Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. the Prime Minister will realize that when the hon. Leader of the Opposition welcomed him back in this House yesterday, he did so on behalf of all members and we here would like to associate ourselves with the words of welcome uttered by him.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the hon. Leader of the Opposition has moved the following motion—

1. (a) to promote the racial harmony, the internal peace and the degree of prosperity needed to solve the problems of our nation; and
2. (b) to maintain South Africa’s good name overseas; and therefore requests the Government to resign forthwith.

I would like to move the following further amendment—

The reason why I move this amendment is that although we agree with the motion moved by the hon. Leader of the Opposition, we are inclined to agree with the hon. the Prime Minister in thinking that the problems of South Africa will not be solved by substituting the United Party for the Nationalist Party as the Government of this country.

In his introductory remarks, the hon. the Prime Minister yesterday described the motion of the hon. the Opposition as an unrealistic motion, and the reason advanced by him for describing it as unrealistic was the fact that we have just had a referendum in which very many people expressed their approval not only of the republican aims of the Nationalist Party but also of their general policies. Well, Mr. Speaker, I do not want to talk at length about that. I do no think it will bring us any further. But I think the hon. the Prime Minister knows, as anybody else knows in the country, that there are very many people in South Africa who voted for the republic but who normally would reject the policies of the Nationalist Party. They voted for a republic because they believed the promises made by the hon. the Prime Minister and members of the party opposite that should the Nationalist Party and the Afrikaner attain their highest ideal, namely the establishment of a republic in South Africa, then an atmosphere would be created in which there would be more goodwill, a better chance of national unity between the English-speaking and Afrikaans-speaking people, and a more flexible approach from the Nationalist Party in respect of our fundamental problems. Everybody here knows that very many people voted pro-republic on the basis of accepting the prognostications of the hon. the Prime Minister that a better atmosphere would prevail in South Africa. Now I would like to tell the hon. the Prime Minister that very many people in South Africa expect him to honour those pledges, and it is the duty and the responsibility of the party opposite and the Government of this country to create a better atmosphere in South Africa whereby people can meet on better terms than in days gone by. In this regard I must say that I think everybody in this House and outside will be terribly disappointed with the speech of the hon. the Prime Minister when he dealt with that matter, and not only with the speech yesterday, but also with some of his utterances and speeches by other members of the Government side since the referendum. They have clearly indicated that the Nationalist Party is not prepared to introduce any measure of flexibility in their beliefs. We have seen what happened to members of the Afrikaans-speaking section in this country who dared to differ from the policies of the Nationalist Party. We had yesterday from the hon. the Prime Minister the statement that although there were differences amongst certain members of the Nationalist Party and amongst the Afrikaans-speaking people as such, there will be no break in the Afrikaner unity. Afrikaner unity on a nationalist basis will be maintained, we were told. Nobody realizes more than I do, Mr. Speaker, how essential it was for the Afrikaner people to develop a nationalism whereby they once again could regain what they have lost in the past in South Africa. But, Sir, we have reached the stage that we expect of the Nationalist Party that should they approach the problems of South Africa on a narrow nationalistic sectional basis, they should realize that if we continue on the basis of sectionalism in South Africa, there can be no peace and harmony. We were hoping, Sir, that the Afrikaner people now that they have achieved their ideal would broaden their approach and their vision. Because it should be apparent to everybody in South Africa that one extreme nationalism will stimulate other extreme nationalisms, and the example will be taken by other people in South Africa that if the Nationalist Party continues on this basis, they also must organize themselves on a basis of nationalism, belonging to their own racial group, to stop being dominated by one section of the community. Mr. Chairman, I think everybody in this country realizes that unless we can take out the extremism in nationalism, whether that applies to Europeans or non-Europeans, a conflict between various nationalisms is inevitable in South Africa. Mr. Speaker, it is expected of us here in this House, and of the European community who govern South Africa that we should determine the bases on which people can get together, of all racial groups in South Africa—not on the basis of narrow nationalism, not on the basis of one section wanting to dominate the others, but on a basis of serving South Africa in a spirit of common patriotism. If we fail in that, Sir, the future of South Africa is really dim.

We have heard a lot of how the Nationalist Party and Nationalist speakers have condemned extreme nationalism amongst the non-European people. Sir, they have taken a leaf out of the book of the White man in South Africa, and unless we are prepared to concede to those people the basic human rights that cannot be denied to them, they will organize themselves on a basis of extremism to take those rights by force.

Mr. Speaker, we were hoping that the evidence we have had during the last year of what has happened in South Africa, the Prime Minister and the Government of this country would have read the lesson correctly that unless we meet the legitimate demands of the peoples, there inevitably must be a recurrence of the tragedies that happened at Langa and Sharpeville, at Windhoek and Cato Manor. But apparently all those happenings have made no impression whatsoever on the Nationalist Party Government. We have been pleading, Sir, that the hon. the Prime Minister at that time should appoint a commission of inquiry so that we could determine the basic cause or causes which led to those happenings. The hon. the Prime Minister refused. We have repeatedly asked him: Let us have a broad representative commission and let us get to the basis of the trouble in South Africa. But the hon. the Prime Minister has refused. We knew at the time that the biggest objection of the non-European people was against the pass-law system when in operation. They object to the fact that they are not allowed to sell their labour at the best price. They object to the fact that they are denied rights purely on a basis of colour. It was a tragedy to us at the time when the Nationalist Party Government was prepared to suspend the operation of the pass-law system, attacks were then made by the official Opposition, accusing the Government of being weak. We once again want to ask: Let the authorities in South Africa go to the root causes of these troubles. Then they will find that the basis of the trouble is the philosophy of the European, particularly of the Nationalist Party, of racial discrimination. We believe that unless we can offer the non-European here in South Africa rights of self-determination, we shall fail. The hon. the Prime Minister has said before, and often repeated, that no human being will be prepared to live in subservience to other people for all time to come. He has said that the African must be given rights of self-determination in his own area. Well, the Nationalist Party Government have been in power in South Africa for very many years. They have had unequalled majorities in this House. Yet, Mr. Speaker, we find that up to now the implementation of their policy is impossible and the evidence we have shows us quite clearly that whereas the hon. the Prime Minister and the hon. Minister of Bantu Administration and Development sincerely believe in the practicability of this policy, despite the policy of the Nationalist Party to give these people their rights in their own particular areas, presupposing that the Bantu people can have full rights in their own country, the proportion of Africans to Europeans in the so-called European areas has increased considerably. We find for instance that in Johannesburg, Durban and Cape Town, for every three Africans in those urban areas in 1951, there are now four. In Pretoria and Port Elizabeth the increase has been even more rapid. For every two Natives in those two cities in 1951 there are now three.

The hon. the Prime Minister yesterday once again told us that he still believes in this basic approach that these rights must be accorded to the African people in their own particular areas. He left completely out of account the permanently detribalized urban African. Sir, there is no answer coming from the Nationalist Party in respect of those people. We have heard further that not only does the hon. the Prime Minister advocate that sentiment for the African people, but he extends that to the Coloured people. Pleas were made by many responsible people in the country that the Coloured people by virtue of their traditions, their background should be incorporated with the European section. Pleas were made that they should be given direct representation in this House. But the hon. Prime Minister has rejected that. Now we want to know from the hon. the Prime Minister: Where are the Coloured people going to enjoy their right of self-determination; where are their homelands going to be? And further, Mr. Speaker, we want to know from the hon. the Prime Minister where the Asiatics are going to find their home. Where are they going to have rights of self-determination? Because surely the same applies to the Coloureds and the Asians that applies to the Native. You cannot allow the Native those rights without equally on the same basis giving them to the Coloureds or to the Asians. Furthermore, I want to say that we agree with the hon. the Prime Minister that if he accords representation to the Coloured people here in this House, of necessity must that also be granted to the other groups of the population. You cannot deny political rights to any section of this community on the basis of colour alone. If you break through the colour bar in Parliament in respect of the Coloured people, then of necessity you must allow participation to the other non-European groups. We, in the Progressive Party, do not wish to create the impression amongst the people of South Africa, European and non-European, that we want to single out the Coloured man and the Coloured community only as an ally of the European. Should we create the impression that we want the Coloured man to stand by the European in the spirit of ganging up against the other non-Europeans in South Africa, it will do very much more harm than good. And, Sir, it was categorically stated, and I agree, by the Leader of the Opposition in his speech yesterday that all the African people are not uncivilized, that all the African people are not irresponsible. I do not think there is a person in this debating Chamber this afternoon that can maintain that the Asiatics are irresponsible people. Sir, if we want to concede rights to the Coloured man, by what right then can we deny participation in the highest body in this country to the other non-European sections of our community? That we believe in. We believe in proper consultation in the way the hon. Leader of the United Party indicated yesterday, that proper consultation should be held with all sections of our community, and we believe that representation in this House should not be accorded only to one section of the community but to all people. And we believe too that you will not be able to satisfy the aspirations either of the Coloured people or all the other non-European groups if you give that representation to them on a basis of discrimination still. I believe it is still the policy of the United Party that representation here should be effected on the Common Roll for the Coloureds. I believe that is still the policy of the United Party. Now what does that mean? If the Coloured man is allowed to represent his people here in Parliament, on the Common Roll, then it means that the Coloured representative will also represent Europeans here. We would like to know whether that is the policy of the United Party, whether they are now prepared to give representation in this House not only to Coloured people, but also representation of Europeans by Coloured people? We welcome that in the Progressive Party. If our honourable friends are prepared to concede that to the Coloured people, then on what basis do they refuse it to the Africans and Asians? We must get clarity on this. It is quite clear that we in the Progressive Party stand for Common Roll representation; we stand for franchise on a qualified basis on merit, not on colour. We do not want to give representation and participation in the government of this country to the Coloured man only, but equally to the Asiatics and the Africans, to those people who qualify. And, we have determined what we think is a responsible individual in South Africa. We would like to have comment on that, we would like to have discussion on that matter. We would like to know what the United Party thinks for instance of our qualification basis. We might be able to assist them in finding a qualification basis for the Coloured vote. But the basic philosophy of the Progressive Party is that we reject in toto racial discrimination on colour alone.

Residential and social, too?

My hon. friend talks about “residential and social”. Might I ask him whether he rejects that in relation to the Coloured people? The hon. the Leader of the Opposition took the hon. the Prime Minister to task. He told the hon. the Prime Minister that he has no Asiatic policy at all, that he does not know what to do with the Indians in South Africa, that he still believes in repatriation. I think it is essential that we should know what the policy of the United Party is in this regard. As far as I know the United Party now wishes to negotiate. They want to talk. To whom? And on what basis? You see, Mr. Speaker, that is the reason why we have introduced the addendum to the motion of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. We want clarity on these matters because it is essential that the European community in South Africa should know what dangers are inherent in the policies that we follow. What is the position going to be should the United Party come to power?

Further, the hon. the Prime Minister talked at length yesterday about the role of the agitator inside and outside this country, misrepresenting the conditions pertaining in South Africa. He told us that the agitator is responsible mainly for the unrest that we have had in South Africa. He has told us that the communists have a tremendous influence on South Africa internally and externally. Might I ask the hon. the Prime Minister what is he and his party doing to nullify the influence of the agitator and the communist in South Africa? The agitator and the communist can have no results unless the field is prepared for them here in South Africa by the non-recognition of human rights. The hon. the Prime Minister spoke about South Africa being “die speelbal van ander nasies” at UNO and in other parts of the world. But he says he does not take too much notice of that. Mr. Speaker, it is essential to determine why it is that our erstwhile friends now seek to attack South Africa in the higher councils of the world; why it is that it pays them to criticize South Africa. Why is it that they can get more allies by virtue of the fact that they attack South Africa? It is solely and purely on account of the fact that neither we nor they can justify racial discrimination that we practise in South Africa. And unless we rectify these basic wrongs in South Africa there will be trouble in the future.

The hon. the Minister of Defence—and I do not want to take him to task for this because I think it is his duty and that he should do it—has drawn the attention of the South African nation time and time again to the inherent danger to us from Communism. He is doing his best to bring the Union Defence Force into a state of preparedness in which it can defend our Fatherland. But, Sir, has he no other plan than that of force? Has he no other way in which to govern South Africa than on the basis of force? Can we imagine, should we be threatened to-day, what a potential there is in this country for the communists? Let us try and get the non-European in South Africa to unite with us, not on a basis of anti-White or anti-Black, but on a basis of wanting to defend our common Fatherland. If we cannot do that then there is tremendous danger before us.

What about Luthuli?

My hon. friends say: “What about Luthuli?” The hon. the Prime Minister has also said that no matter what policy is brought out the majority of the Africans might reject it.

They will.

They say that they are not accepting either the United Party policy or the Progressive Party policy.

You know they don’t.

So they say. But it is not so. There are very many of the African people who subscribe to the policies of the Progressive Party.

That is not so.

Name one?

Assuming that is not so, Sir, I ask my hon. friends whether they reject the basis of the Progressive Party policies because the non-Europeans do not want to accept them? Is that the basis on which you reject it? The only basis on which you can justify it—and I say this again—the only basis on which you can justify defending yourselves is the basis of the Progressive Party policy. And it is imperative, it is essential that the European should establish himself on a tenable basis in South Africa. Should we fail to do that …

May I ask the hon. member a question?

No, I am sorry. Should we fail in that we will be called upon, most probably, to defend ourselves. Most probably law and order will once again have to be maintained. And, Mr. Speaker, it will depend entirely upon what basis the European in South Africa wishes to do it.

Do not let us create the impression in South Africa and in the external world that we, the governing section in this community, wish to maintain power in our hands purely in order to have the right to dominate other people. That is the danger, and that is the attitude we have to rectify.

We are creating Bantustans for that purpose.

