announced that in terms of Standing Order No. 185 he had appointed the following members to serve on the Select Committee on the Fuel Research Institute and Coal Bill, viz.: Messrs. J. J. Fouché (Chairman), Bloomberg, Dr. Cronje, Messrs. Frank, Hourquebie, van der Merwe and Visse.

I move as an unopposed motion—

I second. Agreed to.

When the debate was interrupted last night by the adjournment of the House I was discussing the position of the many millions of Bantu who would still be in the socalled White Republic when this Bill is implemented and self-government granted to the Transkei and the difficulties which must flow from their dual citizenship, a citizenship imposed upon them, with or without their approval by the Transkeian Authority although they are also entitled to citizenship of this Republic by birth. It is against that background that I want to continue to-day with an examination of another aspect of this Bill and that is its effect upon the overall defence and security of the Republic itself, apart from the defence of the Transkei. I want to examine briefly the effect of the Transkei Constitution Bill, even in its present form, upon the defence position of the Republic, to say nothing about the serious dangers which must flow from it when it is further expanded at a pace over which we will have no control, at a pace which will be dictated largely by the Transkeian Administration itself, this Parliament having surrendered its control to that one. One of the most significant features of yesterday’s Budget was the demand on the taxpayers to find a sum of R157,000,000 for the known cost of the defence of the Republic; a record figure either in peace or war as far as the Republic is concerned. That is only the known figure, Sir. What must also be taken into account is the unknown figure which cannot be ascertained. We must consider the effects of the speed-up of the defence organization not only upon the economic development of the country but also the reverse effect that it will have, in that it will slow down certain essential features of development thereby costing the country an unknown sum of money regarding which it would not be an exaggeration if you put it as equivalent to the known figure for R150,000,000-odd. That is the total figure that our defence is going to cost us for, what the hon. the Minister of Finance described as the formidable price of protection against foreign aggression. Those words were significant, Sir. With this Transkeian Bill which we are now being asked to pass, and because of the wider implications of that policy, the Government is making a breach in one of the most vulnerable points of the defence perimeter of the Republic itself. It is making a breach, Sir, which not only provides an entrance door for the foreign aggressor of which the Minister of Finance spoke about, but must to a large extent hamstring the defence organization of our own country in its planning for the overall security of the Republic. We must not lose sight of the fact that the printed words in an Act of Parliament, printed statements of policy in regard to these sort of matters, mean nothing more than the words printed on that paper unless you carry with you both the approval and the backing of the people whom that policy is supposed to control. You also have to have the power to enforce your law and in order to enforce it you have to have the backing of the people otherwise you can never enforce it. Surely we have had sufficient evidence on that point. It does not call for any discussion. It is only necessary to think how the far-reaching defence plan of Great Britain itself which was based at Cyprus, first in Egypt, then Ceylon and other outposts, crumbled and fell away when they met the combined opposition of the public of the area concerned. The public was not prepared to accept it, and the mighty military power of Britain had to bow to that opinion.

The Government’s transfer of control to the Bantustan is likely to impose similar dangers on this Republic. It is against that background that I want to examine certain aspects of our own defence policy. It is quite true that Clause 39 in Part V of this Bill provides that the Legislative Assembly of the Transkei will have no authority or power to establish or control any military or quasi-military organization. But that restriction is immediately partly contradicted in paragraphs 6 and 7 of Part B of the First Schedule which read:

1. (6) The protection of life, persons and property, etc.; and
2. (7) the control, organization and administration of such personnel or such part of the Police Force stationed in the Transkei as may have been transferred to the government of the Transkei.

Note the terms used, Sir; I think it is very significant—transferred to the government of the Transkei by the Minister of Justice of the Republic. Now under our own Defence Act, the Police Force is regarded as one of the most important links in the defence organization of the Republic and it has proved itself to be so over and over again. It is proving that at the moment. This important defence responsibility of the police as far as the Transkei is concerned is now being placed under dual control, partly of the Republic and partly of the Transkeian Bantustan. Clause 39 of Part V of the Bill provides that the Transkeian Parliament will not have the power to establish or control any quasi or military organization. It makes one wonder what is meant by the term “quasi-military organization”. The Paramount Chiefs impis have recently been estimated by the police to be plus or minus 300 strong. I do not think the Republic dare lose sight of the fact that we have had ample evidence in the past history of our country of the brilliant military mind and strategy inherent to so many of the Bantu people of this country. Our forebears constantly realized what amazing generalship the Natives, whom they called the savages in those days, displayed. And since those days they have had the benefit of a great deal of advice so they must have improved. So one wonders just how far one is protected by these words in the Bill.

One of the most important essentials to the successful defence of any country and particularly in regard to the internal security of any country, is the possession of and the power to control adequate lines of communication thus allowing rapid movement of troops, essential ammunition and equipment particularly in times of emergency; communication by road, by sea, by air and by rail. They are all essential. It is impossible to avoid the conclusion that the ultimate result of this Bill will be the undermining of one of the most important bastions of the defence of this country, namely the possession and the undisputed control of the entire length of our coast line from one boundary to the other. That is imperative and that is the basis on which much of our defence strategy is planned. The undermining, unfortunately for the Republic, will take place right along the weakest point, along the soft under-belly for our eastern seaboard from which any communistic threat to the Republic must be expected. The port of Durban and the port of East London in this coastal area are two vital sea exits and accesses. They are points of access to the Free State and the Transvaal. These provinces have the barriers of the protectorates on the one side and if they do not have these exits they will be enclosed.

The Republic has spent millions of rand on building a vast arterial system of strategic roads in order to connect the eastern and western portions of the country and those roads traverse the whole of the Transkeian territory. It is essential for the security of this country that we have full and undisputed possession of the 2,000 miles of coast line which we have to defend. Yet this Bill, even in its present form, plants the Prime Minister’s first Bantustan squarely across that particularly vital portion of the defence base of South Africa, right astride the entire strategic road system, the air system. We are going to hand over our control over that stretch of coast line to somebody who will not be able to control it themselves; that stretch of coast line can easily fall prey to somebody outside who is not friendly towards South Africa.

Only last week, Sir, we had a striking example of the value placed by the Western powers on the stable control over strategic air routes. The hon. the Minister of Defence in the Other Place referred to the stable position of South Africa in this respect. We are going to unstabilize, if I may use the term, what is at present one of the most stable portions of our country when it comes to defence. It is the Republic’s most strategic air route which maintains an uninterrupted line of communication between the Cape and Natal. It links up some 200,000 square miles and at this most vulnerable point along the coastal belt, between the Cape and Zululand, that air route lies directly over the Transkei, the Transkei which this Bill is placing on the road to sovereign independence.

Already in Central Africa our commercial air lines are seeking alternative air routes because the independent Black states which have been created there are going to bar us, or are threatening to bar us from over-flying their territories. Are we going to saddle ourselves with the same position here? Because that is what this Bill will eventually do. We will not have power to stop it whatever the Prime Minister may say. The hon. the Minister of Defence is spending many millions of rand on defence equipment, amongst others, on a particular type of aircraft intended for the defence of our coast, the Buccaneer supersonic aircraft. They are intended to fly off an aircraft carrier but we have none of these. This particular piece of coast line has to be defended, therefore it will be essential for those planes to have bases, even emergency landing bases, along that coastal belt. How are we going to get those? Those that are there are largely the left-overs of the last war but how are we going to maintain even those if the Transkei says that they do not want us there? The Minister himself will appreciate the difficulty in that respect. While the Minister of Defence is buying these planes, while they are forming part of the Budget expenditure which the country is being asked to face, his colleague, the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development, is busy making it easy for disruptive forces to operate along these very points that we must possess and must control. I think it is no exaggeration to state that we have already had proof of the correctness of our fears with regard to the disruptive effect in the demands already being made by the Prime Minister elect of the Transkeian parliament, long before he is even in that position. He has already said what he is going to do and what he requires. Once he makes those demands, Sir, we will have very little hope of effectively resisting them for any length of time. We are helping to speed up the time to put ourselves in that weakened position. [Interjections.] I wish that hon. member, if he does not want to listen, would go out to graze; he will probably be quieter out there.

The modern technique of the communist is not a straightforward attack; it is to create internal disorder. Surely we have had enough lessons in that regard? We had the example of China attacking India recently; we had the example of the turning out of the Portuguese from Goa. We know how these attacks are made. They use the local population to stir up strife and they thus hamstring their defences in that way. It is no longer a question of a straightforward war. Here we are putting the very weapons in their hands to practise the same technique in our own country. The most significant lesson we have had recently is that in regard to Cuba, an insignificant bankrupt little State on an island. And yet with the power of the Soviet behind it, it was sufficient to make even the mighty United States go into practically a full war organization. It brought the whole world practically on the brink of war. Will we never learn our lesson, Sir? Have none of these grim facts sunk into the minds of the Government themselves? Do they still dream that this cannot happen to us? Do the people of this country believe that this cannot happen to us? It has happened to every country that has been affected up to now and they have been powerless to resist it. Here we are placing a weapon in the hands of these people to speed up the day when that will happen to us. Is it not time, Sir, for the Government to stop dreaming about these sort of things and to get their feet down to the realities of earth? That is where the type of Bantustan policy they are pursuing is leading us to.

Can they not do it without the Bill?

They will probably eventually try to do it without any Bill but we will be in a much stronger position to resist them if we retain control of our country and not hand it over as this Bill intends to do. There can be no shadow of doubt that one of the most important and urgent tasks which will result from the implementation of this Bill will be a complete re-assessment of the defence system of this country, because this Bill and the subsequent measures which are bound to follow it, will punch holes in our defence system. It will move the front line of defence back from its recognized strongest point, namely the sea coast, to many hundreds of miles inland where we will have to deal with an enemy who already has a foothold inside our country. It may well mean the wasting of many millions of rand which the country has already spent or is now asking this House to spend on defence. But not only that, Sir, more important still it may well in the long run mean the complete disruption and destruction of the Republic. It is the complete surrender by this Government of all that has been handed down to us to pass on to those who follow us.

We criticize this policy of the Government. Our own policy in this matter is perfectly clear. We are not against Bantu states getting autonomy as far as autonomy goes in respect of their own local affairs; we are not against any man of any colour, as a citizen of South Africa, as a unit in South Africa, doing his share in the production of wealth in this country, and of getting his fair reward. But we say he does that as a unit of this country, not as a foreigner, not as a menace to this country which this law of Parliament makes him. We claim that we can live in harmony, in justice and in peace with the Black races of South Africa provided they get a square deal which we are prepared to give them in terms of our own policy. That will solve the difficulties of this country without going to these fantastic extreme of clothing what looks like a dream in the figments of parliamentary rule and so hamstring this country into surrendering its own defence security. We will all contribute to a common South African loyalty. Not only a loyalty to one particular Bantustan in the case of one group and a loyalty to the Republic of South Africa by another group of people. We will all have one common loyalty to this Republic of South Africa and we will have common allegiance to the laws of the Republic of South Africa, in the widest spheres of national life with autonomy to deal with their own affairs in their own areas as citizens of South Africa. That is the answer, Sir. That, in short, is the policy of our party’s Race Federation plan. It will be a South Africa which will take fullest advantage of White leadership, of White skill, of White finance without which neither White South Africa nor the Bantu themselves can continue to exist. What we are doing here is not only going to weaken the Republic, it is going to destroy any prospect the Bantu themselves have of advancing and developing their own nation within a reasonable period. We have the evidence. It will eventually debar them from access to the very things that they need, the things that I have mentioned, those things with which this country has increasingly provided them down the ages. I ask Government members who still have to speak on this Bill to turn this matter over in their minds. I ask them to remember the Oath which they took before this Table that they would stand by and defend this Republic against any damage, against any harm. Is this the way they carry out that oath? One can only regard this Bill as nothing else than the thin end of the wedge of the Government’s Bantustan policy which must end in the destruction of White South Africa as we know it.

One expected that in this debate the Opposition would make some attempt to state policy against policy and point against point. To my great disappointment, however, they have come along with the “Black peril” theme, and we find that there is a confusion of tongues amongst hon. members of the Opposition. This Black peril theme that they are using as propaganda was partly borrowed and partly fabricated for the purpose of argument in this debate. It is an attempt to get away from the basic historical fact as formulated in this measure. I want to put it this way that it has already become an integral part of our country’s economy; the regulation of race relations is a perfectly normal and integral part of our country’s politics in just the same way as the regulation of its monetary affairs and its defence matters. It is part and parcel of our history. The debate on this started in 1948 in all seriousness and was finally concluded in 1960. I cannot understand how, in the light of historical developments, there can still be people who regard this as a hypothetical matter. Our attitude, unequivocally and finally, is that there is no middle course between integration and separate development. Not the history of our country but the history of the development of colonial powers in Africa has proved finally and clearly that there is no middle course unless one is prepared to sacrifice one’s identity. Separation, in our opinion, is no obstacle to the development of the national consciousness of the individual or groups of individuals. It violates that national consciousness in no way. and it has been accepted as a basic fact that every racial group has the right to develop according to its own character. The Opposition has also accepted this. Our attitude, in contrast with theirs, is that separation places no obstacle in the path of that process. On the contrary, it offers the breeding ground for it. Every racial group should grow and develop. according to its own character, in its own sphere, on its own basis and in its own area. In the course of the lengthy debates from 1948 up to about 1960 we were told on various occasions in this House that we should lift the regulation of race relationships out of the political arena. The invitation was extended to the Government to lift it out of the political arena, and then the Opposition would formally and solemnly co-operate. Mr. Speaker, what are we doing other than that by means of this measure? The non-White will now be able to achieve his political aspirations not within the borders of the Republic but within the borders of his own area. After the passing of this measure his presence within our territorial borders will only have a socio-economic significance. The Prime Minister, through the Government, has complied, without the Opposition themselves being aware of it, with the request that they have been making for so many years. Here an opportunity is being created for political and economic development to take place hand in hand, in peace, without any clash. The one element which may cause a clash in the spirit of the individual or of groups of individuals is also being removed. The Bantu is now being given a place where he can achieve his national aspirations. That is what we are giving him in this legislation. I should like to know from the Opposition what objection they have to it.

The hon. member for Simonstown (Mr. Gay) said that we were undermining our own defence plan but in the same breath. he saw fit to point out how backward and unreliable the Bantu still was. We also heard from the hon. member for King William’s Town (Mr. Warren) how susceptible they are to agitation, Communism, etc., and he mentioned certain names. The Opposition contradict themselves. What would be the position if we retained in a multi-racial army, people who are susceptible to agitation, subversion, etc.? Is that how they want to defend and protect this country? No, Sir, we are not selling out the Republic; we are consolidating its position and safeguarding it against elements which are anxious to undermine it.

The acceptance of separate development reveals one important fact and that is that here we are creating the opportunity for the aspirations of the individual to square perfectly with the national aspirations of the group or the race to which he belongs. This eliminates the conflict in the minds of these people in their relationship to the Republic and in their relationship to their own state. We are chopping out the common reed and the bulrush so that the sparkling stream can flow on unhindered. There is no other alternative. History has proved that he who ignores the lessons of history seals his own doom. We have already accepted this policy, and we accept it with its full consequences. We accept it—let me put it quite clearly—even if it means resorting to arms. If these people, on the strength of false assumptions, want to try to frighten us with the story of a “Black peril” then they are barking up the wrong tree. This side of the House has fully taken into account all the implications and consequences of this policy and of its implementation. Hon. members opposite talk about fragmentation. The only fragmentation that I can associate with the implementation of this policy is the fragmentation of the United Party. There we have a case of fragmentation. Sir. I ask myself whether this was a question of projection. They think that because they had this process of fragmentation in their own ranks as the result of their illogical policy, they can conveniently project it on to the Government. The only recruit they got in this process of fragmentation was one single stray lamb; for the rest they simply lost ground; they had to stand by and witness a further fragmentation of their ranks from time to time. I have here a cutting from the Despatch of 27 November 1962 which proves the very opposite of the allegation that we are undermining allegiance. Here we have a statement by the Prime Minister-designate of the Transkei from which it appears that he has a fine appreciation of the basic attitude of the White man in the Republic. He says here—

Then he goes on to say—

That is not proof of a lack of allegiance; it is proof of a mature attitude with regard to the relationship of one state to another state. Furthermore, it is proof of respect for the guardian of this dependent state and of what it regards as a sacred right for itself. Talking about fragmentation, we also find that he makes an accusation against the United Party, the people who are so fond of talking about fragmentation. His accusation is that the trouble is being caused by that element which seeks to mislead his own people, and he describes them as follows—

According to the designated leader of the Transkei, this attitude in connection with fragmentation is also really an obsession with the White Opposition parties in the Republic of South Africa. What does the United Party mouthpiece, the Star, itself, say about the temperament of its political instrument? I refer to the Star of 15 December 1962. It says—

The Black peril theme—

Here we have a very good warning from their own mouthpiece with regard to this panic-stricken attitude and the attempt to exploit fear in their opposition to a very sound Bill.

It has been alleged here repeatedly that this Bill is actuated by a desire on our part to launch a world-wide propaganda campaign, and that because of fear of world opinion we are trying to mislead the Bantu by making an offer to him that he should strive to achieve independence. There again we have the fear complex to which we have become accustomed as far as they are concerned. One is sorry that it is necessary to give the Opposition in South Africa lessons in politics. Mr. Speaker, in the Chicago Tribune we read this significant admission that in the independent Africa states, civilization is being pushed into the background and that there is a return to jungle conditions. A great Africa authority in America made the devastating admission in Washington that America was supporting the new Black States because she was courting the vote of the Negro in America itself. He went on to say that this would be a great achievement and that it could be accomplished at little cost to America. Sir, what has become of the propaganda about human rights or the propaganda about helping backward nations? Here we have the truth, and that is that this assistance is allegedly offered in order to win the Negro vote in America. Furthermore, we read in the London Express that the suggestion has been made that the Republic should be invited to become a member of the Commonwealth again. We see that the trumpets of a small little nation following an honest policy and honestly striving to do justice to its inferiors, are causing the walls of Jericho to collapse. In this sphere we are going to progress step by step and win one battle after another.

The question has been asked here as to when the Transkei is going to become independent. How politically naive that question is! After all, history has taught us that the road to independence in our case took more than a full century, from 1852 when responsible government was granted to 1961 when we became a Republic. It has been worked out that the Transkei alone, if it is developed to its full potential, will be able to accommodate no less than 19,000,000 people. The advancement of a rural nation to an industrial nation and a commercial nation is not like the development of the policy of the United Party, which adopts three different attitudes within the space of eight years! It is a process which develops gradually, a process which can only develop on sound lines from the efforts of the nation itself. I say that it is very naive on the part of the Opposition to come along with arguments of this kind. Reference has been made here to consultation. We have been asked what sort of consultation took place between the Whites and the non-Whites in this connection. I want to ask a counterquestion: What form of consultation took place between the Opposition and the non-Whites who allegedly do not agree with this Bill? So far we have had no evidence at all that there was such consultation. Instead of that we have had the sweeping statement that there was no consultation on our part. As far as fragmentation is concerned, the United Party is on the eve of its final fragmentation. It has been said here that we have come to the final parting of the ways; that there is no question, of rapprochement. We agree. But the final fragmentation of the United Party is going to take place when the middle stream of the truly South African-orientated citizens of the Republic push them out onto the banks, where the liberal element will pick them up as firewood and bring about their final disintegration in the political history of the Republic of South Africa.

I was very impressed by the speech of the hon. member who has just sat down in regard to the “swart gevaar”, this “Black peril”, this injured innocence of a Nationalist member of this House of Assembly, speaking for his party no doubt, talking to the Opposition and accusing them of raising this question of “die swart gevaar” as being dangerous to South Africa, but forgetting very conveniently the pamphlets of 1948 issued by the Nationalist Party “Die swart gevaar: Stem vir ons”.

Having heard the hon. member making such a determined point of the “swart gevaar”, I must discount completely anything he has said, because he is accusing the Opposition of something which they brought into being. Mr. Speaker, I am going to move the following amendment—

Whilst my amendment deals with all inhabitants who are not members of the Bantu race and who reside in the Transkei, I intend to confine myself in the main to the Coloured people in the Transkei. The hon. Minister of Bantu Administration and Development will no doubt notice that I have used the phrase that the Government have failed to guarantee and to protect the dignity of the inhabitants, particularly of the Coloured people. No guarantee has been given, and yet the hon. Minister himself made great play of the dignity of a people. In his opening remarks the Minister said “One of the basic principles to-day is the recognition of human dignity”. Have the Coloured people in the Transkei no dignity? Have they no dignity that has to be protected? Have they no rights which have to be protected? Have they merely to be cattle to be slaughtered at the Verwoerdean abattoir at the whim of this Government?

Order!

Are they merely to be taken from pillar to post and kicked about because they are not a race in the minds of the Government? The Coloured people are South Africans and belong to the South African nation. They have dignity and they have rights. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he has consulted with the Coloured people? But before I go further to deal with that point, may I ask the hon. the Minister to tell this House whether in the consultations which he had with the Bantu people in the Transkei, the Coloured issue arose? Did they discuss the Coloured question, or was it right outside the minds of the people who discussed the whole Transkeian problem? Were the rights of the Coloured people ever discussed? The Minister should tell us. If they were not discussed, then the Bantu people did not consider it important to move the Coloured people. If the matter was discussed, who raised it? Did the Minister raise it or did the Bantu people raise it? Was it an issue at all? If it was not an issue, why must the Coloured people leave the Transkei? In which way would the government by the Bantu in the Transkei be prejudiced because of the presence there of 14,000 Coloured people? You see, Mr. Speaker, I understand that a commission was appointed in connection with the White people in the Transkei and that this hon. Minister then said that the same commission would deal with the Coloured people in the Transkei. But what is the good of a commission when the Prime Minister has already forestalled the commission by saying the “Coloured people in the Transkei will either be absorbed by the Bantu or they will have to leave”? I understand further that this Government’s policy is: Separate development within their own areas of people of different races and colour. I now ask: Where are the Coloured homelands to which these people have to go? Where are they? The Minister must tell us. Where are you going to send the 14,000 people? Where are these Coloured homelands? For the first time we now have the recognition of the fact that Colouredstans are going to be created in South Africa. Where are they? I want to ask the hon. the Minister: If these people will have to be moved in terms of the statement by the hon. the Prime Minister what about their assets? What about their businesses, what about their farms? Is the Minister going to compensate them? I want to ask the hon. the Minister to reconsider this whole matter and to allow those people to remain. There is no reference in this Bill to the Coloured people, there is no reference in this Bill as to the rights of other people in the Transkei, except the Bantu. I want the hon. the Minister to answer these questions in his reply: How long will these Coloured people be allowed to remain in the Transkei? You have no right to interfere with the rights and the privileges of a part of the South African nation without giving them proper time in which to realize their assets and to find other homes. The hon. Minister cannot do what the Prime Minister has said: That they will have to go to other areas of South Africa. How can you cause any man to go from one area to another against his will? I wonder what would have happened if the Afrikaners who were in Angola had been told by the Portuguese Government to get out. What protests would not have come from members on the Government side against the kicking out of people who were settled there and who had created assets there.

