harm, but the temptation is there. The same applies to the soldiers. Then I want to say something about the promotions. There is much dissatisfaction in the Defence Force today. There are people today who feel that they have a grievance, there are people who feel that promotions are granted as gifts and favours. If you talk to the people, they say that the competent persons are overlooked, and I feel that they have a grievance. You have an astonishingly large Defence Force today, and I can well understand that some of the high officers want to use the opportunity to push certain people forward. But particularly among the old permanent staff it is felt that they have a serious grievance. With regard to the spending of the money, I was, for example at headquarters at Roberts Heights. When you go to headquarters, you are detained by guards. You must have a permit. I can well understand that. The guards stand in front, and someone takes you to the next place. Then you are taken a little way further by another soldier and two ladies, and there you receive a new escort. Then there are four standing at the building at which you eventually arrive, and then again four on every floor. Most of them are ladies. But why are all these people necessary, are there so many visitors? Have they nothing else to do? They all draw salaries, and must all be equipped and paid by the Department of Defence. I noticed that you are taken by eight different people before you come to the highest officer. They sit there at tables, and it seems that they have nothing further to do. Undoubtedly, a terribly great deal of time and money is being wasted. We have today a large engineering section which does good work, and I want to suggest that this section be further strengthened, and that they are not discharged even after the war. They are people who can save our country. They are technically trained people, and they ought to do soil erosion work after the war. After the war many soldiers will be without work, and these trained people can be taken into service to combat soil erosion. I do not know whether the Minister knows it, but at Roberts Heights you can see many signs of waste. A friend of mine who is well informed tells me that it is terrible to see how much food, pounds of butter, cheese, meat and vegetables are carted away. Every soldier must receive his ration, otherwise there is dissatisfaction, but can something not be done to check this waste? Often soldiers go on leave, but, so I understand, their food is still issued. This man who works there told me: “When I think of the loads of food that are carted away, why can it not be given to the people who are hungry?” I feel that impartial men should be appointed to go round to trace the various irregularities. I have been told further that a certain place meat has to be delivered and that the good meat is changed on the way and that when it arrives at its destination it is bad meat. You see wrong things on all sides. Take the case of equipment. Another friend of mine told me how much waste occurs under the hospital system. He says that when he arrived there, there was no system and terrible waste. Today things have improved in that particular hospital, because this man put his foot down, and I believe that hundreds of pounds are being saved as a result. The Department of Defence has expanded so tremendously that it is has got out of hand. If we just think of what it means if 1 per cent., or 2 per cent., or 5 per cent. is wasted on defence expenditure. It amounts to millions. It is happening today. Through bad administration millions of pounds are being wasted. People are trained to cook. They get the theory, but they know nothing of the practice. I know of one man who was an old chef with much experience, but he could not stick it under the system. He says he is willing to go back again if they need him and if they first improve the system. I am willing to give the names to the Minister. Then I want to say something about the native soldiers. We have always followed the policy of separation, and I think all sides of the House feel that we must retain the line of distinction. The soldiers who return from the North, where they went together with European soldiers, are never the same again. They knew equality there, and we will yet pluck the bitter fruits if we do not put our foot down now. Treat the soldiers well, but let them understand what the position is. In Africa there are 143,000,000 natives and some 3,000,000 Europeans. We know how in Central Africa the thousands of Askaris never returned after the last war to their normal work. But when strict action was taken, they came right again and became useful workers. We shall also have to put an end here to the conditions that have developed. Treat your soldiers well, but strictly. Otherwise the natives will get out of hand and not be able to return again to normal circumstances. That is always the difficulty with a native. Then I also feel that we must make provision for soldiers who return after the war. Promises have been made to them, and if the promises are not carried out, there will be difficulties. I have here the “Natal Mercury” of March 2, and in the leading article they say that the Government is not doing its duty, and the signing of the new oath is not nearly as good as it ought to be. That indicates that there is something brewing, that there is difficulty. I asked the soldiers what is going on, and they say: When we enlisted, certain promises were made to us that what we received in private life would be made up. When the call came for 7,000 recruits after Tobruk, then an allowance was paid to the new troops from the Governor General’s Fund to bring them up to the standard of salary which they previously received, but the old soldiers say that they have not been treated in that way.

They get the same.

If the Minister says it, then I believe it, but it is a great grievance among the soldiers. They say that there are too many gifts and favours. All must be treated in the same way, otherwise you get difficulty and dissatisfaction. Then I still want to say something about the agricultural exemptions court. The Prime Minister said last year: I want food, you must produce. We did produce. Today we already have overproduction of certain things. But there are several farmers in the army who are eager to return to their farms, at any rate, temporarily, but you are up against a stone wall if you try to get leave for such a soldier. The agricultural exemptions court can hear very few cases, and usually if the leave is granted, the crop is already off. I struggled for one of these people, sent telegrams—the man’s crop stood ripe on the lands, he had been in the North for two years, he had done his duty, but there is so much “red tape”, and you are sent from one officer to another; when the man eventually arrived home, his crop was off. Practical people should sit on such a court. I shall be glad if the Minister will tell us who sits on the court, but there ought to be men who have a grasp of what is necessary in agriculture. I have a few neighbours who were also in the North. One returned and remained in Pretoria. I even put through a telephone call. After three weeks, he came, and then the crop had already been destroyed by hail. I think this matter ought to receive the close attention of the Minister. We are eager to delete the Vote, because we feel that we cannot vote money for the war. I have taken part in wars, and I feel that a war never solves the difficulties of a nation. We saw it in the previous war. But we have been plunged into the war, and we want in any case to see that the Minister takes steps to keep better supervision over the way in which the money is spent, and to ensure that there is not so much “red tape”. On the one side you get all the “red tape” and on the other side everything seems quite loose, and there are hundreds of people who seem to have nothing to do. I want to suggest that impartial men should be appointed to trace irregularities and unnecessary waste, and to ensure that they are done away with. Much will be discovered. There are, for example, all the old clothes of the military that are cast aside when they are no longer serviceable. I understand that they are given out on contract or by auction, and I want to suggest that the system be changed. Our natives have no clothes today. You can virtually not get clothes, and those you get are so dear that it is impossible to give the kaffirs clothes. Is it not possible to send such clothes to the magistrates in the various districts, so that they can then be shared out for the benefit of the natives? The clothes can be sold at reasonable prices, or to the farmers direct, or to the natives. But now one man buys up the clothes and sells them again at a profiteering price. I want to suggest that the system be changed. At this time clothes should not be speculated in in this way. It will also help greatly to satisfy the natives, because they expect to get a jacket and trousers, but we cannot provide them today. I hope that these few points of criticism will not be wrongly taken up, but that they will enjoy the attention of the Government.

I perceive a most welcome change on the other side, in finding the hon. member for Aliwal North (Capt. G. H. F. Strydom) getting up here as he new shadow Minister of Defence, and I should like to avail myself of this opportunity to offer my congratulations to the hon. member for the very mild tone he has adopted in his speech. In contrast to the abuse which we have had from the other side directed against the Prime Minister on his last Vote, the speech by the hon. member for Aliwal North has been a very welcome change indeed. For two days the Prime Minister has had to sit and listen to nothing but abuse from that side.

Are you starting it again?

