Many of us were so excited a little while ago when the African National Congress (ANC) began to splinter and the Congress of the People (COPE) broke away. For the first time in our young democracy we seemed to have a realistic opposition that could appeal to the black masses. We all thought that the rise of COPE signalled the demise of the ANC's dominance of politics in South Africa.
With the obvious lack of service delivery many supporters of the ANC have been looking for another party to vote and when COPE arrived they found what they thought was a realistic option. However, since their first party conference it has all gone downhill. Leadership battles, policy disagreements and lack of vision have prevented the party from providing the opposition we all hoped they would (or could) be. So now that COPE has all but fallen apart it seems as if the 1.3 odd million people who chose to vote for them wasted their time and will go back to voting for the ANC, or worse, not vote at all.
If we take a superficial look it seems as if the whole process has been a failure. But if we look a little bit deeper into the unraveling of the party we can pull out at least one very positive development for our young democracy: choice.
Many of the ANC supporters would never have thought that they could vote for anyone other than the party that was the catalyst for the downfall of Apartheid; COPE shattered that mindset. They have crossed a line many thought would never be crossed and with any luck we will find that the Rubicon of race politics has been traversed and South Africans will move away from their 'traditional' party.
If nothing else the rise (and fall) of COPE has shattered some mindsets and begun the process of moving to a real democracy where our citizens vote for the best party and not the traditional party.
Monday, June 7, 2010
Monday, May 31, 2010
What is the real South Africa
The other day I couldn't wipe the smile off my face as I watched countless flags flap around cars all over Johannesburg. I was so excited for the scores of foreigners arriving soon to experience the infectious warm-hearted attitude of the people of our wonderful nation. I have been to a number of countries in Europe and no where have I met people as friendly as South Africans.
Then I had a reality check and realised how jaded I (and so many others) have become; I am very hesitant to stop for someone who is broken down on the highway, open my window for beggars or speak to strangers, all for fear of being a victim of crime. I get the feeling that we have lost what makes us such wonderful group of people. We don't trust each other and close ourselves off to those around us; think boomed-off communities. It would be an absolute tragedy if a few hundred thousand tourists don't get experience what we are truly like simply because of a crime problem created by a few thugs and political ineptitude.
I am sick of hearing politicians spew out rubbish about being committed to fixing crime. If the 'powers that be' were really interested in fixing the crime in our country they could; they simply do not have the will. Human beings have proved that if we have a will, then we can make it happen. China was able to increase their literacy rate from about 20% in 1950 to over 90% within 15 years. Literacy is a lot harder to achieve than fixing crime; it involves educating teachers before educating the people. They had the political will and made it happen. Politicians in South Africa have no desire to solve our most burning issue.
There is a problem and there are many possible solutions. I propose one: until the crime situation in South Africa is fixed up politicians should not be permitted to have body-guards and private protection. Take that away and watch the crime-scourge plummet.
Added to this, the same politicians should be forbidden from sending their kids to private schools. How can they justifibly be responsible for government education but not trust it enough to use it themselves. Force these politicians into over-crowded schools and I can guarantee there will be a drastic change in quality.
Thoughts?
Then I had a reality check and realised how jaded I (and so many others) have become; I am very hesitant to stop for someone who is broken down on the highway, open my window for beggars or speak to strangers, all for fear of being a victim of crime. I get the feeling that we have lost what makes us such wonderful group of people. We don't trust each other and close ourselves off to those around us; think boomed-off communities. It would be an absolute tragedy if a few hundred thousand tourists don't get experience what we are truly like simply because of a crime problem created by a few thugs and political ineptitude.
I am sick of hearing politicians spew out rubbish about being committed to fixing crime. If the 'powers that be' were really interested in fixing the crime in our country they could; they simply do not have the will. Human beings have proved that if we have a will, then we can make it happen. China was able to increase their literacy rate from about 20% in 1950 to over 90% within 15 years. Literacy is a lot harder to achieve than fixing crime; it involves educating teachers before educating the people. They had the political will and made it happen. Politicians in South Africa have no desire to solve our most burning issue.
There is a problem and there are many possible solutions. I propose one: until the crime situation in South Africa is fixed up politicians should not be permitted to have body-guards and private protection. Take that away and watch the crime-scourge plummet.
Added to this, the same politicians should be forbidden from sending their kids to private schools. How can they justifibly be responsible for government education but not trust it enough to use it themselves. Force these politicians into over-crowded schools and I can guarantee there will be a drastic change in quality.
Thoughts?
Wednesday, May 12, 2010
Slap on the wrist (or is it the face)
Like most people suspected, the ANC do not have the guts to challenge Julius Malema and take him to task on his behaviour.
After getting most of the disciplinary board to recuse themselves he promptly got three of the four charges dropped against him. The three dropped charges were; publically attacking and bad-mouthing a BBC journalist, continuing to sing the 'kill the boer' song after being banned by the ANC and the courts of this country, and for openly declaring support for Zanu PF and thus seriously denting the unity government there. He pleaded guilty to the final charge of 'undermining Jacob Zuma' and was fined R10 000 and told to go for political training and anger management classes. This is what you may call a slap on the wrist and Malema smiles all the way to school.
I saw this coming, but what upsets me most is how the ANC has revealed how self-centred they are. They punish Malema for upsetting the President but they are prepared to drop charges that embarrass us in the international media, affect and upset an indigenous race group in South Africa, and threaten the political security of one of our neighbours. This is completely unacceptable and a blatant slap in the face for all South African citizens.
After getting most of the disciplinary board to recuse themselves he promptly got three of the four charges dropped against him. The three dropped charges were; publically attacking and bad-mouthing a BBC journalist, continuing to sing the 'kill the boer' song after being banned by the ANC and the courts of this country, and for openly declaring support for Zanu PF and thus seriously denting the unity government there. He pleaded guilty to the final charge of 'undermining Jacob Zuma' and was fined R10 000 and told to go for political training and anger management classes. This is what you may call a slap on the wrist and Malema smiles all the way to school.
