I should like to make the following statement. The Whip of the United Party, Mr. Hopewell, handed me a note in which he informed me that the hon. member for Transkeian Territories (Mr. Hughes) had been called away whilst I was speaking in the House yesterday. I read “had been called to the phone” and it will be noted that that is what I said in my speech, whereas it should have been that he had been called “home”. I have always considered it discourteous to accuse and to challenge a person who under such circumstances, due to domestic affairs, cannot be present. Therefore, and owing to the fact that my words are open to a narrower interpretation, I withdraw the following words: “My accusation against him is that in a subtle way he did everything to fan the trouble in Pondoland”. I hereby withdraw those words.

When the debate was adjourned yesterday afternoon, I was accusing this Government, in plain language, of having grown too big for its boots. There are many examples of that. One example is the fact that, for the first time in our history, the Prime Minister has allowed a photograph of himself to appear on a stamp; another example is the fact that we learnt a few days ago that a tremendous tower is to be erected at Johannesburg, a tower of nearly 800 feet in height, for broadcasting purposes, and that that tower is to be called the Albert Hertzog Tower. It seems to me that that is the one concession which is to be made to the English-speaking section when a republic is declared, namely that the republic is to have an Albert Memorial.

I also accused the Government yesterday of suffering from a persecution mania and I referred to the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development. But we can likewise refer to the hon. the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs, the Minister who said that the British missionary societies wanted to make English “gentlemen” of the Natives. As though that would be such a terrible thing to do. The hon. the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs also said that the South African war was still being waged but that instead of the British Tommy the enemy was using the Native. The hon. the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs even said something worse, namely, that the mining magnates would benefit if we had a Black Government which they would be able to bribe, like Lumumba, who received £650,000. Or worse than that, when he said that the choice was between breaking the power of the Press of the mining industry or destroying the White man. That is a direct threat against the Press of South Africa and the freedom of the Press.

I accused the Government of being intolerant; of turning intolerance into a virtue and of elevating hatred of freedom of speech to a battle cry and in actual fact of having drawn a granite curtain—I am using the word “granite” which was used by the hon. the Prime Minister in order to describe his own policy. This issue, Mr. Speaker, came to an outburst in the Burger where a few well-meaning persons suggested that the Coloureds should be represented by Coloureds in this House. Immediately there was an outburst on the part of the ordinary members of the party opposite, and well-meaning Nationalist Party supporters were accused of being in favour of equality; of throwing in the towel and even of being in favour of miscegenation. The Burger, however, came forward with an appeal that we should handle this crisis, this confidential matter, with all the calm, self-control and statesmanship at our command and from the point of view of mature leadership. The Burger also issued a warning which read as follows—

There was a warning against the knocking down and dragging out of prominent thinkers within their own ranks. What happened? No notice was taken of this warning. The steamroller of the Nationalist Party steamrolled from the north on to the south, and behind it came the people who were described in a letter to the Burger by Nationalists as “infuriated Verwoerdians”. They arrived here, held a war council and the Federal Council of the Nationalist Party met here and it was prosecutor, judge and hangman at the same time. That Federal Council of the Nationalist Party gave a reply, a deadly reply, to all thinking South Africans. It appeared in the Transvaler under the heading “Government best able to decide The Government knows best in every respect, according to that report. In spite of the warning that they should not be decapitated, the Federal Council of the Government came along and tried to decapitate them and did in fact knock them out and tried to drag them away. What does the resolution say? In spite of the appeal that this idea of representation of the Coloured by Coloureds should not be destroyed for all time, the following appears in the resolution passed by the Federal Council—

Then the following appears—

Hear, hear!

What has happened to the plea made by the Burger that it is wrong to bind the party for the distant future?

This statement by the Federal Council contained a minor concession, namely that the Congress of the Nationalist Party may at some later date bring about a change in this policy. I will tell you, Sir, why that was added. Not because a change is envisaged by having Coloureds represented by Coloureds, but in point of fact because the Government envisages the total abolition of the Coloured representatives in the House of Assembly at a later stage. I now ask any hon. member opposite to rise …

May I ask the hon. member a question?

I am sorry but my time is limited and I trust, Sir, you will allow me “injury time” for all these interjections. I am asking any member opposite to deny that they envisage the ultimate abolition of the White representatives of the Coloureds in this House. Let them deny it. The way was paved yesterday by the hon. the Deputy Minister of the Interior when he referred to the extension of the Union Coloured Council and the granting of legislative power to them. What is the underlying aim of that? Simply to get rid of the four Coloured representatives here.

What is going to happen now? Are these thinking people going to capitulate, are they going to go down on their knees and ask for forgiveness for what they did in the past? Somebody interjected “Dawie is going to ask for forgiveness I should like to know whether that is the case, whether that has in fact already happened? It has happened in the past. A thousand years ago the Emperor of the mightiest empire in the world at the time had to go on his knees and had to stand for three days in the snow, barefoot, in order to confess and ask Pope Gregory VII for forgiveness at Canossa. Have hon. members opposite met their Canossa? Did they go to Canossa here at Groot Schuur to confess and now they are sitting silent behind the granite curtain. Perhaps you cannot blame them, Sir, because the grass is green behind the granite curtain, there are riches; there the mess of pottage tastes good. [Time limit.]

The hon. member who has just resumed his seat has claimed injury time. I am afraid that nobody sustained injuries during his speech, yesterday or to-day. To his disappointment there was no injury time.

Never in all my years in this House have I ever seen an Opposition so obviously disappointed and frustrated as during this debate. The speech of the hon. member who has just sat down was really characterized by one main theme alone, viz. deep disappointment, and tears of inconsolable frustration because the hope which during the last few months had revived and flared up in their minds has proved to be a foolish one, and one which has shamed them. That is why one finds this bitter disappointment opposite. They thought that a microscopic crack had appeared in the gigantic democratic fortress of the Nationalist Party.

You are now talking from behind the granite curtain.

The eyes of the Opposition are not even quite dry yet after the crushing defeat they suffered on 5 October; their eyes are still red from the sorrows of yesterday, and now they are weeping again. This time it is about their cruel disillusionment. The rocklike fortress of the Nationalist Party still remains standing and towers far above all the political parties in South Africa put together, and it will not fall. All that the hon. member for Orange Grove —and with that I leave him—now has in his possession is a bundle of newspaper cuttings with which he has entertained us since yesterday. He can now store them away in his Africana of disappointments.

In the speech of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition there were a few unexpected disillusionments to which I would like to refer. After having condemned the Government on Tuesday from Dan to Berseba, he could not find even a solitary word of praise concerning a single action of the Nationalist Government to defend the Government. But then I was pleasantly surprised when he said that when he was overseas he found himself defending the Government. His deep subconscious thoughts, which here in South Africa he tries to repress, found expression overseas. A deep subconscious admiration, a sneaking admiration for this Nationalist Government! But then in his speech he made a less pleasant revelation, and that was the last thing I thought we could expect. He attacked us vigorously because the Government last year during the riots acted so speedily and forcefully under the emergency regulations against the vagrants and the tsotsis and the robbers and the rioters and the disturbers of the peace. It now appears from the hon. member’s remarks that he is really acting as their champion. Here in the Cape Peninsula and environs the skollies and inciters wanted to take action, and they will be the first to be grateful to the hon. gentleman for what he has said here, perhaps unwittingly. He asks: What will the world say about us for having arrested them in such large numbers? I add “to restore peace and good order in South Africa”. He asks why we arrested such large numbers and eventually brought only a small percentage of them before the courts? What will the world say about that? He says in his speech—

These poor lawless vagrants and tsotsis and robbers and thieves! He continues—

How many?

The hon. member will understand that I cannot give the figures now, because there are still some of them who will have to appear before the courts. He goes on to say—

Has the hon. member now forgotten for the moment that he is talking about a state of emergency, about a time when there were emergency regulations in force in South Africa and when the Government could detain people for longer than 48 hours without bringing them before the court? What did he want? These thousands who were arrested under the emergency regulations, in connection with which the Government was thanked so much from all sides because it restored peace and quiet to these areas where the people suffered so much under these burdens …

Why did it happen?

That is quite a different matter. But does he now forget for the moment what the position was? Did he want us to charge individually all these thousands who had been arrested, all within 48 hours (because that is the existing law if there are no emergency regulations)? Should a proper indictment have been framed for all these thousands within 48 hours, and should they have been brought before the courts and tried ?

But now you must give the information.

No, the hon. member will understand quite well that I cannot do so at this stage, for the simple reason that all those cases have not been disposed of yet. I hope to be able to give the details within the near future, but the hon. member will still have to wait a little. I am not complaining about the fact that the hon. member says that only a small number were eventually charged, but what I am complaining about is that he accuses us of not immediately having brought those people before court and led the evidence. How on earth could we do that?

That is not what I said. I said “after weeks and months”.

What is the implication if the hon. member says: “If the Government had the evidence, why did it not charge them”? Surely the hon. member knows how the police set to work in such cases. It takes the police a long time to interrogate these people properly and to correlate the evidence, etc. I need not say more about the long time which elapses in an investigation in which thousands of people are concerned. I see the hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Lawrence) looking at me. It also happened in his time when he was Minister of Justice. It takes a long time before the police are able to frame a charge against people, particularly when thousands of people are involved in a case. I say that South Africa is grateful to-day, and also the people in those places. They are grateful to the Government for having taken swift and decisive action at that time, and for having proclaimed emergency regulations so that under those regulations it could act not only swiftly but also decisively and could remove thousands of people from the streets, people who were breaking into motor-cars and stealing. By putting those people behind bars, peace and order could be restored and maintained in South Africa. It is obvious that thereafter, when we could find no evidence against these people, we again had to release them, and that is why a large number of them were released. I would like to see who will get up in this House and blame the Government before the public by saying that we acted wrongly by arresting these people in their thousands when they were responsible for these things!

They were locked up without evidence and again released without evidence.

I think there is a great feeling of jealousy opposite because the Government succeeded in restoring peace and good order in South Africa through adopting forceful measures.

Another rude awakening for me was that the Leader of the Opposition found it necessary at all to discuss in the way in which he did the case which Abyssinia and Liberia brought before the International Court in connection with South West. That is a matter which only very partially falls under my Department, and therefore I just want to refer to it in passing. What was the object of this portion of his speech? I studied this portion of his speech carefully and I asked myself what the object could have been of a Leader of an Opposition in discussing this matter at this stage and in the way in which he did. Does he want to frighten South Africa away from the course it has adopted? I must honestly admit that I do not know what his object was. He told us what frightful results there would be for our country if South Africa loses the case. But there was not a word of praise, not a word of encouragement that South Africa should fight and win. There was not a single word to say in what a favourable position South Africa will be if it wins the case. He did not even ask whether we would fight the case. He did not even say that he would support us if we did fight it. No, he tells the House, with all the responsibility resting upon him, what the results will be if we lose the case. I say that if he wanted to be fair in his discussion, he should also have voiced a note of praise for foreign consumption.

When I offered you my co-operation, what was your attitude?

Now the hon. member evidently feels hurt. I do not believe that the way the hon. member put it is correct, but even if he feels hurt over what happened he should still have had enough sense of responsibility as the Leader of the Opposition, as the Leader of a strong party, to handle this matter in such a manner that no finger could be pointed at him, particularly in view of the prejudice existing overseas. He says—

And then he says that the Security Council will be the “sheriff charged with the duty of carrying out the judgement He asks us—

And then he further lays this at our door—

Does he want to invite sanctions? I just want to return to that portion of the hon. member’s speech, and I hope the Prime Minister will deal with him in that regard, but I say that he is sailing very close to the wind …

Which wind?

Very close to the wind of which those who attack South Africa at UN are so fond.

I just pointed out what could happen.

But surely the hon. member is the leader of a party. Now he comes here and only points to one side of the matter and tries to frighten South Africa in regard to what might happen if we lose, but he does not deal with the other side, what will happen if we win. He does not get up and say: “I will stand behind you. If you fight, fight to win.” I can imagine, and the hon. member can surely realize with what complete satisfaction and pleasure people at UN will quote this part of the speech of the Leader of the Opposition, and I am not sure whether Ethiopia and Liberia will not feel encouraged to quote this part of the speech of the Leader of the Opposition in South Africa before the International Court.

But now I want to conclude by referring to what came to me as the greatest surprise. Instead of, as I expected, there being severe criticism from that side of the House because the Government decided to table the Sharpeville and Langa reports at this stage instead of later, the hon. member attacks the Government and says that we waited too long.

And so you did.

Give me a chance to deal with the point. At the very least he accuses us of a neglect of duty because we tabled those reports only on Monday. He says we should have done it much earlier, and he has now repeated it. He says that we should even have published them in July.

And what did the Burger say about it?

Yes, I accept that the Burger did not have the facts available. They could not have the facts at their disposal because we could not give them the facts. I shall explain the position in a moment. Then the hon. the Leader of the Opposition says that Bishop Reeves is now a jump ahead of us with his book. That is the man who did not want to make use of the opportunity given to him by the Government to come and give evidence in connection with dum-dum bullets and such statements he had made in regard to Sharpeville. Now I want to tell the hon. member this. Even though one humbly asks the Angel Gabriel to bring out a report about Sharpeville and Langa, and that report is in our favour, that will still not stop Reeves from distributing his book right throughout the world. Nothing will stop him, neither before nor afterwards.

Now what are the facts? When the Government recently decided to publish the findings of the Judges, it was proper and correct, I say, to decide to lay the reports on the Table of the House instead of giving them to the Press. Apart from the fact that reports tabled in Parliament are less susceptible to possible distortions or important omissions, Parliament has the right to demand that wherever possible such reports should first be tabled in Parliament. Mr. Speaker, there are still many people on both sides of the House who are jealous of the traditions and privileges of Parliament. The hon. the Prime Minister announced in the House last year that he would appoint two commissions. If that was our only reason for the delay for which we are being blamed now, it would in my opinion have been sufficient reason. The Langa report came to hand on 30 June already for consideration. That is correct, although the hon. member said that we should really have stated what it contained in July. But it was wise of the Government to decide that the two reports should be published simultaneously.

Why?

The first reason is that both deal with certain matters which are similar. After the Judge had finally scrutinized and approved of the Sharpeville report, it was put into the hands of the Department of Justice on 25 October to be rounded off and thereafter to be studied by the departments concerned, and to make the usual departmental résumés of it. After study and comment by the departments concerned, the report was put into my hands on 28 November. A few days later it was in the hands of my colleagues in the Cabinet, who had to study and consider it. Sir, if this course of events which I have just briefly sketched were the only reason for the delay, it would in my opinion still have been a good reason. But there is sufficient reason for delaying the release of the reports until Monday, after Parliament had met. If I mention it, I think the hon. member, who is a lawyer, will be the first to realize that he should not so easily accuse us of neglect of duty when in fact we took well-considered and wise action as behoves a responsible Government. The Government was faced with a dilemma, and after careful consideration had to choose the lesser evil, viz. to lay the reports on the Table of the House. In both reports, both in regard to Sharpeville and Langa, there are findings about the credibility of some of the witnesses who appeared before the commissions. Some of these witnesses were charged because of their actions in regard to the riots, and the cases against them were gradually disposed of during the final months of last year. However, a number of them have not yet been disposed of. Some of the other witnesses before the commissions are also witnesses in criminal cases, and in some cases findings were made about their credibility.

