I wish to propose the motion standing in my name and with a view to discussing it, I should like to read it. I move—

This is a somewhat delicate matter, it is a matter which can easily rouse feelings, and stir up bitterness. The language question in South Africa has so far always caused schism, differences of opinion and friction. It should not do so—there should be no reason for it. Under Clause 137 of the Act of Union, equal rights are given to both languages. But hon. members will agree with me that, since Union there has never been any occasion, there has never been any need or call on the part of the English-speaking people in South Africa to stand up for the rights of their language. In not a single part of the Union, either in the pro-Nationalist Free State, or in pro-English Natal has there been any call for the English-speaking section of the community to fight for the rights of their language. As against that the Afrikaans-speaking section even after the adoption of Clause 137, has had to fight in every Province and in every section of the community for the rights of their language. There has never yet been a time when Afrikaans has openly and fully enjoyed all its rights in practice in every part of the Union. That being so, are we as Afrikaans-speaking people to blame for feeling somewhat sensitive about this matter? Yet when we stand up for our language rights we are told that we are racialists. It reminds me of the words of the late Senator Langenhoven who when addressing an English-speaking audience said: “Why do you always call our politics racialism, but your racialism you call politics?” We can say the same. Why must the Afrikaner’s fight for his language rights be stigmatised as racialism, while the English-speaking man’s legitimate demands for his language is called patriotism? I make these introductory remarks because I want to ask the House to Carry on this debate in such a way that no feelings will be roused and no animosity created. We want to deal with this question calmly and objectively—as far as objectivity is possible—we want to deal with it from the practical point of view, without any unnecessary reproaches, because we realise that it serves no purpose to make heated speeches here, hurt each other’s feelings, or create animosity. We hope that neither side of the House will try to introduce personalities or to be offensive. I am not going to make a scientific speech about educational principles for reasons which I shall explain afterwards. But I do want to give a practical review of the whole question which has given rise to considerable controversy throughout the country lately; I want to give a practical review of what the position is and what it should be. The first proposition I want to put forward is this, that the object of the school and of education is to produce good and useful citizens for the State, with all that implies, and that the first essential, apart from the moral requirement and the building up of character, is to teach the pupils and give them a knowledge of various subjects. In South Africa, however, with our dual population, and with bilingualism, education has a further function, and that is to provide the children with a knowledge of both official languages. We have been accused lately by people who should know better, and who do know better, that we are out to promote unilingualism in our schools. Anyone knowing the facts, anyone conversant with the cultural and political history of this country since the establishment of Union, or since the establishment of this Party in the years 1912-’13, must know that we on this side of the House have year after year consistently been fighting for bilingualism. Inside this House and outside we have fought for bilingualism, for the rights of the English-speaking man to his language, and for the rights of the Afrikaans-speaking man to his language. It is nothing but a deliberate misrepresentation to say that we stand for unilingualism. Take the members seated here on the Nationalist benches. Every member on this side of the House is perfectly at home, no matter whether the House is addressed in English or in Afrikaans. Perhaps we cannot all make as good a speech in English as in Afrikaans, but every member on this side of the House thoroughly understands the other language. Can that also be said of the rest of the House?

Yes.

The man who says so does not know what he is talking about. There are members in the Cabinet—I do not say it as a reproach but I mention it as a fact—who do not understand a word of it if we speak in Afrikaans. There are many other members who cannot follow us if we speak in Afrikaans. Are we the people then who are opposed to bilingualism? We have always fought and laboured for bilingualism in our schools, for bilingualism in public life, in the Public Service, and everywhere. That insinuation is totally unfounded and untrue. Now I come to another point in this connection—in view of the fact that the hon. member over there says that they all understand Afrikaans I hope that when my motion—in which I ask this House to express the opinion that all Ministers should be bilingual—come up for discussion, all members opposite will vote for it. As we all agree that we must have bilingual citizens in this country, the question arises how that bilingualism is to be ensured, and I want to lay down this proposition, that it is the duty of the State to say what it wants. The State can say that it wants bilingual citizens, and that every child leaving school must be bilingual. That is its function and that is the responsibility imposed upon it. But my next proposition is this, that the question how best to secure bilingualism must be left in the hands of the educationists, of people who by their training and their experience are familiar with the best means to be adopted in education to achieve the best results, having in view the object laid down by the State. We in this House of Parliament and in the Provincial Council may be very good people. I have a high opinion of Parliament and of the Provincial Council, but we are not experts in educational matters. I take unto myself the right to say to the school that the State wants bilingual citizens, but I do not take unto myself the right to tell the expert educationist how he is to achieve that end. I take unto myself the right to say to the Iron and Steel Industry that we want certain types of steel, but I have not got the right to tell the experts there how they are to manufacture that steel. The State therefore says: “I want citizens who are thoroughly bilingual,” and then we ask the educationists and the school to supply that product. I have said that that is the side of the matter which we must leave in the hands of the expert educationist. Now, what more can the State do? I am now dealing with the need for bilingualism, and how best to achieve it. The State has said to the school: “Supply me with bilingual citizens,” but the obligations of the State do not stop at that. The State can still do more to achieve that object. One thing it can do is by means of the school itself, and that is contained in my motion. With that object in view I want to quote the latter part of my motion—

In other words, the State says, “Very well, you can arrange your schools as you like in accordance with the prescriptions of educationists, but we demand that when examinations are held there shall be a difinite fixed standard for both languages.” Now, I want to issue a well intended and friendly challenge to hon. members opposite. I expect they will come forward with an amendment which will emphasise bilingualism because they say that that is their policy, so my challenge is this: Accept that part of my motion. You say that that is your policy and that you are fighting for bilingualism. Do not leave it to chance whether the children are going to be bilingual or not. If hon. members do not agree that we should have single medium schools, then let them accept this part of my motion and impose this obligation on every school by requiring every school to see to it that every child attains a satisfactory standard in both official languages. We shall then have bilingualism. If we do not do that we shall never get bilingualism. I come from the Free State, a province which is known as the strongest supporter of the party on this side of the House. It is the most Nationalist province in the Union and the Free State, where the great majority of the people are Nationalists, is the only province in the Union which has long since accepted this proposal of mine. In the Free State no child can take its final school examination unless it has taken both Afrikaans and English as subjects and has passed in them. I say that that is not the position so far as Natal, the Cape and the Transvaal are concerned. There we have the test as to who wants bilingualism. The Free State with its overwhelming Afrikaans-speaking population provides in its Education Acts that every child taking its matric must pass in both official languages. Is that not ample evidence of our attitude towards bilingualism? I ask hon. members in this House who may perhaps differ from me about single medium schools, whether they are prepared to say to the Transvaal, Cape and Natal: “You must also make a law that no child can pass its final examination unless it can pass in both official languages.” I issue this challenge to hon. members opposite and I hope they will respond to it. If they fail to do so I am afraid that all their talk about bilingualism is pure hypocrisy. The Free State in 1854 secured its freedom under the Bloemfontein Convention and became a Republic. In that same year the Free State Volksraad passed a resolution that teachers teaching in the towns and villages must be bilingual. The object of that resolution was that they should know English so that they could provide for the needs of the English-speaking children in the towns and villages. The old Free State provided mother tongue education for the English children and right throughout its history the Free State has shown its sincerity in regard to bilingualism. Now may I be allowed to say a few words on another point which is often held against us? When the Free State after the Boer War became a Crown Colony, and afterwards received self-government, it was contended that it was in favour of the dual medium, and that even the C.N.O. schools had English as their medium of instruction. One hear a lot of talk about the Hertzog Act of 1908. But hon. members who talk that way lose sight of the conditions prevailing in those days. It was impossible in those days in the Free State or in any part of South Africa to use Afrikaans or Hollands as the medium of instruction in the schools because all public examinations were in English. The University of the Cape of Good Hope was the only institution holding the examination, and everything had to be done in English. What would have been the use of taking the other examinations in Afrikaans or of giving instruction in Afrikaans if the matriculation examination and all the other examinations had to be taken in English? But even in those days the position was that the Afrikaner was fighting for bilingualism and for his language rights. The Afrikaner put up a fight but he simply had to be satisfied with anything he could get. I have before me a petition signed, among others, by President Steyn, Gen. Hertzog and Gen. De Wet—before Gen. Hertzog’s law was passed—in which they prayed the Governor of the Free State—

Can we say that President Steyn and Gen. Hertzog were satisfied with five hours’ teaching of the Dutch language per week? But that was the “maximum bonum” they could ask for at the time. They came hat in hand and begged even for that little drop or that little crumb. We cannot say that because in those days a request of that kind was made our people were satisfied. Far from it, but that was all they could get. In 1908 when Gen. Hertzog introduced his Bill he could not say that they were going to have single medium Afrikaans schools because in those days the examinations had to be taken in English. In spite of that the Free State, according to Government experts’ figures, is the most, bilingual province in the Union. ’ In this respect it is far ahead of the other provinces, and we know that the Free State is predominantly the bilingual province of the Union. The percentage of bilingualism in the Free State is calculated at 63. Bilingualism is upheld there because we lay it down, as I have already said, that the children in taking their final school examination, must pass in both languages. In Natal a little more than 30 per cent. of the population is bilingual, but there is no obligation on the children to pass examinations both in Afrikaans and in English. The Cape and the Transvaal come nowhere near the Free State so far as bilingualism is concerned, and there is no attempt made there, as in the Free State, to attain bilingualism. The result of all this is that we can say today that it is essentially the Afrikaans-speaking section of the population which is bilingual. One can go right through the country and one will find that the Afrikaans-speaking people—leaving out the very old who are fast disappearing—are able to express themselves and use both languages. We cannot say that about any other section of the population. I have mentioned the example of the Free State in regard to bilingualism. The Free State is the predominantly Nationalist province, and I have shown what we have achieved there. The other object I had in mentioning the Free State was to ask hon. members opposite—if you are so much concerned about bilingualism—if you do not want us to accuse you of hypocrisy on this question, you should take your courage in both hands and do what the Free State has done to ensure bilingualism, and if you do so you will attain your object. That is one way in which we can achieve our object. There is another way, too, of attaining bilingualism. The school has to do its duty in the first instance, and then the State must also act. I say that the State must lay down the policy and give effect to that policy—it must lay down that a qualification for appointments or promotions in the Public Service and in semi-State institutions—institutions in respect of which the State has certain responsibilities—I have in mind institutions such as the Electricity Supply Commission, Iscor and the Reserve Bank—is bilingualism. That must be an absolute qualification. We must make people in this country realise that nobody in South Africa can even dream of promotion unless he knows both languages. I want to go further and say that we must see to it that our bodies such as Divisional Councils, Municipalities, Universities, School Boards and School Committees—anybody to which the State nominates representatives—anybody coming under the control of the State, the principle of bilingualism is upheld and we must see to it that it is realised that no man can hope to get an appointment unless he is bilingual. In the other motion, of which I have given notice, I have also mentioned Cabinet Ministers. We should not appoint any Minister who is not bilingual. If the Government were to lay down these things in its policy people would rush to become bilingual—there would be such a rush that there would never be any further need for quarrels about our schools, and things of that kind. But it is because bilingualism is not yet carried out in practice that, we have all these difficulties with which we are faced today. We shall attain bilingualism very quickly if only the State will take these steps. Now, let us come to the schools and to education. That aspect is dealt with in the first part of my motion. So far I have confined myself more particularly to the final part because the final part is what the first part aims at. So far as education is concerned, there is a certain amount of confusion. The Nationalist Party very clearly stands for what is laid down in our motion, namely the principle of single medium schools with mother tongue instruction. Provided, and we put that down very clearly, that the other language is also thoroughly taught in these schools. That is our attitude. The single medium school is one type of school. There are other types as well. There are in particular two other types of schools—the so called bilingual schools, and I am anxious to know from hon. members opposite what their attitude is because there is a lot of confusion about what they really want. First of all we get the dual medium schools where certain subjects are taken in Afrikaans and certain subjects in English. There are also bilingual medium schools where the children have to learn all subjects in both languages. Then there are the parallel medium schools where there are separate classes, where one section takes the subjects in Afrikaans and the other section takes the subjects in English. Now what do our friends opposite want? Some talk of parallel schools and also of dual medium schools. The Minister of Education prefers dual medium schools. He wants for instance to have three subjects taken in English and three in Afrikaans. But now comes the big outcry! The reason why there must be bilingual schools is not only to make people bilingual but our friends on the other side want the children of the two sections to sit next to each other on the school benches. If we have parallel medium schools, the children do not sit next to each other on the school benches, they only meet together at playtime on the play grounds. The Afrikaans children will take the subjects in their classes in Afrikaans, and the English children will take them in English, and they will only come together at play time. If the Minister says: “Leave the schools as they are, and just let them have a dual medium,” it will mean that the children will not even meet on the playground. I said that I had no intention of making a scientific speech about education, but I can this: that practically everybody practically every educationist of any standing in South Africa, Afrikaans as well as English-speaking, advocates mother tongue medium. It has been argued that we should have parallel medium schools and that the mother tongue medium should be employed. I can only say that I do not know of a single educationist of any standing in South Africa who says anything except that mother tongue medium is best of all. Now, hon. members opposite will say at once, “What about Dr. E. G. Malherbe?” The less they say about him the better. He has already been pulled to pieces to such an extent over his notorious book that he has lost all standing in the eyes of the educational world. I notice an hon. member opposite laughing. I challenge him to mention one educationist of any standing in South Africa who will support Dr. E. G. Malherbe either in regard to his facts or his conclusions. There is not a single one of them.

What about Prof.

Haarhoff?

Prof. Haarhoff is not an educationist, he is a professor of Greek. The hon. member apparently does not know the difference between a teacher and an educationist. I can mention any number of people who have pulled Dr. E. G. Malherbe’s book to pieces to such an extent that he is ashamed to face the educational world today. I don’t want to quote anybody who supports this side of the House, but I do want to mention two names; the one is Prof. Ben Taute and the other is Prof. Van Rensburg. Both of them are supporters of the United Party. Prof. Van Rensburg himself has been on active service and he is now back, and is out of the army. He states clearly that he takes up a completely objective attitude on this subject, and he says that he has read Dr. Malherbe’s book to see what Dr. Malherbe has to say about the matter, and to see whether the book would convince him either one way or the other. I want to emphasise that he is an educationist who does not support the political views of the Nationalist Party. He first of all says this about Prof. Haarhoff—

He says that Prof. Haarhoff does not know what he is talking about.

That’s his opinion.

Yes, but that is the opinion of an expert educationist who does not belong to this party. I have his remarks here and in them he refers to Dr. Malherbe’s book as “a bit of special pleading”. He further says that it is based on wrong premises. He further goes on to say that Dr. Malherbe continually confuses parallel schools with dual medium schools, and he also says that his figures have been wrongly added. His statistics are wrong, and what is more, he points out that Dr. Malherbe takes certain figures in connection with dual medium schools and then bases a conclusion on these figures in regard to parallel medium schools. Let me quote what Prof. Van Rensburg says—

Then he says that Dr. Malherbe “arrived at an amazing result,” namely that pupils who have had their education through the wrong medium are best of all. According to Dr. Malherbe’s figures the Afrikaans-speaking child who has had his education through the English medium is much better than the other one, and the English-speaking child who has had his education through the medium of Afrikaans is better than the other. One might carry that further and say that if the hon. member for Bethal (Mr. Fourie) had been educated through the medium of Zulu he would be better than he is today. Now, those are Dr. Malherbe’s figures and statistics—he says that if we want to attain the best possible results we must teach the English children through the medium of Afrikaans, and the Afrikaans children through the medium of English. Is it not ridiculous? And that, is what Prof. Van Rensburg also says. He says: “Why not carry this system to its logical conclusion?” Prof. Van Rensburg also asks why Dr. Malherbe is not consistent and why he does not say that for Afrikaans-speaking children English should be the medium, and vice versa. He says: “confusion again,” and then he goes on and says this—

And then he goes on to say—

And he concludes with a somewhat sharp attack—

Now, he is a friend of Dr. Malherbe’s and an expert. I do not want to say any more about Dr. Malherbe’s booklet; I think that these quotations should be ample to make hon. members realise that they are on very slippery ground when they quote that book. But now I say again, mention one educationist of any standing who supports Dr. Malherbe so far as his facts and conclusions are concerned. Now I come to the central point of my motion, namely the attack which is now being made on single medium schools. Let us have the whole truth about this, however unpleasant it may be. What is the object of the attack on these schools? Is it intended as an attack on the English medium schools, the 272 English medium private schools and hundreds of other Government schools which have English as their medium of instruction? Is the attack aimed at them? I challenge the Minister and anyone to say that the attack is aimed at the English medium schools. No, these attacks are aimed at the Afrikaans-medium schools. The previous Minister of the Interior, now Minister of Demobilisation, has often attacked single medium schools, and he has often spoken about the history teaching in those schools. S.A.P. Congresses have also made onslaughts on English medium schools, and have often spoken about the prejudiced way in which history is taught. Those attacks are aimed at the Afrikaans medium schools. I have an extract here from a little history book which shows the way history is taught in English medium schools. I am sorry the previous Minister of the Interior is not here but I have a history book here which is still in use in the Transvaal. The title of this book is “High-Roads of History”. This is the type of history young English-speaking lads are taught in the year 1944. This deals with the Anglo-Boer War and this is history, “as she is taught”—

Who wrote that stuff?