Who says the Coloureds must get out of the Transkei?

The hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee) apparently was as bored with the Prime Minister’s speech as I was, but the Prime Minister said that the Coloured people must either be absorbed or otherwise would have to leave the Transkei. Therefore you will find that 14,000 people plus their families have to be kicked out of part of their own land, part of South Africa.

Who talks about “kicking out”?

That is in effect what is going to happen. They have got to be moved, and I say that means “kicking them out”. I want to say that unless and until the Government realizes that the position of those people must be protected, they cannot expect anyone to support this Bill. I think the position will be that the Coloured people will say—

That would be the position of the Coloured people. They find that this is a bitter pill to swallow, a sour apple they will have to bite. I want to say that they will be penniless, they will be ruined, all because this Government wants to implement the policy which I describe, and has been described by the hon. member for Peninsula (Mr. Bloomberg), as a dangerous policy for the future of South Africa.

I second the amendment. In the first-reading debate on this Bill, the hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee) said that to his mind this Bill was the parting of ways between the United Party and the Nationalist Party in regard to Bantu policy. I agree with him that this Bill is the parting of the ways. In all honesty, as I see the position we have on the one hand the way of negotiation with a view to possible settlements and agreements and co-operation, and on the other hand the way that the Government has taken—I do not say that they have not done so in all good faith—but it is definitely another road, a road which will lead to complete independence and the right of self-determination for the Bantu in certain parts of South Africa.

The end of both of these roads is just as clear as the parting of the ways is clear to us, and that is an eventual clash between Black and White here in South Africa. Mr. Speaker, I have no doubt that the hon. the Prime Minister meant well, but the road that the Government has now taken which is going to lead to self-government and eventual independence of the Bantu homelands is a dangerous road. This Bill will give the Transkei, which is one of the first parts of our country to be dealt with in this way, its own citizenship, its own flag and its own national anthem. When one considers this factor, the question arises: When will the stage be reached when the authority of the rest of South Africa over that area will come to an end?

That question has been asked repeatedly.

It is an important question and perhaps the hon. the Minister can reply to it. When will we reach the stage where the Republic will no longer be able to take steps against a person who is a citizen of that territory, a territory with its own flag, and its own national anthem, owing allegiance to that flag and national anthem and state, when he commits an offence of a political nature which undermines the authority of thé Republic in its own territory?

That has nothing to do with the Bill.

This Bill is the start of a position which is going to develop where these people will have the right of self-government and self-determination.

This Parliament will then have the opportunity of discussing it.

It is precisely from that that the further question arises as to when the stage will be reached when Parliament will still have the right to discuss matters in regard to that territory. One asks oneself when the stage will be reached—I do not say this in an offensive manner—when this Parliament will no longer be able to adopt legislation which will be of application to that territory. When will we reach the stage when that territory with its own government, its own flag, its own national anthem and its own citizenship may call in the assistance of another state against the Republic? When that “evil day”, as the hon. the Minister called it, will come, I do not know. The fact remains that we are on that road. But what I am worried about at this stage is that that whole area forms part of my constituency and in that area there are 14,000 people whom I represent here. It is my duty to look after the interests of the people whom I represent in that area. Last year I raised this matter under the Vote of the Prime Minister and I was grateful to the hon. the Prime Minister for replying to me in a courteous and reasonable manner and for taking an interest in problem. But from what the hon. the Prime Minister said it was clear to me that at that stage his information in connection with the Coloureds in the Transkei was totally wrong and inadequate. In any case, what the hon. the Prime Minister said at the time amounted to this that there will have to be a resettlement of those people. During the debate in the Joint Sitting this year the hon. the Prime Minister stated clearly that the Coloureds in the Transkei would have to be absorbed into the Bantu community or else they would have to leave that area. As far as the first solution is concerned—absorption by the Bantu—that is impossible. The people whom I represent there do not want that and will never accept it. They are not Bantu; they are Coloureds with a Western background.

Did they come originally from the Western Province?

If the hon. member knew his history he would know that most of the people there are descendants of ex-members of the Cape Corps who fought there during the Kaffir wars, who fought with the White man for the White man, who fought for the interests of the White man and whose descendants are still living there to-day. Of course they originally came from the Western Province but they have been there for generations.

If we accept that this Bill will be passed and that the Transkei will become a self-governing state with its own citizenship and its own flag and national anthem to which its own subjects will owe allegiance, an allegiance which they no longer owe to the Republic, when will that day come? Surely we owe something to the people who helped to colonize that territory. It is all very well to say that we will bring those people back but what provision does the Bill make in that regard? What compensation will they receive? The hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. Froneman) made an interjection about White traders. But there are numbers of Coloured traders there who have also built up their businesses over the years and have become independent and will now be ruined if they have to leave without being compensated. How will they be able to start elsewhere? It is easy to say that they must go and live in Coloured areas and make a new start there, but how are they to do so? Nobody would like to find himself in that position, least of all the hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. F. H. Bekker). If he had to leave the farm on which he has lived for many years and on which he has earned his living and which has given him the status to be elected to Parliament and he has to make a fresh start in some other place with nothing, how would he do so? [Interjection.] I have already seen White people dying of hunger.

Not in this country.

Can the hon. member indicate where it is provided in this legislation that any person who is not a Bantu will have to leave the Transkei with nothing, as he says?

My reply is obvious. There is nothing of that nature in this Bill and that is my objection. The instruction of my voters to me was not to do anything which may be construed as an attempt to deprive the Bantu of anything or to withhold anything from them, anything which could mean an improvement of or an increase in their rights, but on the other hand my first duty is to look after the interests of my voters here. And it is precisely because there is nothing of this nature in the Bill and no provision is made for it, that I raise this matter. If it is necessary to adopt this Bill at this stage—and I do not doubt the bona fides of the Government and the hon. the Prime Minister—and to bring this independent state into being, well and good; if it must be done, then it must be done. If I must die, I must die. But for the past five years I have been raising the question of the Coloureds in the Transkei in this House, year after year. I have been doing this for the past five years since the policy of the Government became clear and since it has been brought prominently to the attention of the public. Was it not possible to introduce this Bill just as it is but after a thorough investigation into the position of both the Whites and the Coloureds in the Transkei so that I could tell my people, “An independent Transkei is being brought into being with its own flag and its own national anthem and its own citizenship and with Chief Kaiser Matanzima as Prime Minister …”? [Interjections.] Is that not so? I thought that that was provided for in the Bill.

Where does this Bill provide that they will have a flag and a national anthem of their own and a separate allegiance?

That question amazes me! Has the hon. member not read the Bill? In the Bill mention is made of a flag, a national anthem and a citizenship of their own, and this must lead to independence and separate allegiance. Mr. Speaker, hon. members differ on this matter. The hon. the Minister of Justice said at Van Rynsdorp the other day that it was heading in that direction. This hon. member says “no”. The hon. member for Kempton Park (Mr. F. S. Steyn) spoke about a possible confederation that might arise. If members of a party whose policy this is do not understand it, how am I to understand it and how are my people in the Transkei to understand it?

You are wasting your breath.

My objection to the Bill as it now stands is not so much to the provisions of the Bill, I object to what is not provided for in the Bill. My objection is to the uncertainty which arises as far as the people whom I represent are concerned. I repeat that it is a very serious matter to be faced with an accomplished fact that the land on which you were born and on which you have made your living must be abandoned and that you do not know where to go. We had an example in our own history where some of our own people returned from the Argentine, but before they left the Argentine they were told where they were going to, what they were going to get and the assistance that they would receive in re-establishing themselves here. We had the same example in regard to our people from Angola. But in this case those people do not know what is going to happen to them at all and their instruction to me is not to condemn this Bill, but they do ask: “Where are we to go, what is to become of us? We cannot live here under a Black Government.” Mr. Speaker, there was sufficient time before this legislation was introduced to investigate this position so that they could have been told at this stage: “This is unavoidable and it is in the national interest to take this step, but we appreciate the fact that there are Whites and Coloureds in the Transkei and we have made arrangements for them.” But there is nothing of that nature at all. I am asked as the representative of the 14,000 Coloureds in the Transkei to support this Bill without being able to tell my people what the future holds in store for them. The position that we have there is that in reality, as far as the Coloured people in the Transkei are concerned, the percentage which is absorbed into the Bantu community is very small indeed. The same thing that is happening in the rest of the Republic is happening there, only more intensively—that in spite of the economic and educational shortcomings which still exist to such a large extent amongst the Coloureds, in reality there is no large-scale miscegenation with the Bantu. You have the position that these people are not at all prepared to remain under a Bantu Government and to obey that Government. Are they not our responsibility? Are we not able, before introducing such legislation, to say what will happen to those people who are there? I regard this as a very serious matter because a large percentage of the people there are the descendants of those who went there in the service of the Whites and of Western civilization. The question arises: If a Black Government does come and they have to leave, where are they to go? Nobody likes to leave the surroundings to which he has become accustomed. But they have to leave and the question is, where can they go? With all the talks of resettlement that we have had up to the present, no indication has as yet been given as to where those people will be able to go. No indication has as yet been given as to when they have to leave there and where they have to go or how this is to happen. Up to the present moment there has been no consultation with those people. Recently, a week or two ago, we heard in this House of a commission which was appointed to investigate the interests of the Whites, a commission which would also investigate the position of the Coloureds. I am pleased that that appeal has been heeded because last year I made a personal request to the hon. the Prime Minister after I had been there and had listened to the grievances of these people.

Why is the hon. member not satisfied with that?

I do not want to reply to that hon. member now because I do not think that he will understand me. But the fact is that up to this stage there has been no consultation with those people about their future. The question arises whether a person who is in that position and who now has to leave, who as yet does not know where he is going or how he is going and whether he is to be compensated will have any say in regard to his own destiny. Will he have any right to say where he wants to go and what assistance he needs? Then there is the question that I raised earlier about the Coloured traders there who have rendered great service to the community and who do not know where they have to go. They are businessmen and they do not know where they can start a business again.

They have been privileged for two centuries.

Yes, but for three centuries the Coloureds have always been the less-privileged people in South Africa and I am speaking now for these 14,000 less-privileged people.

Order! I shall be pleased if hon. members will remain calm.

We have not yet had any information about the standpoint of the Bantu in respect of the Coloureds in the Transkei but from what I do know and according to information which I received from that area this morning, the Bantu know that the Coloureds have to leave and they are approaching the Coloureds to buy their land. When they ask what the price is, the Coloureds make the price as fair as possible so that they can sell and get away, but then the Bantu say: “No, I shall give you so much and if you do not want to sell, I shall take your property because one of these days we shall have self-Government.” I do not say that the hon. the Minister is satisfied with that state of affairs or that he agrees with it but that is what the primitive tribal Native is doing to the Coloured. I have the greatest sympathy with the hon. the Minister but I want to tell him that with all the knowledge that he has of the Bantu he cannot control that tribal Bantu and his standard of development because that Bantu remains a primitive person, and I wonder whether he is able to control himself.

When I consider the position of the people whom I represent in the Transkei, I feel that this Bill has been introduced into this House with undue haste and that it is a half-baked measure as far as the future of those people is concerned because we have not yet had any information as to what their future will be. Under these circumstances it is impossible for me to support this Bill because of the uncertainty in the minds of the people there. Why not first reassure those people who are threatened there, who have to leave and who have to make a start somewhere else in a strange part of the country, and then introduce this Bill?

We are faced with another problem. Rightly or wrongly—there is a great deal to be said for it and perhaps a great deal against it; when I consider the position of my people I must say that it is a good thing to remove the Bantu from the Western Province because they are competing with the Coloureds for employment. That policy is gradually being applied now. Where must the Bantu go if they cannot work here? They must go to the Transkei where there is no work for them either and those people who wander about there in their hundreds without work and who are guilty of these Poqo activities and murderous attacks on the chiefs, have a right to be dissatisfied. I do not say that they have the right to do what they are doing but they have a right to be dissatisfied because they have no work. But those people are the people who make it clear to the Coloureds to-day that if they do not have the right to stay in the Western Province then the Coloureds do not have the right to stay in their area. Let us first see what the plan of the Government is with the Coloureds and the Whites in the Transkei and then in all sincerity I will even consider the possibility of supporting this Bill; but at this stage I cannot do so because I think that what is being done is unjust. There is nothing as bad as the uncertainty in which these people find themselves. I repeat that since I have come to this House and have got to know the position of those people, I have raised the matter in this House year after year and there has been sufficient time to do something. It was not necessary to wait until a week or two ago to instruct this commission to investigate the position of the Coloureds as well. If they have to leave the Transkei and if this new state comes into being, the future of which we do not know—it is clear to me that hon. members here differ in this regard—then the Coloureds cannot stay there. But then we want to know where they are going to go, the circumstances under which they are going to leave and what their White guardians who are passing this legislation here in respect of which those Coloured people have no authority, are going to do to assist them to make a new start in some other part of the country.

I do not want to quarrel with the hon. member who has just sat down, but I do want to reply when an argument has been advanced in opposition to this Bill and where a reason has at least been advanced why this Bill is being opposed. The hon. member who has just sat down has told us that if the Bantu were given independence or self-government he does not believe that they will be able to govern themselves. Those were his words.

I doubted it.

Very well, but the hon. member is prepared to bring them here to govern us.

I never said that.

Why does he oppose the Bill then? Surely its object is to separate White and non-White.

May I ask a question?

No, I do not want to reply to any questions. The United Party think that they have made two important points, although those points are very blunt, to substantiate their opposition to this Bill. I should like to deal with those points one by one.

The first point was the charge that we were cutting up the Republic. That makes me think that hon. members are living in one of the Western countries which know nothing about South Africa and her past and who rely on the hostile Press Which besmirches South Africa for information about South Africa; because had they indeed been South Africans who lived here they would have known that right from the beginning there has been fragmentation and that there were homelands for the Bantu and the area in which we live. It is not we who have established those homelands to-day. Those homelands have all along been determined by history and the only thing this Government is doing is to recognize what history has determined and also to recognize what previous Governments accepted. A decision was taken in 1936 that 7,500,000 morgen of land would be purchased for the Bantu. It was not decided that that land would be purchased adjacent to the White area but adjacent to the Bantu area. What will a stranger deduce from that? Surely he will deduce that that area, less the 7,000,000 morgen, the area which was there before the 7,000,000 morgen were acquired, was Bantu area and that the 7,000,000 morgen that have to be purchased would be Bantu area as well. However, not a single hon. member opposite said a word about that. They remained as silent as the grave about that. Even the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell) who has such a great deal to say about fragmentation did not say a word about that either. He was as silent as the grave on the history and he is somebody who ought to know the history of the Bantu. However, I do not wish to quarrel, but I have to speak the honest truth. Hon. members know as well as we do that that is the truth, or if they think differently they should allow me to think that they are not sincere when they say that they too want to have White domination in this country.

I think hon. members opposite are doing the Government and South Africa a terrible injustice when they advance that sort of argument, an argument which history proves to be without foundation. Is it right that where we, the White representatives of the people of South Africa, the guardians up to now of the Black man, chosen by the electorate of South Africa, try to keep the races away from each other in this Bill, Black on the one side and White on the other side and to protect them as the Creator has made them, our fellow colleagues, elected as we have been elected, advance arguments in this House which cause the agitators to laugh loudly? The agitators grasp at those speeches with both hands and say to the inexperienced Bantu: In the struggle against the Transkei Bill the White man used this argument against his fellow White man; they said that if you went hungry it would not be your fault if you did something wrong. Are you not committing a great crime towards the White voter of this country when you make speeches here which only result in incitement against the Whites and which undermine and treat with contempt our most sincere sense of honesty? I want to prove that. The Bible says that the man who violates the borders of another shall be cursed. I want to ask hon. members opposite whether they can give me one instance where the Afrikaner, when he had waged a war against the non-Whites, did not return to his own country; nowhere can it be proved that they had violated borders. The Afrikaner was religious. He was afraid of that curse and it is because he was afraid of that curse that he can face the future to-day with a clear conscience and with full confidence and say: As we protected you and guarded your country, we are again prepared to-day to do so. But the Opposition has so little confidence in the Government of the country and in the principles of the Government, that they will do everything possible, that they will throw everything they have in the fight against this Bill in order to make the Government suspect in the eyes of the people who are hostile to this country. Those people who are hostile are the communists, the liberals and the progressives, all those who plead equality, all those who are prepared to let the non-White govern ultimately, those people whom the hon. member said were not ready to govern themselves. The hon. member opposite for whom I have great respect is not here at the moment but I shall also quote from his speech. The hon. member for King William’s Town (Mr. Warren) told us the other day how primitive the uneducated Bantu were; he knows them but we know only the educated Bantu, those whom our universities have made clever and who have been indoctrinated and those who flee from our country and go overseas in order to learn how to undermine our country. All those arguments are advanced in order to destroy this Bill. If you will allow me to say it, Sir, I want to say that I have never as yet heard of anything more scandalous in my whole life. It hurts me deeply to think that that can come from our fellow-Whites opposite. Is it not possible for us as Whites to stand together when it comes to such major issues? The policy: of the Government will be carried out. You will not be able to stop that and if you represent the electorate, the same electorate which put the Government in power, you ought to know that there is nothing to be done about it and that the White man will go under if this separation is not established. Your speeches, also those on this Bill, ought to be such that our enemies will not in future be supplied with any more ammunition; that they do not add grist to the mill of the agitators who oppose this Government, those agitators who try to destroy everything that this Government does. There are many attorneys and advocates on the benches opposite, people who ought to think clearly, but has any one of them taken the trouble to think so clearly about their policy that he could explain it properly to us? No, and why not? If the clever people cannot explain their policy and suggest which is a safe road to follow then I am entitled to say that they have no policy and that that is why they cannot explain it. [Interjections.]

Shame!

The hon. member must not say “shame” to me. He should rather climb a tree with a mealie cob in his hand than to sit in this House making interjections.

I now come to the second point. Hon. members advanced an argument in connection with the 6,000,000 Bantu who were working in the White areas, as the Leader of the Opposition said. He wanted to know what was to become of them. He asked whether they did not have any say or rights. But surely that is also right. Have you ever known a labourer on a farm asking his master for rights, Sir? Will a wealthy farmer with 300 Bantu on his farm give them the right to manage his farming operations? Surely that is ridiculous. Because the Bantu could not make a decent living in their own area they came to work in the White areas and hon. members opposite now want them to inherit the White areas. I am entitled to come to the conclusion that the Opposition will give them rights and what are those rights? It can only be one right; there is only one right which the Bantu want and that is the right to vote. He wants the franchise in order to vote the White man down in South Africa with his numerical strength. But this is the important question: Why are we left in the dark? How much representation does the United Party intend giving them? They say eight. Under their federation plan each of the eight ethnic groups in their homelands will have representation. Surely that is unfair. It is discrimination, according to them, to give an entire group, a whole country, only one representative. If they say that to the world outside, the world outside will have as bad an opinion of them as it has of us. They do not tell the world outside, however, that this is discrimination. The United Party claim that there are 6,000,000 Bantu in our big cities, double the number of Whites and surely we are entitled to assume from that that they want to give the Bantu double the number of White representatives. Surely that is the only reason why you mention numbers; you only mention numbers to justify your statement. In each of those residential areas in our big cities there are at least eight different ethnic groups. They already want to give eight representatives to the Bantu homelands. Surely they cannot give all those groups in a place like Johannesburg only one representative. According to the hon. member for King William’s Town they will exterminate each other through jealousy because the one has representation and the other one not. If the Opposition wants to be fair surely they should give representation to each one of those ethnic groups; they have no alternative. Surely it is discrimination if they do not do that and if the Afro-Asiatic countries and UNO get to know about this discrimination they will despise the United Party as much as they despise us. They are already to-day despised as much as we are. I just want to tell you, Sir, what one of these Bantu has said, one of those who wear their collar back to front, a certain Rev. McKay. He said that the majority of the Bantu, or all the Bantu, were not against the Whites who supported this Government; they were against all the Whites in Africa. I do not want to read it because I would only be wasting my time. As I have said, they are against the Whites in Africa and they will slaughter the members of the Opposition just as they will slaughter the members of the Government; that was what he meant when he said that. Am I not entitled, therefore, to say to the Opposition that the time has arrived for us to stand together? They warn us every day that a thunder cloud is forming on the horizon and if they are right on whose side should they stand? On whose side is the United Party in respect of the campaign of agitation which is being launched against South Africa?

They are not standing; they are running.