But that cannot be used in evidence at the trial.

The Government also has its law advisers.

That is necessary.

If that hon. member were to go there, I am afraid he would not even understand what they say. The possibility therefore had to be considered that these findings could prejudice the Crown case or the accused, or both, if the reports were released before the criminal cases were disposed of.

I do not understand that.

I will explain it further. As the result of the Sharpeville riots, a large number of persons were charged. Approximately 85 were charged with violence. In connection with Langa, there was a smaller number, which at the moment is not yet available to me. They were, however, fewer. As I have said, in recent months these cases were speedily disposed of, but a number of them still remain over. In regard to Sharpeville, there are still about 22 cases awaiting trial; at Vanderbijlpark 13, and in connection with Langa there are still about 20. Therefore there were still dozens of criminal cases which could possibly be prejudiced by the publication of the reports. Then the hon. member says that everything was done so secretly and that we did not acquaint the public with the position from time to time. I cannot understand how during the course of the hearing of a commission one can be expected to inform the public about it from time to time, because the daily Press continuously kept the public au fait with the course of events. Strong pressure was exerted on the Government by the Press that we should please hand over these reports to them for publication, and we can understand that. On the other hand, the Government’s advisers and particularly the Attorneys-General strenuously urged the Government not to publish them in these circumstances. Under those circumstances we did not publish those reports until a certain stage. Now the number of cases has diminished appreciably, and now something has happened which made the Government decide that in all the circumstances, with the pressure exerted on us and in view of the questions that would be asked, we should publish these reports. Because you will realize, Mr. Speaker, that if the Government throughout these months were to have said “We cannot publish and do not want to publish because it will affect certain people who still have to be tried”, not only would we have prejudiced them but we would also have prejudiced the State and its case. How much conjecture would it have resulted in the Press? There would have been speculation as to what these reports embodied, and then we would have had to publish the reports. But we would have had all those speculations in the Press inside and outside South Africa.

I would like to put a question to the hon. the Minister. I understand him to say that one of the reasons why the reports were not published was because it could have prejudiced certain cases which were still pending. There are, however, still cases pending, and am I now to understand that publication will not prejudice them?

The Government has now decided to publish the reports because a whole number of these cases have been finalized. The remaining ones are still pending. But I want to repeat that great pressure was exerted on the Government to publish, and when we met here there was immediately further pressure. The hon. member opposite wanted us to publish earlier. Now I say that the Government had to say that it would not publish and could not publish because people would be prejudiced. I repeat that if this were to have been done, one would not have been able to see the end of the conjecture in the Press as to what the reports contained. The question would have been asked: But what is being hidden? What are you hiding; what is there which cannot be divulged? Therefore the wise course adopted by the Government on the advice of its advisers was to say: Wait a little, let us go slowly, let us first finalize some of these cases; and now there are still a number of cases over. The Government had to choose between two evils and it had to choose the lesser one, viz. to publish. Something happened which encouraged the Government in this standpoint. Suddenly, during the first week of January, Kgosana, the leader of the rioters here, committed contempt of court and broke his bail. He fled together with four others.

To the best of our knowledge, and that was published in the Press, he went to Basutoland. This leader is being charged under various Acts of inciting riots. There is no expectation that these four men will return to South Africa soon, if ever. I want to repeat, if ever. Kgosana and the others are some of the most important of the persons who still have to be tried. There are others also, but their cases are not quite so serious. Therefore I say that the Government had to choose between two evils, and it chose the lesser. On both sides the road was strewn with thorns. On the one hand, if we published we would have prejudiced people who still had to be tried. If we did not publish, I would have been asked the question day after day, and quite correctly: Why do you not publish; what is the Government hiding, and what is there to hide? I repeat, and I think it is correct to say, that the Government did not neglect its duty. It chose the lesser of two evils. The Government acted cautiously and judiciously.

Am I now to understand that there are still cases pending apart from those of the people who fled?

I have given the figures of the remaining cases, and I have just answered the question of the hon. member for Salt River. But I say we chose the lesser of two evils, and I consider that you must agree that the Government adopted a very wise attitude.

Mr. Speaker, in the party political sphere, I have always attached particular importance to the spirit and the attitude which a political party reveals in handling the country’s affairs, its sympathy for the ordinary man and his difficulties and the methods which it applies in carrying out its policy. This has always been far more important to me than the written programme which it advocates at a specific time, because I do not know of one single party which in the long run and from time to time has not radically changed its written policy. To tell the truth, political parties nearly always take on the outlook and the character as well as the plans and the programme of its leader. That is why there is a vast difference between the Nationalist Party of General Hertzog and the Nationalist Party of to-day just as there was a great difference between the United Party after 1939 and the United Party when General Hertzog led it. I therefore believe that it is the duty of every politician from time to time, and particularly after the election of a new leader who imposes his outlook on a party, to make a critical valuation of his political party to see whether he is not simply serving his party out of habit and out of sentiment, although that party is not furthering the interests of the country to the best possible advantage.

As far as the Nationalist Party is concerned, I can say that I have always been prepared, and still am to-day, to give it the fullest credit for those things which it has done which are good and which have enriched the country. No reasonable person would for example deny that the Nationalist Party has carried out great historic tasks in South Africa. After all it is the Nationalist Party more than any other party which has made South Africa a sovereign independent country, which has gained for the Afrikaans language its due, and which has given South Africa a political personality of her own, based on her own constitution; a citizenship of our own; and a South African National Anthem and flag with which to symbolize our freedom. I personally have always regarded it as a source of great satisfaction that I as a Member of Parliament for the past ten years have played a constructive part in this House in several of these steps. And I want to say frankly that if these matters were still to-day, as they were on occasion in the past, the dominating issues in our political life, I would without hesitation throw in my weight with the Nationalist Party. But our political needs have changed drastically in recent years. New ideas have arisen in the world, particularly in respect of human relationships. They have aroused new aspirations amongst the peoples of the world, particularly the unfree peoples. Furthermore it has in the space of a few short years completely changed the map of the world, which in turn has affected the composition of every international organization in the world, and has created so many new circumstances and so many new power groupings that it has become necessary for even the strongest of these nations to initiate drastic readjustments and revaluations, not only in their foreign policy, but in their domestic policies as well. And it is in the handling of this problem of human relationships and the spirit in which it does so and is still doing so, more than anything else, that we must judge the Government to-day and decide whether South Africa can afford this Government any longer.

Mr. Speaker, one can only judge a government in one way, and that is by the results of its actions. One cannot really compare it with a previous government because each previous government was faced with different circumstances. Nor can one compare it with any future government because no one can even prophesy correctly what will happen tomorrow. We can only judge a government by its own norms, by the expectations which it itself aroused and by the practical results of its own régime. And I feel that it is only a person who is completely without any vision and completely blinded by his party prejudice who would say that it is impossible to make of this country a finer and happier land than this Government has made it. Of course we shall never have perfection and on one expects this Government to be perfect. Nor does any opposition party offer perfection. But it always surprises me when I hear the argument from hon. members opposite that if the Opposition should come into power with its present policy in respect of race relations, and if they concede anything, the demands would become ever greater. Mr. Speaker, have the demands ceased now that this Government is in power? I have never heard such a weak and futile argument as saying that if one makes a concession or an adjustment, one will always be faced with new demands. Of course there are always new demands. Are all the Whites then satisfied? Half the Whites are opposed to the Government. We shall never satisfy everyone completely and there will always be demands. If the Government can tell me to-day that its policy has resulted in the non-Whites ceasing to make demands, then I would immediately give it my support. There will always be demands. Whether there are three Native representatives in this House or none, the demands remain. What the Government’s argument amounts to in effect is that if one cannot give a man caviare, then he should not eat bread either. No, Mr. Speaker, the task of a good government is not to satisfy everyone completely because that one can never do. The task of a good government is to strive to provide the greatest measure of satisfaction to the greatest number of people. I ask the Government: Is it completely impossible for them to govern in such a way and to create a political state of affairs under which the English-speaking people of this country can also participate in the government of the country? Is it impossible for them to govern in such a way that we would at least have some strong friends in the outside world? Is it impossible for them to govern in such a way that they treat the non-Whites with greater fairness, and give them, if not complete satisfaction, at least greater satisfaction without the White man being destroyed? Is it impossible for them even to apply apartheid on such a basis that it can be implemented in a more humane manner?

Mr. Speaker, this Government has now been in power for nearly 13 years and during that time it has insisted that it has the only and the final solution for all our problems; and in the fixed belief that it has the final solution for everything, it has not allowed anything to stand in the way of the implementation of its policy—neither the constitution, nor the composition of Parliament, nor the courts, nor moral considerations, nor its best friends in the outside world, nor world opinion. It has not allowed anything to stand in its way. Here in this House it has had a large and willing majority behind it with which it could do and pass everything it wished. Acts have streamed from this Parliament at the rate of 70, 80 and more per session; the Statutes are no longer issued in one volume; they are now nearly always issued in two volumes annually. I am mentioning this to show that in the past 13 years the Government has ruled as though it is an army of occupation. It has placed every aspect of our lives under legal control: What one’s race is and what one’s colour is and how it is to be determined; where one may live and where one may own property; with whom one may eat and talk and where one may do so; when one is an official, even how one should greet a Bantu if one does not want to lose one’s job; on which benches one may sit; where one may relax; in which taxi one may ride; what type of work one may do; whether one is allowed to travel abroad; what one may read—to a far greater extent than ever before; where one may sit in a bus and in which bus one may travel; through which entrance one may enter a public building; … [Interjections.]

You voted for all of them.

I am merely putting the facts. To say that I voted for all these things is wrong because most of them were done by regulation. Every aspect of our life in South Africa has been placed under law and regulation. One must even have a Government permit to take a sick servant to his home. All this if one is fortunate enough to be a White man. If one is a Native, there are ten additional regulations for every one to which a White man is subject. The Minister of Bantu administration recently even issued regulations making it obligatory that when a Native dies and his family wish to place a gravestone on his grave, they must obtain the permission of the local director of Native Affairs for the wording of the inscription which they wish to place on the stone. To-day one is therefore controlled from birth to the epitaph on one’s grave. As far as I know, Mr. Speaker, there is not a single country in the world without exception in which the life of the citizens is subject in time of peace to so many regulations as the citizens of South Africa under the strong hand of the present Government.

I have always regarded the task of a Government in a democratic country to be that it should make the life of its people as easy as possible. Apparently this Government regards it as its task to make the life of its people as complicated and as difficult as possible with as much control and as many regulations as it can devise. I have said that 13 years have now passed. They have carried out everything they wished to carry out in the way they wished. And, Mr. Speaker, those who did not support every action of the Government were summarily ejected from the governing party. At the end of this period it is surely right and just to ask: With all these laws, with all the control and all these regulations, has any problem of importance really been solved; and if so, which problem? What has been solved? Has the White man been saved? Is there anyone in this country who feels safer, who feels that his future is safer and whose mind is more at east? No, Mr. Speaker, listen to the speeches made by hon. members opposite and listen to the speeches which they make outside. These are still the same speeches as they made 13 years ago. It is still the same hopeless back-to-the-wall policy—just a little worse. The Whites are now in greater danger than before, and despite all the anti-communistic legislation there are now—if I am to judge by the speeches of Ministers—more communists in South Africa than ever before. I think that if we analyse the position correctly, this Government has not become the solver of problems, but the creator of problems. Take our main problem, the relationship between White and non-White. It is useless for the hon. the Minister to say that in the past there were also disturbances among the Natives. That is so. But have we in South Africa ever had a position such as we had last year during the parliamentary session in the Cape when Parliament looked like an armed camp, when tanks and machine guns had to be erected in Parliament Street and when Ministers had to be guarded by soldiers with drawn bayonets? Have we ever in time of peace experienced so much disruption as we did last year, and this in areas which had previously been peaceful, such as the towns of the Boland and a place such as Windhoek? Have we ever had such large-scale arrests as we have had under this Government? Twenty thousand people in one fell swoop.

There have been many more in the past.

Then we have had the interning in time of peace of nearly 2,000 citizens most of whom were simply taken in the night and incarcerated for five months without being charged, without trial and without even having the elementary right of obtaining legal advice. During the Second World War, during a time of war, the then Government considered it necessary, rightly or wrongly—I am merely putting the facts—to intern the German citizens, most of whom were in South West, and the Nationalist Party raised violent objections. Hansard is full of speeches in which Nationalist Party members and present Ministers objected to people being interned without trial—and this in time of war. And the German people of South West gained the impression that in the Nationalist Party they had democrats of firm principle and they gave the Nationalist Party their full support. But two decades later, now that they themselves are in power, they are not only doing the same thing, but to a far greater extent. They are interning people in time of peace, and they are doing so to born citizens of this country. Have we ever had a position in this country where an important Minister has had to make an admission to the world such as the following? In November last year the Minister of Bantu Administration was forced to make the following statement. I am reading from the Burger of 8 November 1960. He said—

In other words, he admits that there are irritating measures for which he is responsible. But he went on—

When we on this side of the House said that there were measures causing hardship and which should be removed, we were accused of being agitators. But here the Minister himself admits it. “Hardship” is a strong word; it means suffering and privation. Not only does the Minister admit that there are regulations, for which he and his predecessor are responsible, which are causing hardship, but regulations which are causing unnecessary hardship. This statement was issued on a Sunday and I think that had something to do with the frankness the Minister revealed on this occasion. I cannot think of anyone in this House who has ever given our enemies in the outside world so much ammunition as this Minister by this admission which he has made. A little while later he made another statement to the Press which the Burger of 12 December 1960 reported as follows—

Precisely what we have said. When they abolished the Native Representatives from this House, we made the point that there was insufficient contact between Parliament and the Native but the Minister said the officials were there. More than a year later he admits that there is insufficient contact between the senior officials and the Bantu of this country. The question arises: Can South Africa at such a time afford such a Minister and such a Government who admit before the world that they have done things which are causing the Bantu unnecessary hardship? I think that if there is a Minister who deserves to be replaced, it is this Minister. And I now want to say that we in South West would rather not be linked with such a state of affairs, and I shall later ask pertinently that control over the Native affairs of South West should be handed over to South West itself.

