Mr. Speaker, I move—

14h15 to 18h30

Agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, I have listened with mounting concern to the speeches by hon. members on the Government side and meanwhile we on this side have been waiting for answers from the Government benches, answers to our questions in connection with this legislation.

Stupid questions.

Instead we have heard speaker after speaker on the Government side running away from reality into a land of make-believe. [Interjections.] Yesterday we heard the hon. member for Pretoria Central and many other hon. members contend that the decision of Ciskei to accept independence was an expressing of its “volkswil”. Furthermore they contended that an agreement had been reached. Hon. members on the Government side contended that the Ciskei referendum was an expression of that “volkswil”, and that that “volkswil” was expressed in the contract or agreement to accept independence.

There are two grounds, two simple grounds, on which it is quite clear that that is not so. It is quite clear on either of those two grounds. The first ground was dealt with by the hon. member for Sea Point when he made the point that any agreement reached while one party was under duress was not an agreement between two consenting parties. When the one party to a purported agreement is under duress from the other party, his consent has not been given freely, because it is implicit in any agreement that both parties must exercise their will freely and voluntarily. Here, however, as the hon. member for Pretoria Central has conceded, Ciskei gave its consent in order to escape oppression from the other party, the other party being the South African Government. [Interjections.]

What does the preamble to the Bill say?

In that situation one obtains the consent of the party under duress. What one does in fact do is to extort his acceptance by duress. Consequently there is no contract or agreement.

Secondly and quite apart from that there is another ground for the simplest elements of an agreement not being present in this matter. The first essential element of any agreement is that both parties should be clear on what the fundamental terms of the agreement will be. The parties have to be clear about the subject matter of the agreement. The parties have to be ad idem as to what they are to agree on.

You are insulting the Black people.

What did the Ciskeians understand the subject matter of this agreement to be? Dr. Sebe made it quite clear to the Ciskeians in the Ciskei Legislative Assembly that if the deal was not a package deal which included South African citizenship for Ciskeians, it was not acceptable and was dead. That is what he said. I quote what he said—

He said the Ciskeians did not find this acceptable. That was when he was referring to Ciskeians not retaining their South African citizenship. That was in May 1980. In October 1980, just before the referendum, Dr. Sebe again spoke to the Ciskei nation at Zwelitsha. On that occasion he made the same point and said that the Ciskeian Government reiterated its stand and confirmed it would not take independence until the matter had been settled in a satisfactory manner. That was just before the Ciskei referendum.

Who told you the matter had not been settled in a satisfactory manner?

Dr. Sebe had made it quite clear earlier in 1980 what he meant. That is why I quoted the passages from his address to the Ciskei Legislative Assembly. [Interjections.] That is what the Ciskeians voted on when they voted in the referendum. That was the expression of their “volkswil”. What they did not agree to was clause 6 of this Bill before us, in which it is stated that every Ciskeian citizen shall cease to be a South African citizen. That is what they did not agree to. [Interjections.] In fact, they did not only not agree to it; they specifically rejected the terms of this Bill. They expressly rejected the terms of this Bill. It is no use hon. members inside this House repeating ad nauseam that the Ciskeians accepted this Bill, because no matter how often one continues to repeat it, it does not make it true. It is simply not true. It is false. There was in fact no concursus animorum between the parties. There was no meeting of the minds. There was in fact a misrepresentation to the Ciskeians, a false representation to the Ciskeians.

You are again insulting the Black people.

If it was not a fraudulent misrepresentation then at least it was a fraudulent non-disclosure before the Ciskeians exercised their vote in the referendum. They were in fact not destined to retain their South African citizenship. [Interjections.] They were never told—and we have not heard from one hon. member opposite at what stage the Ciskeians were told—that they were not going to retain their South African citizenship.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: In view of the fact that there is legislation on the Statute Book which stipulates that no one is entitled to stir up racial hatred between White and Black, is an hon. member of this House entitled to accuse Black leaders of fraud? [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member for Pinetown may proceed.

Louis, have you ever heard of apartheid legislation? [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, hon. members on that side of the House try to run away from the terms of the Bill. For example, yesterday the hon. member for Parys stated that Ciskeians would have the same rights as West Germans in South Africa. When he was asked by the hon. member for Albany whether Ciskeians in South Africa would have the same rights as West Germans, his answer was: Why not? If words have any meaning at all, those words mean that Ciskeians will have the same rights in South Africa as West Germans. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he is going to repudiate what the hon. member for Parys said yesterday. Is he going to repudiate his statement that Ciskeians in South Africa will have the same rights as West Germans? We would like an answer to that question because if they do have the same rights as West Germans then they will be able to buy land anywhere in South Africa, they will be able to buy property anywhere in South Africa and they will be able to build homes anywhere in South Africa. Furthermore they will be able to live where they like and they will be able to go to the same schools as anybody in South Africa. [Interjections.] Or will the hon. the Minister escape that point by perhaps saying that West Germans who are Black would not be entitled to buy land in White areas? If that is his answer, then it is simply a question of racism. It is not even a question of nationality; it is simply a question of the colour of a person’s skin.

It has always been.

I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether Ciskeians after five years residence in South Africa will be entitled to apply for South African citizenship, and will they be entitled to get the franchise in South Africa? We would like answers to these questions because in the absence of answers the whole exercise becomes a cynical abandonment of the Ciskeians, a rejection of them as South African citizens. Secondly, I should like to ask the hon. the Minister whether he will tell us whether he repudiates the erstwhile Minister Dr. C. P. Mulder who said that in the end there would be no Black citizens in South Africa. Will the hon. the Minister give us an answer to that question? Is that the intention of this Bill? Is this part of the process or not?

We on this side of the House want the truth to emerge during the discussion of this Bill; we do not want any more equivocating. We do not want any more running away. We have had enough of that this session from the other side of the House. In regard to this Bill one cannot claim secrecy on the basis of national security; on this Bill one has to come clean, and that is what we want.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member had a great deal to say here about the question of the national will. The hon. member must tell us now whether a national will exists in the Ciskei in this specific case, “yes” or “no”?

No.

Is the hon. member saying that there is no national will in the Ciskei? The hon. member is saying that there is no such thing as a national will; in other words, he accepts from the outset that the Ciskei has for all times to be an appendage, a subservient State, a number of people subservient to the Parliament of the Republic of South Africa. This is what the hon. member is implying.

He is a real colonialist.

That hon. member has a typically colonial spirit. It is important for us to clear up this issue of a national will. A national will is not something one simply reads about in history books; it is something one experiences. I experienced it in the Ciskei as a result of the fact that, by virtue of our duties, we in the Ministry have from time to time to negotiate with the Ciskei, with members of their Cabinet, with, inter alia, the Chief Minister and the chiefs in the Ciskei. There one experiences this national will; there one experiences this need for self-determination among these people. It is because they have an eventful history and tradition of which they are proud, a pride which has developed since 1971 in particular, when they obtained self-government, in accordance with which this Parliament granted them certain rights to maintain themselves in respect of health aspects, agriculture, etc. Since the Ciskei received this self-government this nation has developed in various spheres. Consequently we are dealing here with a developing country, with a developing nation. A developing nation is not something which is static. It is not stagnant. It seeks new possibilities. It holds dialogue with you. It has a national will as a matter of course. It is a terrible insult to them when those hon. members say: No, the Ciskei has no such thing as a national will.

What are we doing? We are piloting this Bill on the Status of Ciskei through this Parliament in accordance with which this so-called national will of the Ciskeians will be realized even further and in accordance with which, by way of convention—I am referring here to clause 5 of the Bill—and agreements, they may cover themselves in respect of the privileges they have already acquired under the system of self-government. I am referring here to their movements in the White territory, their residence and their right to work here. That is why I want to say in reply to the question put by the official Opposition, i.e. what is going to become of the Ciskeians now when they become independent, that we are going to treat them in the same way as we treated the Transkeians. These matters are covered, solely and properly, by means of conventions and agreements in terms of this legislation now before us. In other words, the Ciskeians are not losing any privileges in this process. On the contrary, the Ciskeians are seeking further privileges in the negotiation process. They consider it to be an opportunity for negotiation to obtain further privileges for themselves in terms of this specific clause dealing with conventions and agreements.

What does the Opposition’s attack consist of, what methods are they adopting to cast suspicion on this legislation? What it basically amounted to was that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition kept on quoting yesterday what the Chief Minister of the Ciskei had and had not said. By implication the hon. the Leader of the Opposition said that this whole “package deal” was suspect. The strategy of that party is that one has to cast suspicion on this whole “package deal”.

No.

Yes, Sir. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition did not say this in so many words, but by implication he arrived at that conclusion. I quote from the speech of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition where he said the following—

In other words, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is placing the credibility of the Ciskei leaders at issue. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition is by implication placing it at issue and I think that, since we are discussing such an important Bill as this one, it is a terrible thing to do to people who have sincere intentions in their endeavours to achieve independence. I want to put this question to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. It is an important question. Suppose that Ciskei and the RSA had been able, in their negotiations with the working committee of which Mr. Raath was the chairman—and these negotiations have been in progress for almost a year now—to comply in all respects with the requirements as set out in the package deal, what would the standpoint of the official Opposition have been? Would it in that case have recognized this as the national will? Would it in that case have supported this legislation? I should like to know.

They would then have been far better off than they are in the present position.

What would you have done in that case? Would you have supported it?

The question is simply that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition must tell us whether he would have supported this legislation if all the requirements of that “package deal” had been complied with. In other words, would he in that case have accepted that a nation (yolk) in a country such as Ciskei could become independent? That is the question.

I would regard it in a more favourable light than I do at present.

At least we are making progress. After all these years we have now reached the stage where the Opposition—I think this is the reason why the hon. member for Houghton is not here …

Examine the package deal and you will see that they do not lose their citizenship.

I know exactly what the package deal is all about. I assisted in working it out and I am quite prepared to concede that the requirements of the package deal have not been complied with in all respects. This is true and I am not going to deny it. The package deal was nothing but a basis for negotiation which took place over a long period. It was a basis for negotiation as is customary when two independent States negotiate with each other or when a State which is moving towards independence negotiates with an independent State. Consequently the Opposition’s plan of attack was consistently to present the leaders of the Ciskei in a poor light, because of their statements in this regard.

I should like to put another question. Inter alia the economic position of Ciskei was discussed here in very disparaging terms. The hon. member for Walmer among others referred to the Ciskei as not being viable at all in the economic sphere. If this is the hon. member’s standpoint and if we have seen what the potential for development is on the basis of co-prosperity projects, etc., I should like to know from the hon. member whether he would nevertheless continue to adhere to that standpoint. Is this a criterion for the attaining of independence of a country under all circumstances? Is this a criterion which the Opposition has: The Ciskei is backward, it is economically underdeveloped and for that reason it cannot become independent under any circumstances? Now they have nothing to say.

Tell us about citizenship.

They have nothing to say and I do not believe …

Those born in Cape Town are now made foreigners.

The Ciskei protected itself properly in all the negotiations with regard to its economic potential. When we were negotiating with them one of the first objectives of the Ciskei was to avail itself of the opportunity of securing bargaining rights for itself. Last year it was very dry in that region and the living conditions of specific communities in the Ciskei were of an exceptionally low standard. When the working committee began to negotiate they reported back and said that a part of the package deal was aimed at demonstrating physically the goodwill of the Ciskei to its people and that is why certain steps have to be taken in respect of independence in order to improve the standard of living of the people.

This is part of the package deal and that is why a joint decision was taken that some of the communities in question would be investigated. This Ministry and two Cabinet Members of the Ciskei then jointly investigated some of these areas and they took special note of the available infrastructure such as schools and water supplies. After having examined those aspects, we came to the conclusion that we had certain obligations towards the Ciskei in this respect and that, as requested by the Ciskeian Government, we had to create greater possibilities for these people. An agreement was then reached that an amount of R27 million would be granted and made available over a period for the development of the various communities.

The Opposition says that the question of land is another very important aspect when the question of independence is involved. The hon. member Prof. Olivier, devoted the major part of his speech to the question of land, as did the hon. member for Albany. They said that the land issue was an important aspect, and if the Ciskei did not have enough land, its viability was also in jeopardy as far as independence was concerned. That is the argument. [Interjections.] The hon. member says “yes”. However, let us mention specific examples now. Swaziland is a small country which does not have a great deal of land.

How does the land in that territory compare with that of the Ciskei?

I agree with the hon. member that in certain respects productivity in Swaziland is higher than that in the Ciskei. However, the hon. member set another prerequisite. He said that the vast majority of the Ciskeian nation is living outside the Ciskei, and that disqualifies him as well. What is the position in respect of Swaziland? A large percentage of that country’s population is also working outside the borders of that country. The Swazis are working from one end of the Eastern Transvaal to the other, but this does not mean that Swaziland is unfit to take its place as an independent country in the array of States. Does the hon. member want to argue that the independence of Swaziland cannot be justified? I can mention another example as well. Let us look at the Middle East and take Israel as an example. Israel is very small, and where are its people? They are scattered throughout the world. [Interjections.] However, this does not mean that Israel is unqualified to be independent. The criteria which hon. members opposite are laying down to disqualify the Ciskei as an independent State are completely irrelevant.

I agree that land is an important factor, for land must give a national State territorial content and integrity, and that is why it is necessary for the position of land to be defined in this Bill. The working committee negotiated on this aspect as well and the largest measure—I would say 80% to 85%—of agreement was reached. The remaining 10% or 15% about which we shall still negotiate with each other in future, will, however, not mean that the Ciskei is going to abandon its pursuit of independence.

I want to make the further point that land is not an economic development factor in all circumstances. That is why the transfer of land under the 1975 proposals is a vital facet of consolidation. I am referring for example, to the removal of poorly-situated areas. Consequently provision must be made in the agreement for land which has been pledged, as will be the case in this Bill as well. Consequently we must be able to define such an area for the purposes of legislation and negotiations have been entered into with the Ciskei on this matter.

As I have said, agreement to the extent of 80% to 85% was reached with the Ciskei in this regard, and this will be implemented in phases. Phase 1 entails the areas which were declared to have been set aside in 1913 as well as the areas which were proclaimed to be released areas in 1936, inter alia, the districts of Mdantsane, Peddie, Tsumi Valley, the Thornhill area and Piribos, which was State land and which will be incorporated on 4 December. This is the territory which was defined and which is to be incorporated under the jurisdiction of the Ciskei.

The hon. member Prof. Olivier said that we were dragging our feet over the implementation of the 1936 Act, but there are various reasons for doing so. If one examines the map for 1913, one sees a fine reflection of what the Ciskei looked like at the time. It consisted of small isolated, Black spot areas which were nothing but labour reservoirs. In consequence of the 1936 Act land was added and the Ciskei became an increasingly contiguous area, and at this stage I must say that in my opinion the 1936 Act very definitely served its purpose in this respect. There are various reasons why there have been delays in the implementation of the 1936 Act. However, I do not want to go into these reasons now. Surely there was a war in progress at one stage and consequently no attention could then be given to it. I do not want to go into all the reasons now.

However, there is a phase 2 as well, and negotiations have been entered into with the Ciskei in this regard. Phase 2 principally concerns those territories designated by Parliament since 1972-1975 for addition to the Ciskei, but which have not all been bought out yet, but which will, in terms of our agreement, be bought out by the RSA by 30 December 1982.

This is a tremendous concession. Do hon. members know what the implications are? Hon. member must bear in mind that there are other areas in other provinces which are also subject to being bought out in terms of the 1975 proposals. However, approximately 50% to 60% of the total allocation is going to be focused on the Ciskei.

However, there is a second aspect which is tremendously important. What does the buying out of land mean in terms of this agreement? It means that progress is being made in the process of transferring that land. This is what it means. That is why the Ciskei adopted a strong standpoint in this regard, for they know—and they trust us to do so—that we shall transfer this land to them in a meaningful way.

I can furnish details of the areas. There is, for example, the Chalumna area, the balance of the Victoria East district, the Stockenstrom district, the Poplar Grove area in the vicinity of Whittlesea North, and so on. All of this is being incorporated as land which was pledged. There is, of course, a very important facet in phase 2 as well, i.e. the resettlement of poorly situated areas, specifically in the White corridor. This is some thing we shall have to examine. The Frankfort area is considered to be the resettlement area for the Umgwali. This is going to be included in this status legislation. Why? This merely serves as an example of the trust between Ciskei and us, for we have already reached an agreement on the method of resettlement of those people. That is why this compensatory land can be included at this early stage.

I am fortunate to be able to say in this House that we are making sound progress in that process. That is why we have already included land which were supposed to be land which had been pledged, under the jurisdiction of Ciskei. After all, they trust us.

There is phase 3 as well, and this concerns the commission in particular, for it concerns further additions which will be dealt with and discussed when finalizing the consolidation of the Ciskei and which will eventually have to be passed by Parliament as well.