This is a book which is still in use today. I don’t want to hurt anyone’s feelings, but let us assume that England were to lose the war and were ruled by another State, and that the children were taught, “England, Scotland and Wales are now German lands, and their Fuehrer is our Fuehrer. Let us hope that the Britons and Germans will become the best of friends. It will be a happy end when the Britons will be glad to call themselves Germans, and are proud of the Swastika”. These things date from the past, but they are still taught today. The sooner that sort of thing is buried the better, but this is a history book still in use in the English medium schools.

In which schools is that book being used?

In English medium schools in the Transvaal; I got this book from a teacher who had to use it himself in school. The Minister of Demobilisation addressing a meeting on the question of education in Afrikaans medium schools, said that he had seen documents which showed “how teachers had abused their sacred trust”. He is not here today, but I would be grateful if he would produce those documents. By implication he says that these things are being done in the Afrikaans medium schools. He does not actually say so, but the implication is there. I challenge him to produce those secret documents, and not to go about in an irresponsible way making these statements. He talks about politics in schools. I have had no experience of politics in schools, but I have a newspaper cutting here which I want to quote, and it says that Mr. Van Coller, M.P. for Queenstown, after the election specially thanked the children of the two English schools at Queenstown, the Queenstown College and the Girls’ High School for the assistance they had given him on election day. I don’t know whether that is true or not, but that is what I read in the newspaper, and the report has never been denied. If abuses take place in Afrikaans medium schools, it is the duty of the State and of the Minister to take action and to have an investigation made. But I want to ask this House whether there is a single English medium school which is being broken up at this juncture. Come to the Free State. There is the English medium Eunice School. The Free State Provincial Administration has again voted money for expansion there. No complaints have been raised about the school growing too fast, but what is happening in Natal? There the Afrikaans medium school is being broken up. It cannot grow any further. Its growth has been stopped. Now it is said that the policy of hon. members opposite also aims at English medium schools. And in Natal they say that they are opposed to any more single medium schools being established there. This of course also applies to English medium schools, but then they forget to say that in practically every little place there is an English medium school. There are hundreds of them in Natal and there is no need to put up any new ones. But there are only two Afrikaans medium schools there, and now they want to stop any more from being put up. Let hon. members mention a single English medium school which is being curtailed in any way, which is being restricted in the way the Afrikaans medium schools in Johannesburg and Pietermaritzburg are being restricted. Is it not a scandal? Is it not a scandal that only one type of school is attacked, is it not a scandal that Afrikaans medium schools are to be smothered? In Natal they say that existing rights will be maintained. It all sounds very fine. All the English medium schools are fully developed there; they are well established; they are big schools, but the young Afrikaans medium schools are to be destroyed! Come to the Free State and see how we treat the English medium schools; they are given every opportunity of expanding, they have full freedom and liberty to expand. But in Natal the Afrikaans-speaking people are in the minority, and there the Afrikaans schools have to have their wings cut. Is it fair? In the Free State equal rights are given to English medium and Afrikaans medium schools, and let me say this, that even in the Free State there are more English than Afrikaans medium schools. But in the Free State the Provincial Administration sees to it that the scale is evenly balanced. When we come to higher education we find that the leader of the party on the Government side has also interfered there. We are all too familiar with the sad sad history of the Bloemfontein University College where the Government stepped in and kicked out members of the existing Council. They thereupon, with the Administrator of the Free State in the lead, tried to force a policy of fifty-fifty on the Free State University. The position so far as the mediums are concerned, is that at the moment there are about sixty-seven per cent. Afrikaans and thirty-three per cent. English. But they want to force the fifty-fifty principle on the Free State. Will they dare do so on the Witwatersrand and in Natal? Have they had the temerity to do it at Grahamstown? They will never dare do it, but in the Free State they want to force the policy of fifty-fifty on the people. Fortunately that attempt has now been abandoned. They have retired from it. I want to thank the Minister of Education for the assistance he afterwards gave us in that respect. They eventually realised the foolishness of trying to introduce compulsion. I do not want to go any further into that aspect of the matter because negotiations are still proceeding, but those are the attempts that were made. Can any hon. member mention one single unilingual university or school where similar steps have been taken, in regard to the English-speaking people? Can anyone imagine that sort of thing happening in Natal? Can anyone imagine their going to Natal and telling the people of Natal that they must send their children to an Afrikaans medium school, after they had been attending an English medium school? Can anyone imagine a thing like that ever happening? Even though English is also taught in the Afrikaans medium schools, can anyone imagine English-speaking children being treated in the same way as Afrikaans-speaking children? What would happen even in the Free State if children attending an English medium school were to be put into a unilingual Afrikaans medium school? It is unthinkable. But that sort of thing does happen to the Afrikaans medium schools. Now, that is the position in all its nakedness. It is an unpleasant truth, but the fact remains that these onslaughts in word and deed are made against the few Afrikaans medium schools and not against the English medium schools. I said that I wanted to discuss this matter from a practical point of view; I have tried to do so, by pointing to what is actually happening in this country. Now I want to say this to the Prime Minister and to the House—the development which has taken place in the educational world during the last few years has been a natural development. Why has there been no agitation during all those years against the English medium schools and why has that agitation only been started now that the Afrikaans medium schools have come into being? There are hundreds and hundreds of English unilingual private schools. Has there ever been any agitation in the past for dual medium schools? Today there are a few Afrikaans medium schools and now the agitation starts. Now they are to be curtailed. We do not interfere with the English medium schools and we have never yet done so; we say that the English-speaking parent is entitled to have his child taught in his own language, but the child must also learn the second language. All we are asking is for the Afrikaans-speaking people to be given the same right to be taught right throughout school and at the university in their own language, provided they are also thoroughly taught the other language. Only on that basis shall we be able to get peace between the races. Do not let the races come into conflict with each other again. We do not want to interfere with them; we do not want to interfere with or curtail natural development. Give us our equal rights. The Afrikaans language and Afrikaans culture have only developed and come into blossom of late years. Our language and our culture are still like a young tree—our culture is a young culture, standing by the side of a big tree with a huge world culture. But our Afrikaans culture has no cause to be ashamed of what it has achieved. The development we have seen is nothing but a natural development. Why interfere with its growth? Why try to stop it? These Afrikaans medium schools where the children are taught through their own language, where they are also learning the other language properly have not come into being as the result of any agitation, or through malice. They are nothing but a natural development; they are the outcome of the need felt by every child that if it wants to do a thing and wants to learn a thing, it can best do so through its own language. If the Afrikaans medium schools are such a bad thing they will die a natural death. A bad thing dies a natural death. But if these schools are good, why destroy them? Why do people want to stop them and throttle them at birth? Hon. members opposite do not want to fight the English medium schools and the private schools, but why do they want to oppose the Afrikaans medium schools? They are starting a battle which will be fought with great bitterness. Hon. members opposite want to curtail the natural development and expansion of our Afrikaans medium schools. In doing so they will release bitterness and strife which we want to avoid. There are certain things one cannot argue about: One may perhaps quote arguments to prove that one particular thing is good or bad, but this is not a matter which one can argue about in the ordinary way. Whether it is fear or whether it is jealousy those onslaughts on the Afrikaans section are wrong. Let the Afrikaans-speaking and English-speaking sections in this country develop along the course they want to develop. Let them develop without vindictiveness. Let them respect each other and let them respect each other’s language. But if people pursue the course they are now taking and if the English-speaking child is to be compelled to learn arithmetic, or whatever it may be, through the medium of Afrikaans, and if the Afrikaans-speaking child is to be compelled to learn his history, geography or anything else through the medium of English, strife and dissension will arise—followed by hatred of the Afrikaans language and hatred of the English language. If the child has to write a difficult examination and it has to do so in a foreign language and it fails in that particular subject that child will hate that language. But teach that child to know the second language well; give the child knowledge—let the child learn to love the language as a language which he can read and which will be useful to him in his later life—don’t compel English or. Afrikaans-speaking children to do something they object to, something which hurts them and something which may injure them. This struggle has been going on for many years. We were on the road and were beginning to forget the struggle of the past. We were all going our own way, and there were no clashes. Do not let us start the fight afresh. We do not want the fight to break loose again. You will never destroy the Afrikaans-speaking people, or their language. As Totius said in his “Besembos”—

It affords me much pleasure to second the motion of the hon. member for Winburg (Mr. Swart). We stand here, 34 years after Union, again to talk about the language. In Section 137 of the Act of Union it is laid down that both languages will be recognised on a basis of complete equality. The one will not take second place to the other. We have fought for this equality and in 1921 we were successful in the Cape as far as the education of children is concerned. It was a fight in which men like Gen. Hertzog and Senator Langenhoven took part, and they fought for it that one language should not stand back for the other. Eventually Parliament in its wisdom decided, I think in 1926 or 1927, that Afrikaans would receive equality with Nederlands. Now we come to just prior to the election and suddenly it is found that the youth of South Africa are not educated to be bilingual, and the Government leaves it to the Provincial Administrations to make propaganda in that direction by telling the people that the children in the country are not educated to become bilingual. It is deplorable that that should have happened. If the Government of the day and the Provincial Administration seriously believe that the youth of South Africa are not educated to become bilingual, and if they were to adopt a consistent attitude for the whole country, and treat all the schools in exactly the same way, there would have been something to say in favour of the agitation. There was, however, not one Minister who worried about the unilingualism of the English-speaking section in the country, except the Minister of Lands. He was an exception. At a meeting held here in the Gardens he warned the English-speaking people that the day would come when they would also have to be completely bilingual. But none of the other Ministers worried about that, and I blame the Prime Minister that he has never taken decisive action in this respect, and also the Minister of Education. They have never pointed out to the English-speaking people that they were not observing the 1910 settlement. Even at this time they still come with excuses. They still say: We do not have the opportunity; we are too stupid to learn another language. And it still happens frequently in this House that cases have to be dealt with of unilingual people who try to get promotion, or officials who try to promote their spiritual brothers, notwithstanding the fact that they are unilingual. It does not help to come to this House, like the Minister of Railways and others do, with lip service, whereas when it comes to the actual application of the principle of bilingualism, they are not to be found. This side of the House stands for complete bilingualism. We do not wish, if in future there are two men, Jones and Van der Merwe, and both are bilingual, thoroughly bilingual, that it should make a difference whether the one is English-speaking by birth and the other is Afrikaans-speaking. We want to appoint the most capable man. That is our policy, and if this Government is in earnest, they must follow that policy. But what do they do? They do not actually further bilingualism. They do not go to the English Church schools and tell them they must see to it that Afrikaans is introduced into their curricula. They do not say that. The Minister of Education does not do what, for instance, the Government did in France under Herriot. Herriot said: “We do not allow church schools in France which do not follow the State curriculum.” There was a tremendous change at that time. The Roman Catholics protested against it, but. Herriot stood firm, and what we demand on this side is that the 262 English Church schools must comply with the requirements of the State schools. There are hon. members on the other side who say from public platforms that they are in favour of bilingualism and wish to further it. Find out where their children are going to school. How many of members children are at schools like St. John’s in Johannesburg, or St. Andrew’s in Grahamstown? They wish to further bilingualism, and all the while they know that those schools do not offer these facilities, and that also while the hon. member for Sunnyside (Mr. Pocock) ought to know that if his child goes to Bishops he need not learn Afrikaans.

He sent his child to the University of Stellenbosch.

Then I am very glad that he repented of his previous attitude. But we disapprove of the attitude of the Minister of Finance in that he has not the courage to say to those people that the State wants bilingual citizens and that in their schools their children should be educated in both official languages. He must say to those schools like Bishops: We stand for bilingualism; your curriculum is such that the child passes through the school without knowing Afrikaans, and that will no longer be tolerated. Did he warn the principal of Bishops after he brought the matter up in his address last year? This is a matter on which an election has been fought, but the principal of Bishops said that he was still carrying on as before. The time was not yet ripe to make a change. He was not going to leave the old road and create more facilities for Afrikaans. But the Minister of Finance does not get up to talk to these people. But when he and the Prime Minister go to the country they tell us how backward we are and that we cannot speak English. The Afrikaans-speaking section of the people are always shown the error of their ways, but not so the English-speaking section. Why do they do it? I say again, if the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance are honest in their endeavour to make our country bilingual, then I should welcome it if they would apply it to all schools.

Hear, hear.

But you will not apply that to the English schools.

Certainly.

Can one hon. member on the other side tell me where it is applied to those English schools? In a place like Natal that principle is applied to the Afrikaans school in Pietermaritzburg. But what happened? The Natal Provincial Administration has now put a stop to the natural flow of children to that school. The children who must be educated in their mother tongue, which is after all a sound educational principle, are taken away from that school. That is a sign on the wall. No complaint is made that the English schools are also becoming too big; it is not considered necessary to take children away from the English medium schools. But to us it is the writing on the wall that an attempt is made to keep the children away from the Afrikaans medium schools. The Government’s whole effort is to kill the Afrikaans medium schools in the country. I will tell you why they try to do that. In the past we were all educated through the English medium. Young boys from the country came from English medium schools to an English environment in the city. They were not themselves. It only took ten years or so and they became denationalised. That is what the Government still desires. But since 1921 when Afrikaans medium schools were opened, it was different. In a moment I will give you figures to show what those schools achieved, not only as far as Afrikaans is concerned, but also as far as English is concerned. There is not a school in the Peninsula which has achieved what the Afrikaans medium school, Jan van Riebeeck, has achieved, and that in English also. No, an attempt is again made to encourage the process of denationalisation. The Afrikaans medium school teaches the child to uphold Afrikaans in the city also. It is that to which the Government is opposed. When war broke out, it was found that a strong Afrikaans feeling existed in the country, a feeling which Dr. E. G. Malherbe calls racialism. If a son of Afrikaans parents, who grew up in an" Afrikaans environment, speaks Afrikaans in that environment, then it is racialism. One would almost say that our church, because Afrikaans is preached in it, is also an institution of racialism. Here I now come to another point, that the child must be taken out of his Afrikaans environment and in an English environment he must now learn English. I just want to tell the House a few things from my experience. When I started studying geometry, they told me of about an isosceles triangle. If they had told me about a “gelykbenige driehoek” I would have understood it. Why use a word derived from Greek? We learned about a “peninsula”. We would have known what a “skiereiland” was. We had to learn about an isthmus and all those sort of things. Now Natal wants to go so far that from Standard IV the Afrikaans children must learn geography in English.

That is nonsense.

No, that is what the Administrator of Natal said. I now wish to quote a few figures to show what Afrikaans medium schools have achieved. I have here before me the annual report of the principal of the Jan van Riebeeck, from which I want to quote some figures [Translation]—

Now I want to give you the figures for this year, which improve the position much more. In 1943 six pupils wrote English Higher in the Senior Certificate. I challenge any member on the other side to go to an English medium school and to tell me that such a big number of pupils in an English medium school choose Afrikaans as major subject. Of these six candidates two obtained between 70 per cent. and 80 per cent.; three obtained between 60 per cent. and 70 per cent.; one between 50 per cent. and 60 per cent. That is English A. Now we come to English Lower. There we find that thirteen obtained between 70 per cent. and 80 per cent.; 26 between 60 per cent. and 70 per cent.; 25 between 50 per cent. and 60 per cent.; 8 between 40 per cent. and 50 per cent.; 3 between 33 per cent. and 40 per cent., and two failed. As far as English A is concerned, the average percentage for the province was 51 per cent. The average percentage of the Jan van Riebeeck was 66 per cent. In English Lower the average percentage for the province was 51 per cent. and for the Jan van Riebeeck it was 59 per cent. But the younger the classes, the better the results. I will now give you the Junior Certificate results, and I may say that it is one of the most pleasing results to show what this school has achieved in English. Seven candidates obtained between 80 per cent. and 100 per cent. in English; 28 between 70 per cent. and 80 per cent.; 26 between 60 per cent. and 70 per cent.; 15 between 50 per cent. and 60 per cent.; 8 between 40 per cent. and 50 per cent.; 1 between 33 per cent. and 40 per cent., and not one failed. The average marks for the province was 53 per cent. and for the Jan van Riebeeck it was 66 per cent. Now I wish to ask hon. members on the other side if, after these figures, they are still going to say that English is poor in Afrikaans medium schools? No, I challenge the Minister of Education or any hon. member on the other side, particularly the members who have large schools in their constituencies, to produce figures to me which can compare with these. There is the hon. member for Gardens (Dr. L. P. Bosman), and I ask him to obtain figures from S.A.C.S. I ask the hon. member for Mowbray (Capt. Hare) to obtain figures from Rustenburg, or from Bishops or Rondebosch Boys’ High, and to compare them with these figures as far as Afrikaans is concerned in those schools.

They would be too ashamed to do that.

Apart from this, we have found that this year eight bursaries have again been awarded to the best eight students at the Senior Certificate Examination in this province. Jan van Riebeeck capture three of these. No. I think hon. members must look for the reason for poor English in another place. We concentrate on getting the best teaching material and time is set aside for education in the second language. That is why we find these results, which are sufficient proof that it is not single medium schools which show bad results in English.