This Bill removes one of the grievances which countries overseas have against us, namely that we are suppressing them. Mr. Speaker, did a single member opposite get up and say: “We just want to say to the Leader of the Labour Party in England that we here in South Africa are not slaughter stock.” Not one of them said a word, because they dare not. If they dare to say anything the Afro-Asiatic countries will treat them the way they treat us, and the Western powers will treat them the same way they are treating us. That is why they remain as silent as the grave when we face one of the gravest dangers which has ever threatened South Africa. These problems which confront us to-day are not new. America has been struggling with the same problem for centuries. They have been struggling there for centuries to get equality. They have also had great leaders like the hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw), the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Gorshel) and the hon. member opposite who represent the Coloureds and who is never in this House except when he makes a speech. I have the names here of a number of prominent writers, great professors, great philosophers who dealt with this matter a century ago. They flooded the world with their pamphlets and eventually their leader, that prominent writer called Boas said—

It was one of the great writers, supported by a legion of those who thought like him—I have the names of about 12 or 20—who eventually said in 1920 that the Negro problem would continue to exist in America until the Negro blood has become so diluted that it would no longer be recognized. What did they do then? They then tried to integrate the Negroes in the schools in an attempt to dilute his blood. That may have been possible in America because there are relatively few Negroes. They wanted to mix the Negro blood with that of the Americans so that the Negro would no longer be recognized. But whose blood does the United Party want to destroy in South Africa? The Whites are in the minority. In America the Negro is in the minority but in South Africa the White man will be destroyed and the Opposition will be destroyed with us. The United Party reminds me of a person who was anxious to compete in a big horse race meeting. He entered his horse. He arrived there one morning with a hinny with a rope in its mouth, a military saddle with military trimmings. The steward said to him: “Sir, what are you doing?” His reply was: “I have entered for the race”. Then the steward said: “But, Sir, surely you know that you cannot win with that thing, without a bridle, with that heavy saddle, that thing which has not been trained to race”. To that he replied: “I know but what shall I do if I have nothing else”? The United Party do not know what to do because they have nothing else. I say to the United Party; You are White as we are: we really do not hate you. You are wrong if you think that we hate you. We are only fighting because we have no alternative, but I am telling you and the English-speaking people in South Africa that your friends who will never leave you in the lurch sit on this side of the House.

The hon. member who has just sat down has covered a very extensive field, ranging from the history of South Africa to what we say on this side of the House. I intend to pass on to the Bill. Sir, this Bill before the House makes a mockery of the principles on which Union was founded, to which principles we have adhered since 1910.

That is absolute nonsense.

My hon. friend always likes to have discussions with me; he always says that I am talking nonsense. Let us take that as read and let me get on with what I have to say. I would like to point out to the hon. member that at the time of Union there was no idea of establishing separate Black states. The whole concept of Union was one indivisible whole for White, Black, Indian and Coloured so much so that in the Act of Union provision was made for the incorporation of the protectorates, Basutoland and Swaziland. It has been the policy of every single government since Union that those territories should be incorporated within what is now the Republic of South Africa. Now suddenly there is a complete reversal of policy and a violation of the principles on which Union was formed, and the Government has now decided not only not to incorporate these territories but to cut out of the Union non-White territories. This principle of the incorporation of these territories was the fundamental policy of every single government, until the present Prime Minister, as the result of his own actions, reached the stage where he knew that he could no longer go to Great Britain or to the world and ask for the incorporation of these protectorates.

This Bill in addition offends against all the tenets of historical development by dividing instead of consolidating. Sir, if you look at the history of the world, and the history of Europe, you find that the great nations were built not by dividing but by grouping and bringing together and consolidating into a composite whole,—take the rise of Italy and the rise of Germany—and the same policy is being followed now. The Economic Community of Europe to-day is not only a financial union; its objective is to bring about a political grouping of these countries. But history seems to play no part in what we do here; we ignore it. This Bill takes no cognizance at all of the rise of Black nationalism throughout the length and breadth of Africa. If we want to look at that rise intelligently, there are two essentials of which we have to take cognizance. The first is that what we have to deal with is an all-powerful Black nationalism whose password is “Africa for the Black man from the Cape to Cairo”, and that the Black man in Africa can rely on the help of the Black independent states to give him his so-called independence; secondly, that Black leadership in Africa can exist on one thing and one thing alone and that is extreme nationalism and extremism of the worst kind. There is no Black leader in Africa who is able to maintain his position without being an extremist. We have heard from time to time of the moderate leaders in Africa. The Prime Minister of Nigeria was said to be a moderate; maybe he is a moderate, but he knows, as every Black leader in Africa knows, that to retain power and to retain leadership you must be an extremist.

How is it going to be different under your policy.

How do you remain an extremist under these circumstances? By constantly attacking the White man. That is the way to stay in power; that is your battle-cry. Sir, this should not be at all strange to the Government. After all, how did they get into power? By the same policy in reverse—the cry of “die swart gevaar.” That is how they came into power and that is how they have remained in power, and I want to tell my friends opposite. that now that they have changed their policy they are not likely to be in power for very much longer.

They had better go back to the “swart gevaar” if they want to stay in power.

One of the worst features of this Bill is that it seeks to establish on our borders potentially hostile Black states. Chief Kaizer Matanzima has not taken very long to learn that he must follow the pattern of his bretheren of the north, because he knows as well as we know that as long as he is regarded as the tool of the Nationalist Government he cannot continue as an important chief in the Transkei, apart from the fact that his life is probably very much in danger most of the time. He therefore does the natural thing. He shows his teeth. And this is only the beginning. There is going to be much more to follow. My hon. Leader, the Leader of the Opposition, told this House very clearly that if the Government thought that they could determine the time and dictate the direction of the Transkei after it had been given some sort of independent government, they were living in a fool’s paradise. Make no mistake about it, Sir, in Kaizer Matanzima or whoever may follow him we are creating one more Dingaan in this country.

Another objection to this Bill is that it gives foreign citizenship to tens of thousands of people who work and live in the Republic and who are going to continue to do so. Sometimes I wish that the hon. the Prime Minister had not been a professor of psychology but a professor of history, because if that had been the case, the events in this country might have been very, very different. I only hope that the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development is a student of history. Because what is going to be the position? We start off with the concept of independence for the Transkei. Immediately we have tens of thousands of citizens of the Transkei living within the Republic. That policy of separatism is followed until by a logical process the other eight separate states are developed and brought into being, so we end up with the very simple result that every single Bantu living within the borders of the Republic of South Africa is a citizen of a foreign state. Sir, I do not have to remind the Minister of the history of the fifth columns; I do not have to remind him of what happened in the Sudetenland. I hope I do not have to remind him of one of the prime causes of the fall of the Roman Empire, the foreigner within the State, and in these times and in this age, with the knowledge of what has gone before, it does not bear believing that we as legislators can come along and say that we will create a state, the majority of whose people will live among us and be foreigners. It is not a question of being afraid of playing with fire; it is a question of putting your hand right into it.

Sir, we do not like this Bill because it jeopardizes the future economic expansion of the Republic itself. It is time we started facing facts instead of dealing in a sort of mythical way with what has happened, is happening, and is going to happen in this country. It has been said before ad nauseum in this House, but the Government does not appear to want to take any notice of it, that the entire economy of this country is built on White brains and Black labour. The Government says, “You will have your Black labour”, but at the same time they are creating, as fast as they can, a funnel through which this labour shall flow away from the Republic. I do not have to quote figures to show what has happened over the last ten years. We know that for every new European employed in industry, four non-Whites must be employed as well. What we should be doing is not to funnel back these people to territories far from what is goint to remain of the Republic of South Africa, but to advance them so that they can play an ever-greater part in the uplift and industrial development of South African life. That may be regarded as selfish. But let us look at it from the point of view of the people of the Transkei themselves. Here you have a population of some 1,400,000, settled in an area of some 16,000 square miles, with one of the most poorly developed agricultural concepts in the world and no industry worthy of the name. I would like the hon. the Minister to tell us what is the income per capita of the people of the Transkei, because we have heard a lot of strange things said in this House. We have heard that wool worth R500,000 is going to be produced there; we have heard members say that the Transkei will be able to carry 19,000,000 people. The hon. member for Kempton Park (Mr. F. S. Steyn) says that it will have a viable economy. Words, Sir, let us have some of the facts. The fact of the matter is that the Transkei, as we know it to-day, is one of the poorest areas in the Republic of South Africa. I do not say “poor” from the point of view of its natural resources, but poor from the point of view of the people. When the hon. the Minister tells us what the income per capita is, perhaps he will tell us how much of the income per capita is derived from the Transkei and how much is derived from outside the Transkei. It had a fiscal income in 1960-1 of just over R3,000,000 and it spent R12,000,000. The difference of R9,000,000 was provided by the Central Government. We know, or we have been told, that the Government is to spend R18,000,000 in developing the Transkei over the next five years, something over R3,000,000 a year. Are we to believe that as the result of this expenditure the Transkei is to become self-supporting? Are we to believe that the people of the Transkei can look forward, from a period of poverty to a period of prosperity? Sir, there are certain essential ingredients in the development or the uplift of an underdeveloped country and I think the Minister will be the first to agree that at the present moment the Transkei can be classified as an underdeveloped country. You have to have a modernization of rural life, the foundation of any economy, and I do not know whether the Minister would be prepared to say that the rural life of the Transkei is modern. You have to have industrial development and you have to have a balanced economy. How is this to take place in the Transkei? You are giving them a modicum of financial aid. The hon. the Prime Minister told us in the no-confidence debate how they are to be helped or could be helped from external sources. He said that if loans were required for the Transkei, the Republic would serve as a channel for those loans whether internally or from abroad, and then he went on to say—

But he also said that they should not look to others for assistance. So what does this mean, Mr. Speaker? I think this House should be told. The hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw) asked the hon. member what would be the position if the United States of America offered a loan of R100,000,000 to the Transkei? I want to go further; I want to ask the hon. Minister what would be the position if not only the United States of America, not only the European Economic Community which is investing millions per annum in Africa, but the normal institutions and organizations of UNO, of world finance—the International Bank, the I.F.C., UNEFTA—if organizations such as those were to be asked by the Transkei for help and were to be prepared to furnish such help; what would be the attitude of the hon. the Minister? Because, Sir, the help to underdeveloped countries is not only fantastic in what is given, but is fantastic in what is required. The agencies of the world, excluding Communist China and Russia, who are giving global help on an enormous scale, last year gave $3,640,000,000 to the underdeveloped countries of the world. Is the Transkei going to get some? If not, where are they going to get the wherewithal which will create this economy which they require for their well-being? Because, make no mistake, looking at the position at its best, after the Transkei has been established as a separate unity, there will never be peace unless there is prosperity; and unless there is peace, we in the Republic will have trouble for the rest of our lives.

On the second front the Prime Minister dealt with the question of private investment in the Transkei. He spoke about it over many columns of Hansard and I do not want to repeat it verbatim, but it seems to me to boil down to is this, that the Whites who want to co-operate—and the operative word is “cooperate”—and who are prepared not to acquire ownership or to make profits, but who want to use White initiative and skill simply for the sake of the Bantu, would be allowed to operate in the Transkei. I can only ask how naive the hon. the Prime Minister and the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development can be? Does the Minister really imagine that a country can be built up on the idealism of a few dedicated industrialists? Has he looked to see how any other underdeveloped country was built up? Let us be practical and realistic about these things and come away from the visions of the Prime Minister. Sir, people invest money for profit. They take that profit and re-invest it; that is how development takes place. If the Minister would look back at the history of the Republic of South Africa, he will see that its prosperity was founded on the tens of thousands of people who came here, who brought money here, who invested here, who worked here, who thrived here, who re-invested here and eventually built up their organizations, organizations which many years ago we were not capable of building up. Fortunately the picture changes as time changes, and so the indigenous citizen gradually takes over. Does the hon. the Minister really believe that the Transkei is going to be built up to a viable economic unit by a lot of charitably-minded industrialists who are goint to invest their money in the Transkei for no profit? Even if they did, it is profit that creates profit. If there is no profit there is no room for expansion and I hope the Minister will tell us how the prosperity of the Transkei is to be achieved.

Finally I want to ask the Minister one very simple question. Who wanted independence in the Transkei? I think he will agree immediately that the Whites and the Coloureds of the Transkei did not want this Bill, but we are told that the Bantu—the Xhosa and the Tembu—wanted it. I would like to refer the Minister to the proceedings and reports of the session of 1962 of the Transkeian Territorial Authority. Let me quote first of all from page 36, under Minute No. 12. Chief S. S. Majeke rose and said—

He was told by the Deputy-Chairman that because of the procedure he could not put his views, and then he was followed by Chief Victor Poto who said—

In other words, he wanted to put his views and was not able to do so. Then came Chief Sabata Dalindyebo who said—

The position is simply that at that meeting of the Transkeian Territorial Authority the Chiefs were not able to put the views of the people. What does this Chief say further—

What did he say about the signing of the Recess Committee’s report—

What has happened in the Transkei, Sir. you will see if you read through the reports of the meetings of these Territorial Authorities? What happened was this: that the Chiefs assembled and the European members of the Department of Bantu Administration said, This is what we think you should do”. They told them very politely, and the Chiefs reply was “I am a child of the Government and it was imperative that I should sign”. That is the situation right through. The paramount Chief said “I could not contradict what the Secretary said as a great man”. Who are these great men who have gone to the Transkei to tell the Bantu that he is not compelled, he is only forced. When they ask for the views of their own people to be heard they find that they cannot be heard.

There comes a time in the life of every nation as there comes a time in the life of every individual, when decisions have got to be made. A wrong decision can lead to unbelievable tragedy. I believe that the road on which this Bill will put the Republic of South Africa is a road the end of which no man here can see.

I should like to react to two points raised by the hon. member for Parktown (Mr. Emdin). He referred firstly to the danger involved in the lead being given by extremist leaders in Africa, and said that he thought this was precisely what would happen in the Transkei. It is quite clear to me that in the Republic of South Africa the Government has on its side the most moderate and least extremist Bantu leaders. The Bantu leaders who are opposed to the Government side with the Opposition in this fight against the Transkei Bill. They are the extremists, like Luthuli, Mandela, Nokwe and Sobukwe and others. They are the extremists, and to a greater or lesser extent they support the Opposition groups on the opposite side of the House in their fight against our policy.

In the second place, he posed the question: Who wanted all this? But that is not the relevant question. The actual question for the Government to decide is whether it is essential at this particular stage of the constitutional development of our country to take such a step in respect of the Transkei. Was it necessary to take this step at this particular time, and will it be in the interest both of the Black man and of the White man in South Africa? That is what is important. Whether Matanzima or any other person asks for it is unimportant. The point is whether it was necessary to introduce this Bill now as a further consequential step in the implementation of our policy. The hon. member concluded by saying that a decisive period arrived in the life of every nation. I want to say that the introduction of this Bill is one of those decisive moments in the history of our nation, a moment which will determine our course for the future. In the distant future it will be referred to as the beginning of the new dispensation which helped to ensure the salvation of White civilization in the last remaining part of the Continent of Africa.

It seems to me as if the Opposition in this debate has lost the ability to think soberly and logically and as if they have lost all sense of proportion and all sense of values. They seem to have lost their whole political perspective. Ever since the discussion of the language clause in the constitution it has been quite clear that they have landed themselves in a maze from which they cannot escape, and from which their twin leaders, the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) and the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, are unable to extricate them, because it is really they who are responsible for landing them in that maze. Just imagine, Sir, prominent members of the Opposition, like, inter alia, the hon. member for East London (City) (Dr. Moolman), trying to tell us that we should not be concerned and that we should abide by the position which has prevailed ever since the first time in our history when the White man came into contact with the Bantu. We must abide by the fact that the Whites are in the minority of one to four as against the Bantu. We must accept that position as something quite natural which can be maintained for ever without it every constituting a danger to the White man. It is clear that this cannot be the language of a thinking and enlightened politician; it is inconceivable that there can still be politicians who cannot appreciate the different circumstances which prevailed a century or two ago as compared with the constitutional position of the Bantu to-day. Does the hon. member not know that in a democratic system it is not necessary to have a majority of ten to one, or twenty to one, in order to hold the power? A majority of two to one, or a single majority of one, is enough to enable a certain section of the population to hold the power.

I should now like to confine myself to this Bill and I want to say that this Bill is the answer to a very important question, namely the question of what the position and the place should be of the Bantu in the constitution of our Republic in future. This is a very real and important question. It is a question with which all Governments and all political leaders ever since 1770 have had to deal. Where must the Bantu be put territorially? Where can he exercise his inherent love for the land? Clause 2 of this Bill gives the clearest reply to that. Clause 2 defines the nine areas of the Transkei which will form the future homeland of the Bantu; in other words, this Bill finalizes the principle of policy of a residential area for the Amaxhosa. What applies to them will be the norm for the future plan for the other ethnic groups. It is just as well that the Amaxhosa should first be given the opportunity to undergo this development, because it is they who in 1770 first came into contact with the Whites along the Fish River. It is also they who first had the opportunity of making contact with Western civilization and with the Western democratic form of government applied in this country. This Bill takes cognizance of the fact that thousands of Bantu no longer live in their homelands, but that they have settled in the White homelands. This Bill offers a solution for that problem because it links up the Bantu who now live in the White heartland, in terms of Clause 7, with their geographic homeland, because that clause makes them citizens of their own homeland and takes away their rights of citizenship and makes them foreigners in the White area of our fatherland.

Tell us about his political rights.

I shall come to that. I am now dealing with the area which territorially is being granted to them in this Bill. Traditionally they have a communal system of land tenure, and this Bill recognizes it and defines it in Clause 59. This Bill provides where it will be applied in future. The principle is therefore being laid down permanently that in future the Bantu will never be able to obtain an equal right of land ownership within the borders of the White heartland. He will never be able to share land ownership with the White citizen, neither communally nor individually.

We know that the Opposition groups favour the policy of individual rights of land ownership being granted to the Bantu in the urban locations. I now want to put the question directly, and I hope that the hon. member opposite who follows me will reply to that question: If the Opposition should ever come into power, will they make it possible for individual Bantu to own land in the urban locations, and when a request comes from the rural Bantu also to be allowed to buy land, and in that way to blacken the heritage of our fathers, will they grant that request, or will they be able to refuse it for ever? The principle in regard to where the Bantu will be able to exercise his ownership rights is being laid down in this Bill. The negative and the unwritten tendency of this Bill is therefore that the Xhosa will never enjoy property rights in the White areas. As I have said, no blackening will ever be able to take place again in future. That is contrary to the policy of the Opposition groups, which have signposts pointing in the opposite direction, signposts which indicate that the Bantu may have territorial, economic and political rights and a permanent future in the White area. The signposts of this Bill indicate one-way roads back to the Bantu homelands. This Bill wants to canalize the Bantu back to his own homelands where territorially he must remain anchored.

In the second place, this Bill provides the answer to the question in regard to the political position of the Bantu within the framework of our constitutional structure, because what applies to the Xhosas here will also apply in future to the other ethnic groups as a norm. Clause 9 of the Bill gives a clear formula for a description of the type of legislative assembly in which he will be able to express himself. When we read Clause 9 it is quite clear how that legislative assembly will be constituted. There is the significant fact that the traditional system of chiefs is also recognized in it. The legislative assembly will consist of 109 members, viz. four chiefs, 60 headmen and 45 elected members. The question I want to put to the Opposition in this regard is: Will some of those chiefs one day obtain a seat on the benches opposite in terms of their federation policy? Will they be able to exercise those traditional forms of government and the position of power they occupy there, together with the White people in this House?

In the final result there is in this regard only one vital three-legged question which cannot be evaded, at least not by the Opposition. We on this side do not wish to, and will not, evade it. The very fact that we are placing this Bill on the Statute Book proves that we have no intention of evading that question. The first leg of the question is: Whether political rights or full citizenship should never be granted to the Bantu in this country, and whether such a position will be maintained by force. The second point is whether political rights and full rights of citizenship should be granted on a multi-racial basis within the constitutional structure of our Republic. The tempo at which that takes place is not relevant. The third point of the question is whether the granting of political rights should take place inside the borders which are defined by law for a specific Bantu constitutional unit. How soon this status is reached is not relevant either. What is relevant is that clear replies should really just be given to these three questions. The first one I mentioned, namely never to grant him political rights, is untenable. The first one is quite untenable, knowing what a change of spirit the White Western world has undergone since the Second World War in their approach to the position of the non-Whites in respect of participation in the government of their own country. Secondly, we will find it difficult to withhold such rights permanently, seeing that the former colonial powers in Africa have already granted political rights to the Bantu. It is also untenable because it will continually clash with the inexorable national aspirations of the Bantu in this country which are inspired from outside.

The hon. member should come closer to the Bill.

I am very near to it, Sir. Lastly, because it will be an unrealistic and immoral policy for any Christian country to follow. The question symbolized by the first point of the triangle may be disregarded, but the other two are important, and they can be implemented in practice. The last one is formulated in this Bill and also proves how practicable it is. The second one we reject, because granting the Bantu a political home within our constitutional structure contains great dangers for us; we cannot accept that. It is, however, accepted by the Western world and by the liberals in this country and also by the Opposition groups for whom the United Party is the spokesman. The Afro-Asian Bloc just accepts their own domination. I have said that both these policies can be implemented in practice but that it is of less importance whether it is applied speedily or more gradually. What is relevant and of importance is the inevitable consequential final position assumed by the numerically superior Bantu in relation to the White minority in this fatherland of ours.

The second approach, i.e. that of the Opposition, contains the ominous threat of the position of power in which the Bantu may be put politically vis-à-vis the Whites in future. The White man will be put on the road to self-destruction, on which road he has already been put by the rest of Africa outside our borders. That is why this Government has turned words and illusions into deeds and in respect of the Transkei it has made a start with a constructive plan. We therefore accept a positive reply on the last point of this triangular question, viz. that a territorial and political homeland must be found for the Bantu in specified areas. The Government is therefore not trying to evade the problems and the obstacles which lie in the way of applying this policy. The Opposition repeatedly asks what we are going to do with the Bantu in the White areas. I want to admit that these millions of Bantu in the White areas constitute the Achilles heel in the application of our policy. I would be stupid if I did not recognize it and admit it, but as against that I say that this Government will not allow itself to be deterred by that fact. The Government has positive plans which it will put into operation to cover up and to safeguard this dangerous Achilles heel. By passing various laws and measures the Bantu will be canalized back to the homelands. As far as I am concerned, this process should be speeded up so that it will not last for many years. More drastic measures may be necessary to attain this object, but if it becomes necessary it must be done because the Government and the Whites cannot simply always make sacrifices. After all the sacrifices they have already made and will still make in future, they cannot allow themselves to be ploughed under by the Bantu who are in the White homeland. However, I cannot expatiate on that now.