Take the relationship between the White man and the Coloured. I sat yesterday and listened to the arguments of the hon. the Prime Minister when he tried to justify his racial policy on moral grounds. He used the metaphor of four pillars, i.e. the Whites, the Bantu, the Indians and the Coloureds, and he said that each group could rise in its own sphere to equally great heights in every phase of life— without any limitation. In other words, the Coloureds would eventually obtain what the Whites have to-day, only on a separate basis. Mr. Speaker, that proposition may be correct in the case of the Bantu who live in the Bantu areas such as the Transkei, if the Government ever gets as far as implementing what they have promised, but it is not true of the Bantu outside the Bantu areas. Nor is it true of the Indians in South Africa, and it is definitely not true of the Coloureds. What is the highest level which the hon. the Prime Minister foresees for the Coloured while there is not, nor will there be, any question of his having a separate state and while the Coloured’s whole social, economic and political future is bound up with that of the Whites? The most the Prime Minister and his Deputy Minister of the Interior can foresee is an Advisory Coloured Council which will eventually be able to control local affairs, while it will be this Parliament which will take the final decisions over all matters affecting the life of the Coloureds. As a matter of fact, under the Government’s policy, the Coloureds who are the closest to us are treated the least fairly. The hon. the Prime Minister has had much to say about the material benefits which they are being offered and I readily concede that all improvements must be welcomed. But has the Government forgotten the history of the Afrikaner people? In the old imperialistic days the Afrikaners were also told: Look at the material advantages the Empire offers you, safety, security, economic stability; drop the idea of secession and we shall look after your material welfare. What was the Afrikaner’s reply? Rather the ash heap in freedom, than all the fine materialistic promises of the Empire. There is no nation which thinks any differently and the Coloured people do not think differently either. It does not matter what material benefits one gives the Bantu or the Coloureds. Eventually every nation will say: Rather the ash heap and freedom than be restricted and humiliated with a whole pile of materialistic goods. Under the Prime Minister’s policy the Coloureds are far worse off than the Bantu; and I want to emphasize that the Prime Minister was not correct when he put forward the proposition that the Coloureds would be able to progress as far as the Whites in all spheres, including the political sphere. And as far as the Coloured policy of the Government is concerned. it does not have a moral foot to stand on. It is no wonder that the main spiritual leaders of South Africa who have all reached the top through their knowledge and merit have now come out in open rebellion against the Prime Minister and the Government’s policy.

I want to go further and say that the Government is not even consistent as regards the Coloureds either. A little while ago the Nationalist Party appointed a commission under the chairmanship of the M.P.C. for Paarl. That commission had to investigate the question of the municipal rights of the Coloureds. In its report that commission accepted the principle that the Coloureds could continue to sit with the Whites on the Cape Town City Council. Mr. Speaker, 200 yards from this Parliament of South Africa the Cape Town City Council sits on which the Coloureds have direct representation. Whites and Coloureds are on a Common Roll, and Coloureds even represent Whites in the City Council of Cape Town. I have wondered whether the Cape Town City Council with all its committees does, not sometimes sit more than the 100 days which Parliament normally sits. Now I ask: What is the difference in principle between direct representation for the Coloureds in the Cape Town City Council and direct representation for them in this Parliament?

May I ask a question?

My time is too limited. What is more, Sir, the Nationalist Party for years had Coloured organizers and Coloureds sat with their leaders, with great men like Dr. Malan, on the same platform at Nationalist Party Congresses. For many years Coloureds sat on the provincial council, on the divisional councils and on the hospital boards of Cape Town, and they sat there with Nationalists. Were the Whites destroyed as a result? Did the Whites suffer as a result of that form of direct representation for the Coloureds? What the hon. the Prime Minister has forgotten is that the Coloureds are a minority group. They do not even number half the White population of South Africa. How on earth can one say that the Coloureds as a minority group can represent a threat to the White man or his civilization?

Which congresses?

The hon. member should read something about the history of his party. At many congresses in the Cape, Coloureds sat with the leaders on the platform. Does the hon. member deny it? I shall now wager him £1,000. I said so last year already, and I do not want to repeat it, that separate representation for the Coloureds in Parliament will only have a fair, just and moral basis if they have the right to send their own people as their representatives to Parliament, and I am particularly glad that this has been clearly accepted by the Leader of the Opposition as his policy. I want to say this to the Coloureds: It will come. It may take a while. As certain as we sit here, we shall see the Coloureds being given direct representation. That is just as certain as it is certain that the régime of this Government will come to an end.

What hurts me as an Afrikaans-speaking person most is that the population group in South Africa which is paying the highest price for the attitude of the Government towards the non-Whites is the Afrikaans-speaking people. The Nationalist Party consists mostly of Afrikaans-speaking people and because it always takes unto itself the right to speak on behalf of the Afrikaner, the unfortunate position has arisen that everything the Nationalist Party does, every hurtful statement it makes, every oppressive step it takes, is chalked up not against the Nationalist Party as a transient party which can disappear tomorrow, but against the Afrikaner people and the Afrikaans language as the language of that people. That is why one finds that the hatred of the other groups in South Africa is concentrated not on the White man as such but on the Afrikaner in particular. The devastating effect of this process can already be seen from the fact that more and more Coloureds are turning their back on Afrikaans as their home language. Last year the Burger published an analysis, and this was the conclusions it reached on the basis of the census statistics as regards the use of Afrikaans as their home language by the Coloureds. (The Burger, 1 January 1960)—

And they then use these significant words—

And a man such as Mr. Danie du Plessis, the General Manager of Railways, recently stated at an A.T.K.V. congress at Hartenbos. (The Burger, 21 September 1960)—

There is much other evidence. Just go and watch a football match at Newlands against a visiting team. The Coloureds, who were the most enthusiastic supporters of rugby and of the mainly Afrikaans teams, are now openly antagonistic. Watch the scenes we see there.

That was always the position.

That is untrue. For the language-conscious Afrikaner it is a disturbing development which is taking place, and the animosity which the Government is generating against the Afrikaner is also making itself evident in animosity towards the Afrikaans language. If this attitude should develop, not only amongst the Coloureds but amongst the Natives as well, Afrikaans as a language will have a difficult future in South Africa. Seen from all points of view, this Government, as a result of its attitude, its policies and its actions, is actually a disaster for the Afrikaans-speaking people. Let us remember one thing. Look what happened to the German people under the leadership of Hitler. Last year I toured through Europe. When one goes to Norway, one still finds bitterness 20 years after the war. One goes to Oslo with its gigantic city hall and on the one whole wall we find immortalized scenes from the occupation period depicting the actions of the Gestapo. They stand there permanently. One goes to Holland and one sees the monuments which are a reproach to the army of occupation. The hatred which Hitler caused will not be eliminated for generations to come and I tell you, Sir, this Government is generating this same type of bitterness amongst the non-White peoples of this country, with this difference that it is actually we, the Afrikaans-speaking people, who will be singled out and who will feel the full force of this hatred in the future. For that reason I am glad that Afrikaans Church leaders, Afrikaans businessmen, Afrikaans farming leaders, and Afrikaans academic leaders are coming forward one after the other and taking their stand against the oppressive actions of the Government. The day will also come when the majority of the ordinary Afrikaans-speaking people will realize and see what is happening and will join these leaders. There is already a tremendous movement taking place in the Christian consciousness of the nation, and the Government can do just what it likes, but it is not going to escape the final effect of this movement. I said at the outset that I attached decisive importance to the spirit and the attitude of a political party, and if ever a newspaper wrote a true word, then it was written by the political correspondent of the Star not long ago. He said—

That is true. It is the Government’s absolutism. It is the way in which it applies the Group Areas Act—always to the detriment of the non-White sections. It is its inhumane application of job reservation. It is its continuous threats against the freedom of the Press. It is the intolerant attitude of its leaders and their over-sensitivity to criticism. A witch hunt is set afoot against everyone who does not follow the leader, who does not walk where the leader walks and who does not become angry when the leader becomes angry. There is the unfortunate way in which the human dignity of the non-White is being continually detracted from; the large-scale interning of citizens, without charge and without trial. There is the continuous refusal of passports and the withdrawl of passports which represents nothing but intimidation of those people who differ politically from the Government. It is these things and this attitude which has resulted in our being without friends in the West and in our membership of the Commonwealth hanging on a thread. It is these things which are making our position at the United Nations untenable, so much so that yesterday we were brought before the Security Council and to-morrow we shall once again be brought before the International Court. It is these things which are causing us to be completely isolated in Africa, which have brought immigration to a halt, which have caused race relations to deteriorate to such an extent that the position has sunk to a point unprecedented in our history, and which are causing us to be threatened by boycotts from every corner of the world, with the result that the hon. member for Aliwal (Capt. Strydom) was forced to say in an interview with the Burger on 5 July 1960—

Then we shall have to call in Russia’s help. [Interjections.] That is the stage we have already reached. Unfortunately it is particularly we who live in South West Africa who are going to be the main victim of the Government’s actions. When I was still a Government member, how often did I not plead and ask that the Government should not go to such extremes with its policy that it would become impossible for the few friends we still have in the world to support us? When the Native Representatives were expelled, I stated specifically that there are only a few friendly nations such as Australia, Britain and New Zealand who supported South Africa fairly regularly on the South West issue at the United Nations and I said: Do not make it so impossible for these people that we eventually do not have one single nation supporting us. But they simply pushed aside my representations and what has now happened? Last session we sent our biggest and most expensive ever delegation to the United Nations, and not once did any country which had supported us in the past support us again, not even, on points where technically we were correct. The best we could do was that on one occasion 11 countries abstained from voting. No one wishes to be seen any longer in the company of our Government on the foreign stage, and the final result of all this is that we have now reached the stage where there is active opposition to us. Earlier it was just talk, verbal attacks, and these were not so terribly dangerous, but we have now, as a result of the persistent blindness of the Government, reached the stage where active opposition to South Africa is threatening and we in South West run the danger that we shall have to pay the highest price. I therefore believe that if ever there was a Government which deserves a motion of no-confidence it is this one and if ever there was a time when it should be given that motion of no-confidence, then it is now.

Mr. Speaker, I will deal with the hon. member who has just sat down at a later stage, I am pleased that I am able to say a few words here to-day. I want to delve into the history of South Africa since 1910, for a moment, and talk about the disturbances which took place then, disturbances in which I unfortunately had to take part. I want to refer to the strikes which took place in Johannesburg in 1913, 1914 and in 1922. I had to take part in all those strikes and we know what the results were, people even had to be deported from the country. Now I come to 1938. At that time we had the so-called purified National Party. We were 27 and the mighty Government consisted of 111. A few of them are still in the House to-day. The hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Lawrence) was a member of the Cabinet at that time. [Interjections.] When England negotiates with Russia it is quite in order, and may we not do so? We were only 27 in 1938 but we carried on and in 1948 the present Government came into power. At that time the Transvaal had only one single representative, namely the late Adv. Strydom, and we know what the position is to-day. We came into power in 1948 and I told the Government that we would come into power. That is recorded in Hansard. My prophecy proved correct. Now I come to what this Government has done since it came into power. There was chaos. I want to be fair and add that it was just after the war. I was never in favour of a German victory, because it is bad to serve under the British but it is worse to serve under the Germans. We tackled all the problems. What is the position to-day? There is a young member over there, I remember the days when he was an organizer of the United Party Youth Front and he is more fanatical to-day than he was in those days. I notice that he has made such progress that he is able to finance three newspapers these days. He has a great deal of money.

Where does he get it?

He is a hard-working lad. I come now to the Leader of the Opposition. I knew his father and mother; they were noble people and I have known him for many years. He is an honest politician but he is out of touch with the people of South Africa and prevailing circumstances and the necessity to maintain White civilization. For three days we have been discussing this motion of no-confidence and what have we achieved? The hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. E. G. Malan) and a few other members spoke, and what they said was absolute nonsense. Sir, we must be careful. I have no other home, neither have most other members. We must be careful because every word which is uttered here against South Africa is published overseas and used against us. even if most of it is only 50 per cent true. I was speaking, how ever, about the strikes and the disturbances which took place. I took part in those because I was a soldier and had to carry out instructions, but during the régime of this Government we have experienced the most peaceful period we have ever had. What is happening in Kenya and Rhodesia? I was in Kenya for three years. There you find partnership and equality. A friend of mine from Rhodesia told me recently that the position was very serious; his property is valueless. He shares on a fifty-fifty basis with the Native but the latter is not satisfied. The Natives say “You must get to hell out of it ”. They say that they appreciate what has been done for them. They also say: “We appreciate what you British have done for us; you have allowed us to attend your universities at Oxford, Cambridge and London; you have taken us unto your confidence; you have brought a certain amount of civilization here. We appreciate all these things but this is our country and you must go.” That applies to Tanganyika and it applies to Uganda. I shall deal with the Congo at a later stage. What did Banda say the other day? He said: “We are not even going to listen to you.” He does not even wish to argue with the British. He simply says: The White man must go.

I now want to address a few words to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. I simply cannot understand why a man with his background and his knowledge—he is an advocate and he has been through the war; he has a wonderful record—is not sitting on this side of the House. He ought to be sitting here because what are we doing? We merely want to keep South Africa white. We did not take this country by force of arms; we brought civilization to this country; we civilized the Natives and to-day we are living in a country where the Native and the Coloured receive better treatment than in any other country in the world. Everywhere there is trouble; here we have peace and quiet. I am sorry for the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. I am sorry for him because he is a friend of mine and I am even more sorry for Jannie Steytler. I am sorry for the two of them because they are good people. I know Jannie’s family. His father and I fought together for a republic in the Second War of Independence.

Order! The hon. member should address hon. members in the customary manner.

I know who and what they are. Mr. Speaker, I will be courteous; I am always courteous. In that case I will address the hon. member as “the hon. member ”, but “Jannie” is a more exalted title than “the hon. member ”. As I have said, those two hon. members are both sons of South Africans. Their parents played an important role in South Africa. We all recognize that. To-day they are sitting there, divided. They talk about an alternative government. Where must that alternative government come from? Hon. members opposite grew up together; South Africa is the only home they have but they fight like cat and dog amongst themselves. What is happening to-day at Green Point with the by-election? The one says this and the other one says that. Yesterday they were friends but to-day they are enemies. They stand together, however, against South Africa and against us. I say “against South Africa” because the speeches to which I have listened here are not aimed at promoting the interests of South Africa. All their speeches are based on enmity towards South Africa. Mr. Speaker, as an old man and as the oldest member in this House, from the point of view of years of service, I am grieved when I listen to the arguments advanced by that side of the House, arguments which do not contribute anything towards solving the problems of South Africa. We should realize that we are talking like children and that we are insulting each other. That is stupid; it is not fitting.

[Inaudible.]

I remember the days of the Kruithoring. I remember what he said in the Kruithoring about those hon. members with whom he is sitting now. He has turned a complete somersault and where is he to-day? He is representing Orange Grove where you dare not speak Afrikaans, Sir, you must speak English alone. That is “fairplay ”. I want to make a suggestion. We dare not carry on in the manner in which we are carrying on in this House; we are committing suicide. The world is very turbulent, as all hon. members know. We know what is happening in the Congo, we know of the murders which are being committed there. Catholics are murdered, Christians are murdered, people of all nationalities are murdered, but not a word is said at UNO about that. There they only talk about what is the best to be done for the future. They do not talk about the murders which are committed in the Congo. Has murder ever been committed in South Africa on such a large scale? Never. I participated in all the big strikes in South Africa. Sharpeville and Langa were nothing compared to those.

What about Bulhoek?