I was showing the House the achievements of the Afrikaans medium school in Cape Town, viz. the Jan van Riebeeck, and I just want to add that there are also other schools which have achieved much. I have, for instance, before me the report of the Afrikaans medium school in Uitenhage. There are four high schools in Uitenhage, and we see that this Afrikaans medium school is obtaining the best results. I wish to read this report in connection with that school [Translation]—

Then there is the Nassau school, which is an Afrikaans medium school at Mowbray. I am now going to give the achievement of this school in detail. I can only say that it is particularly good. Only one student failed in matric, and she has an opportunity of sitting for the supplementary examination in February. Now members may perhaps ask: Yes, but what about the country? They will say to me that I cannot produce proof that it is also true in the case of the child in the country that he is receiving better education in English than the English child is receiving in Afrikaans. I wish to remind hon. members of the speech I made last year in connection with a similar motion, in which I read quotations from the report of the Superintendent-General of Education in the Cape, in which he points out that Afrikaans-speaking children in the Cape are better in English than the English children in the cities are in Afrikaans. It is unnecessary for me to read those quotations again, because hon. members can find it in the Hansard report. I dealt with the whole report last year. Then there is another achievement of the Afrikaans child. Last year eight bursaries were awarded to the eight best students in the Senior Certificate Examination, and we find that only one student, viz. one from Rustenburg Girls’ High School, Rondebosch, won a bursary, and all the other students who were awarded a bursary came either from Afrikaans medium schools or from schools in the country, like Bredasdorp and other places, where the Afrikaans child must compete with the English child, and he has always achieved better results. It will now perhaps be said: Yes, but can these children speak English? They can write English in the examination, but can they speak English? Let me quote again from the report of the principal of Jan van Riebeeck [Translation]—

I do not think, therefore, that we can raise the objection that it is the Afrikaans medium schools which are responsible for poor English in the country. The facts prove otherwise. But there is another aspect of this matter. Let us make an analysis of the schools of the province, and let us then take as a standard the schools of the Cape Province. The schools in the Transvaal will be more or less on the same percentage basis. Free State and Natal cancel each other. In the Cape there are 1,600 departmental primary schools. Of those 51 or 3.2 per cent. are English medium; 15 or .9 per cent Afrikaans medium, and 95.9 per cent. are parallel medium. Then we take the departmental secondary and high schools. There are 241, of which 34 or 14.1 per cent. are English medium, 11 or 4.5 per cent. Afrikaans medium and 81.3 per cent. are parallel or dual medium schools. To that must be added the 262 schools which belong to the English Church, which are not State schools and which do not subject themselves to the curriculum of the State schools. Now, if the teaching of English in those schools is so poor, then it is not the fault of the Afrikaans medium schools. But take another objection which is made against the single medium schools, viz. that they encourage racial alienation. By far the greatest number of schools, viz. 95.9 per cent. primary schools and 81.3 per cent. secondary schools are parallel and dual medium schools in this province. The greatest proportion of the youth are therefore in dual and parallel medium schools. Where does the racial enstrangement come in, and what is it due to? No, if English is really poor in the country, then it is due to that great number of dual medium schools which exist. It is said that single medium schools cause racial alienation. It is difficult in our dual medium schools to maintain the balance. I may say that for quite a number of years I have been on the committee of the Jan van Riebeeck High School; we have never had any friction, although there are children from parents of both political parties. That cannot be said of dual medium schools in other parts of the Peninsula. It is clear that instruction in the second language is an educational factor we as members cannot pass judgment on, but it is certain that what has happened lately in connection with the curriculum is schools, is that there is a tendency on the party of teachers and educationists to make school life more pleasant and to extend the curriculum. That has the result that not as much drilling is done in languages as you and I and others had to submit to. Not so much attention is given to actual drilling. The same attention is no longer given to the study of grammar, but they practice the language more in essays, conversation, etc. I am not the only one who says that. If you read the May issue of “Unie,” the periodical of the Suid-Afrikaanse Onderwysersunie, you will see that the teachers consider that if there is a complaint, it is most probably the complaint that not so much drilling is done in schools, but as a result of that a more pleasant atmosphere is created in the schools. The students, when they leave school, possess a wider general knowledge than ’ we perhaps had. If you say that our schools do not promote bilingualism, it is not only an exaggerated statement but it is also unfair. What do we find? Prof. Malherbe, in his Census Report of 1936, declared that 2.51 per cent. of the European families in the country are bilingual. Now he has written a book about bilingualism in schools; the book was written in 1943. He states that. 23 per cent. of families in the country are bilingual. Thus in a few years there is an increase of more than 20 per cent., as far as bilingualism is concerned. No, we must come to the root of the matter. The motive to promote bilingualism in the country must be made as strong as possible. That encouragement is contained in the last part of the motion of the hon. member for Winburg (Mr. Swart)—

When a child goes to school he must know that when he writes the final examination he must pass in both languages. The child in Natal, if he has taken English A in Matric, must pass and then he must have Afrikaans B, and the same holds good the other way round for the child in the Free State, who takes Afrikaans A and English B. But as long as the Prime Minister tolerates the position that that standard is not applied, we will have trouble. The last part of the motion reads—

As I have already said, it must be made compulsory, but not only for Government schools but also for private schools, because otherwise you will get the case which you got at Bedford in the Eastern Province. I quoted it in my speech last year. At Bedford there is a big school where some of our best men were educated. Two Judge-Presidents came from that school, Sir James Rose-Innes and Judge Wm. Solomon. Gradually Afrikaans was introduced into the school, and the Bedford school was brought on the dual medium basis. Then English parents took their children and sent them to Grahamstown, to the English Church school, which is not subject to the curriculum of the department. And what do we find now? Last, year there were only six English-speaking children in the Bedford school. The others are all Afrikaans-speaking. Why is that? Our English-Speaking friends come here and say they stand for bilingualism, but the English-speaking section also wish to have a field to themselves where they can be safe. Let me mention two things. At one time the Hertzog government accepted the policy that the broadcasting service should be bilingual. We had bilingual programmes. One evening it was English only and the next evening Afrikaans. Then the English-speaking people in the Peninsula protested against Afrikaans only being broadcast during the evening, because they said: Afrikaans is penetrating into our shrine, our home. If people take up that attitude, you cannot build up a united nation. If we wish to do that., there must be a different spirit. There must be common intrests, there must be mutual respect for each other, common achievement, and that is what we try to cultivate in our Afrikaans medium schools. We let our children play tennis and take part in sport with other schools. There is free intercourse. They attend each others’ functions, and you do not find amongst the youth of South Africa the racialism of which we hear so much. Perhaps it is really found in this Assembly. But of what are we the product? Of the English medium schools. I was in an English medium school and right through the university I had my tuition through the English medium. But I had to endure many things which were unpleasant. I could not be myself as Afrikaner. I well remember when I was secretary of the debating society at the University of Cape Town—the hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. Erasmus) will be able to confirm this—we drew up a notice in connection with the debating society in two languages. It was torn down. We suffered under all those kind of things. But thank God, it is something of the past. Now we are once more aiming at throwing together the youth of the country in their adolescent stage, coming from various families, at a place where they cannot understand each other. [Time limit.]

I think there will be general agreement with what the hon. member who introduced this debate said this morning—that this debate should be carried on in a dispassionate manner, and that a quiet atmosphere would be fitting. There is no doubt that we are discussing one of the most important crises facing our people, a great national question—not merely a school question. This is a matter which is closely connected with the true interests of South Africa and it behoves us to discuss this subject on its merits and not to introduce bitterness into the debate. I want to say at the outset that the hon. member in his introductory remarks did to a large extent plead his cause in that spirit. Where he made a mistake, in my opinion, is that he forgot the issue was settled at the last general election. This was one of the principal subjects occupying the people’s mind in those elections. We are not arguing about a matter in the abstract, this is not something new but a question which has been placed permanently before the people. This was one of the principal issues before the public at the last elections and the people were more unanimous in their decision than ever. We are therefore not discussing this subject as though nothing has happened. The people were consulted. The whole issue was submitted to the public at the last elections, and also in the subsequent Provincial Elections. This was practically the only issue on which those elections were fought. In the Provincial Elections it was not the war policy which was at issue, it was not a question of seeing the war through. In the Provincial Elections it was this language question which was before the public, a decision was given and that is the position which we have to deal with now. The House, if it wants to do its duty, must take note of and confirm what was done then. On certain points we do not differ. The hon. member argued that we were not at issue on the principle of bilingualism. I agree with him. I feel that now 33 or 34 years after the establishment of Union, this question of unilingualism or bilingualism should not be a subject of debate. That question was decided in our constitution and in our practice. It is, of course, necessary to put it into full operation, but if there is one point on which we should all agree, and on which we do agree to a large extent, it is that South Africa is a bilingual country, and a country where the two languages have equal rights, or should have equal rights.

I hope that is so in practice.

We are not therefore quarrelling about that. Both sides of the House are in agreement on that point. The hon. member mentioned another point, and I think on that point, too, we are in agreement; that is that in the schools the mother tongue should be the basis of the instruction, the mother tongue should be the medium of instruction. Nobody is in any doubt about that. That is the old practice in South Africa, and on that we all agree. The question which arose during the last general elections, and before the elections, and which we have to decide on again now, is what is the best way to promote bilingualism? The hon. member has proposed a motion here suggesting what he regards as the best way to achieve that object and this is what he says—

You must read that in conjunction with the third part of my motion.

Yes, the underlying principle is that the best way of promoting bilingualism, according to the hon. member, is the single medium school where the mother tongue alone is the medium, where the mother tongue is the medium of instruction and the second language is learned as a language. That is the issue. We on this side of the House, and I think the public in the country, take up the position that we shall never become a bilingual country so long as people only learn the second language as a language, as a foreign language, so long as the second language is treated as though it were not a part of us, as though it were German or French, a foreign language. In that way justice will never be done to both languages as equal languages in this country. If the two languages are to be treated on an equal basis, if two official languages are to be put on an equal footing, we will have to adopt the second language as a supplementary additional medium of instruction, always taking into consideration that the mother tongue must be the basis of instruction. If that is not done it is self-evident that the second language will always be a foreign language. Most of us have learned a foreign language in addition to the two official languages of South Africa. We know what it means to learn a foreign language. One never masters it; one never gets to know it as one’s own; it is something which always remains foreign. It is only when one talks the second language and hears it spoken, when one learns it at school, when one uses it at school, that one really gets to know it; only then can the second language of this country become one’s own. That is why the attitude of this side of the House, and of all the parties represented on this side of the House, is that if the provisions of the South Africa Act in regard to equal rights for both languages are to be given effect to, if it is the intention to put into practice the principle of equal rights for both languages, then at a certain stage of education in the schools—and that stage will have to be decided by experts—the second language will have to be resorted to as a supplementary medium. That is what we call the dual medium. The equality of the languages is not under discussion now, nor are we concerned here with the position of the mother tongue. Mother tongue must be the basis, but at the same time one has to pass over at a certain stage to the other language as a supplementary medium. That is what is meant by dual medium, and that is what is meant by a mixed school where the children of the people are brought together and kept together; where the child does not merely learn two languages, but where the deeper foundation of both languages is engrained in the life of the people, in the practice of the people; the children are not only taught both languages, but the young people are taught to live together from the very day of their youth; they are taught to struggle together, to quarrel together, but they are taught from the very start to look upon themselves as a nation. That is how one brings to realisation the great purpose of South Africa, the purpose laid down in Clause 137 of the Act of Union. That is how one realises the ideal of a United South Africa, and in that a united people of South Africa. And that is how one gets away from the position of two nations living next to each other but regarding each other like strangers—such as one finds in some countries, and the results of which we have seen in history. We want one united South Africa, one united people, with two languages. The languages should not divide the people. In the school one lays the foundation for the outlook which we want to have in South Africa.

Why have you opposed the principle of bilingualism for thirty years.

What we are dealing with here is not something new, it is the old practice. We who represent the Afrikaans-speaking section of South Africa have not been educated in one language, we have been educated in the two languages.

Only in English.

No.

Yes.

Well, we may quarrel about it as much as we like but what are the facts?

Which subjects did your learn through the medium of Hollands?

Hollands and English were the media in our schools in the past. Both languages were employed in our schools.

Which subjects did you take in Hollands?

Did you take an examination in any subject in Hollands?

There was no question of a foreign language. There is no question that those of us who grew up in the old schools in South Africa, although English in those days was the official language, the official school language in the official public schools, used the one language just as much as the other as our medium of instruction.

But surely that is absolute nonsense.

It is an absolute untruth.

You are making a farce of the whole business by making statements like that.

That was the old practice in South Africa. That was the position which prevailed before hon. members over there were ever thought of, and hon. members will perhaps recollect that just after Union, in 1911, the question of giving effect to Clause 137 in the practice of the country was raised. A Select Committee was appointed which went into the matter. That Select Committee of this House enquired into the whole position, and that committee’s conclusion shows clearly that what I have said was the old practice which used to prevail before Union, is correct. The Select Committee also suggested what the new practice should be in accordance with Clause 137 of the Act of Union. The subject was dealt with by the Select Committee, and plans as to apply it in practice, how to give effect to equality of languages, were made. The next question which was considered was what steps should be taken to give effect to Clause 137 of the Act of Union. The Select Committee therefore looked into the question of what was the practice before 1910 and what should be the practice afterwards. All parties in the House were represented in that Select Committee, and that Select Committee presented its report.

Was it a unanimous report.

There was a minority report by Gen. Beyers; I thought the Select Committee went too far so far as compulsion was concerned. I thought there should be more freedom and less compulsion in the application of the language policy, but it was the experience of the Select Committee that in the old Republics of the Transvaal and the Free State the practice used to be, while the mother tongue had to be the medium of instruction at the start, gradually to to go over from the mother tongue as the exclusive medium of instruction to the other language, which afterwards was used as supplementary medium.

Why was that never done?

Just let me read to the House what the findings of the Select Committee were in 1911.

Yes, but this is 1943.

I am referring to this because the question was raised, what was done before 1910, before Union, and what the position was after that. If hon. members study the report they will see that the Select Committee stated that the old existing practice before Union was that the mother tongue was to be the medium of instruction up to a certain stage, but after that the second language was to be resorted too as a supplementary medium.

Was such a provision contained in the legislation of the Cape Province after Union?

The Select Committee goes on and describes what should be the practice to comply with Clause 137, and it recommends that certain things should be done.

Who was the Chairman of that Committee?

Mr. F. S. Malan.

Wasn’t Mr. Freemantle a member?

Who were the members?

The then Minister of Justice, Gen. Hertzog, Gen. Beyers, the Minister of Education, Mr. F. S. Malan as chairman, Col. Crewe, Mr. Duncan, Mr. Robinson and Mr. C. L. Botha. It was a Committee fully representative of both parties in the House at that time, and I just want to quote the recommendations made by the Committee to give effect to Clause 137—

As a medium for the subject.

The hon. member must not make himself ridiculous.

But none the less we have not told the House things about our school careers which were not true.

Hon. members will therefore notice that before Union, since the days of the past, it was the practice in South Africa to have mixed schools.

In the Cape Province it was only English.

If the hon. member will give me an opportunity of speaking now he will get his opportunity later on without continuous interruption.

Yes, and he will stick to the facts.

The old practice in South Africa was to have mixed schools where Afrikaans and English-speaking children could go to school together, and that is still the practice. The committee report of 1911 was based on that, that in future the mixed school was to remain as the basis, and on that basis they went into the question as to what would be the suitable medium of instruction in the schools and how the two languages were to be learned. The decision arrived at by the committee was that in the sub-standards and in the lower standards the mother tongue was to be the medium and that the second language would be gradually introduced. And after standard VII the children would have a sufficient knowledge of both languages so that where the parents had no objection the one language could be used to supplement the other.

That was the position on paper but not in practice.

That was the position before Union and at the time of Union, and that was the decision arrived at in 1911. This report was adopted by Parliament, it was referred to the Provinces, and we acted on it for a number of years. There is no doubt that the old conception in practice in South Africa was that of mixed schools for Afrikaans and English-speaking children, and the medium of instruction and the learning of the languages was to be on that basis.

Was that the basis of the Provincial Ordinances which were subsequently passed?

They are based on that.

That is not so.

Since the 1920’s, with the political struggle in South Africa becoming more bitter after the last war, politics were transferred to school questions to a large extent and the result was that largely as a result of the intrusion of Party political questions into all branches of social life, the separate school, the single medium school, more and more came into being.

Was it not the educationists who insisted on that and not the politicians?

The hon. member need not ask me those questions. Others will discuss that point and will tell him what the educationists say. It was as a result of the intrusion of the political atmosphere into our schools that we had this phenomenon of the establishment of separate schools, and since those days the movement has been more and more in the direction of our children, instead of being educated together, instead of being together and playing together, and getting their introduction to life together, being divided more and more into two streams. The one lot was put into one kraal and the other into another kraal.

What about Bishops and St. Andrews?

I say that that development which has come into being since the 1920’s is in conflict with the fundamental outlook of the South Africa Act. It is, I say, in conflict with the permanent national interest of South Africa. I think we should go back on that movement, because if we continue as we are doing now we shall eventually get a condition of affairs in South Africa which will not only be unhealthy, but which will also be dangerous. The whole movement of South Africa is in a different direction. The hon. member for Winburg (Mr. Swart) said that the single medium school is the best school and most suitable to South African conditions. In actual fact the very opposite is the case. The position is this, that while our children in the schools are more and more being driven into two streams, are more and more being forced into separate schools, the real social urge in South Africa is in the opposite direction. In the days I am speaking of, we had an English-speaking population in the towns and an Afrikaans-speaking population on the platteland, but that condition of affairs is rapidly disappearing. We find that the Afrikaans-speaking population is today drifting on a large scale to the big towns where there is industrial development, in order to take part in that development, and the English-speaking population is to a large extent returning to the platteland. We are having an intermixing of the population on a large scale. Instead of the two sections of the population living apart from each other in this country we see that movement going on; we see this development which I have sketched going on and there is a mixing of the two sections of the population. If we go to the industries in Johannesburg, if we go to the mines and places like that, we find that a large proportion of the workers are Afrikaans-speaking.

