Pamphlet replies on apartheid

Press, Volume CXII, Issue 33061, 31 October 1972, Page 4

Pamphlet replies on apartheid

A reply to a pamphlet on South Africa distributed earlier this year by C.0.R.5.0. has been published by the South African Consulate-General. Similar in appearance to the C.0.R.5.0. publication, the pamphlet is entitled “Separate Development in South Africa.”

The C.0.R.5.0. pamphlet, when it appeared, was attacked by Lieutenant-Colonel A. C. R. Elderton, of the Southern Africa Friends Association, as being political, an unjustified attack on South Africa, and containing false information.

The Christchurch secretary of C.0.R.5.0. (Mr R. Consedine) replied at the time that the pamphlet was produced as part of the organisation’s information service in response to public demand, and that it was part of a “Information on South Africa’’ series produced by the United Nations unit on apartheid.

A copy of the South African Information Service pamphlet replying to the C.0.R.5.0. pamphlet has been sent to “The Press” by LieutenantColonel Eledton.

In its introduction, it says that the declared function of the United Nations Unit on apartheid is not to be im-

partial or objective about apartheid, but to give maximum publicity to its “evils” —but not to its positive aspects.

Separate development in South Africa is not “20 years old" but 320 years old in terms of custom, tradition, and historical development, the pamphlet says. On wages, it quotes the Prime Minister of South Africa (Mr Vorster) as saying that the wages of nonwhites in that country have increased almost threefold since 1948. “Many industries in South Africa have been paying African workers at the same rate as white workers for many years, trade union leaders said,” the pamphlet quotes the “Rand Daily Mail” as saying.

It says also that among South Africa’s non-whites there are 12,000 self-employed businessmen, professional men and senior civil servants and three Bantu millionaires.

On infant mortality, the publication says that the statement in the C.0.R.5.0. pamphlet that the African rate is 200 to 250 per 1000 live births is incorrect. The correct figure is 101 per 1000, which is well below average for the rest of Africa.

The population growth rate was much higher for the African population than for the white population. There was no legal provision which “compels African workers to accept employment on pain of criminal penalties,” the pamphlet says, and the power to issue and terminate working permits of Bantu was not among the duties of Bantu labour officers. It was true that minimum wages for Bantu were fixed, but not maximum wages.

On social services, it says that the Bantu pays a nominal 50c registration fee when admitted to hospital. Apart from that, it says, their treatment is completely free These concessions are not available to whites.

"The implication that white doctors treat white patients

only is totally incorrect. They treat patients of all races.” It says also that statements that "aged Africans who are unable to obtain a lodger’s permit do not Qualify for a pension” and that "under SA. law no woman may become the legal tenant of a house” are incorrect. On education, the pamphlet says that there are more than three million Bantu children at 11,500 schools staffed by 52,000 teachers, 98 4 per cent of whom are Bantu. There are 34 Bantu teacher training colleges and three Bantu universities, and where certain courses are not available, at non-white universities, students can study at certain white universities. More than 200,000 new pupils are admitted to Bantu schools each year, and new schools for the Bantu are being built at the rate of more than 300 a year.

The statement that Europeans own 80 per cent of the land in South Africa is a distortion, the pamphlet says. Compared with 410,000 square miles of white territory (27 per cent of it is too arid for agriculture) the dependent and independent homelands comprise about 300,000 square miles.

“It is correct that no African may own land in the white areas, but it is also correct that no white may own land in African areas.”

On political rights, the pamphlet says that the Bantu homelands are being groomed for sovereign independence, when each will control its own affairs.

“The onus of deciding when independence will be granted rests upon the Bantu themselves, since each homeland has the right at any time to make this request, and the Government has given the assurance that it is then prepared to discuss the formulation of an independent Constitution.” “South Africa is a multinational country, and the problem is not to produce a single way of life, or a common identity which will be shared by all, because this would be impossible to achieve, and would be unacceptable to the various communities which are intent upon preserving their own separate identities. “The various laws and customs in existence at present represent an attempt to rationalise and control a pattern of community relations which has grown up spontaneously in South Africa during the last three centuries,” the pamphlet says.