We shot and killed 500 people there and I gave the order. I spoke to General Smuts and we sent Colonel Truter there with 1,200 men. Those people were mental defectives. Some of them had committed crimes and the Natives refused to hand the criminals over to the police. Negotiations were carried on for more than a year and then we left Pretoria by train at two o’clock in the morning for Bulhoek. I wrote a note to Enoch, the chief of the Natives there, and he wrote back: Do what you want, your bullets will turn into water. General van Deventer then asked me to write another note to the effect that they were surrounded. We had guns and machine guns and surrounded them with 1,200 men. I wrote: “Be sensible and hand the criminals over.” What happened? Enoch did not reply. A column of smoke rose on a hillock and they attacked us. They all wore a white type of frock over their dirty clothes with red caps. They attacked us and shot at us; not a single Native returned. I remember one. He had been shot and lay a few yards away from my feet. He had an old imitation weapon in his hand. Both his legs had been shot off. I took the weapon away from him and threw it away. He was so bloodthirsty that he crawled after it in an attempt to recover it. In any case, of the 600, 500 were killed.

During whose régime was that?

That was in 1921. That is what happened then. If that were to happen to-day, Sir, you can well imagine what a cry would go up in the world outside. Natives have been shot in Rhodesia, in Salisbury, but nothing was said about that. In Ghana the Opposition dare not show its face otherwise it is locked up. Mr. Speaker, I know the hon. the Minister of Justice. I have served under many Ministers, inter alia, the hon. member over there (Mr. Lawrence). The hon. member is a Christian; he is an honest person, he is a cultured person. When he makes a speech he does not have as many notes as the hon. member for Namib (Mr. J. D. du P. Basson) usually has. He speaks from memory and what he says goes home. He does not forget anything. He knows human nature and in his position he has to. It is because I know human nature that I have achieved a certain amount of success in the business world. The moment I meet a man I know whether or not he will cheat me.

I now want to deal with the Leader of the Coloured Representatives. I know what he has done for them over many, many years. He was a United Party supporter, however, and one of his colleagues has already left his little group. The hon. member for Peninsula (Mr. Bloomberg) and his two colleagues do a great deal for the Coloureds but they should not throw in their lot with those hon. members. During all the years those hon. members have had the support of the Coloured people but what have they done for them? What is the position of the Coloured people to-day? Today you, find them in industrial schools. They are served by their own people. We are progressing and progressing fast. Have you ever heard one word of thanks from those hon. members opposite, Sir, for what the Government has done for the Coloured? No. Look at the Bantu states to-day. I know the Native —I speak his language—and I can assure you, Sir, that never before have they been as happy in the Transkei as they are to-day. According to to-day’s newspaper each of them is contributing £5 towards the damage they have done. They are all sorry for what they have done. That is what we have done. But when you listen to hon. members opposite, you will think that everything we do is wrong; nothing that we do is right. No, that is not the attitude to adopt; we should be tolerant. Mr. Speaker, I know Natal. In 1914 I obtained 500 recruits in Durban. I can assure you, Sir, that Natal is of the opinion that this Government is doing the best in the circumstances, with the wind against it and in the face of world criticism. I want to say this to the Government to-day: Do not worry; you must learn. “We die learning” as the English saying goes. This Government is doing its best; it has its problems and it makes mistakes, but it is doing its best to keep South Africa for the White man, to advance the interests of the Native and to uplift the Native and the Coloured to a higher standard of civilization. I live near the border of Basutoland. I met a certain Basuto chief some time ago and in the course of conversation he said to me “You are my neighbour ”. I said “yes ”. I then asked him what he thought about Bantustan and his reply was “Well, we are free, but we want the English personnel out in two years’ time ”. Those were his words: “the English personnel ”. We are doing our best for South Africa. If only hon. members opposite would lend a hand, we will have a model state here in South Africa, especially under the republic. I am the only member here who has fought for a republic and I shall die happily if I live till 31 May. I want to assure you, Sir, that within a year even those people who voted against us will support us, as happened in the United States of America. People who fought against each other in the past are united to-day, and under the new republican form of government we will stand together and we will show the world what we can do for our subjects.

I do not doubt the sincerity of the last speaker, but I do wonder whether he should not use notes in future whenever he makes a speech.

I listened to-day to the Minister of Justice when he made his speech. It is certainly one of the most remarkable speeches ever made by a Minister of Justice in any democratic parliament in the world. What did the Leader of the Opposition ask him? The Leader of the Opposition asked him whether he could explain why such a great number of persons were arrested who were held in prison for months and finally released without any charge being brought against them. In most democratic countries I would assume that the Minister would have tried to explain why this happened. We all understand that all persons arrested by the police are not necessarily guilty, and that a certain percentage of them have to be released after having been arrested. But one does not expect only a small percentage of them to be found guilty. What did the Minister of Justice do? He attacked the Leader of the Opposition for having asked that question. It is clear from the words he used, because he called the arrested persons robbers and thieves, that he still considers them guilty in spite of the fact that no charge can be brought against them. That reminds me of an old story which is often told at the Pretoria Bar concerning an old magistrate who was appointed shortly after the Anglo-Boer War and who did not know much about law. Every time an advocate or an attorney had to defend an accused before him, the magistrate would ask only one question, and that was “But why did the police arrest him if he is not guilty?” After all, it is a basic principle in all democratic countries that a person is not arrested unless there is at least a prima facie case against him.

Surely you know that there were emergency regulations.

It was only to be expected that there would be a certain number of arrests, but does the Minister suggest that those persons were all robbers and thieves? I know of personal acquaintances in Pretoria who were arrested, people who were members of the Liberal Party but who certainly were not robbers or thieves. At worst they were perhaps woolly-headed intellectuals or woollyheaded idealists. So far as the excuse is concerned which the Minister offers for the delay in the publication of the reports of the judicial commissions, I only wish to say that of all the arguments he has put forward, only one has some validity and that is that persons who may be prosecuted later may be predidiced by the publication of these reports. But as I understand the law, and I assume the Minister’s advisers have also so advised him, no court of law can take any notice of any finding concerning the credibility of witnesses who appeared before a judicial commission. Such evidence would simply not be admissible. Surely the Minister must weigh all these other reasons which he has given against the one great point made by the Leader of the Opposition, namely, that for more than six months South Africa’s case has had to remain undefended abroad, and that all kinds of false accusations could be made against South Africa and against the police regarding what had happened without any contradiction and without the true facts having been brought to the notice of the world. The hon. the Minister should consult his colleague, the Minister of External Affairs, so that he can realize what modern propaganda is. If a charge is made against you to-day and you do not react immediately, it will not avail you to reply to the charge six months later, because by that time the world will have forgotten all about the original charge. I think the Chief of the Information Service will confirm what I say here.

Then the charge could not have been very important.

There were very serious charges throughout the world that the police here had fired on unarmed masses who had assembled peacefully. We waited nine months before replying to that accusation before the forum of the world. Mr. Speaker, the whole tragedy of South Africa and also of this debate is the unrealistic attitude adopted by the other side. On the one hand we have a multiracial state, whether we like it or not. On the other hand we have a Government which refuses to accept that fact. That is the great anomaly leading to all the difficulties in South Africa because in so far as the Government does perhaps accept the fact that we have a multi-racial state they have only one policy to cope with the situation; they say that we must immediately undo this state of affairs, that we must sort out the races. To use the new terminology of the Prime Minister, the four races must flow in four streams because according to the argument of members on the other side, it is impossible in a multi-racial state where you have more than one nationalism ever to uphold democracy as we know it, because in the end the strongest national group will dominate the others. That is the basis on which the whole philosophy of the Nationalist Party rests, that it is impossible to have a multi-racial state in a democratic state, and that if therefore you fortuitously have a multi-racial state you must undo it. Their definition of nationalism is clearly reflected in an advertisement which was probably carefully considered before publication in the London Times on 18 December 1960. There it was stated—

What a ridiculous definition of nationalism, what a narrow definition of nationalism. According to this definition—and then it is still published in England—the United Kingdom has no nationalism, because what do we find there? There we find three large racial groups, the Welsh, the Scottish and the English, who definitely do not laugh at the same sort of thing. They usually laugh at each other. They are people who definitely do not sing the same songs and who to a great extent have differing symbols and rituals so far as I understand them. And what about Switzerland? Just imagine the Italians, the Germans and the French all singing the same song, each in their own language and at the same time. That shows how narrow and ridiculous this definition of nationalism is. My hon. friends do not realize that there can be a greater nationalism which can embrace smaller cultural groups; they do not realize that there can be a nationalism of an entire country, such as there actually is in other multiracial countries such as Switzerland for example and such as we should try to create here in South Africa, and such as the United Party has already created between the English-speaking and Afrikaans-speaking sections. We on this side of the House fully realize the difficulties resulting from having more than one nationalism or more than one race in a democratic state. We do not shut our eyes to those difficulties and therefore do not believe in the mathematical democracy of the Progressive Party. We realize, for example, that all persons who have passed Std. 6 do not necessarily have the same views on life. We realize that you cannot have complete equality between various races which have different cultural backgrounds and different political concepts. However, just as we realize the difficulties involved in maintaining democracy in a multi-racial state, we realize even more clearly the impossibility of ever separating the races in South Africa. The Nationalist Party runs away from the difficulty of maintaining democracy in a multi-racial state and tries to do the impossible, namely, to separate the races. I am sorry the Minister of Transport is not present; he would understand what I mean because he is a hunter. It is like a man who sees a lion and jumps down a precipice to escape the lion. He lands in much greater trouble in his attempt to escape a lesser danger. That is what the Nationalist Party is doing nowadays. They are afraid of the problems arising from a multi-racial population in this country, problems which we on this side of the House fully realize, and then they try to do the opposite and that is to undo the multi-racial character of this country; they try to separate the races. Mr. Speaker, apartheid can only be justified morally if there are actually four streams in life, if there are actually four separate territories in which each nation will be able to live its own economic, political and social life and where it can realize its aspirations so far as possible.

Would that be morally right if it were possible?

Naturally it would be right if it were possible. That would be the only possible justification for apartheid, and as I understand the position, apartheid is justified on moral grounds by Church leaders on the basis that you have complete territorial segregation.

Then your formula too would be impossible.

That, of course, is the beautiful picture that is always painted by speakers on the other side of the House. We have listened to the Prime Minister, the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development and the Deputy Minister of the Interior. They spoke here of the beautiful picture of South Africa, of the four groups, each in its own stream in which each group can attain full human dignity and develop its economic, political and social rights to the utmost. That is the lovely picture always painted here by speakers of the Nationalist Party. But what is the true picture of South Africa as it has developed during the past 12 years? I would like to give the House that true picture and, in order to do so, I should like to make use of the 1960 population census, because the population census gives a much better picture of what actually happened than all the fine words and speeches by hon. members on the other side. What happened between 1951 and 1960? Let us first take the Asiatics and the Coloureds, two large separate racial groups in this country. When we look at their growth, we find that in those nine years the Asiatics and Coloureds increased by 496,000, almost 500,000, compared with an increase of 426,000 in the case of the Whites. The increase in the White population was 70,000 less. Where did this increase in the Asiatic and Coloured population occur? In the White areas of the country, not in a different stream. They have been absorbed into the stream of South Africa, the stream of the White areas, the economic stream flowing there. I do not know whether the hon. the Deputy Minister of the Interior was being sarcastic or ironical, but he spoke of the homelands of the Coloureds.

When did I talk about that?

Well, he spoke of the rural areas of the Coloureds, if he does not like the term “homelands”. What are the so-called rural areas of the Coloureds? Two million morgen of land, most of it situated in the arid north-west with a population of 30,000—land which, other than in the case of the Bantu areas, has no industrial potential, where no attempt has ever been made to bring about any industrial development. To describe these areas as the “rural areas” of the Coloureds is irony of the most cruel type. What about the other 1,500,000 Coloureds? For the rest, all that the Deputy Minister could tell us was that the Coloureds now have better residential areas, that they can get more trading licences, that they can become dentists and serve their own people a situation which has always existed but which has admittedly been improved during the past 12 years; that we concede, but do hon. members on the other side expect that no special improvements should have been made during the past 12 years? We have become a much richer country. But as soon as there is a small social improvement in any particular sphere the Nationalist Party claims the credit for it. It would have been fantastic if there had been no improvements. Even this Government could not prevent that. The hon. the Deputy Minister should try to put himself in the place of the Coloureds for a moment. Would he be satisfied with the prospect of a separate residential area from where he would have to go out every day to work in the area of the Whites, where he might be deprived of his job any day through job reservation, where he would have no hope of ever serving in the highest political body which determines his future and that of his children? And if he would not be satisfied, then he should remind himself of the greatest moral law which is to be found in all religions, namely, that you should do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

Does that also apply to the Blacks?

Naturally, all moral precepts apply to every person in the world.

Must the Black man also be allowed to sit in this House?

The hon. member is on an entirely different subject now. Give me a chance; I shall come to it later. These separate streams for Coloureds and Asiatics exist only in the imagination of the Deputy Minister of the Interior and of the Prime Minister. In reality there is no such thing in South Africa as a separate stream for the Coloureds and Asiatics. There never could be because they do not have the basic requirements for separate development in separate areas. The hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development himself has said that they are not in favour of discrimination, that they are against every form of discrimination. If those people have to live for all time in the White areas where their economic and political rights are restricted, how can the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development and the hon. the Deputy Minister of the Interior talk of non-discrimination? The fate of these people simply is that they will be discriminated against for all time, a thing which the hon. Minister himself has condemned as immoral. It is not we who say this, it is they themselves who say it. So far as the Natives are concerned, the Government has made certain efforts. For example, they appointed the Tomlinson Commission. The question is to what extent they have followed the advice of the Tomlinson Commission, to what extent a new stream has come into being in South Africa, a stream in which the Bantu can realize his aspirations. Let us look again at the 1960 census figures. There we find that even as far as the Bantu are concerned the numbers in the White areas are increasing much more rapidly than in the Native reserves. We find that the stream of Bantu to the White cities is flowing more and more strongly—and I have always understood from hon. members on the other side that this absorption of large masses of Native workers in the large cities of South Africa is the highest form of integration and the most damnable form of integration. Let us see what has happened over the past nine years, according to the census figures. Take Johannesburg. In Johannesburg the number of Whites has increased by 31,000 or roughly 18 per cent and the number of Natives by 158,000 or 34 per cent. In Johannesburg therefore, the largest city in South Africa, the increase in the Bantu population has been five times as great as the increase in the White population during these nine apartheid years. It is said that New York has the largest Polish, the largest Jewish and the largest Irish settlements in the world. Johannesburg can now certainly qualify as the city with the largest Xhosa, the largest Basuto and the largest Zulu settlements in the world, and this is taking place increasingly under the apartheid policy of this Government.

Under a United Party City Council.