I saw this coming, but what upsets me most is how the ANC has revealed how self-centred they are. They punish Malema for upsetting the President but they are prepared to drop charges that embarrass us in the international media, affect and upset an indigenous race group in South Africa, and threaten the political security of one of our neighbours. This is completely unacceptable and a blatant slap in the face for all South African citizens.
Monday, May 10, 2010
Power Play
The election battle for the leadership of the ANC in Gauteng is over and Paul Mashatile has ben re-elected as chairman. Good news or bad news? That is not the point of this article. What interests me more is what he said when questioned about his relationship with Nomvula Mokhanyane.
The media and opposition parties have asked whether or not his disagreements with Mokhanyane will affect service delivery. They also asked if Mokhanyane will be fired; he stated that she will keep her job as long as she does what the ANC tells her to do. On the surface this seems like a simple enough answer but scratch the surface and his answer reveals the heart of the ANC. Mokhanyane is not answerable to Paul Mashatile, the ANC, or even Jacob Zuma; she is answerable to us, the voting public but the ANC does not care.
In 2008 the ANC came out in public and said that Thabo Mbeki would be removed as the president of the country. The ANC has an overwhelming majority in Parliament, thus the removal of Mbeki was a fait accompli but the vote still had to take place in Parliament. The ANC showed their contempt for both Parliament and government by announcing his removal before even mentioning it to Parliament.
The ANC does not believe in democracy or Parliament, they feel that they are single-handedly controlling South Africa and until the voting public stand up and vote for someone else, the ANC will continue this attitude and the ones who suffer will be you and I.
The media and opposition parties have asked whether or not his disagreements with Mokhanyane will affect service delivery. They also asked if Mokhanyane will be fired; he stated that she will keep her job as long as she does what the ANC tells her to do. On the surface this seems like a simple enough answer but scratch the surface and his answer reveals the heart of the ANC. Mokhanyane is not answerable to Paul Mashatile, the ANC, or even Jacob Zuma; she is answerable to us, the voting public but the ANC does not care.
In 2008 the ANC came out in public and said that Thabo Mbeki would be removed as the president of the country. The ANC has an overwhelming majority in Parliament, thus the removal of Mbeki was a fait accompli but the vote still had to take place in Parliament. The ANC showed their contempt for both Parliament and government by announcing his removal before even mentioning it to Parliament.
The ANC does not believe in democracy or Parliament, they feel that they are single-handedly controlling South Africa and until the voting public stand up and vote for someone else, the ANC will continue this attitude and the ones who suffer will be you and I.
Wednesday, May 5, 2010
Two-Thirds Terror
During the course of a lesson on the difference between the ruling party and government in class today, one of my students asked what the ANC would do if they lost power in South Africa. Would the ANC run the same course as so many other independence organisations and refuse to accept the defeat, turning the country into a dictatorship?
In the heady days after the release of Mandela many South African's were worried about what the ANC would do when they came into power. People stock piled canned goods and cleaned out the barrels of their guns. The elections came and went, the ANC won and the country continued in peace and prosperity.
The next 'worry' that emerged was what the ANC would do should they get two-thirds majority. Many were convinced that they would change the constitution the first chance they got. In 1999 and 2004 the ANC got the dreaded 'two-thirds' but left the constitution alone.
In the elections last year the ANC suddenly engaged reverse gear and they lost their two-thirds majority and the rule of the Western Cape. The ANC accepted both these loses and there has been no hint of them not accepting these gut-wrenching defeats.
If the history of the ANC in South Africa is anything to go by then I think the citizens of this country should not worry about what the ANC will do. Like any other political party they will fight to regain power but they won't resort to violence and totalitarian tactics to do it.
What do you think?
In the heady days after the release of Mandela many South African's were worried about what the ANC would do when they came into power. People stock piled canned goods and cleaned out the barrels of their guns. The elections came and went, the ANC won and the country continued in peace and prosperity.
The next 'worry' that emerged was what the ANC would do should they get two-thirds majority. Many were convinced that they would change the constitution the first chance they got. In 1999 and 2004 the ANC got the dreaded 'two-thirds' but left the constitution alone.
In the elections last year the ANC suddenly engaged reverse gear and they lost their two-thirds majority and the rule of the Western Cape. The ANC accepted both these loses and there has been no hint of them not accepting these gut-wrenching defeats.
If the history of the ANC in South Africa is anything to go by then I think the citizens of this country should not worry about what the ANC will do. Like any other political party they will fight to regain power but they won't resort to violence and totalitarian tactics to do it.
What do you think?
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
Marvel
At the end of the Second World War there was a buzz of liberation around the world. Starting with India, many colonies began to rebel against their external dictator and independence was won in many parts of the world.
Along with the liberation came joy, hope and excitement. Liberation leaders promised freedom, liberty and prosperity and ensured a new life for all. These dreams quickly evaporated and all the promises rang hollow. The independence movements became characterised by one of two things; leaders holding on to power until their death, or leaders fighting for power leading to huge amounts of death.
Yesterday we South Africans celebrated 16 years since our first democratic elections and I continue to marvel at how we have broken the mould. Whether we like to admit it or not white people did not want to relinquish their political hold of South Africa. However, when they lost in an election they faded into the night with minimal violence. Mandela then broke another mould by stating he would only stay for one term and then he stuck by it. When Mandela was asked to choose his succesor he suggested Cyril Ramaphosa. Thabo Mbeki had other ideas and wrangled his way into power and 9 years of virtual opposition-free leadership of Mzanzi. Despite Mandela's disagreement with Thabo Mbeki as President we continued a violence-free transition of power.