So the change has indeed been a very welcome one, and I do want to congratulate the hon. member on what I regard as constructive criticism on his part. Not that much of what he said was right. The hon. member for Aliwal is an old soldier himself—a very old soldier—and he is living in the past. He is living in the days of 1914-’18 still.

I am one of the old school.

Exactly, but there is a new school today. We have not been able to persuade the hon. member that his policy of neutrality is wrong, but perhaps—and I say so under the influence of the speech we have listened to for the last thirty minutes—perhaps we may be able to induce him still to join the army. It would not take too long a time to mould him into shape, and I am sure he would become a very valuable asset. I do feel that with all his mild criticism he has put up a very weak case; but so mild has his criticism been that I don’t think it would take much on our part to persuade him join our army. Now, there was one point which the hon. member made which would have been a good point if it had been correct. He said that it would be an excellent thing if the old uniforms were sent to the country districts. And then he spoke about thousands of uniforms being sold. Unfortunately very little clothing is being sold—if any were sold it certainly would be a very good idea to send it to the country districts. And then the hon. member made a point which really amused me—I hope he was not serious. We have a wonderful army, it contains some of the finest specialists right from the top ranks to the very bottom, and the hon. member—the new shadow Minister of Defence—suggests that our soldiers should be put on to the construction of dams—that they should be used for work of that description. Surely these men who have come along voluntarily—who have given up their jobs—many of them good jobs—to fight for their country cannot be used for purposes of that kind. Surely the hon. member is not serious. Is he speaking on behalf of the Opposition in that suggestion? Does he suggest that our soldiers who have volunteered to go and fight—not to do manual work but to go and fight—should be put on the soil erosion works? The hon. member knows what military discipline is. He knows that if a soldier is told to go and dig a dam he has to do so. No, I cannot imagine that the hon. member is serious. Does he expect us to cast aside every bit of democracy that we have?

They do it elsewhere.

The men do a little bit of fatigue work which they have always done. They have to clean spuds and vegetables, and they still have to dig trenches—but that is the nearest to actual manual labour—but to expect these soldiers of ours who have joined up to fight for our country—to expect them to go on to construction works—on works where convicts are often used—no, I am afraid that the hon. member cannot be serious in putting that forward. Then the hon. member also spoke about our native soldiers, and he told us that on their return he found these men very much changed. I disagree with the hon. member, I disagree with him completely. The native boys are taken in their raw state with their blankets around them—into the army, and after a short space of time, these native boys have changed completely—and they have changed for the better. I do not know that the hon. gentleman has had the experience that I have had. I have been an employer of labour for many years, and I know that one of the few good things that the hon. member for Gezina (Mr. Pirow) introduced was the Special Service Battalion for unemployed European youths. The scheme was that after giving these youths a certain amount of military training, the authorities tried to find them a job. I had numbers of these boys coming into my works, and they were a credit to the army and to the training they received. It was a pleasure to employ these boys. I say the same as far as the natives are concerned. In the army the native is taught hygiene; he is taught a lot of things, and when he returns to civil life the training he has received will prove a very good thing. So much for what the hon. member for Aliwal (Capt. G. H. F. Strydom) has said. I have one plea which I would like to make to the hon. the Minister. At the present time we have troops on embarkation leave here in Cape Town, and right throughout South Africa. Unfortunately they are distributed from one internal centre. I am sorry the Minister of Railways and Harbours is not in his seat, for in a very large number of cases only very limited leave is granted to these troops, very limited leave, indeed; and in the majority of cases valuable days of leave have to be spent far away from the men’s homes because they cannot get fixed up on the train. I do feel that this should be taken into consideration. Travelling time should be allowed, and if the Defence Department would co-operate with the Minister of Railways, in order to get special railway facilities put at the disposal of these men, whose time is so short, who may never return to their homes, and who in any case may be away for a very long time, it would be much appreciated. If the Defence and Railway Departments could co-operate, it would enable these men to spend as much of the leave granted to them as possible with their parents or relatives at their homes.

We on this side of the House do not want to vote a single penny under this Vote, and for that reason we shall vote against the whole Vote. This Vote is described as Defence. That is the wrong name. When one looks at the £48,000,000 which this House is today asked to vote, one cannot help feeling that this is not for the defence of South Africa. This Vote should be described as the Aggression Vote. We are not waging a defensive war at the moment, especially now that the Government has proceeded to send troops outside Africa. It now becomes a war of agression. One cannot say that it is a war of defence, and I therefore say that the title of the Vote is wrong. It is agression; it is not defence. Aggression will be committed with this £48,000,000. The Government said, if we can accept what the Press says, that it will no longer recruit soldiers to fight in Africa; the recruiting will now take place only in respect of service outside Africa. Only people who are willing to fight outside Africa will now be recruited. We are now engaged in waging a war of aggression. The name of the Vote is therefore wrong. In the first instance I should like to object to the absence of particulars. We are now asked to vote £48,000,000, but we are not told for what purpose that sum is required. We must vote this money blindly. It may be easy for hon. members on the other side of the House to do that, but it is not easy for an Opposition such as ours which has to watch the Government, to vote sums of money such as these which are asked for in respect of aeroplanes, cannons, etc. I would just like to put this question to the Right hon. member: If we have to vote money for aeroplanes, what does this subsidy to Imperial Airways mean? Since we are engaged in acquiring our own air force, it is strange that a subsidy to Imperial Airways, Ltd., should still appear here, and no one knows what the amount is. The Right hon. member may be able to tell us what the amount is which we have to vote here blindly. We differ from other Parliaments.

That arrangements was made by our yown Prime Minister.

That may be so; whether or not it is necessary is another question. But since we have our own aeroplanes, why is such a subsidy to Imperial Airways still necessary? Our Parliament differs from other Parliaments in the other Dominions and in America and even in Great Britain. There the members do at any rate get the information for which they ask. We are an exception, and I want to protest most strongly and say that when we are asked to vote these enormous sums, it is not in the interests of South Africa to leave us in the dark in this manner. It was said here that the members of the Opposition could not be trusted with the information which other Parliaments receive concerning the war. But, surely, we are part of this Parliament. Parliament does not consist only of the Government, and if the Government thinks that it alone can vote these sums, then its own party and its own members alone should provide these funds. But what happens? The whole country must contribute these sums. We also represent the voters in this country, only with this difference that frequently we represent them better.

Perhaps.

We are deliberately kept in the dark, and for that reason I think that we have the right to lodge protest. In other countries, when the Opposition asks for information it gets it. In this House no information is given to the Opposition, and it must blindly vote large sums without any information having been given to the members. Then there is another point. One is sorry to notice that our army is more and more becoming a subsidiary army to the British forces. In this war particularly there was an opportunity for South Africa to establish it own identity. But what happens? Wherever one goes, one gains the improssion that we are an appendix to the British army, and day by day, to a greater extent, we become an appendix to the British army. We are even described in the Press as the British forces. I want to ask the Right hon. member whether the time is not overdue for South Africa, for the sake of its self-respect, to acquire self-identity? This war offers an opportunity to do it. If our fighting forces are something distinct, then it is in name only. When one looks at South African and English soldiers on the battlefield one cannot see any difference. They all wear the same uniforms, and the officers have the latest Bond Street cut. There is nothing distinctive as far as we are concerned. We are but a part of the British Army. When one looks at the honours which are bestowed upon the men you gain the same impression. The newspapers are full of honours which are granted from time to time.