What about Cape Town? There we find that the White population has increased by 30,000 and the Native population by 15,000. Here there has been a smaller increase in the Native population, but the increase in the Coloured population has naturally been much greater than the increase in the White population. In terms of percentages, however, the increase in the Native population has also been greater, namely, 30 per cent compared with a White increase of 12½ per cent. In Durban the White population grew by 41,000, the Native population by 47,000. When we come to Pretoria, the city of Paul Kruger, we find that the White population increased by 52,000 and the Native population by 80,000. And there we have a Nationalist City Council. In terms of percentages the White population increased by 34 per cent, the Native population by 65 per cent. Under this apartheid Government Pretoria for the first time in its history is in the position that the Native population has caught up with the White population; the numbers are almost equal; there is a difference of only a few hundred. Pretoria, which could still perhaps have been called a White city in South Africa because its White population was bigger than its Native population, has reached the stage, for the first time in its history, where it has just about as many Blacks as Whites. In the case of Port Elizabeth we find a White increase of 15,000 or 19 per cent and a Native increase of 47,000 or 72 percent. We thus find in every case that during the nine years of so-called apartheid the stream of Natives has not flowed towards the Bantu areas but to the economy of the Whites, and that the flow has been faster than ever before. I think this census of 1960 will go down in history as the Doomsday Book of Apartheid. The hon. the Prime Minister will have to choose, he will either have to drop apartheid or he will have to stop taking censuses, because all the stories which he and other Ministers tell here year after year are contradicted every time the census results are published. I suggest that the Federal Council should consider prohibiting all censuses. Otherwise they will find themselves in the same difficult position as the missionary who tried to convert an old Native to Christianity. On the first day he told him about the miracle of Jonah and the whale. The Native found this hard to believe but finally accepted it as the truth. The following day the missionary told him the story of Daniel in the lions’ den. This the Native found a bit harder to swallow, but finally he also believed it. On the third day the missionary told the story of the three young men in the pit of fire. Thereupon the old Native shook his head and said: “No, Boss, now I no longer believe the stories of yesterday and the day before either.” The Cape Nationalists are beginning to shake their heads about apartheid so far as the Coloureds are concerned, and when the results of another three censuses become known they will begin shaking their heads about the Asiatics and also about the Natives. The Prime Minister must therefore choose between continuing either his censuses or his apartheid programme. It is precisely because the apartheid programme has been such a terribble failure that the Government has had to resort more and more to discriminatory measures, the long list of measures read out by the hon. member for Namib (Mr. J. du P. Basson). The Government is trying to regulate the life of every non-White from the cradle to the grave. Because if the policy were really practicable, if it were possible to separate the four groups into four streams, it would not be necessary to resort to more and more discriminatory measures. Take job reservation as an example. If it were really possible to reduce the number of Natives in our large cities and to develop their own large cities for them in their own areas, job reservation would not be necessary. There would then be a shortage of White workers. There would be no choice. The fact that the Government is compelled year after year to resort to more and more discriminatory measures is evidence of the total failure of apartheid, because surely if you really separated the peoples, all discrimination would disappear, as the hon. the Minister for Bantu Administration himself has always stated. After 12 years we see what a failure this Government is, this Government which refuses to accept the fact of multi-racialism. We see how completely their attempt to sort out the races, to unscramble the scrambled egg, has failed. We have heard it on the authority of a man like Dr. Geyer that in this modern world with its dangers threatening from all directions, within as well as from outside the country, we do not have more than ten years perhaps to solve our problems ourselves in this country. In 12 years under this Government nothing has been done, and integration has increased more rapidly than ever before.

What about the future? What are the chances of ever implementing this impracticable policy? The Prime Minister naturally has now come forward with a new idea, the idea of the development of border areas, the development of industries in border areas. What are these border areas? They are still cities within the White areas where the Whites will still have the final say. At its best this will only be a diversion of labour from the white stream closer to the Bantu areas. It is not the establishment of a separate economy for the Natives themselves. In any case, judging by the promises made to the Federated Chamber of Industries at its latest congress, this border areas development is so limited now that it will not make much difference. There will be a small measure of industrial decentralization, but it will not alter the basic pattern of South Africa; it will not turn the enormous tide of Natives flowing to the present industrial centres. We shall find that in these border area industries there will still be job reservation. The Natives will still be under restrictions. In other words, the Natives will still remain “bywoners” (share croppers) in the White economy. But we shall soon see how serious the Government is about this new policy of theirs when we get the Estimates and see how much money is voted for the development of the border areas. But unless enormous sums are voted, it will make no basic change in the pattern of South Africa as we have known it in the past 50 years, and it will not halt the enormous influx of Natives to those centres where industries are developing most rapidly at present. If the Government is really in earnest and really convinced that racial separation, a total separation of the two racial groups, is the only solution to the problems in our country, then they must tackle the problem in a way entirely different from that of the past. In the first place they should ask themselves why there is this strong inclination on the part of the Natives, which we have experienced in the past nine years, to move from the farms and the Native reserves to the large cities. If they answer that question for themselves they can determine what measures they should adopt. Because what is the reason? In this social system as we know it the White man is the leaven bringing about all economic activities and all economic development and progress. Because in our capitalistic system there is only one type of person who can initiate new economic development and that is the entrepreneur or the capitalist who has the knowledge of organization and the knowledge of business that is necessary for the initiation of new industries. Who is that person in South Africa in the light of our history as we have experienced it and of the cultural situation that we have here? In all cases it has been the White man who has initiated new economic activities, who has started new industries. That is why all economic growth also takes place in the White areas, and that is why the Natives are drawn as by a magnet from the farms and from their reserves to our large cities where these capitalists and entrepreneurs are. And then Nationalist members on the other side of the House say that the Natives must develop their own industries, must build up their own economy. But, Mr. Speaker, we have seen in the past 12 years what a slow process that is. I do not suppose there are more than three or two so-called Native capitalists in our country who could begin new industries. I know of two about whom we can read again and again in the Digest published overseas by the Minister of External Affairs. One of them has a furniture factory near Umtata, and the other has a factory near Pretoria (North). Those are the only new factories that I know of which have been opened by Natives in the past 12 years. For historical and other reasons they simply do not have the attributes and qualities to promote new economic activities. The Minister of Finance always says that the policy of this Government is one of private initiative. He believes in the uncontrolled system of free capitalism. But that system will never bring about a separation of the races in this country. If the Government is in earnest with regard to the separation of the races in this country, in the first place as far as the Natives are concerned, the Government will have to become the entrepreneur. It would involve the investment of hundreds of millions of pounds if they really want to turn the tide of Natives now moving from the farms and reserves to the large cities, because if that does not happen economic growth will have to continue to take place in the White areas. The Natives themselves will not be able to start those economic activities and the Government will have to become the entrepreneur. What does that mean? It means that we shall have to have an economic system in the Black areas which differs from that in the White areas. We shall have to have a socialistic system or a system of State capitalism in our Balck areas, and if we bear in mind that the Bantu population in this country is increasing at the rate of 150,000 per year and further that a capital expenditure of £1,500 is needed for every person who is placed in industry, hon. members on the other side can work out for themselves what sums of money would have to be invested in the Native areas. It would cost hundreds of millions per year to turn the tide of the Natives now flowing to the White areas. Is the Government prepared to do this? Is it willing to have two systems, to develop a socialistic or state-capitalistic system in the Black areas and to retain the system of private initiative and private capitalism in the White areas? And who is going to have to pay for it? In the first place it will have to be the White taxpayer, either by means of direct taxation or by means of money which can be borrowed and on which he will have to bear the interest burden for many years to come. That is the only practicable method if the Government is in earnest about the separation of races. The only practicable way in which it can be done is for the Government itself to begin the economic development in the Native reserves on a massive scale. There is no other way.

If the hon. the Prime Minister and hon. members on the opposite side really believe that there is only one solution to our problems and that that solution is territorial separation of the races, then they must go to the people and tell them what the consequences are going to be. They will have to give an estimate of what it will cost, what the taxpayer will have to pay, and how much money will have to be advanced for this gigantic development. They will have to make it clear that we shall then have a country in which the one half will be socialistic and the other half capitalistic. If the voters still want it, then, they are entitled to it. But if the voters know what the true implications of apartheid are, I do not believe that they will vote for such a system. Give them a chance and let them judge, because otherwise nothing will happen except that we shall hear nice speeches in this House about how the races will be separated at some time or other in the future. For the rest nothing will happen.

Why did you not put up candidates in the by-elections?

That is a fantastic proposition, but if apartheid is taken seriously at all and an endeavour is made to carry it through to its logical consequences, it will be a fantastic policy for our country in any case.

In actual fact, therefore, if this Government does not make this serious attempt which I suggest to bring about apartheid, and if in reality they have no policy to separate the races, as has been evident in the past 12 years in spite of the fact that they say they have a policy for racial separation, what then? They are doing nothing to separate the races, either as far as the Indians, the Coloureds or the Natives are concerned. What becomes of the wonderful picture which the Prime Minister has painted here of four streams each flowing in its own direction, where every individual can attain full human dignity and develop to his full capacity? What is the Government creating here for us for the future, for our children and for our children’s children? Nothing but a multi-racial state in which you have a steadily shrinking White minority and in which, on the other hand, the non-White majority will grow bigger and bigger. But not only is the non-White majority growing bigger and bigger, their cultural and economic status is constantly improving, and because they are being drawn more and more into our economy, our factories and all our economic activities, their economic power, inevitably, is growing. It is only the political, economic and social rights of the non-Whites that are shrinking. That is the kind of state that the Government is actually creating for the future, a state in which the shrinking minority receives more and more privileges and in which the mounting majority has its political, social and economic rights constantly curtailed.

In their own areas there is no curtailment.

But I have been pointing out for the last half an hour that there is no flow to their own areas, that they are coming into the White areas. If you had read this morning’s Burger you would have seen that we have now reached the ridiculous position where a Coloured is not even allowed any more to enter the library to borrow a book.

The Prime Minister and hon. members on the other side must ask themselves whether that is a stable form of civilization that they are establishing for us and our children’s children, a state in which the governing minority is steadily shrinking while its privileges are increasing and in which the non-White majority is constantly growing while its rights are diminishing. They should ask themselves what loyalty they can expect under those circumstances from that community.

What are you suggesting? You condemn everything.

We are now attacking the policy of the Prime Minister and at a later stage I shall explain what we suggest.

The third question which hon. members on the other side must ask themselves is where they think the sympathies of the non-White majority will be in the struggle between Communism and the West? In spite of all this fine talk about “tribal policies” and that they can develop their own traidtional ways of life, and so forth, it must be remembered that in to-day’s world there are only two systems which are competing: Communism on the one hand and Western civilization, democratic capitalism on the other. There is no third system.

And are you fighting on the side of the communists?

I am trying to explain to this House that the present Government is creating a classic revolutionary situation in this country. That is what their whole policy amounts to. And they are driving the sympathy of the non-Whites towards the communists. Do hon. members on the other side really believe that the only way in which the Whites can maintain themselves is by building some sort of granite wall around their privileged position? Have they never heard of the Maginot Line? Have they never heard what happened there? If you lack the courage to go out and meet dangers, it will not avail you to surround yourself with walls. [Time limit.]

This is the third time that I have listened to that speech by the hon. member for Jeppes (Dr. Cronje). The only difference between the speech he made to-day and the previous two speeches is that his delivery of the present one was worse than that of those in the past. This is the third occasion on which he has tried to prove how difficult it is to apply our policy in practice. If the hon. member were to make a fourth speech and suggest an alternative to our present policy, it would be much better. We should like to know what suggestion they have to make. The hon. member referred to the great number of Bantu who have flocked to the urban areas under this Government. Nobody on this side has ever suggested that an immediate end could be put to this influx to the cities. No one has ever suggested that it could be stopped in a decade. I think the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration said that he expected the influx to be controlled by 1970. But what do the hon. member for Jeppes and his kindred spirit suggest? They are not satisfied with the number of Bantu who are flocking to the urban areas according to the census figures. They want to abolish influx control completely so that millions more may come in. As a matter of fact, they want to do away with the whole idea of migrant labour. In other words, instead of one Bantu coming to the urban areas, his wife, his four or five or 10 or 12 children should come as well. We have already had experience of that position in this country when a great number of squatter towns developed around the whole Witwatersrand, towns which teamed with criminals, where disease was rife and which became a canker in the whole social life of Johannesburg. It is this Government with its apartheid policy that remedied that position and that housed the Bantu people properly.

The hon. member for Jeppes says that just as little as you can maintain democracy in a multi-racial state, just as little can you separate the races. So, if you cannot separate the races, Sir, a multi-racial state must follow, something which they favour. And now the hon. member says that you cannot maintain democracy in such a state.

I did not say that. I said that was your argument.

Very well, I accept that their policy is to have 100 per cent democracy in a multi-racial state, a state where all the inhabitants will have the vote.

I spoke about the responsible citizens.

That does not mean a thing. If you have that position it is inevitable that you will have to give the vote to everybody, unless you intend keeping the Coloureds, the Asiatics and the 9,000,000 Bantu in a perpetual and everlasting state of subjugation. Unless you do that, you will ultimately have no alternative but to grant them all democratic rights. What the hon. member for Jeppes said is exactly what the former hon. member for Kimberley (South) (Mr. Oppenheimer) said recently in his presidential address to one of his big companies, namely that if you accepted the idea of a multi-racial South Africa, there was only one thing which we could be sure of and that was that we had a White political majority to-day but that we would have a non-White political majority in future. That was really the crux of the speech of the hon. member for Jeppes to-day, and that is the inevitable consequence of their policy. It is therefore quite unnecessary for the hon. member for Jeppes to say that we should tell the country what the consequences of our policy will be. We have already done so on numerous occasions. The Opposition now introduces a motion of no-confidence and asks the Government to resign. If the Government were to accede to their request, I take it there will be a general election, in which event it will be the duty of the hon. member for Jeppes to tell the electorate what they suggest should be done in South Africa. They hold out only one prospect to South Africa and that is that in the near future there will be a White political majority but in the distant future there will be a non-White political majority. That is their policy and that is the charge which we will level against them before the people of this country.

For more than 20 years, Mr. Speaker, I have been listening to motions of no-confidence in this House—firstly from the Press gallery and now from the floor of the House. Those were the days when we had debates of a high standard, the days when Dr. Malan was Leader of the Opposition, the days when General Smuts was here and General Hertzog. Then we had a period of no-confidence debates of a lower standard. Those were the days when Mr. Strauss was Leader of the Opposition. Under the present Leader of the Opposition, however, the no-confidence debates have deteriorated into nothing less than school debating society discussions. I have already heard the hon. the Leader of the Opposition make a weak speech, but I have never heard him make a weaker speech than the one he made last Tuesday. As Mr. Strauss used to say, I think he has now reached “rock bottom ”. We will see next year whether it is possible for him to be weaker. However, the most pathetic attempt came from the hon. member for Hillbrow (Dr. Steenkamp) and the hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. E. G. Malan). Those two gentlemen tried to capitalize on the fact that there has recently been an exchange of ideas within the ranks of the National Party on the Colour question and the desirability or otherwise of Coloureds being represented by Coloureds in Parliament. As the hon. the Minister of Justice said: one can well understand their disappointment because they expected a split in the National Party, a major split, and now the National Party is on a sounder basis than ever before.

What about the thinking Nationalists?