I conclude with a proverb of the Xhosas which says: “Inkunzi ezimbeni ezindala azinakuhlala kubu hlanti obunye.” Two old bulls cannot be herded together in one kraal. The two old civilizations represented by the White man in South Africa and by the Bantu cannot be herded together, territorially and politically, in one kraal. In the event of their being forced into that position, a deadly struggle to the bitter end would be bound to ensue, just as in the case of two old bulls herded together in one kraal, resulting in the death of one of them. The struggle would continue to be waged, to the detriment of both sides, and because we are not animals but people who honour a democratic system, the resultant one-man-one-vote outcome would mean the end of the White man in South Africa. The policy indicated by this Bill is thus the safest and the most acceptable.

I hope that the hon. member for Marico (Mr. Grobler) will forgive me if I do not deal with his speech. I think he will agree that for most of the time he was a long way from the Bill.

I want to come back to the Bill and I want to tell the hon. member for Marico that I agree with him that with the introduction of this Bill, as he put it, we have reached a decisive period in the history of South Africa. One hon. member said that this was an historic occasion and that it would be of the greatest importance to South Africa in the future. I fully agree with him. To my mind it is so important that I can scarcely believe that a political party which I feel cannot rely upon more than 50 per cent of the votes of the people, can introduce this specific legislation on the strength of its own position. This Bill is setting a process in motion which will bring about a constitutional change in South Africa during the coming years, a constitutional change which will be so great that we must at least compare it with the establishment of Union in 1910. I want hon. members to think back to the way in which the Bill of 1910 was dealt with. The convention was in session; our forefathers met in a spirit of mutual consultation; there was a discussion for days and weeks and months and only then did they take that great constitutional step forward. We again have a Bill here to-day which, so hon. members opposite say, is a forward step. But as far as this Bill is concerned there is no convention, there is no consultation. It is simply a question of a party machine which has introduced a matter of the most vital importance here without in the least asking what the other side thinks of it. As a young man I have always had great confidence in the wisdom of the Afrikaner nation; I have particular confidence in regard to the colour problem because the White man has been able to grow up with and to live with that problem. I have always believed that if the leaders of our people would only be prepared, would only be big enough, to find one another and to meet in order to consider the colour problem in the light of facts and realism, a solution could be found and would be found, a solution which would be to the credit not only of the White man and his civilization but would also give the White man and the non-White the chance of survival in South Africa.

I want to remind hon. members opposite that my hon. leader has extended the hand of co-operation on no less than three occasions.

What about the dagger which he had in his other hand?

He has already done this on three occasions. I believe that that opportunity to co-operate to solve this problem still exists to-day but I must add that because of the introduction of this Bill, the manner in which it has been done and having regard to its radical nature, those chances for co-operation are certainly waning. Let me say again that my hon. leader has not refused to accept the hand of co-operation. The offer of co-operation was rejected. Hon. members opposite cannot deny this. It was rejected because my hon. friends opposite considered that they had the franchise to all wisdom. They considered that it was only the Nationalist Party which wanted to protect the White man and safeguard him in South Africa. They consider that everyone who does not agree with them or who does not agree with this Bill, wants either deliberately or out of ignorance to destroy the White man in South Africa. It is this “know-all” attitude, this attitude of inflexibility that has led to the fact that we have this Bill before us to-day. I want to ask the Government to account for this Bill. I take it that they welcome the chance to do so. I take it that they welcome the chance of being placed in the witness-box because they have been in Government for 15 years and it is only the Government that is able to convert its words into actions. It is the National Party Government which by means of this Bill has for the first time set a process in motion which is a radical departure from the traditional approach to the colour problem in South Africa. It is of no avail for them to call upon the old statement of the past. It does not help to try to prove that this Bill is merely a continuation of a tradition, a further development of it. How ironical it is that a Jan Smuts and a Botha have to be called upon by the Government to assist in supporting this Bill! But as a Botha and a Smuts will not help them, so a General Hertzog and a Dr. Malan and an Adv. Strijdom will not help them either and so will my hon. friends on the other side also find little support for this radical departure in their own constitution of 1960—not 1936. I have here the Constitution of the National Party of the Cape of 1960. On page 14 we find under Chapter VII “Relationship towards the non-White races”. The first concluding sentence reads as follows—

May I ask the hon. member a question?

No. I am prepared to admit that this Constitution is obsolete but then I say, if it is obsolete, then 1960 must also be obsolete when we come to the new attitude of the Government. This is the point. I say that up to 1960 this policy was the traditional policy of the Nationalist Party and I also say that one must have supernatural imagination to find independent Black states in this Constitution.

One only needs sound common sense to do so.

Mr. Speaker, there we have again the typical all-knowing attitude, the know-all attitude, and that is the reason why more than one cause will fail in South Africa because the people who always know better are never prepared to co-operate or even to listen. I simply cannot believe that any man can think of separate states in this Constitution because they talk about “the population” of South Africa. I cannot imagine that one can see an own flag, an own national anthem or an own citizenship for the Bantu in this Constitution. I do not believe that one can find independence in it because the Constitution says clearly “as a permanent part of the population of the country under the guardianship of the European races”. Let me tell you that this has always been the attitude. Here we have the Constitution of the Nationalist Party and in it we find the crux of the approach to the colour problem, an approach not of 1916 or 1936, but an approach portrayed in their own Constitution of two or three years ago. The Bill which is before the House to-day is in spirit and also in essence in direct conflict with the tradition as described in the Constitution of the Nationalist Party. No matter how my friends may try to hide this conflict, no matter how they may put their best foot forward, they know and we know that no leader of the Nationalist Party, no leader of any party has in the past been in favour of the idea which is contained in this Bill. There can be no other interpretation given to the Constitution of the Nationalist Party. But now two questions arise to my mind. If I am wrong, then the matter can be left alone, but it appears to me that this Constitution of the Nationalist Party has always existed and has not yet been changed. The question then arises as to why the Constitution of 1960 was not changed to fit in with the spirit of this Bill? And secondly: Why is the Nationalist Government trying to link up this Bill with the traditional approach to this matter? They know that this is not so; they know that this Bill and its underlying idea is given the lie to by the whole history of the Nationalist Party. We do not have to go far to find the answer. I may be wrong, but then hon. members can assist me and tell me why the Constitution has not yet been changed. The answer is that over a period of 50 years the Nationalist Party have tried to protect one idea and that is that they are the guardians of the traditions of the Afrikaner people. And now they are afraid, as afraid as the Devil is of holy water, that the people will find out that they are violating the tradition of the Afrikaner people in regard to colour. It is for that reason apparently that the old Constitution has not yet been changed and why they try to make out that the spirit of this Bill is in accordance with the traditions of the Nationalist Party over a period of 50 years.

The hon. the Minister used a good sentence. He said: “The Afrikaner is a child of faith.” That is good, and I want to accept it. But then I ask: If they have faith in their own cause, if they believe that this Bill indicates the correct path for South Africa to follow, why do they not grasp the opportunity of telling the whole nation and the whole world once and for all: “We have changed our policy; we cannot do otherwise.” Why are they not frank about the matter? No one will blame them for it. No party can honestly say that it has never changed its policy. If they are people with confidence, if they have faith, then this is the opportunity for them not only to explain this legislation as such but also its results; then this is an opportunity for them not to ask: “What is your policy?”, but to say: “This is our policy and we are going to carry it out in this way This is not the occasion for them to ask questions. They ought to welcome this opportunity of being placed in the public witness-box and of being able to say that they are prepared to explain their case because the Afrikaners are the children of faith and believe in the correctness of their case. Who then will not respect the Nationalist Party? I may differ from it but I can respect such a party. But I cannot have respect for a party that is trying to pull the wool over the eyes of the people.

We may not hide the facts. This Bill and the thing for which it stands cannot be hidden because if the facts are hidden in an effort to confuse the traditional with the new, it will mean that we are misleading the people of South Africa. And even the hon. members opposite will not want to do that. That is why I tell them: Do not be afraid. Admit it and explain the matter to us so that we can say: “That is the aim of the Nationalist Party”.

And what is the aim? To set a process in motion which will give the Bantu their own state so that the White man will be able to safeguard his position in a smaller South Africa.

It is to halt a process.

It is now being contended that this will also be in the interests of the Bantu. The hon. the Minister also made that allegation. But I want to say that the primary purpose, the fundamental purpose is to safeguard the White man. Is there any hon. member who doubts what I say? And this White security is the yardstick by means of which we must measure this Bill: it is the yardstick by means of which to measure its success and if it does not succeed then the Nationalist Party has failed not only as a party but then it has also failed South Africa.

But before we apply that yardstick, there is an extremely important question to be asked and that is: How do the Bantu view this Bill? Mr. Speaker. I am always upset that we can sit here in this House and look at the matter from the White man’s point of view; I ask myself then: How does the Black man see this legislation? Are we interpreting his ideas correctly? I want to tell you that I believe that the Bantu cannot consider this Bill in any other way than against the background of the promises which have been made to them by the Government over the past few years, promises of freedom, complete freedom. I want to say that it is sometimes put quite mildly here, but you know and we know that those promises are put into strong language overseas: Sovereign independence, independence, autonomy of the Bantu states, and this Bill is the key which must open the door to freedom for those states. This is the approach of the Bantu. I want to add that I believe that this is the approach that the Government wants the Bantu to have. They want the Bantu to see the Bill in this light. Because if they do not want this, why have they already given these forceful symbols of independence, symbols of an own flag, of an own language, of an own national anthem, of an own citizenship to these people? Nobody can tell the Afrikaner what this means. I myself am one. I know the great inspiration that one can derive from those symbols.

But you opposed the Republic.

These are the symbols which are now being given to the Bantu. How can we say that the Bantu must not see this legislation against the background of complete freedom? I say again that this is the way in which the Government wants the Bantu to see the Bill. If we approach the Bill in this light, then to my sorrow, when I apply the yardstick of White security to this Bill, I do not find security; I find insecurity. For the first time in our history this Bill will set a process in motion which will set up states within the borders of South Africa where Pan-Africanism (not Black nationalism) will find a foothold. We must not confuse Pan-Africanism with Black nationalism. Nationalism is prepared to develop its people within its own borders but Pan-Africanism has this in common with international Communism that it is not only prepared to sweep its own doorstep; its eventual purpose is also to sweep the doorstep of the man on the other side of the border. That is Pan-Africanism and when the door is opened, it will be the bounden duty of the Pan-African leader to ensure that he obtains a foothold in the Transkei and other free states. And once he has that foothold you can take it from me that if there is any gratitude remaining on the part of the Bantu towards the Afrikaner and the people of South Africa, that gratitude will fly out of the back door. Hon. members cannot mention for me the name of one Pan-African leader throughout Africa who has ever thanked the White man for what has been done for that Black man in Africa.

Mr. Speaker, I am not engaging in “kafferboetie” politics. One can read books on Africa and one will find that over a large number of years the Whites have done a great deal for the Black man in Africa but I have never found him to be grateful. I say now that once we have opened the door to Pan-Africanism. we must expect no gratitude on the part of the Bantu. We must not expect those bonds which the hon. Deputy Minister spoke about, bonds which exist, to be of any good to us. They will be broken because the Pan-African Bantu wants absolutely nothing to do with those bonds. But moreover, the Pan-African scene will not only be the Transkei. Pan-Africanism will concentrate particularly on that extremely fertile field, the urban Bantu. And we cannot stop it.

Order! The hon. member must come a little closer to the Bill.

With the greatest respect, Mr. Speaker, I think that I am now dealing with the results of this legislation. Mr. Speaker, there are many Bantu in the urban areas who will become citizens of the Transkei. Once Pan-Africanism has its foothold in the Transkei it is my humble opinion that the people of South Africa will have lost every opportunity to make use of the tremendous advantage which we have built up over a period of more than 100 years in South Africa in comparison with the other African states. No matter what we may say, I am sure of one thing and that is that there is the most wonderful spirit of goodwill between the White man and a very large number of Bantu in South Africa, the best goodwill in the world. But Pan-Africanism does not recognize anything of this nature and when it reaches the urban Bantu it will exploit the feelings of that Bantu but not as a person who because of his low level of civilization does not have the advantages of the White man. It will say: “My friend, you do not have the advantages which the White man has because you are Black.” That will be the position. In that light I cannot accept the fact that this Bill measured against the yardstick of White security, holds any advantage for South Africa. Indeed, I can only say that if the Nationalist Party which over the years has itself designed and fashioned the yardstick for White security, applies that yardstick to its own handiwork to-day, it will find that not only has it failed as a party but I am very much afraid that the future will prove that that handiwork will also prove fatal to the people of South Africa.

This Bill is of the most vital importance not only to the Republic but also to South West Africa. It is clear to all of us that South West Africa is an indivisible part of the Republic of South Africa and that any policy to determine the future of the Republic will also determine the future of South West Africa. It is also clear to everyone that if the Black man takes over here, it will mean the end of the White man in South West Africa. That is why I have followed this debate with the greatest interest and I also consider it my duty to participate in this debate. The hon. member for Maitland (Mr. Hickman) quoted from the Constitution of the National Party, as follows—

It has struck me in this debate that unfair comparisons are drawn by the Opposition between our policy which will in all probability result in independent Bantu states and the policy of the United Party because they do not take the eventual position under the policy of the United Party but they take their policy as it will be to-day if they come into power with eight Whites as representatives of the Bantu in Parliament. This is an extremely unfair comparison because what is laid down in this Bill? This is the point that I want to impress upon the hon. member for Maitland. This Bill provides that the Bantu people will remain citizens of this country, subjects of the Republic. Secondly, they remain under the Christian guardianship of the Whites. That is what the Programme of Principles also provides for. But the hon. member did not quote any further from the constitution of our party. It goes on to say—

May I ask the hon. member a question?

I would give the hon. member the opportunity to ask a question, but he refused to answer questions put to him from our side. Mr. Speaker, it was stated time and again by the other side of the House that it was the policy of the late General Botha and the late General Smuts that the Bantu should be developed in their own areas under the supervision of the Whites, and these statements of their’s were apparently condoned. But that is exactly what this Bill provides for. The hon. member for Kempton Park (Mr. F. S. Steyn) also made this point: Independence is not being given to the Bantu in terms of this Bill. This is the natural development as predicted and accepted by all our former Prime Ministers. I have just mentioned unjust comparisons. They put the eventual position under our policy and if they want to be fair then we must sketch the eventual position under the policy of the United Party so that comparisons can be drawn. They must then draw the comparison that a Black Government will be in power here and that a Luthuli will govern with “one man, one vote”; that we will have the position where the property of the Whites will have been confiscated, where the armed forces will be in the hands of the Black man, where the police will be in the hands of the Black man, when integration will be enforced and when our wives and children will not be safe—when our future generations will have to flee the country. They must compare that position with the position where we will be living alongside independent Bantu states. That will be a fair comparison unlike the comparisons which they tried to make here.

When we ask how they are going to prevent this position arising, they say: Do you not believe in the ability of the White man with his higher intelligence and his greater capability, his power (I take it they mean military power) to prevent this? But then I want to put this counter question to them: Do they not believe in those same qualifications of the White man, those same values which will prevent our giving independence to a state and by so doing create a real danger for ourselves here?

I come now to the crux of this matter and I want to ask the military experts and the politicians opposite: What is more practicable—to maintain the White section of South Africa here against independent Bantu states or to maintain our position here against millions (four to one) of Bantu swarming in our midst, when they will be swarming here in a recognized common homeland?

They will still be under us here.

They said that the states will demand political rights for their subjects working here. But we have this example today. We have Natives from Bechuanaland, Basutoland, Swaziland and Angola, masses of Natives from all those countries here amongst us and not one of those countries asks for political rights for their subjects in South Africa.

I want to deal with another point. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition said here that UN may interfere because we are creating an independent state and they may classify us under Section 73 of the UN Charter. I want to point out that we are not creating an independent state by means of this Bill, as I have already said. The hon. member for Kempton Park and others stated clearly that we are making provision here whereby citizens of the Transkei will also remain subjects of the larger Republic of South Africa. Accordingly we are not creating an independent state. But I must admit that we do not know what UN may decide because they have already made some very strange decisions. They may well decide that we are creating an independent state here. But if that is so, then I can understand the predicament of the Opposition. Do you know what that will mean? It will mean that UN supports our policy of separate development. It will not be at all unpleasant if they arrive at such a decision. I cannot see the dangers for us if they approach the matter in this way, although I must honestly say that as UN is constituted and because of the times in which we are living, I cannot see them reaching such a decision. But if they do, it will merely mean that they are supporting our policy of separate development which will then be in our favour.

I want to state here that I know many persons outside of this House, supporters of the United Party, but I have not yet come across one of them who has any faith in the policy of the United Party. It is true that they have doubts about our policy, but they still say that they hope we will succeed and they express that hope openly. There are leaders amongst the United Party who say: If only your policy succeeds it will be a very good thing. But what do we find in this House?

We find that the Opposition and all their newspapers try to frustrate every step that we try to take. They do everything to frustrate us, although they admit that if we succeed, it will save the country. They go further. It is not only that they oppose us, but they even go so far as to protect the liberals who set up branches in the Transkei to incite the Natives against our policy. They accused us here to-day saying that we ourselves are worried about the position. I must say frankly that in the circumstances in which we are living only a fool would not feel concerned about the position. But if we think of the alternative to our policy we do not hesitate for one moment to take the step that we are taking now. They accuse us of cowardice but I say that the White man who opposes us is neglecting his duty towards his own race. I want to point out that there are no protests outside of this House. Calmness prevails. But what did we find in regard to other legislation evisaging constitutional changes? We had protests, processions, agitation. There is calmness in the country to-day because these things are accepted by the public.

But there are two things that the Opposition cannot swallow. The first is that for the first time in history the Bantu in the Transkei accepted this plan of the Government. This legislation is there because of a request from the Territorial Authority in the Transkei. I also want to point out that this is the party which accuses us of never having consultations and of having no co-operation with these people. But I have not yet heard of one Bantu leader supporting their policy, so where are their consultations with the Bantu? Even the so-called educated leaders about whom they boast do not agree with their policy.

The next point that they cannot swallow is that with this legislation their last hope of ever coming into power and retaining that power has disappeared, because now they will never be able to rely upon Blacks in this House to keep them in power.

I want to conclude by discussing the position of the traders in the Transkei, the people about whom the Opposition are so concerned. The Opposition has again persistently attacked us in this House saying that we have no confidence in the White man to maintain his position. For more than a century these traders have had the opportunity of settling and establishing themselves in the Transkei. They have far more capital and far more experience than the Bantu have. Are they afraid of competition? Personally I am opposed to monopolies. What is the position in the White areas? A trader in Cape Town has to pay for his trading rights and he has to pay for his building but another trader can open five yards away from him at any time. There are no restrictions. Why should the position in the Transkei be any different? Those traders are established there. Why are they so afraid?

The hon. member speaks from ignorance.

And that hon. member is behind all the opposition there.

I just want to say that because of these facts that complaint about the traders does not worry me in the least. They have had sole rights and facilities there for a century or more. But I want to conclude by saying that if the Opposition will be more concerned about the 3,000,000 Whites outside of the Transkei than they are about the 600 White traders in the Transkei, it will be very much better for our country.

Mr. Speaker, I think it is quite appropriate that the hon. member for Omaruru (Mr. Frank) should have spoken at this stage, because I think it is more correct to describe him as the hon. member for the “Uhuru” of the Transkei. His whole point was that this independence for the Transkei was something that must come and will come, and this Bill is just the first instalment of it. He then went on to say that the Bantu accept this policy. If that is so, I would like to remind him of the words of a very prominent West African educationist, Dr. S. Aggrey, and this is what he said—

If the hon. member for Omaruru has ever proved anything, it is that this is exactly what is taking place in the Transkei to-day, in the words of Dr. Aggrey. That is the warning that we on this side give to hon. members opposite, that they have embarked on a process which is the first instalment in granting sovereign independence to the Transkei. In forcing the pace of this Transkeian independence, the Government was compelled to put the political cart before the economic horse. As one tries to grasp the importance and the significance of the remarks made by hon. members opposite, we can only come to this conclusion as to what is wrong with South Africa; namely that too many Whites are living in 1933, too many Blacks are living in 1993, and that the true facts of what is happening in 1963 are seen by too few people in this country.

What are the true facts in regard to this Bill? The true facts were given by the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs when he made a statement and admitted that this project of independence, for the Transkei of self-government as it is now referred to by hon. members opposite will cost this country anything between R100,000,000 and R200,000,000. Recently that figure of R200,000,000 has been accepted as a fairly reliable one. What does that mean? If this dismemberment of the country takes place, it will mean higher taxes for all and lower living standards for all and a future uncertain and worrying to those of us living in this part of South Africa. I think we have to accept that the new deal opened up for these Bantu homelands is irrevocable. Everyone may as well accept it as such, or otherwise there will be worse misunderstandings as time goes on. The fundamental significance of what is happening cannot be ignored without losing sight of realities. The pace has been too rapid, even for limited self-rule, because the Bantu is not ripe to stand on his own.

But it is not difficult to understand why the Nationalist Party has taken this course; if one realizes their determination to isolate themselves from the rest of Africa and the civilized world. The Nationalist Party has been forced to take these calculated risks, and only the future can show what it will mean to South Africa as a whole. It is interesting to remember what took place when the hon. the Prime Minister went to the Commonwealth Conference a few years ago and took the fatal decision to walk South Africa out of the Commonwealth. When he came back, together with the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs, one of the excuses advanced was that South Africa could not be expected to stay in a Commonwealth with Black representatives from Africa and Asia.