And who gets them?

The hon. member asks “Who gets them?” This is a British war, into which we have been drawn, but surely we are not a lackey of Britain? The Right Hon. the Prime Minister accepted a British title of honour. He became a Field-Marshal of the British Army. He set the example. Today one can hardly open a newspaper without finding it full of honour awards—British honour awards—granted to our soldiers. Has the time not arrived for South Africa to acquire for itself a few badges of honour of its own? It is in the blood of every nation to create something distinctive for its people. This Government has the opportunity to do it in this war, but it does not do so. It is making us henchmen of Britain, and it is making Britishers of our men, and British officers of our officers, and it is against that phenomenon in our Defence Force that I seriously object. The third point I want to make is this: When one looks about in South Africa, one is irresistibly brought under the impression that our expenditure can be curtailed very greatly if we fight less on the home front. When one looks at the trains and the places of amusement, one involuntarily gains the impression that there is a mighty war in progress just outside Cape Town. During the week-ends the streets are full of soldiers.

Why do you not join the recruiting staff?

As soon as I become a British lackey of the British Government, I shall do so. But fortunately I am not one. The nation is paying for these people who are idle at the home front during the week-ends.

I pay more than you do.

That may be so; it is quite likely. In reply to the question which the hon. member addressed to me, I might also ask him why he is sitting here? There is the recruiting staff which he can join. If he is too old to go and fight, he can still join the recruiting staff. I say that when one looks at our train traffic, and when one looks at the people around us, one cannot help coming to the conclusion that the war is being waged in the Union. There are so many people in uniform that one must gain the impression that the war is being waged here. What are these people doing here? Who must they guard? A large number of barracks have to be erected here for these people. They must all be kept here. I say that when one looks about one cannot help feeling that the war is being waged here, but when one goes to Muizenberg during the week-ends, one gains the impression that there is not a war in progress at all, judging by the number of people of a certain type one finds there.

Does it worry you?

Of course, it worries me.

You can come along with me next Saturday and then we can ask them to join up.

I want to tell the hon. member that if only he would do that, he would be doing a good piece of work. But I can assure him that he will not find a single convert there. I say that when one visits those places of amusement, one gains the impression that South Africa is neutral, that there is no war on. Then the Government tells us that this war is being waged with volunteers, that they cannot compel those people. When one listens to hon. members on the other side, one gets the impression that no compulsion is brought to bear on the men. But they do see to it that others are compelled. We on this side of the House receive complaint after complaint, especially from the soldiers. These people complain. They say that the present methods which are adopted to obtain recruits to take the “blue oath” constitute a disgrace. I want to mention a few of these cases to the Right Hon. member, but before I come to that I want to refer to the allowances of the soldiers. I think that the Prime Minister should institute an investigation in connection with the soldiers who withdraw the allowances from their wives and children. It happens on a much larger scale than this House imagines. I do not know whether it is taking place with the permission of the Right hon. member, but there is a large number of soldiers who have withdrawn their allowances from their wives and children, and paid it to some one else. In the first place, I should like to know from the Right Hon. the Prime Minister whether he or his Department has any knowledge of it, and whether they approve of the withdrawal of the allowances from wives and children? What is the position which will be created if the Department allows this? If it is taking place without the permission of the Department, it is much worse. I put a question in this connection to the Right Hon. member, and it appears on the Order Paper, and for that reason I do not want to go into it at greater length, but I just want to say that it appears to me that a soldier should not be allowed to deprive his own wife and children of their allowances for the sake of someone else? It is not right. I know of one case where a woman went to the Department of Social Welfare and informed them that her husband had taken the allowance away from her. It is a woman with five children. The Department of Social Welfare then apparently told her that if she is not destitute, they cannot do anything to assist her. And then she was on the streets. I hope that the Prime Minister will give his serious attention to this matter, and that he will assure the country that his Department will put a stop to this sort of thing. What are the complaints of the soldiers in general in connection with this voluntary signing of the “blue oath”? It is this. They say that it is not voluntary. They say that all sorts of measures of compulsion are applied to them to take the “blue oath”. I now want to refer to the case of one coastal defence garrison. In that garrison there were 200 men. In response to the first appeal 15 out of the 200 men signed the “blue oath”. Then another appeal was made. The passes of those who refused to take the “blue oath” were stopped. The officer in charge then asked them to give their reasons as to why they would not sign the “blue oath”, and the men who did not want to sign were then told that if they were fit enough, if they were Al, they would be sent up North, to North Africa, within a week. After this threat had been made 50 of them signed on. Now I come to another case. I was told that in one case £1 was given to those who were prepared to go. They were given a £1 by the Department of Defence for liquor. And they got the £1, too.

Do you really believe that?

Then there were others whose passes were stopped. They had to perform double duties. Then there were others who complained that they did not get an opportunity to consult their wives. The “blue oath” was forced on them. They had to agree in such a hurry to sign the “blue oath” that they did not even have the chance to consult their wives. I mention these few cases which I have selected from a large number, because I should like to hear from the Right Hon. the Prime Minister whether he will give the assurance to the House that not one of these cases is true, because if that is so, then certain officers must have acted beyond their powers. I would very much like to accept it from the Prime Minister that these things will not take place with his permission, because if anything of the kind did happen, we cannot say that the men are being asked to sign the “blue oath” voluntarily. It would then be tantamount to compulsion which is brought to bear on them, which in turn is nothing but conscription. This case where the leave of the men were stopped, is a case which I regard as so authentic that I should like to ask the Prime Minister to go into the matter. It happened in Cape Town. My information is that 15 men signed on, and that the rest were then summoned together by the officers and asked to give their reasons for not wanting to sign the “blue oath”. The threat was then made that within a week they would be sent up North if they did not sign the “blue oath”. If this did happen then we cannot really talk of volunteers. In that case it is nothing but conscription, conscription which is reprehensible because it is applied to men who cannot defend themselves. If the Prime Minister wants to wage war outside Africa—it so happens that he got the majority in this House and he can do it—then he must fulfil his promise, namely that volunteers will be used; and then he must not prostitute the word “voluntary” by compelling the men in this way to sign the “bue oath”. In the majority of cases the men who are compelled to sign the “blue oath” represent the poor soldiers who cannot help themselves. They are compelled in a way which is disgusting. Then just this point, and I want to end on that note. The Prime Minister said in this House in reply to a question that he wanted to send natives and coloured troops outside Africa too. I want to make an appeal to him this afternoon to abandon that decision. The Prime Minister spoke of both natives and coloureds, but I want to confine my remarks more particularly to the natives. After the last war we reaped the bitter fruits of the policy of sending natives out of Africa to a civilisation they did not know. Those natives returned and many of them became a nuisance. They got a taste of a civilisation they did not know. They only got a taste of that civilisation. Now the Right Hon. member wants to send them to a country where the people do not main tain a colour bar. Very often they regard a black skin as being as good as a white skin. They invite the native to their houses, the native eats with them at the same table; and what will happen when that native returns to South Africa? The same type of thing will take place as after the last war. That native must return to South Africa and here he must address the Europeans as “Baas”. He must return to this country where the European is his guardian. It is not our intention on this side of the House to suppress the native, but he must be kept in his place. The hon. Minister of Native Affairs said the other day that as far as that was concerned, they were in favour of the principle of segregation in broad outline. The native cannot look after himself, he has not got the necessary education, and for that reason he must have a guardian. What is the Right hon. member doing now? He is giving the native a chance to break loose overseas; he is now giving the native a chance to regard himself as the equal of the European. Then the native returns, and he has to live under the old conditions, and then he starts causing trouble, as he did after the last war. I want to ask the Right hon. member whether he will not agree not to send the natives and coloureds outside Africa. What does he want to do with them there? If the position really is as he has intimated to us from time to time, namely that he can get sufficient people on a voluntary basis to send overseas, why does he want to send the natives and coloureds overseas? Those people overseas do not know the standard of civilisation of the coloured people and of the natives, and the natives and the coloured people do not know the standard of civilisation of those people. They meet each other there, as happened in the last war in France, on an equal social footing in many respects. The native then returns to our country as a burden and in many respects a pestilence. After the last war a number of them returned as totally changed people, and a number of them even returned with European wives. We do not want that state of affairs in South Africa again. I therefore want to put it this way, that the Right Hon. member will not be rendering a service to the European population in South Africa in sending coloureds and natives overseas. I presume that this is also included in the £48,000,000 which we are asked to vote here, and I therefore want to say to the Prime Minister that this side of the House will greatly appreciate it if he agrees to send only Europeas overseas and not coloureds and natives.