All Nationalists are thinking people. In order to hide their disappointment they come with the ridiculous accusation that we are living behind a granite curtain, that the hon. the Prime Minister is muzzling us, as the hon. member for Orange Grove said, and that it is a tragedy that no one on the Government side has the courage to admit that he differs from the Prime Minister, as alleged by the hon. member for Hillbrow. But what are the facts concerning this exchange of ideas which took place within the National Party? The fact is that there is no party which is more democratic than the National Party. There is no party which allows greater freedom of speech and affords better opportunities for criticism than the National Party. I know of no Leader of any party who has muzzled the mouths of his members less than the present Prime Minister. This episode about the Coloured people has been one of the most refreshing episodes in the history of the National Party that I know of. It was indicative of deep thinking, of healthy frankness and of deep-seated confidence in each other. But above all it was indicative of wonderful political maturity. What has happened now? Certain persons, stimulated by the idea that they should do everything in their power to retain the goodwill of the Coloured people, advanced the idea that Coloureds should be represented by Coloureds in Parliament. The Burger allowed a candid discussion on that subject and then the Prime Minister said: “That has never been the policy of the National Party and neither is it its policy to-day.” What about it? What actually happened? Where is the granite wall? In the statement issued by the Federal Council those people were told that they could place that point of view before the congress via the usual channels.

What happens to a Member of Parliament who declares himself publicly in favour of that?

I am coming to that. What happens to a Member of Parliament on the other side of the House who publicly opposes his party? The hon. member for Hillbrow accused us of not having the courage to differ from the Prime Minister. The position is that on this question we do not differ from the Prime Minister. Where is this alleged granite curtain? But let me tell you, Sir, what happens in the party opposite and in their Press, when its members differ from party leadership. The Burger allowed a free and frank discussion to be conducted and had a frank discussion on that subject itself. After that discussion the Prime Minister stated his policy, a policy which has always been the traditional policy of the party, and which should be the policy of any democratic party in a democratic country. But what happened in the Press of that party when their editors differed from them? I have in mind the case of Mr. McCausland, the editor of the Cape Argus. He did not even criticize General Smuts; he did not even criticize General Hertzog who was leader of the party at that time. All he did was to dare to criticize Mr. Chamberlain of England, and he was given 24 hours’ notice and kicked out of his position. That is the freedom of the Press and that is the democracy about which those people have such a great deal to say. Take the case of Mr. Morris Broughton. Their Constitution lays down that their members are free to plead for a republic if they wish to do so. Mr. Broughton did not plead for a republic. He merely pleaded for a little tolerance towards the idea of a republic, and he was kicked out as editor of the Cape Argus. That is their idea of freedom of the Press. But we come to the party itself—that party which we are told is not behind a granite curtain, that party which enjoys so much freedom of speech, where democracy is practised so freely within its ranks. What happened to Frank Waring, Baily Bekker, Abraham Jonker, Vernon Shearer and me? We exercised our right to criticize Strauss, not publicly, but in the caucus and in the conference chambers of the United Party itself. Because we criticized Mr. Strauss and because we voted against a motion of confidence in him, and because we refused to say that we would never criticize him again, we were kicked out of the party. The hon. member for Springs (Mr. Tucker) must not purse his lips. He was one of the members who did that. That, Mr. Speaker, is the freedom which you find in that party. I also want to say this, in parenthesis, that when they kicked us out, because we had criticized Mr. Strauss and because we had told him straight to his face that we did not have any confidence in him, the present Leader of the Opposition, the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) and the hon. member for Springs were already holding the dagger in their hands to stab Mr. Strauss in the back. When he sat with his arm round Mr. Strauss’s neck and when he patted him on the back, it was not on account of any love for him, but in order to locate the soft spot into which he could plunge his dagger. Those are the people who are now talking about the freedom of the Press.

But let us go further, Sir, and deal with more recent history. What happened to Dr. Barnard Friedman? After the National Party had removed the Coloured people from the Common Roll Dr. Friedman said that the United Party should make a statement to the effect that they would restore the Coloureds to the Common Roll. Mr. Strauss said no, they would not do that, and when Dr. Friedman said that in public he was kicked out. Hon. members of the Progressive Party remained within the United Party for a little while, but they were muzzled. They were behind the granite curtain. They were not allowed to say that the Coloured people should be restored to the Common Roll. And when they did say it they were also kicked out. But the hon. member for Hillbrow is the person who said yesterday that the only moral principle there was to have the Coloured people represented by Coloureds in this House; or he wants them on the Common Roll. That is the only moral policy for South Africa. That is the only moral stand which one could adopt if one wanted to be an honest and moral person. Mr. Speaker, why is that hon. member in this House? He sits here because Bernard Friedman said that the Coloured people should be restored to the Common Roll and he said no, they should not. He sits here with a mandate from Hillbrow that the Coloured voters should not be restored to the Common Roll. They do not admit anyone in their party who advocates that the Coloured people should be restored to the Common Roll but now they want the Prime Minister to admit people to his party who plead that Coloureds should be represented by Coloureds in this House. Now the hon. member for Hillbrow also pleads that the Coloured people should be represented by Coloureds and that they should be restored to the Common Roll. He ought to resign now and return to Dr. Friedman his seat. They should re-admit the members of the Progressive Party to their party. If they, as a party, say that the Coloured people should not be restored to the Roll and their members are forced to agree with that, then that is freedom and democracy! But when the Prime Minister says that it is not his policy to have Coloureds represented by Coloureds, then he is drawing a granite curtain, then he is a dictator and then he is muzzling us. Now the hon. member for Hillbrow says it is a tragedy that nobody on this side has the courage to go against the Prime Minister. The only reason why nobody on this side goes against the Prime Minister is because as far as this matter is concerned, this side is in complete agreement with him. But there are people in his party to-day who do not agree with the Leader of the Opposition and they dare not open their mouths.

Who are they?

In the first place, the hon. member for Constantia (Mr. Waterson):.

That is nonsense.

We’ll see whether that is nonsense. Then there is the hon. member for Wynberg (Mr. Russell). It was none other than the hon. member for Constantia who, after the Bloemfontein Congress led that little group out of that party. Was it not the hon. member for Constantia who said that he did not agree with the policy which was accepted at Bloemfontein, a policy which is today still the policy of the United Party? The same applies to the hon. member for Wynberg. When they arrived in Cape Town they found that the Leader of the Opposition was adopting a fairly firm stand. The Leader of the Opposition called the hon. member for Queenstown (Dr. Steytler), he called the member for Durban (Berea) (Mr. Butcher) and the other members. He said to them: Look, if you adopt that attitude, then you must leave the party. Those hon. members had the courage to resign. But the hon. members for Constantia and Wynberg turned back, and hat in hand, asked for forgiveness.

And what about Clive?

He was in and out, in once again, and now he is out completely. He himself does not know where he is at the moment. Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Constantia has not changed his opinion. They still follow the policy laid down by their Congress, a policy which he said was bad. That is what he thinks but he dare not say it because the Leader of the Opposition has muzzled him. He dare not open his mouth, nor the member for Wynberg. Then they have the temerity to say that the Prime Minister is muzzling us. If the hon. member for Springs differed from the Leader of the Opposition, he too would have to keep his mouth shut. Now we hear about a granite curtain and an iron curtain. But behind which curtain are they sitting? They are sitting behind, what I will call, a “bikini curtain”. They think they are hiding something, but we can see everything. I am afraid their bikini is revealing their political curves. They should rather dress themselves in a hessian bag; they do not look pretty in a bikini.

The charge against the Prime Minister and the Government is that they do not promote national unity. Mr. Speaker, no man in this country, no leader in this country has done more to gain the friendship of the English-speaking section than this Prime Minister. Time and again he has extended the hand of friendship to the English-speaking section. He did so before the referendum; he did it again after the referendum, but that hand of friendship was brushed aside by the Leader of the Opposition by the English Press and also by the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. Mitchell) in the most unfriendly and wreckless fashion. Where could we get a better and finer opportunity to bring about national unity than the establishment of the republic? We held a fair referendum and we obtained a reasonable majority. It was the Rand Daily Mail which said before the referendum that it would be quite satisfied with a majority of 60,000. In fact there was a majority of 75,000. We have a Constitution without much change—precisely what they asked for. Is it not reasonable to expect then that with the establishment of the republic there will be a reasonable measure of peace and unity? But no, Mr. Speaker, they have to sow the seeds of hatred and jealousy and suspicion against the republic. They have to sow the seeds of hatred, jealousy and suspicion in the minds of the English-speaking section, who are told that they will be deprived of their language rights, that their freedom of religion will be suppressed; that their freedom of speech and the freedom of their Press will be suppressed. As far as that side of the House is concerned, they are not content to allow the republic to be born in peace; it has to be born in hatred and envy and bitterness and suspicion. Let me quote what the hon. member for South Coast said after the election—

Here are his words—

And then they say that there must be unity. They say that the Prime Minister must make some gesture with a view to obtaining national unity. And then the hon. member comes along with this irresponsible, false statement that elections will no longer be held in South Africa. That is what he tells his people in Natal. But let us go further. Let us hear what the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Miller) says …

Order! The hon. member is not allowed to use the word “false” and he must withdraw it.

I withdraw that word then and say that it is very far removed from the truth. The hon. member over there knew that elections would be held again, and he ought to be ashamed of himself for saying such a thing. But listen to the hon. member for Bezuidenhout—

In other words, the President will be a dictator; he will use his veto right even if the United Party has a majority in the House of Assembly and in the Senate. Can we get unity when these people sow such ill will and suspicion in the minds of the English-speaking section? But coming from the hon. member for South Coast—the wild “wragting” man from Natal—one can still forgive these things.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw that word.

Well, the Burger used it and I thought it was a fine word. I withdraw it. I shall then refer to him as “the thing that the Burger called him” of Natal. Let us take the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, a man who is supposed to be a responsible person. What does he say, according to the Sunday Times?—

Who said that?

Did the hon. member not say that? Here it appears in the Sunday Times of 14 August 1960 and it appears in quotation marks. It appears on the front page of the Sunday Times as an interview that they had with him. He says that under this republic there will be a “fully-fledged dictatorship No, we have to make some gesture of friendship and national unity, and then the Leader of the Opposition comes along with this sort of thing to sow suspicion amongst the English-speaking people. Why do they not make some gesture also and show a little friendship towards South Africa? Why do they not show some good will towards this side and towards the Government? Why do they not make some gesture so that we can establish the republic in love and peace, instead of in a spirit of suspicion and hatred? But according to them the Prime Minister is not making any gesture towards the English-speaking section. The hon. member for Hillbrow says that he might at least have appointed an English-speaking Senator. An English-speaking Senator was elected—Senator McCord. But what is the attitude of members on the other side towards any English-speaking person who is appointed in the Senate? There was some speculation that Mr. Frank Waring would be appointed in the Senate. I do not know whether there was any justification for that speculation. What was the reaction to it, and what did the Rand Daily Mail write about Frank Waring? It said that it would be a smack in the face of the English-speaking section if Frank Waring went to the Senate. Why? Frank Waring is an English-speaking person whose home language is English. His children were in English-medium schools and his mother is an English unilingual lady. Frank Waring is a person of good character from an old South African family which is well known on the Witwatersrand. He is a man who represented South Africa at rugby. He is a man with an honourable war record. He did everything that can be expected of an English-speaking South African, but oh no, it would be an insult to the English-speaking section if he became a Senator. Why, Mr. Speaker? Because Frank Waring genuinely wanted to co-operate with the Afrikaners in this country. And then we are expected to make this gesture. Whom are we to appoint if we are not allowed to appoint Frank Waring? Must we appoint the member for South Coast? Must we appoint the member for Wynberg? Are we to appoint the member for Kensington (Mr. Moore)?

Forget the idea that I am going to be a Nationalist Senator.

And what happened to Mr. Trollip? When the late Mr. Strydom made the gesture of appointing Mr. Trollip as Administrator of Natal, the English-language newspapers made venomous attacks upon him and represented him as a renegade. When those gestures are in fact made, then that is the reaction of the other side. No, Mr. Speaker, it is they who do not want national unity. The hon. the Leader of the Government again made an ardent appeal for unity in his broadcast after the referendum. What was the reaction of the Leader of the Opposition? He says that there can be no unity unless there is “a change of heart on the part of the Government ”.

Hear, hear.

“A change of heart on the part of the Government.” They do not want a change of heart on their part; they do not want a change of heart on the part of the English-language newspapers; they do not want a change of heart on the part of Bishop Reeves and Joost de Blank. They do not want a change of heart on the part of the people who are besmirching South Africa. No, Mr. Speaker, we are expected to undergo a “change of heart”. I say in the words of the hon. member for South Coast, “change of heart be damned ”.

Mr. Speaker, has there ever been more bitterness on the part of the English-language newspapers than there is at the present time; has there ever been more bitterness on the part of certain clergymen against the Afrikaner? Let us hear what Joost de Blank said during the Union celebrations—

Are we expected to make a gesture towards those people, and is that the sort of thing that will bring about a spirit of unity? Is that the spirit that will bring about unity in this country? But I want to mention one of the most venomous cases of hatred of the Afrikaner that we find to-day, hatred on the part of members of that party, that party which says that we must make some sort of gesture for the sake of national unity. When the trouble broke out in Pondoland troops were sent there. The troops were going to be there over Christmas. Mrs. Hans Abraham then wanted to arrange for a little money to be collected in order to provide certain facilities, sweets and things of that kind for the troops who were going to be there over Christmas. She made an appeal to all the people in Umtata to make contributions for that purpose. After all, it is a noble cause. The troops, after all, did not go there of their own choice. They were sent there and this was a noble attempt to bring them a certain amount of happiness over Christmas. She made this appeal and the Umtata and District Chamber of Commerce then passed the following resolution—

They then go on to give the reasons. And the hon. member for Transkeian Territories (Mr. Hughes) is a member of this “Chamber The town council of Umtata then came along and passed the following resolution—

What pettiness! Money cannot be collected for Afrikaner lads who are going to be far from their homes on Christmas Day, but the City Council of Cape Town lends out their orchestra in order to raise funds to support people who are charged with high treason. Maintain law and order, send soldiers to maintain law and order, but you dare not buy Christmas gifts for them; it is condemned by official bodies. But commit high treason, and then United Party supporters will lend out their orchestra in order to raise funds to assist those people. And then the Leader of the Opposition says that we do not want unity. Mr. Speaker, it is they who do not want unity, because they know that they exist for one reason only and that is to exploit English sentiment in South Africa. They do not want the English-speaking section to listen to us. That is why they do these hateful things. But with the republic we are going to get unity between Afrikaansand English-speaking, unity that will be based on love for South Africa. We are going to get unity in the republic in spite of the Leader of the Opposition and the English-language Press and the clergymen who are continually besmirching us.