Whoever said that? Are you dreaming?

Is it not correct that when the Prime Minister was asked whether he was prepared to accept ambassadors from the Black states of Africa, he said he was not prepared to do so, and it was on that cardinal point that the whole conference broke down.

You are quite wrong.

What is the position in terms of this Bill? We will find that we are still going to be a Commonwealth of Nations and we will have to be associated with, and sit round a table with, at least seven independent Black states. That will be good enough for us, but it was not good enough for South Africa previously to sit at the same table with the Afro-Asian states. That is the tragedy, and South Africa will still pay the cost for it.

The revenues of the Transkei are to consist of direct taxes paid by the Transkeian citizens, whether at home or abroad in the Republic, and also of licence fees and Government subsidies. It is safe to predict, and I think it has been accepted by hon. members opposite, that dependence on the Government subsidies will become permanent, for the economically backward and poverty-stricken nature of the Transkei is notorius. It is obvious that there is no immediate prospect of improvement in this direction at all. White capital and White initiative and “know-how” are being deliberately excluded from the development of this state. It appears to anyone looking at this development in a rational way, that it cannot be anything but a sort of “ersatz” self-government. When one remembers how dependent the four provinces of the Republic are on subsidies from the Central Government—and the dissatisfaction which exists in regard to the allocation of those subsidies—then we realize what a large and onerous financial burden is going to be placed on the shoulders of the citizens of South Africa for all time. The Transkei cannot become a viable economy, as was suggested by the hon. member for Kempton Park (Mr. F. S. Steyn), because it has no industry, its agriculture is so backward and it is so congested that, according to the Tomlinson Report, it is imperative that it least half of its inhabitants should be absorbed into non-agricultural employment. There is no prospect of capital and technique being forthcoming to effect this revolution, or even to provide the basic administrative and technical services necessary for modern government. In spite of all these factors, the Government refuses to change its stupid decision not to allow White capital and “know-how” and manpower to enter the Transkei to assist in its development. The inevitable prospect therefore is that the economy is to be dependent on migrant labour, and the administration of the area is to be dependent on White finance and personnel. And in case it is argued that this is a wrong approach to the matter, I would like to quote what an authoritative Nationalist Party organ has to say on this matter. This is what Dagbreek has to say—

Those, I think, are the qualifying words, “comparable with those offered by the White labour market”. It continues—

I say, on the contrary, we are on the beginning of a road along which many problems and dangers lie ahead, and the suggested Government solution involves great risks and demands great sacrifices.

We have heard much discussion, and the hon. member for Omaruru also referred to the fact, that sovereign independence will not be given to the Transkei. We have also heard that all this “national” thinking which we see in the Bill before us, is something which is traditional. If it is traditional, I would like to remind the House of what happened just before the 1958 general election. Do hon. members opposite remember the time when the Prime Minister, then Minister of Native Affairs, resigned his portfolio as Minister of Native Affairs just before the 1958 election? [Interjections.] And why did he resign? It is quite correct that he then subsequently withdrew his resignation. To-day we ask ourselves whether we are not given the answer in this Bill before us as to why the Prime Minister resigned as Minister of Native Affairs at that time. Is it because he could not convince Che Cabinet at that time to bring forward this question o;f Bantustan policy just before the general election of 1958? He was insistent that they should go ahead with this new policy and he could not get the support of the Cabinet! [Interjections.] To-day we have this Bill before us, and even now there is a lot of division and difference of opinion among hon. members opposite, as to the correctness and the advisability of this Bill.

You should not keep these secrets for such a long time.

You change your mind so quickly that you do not remember these things. [Laughter.] Mr. Speaker, if you ever wanted proof that it is Government thinking that the Transkei is to get its independence, I would like to refer you to an official publication of the Department of Information, which was published in New York, entitled, “South Africa in Fact: Bantu self-government.” This is What it says—

Well, if this does not mean independence, as it was given by the Department of Information to the Americans, I ask what does independence really mean. I am going to put that question to the Minister of Bantu Administration, and I will ask him to be honest with this House and the country, and with the Whites and the Bantu of the country, by giving us some clarity as to what these terms mean. What do the following terms, applicable to the Transkei mean: Self-government, Self-determination, Self-rule confederation, Commonwealth of Nations, independence? I think this country is entitled to know what these terms really mean in the thinking of the Minister, because we have had them interposed so often that the man in the street does not know exactly where he stands. Burt I think one man really does know where he stands, and that is Chief Kaiser Matanzima, because in the interview which he had with an official of the Department, as published in the Digest of South African Affairs in 1962, this is what he said—

Then a report is given of an interview with Matanzima, and this is what it says—

Look how he has evaded the question, Sir. Look how cleverly he does not commit himself for the future. But we commit ourselves by an official of this Government asking Matanzima what will happen if an independent Transkei has a seat at UN. In another passage of this official publication, it says—

Are these statements not very significant in relation to what has taken place, and the recent statement made by Matanzima? These two items published by the Government, and taken in relation with the statement made by Matanzima I think are very significant indeed. If the Minister thinks there is naught for his comfort, I would like to remind him of what he said to the Nasionale Jeugbond-kongres in 1955. I think it will be very useful if the Minister tells us that his views are not the same to-day. This is what he then said—

Then he goes on to say …

Order! That has been read out several times.

And the misrepresentation has been corrected also.

I just want to know whether the Minister still holds those views, or whether he has had a change of heart, because I want to go on to tell what the Minister of Justice said soon after that, when he spoke about two South Africas. And I see that just recently—last week—he again referred to it in the same strain, and spoke about a Black South Africa and a White South Africa. If that is so, I would like to know where the logic of this whole conception comes in. And talking about sovereign independent states, what is going to be the position? Will official recognition be given by the Republic of South Africa to the ambassadors of these so-called self-governing, or independent, states? Will recognition be given to their ambassadors, say. on “Independence Day of the Transkei”? Will the Transkei flag fly in South Africa alongside our own flag?

These are problems that are going to arise and will have to be tactfully handled!

Analysing the new Bill as published, we find the anomaly that candidates for election to the Transkei Legislative Assembly will have to live in the constituency in which they are going to stand. How is that going to be applied in practice, as far as the foreign Bantu in White South Africa are concerned?

Not to live; to be registered there.

Well, to be registered he has to live there. That is our position in South Africa.

Who said so?

I do not know whether the hon. member for Randfontein lives in Sea Point and is registered in Randfontein! It would be interesting to check up, but from the ignorance he shows in regard to this matter that would appear to be the position. But how are the foreign domiciled Bantu going to vote for a person who must be registered in the constituency in which he lives? If that is going to be rigidly applied, surely there is some inconsistency as far as representation in this House is concerned where that factor is not applicable.

I want to ask the Minister whether he envisages that he will have some control over the type of candidates who will come forward, because nowhere in this Bill do we see any restriction that a candidate from say the Communist Party or the Liberal Party, will not be entitled to stand as a representative of the Transkei Legislative Assembly. If that is so, will this communist or liberal be entitled to come into the White areas in order to canvass his voters? Will we be able to stop him, and if not, can you envisage the problems and the difficulties which will arise in regard to electioneering? Sir, there are 1,001 anomalies and difficulties that one foresees in this Bill. But one gets the impression, listening to hon. members opposite, that they feel that they have mounted a tiger and do not know at what station they can get off; and as the debate progresses one finds them coming to different solutions and giving different answers and interpretations as to what the Bill means. It is quite clear to us that the Nationalist Party in 1963 is now where the United Party was in 1948, when we frankly pointed out to the electorate the dangers and the difficulties inherent in the Native problem. We lost elections as the result of that, and to-day we find the Nationalist Party going along on exactly the same lines. When one looks at this Bill, one realizes how radically the Nationalist Party have departed from their policy as far as the protectorates are concerned. Where was it ever a cardinal point in the policy of the Nationalist Party that the protectorates need not be incorporated in the Republic? It was part of our traditional national policy, the policy of all our Prime Ministers, to get the protectorates incorporated, but now suddenly out of the blue we find the present Prime Minister announcing that it is no longer his policy to incorporate the protectorates! This patchwork policy-framing goes on year after year, and with every new development there are more complications. We would like to know from the Minister just what has brought about this change in regard to the incorporation of the protectorates. In the set-up now prevailing all over Africa we cannot have it both ways. We cannot keep the Bantu areas as an integral part of South Africa, and at the same time withhold from them a share in the Central Government for ever. The millions of Bantu foreign residents remaining in the White areas of South Africa will never enjoy any rights there, according to the policy of the Government within the framework of this Bill. I want to ask the Minister will their Bantu sovereign brothers in the Bantustans be satisfied indefinitely to see millions of their brethren without rights in the White South Africa where they are permanently resident? The lessons of, for instance, “die uitlander probleem” that we heard about in this country, are present in the minds of most of us. History will repeat itself unless we now prevent this vision of Dr. Verwoerd’s becoming a reality! The Bill, together with all those features which have been built around it, depends for its plausibility on the non-recognition of the rooted Bantu community in the urban areas. In that regard I feel that I cannot do better than quote the words of Dr. Eiselen when he referred to the Bantu population in the urban areas as “an unattached mass of Bantu individuals”. That, I submit, is the outlook that the governing party has shown in this legislation towards the urbanized Native. No doubt it is what the Times of London called, “the old South African habit of talking segregation but applying integration” which has resulted in this bit of legislation now before us.

Mr. Speaker, is the hon. member allowed to read his speech?

He is not doing anything of the sort.

I think if the speeches from this side of the House are scrutinized and are read in the years that lie ahead of us, history will show that this side of the House was correct in pointing out the dangers that lie ahead for this country if it goes ahead with the legislation that we now have before us. Sir, it is not too late for changes to be made. I think the Prime Minister was aware of these dangers when he forced the country to an election two years ahead of the time, because he realized that if he came forward with this legislation, and the electorate became aware of its dangers and implications, he could not face an election with this legislation already on the Statute Book, and that he would undoubtedly lose the election on that account.

Order! That hardly has anything to do with the Bill.

I believe that that is the reason why we have this legislation before us now, and why it was not submitted two years earlier. It is for these reasons, and because of the dangers that one sees in this legislation, that I am happy to associate myself with my hon. leader in constitutionally opposing this measure in all its stages.

The hon. member for Springs (Mr. Taurog) referred with contempt to the so-called Commonwealth of Nations of which the hon. the Prime Minister spoke. He saw danger in the fact that the Prime Minister or the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development should sit at the same table with the Bantu in order to consult him. He loses sight of the fact that if the policy of the United Party is applied in this country, he will not be sitting in this House; this House will be full of Bantu.

We have had the opportunity during this debate of putting policy against policy and with the exception of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, not one of the United Party members had the courage to put his party’s alternative policy in regard to the Bantu of the Transkei or the Bantu of South Africa for the benefit of the electorate. They had a golden opportunity here to tell the country what their policy was as an alternative to this legislation which will apparently have such an unfavourable effect upon the Republic of South Africa. They had a wonderful opportunity to explain that so-called Silk plan, but what did we hear of it? It was only the hon. the Leader of the Opposition who put his policy in a vague way. The rest of the United Party members merely criticized the Bill but not one of them made a constructive contribution to the debate. This measure before us is the logical result of various steps which have been taken by various governments in this country. This is in succession to Act No. 68 of 1951, the Bantu Authorities Act and Act No. 46 of 1959, the Promotion of Bantu Self-Government Act. This follows on elections which were fought as far back as the provincial election of 1959 when the United Party came to light with its maps in order to show how dangerous the National Party policy was for South Africa. The hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Mr. G. P. van den Berg) exposed those maps most effectively. In each election which has been fought subsequently, the United Party have seen that the voters of this country have supported the policy of the National Party. This has again been evidenced recently with the by-election for the provincial council at Virginia. There the United Party concentrated on the Bantu policy of the Government. The English Press put the Bantu policy of the Government there and the United Party were soundly beaten for their trouble.

Mr. Speaker, the Act of 1951 and the Act of 1959 made provision for the administrtion of the Bantu in his homeland in a democratic way. In that legislation governmental powers were transferred to the Bantu in order to train them. This followed upon the abolishing of the representation of the Bantu in this House by four White representatives. The hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell) and other hon. members opposite asked: Where does the request for self-government for the Bantu come from? I want to deal with this briefly. Hon. members opposite say that the Bantu have not been consulted and they want to know who has asked for self-government. I have here before me a request of the Transkeian Territorial Authority made at a special meeting in December 1962. I want briefly to analyse what preceded this request. During December 1961 the Executive Committee of the Transkeian Territorial Authority and a number of chiefs went to Pretoria to consult the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development and the Minister of Bantu Education. Earlier in 1961 the Transkeian Territorial Authority adopted a resolution appointing a Recess Committee which was given the following terms of reference. I want to quote this because it has not yet been quoted in this debate. Its terms of reference were—

1. (a) To consider the financial implications of the granting of self-government bearing in mind, inter alia, all taxes, direct or indirect, payable by Bantu in these Territories;
2. (b) to consider, in the event of such self-government being granted and established whether it shall not in any way tamper with the present set-up of chieftainship in these Territories.
   Hon. members opposite must listen to this; they have made a great fuss here because Chiefs will serve in the Bantu Parliament. Here we find that before being influenced by agitators, the Bantu are asking that self-government be considered, with the proviso that the present system of Chieftainship will not be interfered with. The terms of reference were further—
3. (c) To consider the relations between the Government and the proposed Bantu state;
4. (d) to consider the possible date of granting the self-government;
5. (e) to consider the manner of approaching the Government in order to effect self-government.

On this occasion a Recess Committee consisting of about 27 persons. 15 of whom were chiefs, was appointed. While the Executive Committee visited the two aforementioned Ministers, the members of the Committee also had an interview with the hon. the Prime Minister. They discussed their idea of self-government with him and he greatly facilitated the task of the Recess Committee by telling them that he would assit them to obtain self-government. It is striking that when this Recess Committee framed its report, it expressed its appreciation to the Government for the co-operation that it had received; for the regional authorities and the territorial authorities that the Government had set up to train the Bantu gradually so that they would eventually be able to assume greater responsibility. In its report of the meetings which were held on 31 January and 1 February 1962, the Committee denies that it received any request for a multi-racial Parliament, as was reported in the newspapers. The Report states further that if such a request for a multi-racial Parliament had been made to the Committee, it would have rejected that request because the Bantu of the Transkei had accepted the principle of separate development. It is a striking fact that the Report of that large Recess Committee was adopted unanimously and was signed by all its members. I want to say this for the information of hon. members who asked where the request for this legislation came from. This request came from the Recess Committee; it came from the Transkeian Territorial Authority. It was not a resolution of a National Party Congress. It was a resolution of the Transkeian Territorial Authority. I hope that the hon. member will now understand the position.

It was further stated here that the Government had instructed the Bantu to accept this measure. I want to refer here to remarks which were made by Chief Sabata, amongst others, a Chief whom the Opposition so lauded in the English Press. On page 42 of the Report of the Transkeian Territorial Authority, the May report, Sabata had the following to say when the question of chieftainship was under discussion—

Immediately after he made this allegation, another member of the Transkeian Territorial Authority, named Mnyani, stood up and said the following (page 42)—

After this the Chairman of the Transkeian Territorial Authority asked the Secretary of the Department of Bantu Administration and Development for his comments in this regard and on page 43 of the Report he has the following to say—

Who ordered Sabata to vote for this legislation? He received no instruction to do so, as was insinuated. Members of the Territorial Authority have proved this statement to be far from the truth.

In 1962 when Dr. Verwoerd announced the intention of the Government to give self-management to the Transkei, the hon. member for South Coast said that the hon. the Prime Minister was the greatest colonialist. I think that by that he meant that the hon. the Prime Minister was trying to suppress another nation and to place it in an inferior position. The hon. member said nothing new when he said this. This is a general word which is used by communists to-day in regard to the Whites in Africa and also in regard to ourselves here in South Africa. And immediately after he said that the Prime Minister was the greatest colonialist, he said that the Transkei constituted a danger because it would be a jumping-off place for Communism. I want to ask the hon. member how he reconciles these two statements—on the one hand that the Transkei will be a colony which will be oppressed, and on the other hand, that it will be dangerous. Both can surely not be correct.

The hon. member for East London (City) spoke about how poor the Transkei was and the struggle that the Bantu there would have. In contrast to this the hon. member for King William’s Town indicated the danger of Communism. I want to put this question to the Opposition, those who are afraid of what has previously been called the “Black danger”. If the leaders of the Bantu in the Transkei are as dangerous as hon. members opposite have indicated, will they not also be dangerous in the multi-racial state of the United Party? Does, the United Party want to absorb those dangerous people into its multi-racial state? How will they progress with those dangerous people here amongst them? Will this not constitute an even greater danger to them? How will it fit in with their race federation policy if they have these very dangerous Bantu here amongst them?

Mr. Speaker, in this Bill the door is being opened for the Bantu in the Transkei. It is for them to prove whether they can administer the Public Service which they will gradually have to take over there. They will have to prove whether they are able to exercise control over the various departments. They are being given the opportunity by this Government to prove that they are able to do so. The Government envisages gradual development for them. This indicates the confidence which we as Whites have in them. It is for them to prove what they can do by means of hard work. I regard this as a step forward because it shows that we as Whites do not lack confidence but have confidence in the Bantu. I think that this step can only be regarded as an honest and sincere effort. It can also create contentment because the nationalism of the Bantu will be canalized in the right direction so that they can utilize it for the benefit of their own people; so that they can exercise their votes there which they so much want to do. What do the Bantu want? They want the franchise and here they are receiving the opportunity to exercise the franchise in their own area. But the area in which we are living belongs to the White and the Bantu will have no voting rights in this area.

I want to express a few more brief thoughts about the Transkei. What is the potential of the Transkei, this area that we want to make self-governing? The Transkei covers an area of 20,000 square miles as against the 11,716 square miles of Basutoland, the 6,700 square miles of Swaziland and the 12,500 square miles of the Netherlands. This is therefore a very large area in comparison with other countries which have self-government or sovereign independence. The Xhosa number 3,145,000 and that constitutes 30 per cent of the Bantu population of South Africa and of them 2,000,000 live in the Transkei itself. If we compare this with independent states we find that a small state like Gabon has a population of only 400,000; Mauritania has 600,000; Togo has 1,000,000 and Dahomy 1,700,000. This indicates that small countries and states which are very much smaller than the Transkei are independent sovereign states.

And which are far poorer.

If we look at the farming prospects in the Transkei we find, according to a report of the Director of Bantu Agriculture drawn up in 1959, that Mr. L. A. Pepler estimates that 310,000 economic farming units can be planned in the Transkei. Taking six people per family this means that it affords a living to about 2,000,000 Bantu who are there to-day, that is to say, in agriculture. If one applies more modern methods of water and soil conservation, I take it that considerably more people will be able to make a living there.

As far as commerce and industry are concerned, we find that not much has as vet been done. Where the Bantu have already been fairly successful in the agricultural sphere and where they are chiefly maize and stock farmers, one finds that commerce and industry are to-day chiefly in the hands of the Whites. But we find that by 1961 the Bantu Investment Corporation had already granted 48 loans amounting to R120,000 to Bantu there. In 1958 there were 800 Bantu businessmen in the Transkei as against 2,132 in all the Bantu homelands in the Republic. As far as education is concerned we find that the Transkei has progressed further than most other Bantu groups. In 1960, 83 per cent of these Bantu were already attending school without there being compulsory education. There were 255,880 pupils and 4,744 teachers. This compares favourably with other African states like Sierra Leone with a population of 2,500,000. In 1958 there were only 70,000 children attending primary schools and 6,000 in secondary schools there. I want to mention a few other figures. Of the 13,199 Bantu in the S.A. Police, 4,000 are Xhosa. Of the 7,500 trained Bantu nurses in South Africa, 2,000 are Xhosa. With the exception of the national road from East London to Durban, there are 4,300 miles of roads which are maintained by the Department of Bantu Administration. It is clear from these figures that the Transkei is further advanced than any other Bantu homeland in South Africa.

In Africa.

Yes, in Africa too. It is clear that the step the Government is taking here is justified—the step of granting them self-government. This is an honest step, an honest policy which we can defend in the eyes of the world because here Bantu nationalism can be canalized in the interests of development of their own area. They will now have the opportunity of voting for their own leaders.

What has the United Party done in this debate? They have come here in panic and have tried to spread panic, not only amongst the Whites living in the Transkei, but amongst all the Whites in South Africa. I want to tell them that if they are defeatists and men of straw they must not expect us to be the same. We are not afraid. We have full confidence in the policy which we are implementing and we are sure that it is the correct policy.

You are the defeatists.

If the settlers who came to South Africa in 1820 were to hear the tales of the men of straw in the United Party, they would turn in their graves!

I shall reply to the hon. member during the course of my speech. He has a reasonable speech and I shall try to be equally moderate in my reply, particularly as far as the “cowardice” (papbroekigheid) of this side of the House is concerned.

Before I go any further I want to say how sorry I am that so few Ministers and front benchers on the other side of the House have been present over the past few days at the discussions of this important Bill, probably one of the most important Bills that has been introduced in this House since Union, even more important, I think, than the measure which established the Republic. Even the hon. the Prime Minister was only present for a few minutes.

Where are the Leader of the Opposition and your frontbenchers?

We did not introduce the Bill. I also wish to point out that the hon. the Prime Minister—I am saying this with all due respect—was not present for longer than half an hour at the birth of his deformed child, his Frankenstein. I think the country ought to know how little interest the Government has shown in this serious matter which we are discussing.

Are you not interested in it?

I hope that when the hon. the Minister replies he will be able to advance some excuse why his front-benchers and his colleagues were not present to assist him with his difficult task, because I think he has an extremely difficult task.