We have now heard from the hon. the Prime Minister what the Nationalist Party visualizes the future to be, and on what basis it should be approached. We have also heard from the United Party. But the ideas of both of those parties have one thing in common: Their entire policies are still based on racial discrimination. And as long as that is the pattern the motion, as proposed by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, with my addendum, is justified.

I second the amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I listened attentively to the speeches of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and of the hon. the Leader of the Progressive Party, who has just resumed his seat. I do not want to react to any great extent to what they said, because after the hon. the Prime Minister had used the knife on their policy yesterday I think it would be somewhat cruel of me to continue to cut them up further. But I cannot help telling the House that the speech of the hon. the Leader of the Progressive Party reminded me of an incident which happened to me when I was attending the university at Pretoria. We visited the abattoirs. At the time there was a very interesting man in charge. Inter alia, he showed us two old gelded goats they had there which were used to lead sheep to the slaughtering place. The one always took a direct course and he had only a few sheep around him. He was not a great success. Peculiarly enough—and this is actually a fact, and I am not belittling the hon. member— that old goat’s name was Steytler. [Laughter.] In my view, he was an honest goat, but they slaughtered him because he was not of much use to them. The second one was a very interesting goat. He led the sheep by devious routes all along the green grass, but both of them led the sheep to the same kraal and eventually they landed in the slaughter-house. That was so typical to me of the hon. leaders’ opposite standpoint. We have the typical standpoint of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition …

And was the second goat’s name De Wet Nel?

… but eventually it was just a question of a difference in timing. There is no difference in principle, but only a difference in timing. Eventually both of them, and together with the whole of the White population of South Africa, will land in the slaughter-house which awaits South Africa.

In Uncle Daan's kraal.

There is no doubt about that. Mr. Speaker, I just want to pause to deal with a few matters contained in the speech of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, and then I want to return briefly to the hon. the Leader of the Progressive Party. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition particularly raised two matters. He referred to the trouble we had last year at Sharpeville and Langa, without making a proper analysis of those circumstances. Two things struck me about both those leaders. They are very anxious to have judicial commissions; they are very anxious to have commissions. That to me is clear proof that in their subconscious minds there is a great measure of uncertainty about their own policies. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition said that his facts are based on the data he received last week. I just want to tell him that I pity him if I have to judge by those data he received and on which he bases his policy. Now I just want to state this fact, namely that there was this significant phenomenon that the leader of the people at Sharpeville was not a person who was in the slightest concerned with the interests of the Bantu population. I refer to Sebukwe. He was a senior lecturer at the Rand University and he was as little interested in the welfare of the Native population as the greatest enemy of the Bantu population could be. What he was interested in was to organize those poor people in order to obtain a position of power for himself. Nobody can deny that fact.

But I come back to Langa. Here in Langa the hero of the United Party was Kgosana. He was the man who had to be consulted. Who was he? He is a young Basuto of 21 years of age. Where he comes from I do not know. He does not come from here, but he attended the University of Cape Town. But suddenly he was the leader of these proud Xhosas in Cape Town. Now hon. members expect us, and particularly me, actually to have consulted Kgosana and to go by his opinion. What an insult would that not have for those Xhosas! But I go further.

The Leader of the Opposition referred to the trouble we had in Zeerust, in Sekukuniland and in Pondoland. If he had taken the slightest trouble to study the pattern, he would have found that the same pattern was followed here as was followed in other parts of Africa, a pattern which received its form behind the iron curtain and behind the bamboo curtain. There is no doubt about that. We had this phenomenon that in Zeerust a few Whites were moving about amongst the Native population. I want to mention their names. There is the case of the Rev. Hooper, in regard to whom Natives made sworn statements to the effect that he told them that it was his object to create chaos and in that way to enable the Bantu to rule South Africa. The Bantu made sworn statements to support these facts. He went in there together with Mrs. Muller and others, and later commenced this unholy work. And then we had the second form of the pattern. They took tsotsis by bus from Kimberley and Johannesburg to intimidate the people there terribly. And then we had the third form of the pattern. The attorneys gathered there like vultures—certain attorneys. I am glad that I need not say this about the majority of that profession. We had the same pattern in Sekukuniland and in Pondoland. Here I want to mention a name again, namely that of Mr. Ahrenstein, who did not scruple to do that work in Pondoland. If necessary, I will mention other names also. It was Whites who originally moved in there and set in motion these events.

Mr. Speaker, if the hon. the Leader of the Opposition had taken the trouble to investigate these matters a little, he would not have made these frivolous statements which he did in connection with this matter.

I also want to pause for a moment to deal with the hon. the leader of the Progressive Party. He said that they had hoped that the Nationalist Party would now broaden the whole of its views, that the party would become more flexible. I must honestly say that in that case the hon. member still does not know the Nationalists. A Nationalist is a person who has an unshakable faith in the sacred principles of his convictions. He is not a weather-cock. He is not blown this way to-day by one wind, and that way to-morrow by another. But at the same time I want to say that there is no section of the White population in South Africa which wants to give the other sections of the White population and the sections of the non-White population such just, humane and fair treatment as the Nationalists. In this I include those English-speaking people and all who feel like we do in these matters. Because I do no want to claim this as being the sole attribute of the Afrikaans-speaking section. The hon. member said that he expected us to broaden our views. He said he hoped that extremistic Nationalists would disappear and that once again a common love for South Africa would be found. I must say that I do not understand such views, because the basis of nationalism is love for one’s fatherland and for what is one’s own. Every group has love for its fatherland and for its cultural heritage, whether one is a Coloured or an Indian or a Bantu, whether it is the various Bantu ethnic groups or whether it is the English-speaking section or the Afrikaans-speaking section, but that is the basis of nationalism. It is here where the policy of the Nationalist Party rises to such heights, to grant to each population group the development of its spiritual riches. We grant everybody that patriotism to which every person in the world is entitled. I believe in nationalism, but I believe in nationalism not only for myself and for my people. I believe in it for every White group of the population and for every nation in the world. Because, Sir, there is nothing more dangerous than a population group where one creates a process resulting in people running away. That is one of the most contemptible things to be found anywhere in the world. It is regarded with contempt, and that is what the hon. member is trying to achieve by means of his policy. He is not trying to allow those cultural riches of the various population groups to come into their own and to develop, to find in that the creation of the most beautiful thing man can create, but at the same time also to see in it the most splendid achievement of which the human being is capable. We must not forget that patriotism, nationalism, is one of the mightiest forces provided by the Creator and one of the most beautiful things the world has ever produced. That we must grant to every population group in South Africa. But he does not grant it to them. He wants a heterogeneous society, and that has never yet paid in any part of the world. There are parts of South America I can mention where there is no peace or spiritual happiness, but where there is a seething spirit of unrest. South Africa cannot afford to have that position. The hon. the Prime Minister quite rightly said that we believe in this four-stream policy in which every individual and every group can give expression to their own personal and national aspirations, from the lowest to the highest. That is the divine right of every population group on earth. That is the standpoint of the Nationalist Party.

May I ask a question?

The hon. member may put his question a little later. The Leader of the Progressive Party stated a proposition here about which he has not thought enough. He said that because they have a different colour the non-Whites have no rights in South Africa. I know he did not think about that before he spoke. I just want to say that there are few countries in the world where the masses of the people have as many rights as in South Africa, in spite of all these allegations. But I do not want to deal further with the speeches of these two hon. members. I think the hon. the Prime Minister has replied to them adequately.

I want to come to the hon. member for Transkeian Territories (Mr. Hughes). He has informed me that unfortunately he is busy but will be here a little later. Due to circumstances he cannot be here at the moment. Seeing that my time is limited I unfortunately have to start dealing with him immediately. But just before doing so there is one point I forgot in regard to what the Leader of the Opposition said. He again launched an attack on the Bantu authorities and said that he could not agree with that “archaic, rigid tribal system”. Those were his precise words. Now I just want to say this. I do not want to repeat what I have so often said here already, that this system is based on the Bantu’s own system, and that they themselves recognize. I challenge any person to deny that. It is easy to say here that it is not so, but it is a different matter to prove it. I also challenge the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. Mitchell). He is also one who said all kinds of things in regard to which I shall still deal with him. Mr. Speaker, I want to tell the hon. the Leader of the Opposition this. If we have regard to what has been achieved in the brief period since Bantu authorities have been established, and we compare it with what was achieved before, it is really a miracle. There was the Western system introduced by the previous government, and in almost 40 years only 26 to 28 places in the whole country accepted that system. Then we introduced this system, and it was gladly accepted almost right throughout South Africa. And let me just make this announcement: During the course of this year this matter will be rounded off 100 per cent. But the great proof is the development results we have had in all parts of the country. What is more, Sir, we have this proof that the country which to-day has adapted itself most easily to the prevailing position is Nigeria, and this is the system on which the government of Nigeria has built its whole future. At the moment there is in South Africa a senior official from Nigeria who can confirm that this is almost 100 per cent the same system which in the past they applied in Nigeria. Then we also have the example of Swaziland. Of all the places where we really have peace and progress, Swaziland is one of the best examples amongst the Protectorates. They are also based on this system. No, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition must first make sure of his facts before making such statements.

I now want to pass on to the hon. member for Transkeian Territories. He is a member of Parliament. He is also an attorney. He claims to have lived in the Transkei for all these years. I must honestly say that I have seldom listened to a more irresponsible speech and more inaccuracies and misrepresentations than I heard in this House yesterday. He gave us a demonstration of his ignorance and of the misrepresentations of which he was making himself guilty. I want to prove that by quoting chapter and verse. I do not like accusing a man if I cannot prove it; I do not take things out of the air. The hon. member got up here with a pious face and bitterly and reproachfully said: “You gave the chiefs powers to remove a person from one place to another in his own territory. Those are far-reaching powers; it is unfair and unjust; that has never been done before. Is the hon. member then such a stranger in his own fatherland. Does he not know that that is a right which the chiefs in the Transkei have? What is more, these are matters which have often been discussed in the courts, and that right has been given to the chiefs by the courts. It is their national tradition and forms part of their Native law. But here the hon. member now makes a row about it. He gives the impression that we have introduced the strangest thing which should not have been done there and never existed before.

But I go further. He says: You gave Botha Sicgau a farm as a present, and that telegram he sent in connection with the republic was inspired. Does the hon. member really want to tell me that he does not know that that was one of the undertakings given at the time of Annexation—in the ’eighties or ’nineties— that every chief in that area would receive his farm? Victor Potho and his predecessors received their farms. A farm was given to each chief.

Does Hans get one, too?

Unfortunately in former years this matter was neglected, but right throughout the chiefs have asked that it should be remedied, and this matter was remedied before Bantu authorities were introduced there. Before that time Botha Sicgau had received his farm as the result of the word of honour given by a White man before our time. Now the hon. member wishes to intimate that we simply gave him farms as a present because he is a supporter of Bantu authorities. That is the impression being created. He says that this telegram he sent us congratulating us on the result of the referendum was inspired. That is not true. It is untrue that we inspired anything like that. I received numerous telegrams from Bantu over the length and breadth of the country congratulating us on the result of the referendum, and not only from Botha Sicgau. Then why create this kind of impression here? I go further. With a pious face he says: You see, there is trouble in Pondoland; formerly there was no trouble and it was a land of peace. He says, further, that these troubles took place because Bantu authorities were instituted. He is a stranger in his own fatherland. He does not even know the history of his own territory. Does the hon. member not know that particularly Bizana was one of the trouble-spots with which the old British Government had difficulty, with the result that for many years it had to keep soldiers there? Thereafter there was trouble from time to time. There are particularly two tribes which are very aggressive and which do not belong to the Pondos. They settled amongst the Pondos but refused to recognize the Pondo chief or to recognize any Government. From time to time that section caused trouble. Now that is the spot grasped at by the communists in order to apply their methods. Why does the hon. member now make these allegations? But now I come to what is the worst of all. He stated here that we forced Bantu Authorities on to the Transkei, and then adds that there was never any difficulty when the Bunga was there. I just want to say that that is absolutely untrue. We never thought that by this time Bantu Authorities would be functioning in the Transkei in this way. As Chairman of the Native Affairs Commission I attended a meeting of the Bunga where there were ten motions asking that the system of Bantu Authorities should also be applied in the Transkei. And, Sir, just remember how Adv. Stanford made propaganda against it. He even held meetings with them at night, and I think the hon. member for Transkeian Territories was also very active then. And the Bunga unanimously resolved that they wanted Bantu Authorities. We did not ask them; it came from them spontaneously. [Interjections.] Now I want to challenge the hon. member. Let us appoint a Judge and let him ascertain whether what I say here is true or not. In the Bunga there was a prominent official who certainly is not a Nationalist. Mr. Pearce. He is a man who has the interests of the people of the Transkei at heart, and he and many others can give evidence that we never asked them to accept Bantu Authorities. They asked us to explain it, and we did so, and then the Bunga itself appointed a commission to investigate the whole matter. They sat for months. Our officials were there to give guidance, but eventually they themselves evolved the system. That is the reason why it differs somewhat from that in other territories. The whole draft was again submitted to the Bunga, which passed it unanimously. I know there was one person who made propaganda against it, Mr. Stanford’s agent, but he was not quite right in his head. For the rest, however, it was unanimous. The hon. member lives in Umtata and knows these things. Why does he want to create the impression that this was not so.

But I go further. I can mention many more things, but just want to mention one last matter. He read out an indictment here, a summons against four persons in 1960 whom we prosecuted because they did not want to accent Bantu authorities. I have got into touch with our office there. The senior magistrate, Mr. Midgeley, went through the records and can find no trace of it, but what he did in fact find is that four persons were charged with arson, under three Acts, one of them being the Bantu Authorities Act. Two were acquitted and one was convicted. Now I want to challenge the hon. member for Transkeian Territories to give me that indictment, because this is all that we can trace in the records at Bizana. I am quite prepared to accept it as authentic, because it is a very responsible official who made the investigation. I say the hon. member has no right to make these misrepresentations. But that gives hon. members an idea of what we have to cope with. It is not only the communist propaganda, but the communist propaganda is being fed in this way. I will deal with that in a moment.