It is only in the Cabinet that we do not find that.

That is the position in the big towns. Now let us look at the platteland—we find English farmers in every part of the country. There is an intermixing of the population. In every respect the people of South Africa are beginning to live together, yet now we are being asked at this juncture, while that movement is going on in South Africa, to separate our children and keep them apart. In industries, in business concerns and in every respect there is a mixing of the population going on, yet we have to keep our children apart! I think it is in conflict with the ideals which we cherished when we established a United South Africa. It is in conflict with our national interest and with the tendency and the course followed by our people in South Africa.

Are the English schools also pursuing that policy?

The hon. member can take it from me that if this policy is applied to Afrikaans schools it will also be applied to English schools.

But we want to know whether you are going to apply that policy to the private English schools?

The policy which the hon. member and his Party opposite stand for is that of having two kraals in South Africa—two nations, or rather two tribes, as they call it.

Are you going to apply the policy of bilingualism to schools such as Bishops and St. Andrew’s?

The Government’s policy will be gradually applied to all sections of the population.

We are asking specifically whether it will be applied to the English private schools.

Take the position in Natal. This onslaught has been made here and Natal has been made the whipping boy. Natal did not wait for the Government to decide, Natal set a great example to the rest of South Africa. It was one of the happiest signs to me of the development of South Africa that that Province, which is almost entirely English, and in respect of which we did not know when Afrikaans could be brought in on some basis or other in order to obtain more or less equal rights, was the first Province to follow this sound policy and say to its education department: “We are going to pass an Education Act under which the second language will become a supplementary medium in all our schools.”

Yes, they are going to teach one subject in Afrikaans.

That is the law in Natal today, but that law does not exist in any of the other provinces. Natal has set us an example at which I rejoice. Instead of slandering Natal we should be grateful to that province for having adopted the attitude it adopted in the difficult position in which it found itself. There is an overwhelming English-speaking population there, and even the English schools in Durban will in future be obliged to teach Afrikaans; Afrikaans will not only be taught as a foreign language but it will also be introduced as a supplementary medium.

Those are not the true facts.

These are the facts. The hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. F. C. Erasmus) intimates that what I am saying is not true. Well, let the House judge. What I have told the House has been published in a Provincial Ordinance, and the Ordinance will be carried out in that spirit. I have discussed the matter with the Administrator and what I have told the House are the facts. It is the hon. member who is not telling the House what the actual position is.

And the English-speaking pupils are now running away to the private schools.

The principle which the Government lays down will be equally applied to schools where English is the medium of instruction and where Afrikaans is the medium of instruction. This principle of the gradual teaching of the second language and of the gradual use and introduction of the second language as a supplementary medium will be applied in the country, and that will be the law which the Government is going to pass. If that is not done we shall be acting in conflict with the interests of our children, in conflict with the vision which we beheld more than thirty years ago. We are going to do our best for the future of South Africa. To a certain extent I am feeling alarmed and anxious over the well-being of our Afrikaans-speaking youth.

May the Lord help us!

Why don’t you worry about your own Ministers?

I am worried about the youth of South Africa; I see what is happening. South Africa is developing fast and large numbers of our people will be absorbed in industries. There is a mixing of our people in industries, in the mines and in every sphere of life. Our young men and young women on the platteland will not be satisfied to remain on the farms for ever; we can already see the drift of the population to the industries. It is becoming colossal. And now these poor unfortunates have to come to the towns with the little bit of English they have learnt on the platteland from teachers who do not know the language well enough to teach them.

You should be more concerned about these poor unfortunates in your Cabinet.

I do not know whether I am addressing the House or whether the hon. member for Humansdorp (Mr. Sauer) is.

I hope hon. members will cease interrupting.

I have been told that our normal colleges in the Transvaal, where the teachers take their final examinations, train teachers whose knowledge of English is no better than that of pupils in standard VII of the English schools. If that is a fact, hon. members will realise that those teachers’ are not competent to teach English to the children of the platteland. And then those children from the platteland afterwards come and apply for employment in our industries. They have to apply for positions in the industrial world, in the commercial world and elsewhere in the town, and what chance have they?

Are the English-speaking people bilingual?

I am afraid that for the sake of political gain we have done serious harm to these children. We have put a millstone round their necks, and we are doing them a grave injustice. I have often heard business people say that the children are very competent but that they do not know English. The Afrikaans child is clever. The hon. member for Gordonia (Mr. J. H. Conradie) gave us some interesting figures showing what Afrikaans children had achieved. I know that the Afrikaans child is clever, and that the Afrikaans child will help itself. The Jan van Riebeeck School may teach English excellently, but let us take the outside places and look at the way the children are taught there. The child learns English there in a way which does not give it the slightest chance in its struggle for life.

Are you worrying your head about the English child who does not know Afrikaans?

If we give effect to the policy of dual medium schools we shall not only be acting in the spirit of the wish expressed by the people at the last elections, but we shall also be acting in the spirit of the decision taken by Parliament and by the National Convention a generation ago. We shall be acting in the true economic interest of our own Afrikaans children. Those who want to lock the door, who want to kraal off our children and keep them apart may imagine they are doing a service to the people but they are doing something which will cause great suffering to our children in days to come.

I am sorry to have to interrupt the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister, but his time has expired.

May I move—

Agreed to.

I thank the House for granting me an extension but I have finished my remarks, and I only want to move the following amendment now—

1. (1) That the child should be instructed through its home language in the early stages of its educational career;
2. (2) that the second language should be introduced gradually as a supplementary medium of instruction from the stage at which it is on educational grounds appropriate to do so; and
3. (3) that such changes should be introduced in the system of the training of teachers as are necessary to make the ideals of bilingualism and of national unity in the schools fully effective.”

It is a privilege to me and also an honour to second this amendment of the right hon. the Prime Minister. This morning we listened very attentively to the hon. member for Winburg (Mr. Swart) and to the hon. member for Gordonia (Mr. J. H. Conradie). So well did we listen and so well was the case put, that even the Prime Minister proceeded to congratulate those two members. I am sorry, however, that after the Prime Minister’s speech, and even while he spoke, I found myself unable to congratulate hon. members on the other side on the attitude they are adopting. It passes my comprehension why, in dealing with such an important and thorny matter, as the hon. member for Winburg himself called it, we should attack one another. Attacks were also made this morning on certain persons who hold certain views in regard to this question. Perhaps hon. members on the other side and also on this side, will allow me as an educationist to express a few thoughts. You cannot say that I am not an educationist, and will you allow me to pass on to you a few opinions or ideas in regard to this matter—even though they are not always based on opinion!

You must not display too much conceit in Parliament.

One would say that, especially if one were to listen to the hon. member. The motion of the hon. member for Winburg, the agitation which was set in motion in the country as a result of the action of irresponsible persons and politicians who wanted to make political capital out of this unpleasant state of affairs in the language sphere, is in my opinion nothing but a continuance of events which took place more than a century ago, and which afflicted our country, our country where providence ordained that two national groups should settle. In turning back the pages of history today, I want to do so as an historian, objectively and scientifically, and not with the object of raking up old stories or embarrassing certain sections of the community—because I firmly believe in what Paul Kruger told us: “Take from the past what is good and pure, and build the future on it.” I am going back to history to seek the causes of the existing state of affairs in connection with the present quarrel, and, with the knowledge of those causes to suggest a course which may lead, even if it is not now, then within the next ten, fifteen, fifty or a hundred years, to our succeeding in bringing about co-operation in our country. Since 1828 when a hasty, obstinate, hot-headed Cape governor proceed to make an educational faux pas by attempting to anglicise the whole Cape Province, a grievance was created which -gnawed like a canker at our national life. Out of that was born the single medium school, where Dutch-speaking and English-speaking were in the same school with English as the medium of instruction. That attempt to anglicise the Cape was one of the causes of the Great Trek, and in the Trekker territories Hollands and not Afrikaans became the mother tongue of the Voortrekkers. But Hollands, as far as they were concerned, too, was also a foreign language. It was, however, given a place in the curriculum of their schools, until such time as England took possession of those territories—Natal in 1845, and the other two republics in 1902. Although Hollands was recognised as official language in the old Cape Colony as far back as 1882, and although Hollands was given a place in the curriculum in Natal before the outbreak of the Anglo-Boer war, English continued to be the dominating language in those provinces, for reasons which we need not go into now. After the annexation of the two republics in 1902, English was therefore the medium of instruction, and also the school language of most of the provinces, both in the primary, intermediate and high schools. Even after Union came about, when Nederlands, together with English, was recognised as the official language, and even after the report of the Select Committee which the Prime Minister mentioned, and which was appointed to advise the provincial councils with reference to the carrying out of this policy in the language sphere, English was the leading language, and it was largely ascribable to the fact that the second language was Hollands and not Afrikaans—because Nederlands in this country, as far as I am concerned and I am sure as far as you are concerned too, has always been a foreign language which was of no practical value to us. It was only after Afrikaans as a language came to its rights, therefore, that the Afrikaans-speaking persons could expect to hope for success, and then not without a struggle, especially against the conservatism of our English-speaking forefathers, and largely also against the leaders of the nation who had already adopted Hollands. But after a bitter struggle, the mother language was not only recognised as the medium of instruction, but was made compulsory in all the provinces except Natal, and English and Afrikaans therefore became the media of instruction at school for English-speaking and Afrikaans-speaking respectively. In Natal, where they had not yet made the mother tongue compulsory, we find in the case of many Afrikaans-speaking children that the foundation was laid in the wrong medium. I want to come back to Natal later. At this stage I would like to make a friendly appeal to Natal, to compel those parents who still hold those wrong ideas and who put their children into the wrong medium at the commencing stage, to do their duty towards their offspring. But unfortunately, however, the suspicion caused by a long struggle and quarrel over this matter, the narrow national outlook on the part of both national groups, the inertia and wantonness of the authorities and political considerations, led to the continuance of our single medium schools, but with this difference, with this change, that the Afrikaans-speaking child then received his education in those single medium schools through the mother tongue as the medium of instruction. But in my opinion, this single medium school principle which was introduced, which arose as a result of this suspicion, which arose as a result of the short sightedness on the part of the authorities, which arose as the result of political quarrels, this principle of aloofness which was called into being, was one of the most unfortunate in our country, because I can think of no other policy which can more effectively plant the germ of further and more certain division in our country than this principle of aloofness. Through the acceptance of this principle of aloofness, we unconsciously or consciously forced our children—and therefore the people of South Africa, because the children of today become the people of tomorrow—into two separate camps, to the detriment of the nation, national suspicion and national distrust. As a result of this unfortunate policy—and notwithstanding the fact that we won the fight as far as the medium of instruction was concerned—we have been engaged for many years in thwarting national formation and development. In the single medium school the child has no opportunity of associating with his fellow-Afrikaner who speaks the other language; he has no opportunity of making friends with him; he has no opportunity of learning to understand him; he has no opportunity of learning to respect him. And that is what is lacking in our national life. Because we do not know each other and because we do not know each other’s language, we have no respect for one another. And we find that although the two national groups come into the closest contact with one another almost daily, we are forcing them at school to develop a spirit of aloofness. We teach them in the single medium school as a unit, as a separate group with a unit outlook on national matters. I am now talking about both sections. I am not attacking any one section. I merely state a fact. But the establishment of single medium schools further led to our people becoming less bilingual, not that fewer of us became bilingual, but the extent of our bilingualism decreased. Today we find that our English-speaking children only come into contact with Afrikaans when Afrikaans is taught as a subject. We find that our Afrikaans-speaking child only comes into contact with English when he takes English as a subject. Previously the Afrikaans-speaking child continually came into contact, with English as a language, and the English-speaking child continually came into contact with his Afrikaans-speaking school mates. I think you will understand what I mean. But my own experience—for the benefit of those who do not know it, I have 20 years’ experience as a teacher—my own experience is that the English-speaking child, when he passes the matriculation examination, is not able to speak Afrikaans well. As a matter of fact, he can hardly speak it, and the Afrikaans-speaking child is practically in the same boat as far as English is concerned. We find that when he reaches matriculation he is at least two and a half years behind as far as bilingualism or his knowledge of English is concerned, and we find that the English-speaking child is no less than three years behind as far as his knowledge of Afrikaans is concerned. The annual reports of the examiners show that as far as our knowledge of each other’s language is concerned, we are going back further and further, because every group is educated in water-tight compartments, and consequently we do not get an opportunity of using each other’s language as an instrument. In this connection the commission’s report of 1941—and to my Afrikaans-speaking friends on the other side I want to say that this commission consisted almost exclusively of Afrikaans-speaking persons—says that the standard of the matriculant, as far as the second language is concerned, is critically low. The language is not taught as an instrument, but as a subject. You will surely admit that one learns a language more quickly and better when one speaks it, and I want to ask what opportunity our Afrikaans-speaking children have of speaking English in the separate schools, or what chance the English-speaking children of Michaelhouse or of Durban High have of speaking Afrikaans? We must give those children an opportunity of coming into contact with that practical knowledge, and you will therefore agree with me—I think hon. members on the other side will also agree with me—that the best method of doing that is not to keep the children in separate camps, but to bring them together, and it is also clear that any authority which has the interests of the people at heart, any authority which realises its responsibility will have to devote its serious attention to this national question. There are two courses which can be adopted. Personally, I feel that 34 years after Union—I say Union and emphasise that word—we should give our very serious attention to the question of taking the control of education away from the Provincial Councils and placing it in the hands of the Central Government.

Hear, hear.

We feel very strongly that we have now reached the stage where we must no longer be so suspicious of one another, that we are very tired of submitting to four educational systems in the country. But we also know that the provinces are not yet ripe for it. We know that if we look at this matter from a practical point of view, we will have to think twice before we act, and for that reason we propose an amendment to our education regulations and the revision of our provincial machine, so that we can obtain full bilingualism—the amendment as moved by the Prime Minister. I think at this stage we shall have to be satisfied with that, because I am aware that if we are to pass legislation today which has the effect of removing the control of education from the provinces, we shall have further trouble. But in giving effect to these regulations and amendments, and particularly the amendment of the Right Hon. the Prime Minister, we must be very firm in seeing that justice is done to both national groups. If any policy is adopted, and any educational institution—and here I have in mind the private schools particularly—refuses to give effect to this policy which is laid down by the State, such a school must be compelled to do it. If there is a St. John’s or St. Andrew’s or Michaelhouse or Hilton College, or an Afrikaans private school which is not prepared to observe this legislation which is passed by the highest legislative authority in the country for the attainment of that complete bilingualism of which the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister spoke, then such school must be compelled to do it, and I am also convinced that the Prime Minister will keep his promise and compel those schools to comply with the legislation.

Why did he not say so in his speech?

We cannot allow any private institution in the country to oppose or to thwart the national aim and the struggle for bilingualism, and I am convinced, therefore, that the Prime Minister will take that step if it is necessary. But in order to give effect to this policy we must, as the Prime Minister said, have bilingual teachers. Perhaps I can speak as a teacher, because I know what the state of affairs is. One does not find many bilingual teachers. Fifty per cent. of our teachers, both English-speaking and Afrikaans-speaking do not possess a Standard VII bilingualism. How can we expect those people to educate bilingual children? Our first duty, therefore, will be so to reorganise our training colleges that those people become fully bilingual. You have spoken of Natal. I have heard Natal criticised. May I draw the attention of hon. members to the fact that as from this year the Natal Training College is teaching three subjects through the medium of Afrikaans. That English-speaking colony, as far as its training college is concerned, as far as the education of its bilingual teachers is concerned, has laid down that as from this year three subjects in the training college shall be taught through the medium of Afrikaans.

How many subjects are taught in English?

Hon. members on the other side never want to admit that anything good is being done. The other great essential is that we must develop a spirit of bilingualism amongst our children in every school. The child must learn from infancy that this is a bilingual country, that the two national groups live together, that they live side by side and come into daily contact with one another, and that he must therefore regard the other language and the other national group as his own; in other words, from infancy he must develop that spirit of bilingualism and the spirit of unity. Then we can expect success when he becomes a grown up person. But we must adhere to the principle that the mother tongue shall be the medium of instruction of the child when he starts his school life. If the foundation has been thoroughly laid with the mother tongue as the medium of instruction, and once he has thoroughly mastered the second language in accordance with this principle of life, viz. hear, speak and then read and write, then the second language can be introduced as the medium of instruction in one or other of the unimportant subjects, so that when he reaches the secondary school, the intermediate school, we can introduce a fifty-fifty basis as far as the medium of instruction is concerned. I am referring to Afrikaans-speaking and English-speaking children, and I can assure you that if anyone is going to suffer, the English-speaking children because they are less bilingual, will suffer more than the Afrikaans-speaking children. The organisation would be quite easy. I say it would be quite easy, because I have had so much to do with it. We want the mother tongue in the primary schools, and the primary schools will therefore continue to exist in their present form, or as parallel medium schools. It seems to me that hon. members on the other side do not know the difference between the parallel medium and the dual medium.

You are becoming too conceited now.

