South Africa

Press, 9 November 1978, Page 16

South Africa

Sir, —Mr Lindhorst makes it seem that my views are at variance with what “statistics show.” As a statistician I abhor such use of figures, but accepted his ratio of 7:1 showing that the major industry of gold mining values a white labourer as worth seven natives. Fiji is a poor country but does not keep its mine workers below slave subsistence, or herd them into concrete barns inferior to Norfolk Island convict quarters. South Africa should stand on its own record, but in every letter Mr Lindhorst must trot out his scratchy phonograph record about other African countries—nations which had to start from scratch under continued military and economic attack from the dispossessed supranational exploiters. The whole story is that South Africa is relatively prosperous, but its ruling minority is determined not to share its wealth fairly among all South Africans.— Yours, etc.. VARIAN J. WILSON. November 6, 1978.

Sir, — The South African Consul-General is right to remind us (November 6) that South Africa is criticised because even the relatively “high” living standards of non-whites cannot justify their exploitation. But relatively high compared with whom? — with citizens of other African countries without the abundant natural resources and considerable supply of European (including New Zealand) expertise and capital that South Africa enjoys. He neglects to mention the percentage of whites in South Africa with an income less

than $350 a year. This surely is the comparison on which South Africa is criticised. In addition, he points out that it is wrong to conclude that universal suffrage necessarily ensures human rights, but he must agree that the lack of this, and other inequalities in South Africa positively prevent basic human rights to the majority of its residents. It is good to hear that the Government and industry in South Africa advocate removal of unequal laws and wages.—Yours, etc., J. D. MUMFORD. November 6, 1978. j