But a second thing the hon. member did was to get up here and make a venomous attack on the Commissioner-General of the Transkei. He said that he did not know the Transkei and did not know the Xhosas and that it was a very unfortunate choice because he is very unpopular amongst the English-speaking people there and not very popular amongst the Bantu. Now, let me say this. I am prepared to compare the hon. member’s knowledge of the Transkei with that of Mr. Hans Abraham. Mr. Abraham originally comes from that area, from the Ciskei. I challenge the hon. member to speak as good Xhosa as Mr. Abraham does, and I am quite prepared to accept the hon. member for King William’s Town (Mr. Warren) as the examiner. Then he can judge as to who speaks the best Xhosa, Mr. Hughes or Mr. Abraham. I also know some Xhosa, and Mr. Abraham speaks it fluently. But what is more, in the short time he has been there he has learnt more about the Transkei and has more facts about the Transkei at his finger-tips than the hon. member for Transkeian Territories. I can prove that also. Why does he make these sneering remarks? He says he is not very popular amongst the English-speaking section. Sir, I am surprised that there is still an Englishman left who greets him. [Laughter.] If I look at the propaganda they made, he and his Press, against Mr. Abraham, not personally—this whole thing is aimed at the system introduced by the Government. But that area was selected. Instead of using his influence to establish good relations, the hon. member for Transkeian Territories was one of the persons who was in the forefront in engendering hatred between Boer and Briton in the Transkei.

I just want to add this. A short time ago I was also in the Transkei. In numbers of places there are prominent English-speaking people who are respected men in their community and who came to me and told me that they have the greatest respect and appreciation for Mr. Abraham. But a campaign has been waged in the Press. There were the misrepresentations in regard to his speeches. I have his speeches here. Why were those things done? It was done to attack this system.

But I go further. I say the hon. member for Transkeian Territories did not move a finger to make his contribution towards solving trouble in Pondoland. Instead of co-operating he continually tried to belittle the Commissioner-General, and he is now busy playing off the Bantu Commissioner and the Commissioner-General against each other. But he will not succeed in that. There is hearty co-operation between them. He passed a remark about the Press statement made by Mr. Abraham. It should not be forgotten that at that time I, merely as a transition period, seconded the Information Officer to the Commissioner-General, and then he was compelled to make that statement. But as soon as we had reorganized the matter those officials reverted to the old system and the matter is now proceeding as it was in the past. It is not a question of shutting Mr. Abraham up. It is a system we applied temporarily. But the hon. member derives pleasure from making such statements. I say he made no contribution towards solving the troubles in Pondoland. On the contrary, he even used some of those traders to make propaganda against the policy of the Government, instead of trying to create good relations as a member of Parliament and trying to resolve the trouble. My accusation against him is that in a subtle way he did everything to fan the trouble and I challenge him to deny it. This is a very unpleasant and unsavoury allegation to make against a fellow member of Parliament, but he looked for it.

Now, what are the facts in regard to Pondoland? I want to deal with it briefly. It is that the trouble arose particularly caused by one tribe, but we immediately devoted attention to the matter, and suddenly this trouble burst out because we now know that it was inspired by a number of White Communists. We have the evidence of the Natives there. It is not only the chiefs but numbers of ordinary Natives who brought the evidence and said that these are not the Pondos they know but that behind the whole business there is a master brain, and it is a White brain. There are Whites who spent nights and nights in Pondoland. I am thinking of one person who said how hard he slept in gaol, but he forgot to say how hard he slept in those huts in Pondoland. What was the result? They made use of the tsotsis, with the result that three people lost their lives and many huts were burnt. That is the fruit we have to pluck as the result. They set to work very cleverly. Immediately it was said that they have objections to Bantu Authorities; they do not want to dip their cattle; they do not want to tackle development works and they are against the education system. They asked me to explain these matters to them and I agreed. What is one of the basic principles of the Native population? They want to have access to the authorities, and I gave them access. I appointed a commission consisting of three experts. No criticism can be voiced of any of the three. Mr. van Heerden was the chairman. The complaints were heard. I have a thick volume of the evidence which was taken. Even Mbele gave evidence. He later left the country to go to UN, but what was his evidence? I do not know whether it lasted even ten minutes. He was just against Bantu Authorities and the education system and taxation. Now I want to ask hon. members this. Is there a single person here with any intelligence at all who will tell me: Do not allow those people to dip their cattle; do not make them pay a small fee for dipping their cattle; do not let them pay taxes in future; introduce a different education system? That is the sort of thing they asked for. I do not believe there is such a person in the House. There was no delay. I immediately had the matter investigated and decided that here and there things were done with which I did not agree. Let me mention two matters. In one case a headman put up the fee where usually grass was cut for a certain fee. He should first have asked permission from his chief. That made the people very angry. If only there is an increase of one penny they are angry. At another place the complaint was that a teacher had been appointed because he had bribed the committee concerned. What truth there is in that I could not ascertain, but our Education Department is very strict about such matters and immediately investigates them when they come to light. Well, I appointed that committee and we went back to them and held three meetings, at their request, one being at Bizana where a few thousand people were present. We told them what the findings were and they said: We will now go back to consider the matter and we will let them know later. The second was at Flagstaff where more than 1,000 people were present. On every occasion we held meetings the weather was very bad and we know that under such circumstances people do not like to go to meetings. At Lusikisiki there were between 3,000 and 4,000 people. In the meantime there was no trouble. They said: We are now going back to consider the matter. But I just want to say that there is one pattern which very clearly emerged, namely that at every meeting we found one leader who said: “We want one man, one vote and nothing else.” That is the whole crux of the trouble in Pondoland. Then they said they would gather at the airfield at Bizana on a certain day, when they would give the reply. The Chief Bantu Commissioner went there on the appointed day but nobody turned up. Why not? Because the same pattern that had been followed in other places was adopted and the people had received instructions that if they turned up there their families would be murdered and their huts burnt etc. Then Whites came there again, and then the murders began. Thereafter we did not delay but were compelled to take forceful steps by sending the police there and two sections of the Defence Force. Now I just want to express my appreciation to those people for the way in which they handled the matter, because it redounds to their honour and that of South Africa. [Time limit.]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development will forgive me, I am sure, if I do not refer to his speech because my time is limited and I wish to devote it to matters concerning the Coloured people who we represent. On behalf of my colleagues and myself, I would like to identify myself with the expressions of personal congratulations which came from the Leader of the Opposition to the hon. the Prime Minister.

In a Christmas message issued by the Prime Minister towards the end of 1960 to the South African nation, the hon. the Prime Minister used the following words: “During 1960 the Nationalist Party devoted itself to a search for goodwill and national unity. Greater unity would be pursued during the republican era and this will be one of the main objectives of 1961.” I want to say briefly that our South African nation and the world at large were entitled to draw the conclusion from those words that every effort would be made by the Prime Minister and the members of his Government to bring about greater goodwill and unity among the various sections of our multiracial community. These words were accepted as a sincere gesture on the part of the Prime Minister to bring about greater national unity in our torn country. We felt that every effort would be made by him to do this, despite the fact that we have conflicting political, social and economic problems. These words were taken to mean that the Government was prepared at long last to deal fairly with all sections of the people in a genuine search for goodwill and national unity.

As far as the Coloured people are concerned, you will appreciate, Sir, that they were greatly heartened by this Christmas message. They were hopeful that at long last the time had been reached where the turning-point in the treatment they had received at the hands of the Nationalist Government would come about, and that 1961 would bring forward racial harmony which they had sought ever since the advent of this Government in 1948. But what happened? Instead of the Coloured people receiving from the Government some tangible proof of its desire to attain greater national unity and harmony, there was meted out to the Coloured people early in 1961, before the ink was dry on the Christmas message of the Prime Minister, two statements which had the effect of shattering beyond all hope the ideals and aspirations of the Coloured people of this country. I want to say this, and I am glad that the hon. the Prime Minister is here, that I attribute responsibility for those two statements entirely to the Prime Minister himself.

The first statement consisted of a blunt rejection by the Prime Minister of the proposal which had emanated, not from the Coloured people but from an important section of Afrikaans-speaking people, that the Coloured people should have direct representation in Parliament. I do not want at this stage to debate the merits or demerits of direct Coloured representation in this House, but what I do want to do is to emphasize the manner in which the Prime Minister made this statement and the manner in which he conveyed this arbitrary decision on his part to the Coloured people and the world at large. In order to appreciate the shattering blow which the Prime Minister delivered to the Coloured people, it is necessary for me to recount to this House the state of mind which existed among the Coloured people at the time. Sir, they had every reason to believe that there would be a re-appraisal of the Government’s attitude and policy towards them. They were justified in this belief not only by the Prime Minister’s own statement at Christmas, but by reason of many encouraging statements made in recent months by many prominent Afrikaner leaders, including many well-known members of the Nationalist Party. I say that the Coloured people were justified in that belief by reason of the fact that there had been established a Cape Nationalist Committee which was established with the sole object of investigating ways and means in which there could be evolved a just pattern of racial harmony for the Coloured people. Without awaiting the public decision of that Committee established for that very purpose, the Prime Minister, in a curt and arbitrary statement, announced that the Coloured people would never be given direct representation in Parliament. He advanced no reasons for this decision, except to state that it conflicted with Nationalist Party policy as enunciated by himself. I say that this blunt statement had the effect of shattering the aspirations, the ideals and the hopes of the Coloured people for a re-appraisal of the Government’s attitude towards them. I want to ask the Prime Minister whether he thinks that this cavalier way in which he dealt with the Coloured people is likely to bring about greater national unity in this country, the greater national unity which the Prime Minister tells the House time and again that he is seeking. Does he think that this is the way in which he should devote himself to the search for goodwill among the different sections of the community?

A few days later the hon. the Prime Minister issued another statement, and I say that that second statement was made in order to ameliorate the effect of that unfortunate statement he issued a few days previously. In that statement the Prime Minister listed several measures taken to promote the socioeconomic development of the Coloured people. I assume that we will, during the course of this Session, have an opportunity of dealing with the proposals set out in that statement. I think, however, that it is necessary for me to say here and now in general terms that the statement and the proposals made by the Prime Minister do not by any means go far enough. I say advisedly that those proposals cannot undo the harm that the Prime Minister’s initial statement created. Those proposals cannot restore the old amicable relations between the Whites and the Coloureds. If there was any doubt about the Prime Minister’s intention vis-à-vis the Coloured people, his intention to apply his policy of separate development with inflexible rigour, then that doubt was entirely removed when we listened to the Prime Minister yesterday afternoon in this debate and when one read a statement which purports to emanate from the Federal Council of the Nationalist Party a few days ago, which I venture to suggest is an instrument of the Prime Minister himself. It is quite obvious from what the Prime Minister said in the House and from what is contained in that statement of the Federal Council that, once and for all, the reappraisal attitude enunciated with great courage by a large number of leading Afrikaners is to be stopped. In point of fact, the statement itself makes it perfectly clear that it was being issued in the light of recent discussions in the Press and elsewhere about various aspects of Nationalist policy, and further, the statement makes it clear that the Federal Council adopts the interpretation of all the principles expounded by its national leader, Dr. Verwoerd. I say that that statement had the effect of stopping at once this reappraisal proposal emanating from leading Afrikaners. It has the effect of putting beyond all doubt what the Coloured people can expect from the Government. To say the least of it, this statement is the most shattering pronouncement in so far as the Coloured people are concerned that has so far been issued by the Government. It kills the fervent hope and the belief that the Coloured people had of 1961 evolving for them a just pattern of racial harmony. It rejects in the most cold-blooded manner the public statements made throughout the years by previous leaders of the Nationalist Party, men like General Hertzog and Dr. Malan and Mr. Havenga and Mr. Strijdom and others.

Quote those leaders.

My time is limited, but I will give them to the hon. member with pleasure if he doubts that these statements were made. I say it rejects the public statements made by these men of sacred memory that the Coloured people should be treated as part and parcel of Western civilization. It has rejected the considered statements made by Afrikaner leaders throughout the country that the Coloured people should be taken under the same political roof as the Whites in this country; that they can never be fully segregated because they share the White man’s language, his religion and his culture, and they have no special homelands like the Bantu. I say that the statement made by the Prime Minister yesterday and the one which emanated from the Federal Council has put an end once and for all to the aspirations of the Coloured people and the reappraisal which they had the right to expect in the light of the statements made by these public men. Now, surely it must have occurred to the Prime Minister that if ever there was a time for him and his Government to do something for the Coloured people, this was the time. Time is running out on us. The eyes of the whole civilized world are to-day on South Africa. Any genuine steps taken by the hon. the Prime Minister and the members of his Government to bring about racial harmony in South Africa would have been accepted by the outside world as a decent gesture and as a step to win back for our country the regard and the status which unfortunately South Africa has lost in recent years. Sir, I repeat: Could there have been a more opportune time than the present for the Prime Minister to try to win back that status in the eyes of the outside world? Because of our racial policy South Africa unfortunately is at present under a cloud throughout the whole of the world. Trade boycotts, as we know, have been threatened against us and are being used against us. We know that we are short of investment capital in this country. We know that we are short of investment capital in this country. We know that our immigration figures indicate that we appear to be losing more immigrants than we are gaining. We are involved at the very moment in a serious issue before the International Court about the future of South West Africa. Our whole conduct is before the eyes of the world. Rapid changes are taking place almost daily on the African Continent and this Government up to the present has taken no steps whatsoever to establish a friendly-attitude with the new states which have come into being on the African Continent. In the face of all these adverse conditions to which I have referred and many more which the Prime Minister knows better than I do, would it not have been statesmanlike for the Prime Minister to forget for a single moment his fanatical apartheid policy as far as the Coloured people are concerned, and to have said something which would have given them some hope for the future. Would he not have been justified, in the interests of South Africa, of which he speaks so frequently, in giving careful consideration to the moral issues involved in this Coloured question? The hon. the Prime Minister seems to have been obsessed with the idea that any concessions that he may grant to the Coloured people would lead to greater and greater demands. That is the idea that seems to override all his considerations. But what the Prime Minister has overlooked completely is that no demands were made by the Coloured people. The idea of direct representation as one of the benefits which should be granted to the Coloured people did not emanate from them. They did not ask for the immediate implementation of any such undertaking. The idea of direct representation came from a very large and responsible body of intellectual Afrikaners in South Africa, and was supported wholeheartedly by the largest and leading Afrikaans paper in this country. I say that to have given consideration to these reasonable appeals emanating from the Afrikaner people themselves in the hope and in an endeavour to restore racial harmony in this country and to have held out hopes to the Coloured people that they might look forward in due course to having direct representation in Parliament, would have been well received not only in South Africa but throughout the whole of the civilized world. I am sorry to say that the hon. the Prime Minister has failed lamentably to avail himself of this wonderful opportunity.