May I just say that the hon. member for Gordonia (Mr. J. H. Conradie) spoke of the dual medium and the parallel medium as being the same school. When the child has passed through the primary school, the dual medium system must be introduced, so that he will then have an opportunity of receiving his education together with the other child. When our children get that opportunity of being with one another, of receiving their education in both languages on a fifty-fifty basis, then the other language will no longer be a foreign language to them, but it will become the language of the nation as such. In other words, we firmly believe that in this country we must develop a spirit where we realise that we are a bilingual country, and not a unilingual country, either English or Afrikaans, but that every man’s language is English and Afrikaans. I heard such a great deal this morning about the bilingualism of the Free State. I admit that the Free State is the most bilingual Province. But is it not the Free State which has a Grey College where that principle of bilingualism has been in force for so many years? Is it not that Grey College to which so many of our students have gone in the past in order to become bilingual? We as Natalians are grateful to have that school, where our children have an opportunity of becoming bilingual. But let me come back to my own Province, and see how this English Province has given effect to this principle of bilingualism. I have in mind such schools as the Vryheid High School, of which Dr. Schoonees is the principal, and where the principle of bilingualism is carried out, a school which has a very fine reputation in the country. And where does one find a better school than the school in Greytown where the dual medium system is in operation? An hon. member spoke here of results. I can tell him that out of six candidates at one of those schools four passed the matriculation examination first class and two second class.

What was their percentage in English?

I cannot say that, but it would have to be very high. In order to get a first class pass it must be 60 per cent. The measure of bilingualism which is attained in a school depends, of course, amongst other factors, on the environment of the school. Reference has been made here to the Jan van Riebeeck School, but the fact that those results were obtained is due to the fact that the environment is English-speaking. The Natal Education Department has already laid down by ordinance that as from this year every child from Standard II shall receive education through the medium of the second language, for at least one-half hour per day, and as time goes on, that period of instruction will be extended. This is a fine example by that English-speaking province which has eventually realised the necessity of bilingualism, and we ought to be grateful to them that they have taken this step and that they are assisting to make the country bilingual; and they are the people who will suffer if bilingualism is introduced because they are less bilingual than we are. I again speak of experience. We also find that Kearsney College has decided as from this year to teach one of the subjects through the medium of Afrikaans. We know that Michaelhouse has decided to teach geography through the medium of Afrikaans as from this year. These are examples which we might well note. Then we come to the Voortrekker High School. I wonder whether hon. members know the history of the Voortrekker High School, and perhaps I shall be permitted to say a few words about it, because I personally fought for the interests of that school. No principal in the world can exercise full control over 800 or 850 pupils, and the number of pupils has therefore been limited to 650, and I still have to be convinced that they will have success with this number of 650. The Voortrekker High School asked for additional buildings two or three years ago, and this request was refused because Natal had then already deceided to introduce the dual medium system, and only temporary buildings were therefore erected. One must always investigate a matter before jumping to conclusions. I do not want to say anything else. I just want to say that in my opinion it is absolutely essential to have bilingualism in this country so that we may learn to understand one another.

Can you tell us …

Please keep quiet. If we are going to lose anything by introducing the dual medium, if we are going to lose as far as the contents of the other subjects are concerned, then I still say that it would be worth while to suffer that loss for the sake of national unity, and for the sake of that bilingualism which will come about in the country. I would rather suffer 5 per cent. with regard to the standard of education if we can bring about bilingualism in this country, if we can obtain co-operation and if we can reach that stage, where we shall be able to read each others literature, so that we might learn to understand the soul of the other man. Once we reach that point, we shall have a happy country, and a happy people which will be able to work for the welfare of the nation as a whole.

First of all, I would like to thank the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister for his great tribute to Natal, which I am sure is sincere and well deserved. While I do not agree with the specialised intention of this motion, I want nevertheless to thank the hon. member for Winburg (Mr. Swart) for the real service which he has rendered to this House and to this country in providing an opportunity for a discussion of some aspects of education. During all the years I have so far been in this House, there has been no debate upon what my party considers the most important of all subjects which can be brought before a Parliament. That of the education of the people. It seems to me an amazing omission. We feel that unless we have very much better methods in our education in South Africa, and also throughout the world, we lay waste our powers and labour for an unrealisable dream. Without something of a revolution in our schools, it is in vain that we are worrying so much about this way or that way of securing social security, or political security either, because what is required as a foundation is a changed human point of view, and that can be achieved by education and education only. So once more, we thank the hon. member for giving us this chance to discuss a most important matter. I wonder, Sir, if you would allow me to suggest that with regard to motions such as these, which are of first importance to the country, it might be an advantage if we were allowed to give notice of introduction not on the first day of the new Session but on the last day of the preceding one. My reason for suggesting this is that it would give all members an opportunity for study and research along important lines during the recess. We should not then be ever in the position in which the curate found himself at the Sunday School picnic, when he announced an egg-and-spoon race, and then discovered to his dismay that the eggs had not arrived and that there were no spoons. Now I come to the third paragraph of the motion, and I should like to read it—

We on all sides of the House are 100 per cent. in agreement with that. “Dit is baie nodig om die tweede taal te praat en te verstaan.” That is proved every day and almost every hour in this House, when members take offence at something which has been stated or which they imagine has been stated by someone else; so we have misunderstanding in this House by reason of our not all being “tweetalig.” May I mention a very pleasant little adventure I had on my last visit to Pretoria? I came out from the railway station and stopped for a moment to see that magnificent monument of the Oudstryders, and standing on the starboard side, on the right, was a very young and a very raw Afrikaner who had obviously come straight from the backveld. He was gazing at the bas-relief below the giant figures of the sentinels. I went and did my job of work in Pretoria and came back twenty minutes later, and he was still standing there, in exactly the same place and attitude. Then we talked a bit, in Afrikaans. We discussed the beauty of that sculpture, and at the end this very young and very raw Afrikaner turned to me and said: “Yes, and I also will do just as good work as that.” To me, a man from Durban in Natal, that was a very fine, encouraging South African experience, and five years ago I could not have had it, for the reason that I could not understand the second of our official languages. I say that we are all at one in the resolute determination that everybody shall understand both languages. It is not a question of what to do. It is a question of “can it be done,” and if so, what is the easiest way of doing it? I am going to suggest very strongly that it can be done, that it is not necessary to fear that there will be any great loss from the Natal dual-medium system. Before recommending a recent movement and suggesting a new method, I want to put the House in mind of a phenomenon of our times. Probably everybody has notice it, when it comes to be mentioned. It is the amazing alertness and precocity of the modern child. This is so marked that it constitutes an additional problem. I need not trot out examples. Every fond father has noted instances of this, and knows that what I say is true; but I add to that that this alertness of the modern child may prove a psychological embarrassment, and new steps have to be taken to meet it. Otherwise, in the not very remote future, “naked” intellects may set our world ablaze. It is possible to develop too fast. The immediate consequence of this precocity is that the child of two or three years becomes and has become what is technically termed in the nursery a “handful”. It is a full time job for one person to look after a single child, from two to three years of age, by himself or by herself. And that leads me to the recommendation that I am going to make. If we want to get 100 per cent. bilingual citizens, if we want to ensure that they learn at school the most important lesson of all, that is to live together happily and helpfully, if we want to do that, I suggest that we must establish on a very great scale nursery schools, and utilise the three forgotten years which lie between the ages of three and six. To save the time of the House I would like to quote a passage which I have taken from Hansard’s report of one of my own speeches in the Assembly, and to say (with rare and becoming modesty) that I am astonished at the good sense of it—

I have only three minutes left, but in that time I must propose a new procedure. The three extra play-school years should be devoted through games and habit-forming occupations to language-learning. And let me say that to a very young child learning a language is only a game—not a task. If a mother (or father) and an infant have equal opportunity of acquiring a language, for example the Zulu tongue from a house-servant, at the end of three years the adult may probably know little or nothing, whereas after six months the child will understand and speak the new language within the limit of everyday needs. In the South African Nursery School, therefore, from the very first day games and occupations should be deliberately used to give each child both languages. Every toy and tool will be named, always and at once, in Afrikaans and in English. This presents no difficulty whatever to the small child. He doesn’t care a bit whether the object is called a “table” or a “tafel”. To him, the thing merely has two names, just as John Smith has a baptismal name and a surname, and answers equally to one and the other. After three such years, with every order and item of information given always and immediately in both languages, the normal child will be as much at ease with one as with the other, and able to assimilate instruction in either.

At 4.10 p.m., the business under consideration was interrupted by Mr. Speaker in accordance with the Sessional Order adopted on the 25th January, 1944, and Standing Order No. 26 (1), and the debate was adjourned; to be resumed on 10th March.

The House thereupon proceeded to the consideration of Government business.

I should like, in the first instance, to invite the attention of the Minister to the state of the railway station at Bitterfontein. I wonder whether the Minister is aware of the dreadful state it is in. I want to mention just one or two facts. Bitterfontein is a terminus, and there is a tremendous amount of traffic; an amazing amount of goods are despatched from that terminus; the whole district is dependent on it is for the transport of cattle and produce. It serves a large portion of Bushmanland and the northern part of Namaqualand. I will make bold to say that there is not a station in the district that has a greater amount of traffic than Bitterfontein. The whole neighbourhood is dependent on that station. Every month no fewer than 20,000 head of small stock are loaded there, as well as thousands of bales of wool and great quantities of other products. Even copper ore is conveyed from there, and thousands of tons of coal; there is, in addition, merchandise and other goods that arrive there for a hundred different stores. There is a tremendous accumulation of traffic at Bitterfontein. It will be understood how difficult the position has become when there is such an accumulation. You get this sort of thing, that the small stock that are taken there must be kept lying about in the kraals in mud and dung, and when they arrive here they are hardly fit for slaughter. I would ask the Minister to pay a visit to this place with a view to effecting an improvement. The loading platform amongst the kraals is in a neglected condition. The platform has been broken up. The wood has been torn from its sides, and the officials must battle, and battle like Trojans, to load up the cattle. The loading of coal, which is continually piling up, is considerably delayed. Is it really necessary that at such an important station things cannot be made to run smoothly. At a very small expenditure the facilities could be considerably improved. The whole of that district, that enormous area is dependent on the station; it is of vital importance. Apart from the piling up of goods I should like to tell the Minister that the officials have to carry out their duties in the most trying heat in a tin shed. Taking it all in all, Bitterfontein can really be described as a hell for the railway workers. As the Minister knows, there are hundreds of officials who work there, so it is not an unimportant station. These people have to work in these tin hovels and that in the most trying heat. It is a real hell on earth for these men. I want to ask the Minister at least to provide a minimum of comfort for them. The provision of a platform for passengers is urgently necessary, and also another platform for loading and off-loading. It is almost impossible for the officials to carry out their duties. Give them a modicum of assistance, so that they can do their work properly and with some measure of comfort. Then I also want to direct the attention of the Minister to the extremely unsatisfactory railway wagons and trucks that are used there. It strikes me that the Bitterfontein branch line has now been singled out as a dumping ground for all the wagons and trucks that are in a dilapidated condition, and are no longer serviceable enough for the main line. We shall yet have accidents there. It is all very dangerous for the staff and the passengers. The Minister should not delay until there is an accident before he brings about a change. I come now to the wages paid to his officials, and I take as a standard the wages paid to the officials on that particular line as I am conversant with the conditions. There are roughly 80,000 railwaymen and of that 80,000 some 60,000 are living under the bread line. The children of the railwaymen are undernourished and poorly clad. Moreover, the men are not merely doing unimportant work; they are entrusted with responsibility. At times when I have enjoyed sound sleep in the train and have travelled in comfort, I think over these things, and realise that I have to thank the railwaymen. They must do their rounds at night and see that everything is in order. Even when the Minister travels his fate is not dependent on the high salaried officials, but his life and his safety is in the hands of the undernourished railwaymen who get these small wages. In the night they have to go round to see whether the railway line has not been washed away and whether everything is in good running order. Is it right that when you have officials who are devoting body and soul to the Railway service, that you should pay them a miserable pittance so that they find it difficult to keep body and soul together, and have to work in unsatisfactory surroundings, and are worried to death. And all this happens while there are big surpluses and big profits, and while high officials are being appointed who really are not required, and while the salaries of high officials are being increased. We find that the 80,000 railwaymen can hardly keep body and soul together, while a small clique live in plenty, and whilst surpluses are being accumulated. In the circumstances, I must appeal to the Minister to improve the position of his men. There is talk of a new railway station at Johannesburg. Now I should like to ask whether it is right to build another new station there, or to rebuild the present station, while right through the country there are places where new stations are urgently required. If Johannesburg station was really in a dilapidated state, or if it was too small or not adapted to its purpose, it might be different. But I was recently at Johannesburg, and I failed to observe any inconvenience or any difficulties there. Why is it that another £100,000 has to be spent on a new station. In view of the requirements of other parts of the country this is not justified. Then I want to say something about new appointments. There are many difficulties in this connection. Young boys and girls leave school and they wish to build up a future for themselves in the public service or in the Railway service. They are, however, unable to obtain any appointments, except temporary appointments, and then they have to furnish a certificate that they are not fit for military service. I think that is very unjust towards the youth of South Africa. Those boys and girls have to carve a future for themselves. The requirements of the Railways are heavy, and if these people are once engaged it is not right that they should be engaged on a temporary basis; they should be placed on the permanent staff. The Minister does not want to fill up posts that should go to soldiers who return from service. We have no objection to that. Those men who have joined up have to make a living when they return, and they are entitled to their positions, but the Minister must bear in mind that a large number of these men now on service will not be available. Some of them will not be in a fit state of health to resume their employment; others will be suffering from wounds, others will have become casualties, while others again will have reached pensionable age. I think that we can reckon on 50 per cent. of the men on military service not returning to the Railway service. For whom, then, is the Minister keeping these positions open? Surely he will not engage returned soldiers who have no experience of the work. Is it right then that these youths I have referred to should be put into temporary posts and not given permanent appointments? They have facilitated the release of many men for active service, men who have joined up, and in that way they have contributed to the war effort. Some of them are too young for military service, or there may be other reasons for them not having joined up. Some of them have not the urge to go, but still they are citizens of this country, and are entitled to permanent appointments. I should like to emphasise to the Minister that he should give them permanent appointments. That course would also be in the interests of the Railways, because then the youths would be able to concentrate wholeheartedly on their work. Let us assume, for a moment, that within a little while we experience a depression and there is a shortage of railwaymen. I we lose these people who are now offering their services and whom the Minister will not give permanent appointments to, then we may in the future have a great shortage of railwaymen. An abnormal position will be created in the service. I would ask the Minister to give this matter his careful consideration, and to offer these applicants permanent instead of temporary posts, as he is doing at present; and they will then be able to render good service and carry out the work until times are more normal. I have previously pleaded in this House for a railway connection between Bitterfontein and Kalkfontein, or Karasburg. Here we have one of the most important railway connections in the country. It is only 300 miles from Bitterfontein to Karasburg. The country is not mountanuous, but open and level, so the cost of constructing such a line would not be high; it would be a paying proposition as well. It would offer salvation to those districts. The connection with South-West Africa from that region would be cut down by 400 miles. At present all the traffic must be sent via De Aar. The whole of that area concentrates on De Aar, and from that point the traffic must be consigned via Worcester through the bottleneck. If there is any breakdown at that bottleneck then the whole railway system is brought to a standstill. But if this short connection can be arranged, then it will hot only shorten the route to South-West Africa, but in the event of the traffic proving too heavy, it can be sent from De Aar via Karasburg. It is certainly a detour, but it is not a great distance. I know that the Minister has in contemplation doubling the line to Worcester. But what is it going to cost? It will cost millions of pounds to double the line through the mountains. Compare this immense expenditure of millions of pounds with the cost of this connection between Bitterfontein and Karasburg and it will be seen that it is a case of millions as against some thousands of pounds. The connection will afford tremendous relief to the existing main line, and will prove the salvation of a district which at present has virtually no railway facilities. There is a development of mining activity in the district. Remember that we have copper ore, and bear in mind that there is a terrific amount of traffic by motor lorry. Day and night the motor lorries take the copper ore to Bitterfontein and return with coal. Bear in mind, too, all the other forms of mining development that are necessary. There is such an enormous amount of traffic on that road between Bitterfontein and Springbok that it is hardly safe to travel on it. I am thinking of all the products that can be delivered in that bustling area that will be served by this railway connection. For instance, there is this £6,000,000 that the Government extracts every year from the diggings at Alexander Bay. We are busy exhausting the wealth of Namaqualand, but we will not give Namaqualand any facilities. We receive £6,000,000 every year from the diggings, we pocket it with a smile, but when a couple of thousand pounds has to be spent on facilities to afford relief to Namaqualand, they we merely shrug our shoulders. Sometimes it would almost appear as if the people in that part of the country do not belong to the Union. It seems as if the people there must just slave in order to pour their treasures into the coffers of the State. There is not even a little money available for amenities and for the relief of those parts. No, if the Government, or if the Minister does not see his way to build that railway during the war then I would ask him to take preliminary steps so that it will be the first railway to be built when peace is proclaimed. If this railway line is built after the war, and if it is done immediately, then it will be possible to provide work for returned soldiers and others, so that some relief will also be provided in that connection, but the Minister must not wait; he must begin to make decisions now, so that when peace comes the construction of the line can be put in hand at once. Another matter that I personally feel is that in this country we must build on a basis of reconciliation. We must build for the future, so that the two great races can work together. The future can only be assured on a basis of co-operation, on a basis of equality and justice and on a basis of honourable and mutual respect. But now let us look at the things that have taken place in recent years in the Railway Administration in connection with promotions and the creation of additional posts—“jobs for pals.” We see that there is definite discrimination to the detriment of the Afrikaner, and to the advantage of the Britisher. I maintain that we cannot discern that ideal of co-operation in the Railway Administration. We cannot detect that ideal of co-operation and reconciliation. Further, what we do see is that the Minister of Railways with his general manager, is actively engaged in closing this road to reconciliation between Afrikaans-speaking and English-speaking citizens and to make it impossible for them. Much has already been said in this connection. I only want to touch on it, and to say that the Afrikaans-speaking section of the country feel deeply hurt over the realisation that in the Railway Department under the Minister of Railways and his general manager, there is apparently no room for the Afrikaner. I am not going to mention any names here, for I know that if I mention the name then he will be a marked man. But in the Transvaal there was a high official with Nationalist sympathies. He was an honest and honourable man, and he declared frankly that he was a Nationalist. Do you know what happened to him? He was demoted because he was a Nationalist—not because he could not do his work—and now he is a stationmaster. Now I want to ask the Minister of Railways whether the Nationalist Party has no right to exist in this country; is it an illegal party? Is the Labour Party illegal and is the Dominion Party illegal? I say no. It is not only in this land that we have political parties. Go to England and you will find a dozen parties. Go to America and you will see the same thing. They are legal parties, and these are constitutional parties that exist. Why then should we apply discrimination in South Africa? I have not known any railwayman to be dismissed because he has admitted that he is an adherent of the Labour Party. Nor have I seen any official removed because he has admitted that he is a follower of the Dominion Party. Why then discriminate against the Nationalist Party, and why if an official says he is a Nationalist must there be discrimination against him and why must he lose his post?, We are not a Party who work in the dark. The Nationalist Party is within the law. We are an Afrikaner Party, and the law allows that, just as it permits the English Party to sit over on the benches opposite. When we come into power we shall not speculate whether a person is a member of the United Party or the English Party, in order to displace him and to discriminate against him. We have never discriminated against the English-speaking people, and why are they doing it now in the case of Afrikaans-speaking people and simply because they may happen to be members of the Nationalist Party? No, we should like to see toleration in the country, and on our side we shall be prepared to be tolerant. We expect that also from the other side. It must be our ideal for the future to discover a basis of co-operation for English-speaking and Afrikaans-speaking citizens. We must not exploit each other. We must not victimise each other. We must observe such a line of conduct that in the future we shall not have to hang our heads in shame. As far as regards the appointment of unilingual officials is concerned, we find that every department is still continually appointing unilingual persons. That is contrary to the law, and it is definitely in conflict with the agreement of 1910. Now I should like to ask the Minister whether he would ever think of appointing an Afrikaans-speaking official as a departmental head or to a big and important post. It is without precedent. I know full well that he cannot rightly appoint unilingual Afrikaans-speaking officials to responsible posts in the service. When we assume office the Nationalist Party will never contemplate appointing a unilingual Afrikaans-speaking person to a responsible position. Nevertheless we find that the present Government appoints English-speaking officials to responsible posts without turning a hair. Such an official has always got two sections of the people to serve. The Afrikaans-speaking section represents more than half the population of the country, and now they have to be served by a unilingual English-speaking official. If strong disapproval is expressed of this, and if it is stated that it is unprecedented and unworkable for an Afrikaans-speaking unilingual official to be thus appointed when he has to deal with English-speaking citizens, then it should just as strongly be condemned when English-speaking unilingual officials are appointed as they have to come into contact with Afrikaans-speaking people. It is quite all right appointing English-speaking officials in England and America, but it will not do in South Africa. Nor is it reasonable to expect that the Afrikaans-speaking section of the population can be satisfied when unilingual English-speaking officials are appointed. If we want to have a basis for co-operation, then we must not follow such a course as this. When unilingual English-speaking officials are pushed down the throats of the Afrikaans-speaking people, and we protest against that, then it is represented that we are agitators who are intolerant towards the other section, and that we are guilty of racialism. If we seek for our rights in a polite way, then we are racialists. We do not ask any preference, we do not ask that the Government should accord us a preference in any way whatever. What we are asking for civilly, and what we are agitating for, is equality and justice. We should be very glad if the Minister would take our grievances into consideration and refrain, in the future, from neglecting the Afrikaans-speaking section. I should like to point this out to the Minister—this is not something to which we often allude, but I should like to do so on this occasion—that some of the hon. members on the other side of the House are unilingual. We have never reproached them on that account, but the fact remains that it is on that side of the House that the unilingual members are sitting, while on this side of the House we are all bilingual. What is more, there are no fewer than three unilingual Ministers. They have to serve this country; and is it just towards the Afrikaans-speaking section of the population that this should be the position? I am referring to the Minister of Mines, the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs and the Minister of Railways. All three of them are unilingual. We know also that on the other side of the House they have gone so far as to appoint a unilingual man as the leader of their Caucus. Is that right? It merely shows that the other side of the House absolutely ignores bilingualism. We on this side of the House are pleading for bilingualism, and we are going to apply it in the future. We can give this assurance, that in the future we shall act in a just manner towards English-speaking South Africa. We shall never discriminate against our fellow-citizens who are English-speaking, for we realise that they have to make their living here, and to carve a future for themselves in this country. Justice demands that their sons and daughters should enjoy to the full the benefits and the privileges of our country in the same way as Afrikaans-speaking people. [Time limit.]