When initiating negotiations of this nature one is already setting into motion a process of becoming independent, for, with the negotiation process, one is giving shape to the process of territorial content or territorial integrity. Why would the Chief Minister of Ciskei say at this stage that because we had not complied with all the requirements of the “package deal” he was going to back out? One must take cognizance of the processes of development and negotiation. That is why I say that the Chief Minister of the Ciskei is being put in an extremely embarrassing position if one wishes to bind him only to the whole “package deal”.

But he said so himself. This is not what I said. [Interjections.]

Hon. members referred scornfully here to the economic backwardness of the Ciskei. They said that the Ciskei was not economically viable. However, what happened during this period of negotiation with the Ciskei? On several occasions discussions were held with the Ciskeian cabinet. Our Prime Minister made announcements from time to time with regard to co-prosperity projects, the principle of economic co-operation on a regional basis. All of these were dynamic statements which were added stimulus to the Ciskei to move into this process of independence. That is why the Chief Minister of the Ciskei said on occasion that he himself believed that he had played a tremendously important part in the standpoint or view of the hon. the Prime Minister. I heard him say this. In addition the hon. the Minister himself, who was very intensively involved in various discussions, once told Dr. Sebe: “You have played a major part in this process. Your ideas have been extremely important to us in enabling us to formulate a policy in this regard”. There are, for example, coprosperity projects in terms of which we make joint use of certain natural resources and of infrastructures which are important to both countries. Consequently we are paving the way for co-operation in various spheres which did not exist before. That is why the leader of the Ciskei said that he considered his country’s independence to be different to that of other countries, as a great deal of development had taken place since. There is now more opportunity to develop a greater South Africa.

The question arises: When negotiations are entered into with the Ciskei in this sphere of co-operation, is it expected now that the Ciskei has to do this as a subordinate and not as an independent State? Is that what those hon. members want? Must the Ciskei be subservient when one has round-table discussions with its people and negotiate with them with on complex problems? The Ciskei perceived the possibilities and that is why they chose their independence, and no one will stop them. Cooperation with a view to bilateral agreements forms the basis for a confederal structure as was envisaged by the hon. the Prime Minister. Co-operation leads to interdependence. In this way the countries and nations of our area can move in a closely-knit unit in which is incorporated the principles of self-determination, and greater security for the rights of existence of everyone. That is why it is important that the participating elements in this structure should have equal status. I want to tell the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that, believe me, they will never stop this process. It will continue and they will never stop it, package deal or no package deal.

Mr. Speaker, like so many other hon. members on that side of the House, the hon. the Deputy Minister too tended to use terminology in relation to independence which can cause considerable confusion amongst not only hon. members of the House, but also in the broader context of South Africa. We heard of concepts such as “confederation”, “joint areas”, “same-werkingsgebiede” and “samewerkingsprojekte”. I think hon. members of the House will agree with me when I say that one should not only use these terms; one should also have a full understanding of the implications of the use of terms such as “same-werkingsprojek”, “samewerkingsgebied” and in particular “confederation”. One must not just play with words and try to make an old concept fit into a new nomenclature. One must be sincere and fully appreciative of the full ramifications of the introduction of a concept such as for instance confederation. I think the history of the use of the concept of joint projects tends to become a little worn and frayed at the edges, because the Government spoke with great enthusiasm about joint project areas such as Richards Bay and East London. When the full impact of this was assessed, however, they tended to pull back from it. Therein lies a very dangerous practice, viz. raising expectations and hopes and then withdraw when that concept has been accepted.

Arising out of the hon. the Deputy Minister’s speech this afternoon, I should also like to say that, while one could talk about land size, population density and population distribution in order to support or oppose the independence of a particular State, the hon. the Deputy Minister will be the first to realize that when one makes comparisons between countries such as Israel and Ciskei, it is not the size of the land or the population distribution within and outside the country that counts, but it is the productivity of those individuals and their voluntary association and identification with that country that really counts. It is not whether 60% of the citizens of Ciskei are outside Ciskei which would affect the viability of independence, but it is the question whether they have the choice to associate with Ciskei or to disassociate themselves from it.

The gravamen of the argument regarding citizenship is largely that it is an involuntary process and that people are coerced by legislation to associate with a particular country which they may not want to associate with. If we draw a comparison with Israel, I think the hon. the Minister is correct when he says there are a large number of people who identify with Israel, but they do so voluntarily. That is the difference between the perception of this side of the House and that side of the House when it comes to the question of land, productivity and identification with one’s homeland.

In summary, I think we can say that the difference between that side of the House and this side lies in the underlying attitude to independence or so-called independence. That difference I should like to illustrate this afternoon. In the first instance I should like to place the policy of the NRP fairly and squarely before hon. members for them to consider. The NRP recognizes the right of all the homeland areas of South Africa to exercise their own political prerogative. We firmly believe in full consultation and assent to whatever new initiative is taken in regard to homeland development in South Africa. This party is well known as standing very much for local option.

Sir, our policy for a confederation of South African political units visualizes something very different to what is visualized on that side of the House. We visualize the confederation as consisting ideally of those units of South Africa which are able to undertake maximum self-government in preference to total political independence. The question will naturally be asked whether this party will accept full independence for a homeland area of South Africa where that homeland insists on such independence. Our answer to that would be: “Yes, provided the people in that homeland are fully aware of the consequences of total independence.” We would do our utmost to dissuade them from actually taking independence. I shall illustrate a little later on why we believe total independence is an unsatisfactory solution, constitutionally and economically, in South Africa.

The confederation we visualize is a confederation in South Africa of maximally self-governing areas in South Africa in preference to totally independent States.

[Inaudible.]

The hon. the Minister must just be a little bit patient. Rome was not built in a day and the confederation of South Africa may take a little longer.

The confederation of South Africa visualized by my party has been formulated to give tangible expression to certain cardinal and vital principles. These principles are not only the prerogative of the NRP but enjoy very wide support from a multitude of community leaders throughout South Africa, irrespective of race, creed or colour. In the first instance we believe that it embodies the tangible expression of the principle that all citizens of South Africa, as defined in 1910 when the Union of South Africa was formed, should remain South African citizens. Secondly, we believe that a confederation should also subscribe to the principle that all South African citizens should participate in one overall South African economy. Thirdly, we believe that there should be a maximum devolution of power to the regional areas of South Africa in order to accommodate the diversity of our plural society. Fourthly, we believe in the creation of a confederal construct within which there will be genuine participation from a position of equal status by all the component parts of that confederation.

I should like to re-emphasize two cardinal aspects of that principle, viz. that there should be genuine participation—not only consultation—and also that that participation should come from an equal status position of all the component parts within that confederation. They will deliberate, they will decide and they will plan and execute on matters of mutual interest in that confederal body, on economic matters, on fiscal relations and on foreign affairs, for instance. In other words, they will participate in the decision-making process on all matters of common concern to the individual component parts of the confederation of Southern African areas.

The question in this Bill really arises on a twofold basis. The question which must be asked is whether the independence of Ciskei is necessary. The second question is whether the independence of Ciskei is a viable proposition. When we address ourselves to the question of whether the independence of Ciskei is necessary we must ask ourselves—and we ask the hon. the Minister—whether it will achieve anything more in its new apparent status of independence, whether it will achieve anything more than as a self-governing authority within the framework of a soundly constructed confederation within South Africa. Will independence help it to achieve anything which it cannot achieve as a self-governing area in South Africa?

The answer is “yes” and the people think so themselves.

I should like the hon. the Minister to demonstrate that and to tell us why he believes that independence will give them further positive attributes that they do not have at the moment. We must also ask the hon. the Minister what it is that prevents his Government or the Government of Ciskei in its present position, from fulfilling its economic, political and social objectives as a self-governing Ciskei. Those are very serious questions. They are not asked very lightly.

As an alternative to the present status quo of course, it is not surprising to get the referendum result which was achieved—a result reflecting a desire for independence. That is especially so if one takes cognizance of the fact that expectations were generated that satisfactory arrangements would be made in respect of a number of vital aspects.

Mr. Speaker, will the hon. member for Durban North tell us how he reconciles what he is saying now with what the hon. leader of his party said when he stated that he actually supported independence under certain conditions, while the hon. member now says he would not advise the taking of independence?

Mr. Speaker, I think that is a very important question the hon. Leader of the Opposition has asked now. The hon. Leader of the Opposition will note that we have prescribed that the confederation of South Africa only requires self-governing States. Because we appreciate, however, the political prerogative of each individual area to decide for itself whether it wants to take full independence or not, that is of course what makes the difference. If there is a genuine desire on the part of Ciskei to accept total independence, we should rather see it happen in terms of the amendment, which will mean the formation of a confederation. There is no conflict here in terms of our policy. The input variable, however, would be dependent on the acceptance of independence by Ciskei itself.

Let us now have a look at the vital questions which stem from the referendum. Much claim has been made here to the fact that the referendum is indicative of a very strong desire on the part of Ciskei to take independence in terms of the Raath document. First of all there is the question of the land issue. Expectations have been raised there by discussion because it has been highlighted that the Government will finally resolve the question of the land issue. Then there is also the retention of South African citizenship, a factor which has been a major component of the negotiations. Of course, there is also the question—that applies to all States in South Africa—of adequate financial aid and structures. Stemming from this it is very easy when one is negotiating in these fields to get a “yes” to a referendum, because the anticipation is there that acceptable solutions will be found to these particular problems.

We should like to know from the hon. the Minister how he visualizes that the land issue will be settled. We should also like to know from him how he visualizes that the question of citizenship can be settled in the long term. I am not speaking now only about travel documents and passports. I am speaking about the genuine desire as well of the people of Ciskei to remain South African citizens and to decide voluntarily whether they wish to be nationals of Ciskei or to remain South African citizens. The question that arises is how independent will Ciskei be. The international experience with the TBV territories—Transkei, Bophuthatswana and Venda—has been totally inadequate. There is extremely limited indirect foreign investment in those territories. How will investments from overseas in particular actually be promoted by independence? Ciskeian citizens, like the citizens of the TBV territories, are still travelling and will travel with South African passports overseas. In fact, in the final analysis an examination of all the documents and the speeches made from that side of the House indicates that Ciskei will remain totally beholden to South Africa for financial assistance, like the other territories which are net receivers of funds. We do not believe that the position of Ciskei will be improved in any way by taking independence. The Raath Committee document that has been referred to by the hon. the Minister, the convention or treaty, confirms rather than overcomes the lack of viability of an independent Ciskei. I can only refer hon. members to the document that was so hastily tabled here yesterday. I think any intelligent observer, any intelligent reader of that document will agree with me that it merely confirms rather than overcomes the lack of viability. Bilateral agreements between unequal partners are by their very nature, no more than a formalization of Ciskei’s total dependence on South Africa. We need not look very far to find examples of that perpetuated dependency. The question of travel documents, employment opportunities, residential rights outside Ciskei, social benefits, freedom of movement between the Republic of South Africa and Ciskei and the use of community facilities all reinforce the argument that the total dependence of Ciskei will be perpetuated rather than ameliorated.

The whole thrust of the Raath Committee’s report is to accommodate Ciskei’s dependence on South Africa, with only vague references to some future confederation.

Finally in relation to independence, I should like to ask the hon. the Minister what independence means in the South African context and what the underlying attitude of the Government is. How independent will Ciskei be? Will it be as independent as Bophuthatswana? I put it to the hon. the Minister by way of a simple example, and that is that when Bophuthatswana applied for permission to set up its own television broadcasting station, that was refused by Pretoria, a simple matter like a television station!

You are talking tripe.

How independent is a country when it has to apply for permission to Pretoria?

You are absolutely wrong.

Secondly, there is the arrogance of Pretoria in saying that they could not have their own television broadcasting station.

No, you are absolutely wrong.

Is the hon. the Minister saying now that these territories may have their own television broadcasting stations?

Bophuthatswana is independent, but it all depends upon where it wants to put it up. It is as simple as that. If Bophuthatswana wants to put it up outside the territory, then obviously we have the authority to say where.

If Bophuthatswana wants to put it up inside the territory, then it may do so? I am sure that the authorities in Bophuthatswana will be most interested in the hon. the Minister’s reply. The hon. the Minister will know that the Cabinet’s decision when that application was made was that Bophuthatswana may not even put up its own television station.

No, that is not so.

The hon. the Minister can reply to us specifically about television broadcasts.

Surely, in the present context it would be preferable to leave the question of Ciskei independence in abeyance until the construct of a confederation has been clearly worked out and becomes a genuine instrument for an equal partnership in decision-making? It would be far better to utilize the resources of the Republic of South Africa and Ciskei for economic and social upliftment of the people of Ciskei rather than to create a political edifice reminiscent of the sets used in the manufacture of Wild West movies in Hollywood. One can visualize this, Sir, because we have all seen it. The main street of Buckeye Village is lined with magnificent edifices with nothing behind the front door. The major issues affecting Ciskei’s independence and its viability will remain unresolved by this Bill before the House today. As long as this Government visualizes an association of independent states—and I refer here specifically to the genuine resolution of political and economic independence—all the component parts that make up South Africa will not have their problems resolved. This will be the case as long as the Government only visualizes an association of independent States. A central confederal solution must first be found before the status of Ciskei can be viably altered. All the component parts of South Africa are relative to each other and interdependent. The fortunes of one part intimately affect the fortunes of the others. We on this side of the House believe—and we say this quite genuinely—that the Government is creating a grand illusion, particularly if it thinks for one moment that it can satisfy Ciskei’s land demands, its demands for one citizenship and for one South African economy. We in this party say: Self-government, yes; independence on these conditions, no.

Mr. Speaker, one fact is as plain as a pikestaff in this debate and that is that hon. members of the Opposition in this House are completely overlooking or deliberately ignoring the immediate cause of this Bill, the driving force behind this Bill. The immediate cause of this Bill is a national ideal, a national endeavour, a national aspiration and a desire for freedom on the part of the Ciskei which simply cannot be opposed by this House. In the words of Dr. Lennox Sebe—

This has spurred the Ciskei on to ask for independence. This is not something which can be halted by arguments such as those we heard from the Opposition here in this House. We are faced with a national alignment which has inspired the Ciskei and given that nation the desire to be free, to govern itself in its own free, independent State. Today I ask who is better qualified to be able to appreciate this than we on this side of the House—we, the descendants of Dutch Protestants, of Huguenots and of Voortrekkers who fought for their freedom in this country? We know what that ideal and that idea mean.

With courage we got back what was taken from us when we established the Republic of South Africa in 1961, the Republic which the Opposition opposed, yet the same Republic in which they are living and flourishing today. We on this side of the House are bound to this one great principle, that we do not begrudge other nations what we demanded for ourselves, and that is our freedom. Therefore we cannot oppose the Ciskei if they ask for independence and if they say that they want to govern themselves.

When these national self-governing States want independence, we tell them they can ask for it. The Ciskei came to us and said: “We think we are self-sufficient enough and we now realize that we can govern ourselves.” Sir, we see the compliance with this request of theirs as an expression of thanks for what we have done for them by leading them over the years and, through self-government, eventually bringing them to total independence. Enforced independence is not what is involved here. We do not consider this specific State to be a burden on our shoulders as the official Opposition is trying to suggest. What is involved here is their independence. Look at our proud record and look at what we have done for other States that have already become independent—the Transkei, Bophuthatswana and Venda. We have continued to give them a helping hand and we told them we shall continue to help them, wherever and whenever necessary. Our interests are their interests and their interests are ours. As we see it, we stand shoulder to shoulder here at the southernmost tip of Africa and we need each other; not in a spirit of paternalism, because we do not believe in that. We need each other in the sense of the interdependence of States and nations here at the southernmost tip of Africa.

We do not begrudge the Ciskei its own form of government. We respect their pride to want to live and exist separately as an independent nation. We are glad that they want to exercise their political rights within the borders of their own independent State, but why does the Opposition begrudge the Ciskei its independence? Time and again they set themselves up in this House as the champions of the Black man in South Africa. They speak in this House about the unjust treatment which is being meted out to the Black nations in South Africa. Now that they have the opportunity to do something, to transform their words into deeds and to say that they do not begrudge the Ciskei its independence, they oppose it. They oppose it when a nation asks for its independence.

We listened to their defeatist speeches in this House on the occasion of the censure debate and also when the Prime Minister’s Vote was under discussion. We stand by the principle of the right of nations to self-determination. What we have demanded for ourselves we do not begrudge the Ciskei. We stand by the preservation of identity, not only our own, but also that of the Ciskei which has now asked for its independence. We would be disloyal to our proud past and also to our future policy if we did not give it to them. As a matter of fact we would be guilty of a breach of faith.

The Ciskei is not asking for independence because a certain group has seen fit to ask for it. A referendum was held and on the occasion of that referendum the overwhelming majority were in favour of independence.