Mr. Chairman, three or four days ago in this House the Prime Minister told the country that, barring accidents, there would be a General Election in this country in July or August, or possibly September of this year. I listened to the discussion this afternoon, and I seem to hear the first rumblings of that election in the speeches made by some of the hon. members opposite. For from 3½ to 4 years they have bitterly opposed South Africa’s participation in this war, and they have ranged themselves against any form of military activity whatever. Now it would appear that some of them are endeavouring to fish in troubled waters, to try and make the disgruntled section of our soldiers, if there is such a section, think that “Codlin’s the friend, not Short.” When I listened to the hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. Erasmus) airing grievance after grievance, or alleged grievance after alleged grievance, I could not help wondering who were the soldiers and what was their mentality.

Wouldn’t you like to know.

What was their mentality that they should be placing their grievances before an Opposition which has branded itself as a pro-German Opposition. Soldiers who have taken the oath to serve South Africa and fight for her, are now coming to these gentlemen opposite who, for four years have fought the battle of the enemy in this House, who have actually fought against the Vote for Defence, which would pay these very soldiers. Assuming that the hon. member has received information direct from one or more soldiers, I cannot help thinking what is the mentality of that particular skunk in uniform who has gone with these tales … .

Do you call them scoundrels?

I said “skunk” who has gone with these tales to the hon. member opposite knowing well that that hon. member would make political capital out of it, and do his best to hinder the efforts of our army and the recruiting for our army. I venture to say that there are a very, very small minority of soldiers in our army who would ever go to hon. members opposite to parade their grievances and ask them to use these grievances for political purposes.

You would be surprised.

They would get more justice from us than from you.

If those soldiers have to rely on the justice they will get from hon. members over there then I am sorry for them. It is the Opposition which opposed pensions for soldiers.

We did not.

They said: “You can pass the Pensions Act now, but when we get into power we shall not honour it”. I should hate it if I had to depend on the goodwill of hon. members opposite, if I were a soldier.

Why don’t you get back to Australia?

Although the hon. member opposite (Mr. Erasmus) asked for half an hour he had no policy in his whole speech. It was full of shreds and patches. He asked why we were voting a subsidy for British Airways. Does he not know that it was the Hertzog Government which made a contract with British Airways?

Why carry on with it?

The hon. member wants to know why we do not have our own army. “Why”, he asks, “must our army be ‘a hanger on’ of the British Army?” Does this portray a change of heart on the part of the hon. member? Does he want South Africa to recruit three or four divisions, and that they should fight under an independent leadership, possibly with the hon. member at the head of one of these divisions?

You may be a sergeant.

As a matter of fact, the soldiers of South Africa, of whom this side of the House are proud, in the divisions up North have fought as part of the great Eighth Army. When the history of this war comes to be written that history will show that of all the armies of the Allied forces—I do not speak of the Russian Army—but of all the armies of the Allied forces, the army with the most wonderful reputation, both for its soldiers and its leadership, is the Eighth Army. Does the hon. member complain that the South African divisions up North have fought under Gen. Alexander and Gen. Montgomery—is that his complaint? If not, what is his complaint? And then he goes on to complain that South African soldiers have British decorations. Well, well! Does he complain that such a decoration as the D.S.O., the D.C.M., and the D.F.C. is given to South African soldiers in common with other soldiers fighting up North? Surely, does he want a new series of orders to be started by the Prime Minister? Well, well! He knows that the Prime Minister would not make himself ridiculous by starting a new series of military decorations. Surely he is enough of a South African to feel proud when reading about the decorations given to Squadron Leader Malan or Squadron Leader Hugo, people of his own kith and kin? And then in a most inconsequential way these people who fought the war, who fought the army, now complain of the crowds at Muizenberg. I make this offer to the hon. member. He is a fine-looking, stalwart, upstanding man. I would like to see him in uniform.

And I would like to see you in uniform.

Oh I have been in uniform, and I make this offer to my two stalwart young friends over there; let them walk with me to the recruiting office, and when they have donned the uniform then, and then only, can they point the finger of scorn to the crowds at Muizenberg. I agree that we see too much of this sort of thing in our own borders in war time, but don’t let the hon. member over there talk about that. Let him first of all put on the uniform, and then let him go and talk to those people. He is a fine upstanding man, but he does not know the front of a rifle from the back—he has never, so far as I know, taken any part even in a students’ brawl at the university, much less in any kind of fighting. Then he wound up with an appeal to South African prejudice in regard to our natives. If there was anything in his point that we should not send our natives overseas, one would have thought that it would have been raised in the extensive debate on this matter two months ago, but I don’t think a single member on his side of the House raised this issue of the native soldier. The difference is this: In the last war our native soldiers went to France. They worked as labour companies in France, and remained there for 18 months or two years. In this war not a single South African native has gone beyond the borders of Africa.

The Prime Minister said he was going to send them.

Well, I did not catch that, but if they do go they will go under our own officers, as part and parcel of a South African army, governed by and disciplined by South Africans. They will not, as in the last war, be serving for one or two years in camps behind the lines. They will go if and when the time comes, for us to leave the shores of Africa, as part and parcel of the South African army, and that should satisfy my hon. friend, but I am quite sure that nothing will satisfy him. If the war goes right he is sorry because it goes right, but if it goes wrong, then he endeavours to fish in troubled waters, to see what political capital he can make. One of the most unedifying sights one can see in this House, I say, is hon. members with the political record of hon. members opposite, endeavouring to make political capital out of the grievances of our soldiers. [Time limit.]

I hope that the soldiers of South Africa who have grievances will now understand how the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Blackwell) looks upon them, namely, as “skunks in uniform”.

I did not say that.

Those are the words which the hon. member used.

It is a deliberate distortion of what I said.

You nevertheless did say it.

On a point of personal explanation I cannot sit here and allow the hon. member to distort what I said. I said that the particular soldiers who went with these tales to the hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. Erasmus) were skunks in uniform.