Once again it has been pointed out during this debate that the policy of apartheid, the Bantustan policy, has been the policy of the Government ever since 1948, even at the time when the late Dr. Malan and the late Mr. Strijdom were their leaders. Whether or not that is indeed the case, I at this stage leave to the consciences of my hon. friends on that side of the House.

Why “consciences”.

I do not want to go into that now. What is under discussion at the moment, however, what is indeed done in this Bill, is that the Prime Minister is now taking the first serious step to carry out his promise to the Bantu irrespective of how it will affect the future of the White man or the Bantu, a promise which he gave as long ago as 1950, when he promised the Bantu that they would ultimately be master in their area just as the Whites were the master in their area.

When business was suspended I was saying that the Prime Minister now has the opportunity of introducing this important Bill which is the first step in the fulfilment of his promise, the promise which he gave as far back as 1950 to the Bantu people, namely that they would eventually be master in their own area just as we were master in our area. He can do so to-day, Mr. Speaker, because those Prime Ministers, the late Dr. Malan and the late Mr. Strijdom, who advocated a different policy in this regard and who always stopped him are no longer here to do so. That is also why he now has the opportunity, as he said in 1961, inter alia— shortly after he became Prime Minister—of saying that—

That appears in col. 4191 of Hansard of 10 April 1961. The hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Mr. G. P. van den Berg) said the other day that the electorate had given them the mandate, that it was the electorate who, at the last election, had given them the mandate to carry out this policy. My hon. friends will remember that when we attacked this policy of the Government, and when we pointed this out to the electorate during the recent election, we were shouted down; we were told that we were distorting and that under this policy the Bantu would always be under the guardianship of the Whites.

May I ask a question?

No, I haven’t the time.

What are you afriad of?

I am not afraid of anything; I have never been afraid of anything. Recently the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development admitted in this House that the ultimate objective was independent Bantu states. He said that after he too had for some time tried to avoid the issue. And what did he not say, Sir! He said the objective was independence but then he shyly added—

He means “kwade” day, of course. In other words, the Prime Minister and the present Nationalist Party, as they are sitting there, the one as guilty as the other, the one as implicated as the other, are starting in the Transkei with this devilish plan, in the Transkei which is under discussion in this Bill, where a dozen Bantu tribes live next to one another and do not form a unit but who are nevertheless treated as a unit in this Bill.

At no stage in the history of the Transkei was that area a political unit. My hon. friend knows that as well as I do. I am sorry that he did not explain that the other day. They were all separate states. That is an important fact which must be borne in mind in dealing with this important matter and if we lose sight of that fact we are heading for trouble. That is a fact which we must consider when we decide on a form of government if we wish to avoid chaos, chaos which, if this fact is ignored, will mean internal disturbances, tribal fights, murder and bloodshed as sure as I am standing here this evening.

According to history that area was originally inhabited by Bushmen centuries ago. During the 16th and the 17th centuries they were murdered or chased out—and I wish Matanzima would also remember this—amongst others, by the Fingo the Galekas, the Xhosa, the Pondo, the Griquas and the Tembu.

When were they driven out?

In the 16th and 17th centuries.

You must learn your history again.

Those tribes always regarded mutual strife, raids and murder as their chief pastime. When the White people trekked northwards in the Cape Province and met them at the Fish River, not in 1770 as my hon. friend over there said, but in 1750, they extended their raids and murders to the Whites as well. That gave rise to a number of Kaffir Wars until the Ciskei was eventually annexed to the Cape Colony. Nearly 100 years later and a little later the Transkei as well.

You will remember, Mr. Speaker, that the person who started this was Sir Benjamin D’Urban. The hon. the Minister also said that the other day. His policy was, however, destroyed by the notorious Glenelg system, the notorious treaty system whereby treaties were entered into with the various chiefs. In many respects this Glenelg system corresponds in principle with the legislation before us to-day, except that Glenelg was cleverer than my hon. friend opposite. He did not regard that area as a unit, he entered into separate treaties with the different chiefs. He did not grant all of them independence as a unit, or returned it to them. He did not regard them as a unit; he treated them as different tribal chiefs. As my hon. friends know he also had a diplomatic agent with each of those tribal chiefs.

May I ask the hon. member a question?

I only have forty minutes, Mr. Speaker. In connection with this policy of destroying the annexation system and of giving this area back to the Bantu of the Transkei and of the Ciskei (at that time they were one) Walker says the following about the Ciskei in his “History of South Africa”—

Theal, our greatest historian, says—

The result of this short-sighted policy of Glenelg, this unwise policy of Glenelg, was once again chaos, fights, raids and the murder, within ten years, of over 100 Whites until Sir Harry Smith and Sir George Grey put an end to that stupid policy of independent Bantu states, those barbarian Bantu states under the control of barbarians within or along the borders of a civilized White area.

And you want to bring those barbarians in here.

As I have said, and as the hon. the Minister has also indicated, the Transkei was eventually placed under White control during the last quarter of the 19th century. The hon. the Minister is now making a very big historical faux pas, and I say this with all due respect. He told us the other day that it was well understood at that time that the Bantu in the Transkei and in the Ciskei would only be the wards of the Whites and that they would ultimately get their territory back. Where does my hon. friend get that nonsense from? Surely he knows the document. My hon. friend knows the history, does he not? I shall quote to him from the official document. What does the Declaration of Annexation say? It says, inter alia—

What year was that?

The annexation is known as—

I go on; I also want to read the other document to him, the one whereby Tembuland was annexed. It says the same, namely that Tembuland—

And my hon. friend told us that the Bantu of the Transkei were only taken over as wards and that they would eventually regain their freedom. Where does it state that? There is no such thing.

May I ask the hon. member a question: Is it not a fact that the tribal chiefs of the Transkei asked the British Government to incorporate their territory?

Some of them did; others did not. But that makes no difference. The fact remains that those people, whether they asked for it or not, became part of the Cape Colony and came under the Government of the Cape Province. I am pleased that my hon. friend has pointed that out to me; that strengthens my case even more. [Interjections.] After the annexation and as a result of the wise policies which the various Governments of the Cape Province followed those people developed under the Whites. They developed and gained governmental experience etc. on the basis of their own tribal customs. On the basis of their own tribal customs they were slowly but surely lifted from their state of barbarism to a more civilized state. A few—and I am talking about to-day—particularly those who have become detribalized and who have been living in the White area for years, have to a great extent freed themselves from the gripping arms of barbarism, though the masses in the Transkei are still living to-day in the shadow of their forefathers and of their past. They know little or nothing about modern government and 95 per cent of them, if not more, know little or very little about this Bill in particular.

The irrefutable fact, Mr. Speaker, is that these people are not yet ready for a modern form of government and I also want to call my hon. friend, the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development, to testify to this fact as well as the Chief Whip of the Nationalist Party, the hon. member for Brits (Mr. J. E. Potgieter). In their more sober moments they stated in 1948 that we should keep count of the political, social and cultural structure of the Bantu and that we should not destroy or ignore that structure because that could lead to chaos and Communism in Africa. In order to support his argument, the Chief Whip then quoted that great Afrikaner, that great Afrikaner of whom my hon. friends opposite have suddenly become so fond, namely the late General Smuts. I am glad that they are so fond of him; I am glad they have eventually realized what a great Afrikaner he was. The Chief Whip said that he quoted him with great pleasure. General Smuts had said—

The Minister himself advised the Natives about a year ago not to forget their past; he advised them to forget everything which the White man had taught them over the past 50 years he advised them to revert to the laws and customs of their forefathers. And he is right; he is perfectly right. You have to build on that. And now, Mr. Speaker? What does the Nationalist Party say to the Bantu in this Bill and to the world outside? That the main objective of this Bill is “guiding (them) along the paths of democracy, self-government, of democratic development, to independence They explain to the world that this legislation is a “major step on the road to self-determination”

My hon. friend for Kempton Park (Mr. F. S. Steyn) now comes forward with an entirely new idea. I wondered who wrote this article in the S.A. Patriot. Now I know who wrote it. It was my hon. friend over there. It is a lengthy and interesting article and what does it say amongst others—

He says that in spite of the fact that at the very beginning of his speech he said that the Bantu area would never become independent. He goes on to say that there will be a confederation of states…

On a point of personal explanation …

He can give that when I have finished my speech, Mr. Speaker.

I say you are talking nonsense.

He went further and he said …

You lie when you say I said that.

Mr. Speaker…

Leave him alone, he sinks to a very low level; it is his nature.

Order!

On a point of order …

Leave him. Mr. Speaker …

Order! The hon. member must withdraw that word.

I withdraw the word “lie” and I say it is untrue that I wrote that article.

[Inaudible.]

Order! The hon. member for Wynberg (Mr. Russell) is not the Speaker in this House …

Your statement …

Order!

Order! The hon. member for Wynberg must resume his seat. The hon. member may continue.

My hon. friends of the Nationalist Party say that this legislation is based on their past. What nonsense; what violation, Mr. Speaker, of the laws of government; what a departure from the Glen Grey system; what a departure from the Bunga system; what a departure from the big plans which the late General Smuts announced in 1947! The immature followers of Sabata, of Sicau, of Poto, of Matanzima, the descendants of Hintsa, of the Galekas, of Ndhlambi, of Faku, of Sandile, of Rarabe are now going to get Ministers and a Prime Minister on the “cultural basis and structure” of the Bantu—Ministers and a Prime Minister! They are getting their own flag. I take it, Mr. Speaker, that it will be emblazoned on their shields! They are getting their own national anthem and their own common citizenship and their own language. And had it not been for the United Party that would have been the only official language in the Transkei! [Interjections.] Some of those symbols are not only based on the cultural structure of the Bantu, but also signify the beginning of the end of White government in that area and of the Whites in that area. This is self-government. Mr. Speaker, the last step before sovereignty; this is “guiding them”, as they themselves say “along the path of democratic development”. It is “the establishment of a South African confederation”. Have my friends opposite thought about it that such a South African confederation” will have a multiracial parliament? And they are so scared of that! Then we will have a multi-racial parliament! These are facts.

Mr. Speaker, this legislation does not provide for gradual constitutional development of a race who still have to learn and who have to be nursed to maturity right from the bottom; it is not the process which the White man had to undergo: first Crown Colony government, then representative government and only then responsible self-government. No, this is without much ado the final step to independence. That is what they are being given. It is a step for which the Cape Colony had to wait from 1652 to 1872—220 years!

They are getting their own national anthem—Nkosi Sekelel’ iAfrica; a prayer to God to return Africa to the Bantu. It is not surprising, Mr. Speaker, that the political kindred spirit of that side, Matanzima. a political friend and supporter of that side—he is not even Prime Minister yet; his state has not even got self-government yet—is already claiming the area between the Fish River and Zululand. [Interjections.] He claimed that in the statement which he issued recently. He is claiming the whole area between the Fish River and Zululand. He goes further. Because the United Party is opposing the Transkeian plan, he is also attacking the United Party, the fellow Whites of my hon. friends on that side. I have not yet heard one of my hon. friends on that side raise his voice against that, not one voice. By implication my Nationalist Party friends say in this legislation: “Return to the Bantu that area” which has cost thousands of our forefathers their blood and which has demanded sacrifices of them. Where are the descendants of the Coetzees of that area? Where are the descendants of the Vorsters, where are the descendants of the Bekkers, of the Pelsers, the Trollips? There they sit. No. Mr. Speaker, not only is the Nationalist Party prepared to do this, prepared to cut up our country, but they are prepared, at this stage, to give self-government to those tribes who still regard murder and assault as the best and only weapon to have their demands acceded to and who still indulge in superstitious practices. What I am saying is the truth; that happened again only recently. Mr. Speaker, this is the granting of self-government to people who are not ready for it, people who will fly at each other’s throat the minute the Whites leave which will then lead to further suffering and to bitter consequences; it will cause grave concern to both the Whites and the Bantu in South Africa. My friends opposite are prepared, under the leadership of their leader, to betray their past, to give away their heritage and not to preserve that heritage for themselves and for their children. I am afraid they lack the courage, they have not got the guts, to say to the hon. the Prime Minister: “So far and no further. We shall follow you; we shall support your Bantu policy, but we shall not support you when you give our country away. If you give away our heritage we refuse to follow you any further”. I challenge my hon. friends not only to sing “Ek sal antwoord op jou roepstem” (I shall respond to your call) but to respond when that call comes.

Mr. Speaker, how can we expect that of the Nationalist Party, and I am talking about my friends opposite, my friends who for years have been the political slaves of their leadership; they have been caught in a strait-jacket from which they cannot escape. I am afraid that is the position. It is tragic to think that the descendants of free men, free men’s descendants, have become slaves of their party political leadership; that they have become powerless under the effects of a political narcotic. No, Mr. Speaker, posterity will never forgive my hon. friends on that side; posterity will accuse them of having given away a part of South Africa for which our forefathers fought and died, an act which will lead to unknown suffering and bitterness in South Africa.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, what can be done? My hon. friends opposite are in the majority. What can be done to put an end to this fragmentation of South Africa? I am very fond of my party, but my people and the interests of my country and my people overshadow by far those of my party. The first thing we have to do is to repeat that we refuse to recognize this bartering away of South Africa; that we shall not submit to it. We want both the Whites and the non-Whites to understand that. In the second place we should act in such a way that it will be possible to bring together, particularly those who are not prepared to sacrifice South Africa or to give parts of it away, those who want to retain White leadership in South Africa, so that we can destroy this devilish plan of the Government. The sooner we can do that the better for the future of South Africa.

The hon. member for Hillbrow (Dr. Steenkamp) this evening apparently took over the role of the former member for Salt River, namely to be the clown of the House. With vigorous verbosity and terribly expressive gestures, he has made historical misrepresentations such as I have never heard in history. My speech also deals with the historical aspect of this legislation, and that is why I shall in the course of my speech draw attention to all the false statements made by him in the course of his speech.

At the outset I should like to begin with this story whereby he let the cat out of the bag this evening, that he and the Opposition and the country in 1951 already knew that this was our policy and that we were moving in this direction. On 28 May 1951, the hon. member for Hillbrow said this—

In 1951 already he said this, as the policy of the Prime Minister. Then we had the hollow cry at the end of his speech—

Since 1951 we have had six elections, and after each one the Government returned, stronger and stronger, and where are all his stories now? Now we hear this hollow cry that we shall not win the next ensuing election as a result of this plan. They have come along with that hollow cry since 1951 and they have not progressed one inch, except backwards. Perhaps we should forgive the hon. member. He began his political career as the hon. member for Vryheid and he then still had the freedom of thought to express his own views now and again, but now he is the political hireling of Hillbrow and he may no longer express his own thoughts. The hon. member for Hillbrow has stated the point of view very strongly that we now want to give these terrible political powers. But on 2 April 1945 he made another notorious speech. It has been quoted very frequently, and I could quote it again. This debate does not concern education, but the hon. member for Hillbrow said—

Then Mr. Barlow interjected—

The hon. member for Hillbrow then said—

That is his policy. I do not wish to spend more of my time on the hon. member. I shall have to return to him time and again in the course of my speech in order to rectify his historical misrepresentations in any event.

Mr. Speaker, this Bill has two basic principles which I wish to put very plainly. In the first place there is the principle of geographic partition. The second principle is the principle of governing together or governing separately in this country. These principles are as old as the world and mankind are. In Biblical times we had partition. We had partition in almost every state of the world, until the borders of the states were determined by wars, by way of negotiation or in whatever manner it may have been done. The borders of the modern States of France, Italy, etc., were all fixed by wars, negotiation or by partition or what have you. But it is not such an ancient conception yet that it has become altogether obsolete. It is a modern conception also, for in modern times India and Pakistan divided their country in two by partition on account of religious friction. They preferred partition to suppression and mutual conflict and friction. The modern State of Israel also solved its problems by means of partition by separating the lews and the Arabs in order to eliminate friction. So partition is a conception that is still recognized continually in the modern body politic, and is a very good method, as is admitted generally, of eliminating friction in the political sphere.

Partition as such is also typically South African. I wish to make a statement here that diametrically opposed to what the hon. member for Hillbrow has stated, and I shall prove it. In the history of South Africa, from 1652 up to and including the arrival of Sir George Grey in the Cape, the standpoint of partition, of separate government as is advocated now, applied in the Cape. The policy of partition and separate government applied in the Republic of Natalia, in the Free State and in the Transvaal, and only in the Cape from the time of Sir George Grey until the establishment of Union in 1910, the policy of governing together and annexation was the policy of South Africa. Only during that time. It is a British policy, and I shall prove it. At the first meeting between White and non-White (and I would repeat in 1770 at Fish River, and not 1750 as the hon. member for Hillbrow says every time) a boundary was established. In 1778, eight years after the meeting, van Plettenberg laid down a definite boundary. He fixed the Fish River as the geographical border, and that was the first step in the direction of partition, or demarcation of areas in the history of South Africa. That was the first separation of areas in 1778.

I should like to go further. The situation on every occasion was this, that whenever a politician or a statesman or a leader or a governor or whoever it might have been, was sent to South Africa from overseas, he came here with a preconceived plan and a preconceived object inspired by the knowledge he had of South Africa, as he brought it with him from his home country. But it did not take long, under the conditions in South Africa, the peculiar problems and composition of South Africa, for that man to change his views in consequence of his acquaintance with the practical problems, and then he came forward with his own point of view which is typically South African. I should like to mention a few examples of this from history. The first I should like to mention is Governor de Mist, during the time of the Batavian Republic. In Holland he wrote a treatise on the Cape, inspired by the point of view of equality, liberty and fraternity of the French Revolution. When he came to the Cape only a year later, the practical circumstances of South Africa compelled him to ordain in one of his proclamations, that the Fish River would be regarded as the “eternal boundary between Black and White”. Within a year after his arrival, his whole attitude had changed. I should like to refer to a second person, the Earl of Caledon, the British governor. He disembarked at the Cape in 1807, and took over control, a person imbued with liberal ideas in respect of the innocent children of nature that were to be uplifted. He spent two years in South Africa, and he then became the first man to apply influx control in respect of the Bantu when he introduced his Caledon Pass Law in 1809.

I repeat that in every instance the position arose that the person came here with a preconceived object and point of view, and the practical circumstances of South Africa compelled him to modify that. Cradock is the next person I should like to refer to quickly. In 1812 he sent Colonel Graham to go and clean up the eastern boundary, with this instruction—

And where did His Majesty’s territories end? They ended at the Fish River. The territory was cleaned up and the Bantu were sent across the Fish River. “His Majesty’s territories” never extended beyond the Fish River. On the other side there was an independent separate state. I should like to go further and add that in these areas of the Bantu the view was never held that the White man wanted to have a say there or wished to govern there. The Bantu had his areas there, and the authority of the Paramount Chief was recognized and so maintained in those areas. I could quote references to Sir Charles Somerset or D’Urban or whomsoever you like, but it is unnecessary. D’Urban proclaimed the Kei River as the boundary. And what did he do?—

Once again partition, demarcation, a clear line. If the Black man crosses that line, he will be removed and regarded as an enemy. The traditional South African policy of partition under the régime of the East India Company and under the régime of the British Government. And in the territories the position remained that the Chief retained his authority.

Then we find the famous interference from London to which the hon. member referred in the Glenelg Dispatch. What happened on that occasion? I should like the hon. member to listen attentively because he has misrepresented this matter completely. Lord Buxton came forward in the British House of Commons with a private motion asking for a commission of inquiry. The commission of inquiry was appointed, and what did the London Atlas, referred to here by the hon. member, say about this inquiry—

Is that not precisely the situation we are still getting in South Africa to-day, that the evidence used over there is constantly false? But what did the Glenelg Dispatch bring to light? The treaty state system the hon. member has referred to here. But what was the treaty state system? It was a system in which the Black man could conclude a treaty with the White man in his own territory, but White men were sent into those territories to help to govern those Black states. The system of joint government which the United Party wants, was applied there.

No.

Historically that is true, and I shall adduce the proof. Whites were sent there to go and govern jointly, and the treaties were concluded one after another. There was no partition any longer; no separate government any longer; here was the policy the United Party now advocates, namely no partition and joint government, and the treaty state system was such a failure that Sir Peregrine Maitland who came to introduce it, at the end of his period of office, no, before that time, in 1846 already, said it was a complete failure. The Seventh Kaffir War broke out, which proved that it had been a failure, and Sir Peregrine Maitland came forward with the point of view that the Buffalo River should be annexed as the boundary by the British Government, and that they should regard all the territory beyond as not belonging to the White man, and at the same time that they should introduce a well-devised and planned defence scheme. There we have the proof once again. Maitland came here to carry out a policy, but the circumstances compelled him to return to the traditional South African policy, namely partition and separate government.

What did Sir Harry Smith do?

The hon. member immediately falls into the trap again. I am now going to deal with Sir Harry Smith. Sir Harry Smith came along and cancelled all treaties by a proclamation dated 17 December 1847. He once again fixed the Kei River as the boundary, and he annexed the area between the Keiskamma and the Kei to the Cape Colony as British Kaffraria, but he says very clearly “But not as part and parcel of the Colony”. Does the hon. member agree? Once again partition, very clearly, and once again the same system, but in this self-same Ciskei he went along and again made the mistake of applying the other principle of the United Party, namely joint government. He appointed Whites as commissioners and residents to administer the government there, and as a result of one of these situations the Eighth Kaffir War broke out in 1850, namely because Sandile was removed from office and replaced by Charles Brownlee, a White man. Joint government led to the Eighth Kaffir War in 1850. The hon. member for Hillbrow has misrepresented the whole matter.

Now I come to Sir George Grey. As I said at the outset, Sir George Grey was the governor who came here with the policy advocated by the United Party at present. Thenceforth we had a change of policy in respect of the Cape. But up to that stage the attitude of the Governors in the Cape, Dutch and British Governors, was partition and separate government, not joint government. Sir George brought about the change. He wanted to uplift the Black man, and at the same time annex the country. He wished to improve the conditions of the Bantu, and he wished to put the White man there to govern him. He said: “In the interests of peace and order and good government,” and then he wanted to fill the territory with Whites, and he put it thus—

From 1865 up to Proclamation No. 339 of 1894 inclusive, with the Proclamation of Pondoland, the Transkei was annexed as British territory.