Only a third.

I hear the hon. member there speaking of a third, but that is not the case at all. 98,5% voted in favour of independence in a referendum in which 60% took part.

How many were on the voters’ roll?

As chairman of the Southern Regional Committee whose task it was to consider the consolidation of the Ciskei I made a point of travelling around. We traversed the length and breadth of the Ciskei. We did not speak only to Government officials or high-ranking officials, we also made a point of talking to the average member of the population. We did not go there as spies; they knew that we were there. They also knew what we were doing there. We spoke to these people, because we wanted to learn about their national soul and national will by speaking to them. I say that there was no sign that they were opposed to independence; everybody wanted to be independent.

With the greatest respect I say that if the Opposition now wants to link the package deal to the question of the independence of the Ciskei as an excuse for their not being in favour of independence, it is a stick to beat a dog, and unfortunately it is a very short stick. I put it with all due respect that this matter was concerned with independence and nothing else, and the population of the Ciskei decided that they wanted to be independent.

At the time we were undertaking our investigation, the Quail report appeared—in February 1980. Unfortunately my time does not allow me to go into the findings in this report in detail, but what is a summary of the recommendations of the Quail Commission? In the first place a multi-racial condominium; in the second place, power sharing between White and Black, and in the third place, effective internal economic integration and a continued right to share in the wealth of the Republic of South Africa.

On my committee there were two representatives of the Government of the Ciskei. I spoke to them about the Quail report. I can say now that they found it very attractive. They considered the Quail report worthwhile and that report was scrutinized and studied intensively in order to decide what the Ciskei should do. Should the Ciskei say yes to the Quail report, or should they still concentrate on independence? What did the Ciskei decide? They decided on independence. From my discussions with the two representatives it became clear that this matter was carefully considered by them, the Ciskei did not merely ask for its independence like other States. They made a scientific study, by means of the Quail Commission, of the possibilities open to the Ciskei. Inter alia, the commission also had to go into the question of whether the Ciskei should become independent and on what conditions, and whether they should not become independent at all. That is why I am convinced today that when the Ciskei decided to ask for its independence, they did so only after they were convinced that they were taking a well-considered step. The matter was weighed, sifted and placed under a magnifying glass. The Ciskei is now asking for independence knowing full well what the country is letting itself in for and, above all, knowing full well that as long as the NP is in power in South Africa, they can continue to rely on our aid, co-operation and support. This will be co-operation in the real sense of the word between interdependent States in the wonderful ideal of a constellation of States which is becoming a reality in South Africa.

Freedom is at the root of this desire for independence, and what more does one want to promote good relations than the idea of freedom? Therefore I am proud to know that another free State will come into existence in the gallery of nations, viz. an independent Ciskei.

Mr. Speaker, I have listened very intently to the arguments advanced in this House during the last two days, and it seems to me that the whole basis for independence for Ciskei rests on two legs. The one is a nation’s “volkswil”, their desire to express themselves and to have their own identity. We on this side of the House do not have a problem with this concept. We can appreciate that people want to express their “volkswil” and have their own identity. However, we do not believe that any nation needs independence for this. What about me as an English-speaking South African? Can I run a referendum to decide that English-speaking South Africans are to be independent? [Interjections.] What difference is there? The principle is exactly the same. Can the hon. member for Yeoville, who is Jewish, run a referendum for the Jews to express their own “volkswil” on whether they want to become independent? There is no difference; the principle is the same. Sir, I agree that it is a totally ridiculous suggestion; yet that is exactly what we are doing in the case of Ciskei. [Interjections.] In response to some of the remarks made here, I sometimes think that I myself would like to be independent, because I want no part of what is going on here.

I feel like a man on a bus going downhill with no brakes and with a drunk driver. [Interjections.] People or nations can still retain their national identity without being independent. They do not need to be independent in order to do so. I do not feel that my national identity is threatened, and I am sure the hon. member for Yeoville does not feel it. I am sure that the German communities that I know of in Natal do not feel it either. [Interjections.] All a person needs to maintain his national identity is to be free to do what he wants to do and not to be oppressed in any particular way. [Interjections.] One can retain one’s national identity and still be part of one bigger country.

Alice in Wonderland.

Looking at Ciskei, I am forced to ask: What choice do those people really have? They have the choice of being independent or, presumably, of continuing under the present situation, some form of repression. [Interjections.] I submit that if they had a different choice, i.e. of being full and equal citizens of South Africa or independent Ciskeians, the outcome of the referendum would probably have been very different from what it was. When the hon. the Minister, at a later stage, answers the hon. member for Pinetown’s question about West Germans and Ciskeians, I am sure we shall then see the real reason behind the Bill we have before us at the moment.

Are we going to get a reply?

It has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with “volkswil”, but it does have everything to do with overseas pressure on this country and with maintaining White domination. That is what it is all about, and let us not bluff each other on that score at all.

You are talking nonsense, you know.

We have also heard much talk in this House about development aid and about what is being done for Ciskei. We are not against aid. We believe that it must be given. We agree with aid, but what has independence to do with aid? Aid must be given in any case. It has absolutely nothing to do with independence whatsoever, unless withholding such aid is the big stick that the Government is using. It is very easy to get the figures from the budget. It is very easy to compare the aid per capita for kwaZulu with the aid per capita for Ciskei. Ciskei is getting nearly three times as much money as kwaZulu. Why? Ciskei, however, has agreed to take independence, but kwaZulu is not interested. I leave those hon. members to answer that question for themselves.

I want to refer to a few economic facts the hon. the Minister quoted yesterday. He spoke of an 8,8% growth rate for Ciskei. That is an excellent growth rate by any criterion, but what we must remember is that we are starting from a very low base, and it is easier to show a good growth rate from a very low base. What is in fact happening, if we look at the actual figures, is that the difference between Ciskei and South Africa is getting wider and wider.

What kind of argument is that?

It is true. That hon. member can look for himself.

He would not understand it even if he did.

The hon. the Minister also spoke about 40 000 jobs being created in Ciskei at a cost of R42 million. That is approximately R10 000 per job. The Benso reports also show, however, that only about 40% of the people coming onto the job market are, in fact, being absorbed into jobs in Ciskei. The GNP in Ciskei was R307 per capita in 1977. Except for Qwaqwa that is the lowest in South Africa. The hon. the Minister mentioned that it is higher than that of five other States, but I should like to know which five other States, because there is another factor that he does not mention. He does not mention that 65% of that GNP for Ciskei comes from outside Ciskei. If we were to take the GDP for Ciskei, I have very little doubt that we would find that it is probably the lowest in Africa.

What about the size of Ciskei? The hon. the Deputy Minister quoted comparisons with Swaziland. The area of Swaziland is 17 500 square km, whilst Ciskei, after consolidation, will have an area of 8 300 square km. [Interjections.] The population of Swaziland is 540 000, whilst that of Ciskei is 710 000. Only 12 180 Swazis work outside Swaziland, a situation that is very different from that of Ciskei.

The principle is the same.

You do not know what “principle” means.

Except for a few small States like Bahrein and Luxembourg and a few island States, Ciskei is the smallest country in the world with its area of 8 300 square km after consolidation. The population density of Ciskei is 126 per square km. After consolidation it will be 87 per square km. We must remember that two-thirds of all Ciskeians stay outside Ciskei. Again, if we exclude the developed countries and look at Third World countries, only countries like Burundi and Rwanda have higher population densities than Ciskei.

Let me recap the overall position concerning Ciskei. The gross domestic product is just about the lowest in Africa; except for Qwaqwa Ciskei is the smallest State in Africa; the population density is virtually the highest in Africa and two-thirds of the population live outside the country. I should like any hon. member on that side of the House to mention any other country in the world that is like that. I do not believe there is one. Where can people exercise their national pride in such a State, when they are being relegated to a tiny Third World State while they are, in fact, living in the richest and wealthiest State in Africa?

There is one other aspect of Government policy I should like to raise today. I want this to be very clear, because one day when people start allocating the blame as to who is responsible, I want it to be very clear that the responsibility lies on the shoulders of the hon. members on that side of the House.

Tell us more about your party’s policy.

The logical extension of the hon. the Minister’s and his party’s policy is a complete ecological disaster. It is the duty of the Government to maintain and conserve a country’s natural resources.

Where do you get your figures from?

I shall come to them in a minute. This must be done for future generations. Land is non-renewable and any Government must hold it in trust for future generations. What is, in fact, happening? We are putting more and more people on the land. At the moment, according to the report of the Quail Commission, about 45% of Transkei is eroded. Stocking rates are four times higher than they should be, under normal fanning conditions. I see the hon. the Minister over there is laughing. He can work out that figure very simply for himself.

He cannot, actually.

I do not know what you are talking about. [Interjections.]

Studies show that per capita, that is for every man, woman and child, between 0,6 and one ton of firewood is used per annum. That is faster than the natural regrowth or regeneration. The countryside is being completely denuded and eroded. That side of the House is responsible for this. People often say that Black farmers are poor farmers and that is why this is actually happening. Evidence shows, however, that given the right conditions, Black farmers are not poor farmers at all. I should like to quote from “Work in Progress” in Vol. 14 of the report—

This is going back to the 19th century—

I shall not bore the House with all the figures, but the report mentioned what was actually sold in a market-orientated economy. I can quote similar figures for Southern Rhodesia, relating to the mining areas around Salisbury. The point I am trying to make is that, given the correct conditions, Black farmers can in fact be good fanners. With the current policy of crowding people onto the land, any individual form of land tenure is impossible, and they are acting completely rationally in the way they are farming.

You are doing nothing to improve it. You are only criticizing.

The only way to improve it is to get people off the land and accept the fact of urbanization. As soon as we have the people off the land, those who are left will start farming properly. There is no other solution, and we all know it. Why not start doing something about it? I am sorry the hon. member for Queenstown is not here. He spoke about the problems of border farmers yesterday. He spoke about fences between the White and Black areas. He spoke about border posts between the White areas and the Black areas. He spoke about bilateral agreements for hot-pursuit operations. What does he expect when there is such poverty on one side of the fence, when there is erosion and everything is wrecked on one side of the fence, and there are prosperous well run farms on the other side of the fence? He knows that that is what one must expect. That is why he is asking for these concessions but what he fears is the logical consequence of Government policy.

Do you want to take the land away from the Blacks and give it to the Whites?

No, I do not. I want to get the surplus Blacks off the land and let them be urbanized as they should be. [Interjections.]

The hon. member also made a plea for the conservation of the water sponges in Ciskei. That is absolutely impossible with a present population on the land in Ciskei of 357 000 according to the Quail Commission’s report, page 57, and a gross value of agricultural production in Ciskei of R8 million per annum.

Where do you get those figures from?

I have them here. I shall give them to the hon. member just after my speech. I shall send them to him. The figure I quoted includes market-orientated and non-market-orientated production. Per capita that works out at R23 per annum for the people living on the land. Is it any wonder that they want to get off the land? Is it any wonder that everything is going down and being degraded like it is? The responsibility for that lies directly on that side of the House. If that side of the House carries on like this, it makes the implementation of their own policy even more impossible because that land becomes less and less capable of supporting anybody.

The hon. member for Walmer spoke yesterday about the problems in the East London area, problems such as unemployment. There are problems in East London where in fact we do have the infrastructure, skills and everything necessary to get things going. If we cannot sort out things in East London and accept that people can move to East London, how on earth are we going to do it in Ciskei?

In years to come the trend is going to be more and more for the actual Ciskeian population inevitably to live outside Ciskei. There is no other way it can go. The hon. members on that side of the House know this and I know it. Let us therefore get together and work towards some sort of solution, accepting urbanization as a reality and planning for it instead of unrealistically fighting it. That is why we on this side of the House reject the Bill before us today.

Mr. Speaker, we are approaching the end of the Second Reading debate and I think it is probably appropriate at this stage to pass a few comments on and to respond to some of the arguments which have come from the Government benches. I must say that most of these arguments have been entirely predictable. If anything, they have heavily emphasized the Government’s flight from reality into the world of fantasy in dealing with an issue of this kind.

We have listened to a series of verbal contortions from the hon. member Mr. Van der Walt, from the hon. member for Parys, from the hon. Deputy Ministers, and from other Government speakers who participated in this debate in their attempts to justify this Bill. They have professed—we had it again this afternoon—their understanding and sympathy for people who are striving to establish their own nationalism, who are seeking after their own freedom, who are going for self-determination and are looking for independence and sovereignty. We have had fine phrases indicating their understanding of the problems and aspirations in this regard. The hon. members opposite have castigated us on these benches for opposing the Bill because they say we do not understand or sympathize with these things and the aspirations of these people.

However, nowhere in the debate, either today or yesterday, has any hon. member attempted to explain in practical terms how this measure is in real terms going to benefit the people concerned and how it will in any way contribute to better race relations in South Africa. That is really the crux of the matter when we are dealing with an issue of this kind. What are the real benefits going to be for the people concerned and what are the real benefits going to be in respect of better race relations in South Africa? In fact, when it comes to the details, the consequences and the effects of the Bill, many speakers have shown a callous disregard for its practical consequences for the people concerned, for Ciskei itself and for the Republic of South Africa. The hon. member Mr. Van der Walt was a very good example of this. He was not concerned at all with the package deal. He ignored the long list of preconditions which had been discussed for month after month.

He also ignored, and with arrogance, the speeches made by Chief Minister Sebe and others on citizenship, on land, on the type of independence they were prepared to consider, etc. All the atmosphere, all the build-up, all the expectations created by talk of a package deal—all of this—was quite irrelevant as far as the hon. member Mr. Van der Walt was concerned. He said that Ciskei had voted for independence and not for the package deal. As far as he was concerned the package deal was irrelevant. As far as he was concerned it was an unconditional acceptance of independence on the part of the people who had voted for independence in Ciskei. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister something. The hon. the Minister, I believe, told us yesterday that they were still in the process of discussing the package deal. What is the real position? Who are we to believe? Are we to believe the hon. member Mr. Van der Walt who said that the package deal was not an issue at all and that all they had voted for was independence, or are we to believe the hon. the Minister who said they were still talking about a package deal?

The hon. the Deputy Minister referred to a package deal again this afternoon.

It is still in process.

Yes, but I find it very difficult to reconcile the attitude of the hon. member Mr. Van der Walt with the attitude of the hon. the Minister or the hon. the Deputy Minister. I find it very difficult to reconcile because the one says that the package deal was totally irrelevant to the whole question of the referendum and of independence, while the others say they are still in the process of discussing the package deal. I should like to know what the position is.

Let us take, for example, the citizenship issue. Was this an issue or not? I am surprised that the hon. member Mr. Van der Walt regards that as not something that was relevant in that referendum. Was the citizenship question an issue in that referendum or not?

The hon. member for Parys was not particularly concerned about this either. He said in fact that the majority in the referendum accepted that they would indeed forfeit citizenship. I want to know whether the people who participated in that referendum really did so knowing that the consequences of an affirmative vote would mean that they would forfeit South African citizenship. Certainly, that can again not be reconciled with all the talk prior to the referendum, with all the talk about the package deal, and with all the talk, particularly on the question of citizenship. I find it very difficult to believe that the people who voted in that referendum did so knowing that they were going to forfeit South African citizenship.

You would say “Every silver lining has a dark cloud”.

The hon. member Mr. Van der Walt and the hon. member for Parys accused us in these benches of changing our attitude on what the prerequisites should be for autonomy or independence. They quoted from a speech I had made in this regard during the debate on the Venda Status Bill. I should like to point out that there has been no change in attitude on our part in regard to this particular issue. I should like to quote from what I said during the debate on that Bill here in the House, on Monday, 4 June 1979. Dealing with the question of the independence of Venda, I said (Hansard, 1979, col. 7653)—

We still stand by that position. I then went on to say—

We also still stand by that position. I quote again—

I specifically said that we would lay down three very important and very definite criteria in that regard. I said—

I made it perfectly clear, and there has been no change in our attitude when it comes to this particular Bill. If one takes the three preconditions to which I have referred, the referendum that has recently taken place was not about the sort of independence that the Bill grants. That was not what that referendum was about. Independence as granted by this Bill is the same sort of independence as was given to Transkei, Bophuthatswana and Venda, and all the build-up prior to the referendum was that it was that sort of independence that the people of Ciskei did not want. There is, for example, the quotation of Chief Minister Sebe when he said: “Only a clown would accept that sort of independence.” That type of quotation would indicate that the type of independence granted by this Bill, a Bill that is identical to the Bills giving independence to the other States, was not what the people of Ciskei wanted. It has been said, and it must be said again in regard to the referendum, that the referendum cannot in any way be separated from the package deal. Apart from the fact that the people did identify the referendum with the package deal, the result of the referendum did not reflect the view of the majority concerned. If one looks at the figures, the Quail Commission’s report estimates that there are something like 2 100 000 Ciskeians, of whom two-thirds five outside of Ciskei. It is estimated that at least 1 million are entitled to register as voters. If one takes the total population of 2 100 000 the estimate is that at least 1 million ought to be entitled to register as voters.