I have listened for a few days to the attacks which were made in this House on the hon. the Minister of Railways. As a newcomer the impression was made on me that the Minister was being attacked as though he was a criminal. I do not know whether it has become the custom in this House to speak of one another in this fashion. As far as I am concerned, however, I certainly cannot agree with the attitude that is adopted in this House of speaking of one another with so little respect, and more particularly to a Minister who is responsible for such a big department. In saying that, it is not my desire to defend the Minister’s case. He can do that himself. I am only saying what we, as human beings, owe to one another. After the four years of war which we have had, I think we owe a great debt of gratitude to the Minister of Railways for the capable way in which the Railways were run in very difficult circumstances. Hon. members know that the conditions were such that we had lawlessness and turbulence; and when we look back on the four years of war, we can almost pat the Minister on the back for the manner in which he and the Railway personnel performed their duties during that period. I say that that is due to the fact that the Minister of Railways gave the lead to his people and to the country. He has been venemently attacked here in connection with certain promotions and appointments to certain posts. I cannot understand what the object is. The names of English-speaking officials have been mentioned here. It is a pity that that was done. I do not know whether those men are unilingual. I shall not, go into details, but the name of one person was mentioned here, namely, that of Mr. H. D. du Plessis, who made rapid progress and who is now System Manager in Johannesburg. I wonder whether hon. members know him. He is an extremely capable man. I mention his name here because I want to show that there is no discrimination to the detriment of Afrikaans-speaking officials and to the advantage of English-speaking officials. This person has made tremendous progress, and I suppose he was appointed over the heads of many others. I believe that his appointment, was justified, because he is an extremely capable man. I say again that the Minister of Railways must not think that it is my desire to defend his case. He can do it himself. But with the experience which I have had in connection with Railway matters—I can say that I personally use the Railways to a very great extent—I want to say that we can be thankful for the manner in which the Railways serve the country. Certain attacks have been made in connection with the services of the Railways. Let me say here that it is true that we cannot get seating accommodation just where we like and when we like. But when we think of the circumstances in which the country finds itself, and in which the Railways are run, then we have every reason to be grateful for the manner in which the Railways are being conducted. I want to associate myself with certain remarks which were made by the hon. member for Namaqualand (Lt.-Col. Booysen) in connection with the expansion of railways in those parts. I represent a constituency, which as I have often said, has been forgotten, and I sometimes think that some hon. members still want to forget this constituency. But I want to give this House the assurance that each day I shall apply to the Minister more persistenly, and I believe that the Minister will heed my request, and that he will assist us in the North-West in connection with railway expansion. When one goes to Upington, one gets the line to South-West, and from Kalkfontein there is no connection to certain parts of Prieska, like Onseepkans, although it is more than 200 miles from Onseepkans to Bitterfontein. That part of the world is not served by railways at all. We want to create Control Boards. We have, for example, the Meat Control Board. I say that such a Board can only be a success if we have railway expansion, so that the farmers can convey their cattle to the market by rail. I should like the Minister to give his attention to this matter, because it will contribute very largely to the success of the Control Boards. I say again that if we take the line from Prieska to Upington, we have a forgotten world to the left of it. When one travels in those parts by motor car, one prays that nothing will go wrong, because if anything does go wrong, there is no one to assist one. One is completely cut off. There is no railway line and hardly any bus services. In the districts Kenhardt and Pofadder, as far as Brandvlei, there is no bus service at all. I have already discussed this matter with the Minister. He is very sympathetic, but I wanted to mention the matter specifically in this House. I make a very serious appeal to the Minister to come to the aid of those people in the North-West. There was a time when the opinion was held, whenever we spoke of Bushmanland and Namaqualand, that there were no people in those parts, that that area was practically uninhabited. If you were to go there today, however, you would be surprised at the expansion which has taken place in farming in those parts, and at the farms which have sprung up there. And when we see how meagre the services are, we realise that we have every right to ask the Minister to pay some attention to those parts. The people who live in those parts are just like ourselves. The other day one of the hon. members asked for a railway line in the Free State. I do not want to oppose it. I only want to say this, that Prieska is as big as half the Free State, and there is hardly any railway line there at all. I do not know how many railway lines the Free State has, but there must be quite a number. I want to ask the Minister, therefore, to come to the aid of the people in those thinly populated parts. There is yet another reason why I ask the Minister to take care of the North-West, and that is that I feel that the future of a large section of the population lies in that part of the world. Reference was made here to opportunities of providing employment in connection with railway lines. Let me say here that I feel that when we speak of our less privileged people and the wages which they earn, we must not approach the matter from a party political standpoint. We must speak about those people as human beings for whom provision must be made. Let me say here that there is a spirit of satisfaction amongst our people on the Railways today with regard to the wages they receive at present in comparison with the wages which they previously received. I say that these people are not as dissatisfied and discontented as was made out in this House. In connection with railway stations in general, I want to say that there are many railway stations which leave a great deal to be desired. When I see the Orange River station, and I then look at the amount of traffic which is handled there, I almost feel justified in saying that the Orange River station ought to have preference over the Johannesburg station. But I do not want to go so far. I believe that the Administration of the Railways is in good hands, and if we put our cases to the Minister, we shall get our proper turn. But there is another little point which I want to mention—I do not know whether it has been mentioned here previously—and it is a complaint which actually exists. We still find that the station foremen at some stations have to work twelve hours per day. When the time arrives—I do not want to say that it must take place during the war—when it will be possible to alter their hours of duty, I hope that the Minister will go into this, so that these station foremen will also have the right to work shorter hours, like other officials, and so that it will not be necessary for them to work twelve hours per day. Before I sit down, I want to ask the Minister of Railways once again to consider those parts of our country which are enormously far flung and which have developed agriculturally, while the State Department did not keep pace with the development in those parts. I hope that the Minister of Railways will be the first to afford assistance in this connection.

I thought we would have heard some expression of appreciation from the Opposition in recognition of the splendid services the railwaymen have rendered, especially during the last four years. We have been told that 40 per cent. of the railway personnel are on active service. That in itself constitutes a great tribute to the railwaymen of the Union of South Africa. I was deeply impressed with the speech by the hon. member for Uitenhage (Mr. Dolley), who gave some very pertinent facts. I would like not only to pay a tribute to those men who have gone North on service, but also to those who have remained to serve on the home front. There is a large number of railwaymen in my constituency, and I have special pleasure in stating that we appreciate the loyalty of the old servants of the Administration, who have stepped into the breach in order to allow the younger men to go on active service. From what I know of them and from what I have heard of them it is clear that they realise that they are helping to fight the battle for freedom, and as I have said, although they are advanced in years they are performing their duties efficiently and ungrudgingly. I received a letter a day or two ago from a railwayman, and I would like to quote what he said. He was in the railway workshops for a period of over 30 years, and is a man who is getting on in years. He closed his letter with this remark which I should say, is characteristic of a large percentage of the railway workers today—

That, Sir, reflects a very fine spirit, and I understand that is a spirit that permeates our railwaymen today. I would also like to pay a tribute to the young men on the rail way. My memory goes back very many years when the Railway Administration admitted boys when they had passed the fourth standard. It was raised to the fifth standard, and then the standard was raised again. In the old days we found it a matter of considerable difficulty to arrange for these boys to improve their educational qualifications; but it is gratifying to know today that the position is reversed, and to find that a large number of our young men who have joined the Railway Service are taking advantage of the facilities that are offered to improve their education in every possible way. In our technical colleges there are to be found many young men from the Railways who are very keen, and as a result of their keenness and the instruction they receive, they are acquitting themselves well, so that they may be looking forward with confidence to the future; with men of this calibre available, and with the qualifications they are achieving at the technical schools, we shall not have to go overseas for engineers and other technical officials for the Railway and other State organisations, but we should be able to find the right men in South Africa. Now, Mr. Speaker, I want to touch on one or two other questions. On one or two occasions before I have referred to the large number of railwaymen who did their service under the old regulations and who are today in receipt of only a very small pension. In these days when the cost of living is so high, they find it impossible to make ends meet and unfortunately, they have at times to depend on charity. I would like the Minister to intervene and consult with the Minister of Finance, for he holds the purse strings, and to ascertain whether some measure of relief cannot be granted to these very old pensioners. I would like to say a word too in connection with the regrading of the Eastern System. That is a subject on which we are keenly interested. Not many years ago we were clamouring for this regrading, and the late Minister met us, with the result that the regrading was commenced. But unfortunately the war intervened, and—I can quite appreciate the necessity for it—a large number of men have had to be taken away from the Eastern System and transferred elsewhere. But I am very pleased at the assurance I had from the Minister a few days ago in answer to a question that appeared on the Order Paper, when he said that as labour becomes available these men will be returned to the Eastern System in order to complete the work they have so successfully begun. As you know, Sir, this is really a matter which we have been hammering at for years. The next point I wish to make is this, that the Minister and others have predicted that travel in the future will be by air; we all agree that a certain amount of travel in future will be by air, but a large number of people, and indeed the majority of people, will not for years and years be in a position to travel by air owing to the very high cost. What I come to is this, that there are parts of the country which stand in need of Railway development. In this connection I would invite the attention of the Minister to the fact that it is a very long rail journey from East London to Durban, over 900 miles, and unless one travels by car one must take to the Railway and have this very long journey via Bloemfontein, involving over 900 miles. Therefore my appeal to the Minister is this, that when he has new railway extensions under consideration, that he would keep well in mind the construction of a Railway from Umtata to Kokstad. This will not only cut down the distance between East London and Durban, but it would also open up parts of the country to agriculture and commerce. I want now, Mr. Speaker, to be somewhat parochial. I have on many occasions in this House some years back, taken up the cudgels on behalf of the users of the East London surburban lines, and I have asked for better surburban stations. I am pleased to be able to say the old tin shacks—one might almost describe them as such—have disappeared, and in their place have been erected very attractive suburban stations, and I understand from experienced officials that these stations are quite up to date. But I should like to draw the Minister’s attention to the antiquated station at East London; it is very antiquated indeed. I am one of those who believe that the termini should be made as attractive as possible. When tourists are on a visit to the country the first thing that catches their eye is the railway station, and they remark either: “What a beautiful station” or: “What a station!” I believe that the building of a new station is under contemplation, but as I pointed out in this House before, the servants of the Administration working in that old building are carrying out their duties in very adverse circumstances. In fact, I am sure that if a medical officer of health had any say in it, he would condemn the building. It frequently happens that a visitor to the town is intrigued by the inscription which appears on this block; it is simply the letters “E.L.Q.R. 1880.” Very often visitors ask what are these mysterious letters, and we have to explain that they represent the East London-Queenstown Railways built in 1880. I suggest to the Minister that it is high time that the inscription was replaced by something more up to date, as for instance “East London—Cairo, 1945.” I know that the new station will eventually be built, and I suggest to the Minister that when it is constructed this inscription should be incorporated with a new one, so that the historic significance of “E.L.Q.R. 1880” will be perpetuated; and may I further suggest that the old station be classified as a historical monument.