I repeat that at no time did the Coloured people or their leaders press for direct parliamentary representation. This was an aspiration which they cherished but there was really no serious request from the Coloured people for its immediate implementation. Even the Union Council of Coloured Affairs, consisting in the main of Government nominees, in an endeavour to whitewash the Prime Minister’s two statements to which I have referred, states that these two statements should be read together, and they go on to say this—

But, Sir, even this cherished hope on the part of this small band of men who play the fiddle to the Government’s tune, is absolutely shattered by the final statement which came from the Federal Council of the Nationalist Party, which says that representation of Coloured people by Coloured people must not be applied now or in the future. I say that the hon. the Prime Minister has blundered more than ever by applying this rigid policy of apartheid in this fanatical fashion to the Coloured people of South Africa. He must know, as indeed I am sure many members on his side of the House know, that such a rigid policy cannot succeed as far as the Coloured people are concerned. It must be obvious to everyone that the livelihood and well-being of the Coloured people, particularly in the Cape Province, are inextricably bound up with the general economy of South Africa. To separate the Coloured people, as envisaged by the Prime Minister under his rigid policy of apartheid, will not only spell disaster for the Coloured people themselves, but must inevitably affect the general economy of South Africa. Sir, I have dealt with this last statement which emanated from the Federal Council as though it emanated directly from the Prime Minister. I have not the slightest doubt in my own mind, and I am sure that no member in this House or any leading member of the public outside, has any doubt that the principal architect of that statement is the Prime Minister himself. But what is so disheartening and so frustrating as far as the Coloured people are concerned, is to find that among those present at that meeting where this statement was adopted and from which this statement was issued to South Africa and to the world at large, were men in the Nationalist Party who have represented Cape constituencies for many years, men whom we thought and whom the Coloured people thought were steeped in Cape traditions and men whom the Coloured people gradually came to include among their White friends. I refer particularly—and I am sorry that they are not in the House now—to men like the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Lands, the Minister of Justice and the Deputy Minister of the Interior. I say that one of the most disheartening features of that statement is the fact that these men whose names I have mentioned and in whom the Coloured people have placed some faith and who they regarded as being their friends, should have been a party to this statement of policy, a statement of policy which kills for all time, under Nationalist rule, any prospect which the Coloured community had of taking their place together with White civilization in this country. Once again I say that this Government will live to rue the day when it rejected the hand of friendship which was held out to them by the Coloured people in an endeavour to establish racial harmony in South Africa. In the light of this conduct which I have described on the part of the Government, what kind of confidence can we have in the future of this country under the Nationalist Party rule.

The hon. member for the Peninsula (Mr. Bloomberg) has expressed himself in a very peculiar way here. He expressed his astonishment at the fact that the Federal Council of the National Party was able to endorse the policy declarations of the hon. the Prime Minister, and in the second place he showed even greater surprise at the fact that there were certain persons, whom he mentioned by name, who served on that Council and who, as he says, are steeped in the “Cape tradition”. I want to ask the hon. member a simple question, because he did not say much, and I think this answers his whole argument: Does the hon. member not know who laid the foundation of this policy for the National Party? He spoke about “sacred leaders”. Is the hon. member a stranger in Jerusalem that he does not know that this policy was laid down on the recommendation of the late Dr. Malan himself? Which tradition does he want us to follow other than the tradition of the leader who, to us, was the architect of this policy which we are carrying out to-day? There was a time when the Coloureds were partially integrated in the political sphere in South Africa, when there was a sort of sham system under which they had representation, a system with which I shall deal further in a moment, and that system was departed from. There were years of conflict before that system could be changed. There was a struggle after 1932 over this principle and this was one of the basic principles on which the National Party eventually came into power in South Africa, namely that Coloureds would be represented in this Assembly by Whites. That was laid down by the late Dr. Malan in 1932, and now the hon. member comes along and talks about a “Cape tradition”. There are two Cape traditions in this country, and I think the time has come for us to say so. One is the Cape tradition that we inherited from Queen Victoria but there is another Cape tradition and that is the one for which men like the late Dr. Malan stood. We are most certainly not associated with the one to which the hon. member refers. What we did in the Federal Council therefore and what was done in the Cape Committee which inquired into Coloured affairs in recent months, was in accordance with the basic principles of the National Party as laid down by its congresses, and what the Federal Council did last week was to re-affirm that they stand by the Prime Minister’s statement as a correct interpretation of the policy laid down by the highest bodies of our party, namely the congresses of our party. That is all that happened; it was nothing new. But I also want to say this to the hon. member in connection with direct representation. He himself has said here that the Coloureds have not asked for it, and I must honestly admit that I do not know of any responsible Coloured body that has ever asked for it. In actual fact the position is that the Coloureds who are politics-conscious, the Coloureds who desire a change in political rights, are a small group of vocal Coloured leaders in South Africa who are seeking escape from the masses of their own people. They are striving to bring about the establishment and the restoration of the common voters’ roll. The Coloureds generally speaking do not want separate representation through direct representation. It is only a small group that wants it—a small group consisting in the main of a small band of politics-conscious people who want to separate themselves from the 80 to 85 per cent, of the Coloureds in South Africa who do not think about these things because they have greater problems—I shall deal with that in a moment— but I contend that these leaders who positively went out of their way to make propaganda for the restoration of the common voters’ roll, are seeking escape from their own people. They do not want to be Coloureds; they want to be absorbed into the White community. They are not interested in the needs of their own people; they do not want to be leaders of those people who need upliftment, and they are the only people with whom the hon. member comes into contact; he does not come into contact with the others at all—and he knows that. He knows that the Coloureds with whom he comes into contact are a small group seeking escape from the burdens of their own people, and now he comes along and tells us about a “Cape view” and mentions the names of people in whom he is disappointed. No, nothing new has happened. The National Party’s policy since 1932 has just been reaffirmed. He also referred to two committees which were allegedly appointed here. I want to say to-day in public, because I was a member of both those committees, that the Cape Committee on Coloured Affairs was appointed as far back as two years ago at the request of our congress. The specific terms of reference of that committee were not to make any decision about political rights for the Coloureds. Their terms of reference were to try to give us clarity on those aspects of our Coloured policy on which we were not yet clear. I was a member of that committee, and that committee did not make one single recommendation, which in principle was contrary to the recommendations and decisions of the Cabinet Committee. They were completely analogous. But to show hon. members the type of slanderous talk and the distortions that we had in regard to this matter as well, I just want to refer to a report which appeared in the Star: “The inside story of those two inquiries on the Coloureds.” The Star is supposed to know everything!—

And then he continues; he is supposed to know the “inside story”, and this is the one which the hon. member has also got hold of—

In the first place that is not correct; it was the congress that decided that. Moreover, it was not asked to make any decision about political rights, but about those aspects of our Coloured policy on which we were not yet clear—

He was not a member of one of those two committees, but according to the “inside story” he was the chairman—

Now, that is not true. All the members of the committee were members of the Cape “Hoofraad” (Executive Committee) of the National Party. And then he goes on and tries to drive in a wedge somewhere, he looks for Ministers whom he can use as scapegoats—

The fact is that he was chairman of the Cape committee. I just mention that in passing …

What is the point?

My point is that the hon. member also made certain statements here this afternoon as though he knew the truth. He referred to those two committees and he referred to the decision of the Federal Council, and all I want to say to him is this: All that happened in this process is that the Federal Council re-affirmed what its leader had re-affirmed as the policy of the National Party since 1932. That is the one point and the second is that the so-called “Cape view” to which he referred is not the “Cape view” to which we refer, and in the third place, these two committees in principle reached complete unanimity and that is why the Government was able to make the policy-declaration, which it did in connection with the socio-economic upliftment of the Coloureds.

I leave it at that as far as the hon. member for Peninsula is concerned. I do not think that the Coloureds take much notice of what he says, except the small vocal part. But the hon. the Leader of the Opposition made the statement yesterday that “it is only a small portion of the Coloured population who have decided to co-operate with the Government”. I do want to ask the hon. the Leader of the Opposition to go over his books before he makes such statements, because he comes here and makes the assertion that this Government is only in touch with a small part of the Coloured population. I want to mention to him a number of Coloured organizations which are co-operating with the Department and the Government in a most friendly way—and in saying this I am not trying to intimate that they agree with the Government on every issue but that there is consultation between them and us. Discussions are regularly held with them, as well as with their leaders and attempts are made to learn the point of view of the Coloured population. The first one I want to mention is the C.P.N.U. The C.P.N.U. differs from us on certain aspects of policy, but at a recent congress it once again, expressed its confidence in the Department of Coloured Affairs and, among other things, in me as Deputy Minister. But according to the Leader of the Opposition we are not in contact with the Coloured population. Then I want to mention the B.C.E.S.L., the ex-servicemen’s organization of the Coloured population. On 3 January this year they held a congress at George, and there the president of that organization, one of the biggest organizations amongst the Coloured population, stated in public from the platform: “We have full confidence in the Department of Coloured Affairs.” But the hon. the Leader of the Opposition says that we are only in touch with a small minority. The Department of Coloured Affairs and I personally try to remain in touch as far as possible and we are in touch with a large organization such as TEPA, the recognized teachers’ organization amongst the Coloureds. I do not know whether the hon. the Leader of the Opposition wants us to take notice of the T.L.S.A. because they are the Leftist bunch. Some of the most responsible leaders amongst the Coloured population in South Africa serve on the Union Coloured Council, to which the hon. member for Peninsula referred so contemptuously. The hon. member cannot deny that and I challenge him to say that that is not the case; then we shall see what happens to him at the next election. The fact of the matter is that the chairman of that Council is a recognized Coloured leader.

How many voted in the election?

I am dealing with the accusation of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition; he must not run away now.

How many were interested in that election?

All I know is that the Leftist elements boycotted it, but what has that got to do with the assertion of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that we are only in touch with a minority?

Will you be kind enough to tell us how many of the enfranchised Coloureds voted in that election?

They did not vote at all, because the members of the Union Coloured Council were returned unnopposed, and if the Leader of the Opposition infers from that that the Coloureds are against the Council because the members were returned unopposed, then I am equally entitled to infer that they were satisfied with the candidates who stood because the hon. the Leader of the Opposition himself came in unopposed in Rondebosch. Am I to infer from that that he is a nonentity?

Are the reasons the same?

In that case I must infer that he is a nonentity in the United Party. But, Mr. Speaker. I am dealing with the accusation of the Leader of the Opposition that this Government is not in contact with the Coloured population. We are in contact with the C.P.N.U., with the B.C.E.S.L., with TEPA, with the Volksbond organization, with the Union Council, and I say that together these groups represent the majority of the Coloureds in South Africa. These people repeatedly and more and more express their confidence in the way in which the Department of Coloured Affairs is handling their affairs for them. In saying this I am not intimating that they agree with every thing, but there is consultation. We are in contact with them and we know what they think.

Are they satisfied with job reservation?

The hon. member must give me a chance. I did not interrupt him when he was talking.

But you are not feeling as uncomfortable as he did.

May I ask you a question?

No, my time is limited. The hon. member can ask his questions under the Coloured Affairs Vote, then I will answer them. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition, in the second place, adopted the attitude that the Coloureds should be absorbed as “part and parcel” of the White population—in other words, integration. But we virtually had integration after 1854 in respect of the Coloureds and the Whites in South Africa, with this difference that as far as rural areas were concerned, certain areas were set aside for the Coloureds, but otherwise the policy followed in South Africa since 1854 was one of gradual equality for the Coloureds and one of integration. And now I want to ask the hon. the Leader of the Opposition this: To what extent did the Coloureds benefit after 1854 under that policy? Let us take a few examples. Let us take rural homelands. In all these years 2,000,000 morgen of land was set aside for the Coloureds, not in the sense in which land is set aside for the Bantu as their national homelands. But the Coloureds have a natural land hunger and there are some of them who are of rural origin. And let me ask the Leader of the Opposition this: What was done in these rural areas after 1854, under that system of integration, to promote the interests of the Coloureds there? I have taken the trouble to ascertain what was done during all these years, and I just want to mention a few examples. I want to take the Richtersveld, an area which covers 600,000 morgen of land. From 1854 until a few years ago not a single borehole was sunk on the whole of the 600,000 morgen of the Richtersveld, not a single fence was erected and not a single betterment work was brought into being—and that happened under the system of the previous regime and all preceding Governments. The rural areas of those Coloureds were left in the most backward state. It is this Government, with its policy of parallel development, which in recent years has been systematically developing these rural areas for the Coloureds in a most impressive way. We have increased the carrying capacity, applied water conservation, erected grazing camps, applied rotational grazing, developed towns and planted trees. In general the carrying capacity of these areas has been increased. It was under the present Government that Coloured stock farmers were also given the opportunity to obtain stock loans from the Land Bank. But the integrationists who have been so interested in the Coloureds’ political franchise since 1854 have never thought of doing that, of doing something for these rural areas where the Coloureds live. I have here the amounts which have been spent in this connection, but I do not want to take up the time of the House by quoting all these figures. Let us take a second example. I am now referring more specifically to the farm Coloureds who are employed on the farms. Under that system of integration and so-called equality, what guidance was given by the State to increase the productive capacity of those Coloureds who are employed on the farms, to improve their living conditions? No, it was left to this Government to introduce the system of agricultural gymnasiums by which the productivity of these Coloured labourers will be increased so that they can be equipped to achieve an improved economic position.