The third charge against the Government is that we are not protecting the good name of South Africa abroad. How can we protect our good name abroad when the whole of the Opposition is continually attacking South Africa’s good name in the outside world? How can we protect our good name if the English-language Press disseminates untruths and venomous statements abroad about South Africa day after day? How can we protect our good name when there are certain English-speaking clerics who are continually opening the sluicegates of hatred against us in the world? Everything that happens in South Africa is placed in the worst, most unreasonable and most incorrect light by those gentlemen on the other side. Take the case of Pondoland. The hon. member for Transkeian Territories had a great deal to say about Pondoland. In parenthesis I just want to ask: What does he really know about the Transkei? A large furniture factory for the Bantu has already been established a mile from Umtata. I have seen it myself and it is something of which one can be proud. Last year the hon. member for Transkeian Territories came here and referred to that factory as “a glorified carpenter’s shop ”. When he was invited there during the recess, he expressed his surprise and stated that he did not know that it was such a large factory and he wanted to know why he had not been told about this. He does not know what is happening within a mile of his house in Umtata. How can he know what is happening in the rest of the Transkei? But let us see why they are not giving us the true picture of Pondoland. Why do they not tell people the true facts, that it is just a handful of communist agitators who are active there and that this has nothing to do with Bantu Authorities? Why do they not tell people that now that the communists have been locked up, these people are living together in peace and quiet, that of their own free will they are coming forward to pay their taxes as they have never done before? This is not the first time that there have been disturbances amongst the non-White in those areas of the country. The hon. member for Aliwal (Capt. Strydom) referred to the case of Enoch and his Israelites at Bulhoek, when 500 of them were shot dead. But the picture that is being presented to the world is that in Pondoland the most terrible oppression is taking place. Let us hear what the hon. member for South Coast has to say about the position in Pondoland—

Then the hon. member for South Coast goes on to say—

Is he not ashamed of himself? He knows what world opinion is about the Congo, about the large-scale chaos, the wholesale murder and arson, the numerous incidents of rape on a scale which the world has never seen since the Middle Ages. But he loves South Africa so much, he loves the good name of South Africa so much, that he, the Leader of the United Party in Natal, proclaims to the world that Pondoland is looking like a miniature Congo. And yet he tells us to protect the good name of South Africa. There sits the calumniator of South Africa.

Do you think that this speech of yours is going to do South Africa’s name any good?

Mr. Speaker, the more we expose these people and the more we let the world know that they have no love for South Africa, the better it will be for our name because then the world will realize that those people are continually calling in the enemies of South Africa in an attempt to oust this Government. What was the attitude of the English-language Press with regard to the deportation of Bishop Reeves? This is not the first time in the history of democratic countries that a bishop is deported if it is considered to be in the interests of the country concerned. England did not hesitate for a moment to banish a bishop for three years from Cyprus—not even their own country. They did so because they considered it to be in their interests. Nobody wrote against it.

But what was the reaction of the English-language newspapers in South Africa? What do they tell the world as to the reasons for Bishop Reeves’ deportation? They do not tell the world that he was deported because he was participating here in incitement; they do not say that he was deported because of the terrible lie which he had told overseas that dumdum bullets had been used at Sharpeville. That they do not say to the world. No, they tell the world that Reeves was deported because “he was the revealing voice of a practising Christian ”. Let us hear what an English minister says about this deportation—

Which is totally untrue. But listen to this. This was said by the Rt. Rev. Barron—

Reeves was deported for propagating the truths of the Gospel! That is what is stated here. That is what certain clergymen and the English-language newspapers say, and then members on the other side continually protect them. Let me say this to members on the other side of the House. One cannot defend the good name of South Africa by continually defending her calumniators. One cannot defend our good name if one is not willing strongly to rebuke the slanderers of South Africa. I want to go further. This is described as an “act of banditry ”, and let me quote what was said by the Rev. Luyt of Vereeniging, with whom I shall take up this matter at Vereeniging. The report reads—

The truth is that there is no country in the world in which there is more religious freedom than in South Africa, but they tell the world that we want to enslave the Christian Church in South Africa. And I have never heard the Leader of the Opposition utter a single word of condemnation in that regard, but he has the cheek to say that the Government must resign because we are not upholding the good name of South Africa. [Interjection.] I challenge the Leader of the Opposition to tell us where he attacked all the slanderers of South Africa and where he ever contradicted them. Has he ever contradicted Reeves and de Blank? What is their attitude towards Alan Paton, a man who pleaded overseas that force should be taken against South Africa, a man who committed high treason, who asked that foreign powers should come and invade South Africa physically. His passport is taken away, and what is the attitude of those hon. members and of their Press? That step is condemned, just as the hon. member for Namib (Mr. D. J. D. du P. Basson) also condemned it to-day. Mr. Paton committed what is tantamount to high treason. His passport is taken away and those hon. members do not condemn Mr. Paton but they condemn the Government for refusing to allow Mr. Paton to continue his travels abroad where he does these things. The calumniators and the enemies of South Africa sit over there; they are the people who make common cause with the slanderers of South Africa. [Time limit.]

Mr. Speaker, after listening to the hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee), and I think he was quite near to the truth, one really wonders how on earth there will ever be unity between the Whites of South Africa. And when one in turn considers the greater problem of establishing better relations between White and non-White, then one wonders what are the factors that can possibly work in this direction. When one looks at the world to-day, it is clear that the world is multi-racial and multi-coloured, just as South Africa is a multi-racial and multi-coloured country. But the hon. member for Jeppes (Dr. Cronje) and so many other members refer to South Africa as a multi-racial state. I believe that on occasion we need greater clarity about the words we use. As far as I am concerned, although South Africa is undoubtedly a multi-coloured and multiracial country in which various population groups live, we are only in the initial stages of a multi-racial state. Furthermore, in considering what factors play a decisive role today between the various groups in our own country, between the nations of the world, and between groups of nations, then we argue here, sometimes reasonably and sometimes rather unreasonably, but nevertheless we place trust in reason, in logic, in its being an instrument which may lead us to a solution to our problems in South Africa and in the rest of the world as well. But wherever one looks it is not reason or logic which applies and which triumphs. There is apparently a different logic in the world, the logic of blind emotion. The hon. member for Vereeniging has discussed national unity. We all talk about it. I listened ad nauseam to such statements in my former party which was always talking about national unity, and the same applies to hon. members opposite. Nevertheless it seems as if we are moving further away from that national unity without which the Whites will have a very sombre future.

Why can we not achieve these ideals? It is quite clear to me that in the background of our history emotions have been built up on both sides which are resuscitated on the slightest encouragement, as we recently saw into Natal under the leadership of the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. Mitchell) a tragic phenomenon with the result that during this very week we have had amendments moved to motions which prove to me that I have wasted the 50 years of my life because for 50 years I have in all sincerity held out my hand to my friends here so that they can try to abandon their own tribal gods, as I have tried to abandon mine. But apparently it has been of no avail. Those emotions and the worship of tribal gods are apparently too strong. To me it is as clear as daylight that at least two or three dominating factors were evident in the formative years of South Africa and unless we can understand these factors and adjust ourselves to them, national unity will never be achieved. The first is that the Afrikaner has a background of freedom and independence in a particular form, the republican form, and that nothing can keep it from him, and whatever others may say, it is right and just that the Afrikaner should struggle for that ideal. But even at this stage the Opposition begrudges it to the Afrikaner, although the people have given unequivocally their judgement.

On a point of order, I understand that it is not permissible to refer to the republican issue during this debate, and I should like to have your ruling.

The hon. member may proceed.

Sir, I do not want to discuss the Bill. I am referring to the background which forms the basis of national unity. Until my friends here realize this, they will wage a struggle of self-destruction and they will make it impossible for this country of ours to achieve national unity. I leave it at that.

Another factor is that I believe that the English-speaking person also has a background, a quite different background which consisted of those Empire links which they have had all these years and in which they saw their security in the past. It was a false security, but I can understand, appreciate and respect this feeling. But these old Empire links have long since disappeared and in their place has arisen, as a result of the work of great South African statesmen, including Gen. Smuts and Hertzog and Dr. Malan—and I hope the Prime Minister will also make his contribution —the concept of the Commonwealth, which is the true heritage of the Englishman. What they should really be proud of is not the fact that they forced the British Crown down the throat of the Afrikaner 60 years ago, but the creation of the Commonwealth concept which has carried the “genius” of the British political system to its highest peak. This is something of which my friends here can be proud, but they must know how to use it. During the referendum the hon. the Leader of the Opposition used that concept in a way which made me feel—and allow me to say frankly that no one in South Africa is more proud of the Commonwealth—that if this was the interpretation which the Leader of the Opposition is trying to attach to the Commonwealth on behalf of the English-speaking people, then I would become one of the strongest advocates of secession from that Commonwealth.

On a point of order, I do not think the hon. member’s speech is relevant.

I am trying to show that the Leader of the Opposition has accused the Government of doing nothing to achieve that unity which is so essential. That is what I am discussing. My hon. friend probably cannot understand Afrikaans. I say that the Opposition and the English Press—and I have never before allowed the words “English Press” to cross my lips, but to-day I do so— have used the Commonwealth and our membership to try to frustrate the Afrikaner in his noblest struggle, and this is something which I cannot swallow. If they continue along these lines, then they can be certain that no one will be more responsible for destroying our membership of the Commonwealth than this very Opposition. I am thankful to the Prime Minister that he has at least put this matter in the correct perspective.

I say there are two main factors. Unless the people of South Africa, unless both sides learn to respect one another, there will not be unity. The Afrikaner must learn to respect the concept of the Commonwealth because that is the background of the English-speaking people. Not that I idealize the Commonwealth as such. It is entering a dangerous stage to-day, a multi-racial stage, and whether it can continue to exist remains to be seen. But I say that the Afrikaners must respect the Commonwealth concept of the English-speaking people. This is the one factor which can make a contribution to unity; there must not only be a negative and neutral attitude towards the Commonwealth as we have so often seen, but the time has come when every Afrikaner will have to start thinking positively and constructively about the Commonwealth because if it fails it will represent one of the additional problems which we must face in the future in this world which is already so hostile to South Africa. In it to a certain extend we still have an anchor to which we can cling and I think we must adopt a very much more constructive attitude towards the Commonwealth concept, which is the contribution of the English-speaking people. But by the same token my hon. friends on this side must realize that when they oppose the republic so vigorously—as they are still doing—then it is not a question simply of constitutional or political opposition. They are opposing the highest cultural struggle of the Afrikaner and as such this opposition in fact represents an anti-Afrikaner attitude. As long as that is so, do not let us throw stones; let us be reasonable. As long as that is the position, there will be no unity in South Africa. That is the situation as I see it and we are now faced with the overwhelming problem of the relationship between White and non-White.

Here we have the same difficulty. I want to say this. After very full consideration and deep meditation on this matter, the hon. member for Jeppes as well as my friends opposite have spoken of alternative policies, but the question which comes to my mind is whether there is an alternative. Are we not all emotionally in favour of separation? Who of us really wants to advocate a multi-racial state with all its implications? I am still waiting to hear the Leader of the Opposition or any member here do so and I have never heard anyone do so during the past eight years. Year in and year out we talk about a multi-racial state, but we do not want to face real implications of such a concept. That has always been my difficulty with my hon. friends. They talk integration and they want apartheid, while my friends opposite talk about apartheid and have allowed integration. What do we find to-day? The census figures show what the position is. It is quite clear to me that the Government and the Whites are faced with forces which are too strong for them, despite the efforts which have been made hitherto. Or if that is not so, if the forces of integration are not too strong, it is quite clear that the methods which the Government has used hitherto have been quite inadequate. What is the choice with which we are faced? I believe that the White people of South Africa and the non-Whites as well believe emotionally in separation. The question is whether the Whites as well as the non-Whites wish to adopt the methods required to achieve that final aim of separation. As far as the Whites are concerned, there are few signs that they wish to provide the necessary means. I want to tell the Prime Minister and his Government that if they really do proceed to apply apartheid, real apartheid, it is the only policy which may solve the problem—but I believe that the possibility is very slight. I say that if real apartheid is applied the policy which may bring salvation for White as well as non-White, then I am prepared to give it my wholehearted support, but not sham apartheid; I am referring to real apartheid. But let us realize and let us tell the people what it will mean. It is not child’s play to undo the history and facts of 300 years, particularly in the economic sphere where for 300 years we have become ever more interdependent and where this process is still continuing to an increasing extent day after day and year after year—it will not be child’s play. We must not think in terms of millions or even in terms of freedom. Last year I said here that one of the greatest prices which the Whites would have to pay for this means of salvation, for apartheid, would be subjection for how long I do not know, and even the surrender of his own personal freedom. We speak of Press freedom. These are things which are of incalcuable value to democracy, but if we really wish to seek the greatest prize, i.e. salvation of the White man by means of apartheid, then I doubt most strongly whether it can be done by the ordinary democratic methods under which Press freedom, etc., will be permitted. I am mentioning this so that the people can realize what it may mean. The material sacrifices will be small, comparatively speaking, enormous though they may be. But let the Government also realize that if we are to achieve this apartheid which may bring salvation, then the Prime Minister will forgive me if I say that he must first think a little more deeply about the problem. When he spoke the day before yesterday, I could not help thinking of a type of ornamental fountain with four beautiful fountains of different colours. He speaks of four streams, separate from one another. If I understand his policy correctly, there are at least 11 or 12 such streams because there are ethnic differences even between the various Bantu tribes. The 12 beautiful coloured jets of water rise high into the sky, but sooner or later that water will have to descend. We shall not be able to avoid that economic synthesis. There will have to be integration. I want to place particular emphasis on the Coloured policy which does not satisfy me at all. The Prime Minister is not here at the moment. I should like to put one test to him. Are he and the Government also prepared to allow our Coloureds to have the right to establish their own factories in the urban areas in competition with the Whites?

They already have it.

Are they prepared to accept that no restrictions will be placed on them in that regard? If that is the policy I shall believe in it, but I should like to see what the reaction of the Whites will be once this process really gets under way.