What struck one in listening to the debate and to the replies which came on the motion of the Leader of the Opposition is that when one makes a plea on behalf of Afrikaans-speaking officials of senior rank in the service, against whom there are no complaints as far as their work is concerned, and when one complains that others are appointed and promoted over their heads, so that they are left behind, one is accused by Afrikaans-speaking members on the other side of the House, that it is racialism. I cannot remember ever hearing the Afrikaans-speaking members on the other side of the House, either in this debate or in previous debates, fight for the Afrikaans-speaking employees in the Railway service or in any other section of the government service. One is always accused of racialism. If there is one person who, as Minister of Railways, had an opportunity to show his mettle, it is the present Minister. I remember that when he became Minister this side of the House gave him every opportunity. We asked him to use his influence to see that right and justice was done in the Railway service, and even when the present General Manager assumed his post we still cherished great hopes that he would see that justice was done to the Afrikaans-speaking section. When we think of the days when the General Manager was still under the late Mr. Chas. Malan, who at that time was Minister of Railways, I think that he himself will admit that under the present Minister his attitude is completely different to the attitude which he adopted while he was still secretary to the late Minister Chas. Malan. Through the Minister, I want to ask the General Manager whether, when he served under Mr. Chas. Malan, he would have adopted the attitude which he is adopting today? I hope I am wrong; I hope that he is not falling into line with the Minister’s wishes. I do not know whether the present Minister has not sufficient influence over his general manager, but I want to say that when the present Minister of Railways assumed office, the debates on Railways were very short. Sometimes it took no more than two hours for the Minister’s vote to be agreed to. We are not facing an election now, and it cannot be said that we are making propaganda for the election, and I want to ask the Minister whether he thinks that we get up here and plead for the Afrikaans-speaking people in the service merely in order to find fault? Or is it that the Minister has disappointed them? I think that any man who works is worth his wages, but his soul must remain his own. What the workers do in the political sphere in their free time, as long as they do their duty in the service, is not the concern of the Minister. I have here a circular letter which was sent out, and I want to quote from it in a moment. But before doing so, I want to show the Minister what happened during his term of office as Minister. During the first few months after he became Minister, he spoke of the excellent Spoorbond. Thereafter he said that the Spoorbond was not participating in politics. He said that the personnel was loyal, and that Spoorbond was a good organisation. Thereafter, however, he suddenly came along, and Spoorbond had to be wiped out of existence. He said that as far as politics were concerned every man was entitled to his own convictions. Today the workers in the Railways are being spied upon on an unprecedented scale. If anyone is suspected of being opposed to the war, he is spied upon. If a person does not want to do anything for the so-called Liberty Cavalcade, he is spied upon and branded. If he refuses to walk about with a collection box, he feels that he is under suspicion. People in the workshops have told me that they work for the Cavalcade even during working hours. The Minister said that only one person had been appointed on a full time basis for the Cavalcade, and a few on a part-time basis. He also said that the officials did not work for the Cavalcade during their official hours of duty, but outside their normal working hours. I am told—and I believe it—that the Minister’s information is wrong, and that people do work during their official working hours for the Cavalcade, and that goods are manufactured in the workshops during working hours for the Cavalcade. The Minister said that that was not the case, but I am told by the workers that there are foremen who assign duties to the workers for the Cavalcade. I know that a bench, for example, was made with Railway material during official working hours. Not only that, but people are asked directly or indirectly by foremen to work for the Cavalcade, and Railway material is used to make articles for sale at the Cavalcade. Our complaint is that if a man does his work well, it does not matter whether he is a supporter of this side of the House or of the other side. There ought to be no differentiation on the ground of one’s private feelings. Ho ought, not to be compelled, directly or indirectly, to participate in the war effort, and he ought not to be intimidated, if he is a Nationlist, that he will not receive promotion. Here I have a circular letter. The following numbers appear on it: No. 1,401 and also No. 10,607. This concerns the Cavalcade. It is stated here—

That is a general request to members in the service—

It is not stated that those who want to help are at liberty to do so, everyone has to assist; it must be a joint effort. I have no objection to people supporting the Cavalcade if they feel that they are doing good work for South Africa by doing so. Let them do so, but to tell the staff that they must stand together and help, especially if the man feels that there is a threat that if he does not do so he will jeopardise his future, that is going too far. This is tantamount to indirect pressure which is being brought to bear on them. I have here a letter from the System Manager in Cape Town, dated 6th January, 1944, and my complaint is based on that. So much for the war. Every man has the right to think as he pleases. But I am given to understand that this war is being fought for democracy, and I think that one of the fundamentals of democracy is that every man is entitled to his own views, that he can think and act as he deems fit, as long as he does not rebel against his country. Here we are fighting for so-called democracy, and this type of letter is sent to the staff—

At the suggestion of the Prime Minister, a political leader, such a letter emanates from the office of the System Manager. I want to ask him whether under the late Mr. Charles Malan he would have sent such a letter to the officials. He would not have done it. As far as I can ascertain his attitude at that time was exactly the opposite. The letter goes on to say—

I have no objection to the collection of funds, but I again want to draw attention to the manner in which money is being collected at the Cape Town station. An official walks about on the platforms, and he has become so audacious that he goes right up to the train window, and if anyone in the train does not put anything into the box, he insults that person—a passenger in the train. I asked the Minister whether he approved of these collections taking place at the stations and on the trains. He said: “Partially at the stations, but not on the trains.” If a collection box is pushed through the window, what does the Minister call that—inside or outside the train? This individual makes all sorts of silly remarks, and if anyone does not contribute, he makes insulting remarks. In my presence it has happened that a man was sitting in the train when the so-called collector came up an shouted: “See the war through.” He went up to the man who was seated in the train and held the collection box in front of him. This individual took no notice of him. He again held the collection box under his nose, but the man still took no notice of him. He then walked away and said to the people: “That old fellow sitting over there is bankrupt.” The passenger then said: “I may have more in my trouser pocket than you will ever possess in your life, but I do not contribute to a cause which I do not support.” I wonder whether the Minister or the general manager can do anything about this. It is becoming a nuisance. When anyone arrives late for his work he is punished, and I think the travelling public is entitled to be protected against that type of democracy. I understand that at De Aar a coloured person does the collecting. This side of the House tried to treat the Minister fairly when he took office. Suggestions were made, and we waited to see what the Minister would do. Today he has already killed Spoorbond; the collectors for the Cavalcade obstruct the passengers, and insult the people who do not contribute; Europeans and non-Europeans travel together, even on long distances; they travel with you in the same compartment, and the ticket examiners are afraid to take action, because they do not get the support of the department. We have to suffey a great deal of inconvenience, but during war time we are prepared to tolerate it. The position is, however, becoming all the more serious. There is a great shortage of trains, and the Minister gave us to understand that locomotives were not obtainable. In reply to a question which I put to him the Minister replied, however, that in December and January alone 77 special troop trains were run. I have no objection at all to people visiting their homes, to people who participated in the war being given an opportunity to visit their parents and their families. We can understand that, but December and January are the busiest months for our Railways. That is the only time when many parents can take their children to a holiday resort. Why should the Minister, just at that time, when there is a great shortage of trains, convey these enormous masses of troops. Why cannot they visit their homes at some other time? This is the holiday season, and it is necessary for children—at any rate it is very desirable—to have a change of climate, and why should the trains be filled to capacity with soldiers just at this time? Why should they all go home during the holiday season? There were 32 trains, mixed trains for Europeans and non-Europeans. Why just at that time? I think the hon. Minister is so taken up with the war effort and has his mind on Scotland, from which he comes, to such an extent, that he forgets that he is Minster of Railways for the Union of South Africa. If there is a shortage of rolling material why still sell locomotives and send them out of South Africa? Do we not require locomotives here? Why send them to other countries? Then I should like to bring another matter to the notice of the Minister. I want to read a letter to him which I received from a man in the Railways. This letter deals with station masters; I do not want to read the whole letter, but it deals with the relief scheme for station masters. A few stations are mentioned in this letter. Reference is made to Moorreesburg. The writer states—

What is the idea of putting a relief station master at a place for a whole year? I shall be very glad if the Minister will reply to this question. This man goes on to write—

I should like to know from the Minister what his idea was in always sending relief station masters to fill these posts. Is this another case where the man who remained at home is held back in spite of the fact that he, like the man who joined up, is doing his duty? I should like the hon. Minister to reply to this. This person goes on to write about the station building. He says—

I should like to bring this to the notice of the Minister, but perhaps it is too far removed from the headquarters for the general manger to know anything about it. Perhaps he has not yet had any reports in regard to this matter. But I want to say a few words to him in regard to something concerning the local station, and then I should like the general manager or the Minister to deny that that is so. I refer to the central time office at the station. I do not even want to mention the little shed for the shunters which stands on platform No. 8. But there is a central time office which is 25 years old. I give these details so that the Minister can say whether or not my facts are correct. It is a galvanised iron building. It is divided into three compartments. There are no windows. Two of the people who work there have died of consumption in the past 25 years. The goods are off-loaded on the one side by wagons drawn by horses, and there is such a smell in that building that one can hardly stand it. All sorts of insects crawl over the papers. When one enters the place one sees cockroaches everywhere on the papers. That time office does most important work. There is practically no furniture in the building. The staff employed in it is particularly small. Many of them are away, but they are not being replaced. I think that the work which is performed here is of a very responsible nature, but the people have to work under these conditions, while we are engaged in seeing the war through, and the man who does his duty on the home front, who is also entitled to protection, who deserves the protection of every person because he is doing just as much as the man who went overseas, does not get that protection. He is doing just as much on the home front as our hon. friends on the other side. Then there is another matter which I should like to raise. I think one of the most important officials in the Railway Service is the station foreman. He has to do the stationmaster’s work. He must also do the work of the clerks. He is alone on duty when the stationmaster is off, and with your permission I should like to go into some detail in regard to the wages of the foreman and what he does and what he is not allowed to do. In making a comparison between the station foreman and the other railway workers, we do not want to suggest that what the others receive is too much. On the contrary, we say that they do not get enough. What I want to say here is simply intended to show how slight the foreman’s chances of promotion are, and how unfairly he is treated in comparison with the other railway officials. The writing is not too clear, but I want to read certain extracts to the Minister in order to show the unfavourable conditions under which the station foreman works. This person writes—

He compares the foreman with the clerk, in order to show how the foreman is treated—

If, owing to health reasons, the foreman can no longer do his work, he is not allowed to become a clerk. If, for example, the foreman is not physically strong enough to do the work of a shunter, he cannot be employed as a clerk. The Railways prohibit it—

After five years’ service the clerk receives a first-class pass, and the foreman, who does very responsible work, and who also has to do the work of the clerk at night, gets a free pass after 20 years—

Factory workers and café servants are protected as far as their working hours are concerned. They cannot be called upon to work more than a certain number of hours, but the railway workers receive no protection whatsoever. There is no regulation restricing the number of their working hours. I want to ask the hon. Minister why the foreman, if he is capable of performing the duties of a stationmaster, cannot be appointed to that post. He can become a stationmaster after a certain time, but why is it not possible for the foreman, if he is physically unfit, to be appointed to the clerical staff. The Minister is now taking young girls into the service as clerks. When a man has had 15 years’ experience as a foreman and he becomes physically unfit, the Railways do not want to appoint him as clerk. He is thrown out. I think the Minister will admit that that is unfair. The Minister will admit that that is not fair towards the foreman. Then there is another matter which I should like to bring to the notice of the Minister. This is something of a local nature. The hon. Minister said in reply to a question that it was proposed to transfer the locomotive shed in Mossel Bay. I want to ask the Minister to expedite this matter as much as possible. The reason is this: I am not going to discuss the Bill, but we are dealing here with a Fisheries Bill, and this place at Mossel Bay, where the locomotive shed is situated at present, is, I believe, the only place which is suitable for the new companies, and four applications have already been received from companies. I want to ask the hon. Minister to expedite this matter as much as possible, so that that ground which is now being occupied by the locomotive shed can be given to the companies which propose to establish a fishing Industry. I received a letter from the department in regard to the express train which runs between Somerset West and Cape Town. There is an electric train which leaves Cape Town at approximately 6.5 p.m. Then there is an express train which leaves from a different platform 2 minutes earlier. The electric train stops at every station. The train which leaves Cape Town at 6.5 p.m. overtakes the other train. This train does not stop at every station. It only stops at the stations as far as Bellville, and then it does not stop at all. Then I have been asked to bring another matter to the notice of the Minister. We do not go to the System Manager because it is of no avail at all. Many people have interviewed the System Manager in regard to this express train between Cape Town and Somerset West. The working classes make use of this train. This train used to stop at only two stations, and today it stops at every station as far as Bellville. This morning, for example, it only arrived in Cape Town at 9.12. Its correct time is 8.48; and do you know where it loses this time? Those 24 minutes are lost between Woltemade No. 1 and Cape Town. Between Woltemade No. 1 and Cape Town the express train lost 24 minutes. Cape Town is already thickly populated, and it is for that reason that many of the working people live in those parts. This train is used by teachers who teach in Cape Town, and it means that they arrive here late for school. I was under the impression that an express train was given preference by the signals. But what happens? We find that other trains pass the express train. I am not blaming the Minister. I know that the station’s neck is very narrow, and it is difficult to run all the trains from this narrow bottleneck. But why should the trains run to time, and then suddenly on a certain day we find that the train arrives here 24 minutes late. I hope the Minister will give his attention to this matter, and I hope that the General Manager will also give his attention to it. I do not mention this as a grievance, but in the hope that the Minister will be prepared to meet these working people. Formerly this train stopped at Somerset West only. Later it stopped at Eerste River, and now it also stops at Bellville. This is the only express train which we have from those parts, and I hope the Minister will give his attention to this matter and see to it that the train arrives in Cape Town on time.

At this late hour I do not propose to pursue further the amendment that has been moved by the Leader of the Opposition, beyond recalling the fact that on previous occasions when some members were inclined to criticise the Minister for an apparent tendency towards appeasement, our friends on the other side were the most enthusiastic defenders of his impartiality and his fairness. I do not know what has taken place since the last Session which has altered their opinion. But one good thing has emerged from this discussion, and that is that on all sides of the House it now seems to be accepted that in making appointments, whether it be in the Railway Service or in the Civil Service, the supreme test must be efficiency and ability and not merely how many years the person has served, and instead of having a Select Committee to deal with individual appointments, the time has come when steps should be taken to refer the whole matter of the working of our public services to a Commission or to the Planning Council to go into the question of the working of the service with a view, among other matters, of laying down the principle that efficiency and ability shall be the governing factors in making promotions. I want to deal with a matter which in my view is of supreme importance to South Africa at the present moment. The Railway Administration have made tremendous contributions to the war effort, and just as they have made those contributions to the war effort, they must realise today that the Railway service in this country will have to make an equally important—perhaps a more important—contribution to post-war reconstruction, and one of the essentials in my view to enable the Administration to make that contribution is the extension of the Shipping service which at present is being run by the Railway services. The Shipping Commission has reported—in that regard I think all hon. members in the House must regret the fact that the Controller of Paper is placing such an embargo on the printing of Government memoranda and reports that it has almost, become impossible for members in this House to become acquainted with the reports of Government Commissions. That applies to the Shipping report and also to the General Manager’s report. In that particular report the Commission, in spite of its finding against extending the Shipping services of the Railways, pays tribute to the fact that the ships run by the Administration played an important part in helping the Government during the war period and in developing our markets. We know that, apart from the part it played in our war effort, there is now the important problem of developing the trade of South Africa. We are all talking about increasing our National income, and to that end it is imperative to increase the trade of South Africa, not only on the West Coast but in the East and with India, where, I hope, we will have a great market in the future when the present difficulties with India have been resolved. It would be illogical for the transportation services in this country to say that having carried goods up to the coast, we are going to hand further conveyance over to private shipping interests which is guided by the profit motive. Now the General Manager in a particularly able memorandum which he has submitted to the Shipping Commission has shown how the ships that have been run by the Railway service have been able not only to help as far as the war service is concerned, but have helped to develop our trade to a considerable extent with Australia and the Far East, not only in bringing goods such as railway sleepers to South Africa, but in addition to that in carrying goods from South Africa to other parts of the world; it would be impractical and unprofitable for our ships to carry goods to one part and come back empty. And it is admitted that these ships have been run efficiently, and that not only have they built up a very substantial Renewals Fund—I think about £130,000—not only have they built up an Insurance Fund, but over and above that they have shown a very substantial net profit which has been paid into the Consolidated Revenue of the Railways. The evidence which was led was clear and the Commission virtually admitted that as far as these ships were concerned, they were run efficiently and they were run at a profit, and the Shipping Commission also admitted that we have been able through the Shipping Service to do a great deal towards developing the trade of South Africa. That has been done in spite of some very substantial difficulties. Both the General Manager in his memorandum and the Commission in its report have stated that on two occasion when the ships were carrying goods advantageously as far as South Africa was concerned, private interests suddenly came along and exercised influence to prevent them from taking their business to a logical conclusion, and then the arrangement was made with the Shipping Combine by which the ships run by the Service were only entitled to carry 12½ per cent. of weight of the previous year’s cargo. That had the effect of limiting and interfering with the service of these ships, and subsequently when the private shipping interests found that this service was still able to compete with them, further influence was brought to bear to compel the Government to stop the Railway ships from taking cargo from South Africa to overseas, and we were only allowed to carry sleepers and various other things that were essential to the Railway Services. Now we are faced with an agitation in favour of privately owned shipping. The agitation is based on the report of the Shipping Commission which has not been printed and we are today faced with an agitation which will hinder post-war reconstruction. Instead of recognising that our shipping service has played a very useful part in developing our markets and in helping our war effort and should be extended to develop the trade of South Africa, we are today faced with an agitation to go back to the pre-war period and to do away with anything in the nature of public enterprise and to replace these ships by private shipping companies whose only motive is the profit-motive, and who are not concerned with the interests of South Africa as such, and I submit that if the Government were to succumb to that powerful agitation at the present moment, it would do not only an injustice to the Railway Administration, but it would do an injustice to the future welfare and the future development of South Africa. I think I can do no better than to quote from the General Manager’s report, a copy of which I have been able to borrow with very great difficulty, in which he states on page 9—

And the Shipping Commission accepts that as an absolute fact, and then he goes on to state—

And that is accepted today by all people who are not prejudiced by their outlook in favour of the profit motive. And then he goes on—

And those findings are today accepted very largely, and I say that this Government and the Minister, and I have no doubt the General Manager, if they do want to help in the post-war reconstruction—which I do not doubt—and to increase our national income, will do everything possible to create markets for South Africa with the East and West Coast of Africa and with India; and if they want to do that then I hope they will not take notice of the agitation which is going on, but will carry out the policy indicated by the General Manager in the evidence before the Shipping Commission, and in his statement in his report and that they will not only carry on the present service but will make extensions in the present shipping services.