That does not alter in the least what I said. If a soldier who comes to me with complaints, or to another member on this side of the House, and the hon. member describes him as a “skunk in uniform”, then it means that any other soldier who comes with complaints to this side is also described by the hon. member for Kensington in that term. He spoke here of the “disgruntled section” of the soldiers. If those words have any meaning, then it means soldiers who have grievances. Thus any soldier who has a grievance and who comes to this side of the House with those grievances is described in that manner by the hon. member. Some of them came to me on the train to impart their grievances to me, and, according to the opinion of the hon. member for Kensington, a soldier who does this is a “skunk in uniform”. May I draw the attention of the hon. Minister to a report of a meeting that was held in Johannesburg? There was a crowd of 2,000 present, and the overwhelming majority of them were soldiers. At that meeting propaganda was made for the Springbok Legion, and the report reads—

The head of the army was criticised, and the criticism was greeted with applause. Every one in that large meeting of 2,000 persons who is a soldier and who protested on that occasion and who applauded when criticism was expressed of the head of the army, is a “skunk in uniform” in the opinion of the hon. member for Kensington.

You are distorting his words.

I am giving the words of the hon. member for Kensington. Let him rather pay attention to the people who are not in uniform, including those who sit behind him. As a front bencher on the other side he comes here to take up the standpoint that the hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. Erasmus) has no right to express criticism of those who are not in uniform, because he himself is not in uniform. The hon. member for Kensington knows well enough that since September 1939 we have taken the standpoint that we do not approve of the war policy of the Government. He ought to know that, and he does know it. But those people who are not in uniform, and who lie around at Muizenberg on Sundays, are people who approve of the policy of the Government.

How do you know that?

I shall tell you how I know it. Because those people who go to Muizenberg, just as those whom I recently saw at Humewood, are in a great majority Jews. Let us call the matter by its name. I still have to find a Jew in South Africa who does not approve of the war policy of the Government. Let the hon. member speak to them before he makes those remarks. A man who is in favour of the war should be in uniform, if he is not too old and if his physical strength permits it. This applies not only to the hon. member, but also to those behind him. They will again say that we have no right to speak of double salaries. Let me tell them what happened in America. There a member of the American House of Representatives may not at the same time be in the army. If he joins the army, then he must resign immediately as representative. Let them take up the same position here, and then they can talk. The hon. member spoke of the “disgruntled section of the soldiers”, and it is about that disgruntled section that I want to say a few words—and it is a great section. I want to draw the attention of the Prime Minister to what is going on here in South Africa among that disgruntled section, as they are called. We have already brought the matter to the attention of the Prime Minister on another occasion. We are now discussing the Defence Vote, and I hope the Prime Minister will now take notice of this matter which has already been raised on two occasions in this House. I would like to have a statement from the Prime Minister on the Springbok Legion. There is now in South Africa an organisation that is busy exploiting that disgruntled section of which the hon. member spoke, for their own purposes.

With the assistance of the hon. member for Moorreesburg arid the Nationalist Party.

Our standpoint from the beginning was that we are opposed to participation in the war. But the hon. member for Kensington cannot mention one case where we on this side have spoken against the soldiers as such.

What about the red lice?

Why were you against the pensions?

The hon. member for Kensington knows well enough that we never objected to the pensions. What we did object to was the increase in pensions for coloured soldiers—he knows this. Where soldiers committed excesses, we lodged protest. But he does not put the position correctly where he creates the impression that we expressed ourselves against the soldiers. He said something that is not true. Our standpoint was, and is, one of opposition against participation in the war, but not against the soldiers. We want a statement from the Prime Minister in connection with the Springbok Legion. The Prime Minister will admit that it is something unheard of that in any serving army, in any active army, such an organisation should be allowed. There are of course organisations of ex-soldiers. But here we have an organisation, the Springbok Legion, that consists of serving soldiers. It is true that, according to the “Guardian”, they are trying to get out of the difficulty by saying—

Meantime the Home Front Legion has been established. This is an organisation of actively serving soldiers, that you do not get in any other army in the world. Then there is another fact about which no doubt can exist. This organisation has unfortunately fallen into the hands of the Communist Party in South Africa. We can open any issue of the “Guardian” and it is full of the Springbok Legion. In the issue of 14 January, the “Guardian” inter alia stated—

Today we must apply the democracy we have fought for and learned. Today we must make our alliance with the working fronts—the front that has stood by us, the front of our own folks.

They go on to describe the Springbok Legion as a trade union. It is quite obvious what is happening. This trade union must be used for what is called “The United Front”. It is a well-known Communistic method of action. You are going to get a trade union of soldiers in the United Front, and this is a well-known manner of action on the part of the Communist Party.

I want to avail myself of this opportunity to draw the attention of the Right Hon. the Prime Minister to the repeated insinuations which appear in the “Natal Mercury” in regard to the grievences of the First Division. It has appeared frequently in the leading articles of that paper that the First Division, as a Division, has grievances. The reason why I raise the matter here is because the paper makes an attack upon the House of Assembly as such, and attacks us in one of its leading articles. The grievances of the First Division are mentioned as one of the “major issues”. I should like to know whether the Prime Minister is aware of the grievances of the First Division as a Division. I am not talking about the grievances of individual soldiers. Individual soldiers may have complaints, and those complaints or grievances can be submitted through the properly recognised channels. I refer here to the First Division, and I should like to know from the Prime Minister whether complaints as such have been received through the acknowledged channels, and whether he was in a position to remedy those grievances. There is a difference between the general grievances of the soldiers and the grievances of the Division. The newspaper twice referred in a leading article to the grievances of the First Division, and it blames the House of Assembly for not mentioning those grievances here, and I would therefore like to hear from the Prime Minister whether he received these grievances from the Division as such and whether he can communicate them to us. In so far as other grievances are concerned, I think that in regard to the general grievances of the soldiers, they have been fully brought to the notice of the Government in this House by various members on this side. We dealt with the grievances here as they ought to be dealt with. The so-called grievance which was raised by the hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. Erasmus)— well, I feel that such a grievance cannot exist; there cannot be such a thing that a soldier can take away his allowance from his family and award it to some other person. There cannot be such a grievance. That stands to reason. We on this side are well acquainted with the grievances of the soldiers, and we have those grievances on our minds. From time to time we have brought them to the notice of the Government, and a clear explanation of the position was given. I hope that the Prime Minister will not allow himself to be misled by the insinuation which was made by the hon. member who has just sat down, namely that there is an organisation of Communists at work amongst the soldiers of our country.

That is so.

Hon. members on the other side say that that is so. We had the same assurance in 1937 when similar insinuations were made against the trade unions and similar attacks were made upon them, and up to the present there has not been one iota of evidence in support of these insinuations, and nevertheless those insinuations were made left and right in this House. The House will remember that at that time we were told of the terrible Communistic danger in the trade unions, and that £10,000 would be collected to oppose the Communistic movement. And what happened in the ranks of the trade unions? The only result was that the individuals who took it upon themselves to conduct the agitation throughout the country and to establish an association of mine workers at Stellenbosch to support the Mine Workers’ Union, had to publish a long series of apologies in the Press. They had to advertise apologies in the Press in regard to the insinuations they had made and which were flung across the floor of the House by members in this House. I say that it is not to our credit to state, when there are grievances among the soldiers, that they are Communists. We dare not brand them as Communists without furnishing a shread of evidence in support of it. Hon. members on the other side do not want those men who have taken it upon themselves to fight for South Africa, who keep this country in this state of safety and prosperity, to air any grievances which they have. No, they must be smothered. And, on the other hand, we know that those members on the other side say that the soldiers must travel in trucks and not in passenger trains. It will pay them better to remain silent. Now they say that soldiers may not hold meetings; they may not say to the Government: “We have grievances just as any other citizen in the country.” It is held against them as something very reprehensible. They are fighting for democracy, but they have not got the right to say to the authorities what their grievances are and to expect that those grievances will be removed. If members on the other side deprive soldiers of that right, what do they expect the soldiers to fight for? No, members on the other side have no right to say on behalf of any section of the people, if grievances do exist, that those grievances may not be raised.