There still remains the overwhelming problem with which the nation is faced. I find it alarming to see the latest census figures. I hoped that we would see a different tendency to the old tendency, but I find it disquieting that the same tempo is still evident despite all our attempts. Because what does it mean? The entire 300 year period of economic integration and of mutual interdependence has not been nearly as important as the integration which has taken place over the past 20 or 30 years. In the early days we had what I call quantitative integration, where the Whites and the non-Whites were spread over the entire country and the non-Whites did the unskilled work. We employed them in large numbers because their labour was cheap. But over the past 20 years there has been a quite different phase, that is to say, we have had the phase of what I call qualitative integration in the economy during which phase the non-White has done and can do skilled and semi-skilled work and has had to be given a certain degree of technical and academic training. This has given the non-White tremendous economic power and while this integration continues at the present tempo, we are giving political power to the non-Whites through their economic power which will make anuallity of any policy of apartheid in the foreseeable future, because the pressure which is being exercised on our country from without and within will not allow us much time to play with. The great dilemma facing South Africa is that it is necessary for us that the non-White should become more and more skilled and productive because on these factors depend the prosperity of every section of the population. But as we succeed in doing that, we give the non-White power, not merely economic power, but political power as well. Let us get away from the idea that the political power of the Native was represented in this House by three representatives. That is meaningless. The political power of the non-White is represented by his economic power, on which we are dependent, and if we continue along that road and a halt is not called, then I can tell my hon. friends opposite that no matter how much I should like to help them—and I want to help them because I believe that emotionally the people want this; it is not a question of logic or argument; the people want this and the non-Whites want it as well to an increasing extent. Whatever one may think in terms of logic, one simply has to do what the people want, and if a people really want something, then such a people can achieve wonders. But let us realize that the means to achieve this object of possible separation which we to-day rightly or wrongly see as our only salvation must be provided by the people, and the Government will have to take the necessary steps to obtain those means. I want to say frankly that I respect my friends on these benches. They are putting forward an alternative policy. I cannot say that of my other friends over here. But they will not take it amiss when I say with all due respect that they are taking an extremely superficial view of the matter. They are logical from A to Z, but measured in terms of the real forces which move mankind, those deeply rooted emotions, their attitude is in my opinion completely lacking in psychology, although exceptionally logical. For that reason I genuinely believe that there is not much hope at this stage that we can still find salvation along their road. That is the position. It is not a question of reason. It is a question of what the people want. Whether what they want is based on reason or on emotion does not matter. I believe that it is based on emotion, and do not refer disparagingly to emotion. This is a deeply rooted aspect of every human being and nation. It originated in the far distant past, and has been developed year after year and century after century and when reason sometimes leaves one in the lurch, it is often the emotions, the intuition, the instinct of the masses which has saved them. Now, I hope that here we shall again have a case where the feelings of the masses, of the ordinary man, have been right and where reason can only delve so far into the deeper motives of the people. That is why we are sometimes filled with doubt as to what should be done in the future. I make an appeal to this Parliament that we as Whites should try to come together and forget those old gods of the past. It is useless the Afrikaner trying to hide in his tribal tent and hoping that the Englishman will drag him out and bring him to national unity. Just as little will it avail hon. members on this side trying to hide away in their tribal tents and expecting the Afrikaners to go in and drag them out by the scruff of their necks. Let us stand together on the basis of our love for South Africa and let us try to forget those unhappy things which have kept us apart in the past. If we cannot stand together at this stage then I am absolutely certain that it will not be long before we will go under together.

It is really a pleasure to follow the hon. member for Germiston (District) (Prof. Fourie) because I think it is more than fitting in a debate such as this that we should be taken to the basic issues underlying the matter under discussion as the hon. member has done. Towards the end of my speech I hope to comment on certain aspects to which the hon. member has referred.

I want to concentrate mainly on the third section of the motion of no-confidence moved by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, namely his charge that the Government has failed to maintain South Afirca’s good name overseas. Just before doing so, I want to say a few words about the paragraph which criticizes the Government for failing to maintain sound race relations. When I saw the motion on the Order Paper I thought that that paragraph would only relate to colour relationships and I regret very deeply that the United Party has brought in the relationships between the Afrikaans-speaking and the English-speaking population groups in South Africa. The mere fact that the United Party has done so substantiates once again the charges which the hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee) has so effectively levelled at them because if there was ever a period in our country’s history when we should not make reproaches regarding past Afrikaans/English relationships, it is now. I am guilty, all of us are guilty for having done and said certain things in the past which have harmed those relationships. But we are on the threshold of a new beginning, and if, just prior to making this new beginning, we once again go back and reproach one another for the mistakes of the past, then it shows in what state of mind we are entering the new era. By doing so the United Party has blatantly condemmed itself and substantiated the charges made by the hon. member for Vereeniging.

The main theme of the speech by the Leader of the Opposition was that this Government had failed to maintain South Africa’s good name overseas. What is the object of this speech of the Leader of the Opposition, what is the object of this motion? It is to divert this country from the policy of apartheid, from political separation, from separate development, and to persuade the country to support the United Party’s policy of integration. That is the object of this whole debate, and as his main theme with which to achieve this object, the Leader of the Opposition has used the argument that this Government policy has caused unfavourable reaction abroad. In other words, he has sought to base his arguments on the outside world’s condemnation of our apartheid policy. He is basing his arguments in support of his alternative policy on the fact that the outside world is not favourably disposed towards this Government’s policy. This is a most important aspect of this debate. In the first place this represents an admission by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that he can no longer go to the people of South Africa themselves and say: “In the interests of South Africa, in view of South Africa’s circumstances, I submit that South Africa wants my policy and not that of the Nationalist Party ”. This is an admission that he has no arguments with a South African basis in support of his apartheid policy. The second aspect of this approach is that it gives us a golden opportunity to judge the patriotism and the South Africanism of that party. The mere fact that their Leader justifies his policy by submitting that it is acceptable abroad shows that he is appealing to foreign opinion and prejudice to justify his domestic policy. Mr. Speaker, to do so, merely in passing is one thing, but for the Leader of an official Opposition, in his main policy motion of the year, to adopt an approach in which he says: “I want to point out that the outside world disapproves of the Government’s policy and for that reason my policy must be acceptable ”, does not befit the leader of any opposition in any country. His own party and his own supporters must judge what kind of patriotism this is, what kind of statesmanship this is, and what political wisdom this approach contains. I say his own supporters and his own party must judge because the people have already judged. Quite recently the people expressed their judgement on this attitude of the Leader of the Opposition and they rejected him by a very big majority. Now his own supporters, the minority, must judge what type of patriotism and statesmanship are revealed by this approach.

But a second aspect—and the hon. the Prime Minister has already referred to this— is the question: Where must our good name be maintained? In terms of the motion, the criticism is expressed that South Africa’s good name has not been maintained overseas. In other words, it is worded very widely. Our good name must not be maintained with the governments of these foreign countries; the motion refers to the outside world in general— that is where our good name has not been maintained. Consequently this includes the great populations of the outside world and there are so many schools of thought to be found amongst these foreign nations. In the outside world we find conservative groups there are even the reactionary groups; there are the large leftist-inclined groups; there are the large doctrinaire communistic groups; and there are the neo-nationalistic groups, particularly in the Afro-Asian countries. And amongst which of these groups is South Africa’s name particularly bad? Is it particularly bad amongst the conservative groups overseas, or is it particularly bad amongst the leftist-inclined groups? Does South Africa have a bad name overseas amongst the responsible financial interests, or does South Africa only have a bad name amongst the doctrinaire communists overseas? Does South Africa have a bad name abroad among those who judge a state by its manifestations of normal dignity and financial reliability, etc., or do we have a bad name among the neo-nationalists of Africa and Asia? The tenor of this motion is that the Government should not have let South Africa acquire a bad name, in other words in those quarters where the greatest animosity towards South Africa has developed, we should have taken countermeasures; this Government should have ensured that that animosity did not develop in those quarters. The accusation of the Leader of the Opposition is therefore the following: This Government has failed to maintain our good name amongst the leftists, the doctrinaire communists and the neo-nationalists of Africa. Is that an accusation which will enjoy any support in South Africa? Because I say this without fear of contradiction: Amongst the ordinary members of that party there are just as few people who want to seek the favour of the communists, the extreme leftists and this new Afro-Asian bloc, as there are amongst the supporters of the National Party. In this motion the leadership of that party is untrue to the feelings of its own supporters.

The hon. member then gave a number of examples which he considers prove that this Government has failed to maintain South Africa’s good name overseas. The first instance to which he has referred is the message which the United States sent via its State Department to the Union of South Africa after Sharpeville and Langa to the effect that they deplored certain events and certain policies in this country. We concede that debating point to the Leader of the Opposition. This is proof that a power with which South Africa has always maintained the friendliest relations has shown a tangibly unfavourable reaction. But we must now investigate whether his accusation is correct, whether this Government can be reproached for the fact that this incident took place. And here I ask again: Does it perhaps not behove the Leader of the Opposition to investigate whether the great United States is possibly under a misapprehension rather than to hold his own Government directly responsible for that deterioration in relations? Would it not be a more patriotic approach if the Leader of the Opposition in referring to this incident would first say: “I now want to investigate whether the other party is not in error” before making the accusation that we are to blame? Perhaps the hon. the Leader of the Opposition did not want to do so because it is not desirable to discuss relations with other states in public. I do not want to do so either, but I want to ask the hon. the Leader of the Opposition whether he has in fact considered certain of the factors involved. Has the hon. the Leader of the Opposition considered the fact that it was America who intervened in the Suez crisis in August 1956, and that since then the Pan-African movement has developed and become powerful with Cairo as its base. Has he considered the fact that as long ago as October 1958, in voting on the special political committee of UNO, the United States associated herself with the motion of “regret and concern that the Government of the Union of South Africa has not responded to the appeals of the Assembly concerning its racial policies ”? These are things which happened nearly two-and-a-half years ago. Has the hon. the Leader of the Opposition considered the fact that a large number of fraternal delegates attended the great Pan-African conference at Accra in 1958 on behalf of the United States of America? And it was at that conference in Accra that the non-White African states adopted the resolution in which they condemned colonialism and appealed to all independent African states to support freedom movements in countries where Natives did not rule, and in which they gave their support to peaceful methods of gaining freedom but also approved the use of violence in the struggle against violent oppression. And has the Leader of the Opposition considered the fact that the then Secretary of State, Mr. Dulles, gave his sympathetic support to the activities and resolutions of that conference? And after taking all these factors into account has he come to the conclusion that this Government must be held responsible for America’s change in attitude which became so strongly evident last year? Has the hon. the Leader of the Opposition considered the fact that in its policy statements dealing with Africa, including the recent policy statement of Mr. Kennedy who pointed out that they should provide education to the Black states of Africa, that they should provide capital, that they should provide food, and in which Mr. Kennedy promised his support for the rising flood of nationalism, etc., in all these policy statements the United States has never said where it draws the line on the continent of Africa as far as communistic aggression is concerned. As the world stands to-day, the world only knows this about Communism in Africa: The world knows that America in general is opposed to Communism, but they know that south of the Limpopo all life and wealth will be sacrificed in order to halt Communism. This is the only definite international line which has been drawn against Communism. And I ask whether the hon. member, if he had considered all these aspects, would have made the unqualified statement that this change of heart on the part of America is the fault of this Government and should be attributed to this Government. No, we believe that if all the facts had been considered and if a patriotic approach had been adopted, the Leader of the Opposition would probably not have raised these aspects at all, and we believe that if he had raised them, he would have raised them in quite a different way and probably in a way which was critical of the United States and favourable towards this Government.

Then I turn to the other example he has mentioned, namely the complete lack of support for the Union of South Africa on the motion that the discussion of the position of South West Africa should be postponed. That is true and here we once again have to concede a debating point—this is concrete evidence that South Africa’s international position has deteriorated. But must we not take the facts into account? It has been indicated —and this is generally known that the great powers of the world, practically all the powers at the United Nations, attach great importance to the friendship of the Afro-Asian bloc and that they do not want to do anything which will cause the Afro-Asian bloc any offence. And what is the Afro-Asian bloc? Do they want South Africa to qualify its policy? No, the Afro-Asian bloc demands the destruction of our White people or alternatively our subjection in South Africa. They are not demanding the bloodless compromise which the Leader of the Opposition offers, and the great powers will have to seek the friendship of the Afro-Asian bloc on the terms laid down by those states. The great powers cannot say to them: “Look, we shall go so far as to support the United Party’s conception of integration in South Africa and on that basis we seek your friendship.” That is ridiculous. They must give the Afro-Asian bloc their full support, their whole-hearted support, and the same applies to the demands made by those states. As long as the Afro-Asian bloc demands our head as the price of their favours, for so long will support be given to anti-South African motions at the United Nations, irrespective of what this Government does and irrespective even of what an alternative government should do. For so long as the great powers hope to gain the support of the Afro-Asian bloc, for so long will South Africa remain on the rack. I think South Africa’s position can quite fairly be compared with the procedure which was often followed during the late Middle Ages in trying and sentencing alleged witches and magicians. It was often the custom to apply the trial by water, i.e. to bind the witch and to throw her into the water. If the witch drowned then it was proof that she was guilty because if she was not guilty she would miraculously float. Or else there was the other trial by torture of stretching the accused on the rack and torturing him. And if he survived it was proof that the tortured person was innocent but if he died, it was proof that he was guilty. In the international sphere South Africa is to-day undergoing trial by torture as a result of the international position which has developed. Seeing that we as a state, as fellow-countrymen, are being tortured and humiliated together through this trial by torture, I ask: Is it a patriot who protests against this trial by torture or is it a patriot who approves of this being done and says: The fact that we are being tortured is proof that this Government is guilty.

Mr. Speaker, in this international crisis I do believe that the most elementary requirements of our patriotism calls for us as a people to stand together and not try to score debating points off one another nor to cast various petty reproaches at one another, because this situation has developed around South Africa without our being responsible for it and without our being able to do anything about it. Our international crime is not that we are immoral; our international crime is not that we are acting unfairly; our international crime is not that we are violating human rights. Our international crime is our lack of atomic energy and strength. If we were powerful we would be moral, but because we are weak and because we are a pawn to be used for possible international gain, these reproaches are being levelled at us. When we take these factors into account, then my question is whether the Leader of the Opposition has by any stretch of the imagination adopted a reasonable approach, a fair approach. I believe that we can only earn South Africa a better international reputation by doing two things, and not by changing our Governments and making minor adjustments in our basic policy. We must achieve this object by removing the possibility of any profit from this hatred of South Africa. At the moment it is profitable to propagate hatred against South Africa because the propagators of this hatred believe that they can achieve results; they believe that they will achieve the subjection of South Africa. The communist believes that he will gain South Africa for Communism. The PanAfrican and the Black nationalist believes that he will gain South Africa for a Black united Africa. In this way each hostile group has a possible interest in this process, and South Africa’s reputation will improve and South Africa’s position will become easier if and when we can convince the outside world that South Africa will maintain herself permanently in her present form. Her position will become easier when they no longer cherish the illusion that they will gain anything by this campaign. Mr. Speaker, how will we achieve this state of affairs unless the Opposition and their Press co-operate or at least keep silent. Because who are the people who arouse doubts in the mind of the world; who are the people who keep this illusion alive in the minds of the communist; who are the people who keep this illusion alive in the dreams of the Pan-African nationalist, the illusion that this part of South Africa will crumble? It is those people who are suggesting that this Government which interprets a way of life will come to a fall, and that another movement will come into power in South Africa and that they will start undermining these basic foundations of South Africa. This suggestion of the Leader of the Opposition that if he comes into power a policy of compromise and of racial integration to a certain extent will be adopted makes these people who are hostile to South Africa say: “Ah, there is hope; have you seen that the Leader of the Opposition says that he is going to move in our direction? At some time or another the Government will fall; at some time or another this Leader of the Opposition will surely come into power and open a small gap through which the communistic agent or the dark forces of Africa can enter and force it even wider open.” This gives them courage and then they persist; then they continue attacking South Africa in the belief that we must eventually crumble and fall under these hammer blows. We can therefore only make our position easier and stronger if we remove this illusion that the South African way of life which this Government interprets will ever be destroyed in South Africa. And how will we remove that illusion? In this respect I want to link up with certain thoughts which the hon. member for Germiston (District) has expressed, but I think this is an opportune time for us to adjourn and I therefore move—

I second.

Agreed to; debate adjourned until 27 January.