In a dramatic turn of events in 2008 Mbeki was booted out and Kgalema Motlanthe placed as interim leader. The third unwanted change of leadership and still no bloodshed. However, many were worried that Motlanthe would fight to keep the power that was suddenly thrust upon him. These fears proved unfounded and Jacob Zuma became the Fourth President of the New South Africa. Many people in our country disagree with Zuma, his life-style and his leadership but again we have had no bloodshed. Time after time we have proved that South African's are different and that we will not fall into the trap of other liberation movements.
As we celebrate our Freedom let us also take time to thank the leaders -both past and present- for creating the South Africa that we live in today and marvel at how truly different we are.
Along with the liberation came joy, hope and excitement. Liberation leaders promised freedom, liberty and prosperity and ensured a new life for all. These dreams quickly evaporated and all the promises rang hollow. The independence movements became characterised by one of two things; leaders holding on to power until their death, or leaders fighting for power leading to huge amounts of death.
Yesterday we South Africans celebrated 16 years since our first democratic elections and I continue to marvel at how we have broken the mould. Whether we like to admit it or not white people did not want to relinquish their political hold of South Africa. However, when they lost in an election they faded into the night with minimal violence. Mandela then broke another mould by stating he would only stay for one term and then he stuck by it. When Mandela was asked to choose his succesor he suggested Cyril Ramaphosa. Thabo Mbeki had other ideas and wrangled his way into power and 9 years of virtual opposition-free leadership of Mzanzi. Despite Mandela's disagreement with Thabo Mbeki as President we continued a violence-free transition of power.
In a dramatic turn of events in 2008 Mbeki was booted out and Kgalema Motlanthe placed as interim leader. The third unwanted change of leadership and still no bloodshed. However, many were worried that Motlanthe would fight to keep the power that was suddenly thrust upon him. These fears proved unfounded and Jacob Zuma became the Fourth President of the New South Africa. Many people in our country disagree with Zuma, his life-style and his leadership but again we have had no bloodshed. Time after time we have proved that South African's are different and that we will not fall into the trap of other liberation movements.
As we celebrate our Freedom let us also take time to thank the leaders -both past and present- for creating the South Africa that we live in today and marvel at how truly different we are.
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
Mass (media) hysteria
I spoke to a friend the other day who said that he is very cross with the media in South Africa as they are creating hysteria by always writing about Julius Malema.
What do you think? Should the media talk about him, or ignore him and he will go away?
Looking forward to your comments
Lance
What do you think? Should the media talk about him, or ignore him and he will go away?
Looking forward to your comments
Lance
Saturday, April 17, 2010
Free for all?
Section 29 Education
(1) Everyone has the right -
(a) to a basic education, including adult basic education; and
(b) to further education, which the state, through reasonable measures, must make progressively available and accessible.
We have a problem!
The government considers a pass mark to be 35% and even with that sickenly-low rate the Matric pass rate for 2009 at government schools was 60.7%. Compounding this shockingly low rate is that of all the students who start government school only 46% of them finish (WET, Corene de and WOLHUTER, Charl. A transitiological study of some South African educational issues.) That basically means that of all the 18 year olds in our country this year only about 30% of them have a matric certificate.
Private schools (IEB) are doing well in South Africa and the pass rate was 97.42%. While this sounds good, only 8052 students wrote the IEB exams. Compare this to the 580 577 government schools students and private schools amount to about 1.4% of matrics in the country
So who is to blame for this dire problem and how do we fix it?
There are a myriad of factors such as lack of resources, poorly qualified teachers and lack of discipline but for me there are two main factors:
Under the Apartheid regime South Africa had 17 different education boards. Every 'homeland' had their own board and then each race group had a board of their own. Each different race group got allocated different funds according to their status in South Africa; in 1993 whites were allocated almost 4 times the amount allocated to blacks. The government took it so far as to have a completely different education syllabus for black people, this was known as Bantu Education. The thinking being that black people need not be educated higher than their station in life. So the majority of our population has generations of people who received little or no education.
The second issue is that Apartheid government was a white government whose population was in the vast minority. The only way they could hold onto power was to create a system whereby people never challenged the system in place. One of the main ways that the National Party government did this was to use the education system. While children of all races were taught in schools never to question authority and to do as they were told.
The results of these above two issues is generations of people who don't see the benefit of an education, and if they do, they are not well educated enough themselves to be able to assist their children.
So what is the solution?
Well throwing money at it surely is not; according to the Star Newspaper (dated 12 February 2010) the Education department has spent a TRILLION RAND on education since 1994. If money is not spent wisely, and on sustainable solutions, then money may as well be poured down the drain.
The answer is that people need to value their education and the truth is that a tangible impact on their pocket seems to be one of the greatest motivators of our time. If we want to correct the disaster that is our education system we need to ban no-fee schools and start insisting that parents or guardians pay school fees. No matter how small the charge every single person who goes to school should pay for it. This would foster a sense of value in their education as well as put funds directly where they are needed, the school itself, and not into lining politicians pockets.
South Africa has a well-documented unemployement and poverty problem and this needs to be taken into consideration as some families simply would not be able to pay even the most meagre fees. There is a way around this though:
In 2006 the World Bank did comprehensive research into education in Third-World countries and one the most fascinating things I discovered from the research was something called conditional cash transfer
programs (CCTs). Essentially what this system pertains is the payment of social grants to poor families once they comply with certain conditions such as school attendance and regular health check ups. Countries such as Brazil and Mexico have found great success with these CCTs. There are up to 12 million people in South Africa on social grants and I think something similar to the CCTs should be implemented for people who cannot afford school fees.
Whatever the final solution is, I strongly believe that we need to start fostering a culture of valuing education otherwise we run the risk of perpetuating the injustices from the past, and in my opinion the best way to start to value education is to place a monetary value on it. In two or three generations the culture may be so entrenched that we can remove the fees, but until then drastic intervention is needed.