Where do you get those figures from?

From the Quail Commission’s report. If the hon. the Minister disputes the figures he can look at appendix I of the report where those figures are discussed and presented.

Did they say that just over 1 million people were registered?

The Quail Commission says that the total number of Ciskeian citizens is 2 100 000, of whom it estimates that two-thirds live outside Ciskei. Against that the number of people on the voters’ roll are 503 000. Of these 299 731 voted in the referendum and the overwhelming majority of these came from within Ciskei itself. It therefore cannot be said that the referendum result even reflects the majority view of Ciskeian citizens. That is the first issue.

The second prerequisite to which I referred was the question of land, and that has been adequately dealt with by the hon. member for Albany, amongst others. Certainly there is no certainty at this stage, while we are passing this Bill, as to what the precise boundaries of the eventual State of Ciskei are going to be.

Then there is the third prerequisite that we have suggested, i.e. the very important and vital prerequisite of citizenship, which again, as I have indicated, is not dealt with in the present Bill to the satisfaction of that prerequisite. If one looks at citizenship, what in fact are the consequences of this Bill for the people of Ciskei? At the moment all Ciskeians are presently citizens of the Republic of South Africa and as such they have in theory as much claim to share in the benefits, the wealth and the opportunities offered by the whole country as any other section of our population. After independence they are going to lose that right. After independence they will cease to be South African citizens and instead will become citizens of Ciskei only, although the Bill does tell us that apart from citizenship no Ciskeian citizen resident in the Republic will forfeit any existing rights, privileges or benefits. I am going to deal with that a little later because I also want to deal with the hon. the Minister’s convention or agreement. But of what value is all this to Ciskeians presently living in the Republic of South Africa?

If one were to draw up a balance sheet of advantages and disadvantages, what would one find? I believe that on the debit side of that balance sheet one would find this as far as most people living outside the Ciskei are concerned. Firstly, they will lose their rights as citizens of the Republic for all time; secondly, they will become foreigners in the State in which they work and live; thirdly, they will be subjected to all the discrimination laws that operate against them in the Republic of South Africa but will effectively be excluded from ever being able to do anything about it, and fourthly, they will be committing their children to the same future. In other words, their birthright to share the whole of South Africa with all its people is being forfeited in exchange for the right of citizenship in a small part of South Africa, that part of South Africa that is dealt with in this Bill. So much, Sir, for the debit side.

On the credit side, Sir, if there is a credit side, they will have the joy—and here one must think in the terms of the hon. the Deputy Minister and the other hon. members on that side who have spoken about this great nationhood—of actually exercising a vote in Ciskei, perhaps once every five years. They will exercise that vote in Ciskei, remote though they may be from Ciskei and irrelevant though the Ciskeian authority may be in respect of their needs and aspirations in the areas in which they live. This is the only plus factor for them. It is a spurious and meaningless right to vote in an area that is remote from their normal, everyday existence. What is more, they will find no great joy in saying that they are part of this nation because they are living very far away from the borders of that nation. They will also find it no great attraction and have no great desire to change their place of work and residence and return to Ciskei because they will know, if they have ever been there before, that employment opportunities there are minimal, that the country is experiencing economic problems, that it is an underdeveloped area and that it is not easy for the country to contain a greater population than it has at the present time. So much, Sir, for the Ciskeians living outside Ciskei.

Let us look at the balance sheet of the Ciskeians living within Ciskei. The Ciskeian living within Ciskei will have the advantage of participating in the election of those who govern him and who make the laws affecting his living and working conditions. That is so. He will have the outward symbols of independence and nationhood. He will have his own flag, his own anthem, his own parliament and his own president.

And his own language.

And his own language. That is correct, but he has that already.

Is it not important?

Of course it is important but is the hon. member for Pretoria Central suggesting that his language is threatened without independence? He has the right to speak his own language now.

What are you going to do about his language in your unitary State?

I can deal with that on another occasion. I want to go on with my speech now. However, it is the right of anyone to speak the language of his own choice. So he will have that, Sir. These are some of the benefits he will have. He will also have—and this may be perhaps one of the greatest benefits of all—freedom from the obnoxious doctrine of apartheid in his own small corner of South Africa and all the discrimination which that entails. I think that that perhaps will be the only real practical advantage for the Ciskeian living within Ciskei. As far as his rulers and his Government are concerned, they will have the benefit of the trappings and trimmings of office as well as the personal satisfaction that accompanies those things including the satisfaction of being able to rule and administer their own country subject to its economic limitations. They will also know that on the track record of the Republican Government, having played the separate development game and taken independence, they will probably receive a far bigger hand-out from South Africa than they ever did before, if only for the reason that the Republican Government will want to show the reluctant, non-independent, self-governing States what they are missing as a result of their reluctance to forfeit the birthright of their people.

However, on the debit side of the Ciskeian living in Ciskei the disadvantages are far greater than the advantages. I hope the hon. the Deputy Minister is not leaving the House now because I want to deal with him as well. None of the credits and none of the benefits—nationhood, national symbols, freedom from the yoke of apartheid or even the increased hand-outs—are really going to put more into his stomach or give him or his children any greater opportunities. He will forfeit his and his children’s rights to the rest of South Africa.

You are talking absolute rubbish.

The hon. member there who interjects all the time “nonsense” is an expert on the subject of nonsense. He should listen for a while and he might learn something.

I know what nonsense is when I hear it.

He, together with all other Ciskeians, will have his citizenship rights restricted to Ciskeians, will have his citizenship rights restricted to Ciskei which is no more than an independent dependency of the Republic of South Africa. That is what it is. It is not an independent State; it is an independent dependency of South Africa and one which has no way whatsoever of obtaining international recognition. We know it because that is what it is all about.

Are you still crying on your mummy’s shoulders?

Sir, I cannot respond to an inane interjection of that type. [Interjections.]

On the question of recognition, there was a time—this is interesting—in the period preceding Transkeian independence that the Government nurtured the hope and the expectation that independent States would attain international recognition. In fact, in the case of Transkei steps were taken in the months preceding independence to assist in training Transkeians as diplomats in the expectation that they would be required to represent their nation in the capitals of the world after Transkei had achieved independence. It is significant that since then neither in the case of Bophuthatswana nor Venda and not now in the case of Ciskei has any attempt been made to plan any sort of future diplomatic links for those territories other than the links which they will have with the Republic of South Africa.

And the Progs travel all over the world.

It is clear that it is commonly accepted now—this one reality the Government has apparently accepted—that the independent States which the Government is creating will not achieve any international recognition. It is patently obvious that these States are merely products of the apartheid policy of the Government. Their economic viability is suspect and they cannot be seen as anything more than independent dependencies of the Republic of South Africa, and in every way the creation of this type of independent State is seen as really an attempt to escape from the responsibility which the Government has in a plural society like South Africa.

The deal to which the hon. the Minister referred yesterday when he told us about the convention agreement, is once again very clear evidence that the Government gives up any hope of these States having any recognition outside of South Africa, because all that it is doing, is to allow them, when it is convenient for them, to use South African nationality, South African travel documents and South African passports to make up for the deficiency. In other words, the Government knows that the type of citizenship it is giving at the present time to an independent State is inferior to the citizenship which the people have and enjoy at the present time. They are giving an inferior citizenship and they are now trying to compensate by some form of agreement dealing with travel, job opportunities and so on.

I want to deal now with that part of the Bill which provides that apart from citizenship no citizen of Ciskei living outside of Ciskei will forfeit any rights, privileges and benefits. What is the value of this provision in practice? The same provision appears in the legislation which affected TBV States. In 1976 the hon. the Minister’s predecessor, Minister M. C. Botha, dealt with the issue in relation to Transkei. The Transkei Bill contained exactly the same provision, and the then Minister, speaking in the House on 7 June 1976 said the following (Hansard, Vol. 63, col. 8318)—

He went on to say—

He said further—

This was in 1976, Sir, and I want to know what has been the effect and value of this in practice as far as Transkeian citizens living in the Republic are concerned.

In recent weeks we had a situation in Nyanga that showed that Transkeian citizens living in the Republic were far more vulnerable than others when it came to the issue of squatting in and around Cape Town. There was no question then of their rights, privileges and benefits being protected. An analysis of a number of squatters removed showed that of 540 cases, 138—some 29%—came into the Republic from Transkei five or ten years ago while 200, or 37%, came in more than 10 years ago. In other words, of that sample of 540, 66% came in before Transkei’s independence. Where then were their rights and privileges and benefits being protected? They were summarily removed and dumped in the Transkei. As I say, these people were in and around Cape Town before Transkei’s independence and therefore they ought to have been entitled to some special privileges and benefits. However, this was denied them and they were simply dumped back into the independent State of Transkei, much to the annoyance of the Prime Minister of Transkei at that time. I want to leave the matter here, but it does raise considerable doubt as to the value of this particular provision in the Bill relating to their privileges, rights and benefits.

I now want to come to the hon. the Deputy Minister who had some very harsh things to say when he took part in this debate last night. I do not want to respond in similar vein because I, in fact, feel sorry for him. In many ways when grace, qualities of charm and sensitivity were distributed, he was somehow absent. He spoke with great feeling about the whole spiritual theme of giving independence and nationhood to people, and he said that he found it very difficult to understand how I could reconcile the generosity in a Bill of this kind with the allegation I made in my First Reading speech that in fact the motivation here was merely an extension of the old “baasskap” mentality of the NP. He failed to see how this could be reconciled. Of course, I did say in my First Reading speech that this was an extension of the old “baasskap” mentality of the NP, and I said a great many other things. I believe that this Bill is in fact a further attempt by the Government to dismember South Africa. I believe that what we are dealing with here is, as I said before, the grand plan of the NP to excise certain areas from the common area of South Africa so that these areas may be given independence, which the Government says will satisfy the aspirations of the people concerned. The Government also says that it will establish their right to ethnic self-determination and will give them the great gift of separate nationhood.

Let me say, however, that these are in no way the only or the real motives behind a Bill of this kind. Let us be quite frank on these issues. The arguments used represent only the window-dressing to justify the fragmentation of South Africa, because the fact is the Government is still locked into its own ideology of trying to ensure that White domination survives over the largest possible area of South Africa. It therefore cannot and will not entertain any sort of sharing power and privileges with people other than Whites in that area. I do not hear any complaints from the Government now. That is the fact of the matter. They are determined to ensure White domination over the greatest possible area of South Africa. Their problem, however, is that they are caught in a dilemma and that is that the old naked baasskap philosophy is no longer a tenable proposition in this last quarter of the 20th century. The mass of our population cannot forever be subjugated. It is not tenable for 20% of the population forever to have exclusive power over the remainder of the population. The Government is therefore forced into the expedient of excising segments of South Africa from the common area and—in theory at least—siphoning off responsibility for millions of Blacks who now become part of the new nation created in this segmented fragmentation. Separate independence is therefore no more than an adaptation or a sophistication of the old baasskap mentality. It is an adaptation of necessity in order to keep alive the old ideological dreams. That is actually the real motive for the Bill. It is not that the Government is particularly concerned about the “volkswil” of the people of Ciskei. That is part of the window-dressing argument. The fact of the matter is that they want to make it possible to continue practising White domination over the largest possible area of South Africa. This sort of Bill provides a useful and convenient escape from the Government’s dilemma, its inability to face up to the real facts flowing from the plurality of the South African society. The plurality of the South African society means of course that South Africa is a country of 25 million people, anyone of them having exactly the same right to any part of the country as the next. That is where there is a fundamental difference between the hon. the Deputy Minister and myself. He is not facing up to the realities of the South African situation.

For these reasons I believe that this Bill has to be rejected, and that is why I support the amendment that has been moved.

Mr. Speaker, when the history of the events of the past two days is written, I think that the behaviour of the hon. Opposition will, if anything, be only a footnote on that page of history. During the past 33 years or more every argument in the book has been used, not only in South Africa, but also by the enemies of South Africa throughout the world, against this process which has been taking place here at the southernmost tip of Africa. I tried to usher in this historic event on a higher level yesterday when I referred to 1636 when the Ciskeian people first came into contact with other people here. One is therefore referring to a history extending over many centuries. As I said, every argument in the book has been used over the years. I have seen political parties using every argument in the book, just and unjust arguments, good and bad arguments, logical and illogical arguments, such as we have also had in this debate. I have also seen how many Opposition parties have disappeared in the process over the past 30 years. I do not even have the time to mention all of them, but there were quite a number of them in this House, that vanished completely I am thinking for example of the old United Party.

There they are, sitting on your side.

A large section of the old Progressive Party also disappeared. The only party that has remained standing over the years is the NP, this side of the House. Surely there must be reasons for this. What are those reasons? I think one of the main reasons is that there are certain basic things in a person’s life that have become established over the centuries, and those people who deny this, are denying things which cannot be denied this side of the grave. I think that the great difference between those of us on this side of the House and the hon. members opposite throughout this debate has been that they argue on the grounds of one or two basic things in a dimension which is totally removed from reality. What is the reason for this? I should like to mention a few—not that I think I shall convince those hon. members. But the nation will convince them and kick them out of here, so that yet another Opposition party will vanish unless they accept these basic things as some hon. members on this side have. Those hon. members must take note of the fact that the hon. members who crossed over to this side are flourishing here, and they know best how to settle the hash of the members opposite. There must be a reason for this, and the reason is that they speak from experience of both sides. Yesterday Mr. Xcaba sat here listening to the debate, and I wished he could fall with his big, splendid body on some of those hon. members who were speaking with such ignorance in the debate. The hon. members on this side of the House and I came to know the people of the Ciskei over the years. I have had close contact with them for 32 years, and what did I learn about them? I grew to know and love them as people who love this country as much as we do, people who in their own way are helping to build up this country and, if necessary, are prepared to give their lives in its defence. They are doing so at this very moment. I had a serious altercation with the Opposition during the introduction of the Bill, because those hon. members do not know about these things, and I do not blame them, because one cannot know everything. The fact remains that at this very moment Ciskeians are giving their lives for what they believe in. That is how I have come to know them. They are brave people, people who are prepared to stand together with us in the interests of what we believe in. They stand shoulder to shoulder with us against communism, against Russian imperialism and for the Christian civilization. These are good things, and when one gets to know them like this, one also learns to understand them. In my opinion this is the essential difference. Unlike the Opposition, we are not speaking about a group of people we see only from a distance. We are speaking about people we have come to know with all their human frailties, but with all their excellent qualities too. These are people with whom we have struggled for days on end to clarify certain problems. On more than one occasion—and I say this because it is true—some of my colleagues and I have sat through until two or two-thirty in the morning with these people, grappling with those things which were referred to so casually here—such as agreements that are supposedly not being honoured, and there was even talk of treason—a vile word to use in this context. Dr. Sebe telephoned me the night after a report on this matter had appeared in a newspaper and he said to me: “You know, Dr. Koornhof, while we are busy with a sacred trust enabling those people speaking so glibly in that fashion to sleep at night, you are working like a donkey, and I am working like a donkey in order to get better human relations in South Africa so that those people’s children can also have a future in South Africa.” [Interjections.] Sir, I really cannot stand that hon. member. [Interjections.]

These are the facts of the matter. If there was ever a nation with a rich heritage of traditional cultural possessions and filled with a great pride for those possessions, it is the Ciskeians. Believe me, there is no need to argue about the attaining of independence. As a matter of fact they do not see it in that light. I tried to convey something of this in my introductory Second Reading speech. They see it as the resurrection of a nation that was once great, that produced great leaders and great heroes and that fought a hundred year battle against the mighty and greedy covetousness of British colonialism and imperialism. In this debate I again saw many signs of this. I can tell you, Sir, that I slept badly last night because I felt sad about the many signs from the benches opposite—not from all of them—of this covetousness and greedy imperialism and colonialism. [Interjections.] Until this attitude has been utterly eradicated in this country there will be no peace and no sound relations in this country. It is as simple as that. [Interjections.] I shall not mention them by name. In any case, everyone knows who they are. They identify themselves.

These are matters that are so sacred to the Ciskeian people that there are certain things I do not even want to mention here in this House. My friends on this side and I have gone through all this with them. When I say these are sacred things, I mean it. After all, it is no coincidence that they held their referendum on 4 December last year. It is no coincidence that they chose 4 December 1981 as their day of liberation, their day of independence. If one asks why and one seeks to find out why, one comes across something sacred, something wonderful. Then you realize that the Ciskeian nation is inspired and possessed as other nations have also been over the centuries. If hon. members doubt this, they need only read their Bible and other great books of the past and they will read about nations that had ideals and goals and that were inspired to do what was in the interests of what they believed in. These were people who wanted to prosper. The people of the Ciskei are inspired by the one great ideal that things must be better for them after independence than they were before, and the National Party Government will not fail these people, just as we did not fail the TBV countries. Surely we shall not abandon them.