Let us take another aspect, namely the urban areas. Under The system of integration the Coloureds in the urban areas were forced into the slums of the cities and towns; in those areas where the worst housing conditions prevailed, the Coloureds had to live because the integrationists bought apartheid for themselves through their financial resources. They did not need a Group Areas Act. They bought apartheid with their money, and for the rest the Coloured was left to live amongst the poor Whites in the slums of our cities. But under the socio-economic policy as announced by the Prime Minister, the present Government has given the Coloureds a decent opportunity to develop their own urban areas, and not merely to have an area in which to live, but also to create channels for them whereby they can give expression to their aspirations in various directions. This is in contrast with the integration policy to which we had been accustomed for all those years in South Africa. In reality the Coloureds have in the main made their mark in two spheres since 1854. I am not referring now to the few individuals who have risen above the rest. I want to mention the two spheres. They have made their mark in the educational sphere and secondly in the sphere of the Afrikaans churches. In the educational sphere the Coloured as a result of the then prevailing system could become a teacher and in the church sphere the Coloureds could become missionaries and ministers. And in both these spheres in which the Coloureds have in the main made their mark in the past, the principle of parallel development and not integration was applied. We can take the rural areas; we can take the urban areas; we can take the platteland Coloureds; and we shall find that 80 per cent of the Coloureds are backward, undeveloped and poor and the Coloureds have become a socio-economic problem. Where he has advanced, he could only do so on the basis of the principle of parallel development. And then the Leader of the Opposition says: No, you must destroy this system of parallel development. You must once again bring the Coloured back under the system we had for all those years, a system which is tried and tested in South Africa—that utopian belief which represents the policy of the Progressive Party, of the integrationists and of the Liberals. In terms of that policy one does not need to plan. One does not need to take any trouble; one just lets things slide. That is why I call it the “utopian belief”. We say that we cannot do that if we want to act morally towards this population group which has been entrusted to our care.

“No hope is held out to this section of the community.” No hope is held out to them! Is this true? Over the past two years, since we introduced the legislation into this House two years ago, an impressive programme of development has been undertaken in the Coloured rural areas. I do not want to bore the House with figures and examples. There sits the hon. member for Karoo (Mr. G. S. P. le Roux) and if he is an honourable man, he will rise and say that the work of the present Government and the Department of Coloured Affairs as regards the Coloured rural areas is unprecedented in the history of the Coloured people. I want to give the hon. member the opportunity to deny this if I am doing him an injustice. Developmental work has been undertaken on an impressive scale with the assistance of the local Coloured boards of management. We have received the maximum possible co-operation from all the local Coloured boards in developing those rural areas, so much so that other rural areas which do not yet fall under the Department have submitted petitions to us asking that they should also be brought under this legislation so that they can enjoy the benefits of the National Party Government’s policy. These are the race haters! These are the oppressors, the people on this side of the House who are undertaking this development, and there on the Opposition benches sit the saviours of the Coloureds who are only interested in 20,000 enfranchised Coloureds.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition says that no hope is held out to them. How else does the hon. the Leader of the Opposition want to eliminate the frustration from which the Coloured suffers to-day because he cannot find employment in the rural areas? How does he wish to eliminate the frustration which is caused when we provide an academic education to more than 200,000 Coloureds per annum in our schools, without creating new employment opportunities for them in their own residential areas? Does the hon. the Leader of the Opposition want to give them this education on a parallel basis? Does he wish to prepare them for life? And when he has done so, does he then want to send them out unprotected to meet the cruel competition from other racial groups with which they will be faced. Or must we create channels for them in their own residential areas, in their own towns, in their own urban areas in which the various fields of life can be opened to them so that the frustration from which they suffer to-day can be dispelled? The Coloured as chemist, the Coloured as doctor, the Coloured as an attorney. The time must come when that aim will be realized. The Coloured as hairdresser, the Coloured as shoemaker, the Coloured in every sphere of life, taking his place in his own areas.

Another point which lies at the basis of this Government’s policy …

Where are their own areas?

I have been telling the hon. member all the time that there are rural Coloureds for whom we are providing on the basis that we shall develop their own rural areas and increase the carrying capacity of those areas.

Only 30,000!

If the figure is so low, and it is not, then it is only because under the integration policy of the United Party the land was so poorly developed that it could not carry any more people. Now we say: We have the Coloureds living in the cities and towns and opportunities will have to be created for them in their own residential areas. And we are after all delimiting those residential areas. Does the hon. the Leader of the Opposition not know about that? In the third place we have a group of platteland Coloureds who are employed on the farms and we are trying to increase their productivity.

Then I am correct after all.

Now as a result of the Prime Minister’s statement, the Department is going further and saying: We are now going to take over all Coloured welfare services. They have been partially taken over, but we are negotiating to take over all these services and to train Coloureds at the Western Cape College for Coloureds so that their own welfare workers will work amongst their people. They can then help bring about the social upliftment which is so essential. In our Department itself this Government already employs more than 300 Coloureds as officials. But apparently all these things mean nothing to the Opposition. They are only interested in the small local group of enfranchised Coloureds, and the 80 per cent from whom this small group is being separated, can go under as far as the Opposition are concerned. They can be absorbed by the Bantu. It is often said that the White man needs the Coloured in South Africa. I have repeatedly told the Coloureds: “That may be true, but I want to tell you that you need the White man even more, and you need the Nationalist Government even more” because the Nationalist Government stands between the Coloured and his destruction in South Africa. If the Coloured were to be handed over to the Opposition in our country, he would fall back into poverty and backwardness, and only those whose votes can be bought will receive attention.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition has put forward a further accusation and he has been followed in this accusation by the hon. member for Peninsula (Mr. Bloomberg). It is now being said that it is so immoral that we do not want to give the Coloureds direct representation in this House. In other words we are withholding an elementary right which we should grant to anyone. I have always thought that this House is a place where we realistically face the facts, the facts with which we in South Africa are faced. Along what lines have we been moving in South Africa since 1932? We have been moving ever more decisively towards the standpoint that the Coloureds should not be represented in this Parliament by Coloureds. What is more, if we should go to the country to-day on this point, namely that we are in favour of allowing the Coloureds to sit here in Parliament, we would suffer the most crushing defeat possible at the hands of the electorate of South Africa. In other words, the Government in this matter adopts the attitude that it is interpreting the feelings of the majority of the voters in South Africa, and that is surely its task as a democratic Government. But if we could on moral and other grounds justify granting the Coloureds direct representation, one could make out a case that one should propagate a cause that is right against the will of the majority of the voters. Political parties have done that in the past. But if we were to take this step which (on the authority of the hon. member for Peninsula) the Coloureds themselves are not asking for, but which Whites are asking for and which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has now suddenly adopted as his policy, what then? The hon. the Leader of the Opposition has seen that there are a few people who think along these lines and now he has suddenly adopted this as his policy and he hopes to catch a few votes. But if we should allow the Coloureds to have four Coloured representatives who could sit in this House would we then be acting morally? Is it then moral to give the 20,000 or 30,000 enfranchised Coloureds representation in this House but to leave out in the cold the 90 per cent of the Coloureds who are not yet interested in political rights. What of the morality of the Opposition on this point? If we wish to act morally, then we should surely calculate the ratio of Coloureds to Whites and then give them representation on a proportionate basis. If the Opposition wished to take such a step should it come into power would South Africa accept it? As a matter of fact, if the United Party were to come into power, there would not be time to take such a step because the Bantu would then govern. That is why the Government says that there is only one way and that is the policy which we started to follow in 1932, the policy of developing the rural home areas of the Coloureds, the policy of providing the Coloureds with the necessary opportunities in life in their own city and town areas, the policy of uplifting them in the socio-economic field on the platteland too, the policy of allowing them to be served by their own people wherever possible, the policy of establishing local authorities for the Coloureds. This policy must be developed further and for that purpose the Union Coloured Council must be used. That is stated in the reports as well. This Union Council must be reorganized, must be further developed, and the time will come when the Union Council will have to be made more representative than it is to-day. But that time will only come as and when the Coloureds reveal that sense of responsibility, and as and when suitable leaders come forward. Then this Union Council can perhaps be used as an overall organization covering all the local government areas, and it can first advise and later be given administrative powers, and it may develop along these lines until eventually it is given legislative power as well. The Government has envisaged in its statement that on this basis of parallel development there will be consultation at the highest level between the Union Council and the government of the day. In other words, we envisage that attention should first be given to the most urgent aspect of our Coloured policy, namely the socio-economic part of that policy. As progress is made in that regard, we shall also be able to progress with the further development of the parallel development ideal as regards the political rights of the Coloureds. Then we shall not be assaulting this principle to which such value is attached in South Africa, namely separate representation, and where the Coloureds are represented in White bodies, they will be represented by Whites. I believe that by this means we shall retain the self-respect of the White man and we shall confirm the self-respect of the Coloured. Only when the two population groups mutually respect one another and also retain their own self-respect, can the policy of good neighbours with just dividing lines be successful. It is along that road that the way to racial peace and racial content in South Africa is to be found.

Although I do not agree with everything the hon. the Deputy Minister of the Interior has said, I think nevertheless that we must admit that he has placed his policy before us in an interesting way. I shall try to refer to it as I go along. Mr. Speaker, I cannot omit in passing to testify immediately that I was surprised when he said that the late Dr. Malan was the architect of the present Coloured policy of the Government. Has my hon. friend then forgotten that it was Dr. Malan who was not only most emphatically in favour of the Coloured franchise being maintained in the Cape, but that he also wanted to extend it to the north? Has my hon. friend forgotten—he did not refer to this, because it did not suit his purposes at the present stage—that it was the late Dr. Malan who was in favour of the franchise being extended to Coloured women as well? Was it then not the late Dr. Malan, the former Prime Minister, who told the Malays that segregation would not be applied to them? Was it not the then leader of the Nationalist Party who said that in the economic and political spheres (this was prior to 1932) no distinction would be made between the Coloured and the White man? And was it not the late Dr. Malan who advocated the so-called (now I am quoting my friend over there) “Queen Victoria idea”? Was he not the pioneer of that policy together with Mr. Sauer and the late Mr. F. S. Malan? In 1932 this same Dr. Malan changed his policy and was it not the same Dr. Malan of whom the late General Hertzog said at that time that when it suited him politically, he repudiated anything for which he had previously stood?

Shame!

The late General Hertzog did say that after all. But I do not want to devote any more time to the hon. member who has just sat down. With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and with apologies to the hon. the Deputy Minister, I want to come back to the hon. the Prime Minister because after all he stands head and shoulders above anyone else on the opposite benches. That does not say much but it is so. One thing is certain and it is that he is setting the course and the pace politically on that side of the House. Whatever members of the Cabinet or other Nationalists outside might say, once the Prime Minister has spoken, then the matter is settled. He is “His Master’s Voice” and once he has spoken, hon. members opposite are dead silent, as happened yesterday once again. Even the Federal Council of the Nationalist Party immediately followed him slavishly. We sometimes hear a weak nervous bleat from hon. members opposite, but once the bulldog has spoken, there is silence, dead silence, even on the part of the Burger, the mouthpiece of the Nationalist Party! Then this mouthpiece of the Cape Nationalists uses words and sentences of which one cannot make head or tail! The hon. the Prime Minister told us yesterday: “There is no division in the National Party; we are absolutely united.”

Exactly!

I wish hon. members could have sat on this side of the House and seen some of the downcast faces on the opposite benches when the Prime Minister said that. However, it is most disappointing, it is a national tragedy that there is not one hon. member opposite who, when he differs from the hon. the Prime Minister, dares to say so or has the courage and the frankness to differ from him. Hon. members have become slaves of the Prime Minister. I challenge any hon. member opposite to rise and to state his convictions where they conflict with what the Prime Minister has said.

May I ask the hon. member a question?

No, I am sorry; I do not have the time. The hon. the Prime Minister is normally a very friendly person.

You talk of moral courage. Why did you not have the moral courage to vote for the republic?

I repeat that the hon. the Prime Minister is normally a friendly person and I am sorry that he has made such a personal attack on the hon. member for Transkeian Territories (Mr. Hughes). We are still waiting for his reply because serious allegations have been made. Nor did the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration in his attack on the hon. member for Transkeian Territories this afternoon adduce any counter-proof. I just want to put a question to the hon. the Minister. He has said that the speech of the hon. member was nothing but a demonstration of ignorance on the part of the hon. member. May I then ask why at the moment we have a large part of our Army in the Transkeian Territories, why a large part of the Navy is to be found along the Transkeian coast, and why a large part of the Air Force is in this area? What are they then doing there? Are they on holiday?