References
WET, Corene de and WOLHUTER, Charl. A transitiological study of some South African educational issuesS. Afr. j. educ. [online]. 2009, vol.29, n.3 [cited 2010-04-17], pp. 359-376 . Available from: http://www.scielo.org.za/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0256-01002009000300005&lng=en&nrm=iso"
(1) Everyone has the right -
(a) to a basic education, including adult basic education; and
(b) to further education, which the state, through reasonable measures, must make progressively available and accessible.
We have a problem!
The government considers a pass mark to be 35% and even with that sickenly-low rate the Matric pass rate for 2009 at government schools was 60.7%. Compounding this shockingly low rate is that of all the students who start government school only 46% of them finish (WET, Corene de and WOLHUTER, Charl. A transitiological study of some South African educational issues.) That basically means that of all the 18 year olds in our country this year only about 30% of them have a matric certificate.
Private schools (IEB) are doing well in South Africa and the pass rate was 97.42%. While this sounds good, only 8052 students wrote the IEB exams. Compare this to the 580 577 government schools students and private schools amount to about 1.4% of matrics in the country
So who is to blame for this dire problem and how do we fix it?
There are a myriad of factors such as lack of resources, poorly qualified teachers and lack of discipline but for me there are two main factors:
Under the Apartheid regime South Africa had 17 different education boards. Every 'homeland' had their own board and then each race group had a board of their own. Each different race group got allocated different funds according to their status in South Africa; in 1993 whites were allocated almost 4 times the amount allocated to blacks. The government took it so far as to have a completely different education syllabus for black people, this was known as Bantu Education. The thinking being that black people need not be educated higher than their station in life. So the majority of our population has generations of people who received little or no education.
The second issue is that Apartheid government was a white government whose population was in the vast minority. The only way they could hold onto power was to create a system whereby people never challenged the system in place. One of the main ways that the National Party government did this was to use the education system. While children of all races were taught in schools never to question authority and to do as they were told.
The results of these above two issues is generations of people who don't see the benefit of an education, and if they do, they are not well educated enough themselves to be able to assist their children.
So what is the solution?
Well throwing money at it surely is not; according to the Star Newspaper (dated 12 February 2010) the Education department has spent a TRILLION RAND on education since 1994. If money is not spent wisely, and on sustainable solutions, then money may as well be poured down the drain.
The answer is that people need to value their education and the truth is that a tangible impact on their pocket seems to be one of the greatest motivators of our time. If we want to correct the disaster that is our education system we need to ban no-fee schools and start insisting that parents or guardians pay school fees. No matter how small the charge every single person who goes to school should pay for it. This would foster a sense of value in their education as well as put funds directly where they are needed, the school itself, and not into lining politicians pockets.
South Africa has a well-documented unemployement and poverty problem and this needs to be taken into consideration as some families simply would not be able to pay even the most meagre fees. There is a way around this though:
In 2006 the World Bank did comprehensive research into education in Third-World countries and one the most fascinating things I discovered from the research was something called conditional cash transfer
programs (CCTs). Essentially what this system pertains is the payment of social grants to poor families once they comply with certain conditions such as school attendance and regular health check ups. Countries such as Brazil and Mexico have found great success with these CCTs. There are up to 12 million people in South Africa on social grants and I think something similar to the CCTs should be implemented for people who cannot afford school fees.
Whatever the final solution is, I strongly believe that we need to start fostering a culture of valuing education otherwise we run the risk of perpetuating the injustices from the past, and in my opinion the best way to start to value education is to place a monetary value on it. In two or three generations the culture may be so entrenched that we can remove the fees, but until then drastic intervention is needed.
References
WET, Corene de and WOLHUTER, Charl. A transitiological study of some South African educational issuesS. Afr. j. educ. [online]. 2009, vol.29, n.3 [cited 2010-04-17], pp. 359-376 . Available from: http://www.scielo.org.za/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0256-01002009000300005&lng=en&nrm=iso"
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
Just a jump to the left, or is it right?
Surely anyone of sound mind would agree that Apartheid was a terrible idea both on a social and economic level. But if that is the case then how did the National Party (NP) manage to convince so many people that black people were a real threat to the stability of the country?
One of the main arguments that the National Party used was to tell anyone who would listen that they were not fighting 'blacks' but fighting communism. One just need lookat one of the main pieces of Apartheid Legislation know as 'The Suppresion of Communism Act' which set about banning the Communist Party of SOuth Africa. This Act was so broad in its definition of Communism that it also allowed the banning of the African National Congress (ANC) and the Pan African Congress (PAC). The Freedom Charter signed at Kliptown in 1955 was to add to the NP's idea that the ANC was simply a communist party in disguise.
In the context of the Cold War the NP's stand against communism (and thus the ANC) took on an interesting character. For as long as The Soviet Union (USSR) and the America (USA) were fighting their idealogical battle they were prepared to support anyone who seemed remotely against the opposition. When the NP declared the ANC a communist party the USSR jumped in and said that they would support the ANC with training, weapons, finances etc. This support continued throughout most of the apartheid era and as a result many top ANC members in exile (read Thabo Mbeki, Jacob Zuma, Chris Hani etc) were trained and educated in the Soviet Union.
As the curtain began to fall on the NP and Apartheid the threat of communism taking over South Africa began to increase and the NP used that to further fuel the fear of many South African's. However the NP very suddenly did not have a leg to stand on as the Soviet Union withered and collapsed at the end of the 1980s.
Never the less, when the ANC came to power there were still many who worried that South Africa would follow the route into communism taken by so many other newly-independent African States. To this day there are murmurs that South Africa will slowly move more left and eventually become communist.
For me the threat of South Africa moving to the extreme left of the political spectrum is no as much of a clear and present danger as South Africa moving to the extreme right of the political spectrum.