What about those that were taken back to Transkei in buses?

Dr. Sebe told us repeatedly: “We are opting for independence not without but within the family of nations”.

I do not want to be guilty of what I accused the Opposition of yesterday, i.e. arrogance. As I have said, I grew to know these people as people who understand something of the deepest values of humanity and nationality, and now I am sorely missing understanding from that side of the House for the deep-lying promptings of a nation’s soul. When a member discusses the deep-lying promptings of a nation’s soul here in this House, I do not expect to read about it the next day in the English-language newspapers. It will be ignored. I am speaking about the embodiment of the soul of a nation. However, I am a scientist as well and not only a politician, and I want to say that we and those people found each other on the level on which they are inspired and possessed by the same ideals as those I learned at my mother’s knee, those we on this side of the House learned and those which I hope the hon. members opposite also learned.

Oh no.

I hope they did, although I know I am hoping in vain. What was I talking about? I was referring to love for one’s own things, for what is peculiar to a specific national character. [Interjections.] I am now speaking as a scientist. The hon. members opposite can laugh at what I am saying if they wish, but I want to repeat that it is these things that have led to this side of the House remaining in power for all of 33 years, while one party after another has disappeared on the opposite side of this House. In my speech when I introduced the Bill I said that some of the hon. members of the official Opposition were again going to disappear. Surely they cannot ignore these things willy-nilly and carry on like this in this House on such an historic occasion. Even a donkey doesn’t bump its head against the same stone twice. On the other hand, hon. members of the official Opposition are actually bumping their heads against the same stone for the fourth time. [Interjections.] One must surely take cognizance of the realities of a situation.

As a scientist I put it to hon. members opposite that when one speaks of love for what is one’s own, I know that it is the one attribute which has over the centuries enabled ordinary people—Whites, Blacks and Coloureds—to transend themselves. It is not intelligence that enabled them to do so. Other attributes did not enable them to do so either. Only one thing enabled them to do so. Only the love for what is their own which possesses and inspires people, makes them heroes. This is the stuff of which heroes are made. That is why I have respect for the Ciskeian people. That is why they have respect for us. We speak the same language, and that is why the Russians and other enemies can come, because we are allies in the struggle to maintain the Christian civilization at the southernmost tip of Africa. We do it like men. We do it possessed and inspired by the basic things which God has given to man. I accuse the hon. members of the Opposition of ignoring these things, of ridiculing them, of trampling them underfoot, of criticizing them, and of denigrating the Ciskei. I sat here listening to them and don’t even want to go into all the things they said. They utterly denigrated the Ciskei. They didn’t even realize they were doing so. The hon. member for Walmer spoke in a “savage” way here about a “business scheme”, of a “manager” approaching people on a matter. Good heavens. When one speaks about these things and certain people react in this way, the Black people do not understand it. The hon. member kicked up a great fuss about these things here.

However I want to raise a second point.

What was the first point? [Interjections.]

Just listen to that! In this debate hon. members of the Opposition said that the NP was building a structure on sand. However, allow me to point out to hon. members the sturdy foundations on which this structure is built. Can hon. members of the official Opposition not ask themselves a simple question? If their arguments are so watertight, how is it possible that this is the fourth nation to gain its independence within the past five years? I challenge the hon. the Leader of the Opposition to try to talk President Mangope out of his independence. I challenge him to do so.

President Mangope does not have any problems, but what about his people who are in the Republic?

I challenge the hon. the Leader of the Opposition to talk President Matanzima out of his independence. Afterwards, he must come and tell us what happened to him. [Interjections.] He can come and tell us. I challenge him to try to talk President Mpephu out of his independence.

Let him try to talk the Afrikaners out of their independence.

Yes, to say nothing of the Afrikaners. [Interjections.] I challenge the hon. the Leader of the Opposition to try to talk Dr. Sebe and his people out of their proposed independence and to try to do this in the manner in which he spoke in this House. Why is this so? Independence does not simply fall out of the sky. This matter has deep, powerful and strong foundations. What are those foundations? Allow me briefly to point out a few aspects of those foundations.

When I returned from the University of Oxford in 1952, there was only one Parliament in South Africa, one Prime Minister—a White man—12 Cabinet members and 150 or 154 members of Parliament, all of them Whites. Even at that stage already the NP Government realized that revolution was a factor in Africa. Incidentally, I can still remember clearly how the late Dr. Verwoerd told me on more than one occasion—I was a research official on his staff for seven years—that nothing and no one would stop this revolution in Africa, that the revolution would run its course, and that if we as Whites and Blacks in South Africa were not able to control this revolution, we would be engulfed. We must therefore devise plans and use our intelligence to deal with these matters to the best of our ability. He always adopted the standpoint that the Whites could not do this alone. Whites and Blacks had to do it together.

Now I want to relate a bit of history to hon. members. It so happened that towards the end of 1951, Dr. Verwoerd called a number of senior officials to his office in the Union Building one evening. As a young research official it was my privilege to be one of them. Dr. Esselen was there, as was Tommy Coetzer, who is still alive today, Mr. Bruce Young, Mr. James Dodd and others. Then he told us about the foundations on which this matter rests, a matter which hon. members on that side say is built on sand.

That evening the question was put to us—we were all trained social anthropologists who were all in some way or other concerned with the Black people—whether it was true that traditional authority still carried weight among the Black people. One after another Dr. Esselen and the others said that it was true. Then Dr. Verwoerd said: Then it is essential that the White people must establish Bantu authorities together with the Black people in order to regulate matters in South Africa properly. I am speaking of 1951-’52 now. Then Dr. Verwoerd asked Dr. Esselen: How long will it take to establish two model Bantu authorities? Dr. Esselen answered that in his opinion it would be possible to do so within three months. The first was established in the Transkei. The second was in Bophuthatswana. There is Mr. Mills who established the third in Qwaqwa. Do hon. members know how many Bantu authorities there are in South Africa today, built up by Whites and Blacks, brick by brick? Over 1 000. Out of those Bantu authorities we have all, White and Blacks, built regional authorities together, brick by brick. Then territorial authorities. Surely hon. members know how many Bantu authorities form one regional authority and how many regional authorities form one territorial authority. This took us, the Whites and Blacks in this country, seven years. This led to Dr. Verwoerd rising in this Parliament in 1959 and making that great historic speech when he spoke of the first of these nations that had a territorial authority and would receive self-government, namely the Transkei. I wish I had the time to elaborate on this a little more. It was the beginning of the disappearance of the United Party from this House. It was as a result of that historic speech, when Prof. Tomlinson was also present here. When Sir De Villiers Graaff stood up and rejected the Bill, Prof. Tomlinson sat back and said that that was the end of the United Party. I was sitting next to him, and I saw and experienced it in this House. It was the beginning of the end for them. One cannot ignore these basic things and imagine that you will get away with it. Surely the people will bring you to book, and that is what happened. What happened then? From those territorial authorities a national assembly developed for each one of those self-governing States. Out of these their Cabinets developed with their own Chief Ministers. What are the facts of this matter? Over the past 33 years, based on these firm foundations, each national State has received full self government. Each has gone through all these phases, namely of Bantu authorities, to regional authorities, to territorial authorities, to its own legislative assembly and then its own Cabinet and Chief Minister. That is how Chief Minister Buthelezi became the Chief Minister of kwaZulu. This, therefore, is the stage which they have all reached now, except for Kangwane which has been asking for this for months and with whom we are negotiating and which will be the last to accept self-government. All the others already have it. The Ciskei is the fourth area to take the last step, namely to full freedom and full independence. Therefore I hope I have said enough to those hon. members, those hon. members who had the temerity to come here and say that this matter was built on sand. This matter rests on firm, healthy and sturdy foundations and nothing and no one will stop it, as the hon. the Deputy Minister also put it. Here we are reaping the results of prolonged construction work. The White people could not have done it alone. It was impossible. But the Black people alone would not have been able to do it either. This is the result of co-operation but those hon. members understand so little of these deep stirrings in a nation’s soul and of the expressed wishes of a Black nation that they come here and ask: What are the advantages of this matter for South Africa? What did it bring for South Africa? They are so utterly blind that they ignore the history of 30 or so years in this country to such an extent that, believe it or not, they do not even know that at the time a revolution in South Africa was forestalled. They are sleeping peacefully and we have peace in this country. Herein lies the reason for this and if they doubt it, let me take them a step further.

In 1951 the late Dr. Verwoerd said that in this process to resolve these matters in a peaceful way, to deal with Whites and Blacks together, it is absolutely essential that a very cardinal thing should happen. Then those hon. members say that we are doing it for personal gain only. We all know what the Bible says: He who seeks himself shall lose himself, but he who gives himself for others shall gain the final victory. This is what we have been doing over the years. The late Dr. Verwoerd clearly spelt out the recipe at the time: We must create real chances and opportunities for the Black people in this country. He also added that they must not be inferior chances and opportunities as happened to the Negroes in America. They must be real chances and opportunities.

In conclusion as far as this point is concerned, I just want to tell hon. members again on what solid foundations these matters are built. What has happened during the past 30 years in terms of chances and opportunities under the very noses of those gentlemen here in South Africa? When I returned from Oxford University in 1951 there was one Prime Minister in this country and he was a Black man. There were 150 members of Parliament in this country and they were all Whites. I experienced this. It was also my privilege to make a contribution in this regard. What is the position today? Real chances and opportunities have been created for these people. Today we have 10 chief Ministers in South Africa who are Black. This is just another name for a Prime Minister. We could just as well have called them Prime Ministers. They have the same benefits, and all the other opportunities. They are Prime Ministers of their people in their own right. Along with our White Prime Minister we have 11 Prime Ministers. Instead of 150 White members of Parliament we now have more than 10 times as many members of Parliament in South Africa, and more than 10 times as many … [Interjections.] Just listen to that hollow laughter, Sir! The members of Parliament in the legislative assemblies of kwaZulu, Ciskei, Lebowa, Gazankulu, Transkei, etc. are all members of Parliament in the full sense of the word. This is how chances and opportunities were created from above. There are also 10 times more Ministers in South Africa today. This is a sign of the real chances and opportunities which were created from above. There are 10 times as many of these Ministers as there are White Ministers. However, that makes no impression on those gentlemen. At the level of members of Parliament there are the numbers I have mentioned to the hon. member.

If we look at the Public Service, then we know what the position is in the Public Service. How many Black people would have been employed in the White Public Service if it had not been for this policy which is based on this human quality of being inspired with a love for what is one’s own and on this deep stirring in a nation’s soul I have already mentioned. This is the drama which unravelled here and these are the firm foundations on which this entire matter rests in South Africa.

I now want to come to a few arguments raised by hon. members here. In this regard allow me to tell those hon. members that one thing I have learnt in this process is that there is a right way and a wrong way of doing things. It is easy to differentiate between the right way and the wrong way. The right way is more difficult, it takes longer and it costs more. This is exactly what is happening in this process of which we are now reaping the benefit—the independence of the Ciskei. My hon. colleague said—and it is true—that this will not be the last one. I want to say that in this process we were given something precious and, those hon. members opposite do not realize this at all. I say this in consequence of the way in which those hon. members spoke. This agreement has now been tabled in terms of which certain basic things in connection with a confederation are being spelt out because we now have five partners of equal status in this matter. It has become real politik, whereas it was only a dream in 1951-’52. At that time there was not a single Black nation which had its independence, or even self-government. It is now gradually coming to pass and in this process good relations are being built in South Africa. Through all those years, while other countries in Africa and elsewhere had revolutions and the outside world predicted—for 30 years they predicted—that the one country in which there had to be and would be a revolution was the Republic of South Africa, we did not have a single revolution. Why not? Here lies the answer, but hon. members opposite doubt it. They ask what options these people had and then they advanced another argument we have been hearing lately.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition raised certain points, but in my hands I have a document addressed by Chief Minister Sebe to the hon. the Prime Minister on 20 February 1981. In this document a series of questions asked by the hon. leader are answered. Chief Minister Sebe wrote—

He continued—

There the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has the answer to several questions he put here. The answer comes from Chief Minister Sebe himself. He continued—

He went on to say—

Please note that it took four days. He continued—

He concluded by saying—

Several of the hon. members opposite spoke about the referendum held there, but there was one important fact they omitted to mention. In my introductory speech I referred to it in passing when I said that the Ciskei voted under difficult conditions. One must remember that President Reagan came into power in the greatest country in the world with a 60% poll. I did not hear those hon. members casting any doubts on President Reagan’s election, although they have certainly been kicking up a fuss here for the past two days. What kind of double standards is the Opposition applying to South Africa?

I want to ask the hon. the Leader of the Opposition a simple question. Are he and his party in favour of South West Africa becoming independent?

It must become independent, and we have said so.

But the whole of South West Africa has 1 million people. The hon. the Leader himself said that according to the Quail Commission the Ciskei has 2,1 million people. The Ciskei therefore has twice as many people as South West Africa. Why is it a must that South West Africa must become independent with its great multiplicity of different groups, but the independence of the Ciskei—surely the Ciskei has a right to it as well—is opposed? [Interjections.]

That is definitely a donkey comparison that. [Interjections.]

Surely the attitude of the Opposition is something which is noticed by the Black people. I can read letters that would make the hon. leader’s hair stand on end if he heard what they had to say about the kind of double standards adopted by the Opposition in this country. If the hon. members of the Opposition do not stop this nonsense immediately, I shall take out those letters. I can assure them of that.

I now come to the figures regarding the referendum, which they omitted to mention. Can one accept that it was not wilfully done? What are the facts? The hon. member for Berea referred to these figures again. Here in my hand I have the announcement of the results of the Ciskeian referendum by the election officer. It is an official document from which the following appears: In the Ciskei itself 205 204 voters were registered for this referendum whereas in the Republic of South Africa 297 930 Ciskeian voters were registered, i.e. a total of 503 334 Ciskeian voters voted in this referendum. The 297 930 voters outside the Ciskei, in places like Soweto and Messina—as a matter of fact they are scattered throughout the country—had to vote for independence under difficult circumstances. In contrast there were only 205 000 Ciskeians in the Ciskei itself. The outcome of the election was as follows: Yes, 295 891; No, 1 642. That is what I call a tremendous beating (helse Kafferpak), Sir. Dr. Sebe said so himself! In addition there were 2 198 spoiled ballot papers. Therefore the total number of votes polled was 299 731, or 60% of the registered voters, and more of those voters live outside the Ciskei than in it. 98,5% of them voted in favour of independence. In spite of this hon. members opposite still argued as they did here. [Interjections.]

The hon. Opposition now charges us with certain things and to a certain extent it irks me to say so, but allow me to say so because it is true. Naturally it is true that every nation which becomes independent, is further proof that the PFP’s policy, as we know it, of “one man, one vote”—or whatever they call it—in a unitary State in South Africa cannot succeed. This is the secret of the whole matter and I think that is why they are kicking up such a fuss and why they are now bumping their heads against the same pole again. However, the people of South Africa will know how to deal with that party.

Sir, because every nation which becomes independent, makes the PFP’s policy more irrelevant and a greater failure and displays their bankruptcy to an ever increasing extent.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition, the hon. member for Berea, the hon. member Prof. Olivier, and several other hon. members asked what alternative the Ciskei had. The answer to that is very simple. The fact of the matter is that the Ciskeians were possessed and inspired. They not only ascertained what the will of the people was but also what the will of the majority was. The concept “the will of the majority” has applied for centuries. Great scholars through the centuries have referred to it and one also comes across it in classical documents. If “the will of the majority” is acceptable in America, Britain, Greece, or any other country you care to mention, why do they find fault with it when the Ciskeian people also apply it? I have seen that people of the hon. Opposition place a very high premium on “the will of the majority”. But if the Ciskei applies “the will of the majority” it is wrong. If hon. members opposite therefore ask me what alternative the Ciskei had, I can tell them the only choice for the Ciskei was the will of the majority and nothing else. The Ciskei could after all have maintained the status quo. The only other alternative I could conjure up in my wildest dreams was that they would choose integration or the policy of the Opposition. However, I can assure hon. members that, just like the TBV countries, Dr. Sebe and the Ciskeians rejected it and of their own free will, opted for self-government and independence. They prefer to make their contribution in a confederation, as they are already doing. I know these Black people fairly well, and we must not underestimate them. The Black people reject integration as vehemently as the White people in South Africa reject it. If those hon. members therefore propose integration as an option, they must take the voters of South Africa into account. After all, the most recent election showed how the Whites in South Africa reject their policy. The White voters rejected it and the Black people reject it as well. They should therefore be the last to talk about what options these people had in the process. [Interjections.]