I have to deal with a somewhat unpleasant feature, not because I wish to, but because circumstances compel me to do so. Something over a year ago I drew the attention of the Minister to the fact that petty pilferings on the South Coast of Natal had reached abnormal proportions, and that something should be done. I have to thank the Minister very sincerely for having sent a special staff of Railway police to Durban to deal with the matter. There have been convictions and severe sentences have been inflicted. But the wickedness of the whole thing is reflected in the report of the Controller and Auditor-General on page 89, where he says under the heading of “Abnormal increase in compensation claims paid”: “Expenditure on compensation for goods and livestock lost, damaged or destroyed, has in recent years reflected an abnormal increase as indicated in the following figures”. And then he gives a number of figures representing percentage increases as compared with 1936-’37. In 1938-’39 the percentage increase was 25.466 per cent.; the next year it was 40.749 per cent. and so on. In 1942-’43 we come to the amazing total of £135,091 paid out in respect of compensation claims, representing an increase as compared with 1936-’37 of 182.659 per cent. And then the Auditor-General goes on to say this—

Now, deducting the amounts specified as special items which amount to £22,000 we have claims totalling £112,799. But that is not the worst feature. I have seen, as a matter of fact, I have collected them myself, claims numbering over thirty in a month involving claim payments of only about £12 and I know of a station where for about tweleve years there were only eleven claims for compensation for goods lost, where you now get one claim per day, if not more. It is not the amount of money involved, it is the appalling number of cases, the appalling number of claims which have to be dealt with by the "Railway Department. When you are dealing with an enormous number of claims such as those, undoubtedly the number of staff has to be increased, and I would not be surprised to find that the salaries and wages paid out to the Claims Department are increasing year by year. Now, these things lead one to believe that there must be a decline in the ordinary common decencies of the country. One cannot contemplate increases of petty crime like this without coming to the conclusion that there is a great decline in the consciousness of what is mine and thine, on the part not only of the Railway servants, but among the general public as well. The opportunities, when you have goods in transit, are many for people to help themselves, and it is this dreadful decline in moral consciousness which I deplore and I am sure the Minister does as well as every citizen who has a decent conception of what is right and wrong. And though I am not able to suggest a remedy, I do think that the ease with which goods are taken out of the Railway precincts has a lot to do with the present position. The police may find that they should pay more attention to the way goods are removed from Railway precincts. I do not know whether the Minister is aware of the fact that a new halt has been put up between Berea Road and Congella, within the Congella area. I have seen passenger trains there entered by a large number of, what I assume, are Railway employees. Now I suggest that if they are able to board the train within the Railway precincts and that train takes them outside the Railway precincts, where detection is difficult, the police should pay a little more attention to that halt. The police might be able to see to it that these small abstractions from parcels and cases are not taken off the Railway precincts in that way. There is scarcely a consignment of liquor which goes over the South Coasts of Natal which is not pilfered. Two months ago a cask of wine containing 8 or 9 gallons was pierced, the wine was taken out and very little was left. Two days before I left home a consignment of beer for Scottburgh had 18 bottles extracted from it. Cartons of matches and cigarettes are deliberately ripped, and cigarettes and matches taken out. It is not so much the value of the stuff, but it is the fact that they cannot be replaced because they are rationed, and moreover, hotelkeepers and storekeepers have to pay a deposit on the cartons and when the carton is ripped they lose their deposit. That is the sort of thing which is going on. It also applies to soft goods—babies’ socks, dresses, and things like that. It is these petty pilferings which are going on all along the South Coast of Natal which are inflaming public opinion against the Railway staff and against other people too—people who do not deserve it are classed with the thieves and the pilferers. I do not know how I can suggest a remedy to the Minister, but I do hope he will do his utmost to put a stop to what is going on and to have special attention paid to the position along the South Coast of Natal.

At the outset I want to associate myself with hon. members on this side of the House who have expressed their views about the promotions of officials. In his annual report the General Manger of Railways deals with the system in force in respect of the promotion of officials. Among other things he says that the heads of departments are given the opportunity of testing the ability of every member of the staff under their control to see which particular member is best fitted for any vacancy, and after that the heads of departments submit their nominations to the Railways and Harbours’ Commission. If only that were the case! I want to show, however, that this system is in force only on paper, because in practice there is no such thing. In the Transvaal, Western Division, the Divisional Superintendent, his superintendent for commerce and staff, and also his running superintendent—all three of whom were newcomers in that area—a little while back did not know a single member in the particular division under their control. A vacancy occurred for a second grade clerk in the Goods Office, Kazerne. I am going to mention the name of the official who should have been selected for the post, but I want to assure this House that that official did not discuss the matter with me at all. He happens to be one of my constituents, and I know him, and I am thoroughly familiar with the circumstances of the particular incident. The man who should really have had the post was a certain Mr. A. J. Ackerman. Not only was he the senior man but he also had all the qualifications for the vacancy, as he had often acted in the higher position. As a matter of fact he was recommended by the Goods Superintendent, Kazerne. As the senior officials of the Western Transvaal Division did not know the staff at all, as I have already said, the appointment to the post was left in the hands of a junior. It was left in the hands of a man who was junior to Ackerman himself. When Ackerman asked this junior what his chances of promotion to the post were, the reply he got was this: “As long as I am in this chair you are not gong to get that job”. And that was how it turned out. Ackerman did not get any promotion while that junior official occupied that particular post. This junior official consistently blackguarded Ackerman to the senior officers. Ackerman of course applied, but he did not get the job, so he appealed. I do not want to deal with the Appeal Board—I don’t want to say anything about it. We have been told here repeatedly how the Appeal Board is constituted, and we know that if any member of the staff appeals in a case like this he is always going to receive one of two replies. The one reply is that he is not the senior man, and if he happens to be the senior man, the answer he gets is that he does not have the necessary qualifications for the post. In this case Ackerman had all the qualifications for the post, as he had acted in it on several occasions. He appealed, and the only satisfaction he got was to be told that he did not have the necessary qualifications. As the senior official did not select one of these officials, I want to know from the Minister who it was who decided which particular official was suitable for promotion, as there was no enquiry by the senior official himself. A short while after that another vacancy occurred: I want to say in passing that the man who was given the other appointment—who was also junior to Ackerman—certainly did not have the qualifications for the post as he had never acted in the higher position, whereas Ackerman had actually been acting. And all the time that junior official occupied that particular position Ackerman’s promotion was held up. A little while later, another vacancy occurred for a second grade clerk and Ackerman was given his promotion. But he got his promotion because the junior official who had some personal grievance against him no longer held that job. The system of promotion, which we have been told about, may be in force on paper, but it is not applied in practice. Hon. members will agree with me that so far as this system of promotions and recommendations is concerned, it has become an absolute farce. But I was surprised at the hon. member for Mowbray (Capt. Hare) who also spoke about promotions. He got up and said, “We recognise on this side of the House that 80 per cent. of the Railway officials are Afrikaans-speaking and 20 per cent. English-speaking, and we also admit on the other hand that 80 per cent. of the higher posts are held by English-speaking officials and only 20 per cent. by Afrikaans-speaking officials. The hon. member made no bones about it. He stated openly that the English-speaking officials had taught the Afrikaans-speaking officials their work, and he declared that they were specially fitted to do that class of work and that the Afrikaans-speaking people were not. Now I want to know from the hon. member whether he realises that he is dragging the mentality of the Afrikaans-speaking officials through the mud? And yet hon. members over there are always talking about racial co-operation. They are the people who hurl insults at the heads of Afrikaans-speaking officials. We are told that the English-speaking people have special talents for this class of work. In all sincerity I want to ask the hon. member whether he has ever heard of Mr. Tienie van Schoor and his inventions to make Railway work easier? Is not Mr. Van Schoor an Afrikaner? I want to ask the hon. member whether he has ever heard of people like Dr. von Abo, whether he has ever heard of a man like Mr. Heckroodt, and of Mr. Du Plessis? Are they not Afrikaans officials? One of the Ministers admirers, the hon. member for Prieska (Mr. A. J. du Toit) drew attention today to the promotion Mr. Du Plessis has had, but he dit not say any more. Mr. Du Plessis was promoted because of his ability. I want to say that there are hundreds and hundreds of Afrikaans-speaking officials who can do the work which is done by these English-speaking officials who have been promoted, and I want to know why they should be discriminated against? The time has passed when members can come here and gratuitously insult the Afrikaans-speaking people as much as they like. I want to say that our young Afrikaners, men and women, need not take second place to the young men and women of any other nation in the world. The Minister of Railways has many people on his side of the House who stand up here to protect him, but if they cannot protect him any better than they have done, I want to assure him of my sincere sympathy. The hon. member for Sunnyside (Mr. Pocock) tried to defend the Minister from a different angle. He told us across the floor of the House that the old Nationlist Party had made most unfair promotions and had discriminated. He mentioned Dr. Van Rensburg’s case. I am not going to say anything about that case because the hon. member for Albert-Colesberg (Mr. Boltman) has already shown up the hollowness of the charge. But I do want to point out that even his Government promoted Mr. Van Rensburg, but when Mr. Van Rensburg attained a higher position in the service they made him go on pension—and the pension he got was one which he would only have reached at the end of his full period of service. There was another instance referred to of an official whose salary over a period of sixteen years had gone up to £1,600. In Mr. Marshall Clark’s case, his salary was increased by more than £1,000 per year over a couple of years. There is no comparison between the two cases. I only want to say this, that not only was the hon. member’s defence feeble, but he tried to put the onus on this side. Let me tell the hon. member that it reacted like a boomerang. Now, I want to say a few words about the report, of the General Manager of Railways, and I want to refer to that part of the report where he tells us that the number of white labourers in the Railway service has decreased while the natives have increased. It is an alarming condition of affairs. It seems to me that we are having a repetition of the procedure which was followed in the last war, when thousands of white men had to make room for natives. We are anxious to know what the position is. The General Manager of Railways says that they cannot get white labourers today. Assuming that is so, then there must be a reason for it, and what is the reason? The Minister of Railways said here last year that 23,513 employees on the Railways earned less than 10s. per day, and he added that it would cost the State £789,000 to raise them all to 10s. per day. If a country can afford to spend £100,000,000 per year on killing: people then it can surely afford to spend £800,000 to keep 24,000 families alive. I say that is the great point. One cannot expect those people to go and work on the Railways for 8s. or 9s. per day. No white man can work for that, and I think the time has come when the Minister should look at the matter in a totally different light. It is the people doing that type of work who make it possible for him to have a surplus of millions of pounds on the Railways. And that brings me to the policy of this Party, namely, that we must look after the people on the Railways; they must get 10s. per day plus cost of living allowance. I also say: Let those workers share in the profits of the industry. Prevailing conditions are a crying scandal. The hon. member for Uitenhage (Mr. Dolley) said here in protection of the Minister that the Railway workers were not dissatisfied. I challenge the hon. member to come to the Witwatersrand and to tell those people that they are being adequately paid if they earn 8s. 6d. or 9s. per day. I am convinced that he will not accept my challenge. Now I want to revert to what the hon. member for Green Point (Mr. Bowen) said arising out of the speech of the hon. member for Boshof (Mr. Serfontein) on the question of Europeans and coloureds travelling together on the trains. The hon. member agrees that coloured people who are able to pay as much as the Europeans should be allowed to travel first class, and he asks: “Why not?” The coloured people and the natives can travel wherever they like, but we do not want them to be mixed up and to travel in the same compartments as the Europeans. It is a scandal. But I should like to know whether that is the policy of the hon. member’s Party. If it is not, then we expect hon. members opposite to get up and repudiate him here openly and frankly. The hon. member went further, and in trying to defend the Minister he slandered the whole of the Afrikaans-speaking population across the floor of the House by saying that coloured people were travelling and riding side by side with Europeans on the Centenary celebration wagons. I challenge the hon. member to prove a single case where that happened. It shows the respect the hon. member has for Afrikaners. I challenge him to prove here in this House that non-Europeans were sitting together with Europeans on the Centenary celebration wagons. But let me tell the House why the hon. member is championing the mixing up of whites and coloureds on the trains. He does so because he depends on the coloured vote. Were it not for the coloured vote he would never have seen Parliament. The time has come when hon. members over there should realise that we on this side are no longer going to tolerate our forefathers being insulted and slandered. If the hon. member over there wants to plead the cause of all ranks and colours, let him do so, and let him stick to them, but let him refrain from slandering this side of the House and from slandering Afrikanerdom in general in the way he has done. I want to challenge him again to prove his allegations. And while we are dealing with this there is another point I want to touch upon. The Minister has admitted that whites and coloureds do travel together on the trains, and the hon. member for Boshof (Mr. Serfontein) has asked the Minister whether it is his intention to extend that practice to the North, whether he wants to create the same condition of affairs in Johannesburg. I am putting the same question to the Minister. But what is the position on the Johannesburg station today? The position there has become so serious that it has become impossible for Europeans to use the subway leading to and from the platforms when the trains come in. Johannesburg is a very busy place, especially in the mornings when the workers arrive, and I have received hundreds of complaints at my office about the natives pushing the whites out of their way on the platforms, and jostling them in the subway. I wrote to the General Manager about this matter. I waited a long time for his reply and I subsequently sent a second letter in which I informed him that I had again personally investigated the matter. If hon. members were to go to Johannesburg station they would see many a mother with a small child passing through the subway being simply pushed aside by natives, and she has to wait until the natives have passed. Provision has been made for natives on the Johannesburg station. They are supposed to go over the bridge, the sub-way is intended for the Europeans. The position has become intolerable. Subsequently, I received a letter from the General Manager in which he said: “We admit the position, but things are so busy at the station—and we are engaged in buying the Wanderers. Once we have done that, things may perhaps improve, and we have now appointed guides to show the Natives where to go”. Imagine! The excuse now is that they are going to buy the Wanderers. It is a farce. I have looked for those guides on several occasions when people were being pushed about but I have not seen one of them. The position is getting worse day by day; I make an urgent appeal to the Minister, and I want to tell him that the white community in Johannesburg is tired of this sort of thing. The facilities are there—the only thing is that matters should be properly arranged. One cannot tolerate the position continuing as it is today. What were things like during the Cavalcade week? In passing I want to say that I am sorry the Prime Minister, when speaking in London, did not compare the battle which took place in the station concourse during Cavalcade week with El Alamein and Stalingrad. The position was so bad at that time that it was practically impossible for anyone to get to the platforms. The whole of the concourse was blocked, and ordinary members of the public could not get through. Collections for war funds and more war funds had to be made. The Minister has no right to allow collections and lotteries to take place on a public station, if those collections are only for the purpose of war funds, because they cause great discomfort to the public. I myself have had to turn back several times because I could not get through to get to the dining room on the station. The public are pushed aside by natives and I hope the Minister will see to it that conditions on the Johannesburg station, at Braamfontein, and elsewhere, are put into proper order. I also hope he will see to it that the colour bar is not done away with on the Railways. There is no need for it. Arrangements can be made. I trust that the Minister will at least give this matter his serious attention.

At this late stage of the day’s work I want to say a few words. We have been listening and listening and we have heard the Railways and the Railway staff blackguarded and dragged through the mud to such an extent that there is practically nothing left of them. Every member of the Opposition who gets up here and put up a plea is intent on getting jobs for pals. Hon. members talk about people who have been illegally deprived of their rights. One hon. member said that he did not want to mention any names, that he was not going to mention the name of a man concerned in a certain allegation. It seemed to me that the hon. member had no name to mention. The Railways are of vital importance to the country. If we go back to 1896 we find that the Railways were in the hands of the old Hollanders. Did we have the comforts and facilities in those days which we have today? Great development followed—the country was built up after that. Let me mention another date—1902. In those days the Railways in the Transvaal were staffed entirely by English officials. The mines have developed, industries have developed, agriculture has developed, and today it is not just fifty-fifty, but the hon. member who has just spoken told us that 80 per cent. of the Railway officials are Afrikaans-speaking as against 20 per cent. English. Does not that show progress? Hon. members complain that the rights of Afrikaans people are not respected. Yet at the same time they admit that 80 per cent. of the officials are Afrikaans-speaking.

What about promotions?

Exactly, that is what they want; jobs for pals! And they think that if they succeed they can go and make propaganda outside and say: “Look at what we have done.” Let us look at the development that has taken place on the Railways. In 1914 there was a Railway strike. I remember the dislocation we had in the Transvaal. The farmers could not get away. I want hon. members to cast their minds back to those days and I want to ask them not always to come and blackguard everybody and to criticise everything. It is quite easy to go to Cape Town station, to walk about there, to get information and to look for complaints. I could come here with any number of complaints. But it would not be sound criticism. If we criticise we must look at things as they are. The Railways have developed into one of the greatest industries we have. Take the development at Kaalfontein. I shall come back to that later on.

At 6.40 p.m. the business under consideration was interrupted by Mr. Speaker in accordance with the Sessional Order adopted on the 25th January. 1944, and Standing Order No. 26 (1), and the debate was adjourned; to be resumed on 23rd February.