Unless you have been in a hole the last week you will be familiar with the following phrases: "This is a building of a revolutionary party, here you behave or else you jump...don't come here with that tendency, that white tendency...you bastard" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q9vVs48pn6s) and "don't touch me on my studio" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GmMj72bQuDI). For me both these incidents represent the same kind of person: a right-wing, racist lunatic. However, the more dangerous of the two is most definitely Julius Malema. The AWB is a fringe party with very little support and resources whereas Julius Malema is a leader within the structures of the ruling party.
The ANC has got untold resources and influence and if the ANC is prepared to accept leaders such as Julius Malema then we should be more concerned about a jump to the right (and with it all its extreme racist tenedencies), rather than a jump to the left.
Post Script: Now I am well aware that Jacob Zuma has come out and criticised Julius Malema and well done to him for doing that. However, History tells us though that the ANC always treats its 'comrades' with a 'soft touch' and Julius will only really get a sterm talking to and nothing else. Here's to hoping that they prove us worng and make a stand for what is right!
One of the main arguments that the National Party used was to tell anyone who would listen that they were not fighting 'blacks' but fighting communism. One just need lookat one of the main pieces of Apartheid Legislation know as 'The Suppresion of Communism Act' which set about banning the Communist Party of SOuth Africa. This Act was so broad in its definition of Communism that it also allowed the banning of the African National Congress (ANC) and the Pan African Congress (PAC). The Freedom Charter signed at Kliptown in 1955 was to add to the NP's idea that the ANC was simply a communist party in disguise.
In the context of the Cold War the NP's stand against communism (and thus the ANC) took on an interesting character. For as long as The Soviet Union (USSR) and the America (USA) were fighting their idealogical battle they were prepared to support anyone who seemed remotely against the opposition. When the NP declared the ANC a communist party the USSR jumped in and said that they would support the ANC with training, weapons, finances etc. This support continued throughout most of the apartheid era and as a result many top ANC members in exile (read Thabo Mbeki, Jacob Zuma, Chris Hani etc) were trained and educated in the Soviet Union.
As the curtain began to fall on the NP and Apartheid the threat of communism taking over South Africa began to increase and the NP used that to further fuel the fear of many South African's. However the NP very suddenly did not have a leg to stand on as the Soviet Union withered and collapsed at the end of the 1980s.
Never the less, when the ANC came to power there were still many who worried that South Africa would follow the route into communism taken by so many other newly-independent African States. To this day there are murmurs that South Africa will slowly move more left and eventually become communist.
For me the threat of South Africa moving to the extreme left of the political spectrum is no as much of a clear and present danger as South Africa moving to the extreme right of the political spectrum.
Unless you have been in a hole the last week you will be familiar with the following phrases: "This is a building of a revolutionary party, here you behave or else you jump...don't come here with that tendency, that white tendency...you bastard" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q9vVs48pn6s) and "don't touch me on my studio" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GmMj72bQuDI). For me both these incidents represent the same kind of person: a right-wing, racist lunatic. However, the more dangerous of the two is most definitely Julius Malema. The AWB is a fringe party with very little support and resources whereas Julius Malema is a leader within the structures of the ruling party.
The ANC has got untold resources and influence and if the ANC is prepared to accept leaders such as Julius Malema then we should be more concerned about a jump to the right (and with it all its extreme racist tenedencies), rather than a jump to the left.
Post Script: Now I am well aware that Jacob Zuma has come out and criticised Julius Malema and well done to him for doing that. However, History tells us though that the ANC always treats its 'comrades' with a 'soft touch' and Julius will only really get a sterm talking to and nothing else. Here's to hoping that they prove us worng and make a stand for what is right!
Thursday, April 8, 2010
Free for all
Hi all,
Thanks so much for all your comments, they are really helping me to develop the way that I think.
I am working on a blog relating to free (as in: no cost) education. What is your opinion? I would like you to make reference to basic and tertiary education as well as a justification.
Looking forward to hearing from you all
Thanks
Lance
Thanks so much for all your comments, they are really helping me to develop the way that I think.
I am working on a blog relating to free (as in: no cost) education. What is your opinion? I would like you to make reference to basic and tertiary education as well as a justification.
Looking forward to hearing from you all
Thanks
Lance
Tuesday, April 6, 2010
Follow the leader
From the outset let's get something straight: I despise prejudice in all the horrid forms that it takes. This includes the AWB and their desire for their own 'Volk' separate from the rest of South Africa.
However, The AWB surprised me today and I would like to doff my hat to them. Two days ago they were sprouting violence and retaliation, calling for all their members to take up arms against the 'war on whites'. This morning the leadership of the AWB came out and publicly stated that they did not want a revolution in South Africa and they recalled their statement of a call to arms. They realised that their initial reaction was one of pure emotion and was not helpful to the state of race relations in South Africa.
On the contrary the leader of the ANC Youth League, Julius Malema, continues to defy court orders, and calls from the President, for people to choose their words carefully.
Where have the leaders of the ANC gone? With a legacy of leaders such as Chief Albert Luthuli, Govan Mbeki, Oliver Tambo, Nelson Mandela, and Cyril Ramaphosa (to name a few) the ANC should be ashamed of producing the leaders that they are at the moment.
Leadership is of vital importance and people are looking for someone to follow. The fruit of the leadership becomes evident very soon. A perfect example is the stark contrast between Zimbabwe and South Africa: Nelson Mandela led in humility, forgiveness and reconciliation; the result is the South Africa that we live in today. Robert Mugabe continues with his hatred, thievery and racist nonsense; the result is every sphere of Zimbabwean life falling apart.
In stark contrast to the ANC a minority organisation -whose only known leader was a fascist and a racist- is able to show positive leadership when it is most needed. Well done AWB, may your leadership be an example that other leaders follow.