Yesterday the hon. the Prime Minister repeated a previous allegation, a serious allegation. It is a pity that he has done so because he is once again dragging the non-Whites into the struggles of the Whites. He says that we on this side, meaning the United Party, are using certain non-White racial groups in our struggle against our fellow-Afrikaners in our struggle against the Nationalist Party.

Do you deny it?

I reject it with the contempt it deserves, and this allegation could only come from a party such as the Nationalist Party which does not care what harm it does the future of our people so long as it can simply remain in power. But if this is in fact our policy, I ask my hon. friends to give us one single example to substantiate their allegation. Was it a United Party Senator who wrote to a Native, Bethuel, and asked for his assistance against his fellow-Afrikaners in the United Party? Was it a United Party Senator or was it Senator Pretorius?

He was not a Senator when he wrote it.

No, then he was the Nationalist Party candidate and at that time he sought assistance against his fellow Afrikaner. I want to raise this matter once again. After the insinuation and the allegation which the hon. the Prime Minister made yesterday, it is clear that the Nationalist Party is once again going to concentrate on exploiting the non-White danger, the Black danger, and I therefore think it is necessary that we on this side of the House should once again show what deplorable methods have been used by a person who was fighting an election on behalf of the Nationalist Party. He wrote—

And later they made him a Senator.

Yes, later he was made a Senator. [Interjections.] He went on—

“you”—that is the Native …[Interjections.] yes, it is a sore point—

They will get this letter later. Now listen—

Imagine it, Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Prime Minister levels the accusation at this side that we are working hand in glove with non-White groups, and they are writing this type of letter behind the scenes. I say it is deplorable.

You are a comedian.

Yes, that may be so, but not the “kapater” of Cradock! As regards the allegation by the Prime Minister, is it then the secretary of the United Party who is looking for party funds in the Asiatic shops of Durban, who is seeking assistance from the non-Whites against our fellow Afrikaners, against our fellow Whites? Is it then the leader of the United Party who wrote to Dr. Abdhuruhman and thanked him for his assistance against the late Mrs. Steenkamp, or was it Dr. Malan? Was it the United Party who asked for these things and who sought their co-operation? And why has this allegation been made by my hon. friend? And finally, was it then the United Party’s secretary at Lichtenburg, or was it the Nationalist Party’s secretary at Lichtenburg, who sent £5 to this same Mr. Bethuel—“Dear Friend Bethuel”—to help him organize for the Nationalist Party?

It was not a big contribution.

Even if it was 1d., then the hon. the Prime Minister does not have the right, the temerity, to level this accusation at this side of the House.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to devote a few moments to what the Prime Minister has said about our Coloureds. He has said that we, the United Party, will not only restore them to the common roll, but will give them direct representation as well. That is the policy. Then the hon. the Prime Minister says that this is the “charter of hope” or the “policy of hope” of the United Party. May I with all the emphasis at my command say that as far as the Coloureds are concerned, this policy, with the progress we have made in this regard, is not a “policy of hope” or a “charter of hope” to help the United Party or any party as such, but is an attempt to find a basis on which the future of the White man of South Africa can be assured. Because one thing is certain. Whether we differ from one another or not, if we do not keep on our side these 1,500,000 people—and by the year 2,000, they will number 4,000,000—who are favourably disposed towards us or if they do not support us Whites, there is in my opinion very little hope of a future for the White man in South Africa. These are people who have come from us; they are people who are of us; these are people who live as we live …

That is not quite true.

Where then do they come from? Of course it is true. If you want to run away and say that that is not so, let us then differ on that point. One thing is certain: 90 per cent of them are descended from us.

[Inaudible.]

No, my blood fortunately is pure? I wonder whether the hon. member can say the same. But, Mr. Speaker, whatever the position may be, those people think as we do; they have accepted our religion and our church; and as far as their culture is concerned and particularly as far as we Afrikaans-speaking people are concerned they stand by us and some of them are ranked amongst the best writers in Afrikaans. As the late Gen. Hertzog said, they are an appendage of the Whites. If we do not regain their support, then I doubt whether the White man has a future. I cannot see how this new policy can or will benefit the United Party. But I cannot accept the basis which the hon. the Deputy Minister of the Interior has laid down. He says that if we should go to the country with this policy, we would suffer a crushing defeat. For what purpose are we here? Have we been put here to provide leadership or to follow? In my opinion we are here as Members of Parliament to provide leadership, and I think it is necessary for us as a party and as a Parliament to differ over these matters, but also to recognize that if we cannot remedy this position, if we cannot rehabilitate the word of honour of the White man towards the non-White, we are going to lose the support of the Coloureds in maintaining the position of the White man in South Africa. That is the policy of the United Party, and it is not afraid of this policy. If it is going to lose an election or two, what does it matter? Parties come and go, but we as leaders must ensure that we lay down such a basis that it can or will be possible for us— not the United Party or the Nationalist Party— to safeguard the future of the White man in South Africa.

Furthermore, the United Party feels, as regards the Coloured people, that they must have a share here in this House of Assembly. The Prime Minister now says: But do you not appreciate the danger of that policy; do you not realize that if, for example, you should give the Coloureds four representatives they will ask for more? Of course they will ask for more. I take myself as an example. If I was a Coloured or anyone else in this House, and I felt that I had less privileges or representation than was my due, I would, of course, ask for more. But must that now hold us back? Must this deter us from doing the right thing? Why then have my friends in the Nationalist Party given these people four White representatives? The same principle applies. For how long will the Coloured people be satisfied with four White representatives? Nor is it necessary to be in this House to ask for additional rights. The Nationalist Party knows as well as I that the institution of the four White members in this House has given the Coloureds just as great an opportunity to ask not only for an increase in that representation, but also that their representatives should be non-Whites. That will come. It can be said that at present it is only Whites who are asking for this change, but it is our best type of White who is doing so. It is not only we as a party who are asking for this; some of our leading people outside are doing so. There are, for example, intellectuals from my alma mater. Hon. members know the old saying: What Stellenbosch asks for to-day, is the policy of the country to-morrow. Some of our leading people are asking for this; they are not all United Party supporters. There are also Nationalist Party supporters who are asking that we should do the right thing by these people, and that, inter alia, we should give them direct representation. I grew up in the atmosphere of the north. I grew up in the conservative north, but I would, indeed, be untrue to my position in this House and to the confidence which my constituency or my voters have placed in me if I should allow them to lead and not try to lead myself. The United Party honestly believes that if we want to safeguard the future of the White man we shall have to take steps to ensure that we regain the confidence of the Coloureds. One of the ways to do so is not only to transfer them to a common roll in order to rehabilitate the word of honour of the White man, but also to give them an opportunity to have direct representation in this House.

You will have to render account for that.

You can exploit it if you wish.

And what about the Indians?

I am not discussing the Indians now. But, seeing that my hon. friends have referred to the Asiatic people, I want to tell them that the day will come when we shall have to give attention to them and that we cannot continue ignoring them. Hon. members can, perhaps, remain in power for one, three, five or ten years, but the day will come when they will have to consider the position of the Asiatics.

Must they come sit here?

The hon. member will have to answer that question, and I tell my Nationalist friends again that the day will come when they will no longer be able to ignore the Indian people. Let the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark (Dr. de Wet) rise and tell us what they are going to do about the Asiatic people? The hon. member will not do so, because they are still promising on the platforms outside that they will repatriate the Indians—just ask the hon. member for Brits (Mr. J. E. Potgieter).

May I ask a question?

No. I was discussing the Coloured people, but I have also referred to the Indians, because an interjection has been made. In the time remaining I now want to refer to another matter, namely the relationship between White and White. The hon. the Prime Minister has referred to this matter. It was amusing to listen to our Nationalist friends during the referendum.

It was very amusing.

It was most amusing. Never before have the Nationalists loved the English so dearly, never before has an English-speaking person been so popular amongst them. Even an English-speaking person of Jewish descent who addressed their congress at Bloemfontein received the applause which is due to a Prime Minister! Mr. Speaker, it was strange … [Interjections.] But wait a moment, keep quiet! The hon. member apparently cannot do so, but he must try to do so. For 12 years the Prime Minister and his party have ignored the English-speaking section of our population.

That is a lie.

Now the referendum is over …

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Chief Whip of the Nationalist Party has said that that is a lie; must he not withdraw it?

I withdraw the word “lie” and I say that that is untrue and incorrect information.

Unfortunately, while the Prime Minister was making this appeal to the English-speaking people and telling them how well they would fare once we have a republic, and also that he needed their help, all his efforts to gain unity, co-operation and harmony were frustrated by, inter alia, my hon. friend from Vanderbijlpark. He said: Look what is happening in the United Party; Marais Steyn and Louis Steenkamp do not have the courage to stand on their own feet. No, they are co-operating with the English-speaking people in an attempt to build up South Africa. That is his opinion of the English-speaking people and of co-operation between the English-speaking and Afrikaans-speaking peoples. And, Mr. Speaker, that is not all. Was it not my hon. friend, the Deputy Minister of Education, who referred to Queen Victoria as the “ounooi” (old madam)? This type of thing has completely frustrated the Prime Minister’s efforts. But, as I have said, for 12 years they have ignored the culture, the background and the traditions of the English-speaking section of the people in practically every sphere but now all of a sudden they are so fond of the English-speaking people! But what else have they done? If the hon. the Prime Minister is—I do not want to say honest —sincere in his approach, why did he not appoint an English-speaking person to the Senate when he had that golden opportunity last year? Why does he not abandon his deplorable policy of keeping the English-and Afrikaans-speaking children apart in the Transvaal? Why does he not tell the English-speaking people: Look, you are now going to cooperate with us in building up our great republic. No that is not being done. Certain English-speaking people have voted for the republic as a result of the Prime Minister’s appeal and now they are being repudiated.

[Inaudible.]

The hon. member has now reminded me of what I should have said, namely that the Prime Minister in his reply to the deputation of English-speaking people from Natal showed that the Nationalist Party does not want to co-operate. We cannot get away from the fact that Natal is predominantly English-speaking. The fact that we are going to establish a republic in South Africa has caused doubts to arise amongst those people. These are English-speaking people, and although the republican principle has been accepted at the referendum, and I personally have accepted it …

But you worked against it.

… I feel that it will be most unwise of the hon. the Prime Minister at this stage to go ahead immediately with plans for the establishment of a republic. It should be a danger sign to him to see what is going on in certain parts of our country, amongst a certain section of our population. He gained a small majority in favour of a republic—it was 2 per cent, not so?

Scarcely 2 per cent.

Although the principle has been and is accepted, it will be unwise to go ahead with its implementation immediately. That is why the question is asked—after we have been so strongly criticised—where the United Party stands as regards this matter, namely co-operation. We have stated our attitude repeatedly and I am not going to bore the House by repeating it. We believe in what General Hertzog said, namely that it would be a crime to keep our English-speaking and Afrikaans-speaking children apart on the school grounds; we must give our children an opportunity to learn and to respect one another so that, when they grow up, they will not be enemies or strangers to one another; we must let them grow up in such a way that they can respect one another’s culture, language and traditions and have the opportunity to help build a true South African nation and people.

The hon. member for Hillbrow (Dr. Steenkamp) tried this afternoon to refute that since 1932 the late Dr. Malan introduced and promoted the policy of separate development also in respect of the Coloured people. His attempt to refute that consisted of an endeavour to quote what Dr. Malan had said in the years prior to 1932. I am surprised that the hon. member for Hillbrow has not learnt the simple little lesson which most of us have learnt a long time ago. In days gone by we amused ourselves by referring to Hansard and newspapers, reading judgements and quoting or misquoting what people said 15, 20, 30 or 40 years ago in totally different circumstances and trying to prove that what they were saying to-day was incorrect. He produced no proof to show that the policy of separate development in respect of the Coloured people has not been advocated by the National Party over the past 20 years at least. What he lost sight of, however, was this that since 1910 no governing party and no official Opposition ever advocated the abolition of the colour bar in the House of Assembly and in the Senate. All the parties, the former National Party of the day, the former South African Party, the United Party and the National Party since Dr. Malan, were very much against the abolition of the colour bar in this House. This policy which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition advocated yesterday is a completely new policy, it is a policy which the former United Party, to which the hon. member for Hillbrow and I belonged, discarded time and time again. The late Mr. Hofmeyr was the only person who ever advocated that policy. In 1947, just prior to a very important by-election in the Hottentots Holland constituency, he said that he envisaged the day when the colour bar would be abolished in Parliament. That meant that the present Leader of the Opposition, who was the United Party candidate in Hottentots Holland at that time and which was a safe United Party seat, lost it to Senator Van Aarde.

May I put a question?

That hon. member refused to answer questions. If what I am saying is not clear to him he will have an opportunity at a later stage to ask questions. Just allow me to develop the argument with which I am dealing. My argument is this that the hon. member tried to prove that since 1932 Dr. Malan did not consistently follow the policy of separate development in respect of the Coloureds, and he dragged in the question of the colour bar in Parliament. As I have said, the policy of all governing parties and of all official opposition has been the retention of the colour bar in Parliament. Until yesterday it has been the policy of the United Party to maintain the colour bar in the Senate and in the House of Assembly. This policy which they now announce, is an umpteenth new policy, a new change-over on the part of the United Party, to a policy which they have never advocated before. They advocate it for two reasons. The first reason is that they are afraid of the Progressive Party. They are afraid that the Progressive Party may get too far ahead of them. The second reason is, as has already been stated, that they hope to catch the vote of a few national-minded people, people who have expressed the view that the Coloureds ought to get direct representation.