I cannot reply now to the questions each hon. member asked, because I do not want to take up too much time. I shall, however, reply to all the important questions in writing, if we do not dispose of them during the Committee Stage.

I should like to deal with one or two other matters. One is the question of land. The hon. member Mr. Van der Walt and the Deputy Minister of Development and Land Affairs have already dealt with this question in detail, but I just want to refer to one additional point because questions were asked about it. On 11 August 1981 the Cabinet resolved that the entire negotiation process in connection with consolidation as far as the Ciskei was concerned, had to be speeded up so that the Government could present a full picture of consolidation plans for the area before the Ciskei became independent. We shall implement that resolution. We have already made a great deal of progress and, as I have already said, are working on the final stage.

In the Committee Stage there will be ample opportunity to discuss the question of citizenship, and I shall therefore not give any further details at this stage.

I have here a letter from Chief Minister Sebe. It was sent to me after we had arrived at this agreement which I tabled here yesterday, the agreement also called the bilateral convention. It is an important document. There is no doubt at all about that. In this connection Chief Minister Sebe wrote to me as follows—

He is referring to the agreement—

We discussed the “relative alternative” for hours. The Minister of Internal Affairs, the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Information and several other colleagues held meetings with the full Cabinet of the Ciskei on more than one occasion and spent hours thrashing these matters out. In the Committee Stage we can go into this in greater detail. It is a matter with many facets. If one wants to give a nation its independence, how can one do so without giving its citizens citizenship in its area? That is impossible. As soon as one gives it to him, one immediately has a problem. Since the people who met around a conference table to discuss this matter were real experts, Dr. Sebe is quite right when he says—

At the moment there is really, as far as we can see, in the complicated situation we are faced with—and we also have the TBV countries to consider—no alternative we could come up with collectively. This answers many of those hon. member’s questions. Of course, Dr. Sebe and his people wanted certain things, if it was possible, but there were certain things which were just not feasible in this situation. If we then meet around a conference table like sensible people and come to a feasible agreement, who are those hon. members to question it and to speak about people committing treason against other people and that kind of thing? We have already said that matters of this kind are dealt with by way of agreement. As my colleague said, it is an ongoing process. History has proved, however that once the agreement has been signed, we keep to it. Dr. Sebe added—

We are dealing with this at the moment and we shall do our best in this regard as well.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. the Minister whether, in the negotiations over citizenship, the reluctant acceptance expressed in that letter was not because the South African Government was not prepared to give way as far as its point of view was concerned?

I firmly believe that the reason why the Chief Minister wrote that letter to me was because together we came to the conclusion that, taking everything into consideration, the best way of dealing with the issue is the way we dealt with it, viz. the convention to which the two parties have now agreed.

*That is my honest reply to that question and it is the truth. When we come to the Committee Stage, I can discuss this matter further and furnish certain information on how complicated the matter is and why this is the conclusion to which Dr. Sebe came in this connection. It is true what the hon. member said: They initially expected something more. That is quite true. However, what must also be understood is that after this matter had progressed as it did—and if there has ever been a sensitive matter it was this one—the Chief Minister informed his people about it at Ntaba KaNdoda. He told them what the facts were, and hon. members must not ignore this.

I have here in my hand a speech made by President Mangope, the President of Bophuthatswana, which has been independent for quite some time. There are hon. members who are in doubt and kick up a fuss all day long and say “homelands are prisons”, and other ugly things, as an hon. member did here today, and try to make the world and people in South Africa believe that if a Black man goes to his homeland, he is going to something akin to hell. But surely that is not true. In the national States of South Africa I have seen some of the happiest people I have ever seen. I am speaking from experience. I did field work in kwaZulu for 19 months and lived with those people in a kraal. I had arrived from Oxford, stayed there for that period, and then returned to Oxford. For a young Afrikaner it was quite an experience.

What was worse; the kraal or Oxford? [Interjections.]

When it comes to the basic things in life, the things which make people happy, I had wonderful experiences in kwaZulu, because those people still understand the art of living and one can learn many things from them. At Oxford I acquired a great deal of knowledge. That is true, and I shall always be grateful for it. Amongst the people of kwaZulu, however, learned a great deal of the same sort of things I learned at my mother’s knee, viz. basic wisdom about the things in life that really count. To say that homelands are such terrible places and that the people there are unhappy, is not true. There are places in the national States where people are suffering hardships; that is true, and we are trying our best to help them, but we are not responsible for those places. We are trying to help. Let us help those people and take them by the hand.

The other evening there was a programme on television. However, good things make no impression on certain people. They only make an impression if venom can be sucked from them, as the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central did. He only sucked venom, and drew no water. [Interjections.] Never mind, we are still good friends. However, I suffered a great deal by having to listen to those hon. members during the past two days. In that television programme it was said that while the average increase in agricultural production throughout the world was 3,4% during the past year, the increase in Bophuthatswana, a national State of South Africa, was 34,2%. Surely that is a tremendous achievement, because agriculture is the backbone of the country. Hon. members should take a look what has happened there. [Interjections.] If one compares it with America and measures it against certain other criteria, the increase is of course small and probably looks unimpressive. However, if one compares it with what it was before, and you see the inspiration with which those people pulled themselves up by their shoe-strings and how they developed, then it is a sheer pleasure to be associated with it. At a relations programme evening in Germiston where I was the guest of honour, President Mangope said the following, and I shall quote only two passages from his speech—

Sir, I said we gained something precious with this convention. The establishment of a confederation will be the beginning of a course which is being followed in South Africa which is fraught with all the possibilities for peace, prosperity and progress for Blacks and Whites in the country. It has all these potentials. That is why I am so disappointed that the hon. members of the NRP did not support it. President Mangope went on to say—

That is how he continued his wonderful speech. There were over 500 people there that night. There were White people, Coloured people, Asians and a number of Black people. It was an evening of sound relations. That independent country expressed that need in conjunction with us and they took the initiative. President Mangope concluded as follows—

This is the commendable answer to all the questions put here during the past two days. The answer is to be found in the policy which is being applied here. A policy which is based on firm foundations and gives expression to the deepest stirrings of the souls of nations. Herein lies the guarantee for the future of our children and the Black children in South Africa.

Question put: That the word “now” stand part of the Question,

Upon which the House divided:

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1961, embodies the constitutional rules necessary to ensure orderly government and management of the country. However, from time to time new circumstances necessitate adjustments to those constitutional rules, and the Bill at present before this House contains certain proposals aimed at bringing about such adjustments.

In this regard I refer to clause 3 of the Bill. In the clause in question it is proposed that a new section 20A be inserted in the Constitution, providing for the transfer of certain powers, duties and functions from one Minister to another. At present, the authority to transfer in this specific connection is embodied in section 10(4) of the Interpretation Act, 1957, but since the Constitution regulates the appointment of Ministers it is deemed desirable, and is in addition clearly logical, that the provisions of section 10(4) of the Interpretation Act be incorporated in the Constitution.

However, the authority to transfer is now being further extended in that whereas section 10(4) of the Interpretation Act had only provided that a power, duty or function entrusted to a Minister in terms of an Act may be transferred from one Minister to another by the State President, provision is now being made for a power, function or duty assigned to the Prime Minister in terms of an Act to be entrusted to another Minister by the Prime Minister.

Section 17 of the Constitution makes provision for an Executive Council comprising the 20 persons appointed by the State President in terms of section 20. By convention the Prime Minister is the chairman of the Executive Council and, other than in the case of the other Ministers, who may not at will transfer their powers, functions and duties in terms of an Act to other Ministers, the Prime Minister ought in fact to have that power, and provision is now being made for this.

In clause 8, consequential amendments to the Interpretation Act, 1957, are proposed due to the insertion of the new section 20A, as I have already explained.

In clause 1 a new section 5A is being proposed with a view to protecting our national flag as described in section 5. As far as this envisaged measure is concerned it must, in the first place, be categorically stated that no statutory measure placed on the Statute Book can ever change the personal convictions of individuals or groups. If a person does not like his country’s flag, a law will certainly not cause such a person to repent and begin to love it. In the second place, it must be stressed that no law, however good the intentions of the legislator may have been, will be able to uphold a specific ethical or moral code of conduct in the community if that law is not also a manifestation of the will of the majority of the people represented by the Government or the legislator. The legislation is therefore the outcome of a need in the community for a specific code of conduct in that community associated with the threat of punishment for those who unlawfully disturb or infringe that code of conduct.

The recent instances of desecration of the flag could not be ignored by the Government, on the one hand due to the profound emotions unleashed by this deplorable action in the hearts of the majority of citizens and, on the other hand, because the Government cannot permit the flag, as the highest symbol of the State, to be exploited by the champions of anarchy as another instrument wherewith to incite conflict in the Republic or increase the potential for conflict.

Fifty-three years ago, when the late Dr. D. F. Malan introduced the Flag Bill in Parliament, he said—

The reaction elicited in the community by the recent incidents furnish ample proof of the truth of these words. Mr. Speaker, the Government had necessarily to determine the extent to which the existing law affords protection to the country’s symbols. It is true that the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa does protect the dignity and honour of the State President as the holder of the highest office in the Republic. However, the national flag, the design of which is described in the Constitution, enjoys no statutory protection as the highest symbol of the State. An amendment of the law to afford due protection to this State symbol is therefore called for, on the one hand to reassure the people of our country that the Government is not indifferent towards these events and, on the other hand, to issue a warning to those who incite chaos and conflict and seek to exploit the present situation with regard to our symbols of State by indicating to them in what a serious light their conduct is regarded. Accordingly this House is now being called upon to consider proposals as embodied in clause 1 with a view to adequate protection of the national flag. Our flag was born out of strife, but today it is the symbol of our sovereign independence, with Parliament as our sovereign legislative authority. Accordingly, in these circumstances it is certainly not asking too much that out of respect for the national flag, members of this House should refrain from participating in emotion-laden debates which would detract from the highest symbol of our country.

Section 13 of the Constitution, which deals with the protection of the dignity and reputation of the State President, Vice State President and Acting State President provides for a penalty not exceeding R2 000 or imprisonment for a period not exceeding five years. In the fight of the penalty contemplated in the event of spoiling of or contempt for the national flag, and the fact in view of the present value of money that a fine of R2 000 is out of all proportion to the maximum prison sentence which may be imposed, it is proposed in clause 2 that the maximum fine in section 13 be increased to R10 000.

Mr. Speaker, it is further proposed in clause 9 that schedule 1A to the Admission of Persons to the Republic Regulation Act, 1972, be amended to provide that persons who are not South African citizens by birth may be deported if they are guilty of an infringement of sections 5A(1) or 13 of the Constitution. It cannot be permitted that aliens, whether they have become South African citizens or not, bring our highest symbol and also the highest office in the country into discredit and still continue to enjoy the hospitality of this country.

†Mr. Speaker, since 26 October 1976, when Transkei received its independence, the attainment of independence by national States has been gaining momentum. During the past three years two States, namely Bophuthatswana and Venda, became independent, while the Government of Ciskei has already declared their wish for Ciskei to become independent on 4 December 1981.

The Acts passed by Parliament to provide that Transkei, Bophuthatswana and Venda become sovereign and independent States and cease to be part of the Republic, inevitably resulted in the boundaries of certain provinces of the Republic being changed. In addition, further defined areas situated within certain provinces of the Republic can become part of the independent States by virtue of the provisions of the Borders of Particular States Extension Act, 1980, resulting in further changes in the boundaries of provinces.

Section 114 of the Republic of South Africa Constitution Act, 1961, provides, among other things, that Parliament shall not change the boundaries of provinces except on the petition of the provincial council of every province whose boundaries are affected.

Neither any of the Acts passed by Parliament for the attainment of independence by Transkei, Bophuthatswana and Venda, nor the legislation that makes it possible for certain areas situated within the Republic to become part of the independent States concerned, was preceded by a petition in accordance with section 114. The reason for this is obvious, as the provisions of section 114 do not go any further than merely prohibiting the alteration of the boundaries of a province at the expense of another province without a prior petition. In view of this, the provisions of section 114 of the Constitution were strictly adhered to before Parliament in 1978 passed the Act which provided for the inclusion in Natal of the area known as East Griqualand, which was situated within the boundaries of the province of the Cape of Good Hope.

In the light of the momentum which the attainment of independence by national States has gained and in view of the possible misconstruction of the provisions of section 114 of the Constitution as implying that all the changes in boundaries of provinces must be preceded by petitions from the provincial councils concerned, it is proposed in clause 7 that section 114 be amended with retrospective effect from 31 May 1961 to put the intention of the legislature regarding the provisions of that section beyond all doubt.

“Clauses 4, 5 and 6 deal respectively with the termination of membership of the President’s Council, the revision of the remuneration and allowances of the members of the President’s Council and the reference of matters to the committees of the President’s Council. It is proposed in clause 4 that a member of the President’s Council vacate his seat as member of the President’s Council with effect from nomination day if he has been nominated as an election candidate for a constituency of the House of Assembly or provincial council, or with effect from the date on which he is nominated or elected as a member of the House of Assembly in terms of section 40(l)(b) or (c). The reason for this is that the President’s Council is an apolitical body and accordingly a member of the President’s Council ought to vacate his seat as soon as he becomes involved in the political arena.

That surely stems from the McCrystal affair, does it not?

[Inaudible.]

Through his interjection the hon. member is underlining peoples’ natural sense of what is right, as displayed by Dr. McCrystal. It is also good advice to the hon. member.

Section 102(4) of the Constitution deals with the remuneration of the members of the President’s Council. In terms of the Payment of Members of Parliament Act of 1974, the salaries and allowances of members of the House of Assembly are revised every time there is a general review or adjustment of salaries and allowances of Public Servants. It is proposed in clause 5 that a similar provision be inserted in section 102 in order to provide that the salaries and allowances of members of the President’s Council also be reviewed from time to time. In terms of section 106(2) of the Constitution, only the President’s Council can refer a matter to its committee. However, it happens from time to time that the full President’s Council is not sitting, and therefore it is proposed in clause 6 that section 106(2) be amended to provide that when the President’s Council is not in session, matters be referred to the committees of the President’s Council in terms of the rules and orders made by the President’s Council.

Mr. Speaker, this is a comprehensive Bill dealing with several largely unrelated aspects, but there is surely little doubt that the statutory protection accorded the flag as a symbol of the State by means of this Bill has elicited by far the most public interest.

On a number of occasions during the Republic Festival earlier this year, the South African flag was treated in a way that aroused strong emotion, as the hon. the Minister has already pointed out, and that resulted in a virtually unanimous condemnation of the people involved. It is understandable, of course, that the South African public was shocked by the burning of their national flag and expressed their displeasure in several ways. After all, the flag is the product of many years of deliberation, discussion, negotiation and even conflict. Therefore it symbolizes, perhaps even more than the flags of other countries, the progress made towards national unity at the stage when the flag was accepted as a joint national flag for South Africa in 1928, and later as the only national flag.

Since then, the course of history has confirmed the role of the flag as a national symbol. Wars have been fought under this flag and this, of course, resulted in considerable strengthening of the emotional bond to this flag as our national symbol. Unfortunately, during the Second World War this was not, of course, universally the case because at the time there was a great deal of resistance to the war effort. Nevertheless, this historical process took its course and handly any of the elements of our population that were originally dissatisfied by the introduction of the flag still have any reservations about the flag in its present form today. Indeed, nowadays objections to the existing flag are heard chiefly in quarters that did not, when the flag was introduced, have major or any reservations about it.

We now have a measure before us in terms of which desecration of the flag will be made a statutory offence in South Africa for the first time. Precisely because so much emotion has been aroused in connection with this matter, it is the duty of hon. members of this House to retain perspective during the discussion and consideration of the Bill as a whole.

In the first place, I should like to suggest that we should refrain from creating the impression, by word or deed, and particularly by the legislation we are going to introduce, that desecration of the flag has assumed epidemic proportions in South Africa. The acts of desecration of the flag that took place earlier this year and gave rise to this legislation were limited to a few irresponsible acts by people of so little importance that they barely deserve any mention. In spite of the emotional reaction which this kind of conduct gave rise to, it will serve no purpose to create the impression that respect and loyalty for the State and its symbols have now become so scarce that the most drastic action is necessary to enforce it. It is already a tragic reflection on our society that desecration of the flag now has to be regarded as a statutory offence. However, it is now a reality which we must accept, and therefore we on this side of the House will support this measure. However, we must guard against seeing this fact out of context, because an over-reaction in this regard certainly has the potential to be counter-productive.

It must be recognized that there are divisive factors in the South African society, factors which bedevil unity and common loyalty, and the Government itself is in fact one of the biggest divisive factors operating today. The message that is consistently conveyed from Government circles, particularly to the non-White population groups, is that they enjoy an inferior form of citizenship, or in other cases, are on the way to losing their South African citizenship entirely, and that of course makes it difficult for these people to respect the State and its symbols and particularly to regard them as their own.