However, The AWB surprised me today and I would like to doff my hat to them. Two days ago they were sprouting violence and retaliation, calling for all their members to take up arms against the 'war on whites'. This morning the leadership of the AWB came out and publicly stated that they did not want a revolution in South Africa and they recalled their statement of a call to arms. They realised that their initial reaction was one of pure emotion and was not helpful to the state of race relations in South Africa.
On the contrary the leader of the ANC Youth League, Julius Malema, continues to defy court orders, and calls from the President, for people to choose their words carefully.
Where have the leaders of the ANC gone? With a legacy of leaders such as Chief Albert Luthuli, Govan Mbeki, Oliver Tambo, Nelson Mandela, and Cyril Ramaphosa (to name a few) the ANC should be ashamed of producing the leaders that they are at the moment.
Leadership is of vital importance and people are looking for someone to follow. The fruit of the leadership becomes evident very soon. A perfect example is the stark contrast between Zimbabwe and South Africa: Nelson Mandela led in humility, forgiveness and reconciliation; the result is the South Africa that we live in today. Robert Mugabe continues with his hatred, thievery and racist nonsense; the result is every sphere of Zimbabwean life falling apart.
In stark contrast to the ANC a minority organisation -whose only known leader was a fascist and a racist- is able to show positive leadership when it is most needed. Well done AWB, may your leadership be an example that other leaders follow.
Sunday, April 4, 2010
I think the time has come
"aw dubul' ibhunu [shoot the boer] 'a magwala [the cowards are scared] dubula dubula [shoot shoot]".
So, Eugene Terre Blanche is dead, bludgeoned to death with knobkerries and a panga by two young men. The organisation that Eugene Terre Blanche started, the Afrikaaner Weerstandsbeweging (AWB) have vowed to avenge his death and place the blame solely on Julius Malema
Two people this morning have asked me if I think he was murdered because of the singing of the ‘Kill the Boer’ song (quoted above) by Julius Malema. My answer is an emphatic ‘NO’.
According to a former Land Claims Attorney Dr Phillip du Toit in his book ‘The Great South African Land Scandal’(Available from: www.salandscandal.co.za):
“Since the ANC came to power in 1994, 1600 farmers have been murdered in over 8000 farm attacks. A farmer has been murdered, on average, once every second day for ten years.
There has been an average of 77 farm attacks per month. The murder rate of South African commercial farmers is the highest for any specific group in the world 313 per 100 000. The murder rate amongst the general population is officially 55 per 100 000 (In Europe the murder rate is 2 per 100 000)."
The statistics are chilling and are a harsh reminder of just how badly the government has neglected this vital industry and people. Farm murders are a reality all around the world and especially in South Africa due to the isolation of many farms. I feel that this murder is just one in a long-line of farm attacks and murders, the fact that it happened a few weeks after the resurgence of the song made famous by Peter Mokaba is purely coincidence.
By no means am I excusing the murder of Eugene Terre Blanche, but the hysterical nature in which people want to blame Julius Malema for everything is starting to reach ridiculous proportions.
However, even if he cannot be held directly responsible for the murder of Eugene Terre Blanche he can, and must, be held responsible for tightening an already over-taut rope by encouraging racial division and hatred in an already racially-charged environment.
I have been very hesitant to discuss the topic of the singing of the ‘Kill the Boer’song as it has already taken on undue emotional proportions on both sides, but I think the time has come.
I have tried to understand both sides of the argument and I have come to a conclusion: No one should be allowed to sing songs such as the above, ever, in any context. My reasoning follows:
On the one hand we have the ANC who feel that the song is part of their heritage and culture thus it cannot be removed from the national lexicon. If we are to try and understand the point of the ANC we need to acknowledge that they were an incredible liberation movement whose members sacrificed everything for the sake of freedom for all. Part of this heritage is that they used to sing freedom songs to encourage one another, dubul' ibhunu being one of the many. They say that the song no longer means literally killing the Boers, but it represents killing Apartheid as a whole. Many have also argued that the ANC has ‘allowed’ white South Africa to keep many of the place and street names named after Apartheid Era heroes. Their argument is that they are so magnanimous in allowing ‘whites’ to keep the heritage, why should they be stopped from keeping theirs.
On the other hand we have many others (not only whites) who quite simply feel that the singing of the song amounts to hate speech and insights violence.
Chapter 2, Section 16 of the Constitution of quite clear
Freedom of expression
1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression, which includes ¬
a. freedom of the press and other media;
b. freedom to receive or impart information or ideas;
c. freedom of artistic creativity; and
d. academic freedom and freedom of scientific research.
2. The right in subsection (1) does not extend to ¬
a. propaganda for war;
b. incitement of imminent violence; or
c. advocacy of hatred that is based on race, ethnicity, gender or religion, and that constitutes incitement to cause harm.
For me the argument is quite simple. The debate here is not heritage, the debate is whether or not it is Constitutional.
Regardless of the heritage behind it and the ‘symbolism’ of the words,the singing of the song is against the Constitution of our country (partly drawn up by the ANC). While the ANC can argue heritage all they like, the reality is that murder in any context, for any reason, is completely and utterly unacceptable. The liberation songs can be remembered in textbooks and museums, they do not have to be remembered by being sung to hysterical audiences by an obviously racist man. By singing these songs Julius Malema and other comrades are inciting violence on other racial groups and for this he MUST be held accountable.
Also, the argument that they have allowed ‘whites’ to keep certain names rings hollow for me. How can a street named after PW Botha possibly encourage hatred?
In 2003, the South African Human Rights Commission (SAHRC) declared the ‘Kill the Boer’ song hate speech. A recent High Court ruling declared it illegal to sing the song because it is hate speech. Regardless, and in direct defiance of the law and our Constitution, Julius Malema continues to sing the song.