And when they come to us with grievances, you object.

I have never objected when they come forward with grievances.

Your leader in front of you did so.

The hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Blackwell) said here that anyone who goes to the Opposition with his grievances, does so in ignorance, and that he cannot be loyal to his country if he knows what the attitude of the Opposition is towards the army.

I have never said of them what the hon. member for Kensington has said of them.

I maintain that we on this side have the right to air the grievances of the soldiers in South Africa. I shall be very sorry if it becomes necessary, for the sake of military discipline, to say to those men that they must remain silent. There must be recognised channels through which grievances can be brought to the notice of the Government. If we have not got those channels, and the soldiers are not allowed to hold meetings, then it means that they must write secret letters to the Minister of Defence, submitting their grievances to him. That would be an undesirable state of affairs. It will be alleged that the soldier must lodge his complaint with the officer who commands him. Yes, his complaint in so far as the camp is concerned, but I do not think that the soldiers have complaints about the officers in the field. I think that, generally speaking, the soldiers are fairly satisfied and very proud of many of their officers, and if the trouble is taken to investigate the grievances with a view to ascertaining what the complaints are, it will be discovered that the complaints are not against the officers, but that the complaints are of this nature, and I think I can put it in a nutshell. The soldier, generally speaking, understands that while he fights, neither he nor his family will find themselves in necessitous circumstances. The Government has now appointed a Select Committee to solve the question of pay. I may just say that in so far as the grievances in that direction are concerned, I, in a representative capacity, submitted grievances to the committee by means of a memorandum. The Government has created this channel, and in that respect we get the opportunity to submit to the Select Committee anything which was wrong in connection with the soldiers’ pay. But I can say this to the Minister of Defence, that there are also other grievances which are not of such a nature that they can be dealt with by the officers in the field. There are also other grievances which cannot be dealt with by the Select Committee. I think the time has arrived, since we are so proud of our big army, and since we are so proud of the achievements of that army, that there should be recognised channels through which the grievances of the soldiers can be dealt with and properly remedied without it being necessary for the Minister of Defence personally to devote his attention to it. Those channels do not exist at present. Our liaison committee has brought an enormous number of complaints to the notice of the Government, as appears from the first report, but unfortunately they were of such an extensive nature that up to the present they have not been dealt with. One complaint was raised by the other side of the House which is consistent in many cases, and that is that where application is made for temporary leave, sometimes in the case of a person in the “C” category, who will never leave the Union, it frequently takes months before the temporary leave is granted, and nevertheless that leave is frequently required urgently by a farmer or some other person. [Time limit.]

I was prevented by the time limit to proceed with my arguments. The hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. M. J. van den Berg) alleges that there is not a tittle of evidence that the Communist Party is busy exploiting the grievances of soldiers. In the same breath he admitted that many grievances have come to light and he asks that there should be a channel through which soldiers may air their grievances. What I feel strongly is the danger that is being created there, in that the Communists are busy exploiting the grievances of the soldiers. It is well-known tactics of Communists throughout the world that where they make propaganda they first of all begin with propaganda among the soldiers, because they know that if they get possession of the army then they have a mighty weapon. Recently, as I have stated on a previous occasion, I took the trouble of going through the files of the “London Times” and there I found a good few cases that came before the court. I just want to mention one here which was reported in the “London Times” of 3 September, 1937. It is a report of the evidence in the police court. The accused was a certain Vernon. Just let me read it—

In another case it appeared that Communistic literature was thrown over the wall of barracks. This is a well-known modus operand! of Communists, and the same is done in South Africa, no matter what the member for Krugersdorp may say. Unfortunately members on the other side read only the “Cape Times” and the “Argus” and in those papers reports of Communistic activities are not published. If they would take the trouble of reading the reports in the “Burger” or the “Transvaler,” they will see what is going on. I think one can say with justice that the reporters of leading papers such the “Burger” and the “Transvaler” are just as good reporters as those of any other newspaper.

I read both.

Then there is so much less reason for the hon. member to come here and to say that there is no tittle of evidence that the Springbok Legion is busy falling into the hands of the Communist Party. The Communist Party is busy exploiting it. Originally the Springbok Legion might have been innocent, it might have been established with the best intentions, but today it is in the hands of the Communists or busy falling into the hands of the Communists. I have here a report that appeared in the “Transvaler” on 29th January, 1943. The hall was filled by more than 2,000 people. Who were the speakers? In the first place Adv. Fischer, a well-known Communist of the Rand, then Adv. Boshoff, another well-known Communist, and this is what the chairman said in his opening speech—

And then I want to point out that the Communist newspaper in our country is filled every week with propaganda in connection with the Legion. It has taken the Legion under its protection. The point I want to make is that whatever may be our view of the war, whether we are for or against participation, we have to do with a serious phenomenon which the Prime Minister cannot ignore, namely that Communist propaganda is taking place among his own soldiers, and on a great scale. He should read the Natal newspapers. Do you know what happened at Pietermaritzburg? I have here one of his own newspapers the “Eastern Province Herald” of 8 March, and in that it is said that the Communists are becoming increasingly active and that they are even busy exploiting the war effort in a hostile manner. That is an expression in one of his own newspapers. It is bad enough if the Communists work among the non-Europeans, and particularly among the natives, but the matter becomes doubly serious when they conduct propaganda among the soldiers, particularly in view of the uncertain future. We do not know what the end of the war will be. The Prime Minister himself admitted that he does not know to what it will lead. We cannot therefore permit this dangerous propaganda to proceed. I want to ask the Prime Minister whether it is true or not that an association of this kind may not exist according to the military regulations, while it does exist in this case. Why is it permitted? That there are grievances, with that I agree, and I also agree with the hon. member for Krugersdorp that a channel should be created through which grievances can be brought to the attention of the Government. But the Prime Minister has not established a channel, and there is no opportunity for the soldiers to air grievances—and there are many grievances. For that reason the danger of the Communist exploiting those grievances for their own purposes is great. I hope that we shall get a clear reply on this occasion.

Mr. Chairman, ever since September 4th, 1939, there have been two wars in this country, there has been the external war against the Germans and the German allies up North, and there has been an internal war, almost equally relentless throughout this country and on the floor of this House. I need not refresh the memory of hon. members about that; it is admitted; it is common cause that ever since September 4th, 1939, the hon. gentlemen opposite have been fighting the war and everything that the war means in this country, and everything, Sir, that our army stands for.

Of course, we stand for neutrality.

Therefore I say this, that any soldier in uniform who can go to an hon. gentleman like the hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. Erasmus) and supply him with ammunition to be used on the floor of this House against this Government and its war policy, is very little different, in my estimation, from a soldier who would give information to the enemy.