Here we have the clear proof. Here we are now dealing with the British system, instigated by and on the directions of the Colonial Office in London. It is un-South African and untraditional. It does not fit into our background; it was imposed from outside, And it was a complete failure. I now continue. When in 1854 the British Government extended representative self-government to the Cape, it also gave the Black man the franchise, and told him—

That is the policy imported from overseas. Now the Black man was being given the franchise, was he not? The principle was enforced from overseas. But what did the local authorities vested with executive power to administer the principle do? What did they do with the limited powers they had? They increased the qualifications year after year so that as few as possible of the Blacks should have the vote. In the first instance, in 1887, 30,000 Bantu were removed from the Voters’ Roll as a result of an increase in the qualifications of voters; in 1891 there was a further increase; in 1892 more Bantu were removed. These were artificial attempts on the part of the local rulers who had become acquainted with local conditions, and who resisted the principle of equal franchise over which they had no control and which had been imposed upon them from overseas. They had more sense than the Opposition, and immediately realized they could not go so far. So we had the position throughout that there was a deviation from the principle, namely in the direction of one common fatherland, jointly governed by “all Her Majesty’s loyal subjects”. The local people tried to evade it. This united loyalty, as expressed in the words “shall be united by one bond of loyalty and common interests” are the identical words, strangely enough, that I had heard from the hon. the Leader of the Opposition are they not? Identically the same; one loyalty from all people, in one South Africa. But what the Opposition has completely forgotten is this, that that one loyalty to one fatherland and one common people, must lead to one Government, and in one Government the Black man with his numerical superiority will be the master.

I wish to leave the Cape there, and historically quickly come to the Transvaal and the Free State and Natal. I want to deal with the matter very quickly. In the Transvaal, after the battle of Kapain, Potgieter cleaned up the Transvaal and drove Silkaats out of it, and he fixed the Limpopo as the boundary. The Matabele were driven across the Limpopo, and the Limpopo was fixed as the boundary, and it was made very clear to Silkaats that if he crossed it he would have trouble with the Boers. A clear boundary demarcated, partition. The White the master in his territory and the Bantu the master in his territory, partition, separate rule. Precisely what we are doing here now. In Natal Panda was recognized as the Paramount Chief. A clear line was drawn there. An area was demarcated for the Zulus and an area was demarcated for the Whites. Panda was recognized as the Paramount Chief in the Zulu area, and in the White area the Whites remained the masters. Agar-Hamilton as historian and author of “The Native Policy of the Voortrekkers”, at page 72, stated the position thus—

In other words, here the political situation was very clear. In Natal also the Bantu were placed apart. Partition and separate government, the traditional policy of South Africa, was adopted.

The Constitution of the South African Republic, the Act of 1896, provided in Section 9. [Translated.]—

That is very clear, no equality, in other words, partition. I should also like to quote from “Die staatsopvattings van die Voortrekkers” as sketched by Professor Gey van Pittius, where at page 42 he puts it this way. [Translated.]—

Now we have this position, that I have briefly proved that in the Cape up to the time of Sir George Grey the policy of the Dutch and the English was partition and separate Government. In Natal, the Free State and Transvaal it was partition and separate rule up to the time when we had unification.

At the time of unification the groups met and the question was what policy would triumph now. The matter was so serious that they did not resolve it there. They left the matter to Parliament to decide, and the first result of this was the policy laid down by the Act of 1913 which Mr. Sauer piloted through Parliament. That policy once again reaffirmed the policy of the north, the traditional South African policy, namely partition in all respects, and the removal of the Black man to his own area. General Hertzog drafted that Act, and actually the principles expressed in that Act were his ideas, and General Smuts agreed with them as a member of the Cabinet which approved that legislation.

The traditional South African policy, historically borne out, is not as stated by the hon. member for Hillbrow, that the Glenelg system was adopted, but the historical South African policy throughout the years has been partition and separate rule. So with this legislation we are standing squarely with both feet in the traditional South African policy. We adhere firmly to that point of view, while the United Party, or at least the representatives of the United Party in Parliament, are the mouthpiece of the people who are foreign to South Africa, those who wish to force us from overseas to adopt the policy of no longer having partition or separate rule, but of equal rights and incorporation of the policy of the Black man in our own area.

I should like to refer to another viewpoint. One of the main objections of the United Party to this policy is the point of view that we are now developing separate dangerous Bantu states on our borders. I should like to give the practical approach to this and make my submission thereanent. If that were to happen, the worst that could happen under our policy—I emphasize “the worst”—is that we may be in a position where ultimately we shall be faced with a hostile neighbouring state on our borders, against which we shall have to defend our country as our ancestors had to do. That is the worst that could happen under the circumstances. But the essential thing, which necessarily will have to happen under the policy of the United Party, is that eventually we shall have a greater South Africa, but one in which the Black man will hold the reins of Government, the Army, the Police Force, the Public Service, a state in which he will be in control of everything and in which there will be greater hostility to the Whites, because the Black man has been suppressed for so many years in order to try to preserve White supremacy.

This question of separate Bantu states is not peculiar. The protectorates may develop in that direction, and so could the Rhodesias. That is the risk that every state in modern society must run. Denmark may have an enemy on its borders to-morrow; Holland may have one to-morrow. That is a risk all of them must run. In modern warfare distance is a relative conception which is no longer relevant. That is the worst than can happen, and we prefer that to the alternative the United Party is putting up, namely a Republic where the Black man is the master because his superiority in numbers will ensure that.

I should like to make a further point. The other objection to this Bill is: What about all the Bantu who remain in the White man’s area? I immediately make the point that they are still here temporarily as a labour force. But this is the policy of this party, and I should like to put it very clearly, that the ideal should be total partition and total apartheid. I am not saying that on my own authority, but I say it on the authority of three leaders of this party. The programme of principles of the National Party issued during the election of 1948, expressed it thus—

That was the programme of principles of the National Party in 1948 and in 1949—

That was incorporated in the programme of principles for 1948 and 1949 and it is very clear. Dr. Malan was the draftsman of this policy and after the election of 1948 he became Prime Minister.

It was not a practical policy.

I should like to come to Adv. Strijdom and put his point of view in this regard. That also was the point of view of complete partition. On 15 September 1954 he said—

In conclusion I should like to quote our present Prime Minister in support of that point of view. No secret has been made of it. In this House of Assembly, on 15 September 1959, he said this [translated]—

Now I should like to say that if we test this legislation according to that requirement, it qualifies 100 per cent, for it is moving in that direction which throughout the years has been held up as the ideal. What are the true facts in connection with the Bantu who meantime still are in this area? In his southward migration the Black man did not find here, as in the northern parts through which he travelled, an unpopulated area, but a settled White people which had already been permanently settled here in 1770 for a period of 120 years, and had developed and built up much during that period. So he was an intruder when in 1770 he came here and crossed the borders.

What about the Bushmen?

I am referring to the Bantu, and not to the hon. member. In 1768 and 1770 boundaries had already been established and the Bantu knew that he was not now entering the White man’s land and that he was a stranger crossing the boundaries. He knew he was entering the White man’s land. And in the third place, he entered the White man’s territories of his own free will, without any compulsion from any side. Therefore he is here of his own choice. And fourthly, he came here to seek employment, to seek food, to seek a refuge, and not to seek political rights. He came here and said he wanted to come and work, and we were prepared to give him work. The White man entered into a contractual arrangement with him and said: I am prepared to buy your labour and I shall pay you for that in accordance with an agreed price. He did not come and ask for political rights in South Africa. If he had asked for political rights here, he would never have been admitted here. The next point is: No occurrence or resolution in the history of South Africa gave the Bantu any reason ever to accept constitutionally that he could claim full political citizenship within the White territory. All Governments have at all times imposed political restrictions upon him. And even the United Party now, with their race federation plan, still wishes to impose political restrictions upon him. They do not accept him as a full citizen. If that is so, then, surely then he has no claim at all to political rights here. Why should we give him such rights? Why do hon. members opposite squeal because we are unwilling to give him such rights? It is not strange that we have labourers here who belong in another territory In how many countries in the world is that the case? How many Italians are working in Germany; how many Irishmen are working in England? How many Basutos are working in Cape Town? Does it go without saying that they should obtain political rights here?

But it is much worse when I put the alternative. If we were not to adopt this point of view, what is the alternative? It is the policy of the United Party then, and their point of view, and that must ultimately lead to Black members in this House, and the Leader of the Opposition the other day admitted that it could ultimately be so. Now I say that if there were to be Black M.P.s in this House of Assembly, how are you going to stop him from mixing with the Whites in the coffee lounge? For what reason are you going to debar him from sitting in the Here XVII with you? [Interjections.]

Who said that?

Order! The hon. member for Hillbrow (Dr. Steenkamp) had a good opportunity to make his speech.

I say that if we were to permit it here, then surely you cannot proceed with social segregation, which is their policy! Surely that will then be gone, for you cannot have a second-rate M.P. If he is an M.P. surely he must have equal social rights. In what respect then are you going to peg him down.

I support this Bill because, in the first place, the National Party’s policy of partition and separate rule is typically South African, and it is incorporated in this Bill. Secondly, I support it because the conferment of self-government upon the Transkei is not a breakaway from or a modification of our policy, but only the recognition on our part that the time has arrived for the next logical step in our traditional policy of partition, geographically and with separate system of government, and simultaneously the process of liberation from guardianship should now take place gradually and at a faster pace. Liberation from guardianship surely is not a process that lasts for ever. The ward surely must be freed from his guardian at some time or another. Thirdly, because this legislation can guarantee to us in this way that the White man can have permanent dominance in his own area, and that the Black man in his own area can have the opportunity not to suppress his own national awakening, but to express it fully. Fourthly, I support the measure because no multi-racial government anywhere on earth can operate successfully. I challenge the Opposition to point out where it does work. How then, can they expect a multi-racial government to work in South Africa? And fifthly I support it because there is no alternative for what we are proposing here. Politically, practically and historically there is no alternative for what we are proposing here. I should like to put it as strongly as this: If this policy of ours fails, everything will fail and everything must fail. I should like to conclude with this thought: From the very nature of things, political boundaries will have to be erected in order to secure a future for the White man in a multi-racial South Africa as constituted at present. The United Party wants to draw a horizontal political dividing line by placing the White man above that line, and the Black man below that line, or in whatever manner it may be, but to jointly realize the political aspirations in the same community. Therefore this policy imposes everlasting restrictions upon the Black man, and this policy involves everlasting friction between White and Black. The Black people will constantly knock their heads against this ceiling in an attempt to become full citizens. There will be constant friction, constant conflicts, everlasting discrimination against the Black man. That satisfied nobody, and it must in consequence of that entail friction at contact points, and it must fail and cannot succeed. The National Party is prepared also to draw political dividing lines, but we do not draw them horizontally; we draw the line vertically, from above downwards, and that has to succeed because we offer equal opportunities for all on both sides of that dividing line, and because as a result of that we have fewer points of friction between the two groups, because we do not continually try to suppress the people artificially. It must succeed, because under that system we acknowledge every man’s human rights within his own area. That is why it must succeed. In the light of these facts, I feel the Opposition have no choice, if they really go into this history of South Africa, but to support this Bill wholeheartedly.

It is really a pleasure to speak after the hon. member for Randfontein (Dr. Mulder) has spoken, particularly in view of the fact that in his customary courteous way, he called the hon. member for Hillbrow (Dr. Steenkamp) who spoke before him, a “political hireling”. I can only say that the hon. member for Randfontein has turned out a bad political hireling. He tried to start an argument with a historical background and to suggest that this was the historical way of governing, geographical partition and not governing together. He tried to prove that the ideal of this Government was to achieve geographical partition and to avoid governing together.

What does history say?

Mr. Speaker, if that honourable organizer would only forget that he is not sitting in the back of a hall where a political meeting is being held …

On a point of order, I strongly object to that. I am not a political organizer.

I was saying that the hon. member for Randfontein tried to make the statement that this Government did not want to know anything about governing together. But the hon. member has obviously not read the Bill; he does not know what it is all about. There is a Schedule to this Bill and Clause 37 says that the Legislative Assembly shall have the power to make laws which are not inconsistent in relation to all matters appearing in Part B of the First Schedule and—

Then it goes on to say in regard to which matters they cannot make laws, and the following matters are mentioned—

What is that other than governing together? The hon. member has never even read the Bill; he does not know what he is talking about. The entire Bill does nothing else than to prove that they are to govern together. Certain powers are granted, but a big loophole is left so that the hon. the Minister can change it in future. When Kaiser Matanzima makes the necessary demands the Minister will be able to give his approval and to comply with the demands of Kaiser Matanzima. That is the reason why these loopholes are left here. The hon. member for Randfontein makes a statement as though the century-old tradition of the nation is to have geographical separation and not to govern together. This legislation, however, provides for nothing else than governing together. I do not think it is necessary for me to deal any further with the speech of the hon. member. He missed the point completely and had no idea what he was talking about. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, may I ask for protection for the hon. member. There is so much noise that you can hardly hear what she is saying.

Order!

When the hon. the Minister introduced this legislation, he said that it was the logical outcome of the pattern of development in South Africa, that it was the basic principle conducive to human happiness and human relationships. I was greatly impressed by his speech.

And the seriousness of it.

Yes, and his seriousness. His face radiated with happiness, and his whole being exuded goodwill at the thought of all the wonderful things he was going to do for the Transkei. His whole face beamed…. [Interjections.]

On a point of order, I believe that only one hon. member may address the House. I appeal to you, Sir, to protect the hon. member who is speaking.

Order!

I was saying that I was impressed by the enthusiasm of the Minister. He reminded me of somebody who was drifting on a light rosy cloud up in the sky and had forgotten that there was anything like solid earth below him. I particularly gained the impression that the hon. the Minister had forgotten that there was still a White nation in South Africa. The Minister was only dealing with the Bantu of the Transkei. The Minister made it clear that he did not care what happened to the White nation in South Africa. He is only concerned with one thing and that is his enthusiasm about what he is going to give to the Bantu. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member for Piketberg (Mr. Treurnicht) must not make so many interjections.

The hon. the Minister said that that was the basic principle underlying human happiness and human relationships but why did we wait 300 years before we took this step? Why did the relationship which existed make them happy for 300 years? The Minister said that the White man had protected the Bantu groups in South Africa and saved them from going under. I agree, but what has happened that the White man is no longer prepared to protect them and to save them from going under? What has happened that the Minister and the Government now want to create disorder instead of order? According to the Minister there has been peace for 300 years, and I agree, but what is the position today? While the Minister was speaking I counted the number of members present on that side of the House and there were only 40. The Minister concluded by saying that what he had said was not merely idle words; that it was not merely idle words as far as that side of the House was concerned, but that he was very sincere about it. Mr. Speaker, it was not idle words, it was plain liberalism. The Minister concluded by saying that the Bantu of the Transkei had said that they were ready to govern themselves. Are they? I learned a few weeks ago that there was not a single Bantu engineer in the whole of South Africa and I take it that there is indeed work which calls for a Bantu engineer. On 17 May 1961 a reply was given in this House to the effect that in the Department of Bantu Education not a single Bantu was employed in the 100 highest posts in the Transkei. Are those people ready to govern themselves? The Minister has, however, laid a foundation for the Bantu of the Transkei. He is giving them their own flag, their own language, their own citizenship and their own national anthem. He is laying the foundation for their future. The foundation for that future is laid in this Transkei Bill. This Transkei Bill lays down the oath which the Prime Minister must take and it is different from the oath which we in the Republic take. They take the oath of allegiance only to the Transkei. [Interjections.]

Order!

I have said that they take a different oath. They do not take an oath of allegiance to the Republic. Anybody who lives in the Transkei, anyone of those Ministers, can commit an act of sabotage against South Africa after he has taken that oath; he is not bound by anything because not even his oath binds him to South Africa, this fatherland which has given him his freedom. [Interjections.] This Bill was drafted in Afrikaans. We have also given them their own language and their own national anthem. I had a very interesting experience. I wanted to get the words of this national anthem “Nkosi Sikelel’ i Afrika” which we are giving them from the Department of the hon. the Minister but they could not give them to me. They told me they were very sorry they could only give me the first verse. I told them there were eight verses. Senior officials in the Department told me that they would try to get them for me and that they were negotiating with the Department of the Minister of Bantu Education to see if they could get them. After a few days I received a copy from the Department of Bantu Education but it was only a copy of the first verse. The two copies from the Department of Bantu Education differ. According to the Department of Bantu Education the song is as follows. I shall read the English translation first—

The Afrikaans translation of the Minister’s Department reads “God seen Afrika” and it reads as follows—

The two differ completely from one another.

But they are different verses.

Shame, I am sorry for the hon. member. He cannot even listen. The hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell) made an allegation to which the Minister replied. The Minister said—

I have copied it word for word from the hon. member’s Hansard—

I took the trouble of looking up the translation of the hon. Senator Fagan and this is what he wrote. It was published in 1947 and it reads as follows—

Only the first line is in sonnet form, but the hon. the Minister inserts it in the Constitution of the Transkei as their national anthem, without knowing what it means. There is something else I want to tell the hon. the Minister. The hon. the Minister does not know where this song comes from. He does not know Xhosa or Zulu well enough to know how this should be translated. I do not think anybody in the Department has so far taken the trouble of translating it and I now want to read out the correct “Nkosi Sikelel’ i Afrika” and show you where it comes from, Sir—

Translated it means—

Which means—

Note that this first verse does not end with “sikelel” but with “usi sikhelele”. The translation is—

“Usi-sekhelele” not “sikelel”.

That means “cut a piece off for us”.

The hon. member is getting closer, but the difference is this; it is not “sikele” (which does mean “cut off”) but “usi-sikhelele” which means “give to us”. Now we get to the part which was composed by a Xhosa and it reads as follows—

7—A.H. Vol. 2

Freely translated it means the following—

In this entire song the word “Nkosi”, the name of God, only appears twice. It only appears in the first and last verse. For the rest there is no reference to “God bless For the rest it deals with the headmen (verse 2) and the preachers (verse 5). The third and fourth verses deal with the men and the young men and the women and young girls. Throughout the word “sikhelele” varies as follows—

The fifth verse is as follows—

Freely translated it reads—

Clearly here again it means “So that they can give Africa to us”. So the whole song goes on to end with the last verse—

Which means—

That is the national anthem which the Minister prescribes to them. This booklet was printed in 1905 and, what is interesting, is the fact that it has a powder horn (kruithoring) on the cover. I have been wondering what the origin is of the powder horn of the Nationalist Party. This is the national anthem and this national anthem is not only sung in South Africa. It is a song which is sung by all Pan-Africanists throughout the whole of Africa as far as the Congo. They sing it in Rhodesia and in Kenya and in Nyasaland. Wherever there are Ndebele or descendants they sing it. This song has been accepted by the A.N.C. We now have a Bill which is drawn up in Afrikaans and English. Is this a true reflection of what has happened in the Transkei? If the national anthem is so incorrectly translated—I again remind you, Sir, of the first verse, which says: “Laat sy Regering ontwikkel”, which is translated by the Department as “God seen ons”—is this a correct translation in the Bill? It also says: “Luister na ons gebede” (listen to our prayers). Then it says: “God seën ons” (God bless us). I have read the Bill, but the more I read it the more confused I became, because it is a question of governing together. It is a question of leaving one section under the control of the people of the Transkei, and leaving the rest in the hands of the Central Government, but a big loophole is left so that, when the Minister changes his plans, and when Kaiser Matanzima asks too much, they can even change the borders of the Transkei, and even those matters which are referred to in the Schedule. When the Minister became enthusiastic and said that we as Afrikaners did not claim for ourselves that which we begrudged them, he had descended from the cloud. I then asked him whether he also intended giving them their own defence force. It says here that the defence force is retained by the Central Government, but for how long? Freedom is in the hands of the person who receives it, and not in the hands of the person who gives it. The Nationalist Party, under the leadership of the Prime Minister and this hon. member, have mounted a tiger; they are facing its tail, and they do not know where it will end. What is more, hon. members opposite do not know either. They do not know where this is going to end. There is only one test to determine whether this is going to be a success or not. The hon. member for Randfontein said it must succeed, and that it would succeed. He said that under the policy of the United Party we would have a bigger South Africa, but that we would not be master in it; that we would have Black Members of Parliament in this House. The hon. member, when giving us the historical background, did not say a word about what was to become of the Bantu who remained in the White areas and who were twice as many as the Whites. The long title of this Bill clearly states that the object is to give self-government to the Bantu living in the Transkei and to certain Bantu related to the Bantu of the Transkei. Where is it going to end? They also refer to the traditional policy. Is it traditional policy for the women in the Transkei to have the franchise, the young girls under 21 years of age? Where does that come from? And a young Native of 18 years of age. Does the Minister not know that nobody is called to sit in the forums of the Bantu unless he is 25 years of age? The men dare not say anything until they are 25 years of age. Do you see what a caricature this legislation is. Sir? On the one hand we are told that there will be more chiefs in the legislative assembly than elected members, and on the other hand they have to cast their vote in an ultra modern fashion which those people will not understand.

I want to deal with something which a number of hon. members have raised in this House, including the hon. members for Rustenburg and Pietersburg. They said that there was one thing which the Bantu of South Africa wanted and that was the franchise. Nothing is further from the truth. The Bantu of South Africa have not as yet asked for the franchise; they are asking for a place in the sun. They are asking for enough food and sufficient clothing, a little home to live in and security in life.

Have you ever heard of Luthuli?