The longer we allow songs of this nature to echo around our nation the more racially divided we will become. As my wife said to me this morning: “No one is born with racial discrimination, they have to be taught it”.
Julius Malema cannot be held directly responsible for the death of Eugene Terre Blanche, but he is propagating hate which often leads to murder; for this he must be held accountable, and if needs be, jailed.
So, Eugene Terre Blanche is dead, bludgeoned to death with knobkerries and a panga by two young men. The organisation that Eugene Terre Blanche started, the Afrikaaner Weerstandsbeweging (AWB) have vowed to avenge his death and place the blame solely on Julius Malema
Two people this morning have asked me if I think he was murdered because of the singing of the ‘Kill the Boer’ song (quoted above) by Julius Malema. My answer is an emphatic ‘NO’.
According to a former Land Claims Attorney Dr Phillip du Toit in his book ‘The Great South African Land Scandal’(Available from: www.salandscandal.co.za):
“Since the ANC came to power in 1994, 1600 farmers have been murdered in over 8000 farm attacks. A farmer has been murdered, on average, once every second day for ten years.
There has been an average of 77 farm attacks per month. The murder rate of South African commercial farmers is the highest for any specific group in the world 313 per 100 000. The murder rate amongst the general population is officially 55 per 100 000 (In Europe the murder rate is 2 per 100 000)."
The statistics are chilling and are a harsh reminder of just how badly the government has neglected this vital industry and people. Farm murders are a reality all around the world and especially in South Africa due to the isolation of many farms. I feel that this murder is just one in a long-line of farm attacks and murders, the fact that it happened a few weeks after the resurgence of the song made famous by Peter Mokaba is purely coincidence.
By no means am I excusing the murder of Eugene Terre Blanche, but the hysterical nature in which people want to blame Julius Malema for everything is starting to reach ridiculous proportions.
However, even if he cannot be held directly responsible for the murder of Eugene Terre Blanche he can, and must, be held responsible for tightening an already over-taut rope by encouraging racial division and hatred in an already racially-charged environment.
I have been very hesitant to discuss the topic of the singing of the ‘Kill the Boer’song as it has already taken on undue emotional proportions on both sides, but I think the time has come.
I have tried to understand both sides of the argument and I have come to a conclusion: No one should be allowed to sing songs such as the above, ever, in any context. My reasoning follows:
On the one hand we have the ANC who feel that the song is part of their heritage and culture thus it cannot be removed from the national lexicon. If we are to try and understand the point of the ANC we need to acknowledge that they were an incredible liberation movement whose members sacrificed everything for the sake of freedom for all. Part of this heritage is that they used to sing freedom songs to encourage one another, dubul' ibhunu being one of the many. They say that the song no longer means literally killing the Boers, but it represents killing Apartheid as a whole. Many have also argued that the ANC has ‘allowed’ white South Africa to keep many of the place and street names named after Apartheid Era heroes. Their argument is that they are so magnanimous in allowing ‘whites’ to keep the heritage, why should they be stopped from keeping theirs.
On the other hand we have many others (not only whites) who quite simply feel that the singing of the song amounts to hate speech and insights violence.
Chapter 2, Section 16 of the Constitution of quite clear
Freedom of expression
1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression, which includes ¬
a. freedom of the press and other media;
b. freedom to receive or impart information or ideas;
c. freedom of artistic creativity; and
d. academic freedom and freedom of scientific research.
2. The right in subsection (1) does not extend to ¬
a. propaganda for war;
b. incitement of imminent violence; or
c. advocacy of hatred that is based on race, ethnicity, gender or religion, and that constitutes incitement to cause harm.
For me the argument is quite simple. The debate here is not heritage, the debate is whether or not it is Constitutional.
Regardless of the heritage behind it and the ‘symbolism’ of the words,the singing of the song is against the Constitution of our country (partly drawn up by the ANC). While the ANC can argue heritage all they like, the reality is that murder in any context, for any reason, is completely and utterly unacceptable. The liberation songs can be remembered in textbooks and museums, they do not have to be remembered by being sung to hysterical audiences by an obviously racist man. By singing these songs Julius Malema and other comrades are inciting violence on other racial groups and for this he MUST be held accountable.
Also, the argument that they have allowed ‘whites’ to keep certain names rings hollow for me. How can a street named after PW Botha possibly encourage hatred?
In 2003, the South African Human Rights Commission (SAHRC) declared the ‘Kill the Boer’ song hate speech. A recent High Court ruling declared it illegal to sing the song because it is hate speech. Regardless, and in direct defiance of the law and our Constitution, Julius Malema continues to sing the song.
The longer we allow songs of this nature to echo around our nation the more racially divided we will become. As my wife said to me this morning: “No one is born with racial discrimination, they have to be taught it”.
Julius Malema cannot be held directly responsible for the death of Eugene Terre Blanche, but he is propagating hate which often leads to murder; for this he must be held accountable, and if needs be, jailed.
Friday, April 2, 2010
Fake fruit
On the whole South Africans have big hearts. When there is a call to donate or to help others we are very quick to give of our time and money. A few things come to mind: Highveld Stereo's 'Christmas Wish List' is overwhelmed with people making donations, the recent 'Shout' campaign got over 10 000 donations of R20 each on the first day, and many South Africans actually went to Haiti to help look for survivors. A generous heart is a wonderful attribute and one that we should continue to foster.
Anyone living in Johannesburg will know that we currently have a dire pot-hole problem. In response to this, Kentucky Fried Chicken (KFC) has donated R200 000 to the city of Johannesburg in order to help fix the roads. It costs around R400 to fix ONE pothole, thus KFC’s donation can fix up to 500 potholes. Furthermore, KFC have challenged other businesses to do the same. Another example of the overwhelming generosity!
Well done KFC?