Would you say the same of an English-speaking soldier who has written to me?

Yes, I would think very little of him.

Now we know.

The hon. gentleman says “English-speaking soldier”. I remember, Sir—[interruptions]—I am speaking to the hon. member for Beaufort West. I remember that hon. gentleman standing up in this House two years ago when the war situation was very different to what is is to-day, and saying with a sneer on his face: “You can sing that song ‘There’ll always be an England’ and that may still be true in the geographical sense of the word, but only in the geographical sense of the word; England has disappeared; there is no longer an England as a power.”

I said the Empire.

I say this, that any English-speaking soldier who remembers that speech and uses the hon. member for Beaufort West as the channel or vehicle through which to voice his grievances, is a very poor English-speaking soldier.

They will remember your skunk speech.

I do not understand the hon. gentleman, who starts off on the thesis that there are soldiers with grievances, that there is what I have called a disgruntled section, when he warns the Minister of Defence solemnly against allowing these soldiers to use what he calls, wrongly I believe, a Communistic organisation or a Communistically inclined organisation to present these grievances to the Minister, and yet he sees nothing wrong in the same soldiers or their friends going to the hon. member for Moorreesburg and allowing him to traffic in those grievances on the floor of the House with one eye on the election, and the other eye on trouble in this House. I cannot appreciate the logic in the hon. gentleman’s mind. If there are grievances, and I accept that there are things which are felt to be a source of grievance, then, Sir, there are channels through which they can be brought to notice, and there are members on this side of the House who, since the war began, have consistently supported the war effort.

It is very evident they don’t trust you.

Why does the hon. gentleman say that? He says that because I do not stand up in this House and parade soldiers’ grievances. I have had a number of soldiers’ grievances brought to me, but I do not stand up in this House and try to make political capital out of them, I take them to the Prime Minister, as the Prime Minister remembers. If it comes to a choice between myself and the hon. member for Moorreesburg as the channel through which to get their grievances rectified, I venture to think they would come to me.

After your speech today, I doubt it.

After my speech! I repeat what I said before, and I am not going to have any misunderstanding about it, when soldiers, who, knowing the political history and the political past and the political present of the hon. member for Moorreesburg, go to him secretly and give him information calculated to bring the new oath into discredit, calculated to bring our army into discredit, there is only one word for them, the word I have used “skunks in uniform”. I repeat it, and I will go on repeating it; I say it is a shameful thing for these men to do, and equally bad for the hon. member to make political capital out of it. To try and suggest that illegitimate means have been used to get our soldiers to take that oath, is something the hon. member should be ashamed of, and be ashamed of the source from which his information is received. Let me get back to the hon. member for Beaufort West. He says: “I challenge the hon. member for Kensington to tell me where on any occasion we have attacked the soldier? We have been against the war, but not the soldier.” Why, sir, in this very Session of Parliament we have set up a Select Committee to enquire into soldiers’ pay with a view to bettering it, and my hon. friends opposite have boycotted that committee; they refuse to serve on it, they washed their hands of it, they refuse to have anything to do with it, and now the hon. member for Beaufort West has the temerity to get up and ask: “When have we opposed the soldiers?” I tell the House, and I tell him again, that last year we had to meet this sneer: “Oh, you can pass any sort of Pensions Act you like to meet better conditions, but we don’t regard ourselves as bound by that.” They said: “We don’t regard ourselves as bound by your war debt.” They have said that this war debt was piled up for a war with which they did not agree, and they did not hold themselves responsible for it or for pensions arising out of it. I come back to what I said a moment ago, that when we set up an all-party committee in this House to enquire into the question of soldiers’ pay, this very grievance my hon. friend is talking about, what did they do? Washed their hands of that committee, refused to serve, and now these hon. gentlemen are trying to parade themselves as the chosen friends, the chosen mouthpiece of the soldier. I have a good deal of difficulty, Mr. Chairman, let me be candid with you, in not rushing out to the lavatory and vomiting.

Why don’t you?

I tried today to exercise sound criticism in a calm manner, but after the speech of the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Blackwell) I can hardly remain calm. I know him as a soldier. Hundreds of letters have come about the grievances of the soldiers, and the hon. member for Kensington comes here and calls 75 per cent. of the soldiers in the North “stinking skunks”. I want to say to the hon. member that I shall tell the soldiers. Promises have been made to them. We know that an enquiry is being conducted at the moment by a Select Committee, and we know how many grievances there are. There are grievances about the fulfilment of promises. Now, I want to say as regards investigations, there are piles of reports that have not been carried out, reports of Commissions of Enquiry. I do not believe in such Commissions. But we have here hundreds of letters from soldiers who have brought their complaints to us. These are not the kind of double-salary drawers who walk about here in the Union, and the hon. member comes here and calls the soldiers skunks. We deplore this, and we shall tell them about it. We shall not leave the matter here, but we shall make it known among the soldiers. I say it here openly.

Will you tell them what he said?

Yes, and I would like to have clarity on the point. He said that any serving soldier who writes letters to members on this side of the House is nothing but a skunk, a “skunk in uniform”. Is that not correct? I have written it down here, and I have received numbers and numbers of letters. But I know the hon. member, and I am not going to beat about the bush. It is a future judge who has spoken in this way, and has called his own soldiers skunks. I want to come to another point. The Prime Minister has now explained the “Lease-Lend Act”. I could not understand it. I did not know how it operated. Now I understand it. The Prime Minister says that no accounts are kept. It is good, of course, that the Americans are spending their money on the war, the rich America. But what I know is that America is providing the small fighting nations, also South Africa, with money, or rather with equipment and commodities. They give the commodities and South Africa must give the blood. That is what it amounts to. For that reason we want a say in these matters, and we want to know what is going on?

I would not have spoken, were it not for the challenging speech of the hon. member for Kensington. I think enough sneering remarks have been made about the Afrikaans-speaking persons in the army, the Afrikaans-speaking people who are good enough to go and fight, but for the rest are treated with contempt. Today an English-speaking member, the hon. member for Kensington, comes and says that if there is one of the soldiers who came to the hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. Erasmus) or wrote to him, then such a soldier is a stinking skunk. How dare he insult them in this way? Can we sit still if such things are said about our soldiers? For that reason I have got up to lodge a protest against the scandalous and insulting allegation of the member for Kensington.

I do not want to follow the hon. member for Kensington into the gutter. I leave him there in the mud.

He is at home there.