†It is ironical that we should be debating this matter immediately after having voted away the South African citizenship rights of a few million of our Black fellow citizens. The hon. the Minister should really tell us whether he expects Black South Africans…

It is not them. It is your cronies.

… to honour the flag. [Interjections.] The hon. the Minister is now doing precisely what he warned against earlier in his own speech. [Interjections.] He is talking absolute nonsense and he knows it. [Interjections.] The hon. the Minister should really tell us whether he expects Black South Africans to honour the flag to the same extent as we do—and find it easy to do—when they know that the same fate of losing their right to be South Africans is in store for all of them? I wish to direct criticism at four elements in our society relating to this very emotional issue. Firstly I want to state that the Government has to take a very large part of the blame for the fact that we have reached the very sad state of affairs of having to invoke legal protection for a symbol of State that should be the object of universal respect in any normal society. Secondly, I wish to direct my condemnation, and that of all members on this side of the House, at the flag-burning incidents and the immaturity, insensitivity and foolishness of those who perpetrated them. Much has already been said about this matter, by hon. members of this party and by others, but I wish to place on record that we consider such acts to be indefensible.

Thirdly—and I do not believe enough has been made of this matter—I wish to express my strongest disapproval of those individuals who have used the South African flag to provoke incidents of this nature in support of their own campaigns against others. Reports have it that this did, in fact, take place during at least one of the flag-burning incidents earlier this year. Let us make no mistake about the fact that the deliberate association of a national symbol, such as the flag, with one’s own sectional political interests is an unforgivable insult to that flag, and purposely to provoke violent and irresponsible reactions by making use of that flag is criminal. It should therefore be noted that incitement to commit an offence is in itself an offence and that such behaviour will indeed become punishable when the dishonouring of the flag becomes punishable in terms of the legislation before us.

Fourthly, I wish to criticize—even though this will be somewhat milder than my previous criticism—those individuals who irritate members of the South African public with their ill-advised but constant attempts to change the present make-up of the flag, thereby creating the incorrect and unfortunate impression that there is widespread dissatisfaction with the South African flag in its present form. Surely there are more important things to attend to at this stage in our national development. Surely this is too delicate a stage in the constitutional and other developments in this country to palter with our national symbols and to suggest that changes can be, or should be, initiated by a small group devoted mainly to their own sectional interests. The hon. the Minister should really address himself to those members of secret societies like the Broederbond and others who so persistently irritate everybody else with their hang-ups. He should tell them to lay off and spend their time doing something more worthwhile.

Do not look for trouble this evening.

It is the truth.

I spoke earlier on of maintaining a perspective for the purposes of this debate. Let me say at once, therefore, that we regard the penalties—it is true they are maximum penalties—prescribed in this Bill as grossly excessive, and this is just one instance illustrating, I believe, that we are losing the very necessary perspective for a sound and sensible debate on this matter. I do not believe that penalties of this nature are warranted. I believe they can only serve to create the most unfortunate impression that we are dealing with a situation which virtually borders on a crisis.

I do not believe that is the case at all. I believe that South Africans in the main do respect their national symbols and that the exceptions are so rare as to be almost worthy of being ignored. I do not believe there is any justification whatsoever for enacting penalties which suggest that we are dealing with a major form of misbehaviour or a major form of criminal activity in this country and that it needs to be nipped in the bud otherwise we shall land ourselves in a serious situation. I do not believe that these penalties are necessary and we will take a very strong line indeed in the Committee Stage against them. We will move amendments, not only to the penalties prescribed for dishonour of the flag but also to the penalties for violating the dignity or the reputation of the head of state. Once again I wish to make the point that if we have to study history and try to find out how often this form of legislation has had to be used to protect the dignity and reputation of the heads of state of this country, we will have a very hard time indeed. We have virtually never had to use these penalties. Therefore I wish to suggest that to increase these penalties creates the false impression that we are indeed suffering in this regard in South Africa and that we need to contain a problem which appears to be grave.

Clause 9 of the Bill makes it a deportable offence to dishonour the flag. Once again I believe this is a complete over-reaction on the part of the Government and, once again, we shall take a strong line against it.

*As regards the other provisions of the Bill, for example the transfer of powers between members of the Cabinet, the matters relating to the President’s Council and other matters, we have no difficulties. Other hon. members on this side of the House will deal with these matters in more detail later in the course of the debate. Generally speaking, however, we consider that this Bill contains more positive than negative aspects. Accordingly, although we reserve the right to adopt a standpoint opposing certain matters during the Committee Stage, we are prepared to support the Second Reading of the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, to begin with I want to thank the hon. member for Green Point for his party’s support of the Second Reading of the Bill that is before the House, even though he does so with certain reservations. I also want to express my appreciation for the contention that the hon. member made that at the moment there are no negative reservations with regard to the flag of our country. I think that this indicates progress in the country. I also want to associate myself with the hon. member and express the hope that the desecration of the flag will not become a common offence in the country. I want to add that I hope the official Opposition and the other opposition parties will contribute their share towards this, and not repeat their display with regard to the legislation of which the Second Reading has just been passed.

It was desecration of the country.

It was a bigger crime …

The desecration of the flag would not be an exception if we were to have that type of inflammatory speech in the country.

Order! Did the hon. member for Green Point say that passing the Second Reading of the legislation that has just been dealt with by the House, was a crime?

Yes, I said that.

The hon. member must withdraw it at once. In saying that he is casting a serious reflection on this House.

I withdraw it, Sir.

I shall give my further consideration to the matter. The hon. member for Namakwaland may proceed in the meantime.

The first question that must be put—and it is a reasonable question—is: Should we have any legislation at all for protecting the flag in view of the fact that since 1927, when legislation relating to the flag was passed, we have managed very well without it? Furthermore it must also be asked: Why was the proposed measure not originally included in the legislation when the flag was accepted? It must be borne in mind that our flag is a flag of compromise that came into being after a struggle. Therefore, our legislators were wise in not dragging in further points of difference at a stage when, due to their conflicting standpoints, people could easily have viewed such penal provisions as a means of questioning their bona fides.

The desecration of flags has become a recognized form of violent protest, defiance and demonstration throughout the world and now this evil has emerged in our country too. For this reason it is necessary for our flag to be protected in this way. As I said, that evil already exists and therefore, with the proposed measure we are not creating an additional forum or platform for demonstrators, but we are dealing with an existing situation.

The principle that the flag should be protected in this way, is not a new one. I have checked on what the position is with regard to the desecration of the flag in a number of countries. In Israel for instance, provision is made for a period of imprisonment of one year or a fine of £300. Of course, I am referring to the maximum penalty. In Switzerland it is three years or 40 000 Swiss Francs. In West Germany it is three years or a fine which is left to the discretion of the court. The position in the USA is very interesting. Although the American court does not agree with it, the American law reflects the wishes of the community. The United States Crimes Procedure Act provides for a fine of $1 000 or one year’s imprisonment or both. The Americans go further. They feel so strongly about it that even an object which may be taken for the American flag by a careless person without due thought, is included in such an offence.

The next question that we must answer, is whether, as the hon. member for Green Point said, we are not over-reacting with the proposed maximum penalty of R10 000 or five year’s imprisonment. Once it has been decided in principle that a matter merits legal protection, the penalty must be brought into line with the seriousness of the offence, as it is viewed by the community—and this is very important. During the recent incidents of the desecration of the flag, we saw that our people displayed absolute rage about it. I am not talking now about a group of spineless people who condone everything. Our flag is one of our most exalted symbols. All that is happening now, is that the desecration of the flag is being brought in line with dishonouring the dignity of the State President which is punishable by five years imprisonment, as the Constitution provides at present.

Clause 7 amends the existing section 114 of the Constitution. The present section 114 provides in effect that the borders of a province cannot be changed and a new province created, unless it takes place in terms of a petition from the provincial council of every province that is affected by it.

It is clear that the legislator never intended detracting from the sovereignty of Parliament by means of section 114 of the Constitution. That is why it has clearly not been cast in the form of an entrenched section. This view is endorsed by two definite court cases. One of them was the recent court application by Mpangele and another vs P. W. Botha and 117 others. The other one is the case of Nasopie (Pty.) Ltd. vs the Minister of Justice.

The important point is that this situation, as contained in the existing section 114, deals only with the position of the various provinces, one against the other on the provincial level. Therefore it cannot affect the action of the central Government with regard to National policy, which is not aimed at favouring or doing an injustice to any province, in any respect.

The only other clause of any substance is clause 9. I feel that if anyone is not in a position to show respect towards the national symbols of the country of which he is a guest or which is his proposed or adopted fatherland, he is not a desirable person in that country. Therefore, the sooner he leaves that country the better.

By way of summary I can therefore say that the two most important provisions in the Bill are undoubtedly in the first place, to ensure that the national flag of the Republic of South Africa is treated with the respect that a national symbol of every self-respecting State warrants, respect which is an automatic, obvious action amongst civilized people. Although the sovereignty of the central Government over the territory of the Republic of South Africa is being confirmed beyond all doubt, in the second place this legislation does not deny the provinces any right or power, but in fact confirms their right and powers.

Therefore I am pleased to support the Second Reading of this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, this Bill is a combination of a number of bits and pieces. It is therefore very difficult to say that we support the principle of the Bill, as has already been indicated by other hon. members. There are so many points covering different aspects of principle. Nevertheless, I can state right at the outset that we in these benches do propose to support the Bill. It is necessary, however, to cover two or three specific points, that cover various principles.

Quite obviously, the most important principle in this particular Bill, in so far as emotionalism is concerned at any rate—is the stipulation in respect of the national flag. As has already been mentioned this is a point which one must treat with great responsibility because it is an emotional issue, and if people are careless in the remarks they make it can very easily raise hackles.

I must say that I am delighted that the official Opposition has made it clear that they support the principle involved here. I must confess that I did have some thoughts that they might not do so. I am delighted, however, that they have expressed their support of this Bill, because it shows a measure of responsibility which one expects from an official Opposition.

From time to time.

Well, I expect that attitude from the official Opposition, and I make no bones about it. There are points, however, that have to be made and one point I have to make is the following. Whilst it is vitally important that the national symbols be respected, one has to be extremely careful that one does not overdo things to the extent that one perhaps makes oneself appear to be a little neurotic on the issue.

An other aspect is the question of whether one should in fact have punishments involving money for offences in respect of national symbols. We in the NRP feel that desecration of the flag should be viewed as an extremely serious offence. We make no bones about it. It is an extremely serious offence. We do, however have reservations about whether it is desirable to have a fine at all. In the Committee Stage we propose to move an amendment to delete the question of money being involved. In other words, if a person dishonours the flag he will not have a chance of buying himself off. The judge will have a look at him to see how long he should spend in jail. That is the general thinking in so far as the NRP is concerned. We take this matter seriously enough to consider that. However, it must be remembered that a judge also has the right to impose a suspended sentence. One must therefore bear that factor in mind as well.

There are a number of reasons that would justify this sort of approach, bearing in mind that this particular piece of legislation was initiated as a consequence of a number of students on a university campus being rather stupid and dishonouring the flag. In the event of this legislation being passed, it will mean that the parents of such a student will be placed in a position where they have to decide whether they are going to let their son go to jail or pay possibly up to a R10 000 fine which, quite frankly, seems to be very unreasonable in that the parent in almost every instance will pay if he possibly can even though the parent himself may have the same feelings and views about the flag as we in this hon. House. This could therefore result in a person being unjustly punished because, regrettably, so often youngsters of the modern generation say that if father can pay, let him get on with it. They do not worry too much about it. This therefore is an aspect that has to be borne in mind, namely that the parent who is not guilty is the one who very frequently will have to find the money if we retain the situation where the parent has the option of paying a fine. Furthermore, I believe that knowing the implications of any sort of prison sentence, albeit deferred without the option of a fine, may well make people consider what they are doing a little more carefully.

I now wish to refer to the situation of the State President. Quite obviously as the head of State he must be accorded the respect that any head of State is accorded. I personally find this a little odd, although my party has no problem with it, in that I have always looked upon the question of the head of State being inviolate as being something that one does not even bother about. In the United Kingdom, if one wants to stand on Hyde Park Corner and pass derogatory remarks about the Queen or the Prime Minister, nobody gives a hoot about it. They merely say: Take it from whence it comes. Nonetheless, I do realize that in South Africa where we have rather strong emotions it may well be necessary to have this legislation which, of course, is currently on the Statute Book. However, whether it is really necessary to raise the amount from R2 000 to R10 000 to accommodate the inflation rate, the cost of living or something like that, is another matter. In the Committee Stage it may well be that there will be further debate on this particular point. However, we do not quarrel with the concept of the dignity of the State President being upheld.

There are one or two other points that I should like to touch upon, but in particular I want to mention clause 7 that covers the boundaries of the provinces. This clause is one that people who have been involved in provincial Government looked at very, very carefully because, as hon. members are well aware, the provinces are very jealous of the residual powers and authority that they still have. If at any time there is a suggestion that those powers and authorities be diminished, then, of course, they are very perturbed. Quite obviously, although the hon. the Minister made his point that it was in the original legislation only to protect the boundaries of any province, nobody in their right mind at that time thought that the Government was going to take hunks out of the middle of the Province.

That does not affect the boundaries and, of course, technically, it does not infringe the Act. However, nobody in his right mind in 1910 had any idea that there would be the excision of small portions or relatively small portions from the middle. Therefore, while I can concede that it does not affect the powers of the province to that extent, in theory one could excise the whole of the centre of a province leaving a half-mile boundary all round and say: That is all you have to govern. That, of course, is quite ridiculous. I know that it could not and would not happen. However, in theory it could happen.

They are still not in their right minds.

Well, that may be. Therefore, Sir, as far as we are concerned, we are not too happy about this. We accept that we are faced here with a fait accompli in that we already have the states of Transkei, Bophuthatswana, Venda and so forth which are countries which have been carved from the various provinces. Even though this has not had the effect of taking from one province and giving to another, it has created new countries which one may or may not consider to be another form of province. I cannot but wonder, Sir, why the hon. the Minister did not persuade the provinces concerned to petition. There must be some reason why the provinces did not petition in the first place and I have yet to find out what the reason for this was.

Because they did not think it was necessary.

Was it as simple as that? Well, I am really surprised because it would seem to me that petitioning would have been a very simple procedure. As far as the Cape, the Transvaal and the Orange Free State are concerned, they are NP controlled and I imagine the hon. the Minister would have had no difficulty in persuading them to petition for these excisions. There may perhaps have been a little more difficulty with Natal. However, on the other hand, the situation has never arisen as far as Natal is concerned, because there have been no excisions from Natal as at this particular stage.

I think you are on your way out in Natal.

Well, that is as may be. Does the hon. member mean he is going to give it all to kwaZulu? In any event, Sir, that is the situation. We are not too happy about this but, as a party, we are prepared to accept it although there may well be some further discussion of this point during the Committee Stage.

The only other point I wish to make in this regard is that we would just gently remind the hon. the Minister that as far as section 114 of the Republic of South Africa Constitution Act is concerned—there are two parts to it—we would be very, very unhappy indeed if the second portion of it were to be tampered with without any petition from the province concerned.

Are you referring now to the privileges and the powers?

Yes. I am referring to the second portion of section 114 which refers to the non-disbandment of provincial councils except on petition from the provincial council concerned. I say, therefore, that we would be very unhappy if there was any interference with these provisions, particularly in the light of certain speeches which the hon. the Minister is alleged to have made recently.

In so far as the clauses relating to the President’s Council are concerned, we are quite happy to accept them. As far as the provision requiring a member of the President’s Council to resign once he has been nominated, is concerned, this was obviously an oversight because it should have been brought in right at the very beginning in that it caused a certain amount of embarrassment at the time of the 1980 General Election. The other clauses in this regard are fairly consequential so we have no problem with them.

There is only one other clause in this Bill that does worry me personally and that is clause 9. It does not worry anybody else in my party at all. This clause contains the provision whereby any person who was not born in this country can be thrown out of the country if he does something wrong. [Interjections.] Well, I was not born here so I sincerely hope that I shall be able to behave myself to the extent where I shall not have to be thrown out of the country.

Don’t worry. You’ll behave in this party!

I promise the hon. member that if that should happen I shall give him the opportunity to petition Parliament.

Thank you very much.

Mr. Speaker, I felt that the points I have raised warranted specific mention. In so far as the flag itself is concerned, as I said at the very beginning, we in this party are not prepared to take second place to anybody in respect of loyalty to our country and our flag. We certainly support the principle of the protection of our national flag. However, as I have said, we shall be moving an amendment during the Committee Stage.