The United Party did not argue this matter thoroughly, just as they have failed lately to argue any matter thoroughly beforehand. In the past the position in the United Party has been that the Coloured people voted with the Europeans on the same voters’ roll. As a logical consequence and as a result of that attitude, the old United Party began to admit Coloureds as members of the party. Coloureds were allowed to become members of the United Party. I now want to ask the hon. member for Hillbrow, now that they have once again adopted this policy, whether he is going to exert himself to have Coloureds admitted as members of the United Party. Let him tell us, Sir, whether he is going to exert himself to have Coloureds admitted as members of the United Party. They say that the Coloured people should be represented by Coloureds in this House. That was the policy of the late Mr. Hofmeyr in respect of which General Smuts repudiated him. They now adopt that policy. If they want to allow Coloureds in Parliament and the Coloureds are returned to the common roll, will the hon. member exert himself to have Coloureds admitted as members of the United Party? Will he exert himself to have Coloureds allowed to play their part on the councils of the Party? Will his aim be and will the aim of his Leader be to have the decision taken by the United Party Congress at Worcester, namely that Coloureds will not longer be allowed to become members of the Party, revoked? Now I come to the Peninsula Council and I want to put this question to the hon. member for Simonstown (Mr. Gay). As a former chairman of the Peninsula Council will he endeavour to have Coloureds represented on the Peninsula Council, as was the position in the days before I became a member of the United Party, and that they be admitted as members of their congresses? Because, Mr. Speaker, what will the position be otherwise? If a Party advocates that Coloureds should become members of this highest Forum in the country, but they are not allowed to become members of that Party, what will the position be? They may not be members of the councils of that party: nor may they be members of the congresses of that party, but they may very well be members of this House.

Mr. Speaker, that is what we hear from persons and parties who are so prone to moralize. I ask in all humility what sort of morality is it when you advocate that Coloureds should become members of this House, but you are too scared to say it, neither will you say it, that your aim will be to have Coloureds admitted as members of your Party and to sit on your councils and congresses. What kind of morality is that? What kind of justice is that and what value can you place on that. Sir? [Interjections.] I am sorry I did not hear what the hon. member for Simonstown mumbled, but I take it he said that he did not advocate that Coloureds should once again be allowed to become members of the United Party. If he does advocate that, I should like to hear him say it and in that case he can still make a statement in that regard to the Press this evening. Sir, this attitude on the part of the United Party is an immoral attitude, it is immoral in that respect to which I have once referred in the past. If the United Party were to succeed in having the Coloureds restored to the common roll, and to that they add that the Coloureds should also sit in this House, then I ask them this: During the time when the Coloureds were on the common roll and they had the opportunity of electing a Coloured person to the Cape Provincial Council, why did they not see to it that after Dr. Abdurahman and the person who succeeded him, Mr. Reagon, another Coloured person reached that position? Why did they not see to it that another Coloured person was sent to the Provincial Council since then? At every election they used the vote of the Coloured person and relied on his vote to win seats, but not once did the United Party say to the Coloured people: You supported us so faithfully during this election, here is a constituency; elect somebody to represent it in the Provincial Council of the Cape. They never said that and now I want to ask this: If the Coloureds were returned to the common roll, were to become members of the United Party and were to serve on their councils and boards, would any Coloured man stand a chance at a party nomination of being nominated in opposition to the hon. member for Hillbrow or the Leader of the Opposition? Sir, this is merely an endeavour to lead the Coloured people up the garden path. They are not sincere when they say that they genuinely do not begrudge the Coloured people the opportunity of climbing to the very top. In no constituency of theirs will they allow a Coloured person to win the party nomination. They say: We dare not allow the Coloured person to be nominated in this safe seat; if we do we shall lose it. That will be their excuse. They preach morality, but they leave the Coloured person on the shelf.

This question of the representation of the Coloured people, of course, flows from a consideration of the people which is based on a wrong approach. For the umpteenth time the hon. member for Hillbrow has suggested that the Coloureds should be treated in such a manner that it will not be possible for them to develop separately, and the United Party bases that argument on the fact that the Coloured people, as a community, do not differ in any respect from the White community. They say that the Coloureds speak the language of the White people, that for the greater part they have adopted the religion of the White man and for a great part they have taken over the civilization and culture of the West as far as it has been possible for them to do so. But then we have the crux of the matter. The hon. member for Hillbrow comes forward with the statement, a statement which one should not merely deprecate, Sir, but which one should prove to be false, namely that the Coloured people of South Africa is a section of or originate from the White section of the people of this country. In other words the Coloured race has come into existence as a result of miscegenation between Whites and non-Whites.

For the greater part.

That is completely false. The Coloured race is a mixed race, but the majority of them are the descendants of the slaves which were emancipated in 1834 and the Hottentot race in South Africa. [Interjections.] I advise the hon. member for Hillbrow, for his own sake and for the sake of the national group to which he belongs, to acquaint himself with those facts. I say that the total percentage of White blood which has been added to the Coloured race is not more than 10 per cent or at the most 15 per cent; and that addition took place mainly in the coastal areas, in the harbour cities. What happens in every coastal city in the world where visiting sailors have no respect for colour or race for the few nights that they are there, happened there. Ten per cent or at the most 15 per cent of White blood was added, something which we found in all places where there were military camps, like Wynberg, Simonstown, Grahamstown, and throughout the country where there were permanent military camps in the past, during the last century. A certain amount of miscegenation has taken place between the Whites and the Coloureds who are the descendants of slaves and Hottentots. We should accept the fact that the Coloured race is a mixed race, but theirs is a race which is different from the White race, and because they differ from the White race, they should be treated as a separate race. Because they are much closer to the White race than any other racial group, as far as civilization, language and culture are concerned, they should also be treated differently from those other racial groups. For that reason they should enjoy privileges which the Bantu do not enjoy. That is why the Coloured people are allowed to have vested interests in their own towns in White South Africa; they are allowed to own houses and land; a right which is not enjoyed by the Bantu. Because the Coloured people are much closer to the White group than any other group, as far as language and culture are concerned, we are willing to grant them privileges and to hold out prospects to them which we are not prepared to do in the case of the other races. But because they are nevertheless a different race, with a very small amount of White blood, they should be trained as a different race, in their own community and in their own group. In view of the fact that since 1910 no Government or official Opposition has accepted the policy that the colour bar should be abolished in the highest Forum of South Africa, we can but regret it to-day when the United Party repudiates and betrays its leaders of the past—they are always so fond of referring to General Hertzog when he was leader of the United Party—General Smuts and the policy which they have always stood for namely that the colour bar should be maintained in the House of Assembly; we regret it that they are to-day discarding that policy as well, just as they have discarded their policy in so many different ways in the past.

When the United Party come to their senses and we are again faced with a general election, they will realize what the repercussions are of this new policy of theirs. At the moment they think they can win a few votes, but they are losing votes faster than in the past. During those days when Mr. Strauss was Leader of the United Party he often used to say, every time a catastrophe hit the party: “Now we have reached rock-bottom”. But to-morrow or the day after there is further division in the party or there is a crisis and then he says: “Now we have reached rock-bottom” and hardly has he said that when the party plunges further down the precipice. That was what happened. Here you again have a section of the United Party, Sir, but there are others in between who do not want to sit either here or there and that is what will happen at the next general election. They talk about the extinction of the Progressive Party. I am not concerned about the Progressive Party, but we will witness the decimalization of the United Party. I just want to say this, because it ties up with my statement that the hon. member for Peninsula also said that the leaders of the National Party— he mentioned General Hertzog, Dr. Malan, Mr. Havenga and Mr. Strijdom—were supposed to have led the Coloured people to believe that they would one day have direct representation in this House. Sir, that is definitely not true. Not a single word can be quoted from the speeches of any of those leaders to show that the prospect was held out to the Coloured people that they would be allowed to sit in this Chamber. On the contrary, all those leaders, as well as General Smuts, said that the colour bar would be maintained in this House and that the Coloured people would not be represented directly in this House. That was the traditional policy of all the parties and all the leaders and to say now that prospects were held out to the Coloured people in the speeches of those leaders, is to violate the truth.

I should now like to say something in connection with the Bantu. In the first place the hon. member for Transkeian Territories (Mr. Hughes) said that in respect of the Bantu, they should eventually, particularly in what is known as the White areas,—and the Leader of the Opposition also said that—obtain greater political rights as far as this House and the institutions of this country were concerned. The basis for that request is the allegation that the Bantu in the urban areas are detribalized Natives. I do not think there is another word which is abused so often than the word “detribalized” Native. There was a time when there were Bantu servants on farms and in our homes who were actually detribalized to a great extent, but that is no longer the position at the moment because they have followed the stream; they have come under the influence of the others. The Natives that we find to-day are people who have always retained their tribal association with their homelands. I will prove that. Recently when the British Government granted a certain measure of self-government to Basutoland, the Basutos were first asked to vote on it. Not only did the British Government ask the Basutos in Basutoland to vote, but they asked the Basutos throughout the whole of South Africa to vote, and the people who participated most ardently in that referendum were the Basutos outside Basutoland, those in Johannesburg and in Cape Town. Some of them even stood as candidates. The so-called detribalized Basutos were the keenest to take part in it because Basutoland is after all still their country. I venture to predict that if we give the Bantu in South Africa the opportunity to develop his Bantu authorities, to develop his own national culture, and to build upon it in accordance with the demands of a modern state, if we give them the opportunity of developing their own national consciousness and their national pride, which they have, and if we give the Bantu outside their homelands the opportunity to participate in that process as in the case of the Basutos, we will be surprised to see how many Bantu in the White areas have throughout retained their association with their homelands. We cannot evolve a pattern for the Bantu in the White areas before we have fully established the Bantu Authorities, which will enable the Bantu themselves to prove how many of them have retained their tribal associations. This reminds me of something in our own national history the history of the Afrikaner. There was a time when Afrikaner leaders, especially in the Cape Province, despaired. We remember the days of the Patriot, English, English everywhere, the time when it looked as though the entire Afrikaner nation, particularly in the Cape Province, had become Anglicized. The leaders had no hope for the future. But the opportunity gradually presented itself for the Afrikaner to develop his language and his culture. He developed his national traditions and lived in accordance with them and what happened? Those people who thought that mose of the Afrikaners had become Anglicized were surprised to find how many of them had throughout been conscious of their tribal association with their nation; they helped to develop our culture in such as way that to-day even in the ranks of the United Party, there are few Afrikaners who are not conscious of that feeling of national solidarity. That is exactly what will happen in the case of the Bantu. Give them an opportunity to develop their Bantu Authorities, give their national feeling an opportunity to unfold itself and you will discover, Sir, that the pride and aspirations of the Bantu who are to-day in the White areas, are still rooted in their homelands.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition put up another bogey to frighten us and that ties up with what the world outside thinks about South Africa. He tried to frighten us by saying that if we did not do this or that in South West Africa or in South Africa, we may live to see the day when the Black nations of Africa would “leapfrog” across Angola into South West Africa. It is a ghastly thought which the hon. member expressed, namely that Black states would cross Angola into South West. I now want to ask him what he and his Party are prepared to do in that event? Will they support us if we try to retain South West Africa for White civilization or will they stand back and say: Fight it out yourselves. I think the Leader of the Opposition should inform his members on that point and tell us, because we are going to put that question to their candidates. If they want to frighten us with the idea that the Black states will cross Angola into South West Africa, we want to ask them what they are going to do. Will they throw in the towel, or will they stand by the rest of South Africa? Apart from that I am not very worried about what UNO or other countries think about us. I am not unduly worried about that Sir, because I believe that we should view that matter in its historic perspective. This is not the first occasion on which South Africa has been subjected to venomous attacks on the part of certain people outside South Africa. If you check on what was said and written 150 years ago, if you read the accusations which were levelled by Phillips and Reid and Van der Kemp against the White colonists, you will find that that is exactly what is being said to-day in certain countries about our policy here. There has been no change over the past 150 years. I do not want to read what was said but I want to call as a witness a famous English big game hunter who travelled through this country. This is what Captain William Cornwallis Harris wrote in his well-known book “Wild Sports of South Africa” which was published in 1839. He describes there under what appalling conditions the farmers along the eastern boundary of the Cape Province lived, how they were murdered and robbed, how they were suppressed and how they received no protection from the British Government. He says this—

Harris said that those calumniators of South Africa, those so-called philanthropists—to-day they call themselves by another name—caused more devastation and sorrow in South Africa than all the hordes of black barbarians. We still find people like that to-day.

I want to bring further evidence. I want to quote what General J. W. Janssens, who was Governor at the Cape during the time of the Batavian Republic, wrote in a report on the occasion of his departure about what should be done in the Cape Province if, after the armistice which they expected at that time, the Cape were returned to the Batavian Republic. He referred to one of the bad influences here which should be destroyed. We are to-day faced with the same problem. We still have the Reeves and the Huddlestons and the Joost de Blanks. Under the heading “Zendelingen Schadelyk” General Janssens wrote as follows in 1806—

Indien men het schadelyke dat die zendelingen in de Volksplanting, en er om heen (men zondert de Moravische broeders in Genadendaal by de Baviaansch-kloof uit) hcbben aangebracht, met het nut door hen veroorzaakt weegd, zal het eerste zeer zwaar, het ander nul zijn,—men kan zig niet te veel haasten de meeste dezer zendelingen (Elendelingen) weg te zenden, en aan de geduld wordende, zoo er kunnen zyn, eene geheel andere wyziging te geeven.

He said that these so-called spirituals were the calumniators of South Africa and that they should be sent away as soon as possible. But when we tell Reeves that he must not return it is regarded as something terrible. But as far back as 1806 General Janssens said that these people did so much harm that they should be chased out, with a few exceptions. He called the missionaries miserable people (elendelingen) and said that those who were allowed here, should follow a different course, a different direction.

