A third thing which I think they put a high premium on, is that they want order to be maintained and they want standards of living to be maintained at a high level.

My experience in this is that the whites are willing to accept almost anything, provided that the standard of living is not dropped and provided order is maintained. They have built things over a long period of time with great difficulty. They think that if that should be lowered then what has their work been for?

Q: Why does the South African government find censorship such a necessary part of its political existence?

A: As you know, we have always been Calvinistically inclined. We're really religiously minded, not only the white people but the black people too. There is a real desire to keep high moral standards, which I think is understandable in the context of South Africa. Despite the many bad things, this type of censorship is the best thing because it fosters the upliftment of everyone.

Q: But when we speak of censorship, we're not only talking of Playboy magazine.

A: Yes, yes, I understand. I suppose from your point of view there is a difficulty, but I've tried to explain that, in this setup, it's not extreme.

Q: If I understand your position correctly on the pass laws, you are opposed to them. You have said that they must be eliminated. Can they be eliminated? What would be the alternative?

A: The Riekert Commission advocated dramatic change in the system and specifically in influx control. They recommended that the yardstick for the people in this country must be a job and a house. The Riekert Commission's report has been accepted in principle by the government. This is a tremendous change in the system, but because of the government's uncertainty as to the short-term effect of this principle, they weren't quite prepared to phase out the 72 hour ruling at once. (Any non-European unable to produce a pass upon demand is subjected to 72 hour detention.) If the job and house principle would work in practice, then I think I would be in a position, I hope, to phase out the 72 hour thing very quickly. On the question of the so-called pass law, I've stated publicly in Parliament and outside of Parliament and in the United States, that I detest the damn thing. The sooner we get rid of it, the better.

Q: Was the increase in fines for illegal workers a political compromise to save Crossroads? (Crossroads became the focal point of conflict between the right and left wings of the National Party. An influx of illegal workers into the area resulted in serious social and economic problems. The right wing of the National Party wanted to expel the illegal migrants regardless of the length of time they had lived there. The liberal wing of the party wanted to grant amnesty to the illegal workers and upgrade the township.)

A: Yes. I read somewhere that someone said it was a political compromise. The first time I heard that was when I read it in the press. I was very surprised. I never thought it was a compromise. Let's look at it from a practical point of view. What had been the ingredients I had been dealing with as a real humanitarian, because that is what I am, and a man of compassion. I was dealing with a factual situation of twenty thousand squatters and their living conditions in that squatters camp were not good. In addition, there are more than six thousand coloureds out of employment in the Cape Town area and just as many blacks. That is over and above the unemployed in Crossroads. It is not a highly industrialized area. At the same time, it would have cost us between 15 and 20 million to rehouse the Crossroads people. Now they are going to be housed properly and I am very proud of that. That was a real "crossroads" in the history of this country in my way of thinking if ever there was one.

Against that background, it was not so unwise, I think, to increase the fine for illegal workers. If not, we would have had another 20,000 people coming into the area without jobs. The 20,000 we are presently trying to assist would be ousted in this fiasco.

I am not an advocate of migrant labor. I think it is a system with very bad repercussions. If I could do away with it, I would. I would rather have people on a family basis settled wherever they can find a job or a home. If you cannot supply them with either a job or a home, then what are you doing? You are creating a really bad situation. In the city they cannot even plant vegetables to eat. At least in the rural parts they have more to live off of if they haven't got a job. In the city you get an awful slum condition.

It is against that background that the question of increasing fines in order to make it more difficult for people to move in that the decision was made. My point is that it is a very rational step from a practical point of view to obviate misery.

Q: There were reports in the paper about two weeks ago that 6,000 coloured families are being uprooted to make way for "white rezoning."

A: Where was that?