I just want to reply to an allegation that was made here, namely that we are contesting pensions to soldiers. The hon. member made the allegation, but he must know that it is an untruth. When he got into difficulties he challenged us and said that where Nationalists received letters from soldiers they are “skunks”, and he then attacked us and said that we did not want to serve on the Select Committee in connection with the payment of soldiers’ pensions. The House knows that this side does not serve on the Select Committee for the simple reason that we are against the war, and that we leave it to the other side to put the matter right. Why must we participate in that war effort? If the hon. member for Kensington gets up again, he must try to think matters over a bit and not purvey such nonsense. If he expects us to listen to him then he must not retail such things here. Objection has been raised about soldiers submitting their grievances to us. Who is the hon. member for Kensington, and his like who sit behind him? Have they the monopoly of everything? Does the hon. member for Kensington and his English-speaking colleagues there expect Afrikaans-speaking soldiers, who in many cases were driven by want to wear the red tab, to come to him instead of to this side which is fighting for the interest of the Afrikaans-speaking section? Does he really arrogate to himself the right that Afrikaans-speaking people out of my own constituency, which I represent, should lay their case before the hon. member for Kensington? They will never do so in all eternity. After what has happened this evening I would not blame any Afrikaans-speaking person if he carefully hides his grievances from the hon. members on the other side, because the hon. member indicated that he hides the grievances, while we air the grievances here and reveal them. Peculiarly enough, there are quite a number of English-speaking persons who also come to us and submit their cases to us. Are these people skunks? I can only say that after today probably no Afrikaans-speaking persons, and very few English-speaking persons, will turn to the hon. member for Kensington and others of his kind, because after this animosity against the soldiers who air grievances to us, it is very clear that the hon. member would like to hear grievances and would want to cover up the grievances. There is another matter that I want to mention here, and that is that we take serious exception to the manner in which the voting among soldiers in the North is going to be arranged. I will be able to raise it under another Vote, and I shall go into it further later, but after the announcement of the Minister of the Interior that representatives of the Opposition will not be allowed to be present when soldiers vote at the election, we must lodge serious protest now, because it means that malpractices may easily take place. And what chance will the soldier in the North get to ascertain also the standpoint that is taken up by the Official Opposition in the country, when at State cost a newspaper is circulated among the troops interpreting only the Government standpoint? It is an injustice and it is an abuse of public money. It has always been the custom in South Africa that a political party in power does not use State money for its own political propaganda. If my information is correct a paper is being printed at the State’s expense and distributed among the soldiers.

What paper is that?

I am not speaking now to that stranger in Jerusalem, but I want to make an appeal to the Prime Minister to go into the matter. If my information is correct that the paper is distributed at State expense, then I hope the paper will be withdrawn or that equal rights are afforded us of putting our side of the case before those people.

It is only a military newspaper, it has nothing to do with the party.

I would like to take the Prime Minister’s word, but thousands will not do so; they will not believe that it only deals with military matters. That newspaper which is being published at Sate expense preaches the good deeds of the Government, it makes propaganda for the war effort, and it is unfair to publish such a paper at State expense. Then we must get the same right to air our point of view. I think that information can be furnished to the troops in the North in some other way. Let the Minister then ensure that news papers from both sides are sent. He now runs the risk of being accused of using State money to propagate his own party’s standpoint. After all, this war is a political question in South Africa. With only a small majority this House decided in favour of war. If a few of the members of the other side come over, we shall have a majority. So small is the difference. And now Government goes and propagates its standpoint among the troops at State expense. This is definitely unfair. [Time limit.]

When one listens to the hon. member for Moorreesburg when he speaks on this subject, then one would think that he has a monopoly of Afrikanerdom, and that we only represent the English.

The Empire-worshippers.

One cannot help wanting to laugh when one listens to them. It is shameless party political propaganda they are making. Now it is said that a newspaper is being distributed at State expense. Everyone knows that the little paper is distributed among the troops to provide them with news. They want to know what is happening in the world, and they are told in this little newspaper. They are told what is happening in the desert, what is happening in the world, what the position of the war is, but it all has nothing to do with party politics. Anything in the world is party politics to those opposite.

What is the paper’s name?

I understand that the name is the “Springbok”. Have hon. members anything against it? I suppose it is also propaganda because this little newspaper’s name is the “Springbok.” I am surprised that members on the other side do not also object to the name. I suppose it should be called Keerom Street.

Then there would have been more truth in it.

If members on the other side can find nothing else to impress the people, then I feel sorry for them. All that that little newspaper does is to provide news to our boys in the North, what the position is at the front, and what the news is in other parts of the world. But the friends on the other side now also want a newspaper there. I never thought that a responsible man could allege that in time of war two newspapers should be published to make political propaganda for two political parties. The hon. member for Moorreesburg probably wants to go there to become the editor of the newspaper, or otherwise it must be sent from Keerom Street. Is the hon. member serious when he asks such things? The Prime Minister himself will reply, but to me it is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard.

It is quite clear that the hon. member who has just sat down has delivered a plea on something about which he knows nothing. There is another matter that I want to bring to the attention of the Minister of Defence. It relates to the question of lease-lend with America. On another occasion the Prime Minister created the impression that the lease-lend law adopted by the United States of America is to prevent great debits being piled up so that after the war there shall not be all the difficulty in connection with the payment of debt. I do not know if the Prime Minister will recall it, but the lease-lend law was passed in America not for that object but for an entirely different object. America was not yet in the war at the time, and it wanted to grant assistance to England, as the Prime Minister admitted on another occasion. But it could not do so, because there was another law that prohibited America from selling any armament to any belligerent nation. In order to surmount that difficulty, the lease-lend law was adopted to enable the necessary assistance to be given. There was no question of trying to prevent debits being piled up. I think we can take it that under the lease-lend system whatever is lent must be given back, and what is leased must be paid for. We are concerned in the matter. The Prime Minister said that we get the commodities from England, but England get them under the lease-lend system from America. He also said that there is a plan to conclude a lease-lend agreement with the United States. But in the meantime we are making use of England’s agreement. What is now the position in connection with commodities that we have already received from the United States? The Prime Minister has said that there are no debits. He said in reply to a question from the hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom) that there are no debits. In this connection I want to focus the attention of the Prime Minister on the report of the Auditor-General in which it is stated inter alia—

And then certain particulars are given. Under those particulars we find, inter alia, advances to contractors of the United States, for which a sum of £714,236 is mentioned. From this it appears therefore that we do pay for those commodities.

That is in connection with other commodities before this time, as we have explained.

Yes, I have received a memorandum, and I shall come to it. The Prime Minister said that we provide provisions to the American ships that pass here, and the ships are also repaired here, and he added that if we consider what we have already received in the matter of aircraft from America, then we are on the right side. But here we have the point in the report of the Auditor-General that £714,000 has already been advanced to an American contractor. In this connection the Department of the Prime Minister has given me a memorandum. The memorandum states—

It is said further that the amount of the credits was subject to fluctuations from time to time, and that at the end of March, 1942, it stood at £239,000. Further, the memorandum states—

On the one hand the Prime Minister says that the aircraft which we got from America more than balances the provisions supplied to American ships and the repairs to American ships. On the other hand, we find that this amount of £714,000 was not necessary for payments in America. I presume that the great bulk of this was for war materials. It is a great amount, and my question is whether this was not also for payments for aircraft. For this reason I think it is necessary for the Prime Minister to give a little more information. It seems to me that the position is not clear. It seems that we did pay, and, on the other hand, we are told we do not pay and that no debits are being created. I hope the Prime Minister will investigate the position, and that he will give us a reply as to what this £714,000 was used for.

I would not have taken part in this debate, but the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Blackwell) has called a portion of our soldiers skunks. This is how I feel about it. I put the farmer first, and I put the soldier second. It does not matter what soldier it is. If a soldier is belittled and is called a skunk by a frontbencher on the other side, then I feel sore about it.

At 6.40 o’clock p.m. the Chairman stated that, in accordance with the Sessional Order adopted on the 28th January, 1943, and Standing Order No. 26 (1), he would report progress and ask leave to sit again.

House Resumed:

The CHAIRMAN reported progress and asked leave to sit again; House to resume in Committee on 17th March.