In conclusion I just want to say this. If we were to lend an ear to what is said about South Africa in the world outside, we will be betraying our past. Our forefathers, Afrikaansand English-speaking, the Voortrekkers and the Settlers took no notice of things like that. But we have people in South Africa to-day, the United Party in particular adopts this attitude, who maintain that if we make certain concessions to the Bantu and lend an ear to the criticism which is levelled against us, we will have peace and quiet. I want to quote something which was written in Rhodesia by a black man, one Sithole. He wrote a book called “African Nationalism” which was published last year and at the end of the chapter on “The African Himself” he quotes what Davidson, a British author and journalist, had written and expresses himself in agreement with it. This man Sithole is one of the moderate Bantu leaders in Rhodesia. He has something to say about the United Party in South Africa because he quotes the following and he agrees with it—

He does not agree with the hon. member for Queenstown (Dr. Steytler), however, who says that there are certain Bantu who should not have the vote. Sithole says there should be complete equality. We know what the result will be in South Africa if that policy were followed. We know what the result will be if, because of the criticism which is levelled against us overseas we depart one inch from our course. That criticism may sound a bit louder to-day than it did 150 years ago, but that is only because we have loudspeakers and radio’s but it will calm down as quickly.

Mr. Speaker, I think it would be quite pointless to enter into a long emotional argument with the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Dr. Jonker) over the origins of the Coloured people here in South Africa. It will suffice merely for me to read from “The Cape Coloured Peoples” by Prof. Jan Marais, in which he as a scientist wrote the following as a scientific discussion of this matter.

The miscegenation which in its various permutations and combinations was to produce the Coloured people began early with unions, regular or irregular, between Europeans on the one hand and slaves or Hottentots on the other. There were a considerable number of unions, mostly irregular between slaves and Europeans, especially in the early days of the settlement. During the first 20 years of its existence no less than 75 per cent of the children born at the Cape of slave mothers were half-breeds.

There is other evidence too. I think it will be a good idea if at some time or another a really thorough scientific investigation could be instituted into this matter. This is not a matter which should be exploited for political purposes; it is a matter for the scientist and the historian.

Like everyone else, Mr. Speaker, we listened attentively to the speech by the hon. the Prime Minister. He has accused us of having in effect adopted a new colour policy. I wonder whether I cannot level the same charge at him? In describing his colour policy, he used a word which is seldom heard, that is to say, he referred to a “four stream policy”. We on this side of the House have never heard of any such thing. I want to say that the United Party’s policy has two legs—White leadership on the one hand and justice on the other. Hon. members opposite have now brought forward a policy which dogs not stand on two legs, but on four feet—three black feet and one white club foot. I could almost say that this is a four-legged policy which reminds one of the abominable snowman of the Himalaya.

Of greater seriousness is the fact that the hon. the Prime Minister has not, in the opinion of all of us, replied adequately to the accusation that racial harmony is lacking in South Africa to-day. No one can deny, with a view to the events at Sharpeville and Langa, that there is to-day a greater lack of racial harmony between White and Native than in the past, or that there is a greater lack of racial harmony between us and the Coloureds, particularly after the recent statement by the Prime Minister, a statement in accordance with which the Coloureds will become outcasts with their own separate areas and with no hope whatsoever of ever being represented here in this House by their own people in the future.

The hon. the Prime Minister did, however, say something with which I agree. He has said that South Africa has a great reputation in other spheres, on the sports fields and in the economic sphere. I agree that it has a great reputation in those two spheres. On the sports fields and in sport we have a great reputation through the names of people like Avril Malan, Sandra Reynolds and Bobby Locke. In the economic sphere we have a great reputation as the result of the work of men such as Dr. Meyer, Dr. van Eck and Mr. Oppenheimer. We have a great reputation in those spheres because of the men who are responsible for those spheres. Why is our reputation in the political sphere, as a newspaper which supports hon. members opposite has put it, such that we are described as the polecat of the world? Who are the leaders in the political sphere? Hon. members opposite. They are responsible for our country’s reputation.

I just want to mention briefly another argument which the hon. the Prime Minister has used, namely that assuming there were to be Coloured Members of Parliament in the House of Assembly, it would still mean that more and more demands would continue to be made and that they would eventually dominate this House. This is a false argument in the logic on the part of the hon. the Prime Minister; the false argument of “the thin end of the wedge”. Our policy says that the Coloureds will be given the franchise on the basis of certain franchise qualifications. Their numbers will be limited. There is no danger that they will ever dominate this House. The Prime Minister’s analogy is false. It is false to compare them with a wedge. Sir, it is not a wedge; it is a weight. It is a weight to restore the balance here in South Africa and in this House as well. The ship of South Africa and of the House of Assembly is on an uneven keel to-day and our policy of giving the Coloureds this representation will provide the necessary ballast so that the balance can be restored. Is it for example a wedge that is being driven into this House when there are 40 or so English-speaking members in this House? Is this a wedge which will result in there being 160 English-speaking members in the future? Of course it is not a wedge; it is a weight! It represents a balance which is being created and that is what the hon. the Prime Minister will, I hope, realize in the future.

They are Whites, not Coloureds.

I reject particularly the Prime Minister’s amendment in which he asks for confidence in this Government; I reject it not only because his party has not promoted racial harmony, but also because this Government to-day is beginning to show all the characteristics of a power machine which has governed for too long. To put it bluntly, this Government has become too big for its boots. Particularly under the present Prime Minister the political conceit has grown that the Government is the alpha and omega in all spheres, in the cultural sphere, the political and the moral spheres in South Africa, and that they have a monopoly on all wisdom. What has happened is merely this— and I am now going to use a word which the Prime Minister has used. He has said that the Government stands like granite on certain points of policy. What has happened is simply that a granite curtain has descended upon hon. members opposite, a granite curtain which has closed their minds and their mouths, politically speaking, and restricted their political freedom of thought on a scale no political party in South Africa has ever experienced before.

Fortunately powerful voices have been raised against this ugly phenomenon. They have come from a section of the intellectuals particularly in the ranks of the Afrikaner people, not all of whom are necessarily Nationalists, not all of whom are necessarily persons who can agree with everything I am saying here, but all of whom are men and women who held and hold firm convictions regarding the rights of an individual to speak and to think with a free mind, in the light of his own beliefs. Amongst them are the Stellenbosch and Pretoria professors and the 69 signatories to the statement relating to future policy. They include men such as Dr. A. L. Geyer. He is not a member of the United Party. They include men such as Mr. Anton Rupert and Dr. Tienie Louw. Are these people whose opinions must necessarily be ignored? This dissatisfaction found expression—and this was inevitable—a month or so ago in the columns of the leading Nationalist Party newspaper, namely the Burger. I should like to congratulate the Burger on having had the courage to allow that correspondence, but I know with what devilish intolerance any congratulations on my part will be twisted round and used to launch further attacks on people who wish to think for themselves.

Why do you not think for yourself as well?

I am not seeking the support of the Burger or its Dawie or its Piet or its Paul or its Klaas; I am only asking that there should be a more tolerant approach to our national problems in South Africa. In the first place I accuse this Government of suffering from a political persecution complex. There is the hon. the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs who sees behind every corner a mining magnate, a capitalist or a British capitalist who wants to destroy the Afrikaner people and has wanted to destroy them for the past 300 years. But I shall come back to the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs later. He is one example of this phenomenon. There are many examples. There is the example of the hon. Minister of Bantu Administration and Development. I think the Minister also suffers from a political persecution complex. What has happened is this: Quite innocently the Burger expressed the opinion that a case could be made out for allowing the Coloureds to be represented in the House of Assembly by Coloureds, whether now or in the future, and quite correctly they added that the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration had also held such a view at one stage and that this was recorded in Hansard. What was the hon. the Minister’s reply? Did he discuss the matter on its merits? No, he immediately wrote two extremely angry letters in which the Burger was attacked and in which he in effect complained that he was being persecuted—that persecution complex to which I referred just now.

And the Minister was wrong; the facts were against him.

We know of course that the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration, as he says, is being persecuted by world opinion, by the Stock Exchange, by Communism and by the wind of change, but I never thought that the time would come when he would also feel that he was being persecuted by none other than the Burger itself. Listen to what the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration has written in criticism of his party’s leading newspaper. His letter refers to Dawie who is a columnist in the Burger, and more than a columnist, as we all know. The Minister wrote—

The poor persecuted Minister—

This was written by an hon. member of the Nationalist Party Government criticizing a newspaper of the Nationalist Party. And doubly incensed the hon. the Minister on the following day wrote a letter to the Burger. In it he said—

Here he is accusing one of the leading members of the Burger’s staff of consorting with liberal friends—

Does the hon. the Minister still stand by that statement? Here we have the most violent criticism which has ever emanated from their own ranks, and it seems as though the Burger is now being forced behind the granite curtain as well. Who was behind that letter which the hon. the Minister wrote? Was it not perhaps the hon. the Prime Minister himself, who a day or two previously had made a statement in which he practically repudiated everything the Burger had said regarding Coloured representation? None of the hon. the Minister’s arguments are based on merit. It is merely “Dawie and his liberal friends”, “the Burger is confused”, “the Burger is assisting with subtle propaganda”. Mr. Speaker, I think that the Burger’s comments were rather enlightening. In its leading article of 30th November it said—

Has the hon. the Minister now joined the ranks of those many members of the Cabinet and the party opposite who refuse to read the Burger nowadays? The columnist of the Burger went further and commented on the hon. the Minister’s criticism. It said—

Who are the no-men, particularly after the statement which has been issued by the Federal Council of the Nationalist Party? There they sit on the benches opposite and here we have a full description in the Burger of them and their opinions and of what is behind them. The Burger has given a priceless description of the reaction of the hon. the Minister to the correspondence.

That is no longer of any significance.

No, the granite curtain may have come down, but these people still have their independence of mind. I think that the Burger’s comments should be quoted here. The Burger said—

Possibly the hon. the Minister has been told that fortune at some time or another, although it has not appeared in the columns of the Burger. Allow me to put my second point of criticism at this point. It is that the Government is guilty of intolerance towards reasonable criticism and towards reasonable critics. We may never know how strongly those persons on that side who think for themselves criticized the Government in respect of its present colour policy, because we have not seen all the letters. We have only seen those which have been published, but we can form an idea of how strong that criticism has been when we read certain comments which have appeared in the Burger. Listen to the type of criticism which has been expressed. In passing, this is their comment or criticism of people in the Nationalist Party who want to think for themselves. The Burger wrote—

That those hon. members are not acting nearly as reasonably as they think—

Is this not what we have always said? Here we have an intelligent journalist who says that there are factors which can be set alight by the emotions and which can lead to ugly things—yes, very ugly things—in our national life. And then the Burger writes—

And I can see bitterness and sourness over there, Mr. Speaker—

Let hon. members listen to this. This is how their own newspaper describes them—

Yes, they must go behind the granite curtain as well. But allow me to tell hon. members opposite that those persons in their party who have protested, who have come forward with a new line of thought, are not few in number; their influence is not negligible, and I hope they will have the strength not to allow their mouths to be muzzled. Mr. Speaker, listen to who these people are. The Burger says—

These are important people.

They have a very unimportant champion.

I am not acting here as the champion of any of the intellectual members of the Nationalist Party who have come forward with this standpoint. I am acting as the champion of free speech and free thought.

At least you kicked out Sam Kahn.

The Burger wrote—

A dangerous gulf has arisen particularly between what I shall call, to keep in fashion, a large and important group of the intellectuals and the far more numerous ordinary people. These intellectuals include spiritual leaders, professors, teachers, business and professional men, important public servants, all traditionally strong Nationalists and, from the nature of their work and contacts, influential.

These are important people. I think I should also read this paragraph, and I hope that these words will make an impression on hon. members opposite. The Burger said—

I level the accusation at hon. members that they have in fact decapitated or tried to decapitate their own party and that the Nationalist Party in future will run around in the yard without an intellectual head, like a beheaded fowl. Behind that granite curtain there is and there will be retrogression and destruction. This is a curtain of fear, of suspicion and of pettiness Mr. Speaker, the question is: What is to be done? I am not here to suggest a cure for the Nationalist Party, but it is clear that today thinking people are in fact saying what in their opinion is wrong with that party. The difficulty is that if this party can go on winning elections on this unintellectual basis, on this emotional basis, there is no hope for South Africa as a whole because the day may come when as a result of this policy there may be threats from overseas, from the United Nations, threats of such a terrible nature that one does not even want to mention them now. And then it will be too late for them, for us, and for all of us. What is to be done? The Burger makes a suggestion when it says—

Do hon. members opposite agree?

Of course.

I wonder why there are so few “hear, hears” when one quotes from the Burger nowadays. Mr. Speaker, there is one bit of advice which is more of a humorous nature but which is of importance and which I should perhaps read to the House. This is the further advice which the Burger has given to the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration. He has been given this advice. When the charges of intellectual leaders are to be answered, then the Burger says—

Does the hon. the Minister agree? He does not say “no he probably agrees. The Burger has given this advice to hon. members opposite, and it has also given advice to the intellectual leaders or former leaders of the Nationalist Party; the advice is this—

Do hon. members opposite not agree? I think this is an appeal which has been made in all seriousness to these intellectual leaders. It is the duty of those leaders to follow this advice. I once again want to remind the ordinary Nationalist of the words which I have already read to the House—

Mr. Speaker, it is not my duty to make the task of these intellectual leaders more difficult. Perhaps the value of some of them is to be found precisely in the fact that they remain outside and even above ordinary party politics, but I say this: If this Government does not change its attitude, then we are doomed for all time to come, and the question arises whether this Government has changed its attitude or not? Are they prepared to allow a minor concession; are they prepared to allow freedom of thought or are they going to allow the granite curtain to descend on their party? The answer to that is to be found in the statement which has been made by the Federal Council of the National Party and seeing that this is a matter which I should like to discuss a little more fully, I should like to move—

I second.

Agreed to; debate adjourned until 26th January.