Mr. Speaker, to put the mind of the hon. member for Umbilo at rest I should like to say that I know him personally very well and if ever he should be in that dilemma, I am sure he could reckon on my support should he petition the hon. the Minister. He supports the Bill in principle. The certain technical problems which he has I am sure we can debate during the Committee Stage.

*I should like to deal with the provision that certain acts in respect of the national flag of the Republic are punishable as offences. Unfortunately it is true that there are elements in South Africa that will have to be dealt with. In this regard there are two aspects that are important. The first of these is the provision contained in the Bill, for action against individuals who violate the symbols of the freedom and sovereignty of the Republic of South Africa. In the second place there is the provision that provides for the deportation of foreigners. Here one thinks in particular of foreign students who make use of the hospitality of South Africa at highly subsidized institutions of study and cannot lay claim to South African birthright.

Laws or penal measures cannot instil patriotism. Nor can laws instil respect for one’s cultural heritage. Laws cannot force one to respect one’s national flag either. Nor is this the object which hon. members on that side of the House have in mind, because it is not the object of the measure to attempt to enforce patriotism and respect for the national flag.

The hon. member for Namakwaland has already dealt with similar legislation in many countries of the world and I think we can argue further on that aspect during the Committee Stage. The fact that there are elements in South Africa that blatantly and purposefully incite revolution by disparaging the symbol of freedom and sovereignty in South Africa, simply cannot be accepted by any government with courage and daring in South Africa.

Of course, people can easily ask what is so extremely sacrosanct about the national flag. A flag, together with the national anthem of a nation, is the symbol of its freedom and sovereignty. In the second place it is a sign of order and stability. This symbol of order and stability is suspended from the flag-pole of every magistrate’s court, police station, Government building and school in South Africa. Even when a nation is in mourning, this is indicated by its symbol, because then the national flag is flown at half mast. The flag is also a matter of pride abroad where it is flown at embassies and on the occasion of various sporting events. Finally, our national flag is symbolic of the history of South Africa.

If one sees the national flag waving in the breeze and this does not strike a chord within one, no one and nothing in the world can impress this upon one by means of legislation or whatever. The hon. the Prime Minister told us recently that people make sacrifices, work, live and die for self-determination in South Africa. They are still doing so today with regard to the flag of South Africa. That is why I was amazed when I read in one of the national newspapers of South Africa—one reads it with a degree of piety in The Argus if those elements that I am talking about, have the right to write leaders in newspapers that carry so much weight in the politics of South Africa, viz. the heading: “Patriotism by order”. This is what I read in The Argus of 18 June 1981. They say—

They say this as if the intention of this measure was to bring about respect and veneration amongst radical elements in South Africa. However, what else does The Argus say? I quote again—

I consider these statements to be the basest form of contempt and the most cruel violation of the integrity of the people of South Africa. Remarks of this nature amount to the worst degree of incitement to revolution in this country. I must also point out that it has been many years since I have encountered jingoism of this nature in South Africa, as it is now being reflected in this newspaper article.

I must say that the hon. member for Green Point really tried to make a responsible contribution in this House today. However, in a very subtle way he is trying to create the impression here that the Government and the Broederbond are responsible for legislation of this nature being placed on statute book. However, one does not hear a word of objection from that hon. member about the type of people who desecrated the flag of South Africa at the University of the Witwatersrand. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Green Point must just listen to me for a moment, please. However, there are elements in his party who try to gloss over certain actions. I should now like to quote what the hon. member for Sandton said—

Unfortunately, this is a situation that we cannot accept. If people want to register the opposition to the Government by way of desecrating and disparaging the symbols of freedom and sovereignty, it is now being glossed over. What the hon. member for Sandton’s argument actually amounts to, is that if one wants to symbolize one’s opposition of the Government, one is being given a blank cheque to do so. When this desecration of the flag took place at the University of the Witwatersrand, and those statements were heard in the sitting-rooms of everyone in South Africa, and the deeds were seen on their television sets, I feel that it led to all moderate English-speaking people, as well as Afrikaans-speaking people who were not supporters of the NP, to begin to stream to the side of the Government, for the very reason that they treat behaviour of this kind with the contempt that it deserves. Therefore, regardless of what hon. members on the opposite side may say, in my mind, arguments to the effect that penalties should not be too heavy in this case, do not hold water. After all, we simply cannot afford all sorts of elements, particularly people from outside South Africa, people who use this country’s hospitality at our universities, to carry on in such a way and abuse their opportunities and privileges.

However, The Argus also published another article, on 29 July 1981, under the following heading: “Security Threat?”. I quote—

We accept this. We appreciate it. However, something always has to be added at the end—

With a remark of this kind, coming from a national newspaper like The Argus, one can realize why it has become necessary for the hon. the Minister to introduce this legislation. Therefore, what this legislation is actually aiming at, is the protection and defence of our national symbols from those elements to which I have just referred. The Government cannot be overthrown at the polling booth. That is why these elements show their disrespect towards the national symbols. They bum the flag of South Africa, raise their right fist in the air and give the Black power salute, all simply to announce their contempt of the South African Government. Taking into account the total onslaught against South Africa, matters of this nature simply cannot be tolerated. That is why it gives me great pleasure to support this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, it is a pity that the hon. member for Turffontein has now done the very thing the hon. the Minister requested us not to do, and that is to arouse emotions by speaking of blatant revolution allegedly being incited, of Black power salutes and of Jingoism. This is not the kind of language we would have wished to use in this debate and consequently I have no intention of continuing in that vein.

I should like to confine myself to the first clause of the Bill, the clause which deals with the flag. I want to discuss this very briefly.

†We have already heard from the hon. member for Namaqualand that the present South African flag is one born out of compromise, since different languages, cultural problems, various colonies and various republics gave the back-drop to the birth of the flag. We also heard, from the hon. member for Green Point, that even today there are many dividing factors in our country. We know that South Africa is constitutionally in an evolutionary process. We know that as far as the constitutional set-up is concerned we are evolving and developing and that the status quo has changed. That is a situation in which national symbols normally come under heavy pressure from within the country. This is so because there are different pressures operating, different cross-currents from different groups with different political aspirations. What I wish to do is to try to put our present position into perspective in order to see whether we can compare our present situation of constitutional change with stages that other countries have gone through in earlier times. The hon. member for Namaqualand has already referred to various other European countries that enacted legislation embodying penalties for dishonouring the flag. We support the principle that that should be done in this country.

A very well-known Japanese author, who has written books on national flags, once said—

Now that is a fine quotation.

I agree with those sentiments, because any country that allows its flag to be dishonoured must sink and must inevitably simply accede to more and more dishonour. We therefore support the principle.

In other States where there were also pressures operating against the flag, similar measures were introduced. I am thinking, for example, of the situation in Russia after the revolution and the situation in Germany after the formation of the empire which consisted of various States, kingdoms and principalities. How did those countries deal with the flag situation? How did they approach the whole question?

It is important to look at the penalties that those people imposed at those times because the major criticism from this side of the House bears upon the aspect of the penalties. I believe that there has been a loss of perspective as far as that is concerned. Let us first look at the position in Russia after the revolution. We know that at that time there were violent cross-currents and we know that it was necessary for the people to protect the flag. In their criminal code they consequently made provision, as a penalty for dishonouring their flag, for a minimum sentence of imprisonment of six months.

That gives an indication of how that country saw the dishonouring of the flag at a time when there was violence and when many different nationalities were not prepared to accept the flag. If one looks at the situation in Germany in 1867 when the Empire was founded through a combination of former kingdoms etc., many kingdoms had to give up their flags in favour of the flag of the Empire. Again it became necessary to introduce legislation because there were many different strong views against the flag. It was so bad that many principalities and kingdoms refused to accept the Empire flag and refused to hoist it. A penalty was provided, and the maximum was two years’ imprisonment.

That is the type of situation in which, I believe, we find ourselves now. Although we do not find ourselves in turmoil, we do have developments involving different nationalities and aspirations. The American Code, to which the hon. member for Namaqualand referred, makes provision for a fine of $1 000 or one year’s imprisonment. That is an example of a considered penalty, a penalty which reflects the aspirations of the American people, and we know that the ordinary American shows his respect for the flag far more than we in South Africa do. School-children, sports functions etc. are far more closely associated with the American flag than is the case in South Africa. One should therefore look at the American example and take it as a positive, and considered example as far as penalties are concerned. We are over-reacting but that aspect will be dealt with in more detail during the Committee Stage.

When one considers the flag issue, one must bear in mind that in South Africa the flag was designed and is revered mainly by us, the White population. We know for a fact that the Coloured, Asian and Black populations of the country did not have a part in it. Therefore we must accept that the loyalty and respect for the flag among those population groups inevitably cannot be the same as that which we as Whites show and should show. For that reason alone we ought to take into account their situation when enacting such drastic penalties in a provision which did not exist before.

The other provisions of the Bill have our approval in principle and we shall deal further with the penalties during the Committee Stage.

Mr. Speaker, a great deal has been said today about the principle of this legislation and I should not like to repeat everything. I want to confine myself more specifically to the principle underlying the nature of the penalty linked to desecration of the flag. To be able to do so, one has to examine what the crime of desecration of the flag really entails and what it really implies. Consequently one must in addition examine what the flag in actual fact symbolizes. The State is an abstraction. In its form of organized citizenry the State requires a symbol to make that abstraction tangible and visible to the citizens so that they are able to associate themselves with it. There are other symbols as well, such as the State President and the national anthem, but the flag is the most visible symbol of the unity of the citizenry, and the unity of the citizenry is to a large extent the social contract which is entered into when the citizens come together and say: “We elect to coexist in peace and order in a particular way.” That, then, is what a flag of a country means in essence.

Therefore, when that flag is desecrated, it means that the desire of the citizenry to live together in peace and in a specific order, is held in contempt. For that reason the desecration of the flag is one of the primary methods used by anarchists and revolutionaries. Quite apart from any other meaning it may have, it provides this specific handle for people with such intentions.

Psychological preparation of the masses for eventual participation in a revolution is one of the primary prerequisites. Mao Tsetung said that the revolutionary is like the fish that has to swim in the waters of the nation (volk) as the sea. If the revolutionary or terrorist cannot swim in the goodwill of the population, there can be no revolution. That is why the creation of a revolutionary climate is the very first step in the direction of revolution. In the creation of a revolutionary climate the very first step is the discrediting of the existing order, the discrediting of the desire to live together under a specific order. Before it is possible to establish a revolutionary system, the existing order must be destroyed in advance and there is nothing as effective as impugning the symbol of the existing social contract, as causing it to be held in contempt, as destroying it symbolically. Accordingly when that flag, which is such a powerful symbol of the national unity, is destroyed, this has great symbolic value. That is why, although it is true that not every instance of desecration of the flag is necessarily aimed at revolution and terrorism, it may, on the other hand form an integral part of that revolutionary process in some cases. Consequently I think that it is entirely appropriate that the maximum penalty for the desecration of the flag shall be five years’ imprisonment, which is also the minimum penalty for a person convicted of terrorism and subversion. It creates a continuity which affords the court full freedom to interpret quite freely in which of these categories a specific act falls. If it is an incidental technical offence, the court is still entitled, for example, to find the person in question guilty and release him, but if the court feels that it forms part of the creation of a revolutionary climate and the undermining of the legitimacy of the State as a gathering of citizens, it may come close to imposing the maximum penalty. If the court finds that it does indeed form a fully integrated part of the creation of a revolutionary climate, it may find the person guilty of terrorism and impose a heavier penalty.

Then I just want to add the following. It is that I believe that the South African flag in particular is a symbol which we must regard with profound respect and preserve at all costs. Like few other flags in the world, the South African flag is pre-eminently the result of the widely divergent emotional strivings of people who came together in the knowledge and realization that they had to coexist in this country, whether they liked it or not. They reviewed their history and created a symbol for themselves, a symbol which was in a certain sense a compromise, but in another sense also the expression of their will to co-exist.

That same spirit of co-operation, under the difficult circumstances of the creation of a greater society in the midst of centrifugal forces, will have to be the hallmark of our approach in the years ahead as well. That is why the South African flag symbolizes far more to us than the ordinary flag of an ordinary State. This is the case because the South African flag is in addition the symbol of our ability to co-exist under difficult circumstances.

For that reason I do not only want to make an appeal for the introduction of the penal provision for the desecration of the flag, for heavy penalties for the desecration of the flag, I also want to appeal to those who demand the replacement of our flag by another one, not to continue with that effort of theirs. This symbol which we have created, which has become dear to us, under which three generations of South Africans were born and have grown up, under which thousands of South African soldiers fought, died and were buried, this symbol of South African nationhood, is something we must prize as a precious treasure.

Mr. Speaker, there are four aspects of this legislation on which I should like to comment. The first is that it is an irony—perhaps a sweet irony, but an irony nevertheless—that this legislation is being introduced here by that side of the House. If one looks at the sometimes turbulent history of South Africa and one considers the elements that have played their part in regard to the symbols of the State during certain periods in our history, one can only be delighted that we have reached the stage today in which the NP is introducing legislation providing for protection of our flag. There was a time when this flag was far from being an accepted national symbol.

Just prior to the fiftieth anniversary of our flag a very interesting report appeared in Die Burger, on 30 May 1978. That report dealt with the turbulent times that preceded the adoption of our flag legislation in 1928. I was frankly amazed to read of the extent of the bitterness and the wrangling in South Africa during those times. I should like to quote very briefly from that report—

That was only one of the instances when Natal wanted to go its own way. [Interjections.] I quote again—

There was even talk of a split in the Cabinet. I quote—

Against that background I as a young South African find it encouraging that we have now reached the point where we all agree—regardless of our party affiliations—that this is our national symbol and that we are prepared to accept and protect it.

I should like to associate myself with the remark made by the hon. member for Green Point when he made reference to the unfortunate fact that there is still from time to time a flutter that arises from certain elements that we must change the flag and go back even further in our history and reflect only a section of our multifacetted society. I think that those hon. members, on whatever side of the House they may be, who have influence with the people who cause these flutters from time to time, should use that influence to suppress these suggestions because they are a source of irritation. Speaking as a member of the postwar generation in South Africa, I should like to say that we have buried that past and it is a satisfaction to me that the flag does not evoke bitter memories. We accept the flag as a simple established fact of the South African nation. Speaking as an English-speaking South African, it pleases me that a little part of our flag reflects the Union Jack, as I am sure it pleases other elements in the House that a little part of the flag reflects their history. It is not because the Union Jack symbolizes an on-going link with the United Kingdom; not at all, but it is merely that it recognizes the contribution that the section of the South African society to which I belong made to the building up of the South African nation. It is good too that other sections of the community are also recognized on the flag so we can join in honouring the flag.

That brings me to this point, however, and that is that I believe we have reached a pleasing level of maturity about our national symbol in terms of which we have overcome the bitternesses of the past. We must recognize that that maturity is an asset and we should continue to adopt a low-key approach to the national symbol. I think the hon. member for Umbilo made an important point when he referred to the United Kingdom and their reaction to criticism even of the Queen. He said that if a man wants to stand up on Hyde Park Corner and make a fool of himself, he can do it. It is taken from whence it comes. I think it is an example of national maturity when a nation can tolerate the few odd elements who go off the rails. It reminds me of the spirit of General Smuts who said: “The dogs bark, but the caravan moves on.” That is an example of a mature nation, and the extent to which we can conduct ourselves in the same way will be to our credit. We must be very careful that we do not fall victim to overreaction because overreaction in protecting symbols that have a high emotional content can evoke further provocation. I do not want to take it further than that but I think it is a point we must be very careful to bear in mind. As the hon. member for Green Point said, we are not faced with an epidemic in South Africa. We are not faced with a whole series of incidents of flag-burning day after day; not at all. There was one emotional outburst earlier this year and that was it. We must be very careful not to inflate the incident out of all proportion. Wherever possible we must stand aloof from those elements who may seek deliberate provocation by such acts.

The final aspect with which I should like to deal is the fact that we support this legislation with a certain measure of sadness. I say sadness because this nation has survived for 53Vi years with its present flag without this kind of legislation. We have gone through the turbulent times I have mentioned earlier, we have gone through a world war in which participation was highly disputed and we have fought and died under this flag without the sort of protection that is now being proposed. We shall support the legislation, as it is something that happens in other countries throughout the world. We do not have a quarrel with it, but it is with a measure of sadness that we see the need for it. We must ask ourselves at this time: Why is it that after 53½ years under this flag, after reaching a point where all sides of the House accept it as their national symbol, we have nevertheless reached the stage where we must introduce this legislation? We must look deep into our South African society to find answers to that question. When we start to ask these deep questions we shall find answers that require response from this House. If our flag is becoming a symbol of controversy, it is something this House must take account of, not only in the form of legislation of this kind but also in the form of far more comprehensive legislation.