Yes, and I have also heard of the hon. member for Standerton, and I take it that Luthuli is as unintelligent as the hon. member. I have heard a great deal about Luthuli, and I have heard of many people who are greater extremists than Luthuli. There are people amongst the Whites and amongst hon. members opposite who are equally extreme. There are members opposite whose motto has been: “Domination in South Africa; save the White man; keep the Native in his place and the Coolie must get out of the country.” [Interjections.] To-day we call the Kaffirs Bantu, but they are getting a portion of our beloved fatherland, a piece is being cut off and given to them as a present, and what about the Indian? The chief organizer of the Nationalist Party and the Leader of the Nationalist Party in Natal is to-day the leader of the Indians in Natal. The chiefs have changed. [Interjections.] This legislation with which we are dealing to-day is the direct outcome of the policy of the Nationalist Party; this Government and the National Party thought they could ignore the entire world and stand alone, but when they realized that they could not do that, they got such a fright. [Interjections.] We have heard about the inflexibility of the Nationalist Party, but not only has it given away, it has burst open, and that granite rock is so full of cracks to-day that the Nationalist Party themselves do not know how to cover those cracks. They say that the Bantu want the franchise. If time permits, I want to relate the following incident, Sir: Somebody asked a Zulu whether he wanted the vote.

Was it Luthuli?

No, I usually deal with White people. When I talk about a Bantu I talk about a Bantu, but when I talk about “somebody” I mean a White person like myself. That person asked the Zulu whether he wanted the vote, to which the old chief replied: “What is that?” He then explained what it meant, and then the chief asked whether it was something he could eat. The person told him that it was not something that he could eat. He then wanted to know whether it was something he could wear. He was told that it was not something that he could wear. Then he asked whether you could buy anything with it, and he was told “no”.

That sounds like the Congo.

No, this is not a Congo story as yet, but if the Nationalist Party remain in power long enough we will have a Congo story. “There is many a true word spoken in jest” and very often fools say something which is true. The point is this, however, Sir, that the Bantu themselves did not ask for the franchise in South Africa; they are asking for a little place in the sun.

I want to ask you, Mr. Speaker, what the traditional policy of South Africa is. The traditional policy has been to give them a measure of self-government in the reserves but under the control of the White man. As the White man advanced economically in South Africa he passed it on to the non-White races. When we built a hospital we included a non-White section. When we built a post office we allowed them to post their letters. When we constructed a railway line we provided them with coaches in which they could travel. As we advanced economically, the Bantu, the Coloured and the Indian of South Africa shared in it under the traditional policy of the Afrikaner and of any Government in South Africa. That has been the traditional policy. The traditional policy is for the White man to retain the leadership because of his knowledge and experience. I am not talking about the White man alone but about the Bantu as well. It is equally necessary for them to have leadership and our knowledge and our money and our experience. The stories which the Nationalist Party tell us to-day do not represent the traditional policy and they know it. They know that the only policy and the right policy in South Africa is to share the fruits of Western civilization with the other races as much as possible and to give them a moderate share of representation. But the policy which the Government is following to-day is the policy of one man one vote, and this side of the House is opposed to that; we do not believe in that. The Government got such a fright and have run away so far that where they have deprived the Bantu of all the representation which they had in the Cape Province where they had a few White representatives in this House, they are now giving them one man one vote. [Interjections.] I want to make one further comparison, namely that the Liberal Party and the Nationalist Party have the same policy. [Interjections.] Even the Progressives do not go as far as they do. I am not putting on an act. I am very serious. Matanzima has made a claim to the effect that the area between the Fish River and Zululand belongs to the Bantu and that the White people must leave. I remember as a Voortrekker girl, how Voortrekker blood cleared up Northern Natal. The Voortrekkers vanquished Northern Natal. I make no secret of that. I am the great-grandchild of a Voortrekker. The land which lies there to-day of which a portion still belongs to me was cleared up and conquered by their blood. What is going to prevent Matanzima from claiming that conquered land? Will the Government let him have his way? Because once you start to run you run very fast. I say the time has arrived for the people of South Africa to attend to this matter, that the Nationalist Party is on the run and that this legislation which is before the House to-day, is a half-baked, ill-considered piece of legislation, so ill-considered that the hon. the Minister does not even know the words of the national anthem which he is giving them.

Mr. Speaker, it is a long time since I last had to listen to such a patch-work speech as that of the hon. member who has just resumed her seat, and by that I simply mean that she simply threaded a lot of loose arguments together without any logic, without a beginning and without an end. I must say that having listened to the hon. member for Drakensberg (Mrs. S. M. van Niekerk) here to-night, she has qualified for so many posts in this country that one would find it difficult to decide where to place her if she were to apply. I should like to mention only this, inter alia, that she caused me to think that she would fit in par excellence as a woman lecturer in philology at one of the universities we are establishing for the non-Whites. She nearly gave us a foretaste of what things will look like someday under a United Party Government if there were a few Zulus and Xhosas sitting here and we had to listen to their speeches in this House. I should like to point out further, that the hon. member now plays the role of being the White man’s party in such a way that she called the Minister of Indian Affairs the leader of the Indians. Did I understand her correctly? She added that when she refers to someone, she is referring to a White man. In other words, according to her. there is no room for a Bantu or a Coloured person or an Indian to-night, for she is the champion of the White man, and she is not opening her mouth to talk about those sections of the community to whom this Bill applies, and she can see no good in what we are doing for the non-Whites in the interests of the preservation of the Whites also. She says we are doing everything for the non-Whites and nothing for the White man. Consequently she wishes to pose here to-night as the champion of the only White man’s party in this country.

Then the hon. member also tried to step into the breach for the hon. member for Hillbrow, and amongst other things she also said that the hon. member for Randfontein proved nothing more with his historical narrative than that he had never read this Bill. In actual fact it amounted to this, that the hon. member for Randfontein as historian exposed the hon. member for Hillbrow and showed him up in his full nakedness at the bar of history. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member for Durban Point (Mr. Raw) is an infant in politics, I suggest he takes his drink now and go to bed for it is late already. The hon. member for Hillbrow said that he loved his Party, but that he loved his country and his people more. Let me say this of us on this side, namely that we also love our Party, that we also love our country and our nation more, and that we love our nation and our country more than we love the gaining of cheap popularity by means of sophistry. [Interjections.] It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. member for Durban Point and I have our knives in for each other. Nothing affords me greater pleasure than to cross swords with him. Let me say that the Bunga in the Transkei has rendered good work for 60 years. It served as liaison between the Government and the Transkei. It also served as a training school in local self-government for the non-Whites of that territory. However, there were many disadvantages attached to it. This is a small piece of history I should like to tell merely with a view to coming to this Bill. The disadvantage attached to it was that it was rooted in the political integration methods of Sir George Grey and was moreover modelled upon Western deas, which resulted in the Bantu tribal administration not playing any role in it. A further consequence was that the Bantu could never really appreciate it, because his share in it was merely on an advisory basis, but never on a co-operative or participating basis. That is why the General Council in 1955 resolved to return to the system of Bantu authorities which in turn would slowly but surely lead to the road to self-government.

Mr. Speaker, we have frequently heard in this debate—and I wish to raise it now again in order to add a new idea to it—that by this legislation we have irrefutably proved that this Government wants to cut up this country and distribute it among the non-Whites. Surely then that suggests that Dr. Verwoerd is the creator of the Transkei for the Xhosa and of Zululand for the Zulus.

Is it not so?

If that were true, then it is true also that Mr. Macmillan is the creator of Basutoland for the Basuto, of Swaziland for the Swazi and Bechuanaland for the Bechuana.

Do you agree?

One just cannot make the United Party understand that here we are dealing with a 300-year-old pattern of occupation, and that the Bantu then occupied those places where they are mainly still living at the present time. The pattern of occupation of this country after 300 years is an historical development that nobody willed, wished, brought about or designed. It was so ordained and we accept it as such.

Now I should like to deal with three points that have been made with regard to this Bill. In the first place, this Government is alleged to have yielded to world opinion. In the second place, it is alleged that the political revolution in Africa is now compelling us to take this step; and in the third place, it is stated that we now are now following the example of England which is virtually preparing self-government for Basutoland. Let us examine these three points now. As regards the statement that the Government is yielding to world opinion, I should like to say merely that if that were so, we would not have followed this constitutional course, but we would have done so in a crude and ill-considered manner as was done in the Congo. We would then have preferred to have run away from our political and financial responsibilities in that way, and to throw it into the hands of the Bantu and to say: “Here, have it.” That is what is taking place in the Federation too. In regard to the statement that the political revolution in Africa is forcing us to take this step, I should like to say that if the United Party is unable to learn from history, then we have shown by this Bill that the National Party is able to learn from history. The difference lies with the leaders. The hon. the Prime Minister and the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development are products of their times and creators of a future for each of the sections in this country, but they are not political consumer goods. They are not merely political consumer’s goods that are devoured by their times by taking the opportunity, when they are involved in a political situation, to merely push buttons to give the green light to world opinion. It is not the position here. It is not so that our political leaders are like people who have landed in a political current, or are like a man who falls into the water by accident, and who is now going along with the current merely to save his own life. By this legislation a halt is called, and preventive measures are taken to canalize the political waters and to utilize them in the interests of both the Whites and the non-Whites of this country. It is not true either that our Prime Minister and his Cabinet, and in particular the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development who is mainly responsible for this Bill, are people who have landed in a whirlpool and will float around for a moment and then disappear completely. In actual fact it is quite different. To them the times are an instrument they want to put to good use, and a wagon they are travelling on to a well-planned and a determined future which has been designed with a view to the welfare of all sections of those who are in the fortunate position of living in this country.

As regards the third argument, namely, that we are on the way to following the example of Britain in regards to Basutoland, you will permit me, Mr. Speaker, briefly to compare the Constitution of Basutoland and the proposed Constitution for the Transkei. Thereafter I wish to refer to what non-White leaders have said about these constitutions, that is to say, what the non-White leaders have said of the proposed Constitution for the Transkei as well as what non-White leaders have said about the Constitution of Basutoland. Here follows the comparison. In the first place, the population of the Transkei is 1,500,000. The proposed Legislative Assembly will consist of 109 members: four Paramount Chiefs, 60 Chiefs, 45 elected members, that is to say, 109 in all. In Basutoland, on the contrary, there is a population of 800,000; in the Legislative Assembly there are 80 members: 40 Chiefs and 40 indirectly elected by nine District Councils. In the Transkei the Legislative Assembly will elect the Cabinet. There will be a Chief Minister and the Cabinet can only be dissolved with the approval of the State President on a petition from the Legislative Assembly. In Basutoland the position is that the Resident Commissioner is the Chairman of the Legislative Assembly, and the portfolio’s will be held by officials and four elected members. As regards the Transkei, the Government of the Republic of South Africa retains control over matters such as defence, foreign affairs, internal security, posts and telegraphs, railways, national roads and harbours constitutional changes etc. What is the position in Basutoland in this respect? The High Commissioner retains control over, inter alia defence, internal affairs, posts and telegraphs, internal security and constitutional changes. The delegation of powers in both the Transkei and Basutoland is dependent upon finance, as neither the Transkei nor Basutoland are economically able and equipped to take over without the aid of South Africa in the case of the Transkei and of Britain in the case of Basutoland. The estimates of the Transkei are put at about R12,000,000 per annum initially; the revenue from local sources approximately R4,000,000; plus a considerable amount that will be contributed by the Republican Government. As against that, the estimates of Basutoland are put at about R6,500,000; R2,000,000 will be derived from local taxation and R2,000,000 from excise collected on behalf of Basutoland in terms of the South Africa Act, 1909. The balance will come from Britain in the form of grants and loans.

Where now it is stated that South Africa is following the example of Britain in respect of Basutoland, that is to say, by bringing about independence gradually in the same way, I should merely like to ask this: Is Britain really presenting a solution to the Protectorate? Do you know that for 50 years the British Government has always contemplated the eventual incorporation of the Protectorates with South Africa, with the result that in all that time they have not spent more than R1,000,000 per annum on all three of the Protectorates? However, when they saw that this idea had been discarded for good, they went along and spent up to R7,000,000 per annum. That however. did not win the friendship of Pan-Africanism for Britain. On the contrary, this act of Britain caused Pan-Africanism to feel that at first the British showed no interest in the territories, because they were spending only R1,000,000 per annum on the three Protectorates. Now that they are spending R7,000,000 per annum. Pan-Africanism interprets this as meaning that this financial and economic dependence of the Protectorates upon Britain is nothing but a hold Britain has on them as a labour market with a view to the millions Britain has invested in our industries. Therefore there is deep dissatisfaction. I do not propose to keep the House longer by dwelling on these matters, but I should like merely to refer you to a certain speech. In December, 1962, Ntsu Mokhehle, President of the Basutoland Congress Party, said this in the Legislative Assembly of Basutoland—

I should like to give you the assurance that this kind of thing is not said by the recognized leaders of the Transkei. That is why I wish to repudiate any allegation that in the Transkei we are travelling the same road that Britain is travelling with regard to Basutoland. Mr. Speaker, I hope you will permit me first to quote what Harry Nkombula has said in connection with what I have just said. I am reading now from the Transvaler of the 22 February 1963. He expressed himself as follows (translated)—

Now, Harry Nkumbula is Chairman of the African National Congress in Northern Rhodesia. He used these words in the course of a television interview. The report of what he said, then continues as follows—

Now, when I ask hon. members opposite what their attitude is, will they say, in spite of what I have read here, that they prefer the policies followed in Rhodesia and in Basutoland to those we are following as regards the Transkei? And that in spite of the expressed views of the non-Whites in both Basutoland and in Northern Rhodesia, which I have just read here? Now I should like to read what is said by non-Whites in the Transkei. The Secretary of Chief Kaiser Matanzima, namely Tshungwa, said this—

So there you have a condemnation, from the mouth of the Secretary of Chief Kaiser Matanzima, of race federation.

Let me tell you now why we are proceeding to pass this legislation. We are doing so in order to prevent the following things: If, for instance, we were to permit integration according to the pattern of the United Party, in the Transkei also, that will happen which we would like to prevent, namely what President Kennedy recently said in America about the Negro there, that is to say, in a country where there is no racial separation, but full integration throughout the years. Our objection has always been that integration will entail everlasting semi-enslavement and suppression of and injustice to the non-White in the country, together with unrest and rebellion which will constitute a danger to the Whites. Here then we also have a judgment from the mouth of President Kennedy to the effect that that is, indeed, the case in America. And remember that in America there is no discrimination between the races, and that in fact there is so little difference between the races—and what I am saying now is not insulting and is not intended to be insulting—that it is quite practical, inter alia, to refer to a Negro as a black American and to an American as a white Negro. Now what is happening there? President Kennedy recently said this-—

And listen to what I shall read in a moment. If then that is the position in America where equality has been practised for many years already, what hope has the United Party then to prevent, with its federation plan, the same charges being made against us that are made against the Americans in connection with their treatment of the Negro? This charge comes from the mouth of President Kennedy himself as follows—

That is what is happening in America, where there has been full integration throughout the years. Now hon. members opposite claim that they will create a Canaan for the non-Whites in this country by means of integration, where, in the mixed state, the non-Whites will be able to develop like any White man. But we know it is not so. We, on this side, want to see the matter soberly, and that is why we want to give the non-Whites an opportunity to develop in their own separate areas. We want to prevent it being said of them that, in comparison with the Whites, their life expectancy will be seven years less, or that any of the other things mentioned by President Kennedy shall be said of them. If, then, it must be said of them, then it will be in their own areas in their own endeavours to develop, and it will be so until eventually they reach that stage where they will be able to develop, if they command the potential to do so, to such an extent that there will be no back-log in comparison with others. In that way then we shall safeguard ourselves against the reproach that will have to stem from a mixed state, that the non-Whites will have to endure this back-log for ever. The Hon. the Prime Minister has on more than one occasion said that it will remain a constant source of friction. It will be so, because the non-Whites will always feel that justice is not done to them. That is the very reason why we are trying separate development, with a view to the non-White getting his desserts by his own exertions. We want them themselves to achieve all that is fine and good in their own areas. We certainly do not want the blatant suppression in a multiracial state. In fact we really cannot call it a multi-racial state. Surely that is much too much of a name of honour. I, therefore, feel more like referring to a mixed constellation (“ saamboer-konstellasie”).

Now I should like to ask hon. members not to interpret this as signifying that I am a champion of the Bantu, and that at the expense of the White man. Indeed, we are frequently charged with this. It is not so at all. Not a single step has been undertaken by this Government in the interests of the non-Whites before it has been incontrovertibly shown that it will be in the interests of the Whites also. Only when we are satisfied that any step will be in the interests of the Whites in this country too, we proceed with it and we retain command, and we can, as guardians of the non-Whites. carry on with our plan to effect the best for Whites and non-Whites separately.

All of us still remember the Meredith incident at the University of Oxford in Mississippi, and the case of the elected non-White City Councillor in the City of Chicago who was handcuffed and shot in the office in which he was sitting the day after his election. No, Mr. Speaker, such a mixed constellation that is maintained under the guise of human rights, amounts to nothing but noticeable suppression of the Bantu, and in South Africa to the ultimate extermination of the Whites. That is what we wish to prevent by means of this Bill. It is so glibly stated that we are so blinded by what we have in view, and that we proclaim from the rooftops that our policy does not hold any dangers, that everything is good and well, and that a Canaan will be created by this Bill. Nothing is further from the truth, and no thinking Nationalist has ever said this. One is safe only when one is aware of the dangers on one’s way, and we certainly are fully aware of the dangers. We realize only too well that this Act is not the be-all and end-all, and does not offer a solution on a tray. It will not result in all of us hereafter living in a Canaan without any problems of whatever nature. This Bill is definitely not the line of least resistance. On the contrary. This Bill, and the ideas it wishes to develop, require clear thinking, struggle and work from those who think they have the right to govern this country. As against this, the line of least resistance is that where we shall go forth and say that we shall just have to satisfy the Bantu and world opinion, and grant equal rights to all in a multi-racial community. But surely that road would be the road of death. If this Constitution is adopted, the Transkei will move along a road from which there is no return. And yet I shall be the last one to say that we shall then be on a road where we may not experience a çhange of direction. And I concede that such a change of direction may well be dangerous.

There is an idea I got from Prof. A. J. H. van der Walt I think—but if it was not from him, I am now already apologizing in anticipation—upon which I should like to embroider. If it were to come about that in due course there is a change of direction, it will to some extent influence the further constitutional development of the Transkei as well as the constitutional relations between the Transkei and the Republic of South Africa. Should it happen, for instance, that in the future the Transkeian popular nationalism, which is anchored in tribal relationships and chieftain’s organization, is replaced by Black nationalism, which has virtually the same meaning as Pan-Africanism and which is aimed at the destruction of all suspected remains of White authority, and which sneeringly refers to “tribal states” and chieftainships as power factors, then it must be expected that the intellectual Bantu—I am saying this merely to indicate that we are fully aware that there may be dangers along the road—will try to seek their personal aspirations in party forming in the Transkei. The hereditary authority of chieftainships that follow a specific genealogical tree, stands in the way of these non-Whites who are not inspired by popular nationalism, but who derive their inspiration from Black nationalism. In addition, the system of chieftainships is regarded by them as division of authority, and as an impediment to Black international political co-operation.

Should it happen then that in the years that lie ahead, popular nationalism should make way in the Transkei also for Black nationalism, then it should be clear to us that this Black nationalism and its Black political elite who feel that chieftainships from one genealogical tree to another stand in their way and prevent them from achieving their political aspirations, will do their very best to bring about such a change of front for the future, whereby they will be able to get into their power this self-governing State, if and when it has developed to that stage. What will follow after that, will be international co-operation with Black nationalism as motive and basis. That is what this Bill seeks to prevent. If the Bantu are not enabled to develop their own popular nationalism in their own areas, and under their own legislation, the danger that Black nationalism will take over will be so much greater. This Bill then seeks to nurture and to strengthen the Bantu’s own popular nationalism. By developing in this way, they themselves can create the antipode to combat Black nationalism which will be endangering their national identity. If we don’t do that, and if we proceed to integrate all, White and non-White, in a communal race federation, thereby giving representation to all in a mixed Parliament, surely it ought to be clear that the non-Whites in South Africa will never have the opportunity to build up their own popular nationalism, national pride and national prestige. On the contrary, they will have to live in a depressed and suppressed state for many years because they will not be able to compete with the Whites. What will happen then? Then they will yearningly look forward to any form of assistance from foreign countries and welcome Pan-Africanism, the ringer of the death-knell of the White man in Africa.

I should like to conclude by saying that we appreciate the dangers, as well as the problems that lurk along the road we are following. But at the same time I should like to point out that no one has yet come forward with an alternative solution that is better. Neither have the Opposition come forward to suggest an alternative, except their race federation which a Std VII child after a little closer examination must reject because it will mean the death, and only the death, of the White man. That is why, inter alia, we should like to see this Bill becoming law, so that we may give the Bantu an opportunity of developing what is their own, and in that way prevent foreign Pan-African elements influencing them and eventually dominating them, also as a greater threat to the continued existence of the White man. Separate development as against integration can be likened to an external growth on your body, which you can control medically, as compared with cancer in your blood about which you can do nothing, but which mercilessly continues its destructive work and ultimately will take your life.

After listening to the hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. Heystek) and after listening to his unrelated comparisons I am going to deal now with some of the facts which are going to face this country as soon as this Bill becomes law. We. on this side of the House, will do everything possible to hinder its passage. We will do all we can with that object in view. However, in this democratic country of ours with our democratic form of law making it is quite obvious that the weight of votes is going to be against us and that this Bill will after all become law. But in the annals of history we will at least have a record that this Party did its very best to stop South Africa being ruined.

What then is your solution?

We have a solution. This solution has been stated clearly and without doubt, and we on this side of the House feel quite sure that our solution of the problems facing this country is a far better one than the dismemberment of our country. For 300 years the White people of this country have endeavoured to find a solution to the difficulties which have arisen between the White and the non-White man. In the process we have brought in countless laws with the object of making harmony possible. But, can anybody say that after 300 years of experimenting the position is better to-day than it was when we started? Far from it.

At 10.25 p.m. the business under consideration was interrupted by Mr. Speaker in accordance with Standing Order No. 26 (1), and the debate was adjourned.