No, I don’t think so! It's a publicity stunt that's covering over serious underlying problems in our government. I would discourage other businesses from following their lead. You may ask why.
I call this ‘stapling fruit onto dead trees’. If a tree is bad and is not producing fruit, the answer is not to staple good fruit onto the tree, but rather to fix the tree, or in dire circumstances, uproot the tree and replant it. Too often in this country we want an immediate fix and people are called on to help when in actual fact all the goodwill is misplaced. Our money and time would be better used to improve the system and put people in place who can actually do the job.
According to the City of Johannesburg’s website, on average, there are 25 potholes reported per day! Some of this can be explained by the heavy rainfall that we have had, but if you look closer at the figures you see that during the rainy season up to 100 potholes get reported per day. This is the same every year but nothing seems to be done about it. The reality is that Johannesburg’s roads have been poorly maintained and as a result the potholes are reaching crisis proportions. There is enough money in the country to solve many (note, I say many, not all) of our problems but this money is poorly spent on luxury government cars, legal fees for the President (Over R10 million last year alone) and exorbitant salaries.
Just the other day the head of the Johannesburg Road Agency (JRA) was paid a performance bonus of over R700 000. Now this is the person responsible for making sure that our roads are well looked after and maintained! Anyone other than me have a problem with this? Many of our roads are in a dismal state, yet the person responsible gets a performance bonus(I would like to know what the criteria were) enough to fix over 1800 potholes. Added to this, the JRA only spent 70% of its budget for last year.
Another example of ‘stapled on fruit’ is the government's attempts to ban labour-brokers. As I stated at a public hearing in Germiston, the problem is not with Labour Brokers per-se, the problem is that Labour Law in South Africa is too unwieldy. Employers are not reluctant to hire due to the inhibitive legislation, so they outsource their labour to experts known as Labour Brokers. In an attempt to fix the labour issues in our country calls for a ban of Labour Brokers. This is rash and seems a desperate attempt to get trade uniions off their back. Rather than sort out the root of the problem, they try and make it look good and hope the problem will go away. 'Stapled on fruit' quickly goes off and starts to smell and the tree is still not bearing fruit.
I am not saying that our generosity should stop, but it should be guided in the right areas. When there is a financial short-fall and the government is responsible, our efforts should be guided at asking where the money went rather than throwing more money at it.
Let us continue our generosity but make sure that whatever we do, it is sustainable.
Comments?
Anyone living in Johannesburg will know that we currently have a dire pot-hole problem. In response to this, Kentucky Fried Chicken (KFC) has donated R200 000 to the city of Johannesburg in order to help fix the roads. It costs around R400 to fix ONE pothole, thus KFC’s donation can fix up to 500 potholes. Furthermore, KFC have challenged other businesses to do the same. Another example of the overwhelming generosity!
Well done KFC?
No, I don’t think so! It's a publicity stunt that's covering over serious underlying problems in our government. I would discourage other businesses from following their lead. You may ask why.
I call this ‘stapling fruit onto dead trees’. If a tree is bad and is not producing fruit, the answer is not to staple good fruit onto the tree, but rather to fix the tree, or in dire circumstances, uproot the tree and replant it. Too often in this country we want an immediate fix and people are called on to help when in actual fact all the goodwill is misplaced. Our money and time would be better used to improve the system and put people in place who can actually do the job.
According to the City of Johannesburg’s website, on average, there are 25 potholes reported per day! Some of this can be explained by the heavy rainfall that we have had, but if you look closer at the figures you see that during the rainy season up to 100 potholes get reported per day. This is the same every year but nothing seems to be done about it. The reality is that Johannesburg’s roads have been poorly maintained and as a result the potholes are reaching crisis proportions. There is enough money in the country to solve many (note, I say many, not all) of our problems but this money is poorly spent on luxury government cars, legal fees for the President (Over R10 million last year alone) and exorbitant salaries.
Just the other day the head of the Johannesburg Road Agency (JRA) was paid a performance bonus of over R700 000. Now this is the person responsible for making sure that our roads are well looked after and maintained! Anyone other than me have a problem with this? Many of our roads are in a dismal state, yet the person responsible gets a performance bonus(I would like to know what the criteria were) enough to fix over 1800 potholes. Added to this, the JRA only spent 70% of its budget for last year.
Another example of ‘stapled on fruit’ is the government's attempts to ban labour-brokers. As I stated at a public hearing in Germiston, the problem is not with Labour Brokers per-se, the problem is that Labour Law in South Africa is too unwieldy. Employers are not reluctant to hire due to the inhibitive legislation, so they outsource their labour to experts known as Labour Brokers. In an attempt to fix the labour issues in our country calls for a ban of Labour Brokers. This is rash and seems a desperate attempt to get trade uniions off their back. Rather than sort out the root of the problem, they try and make it look good and hope the problem will go away. 'Stapled on fruit' quickly goes off and starts to smell and the tree is still not bearing fruit.
I am not saying that our generosity should stop, but it should be guided in the right areas. When there is a financial short-fall and the government is responsible, our efforts should be guided at asking where the money went rather than throwing more money at it.
Let us continue our generosity but make sure that whatever we do, it is sustainable.
Comments?
Thursday, April 1, 2010
Define criminal
A few days ago the retired Judge Willem Heath addressed an anti-corruption forum held by the South African Communist Party (SACP); what he said was like a sucker-punch to my belly. He stated that in 2004 corrupt dealings totalled R40 billion and that the figure is increasing every year. FLIP!. He also made reference to the Auditor-General’s report that 6 in 10 government employees have business interests that conflict with their job. NO WAY! The shocking part for me was what he said next: Corruption in the private sector was more rife than in the public sector! YOU CAN’T BE SERIOUS! The problem is worse than we thought.
However, I would like to take the Judge’s comments one step further… corruption among civilians in South Africa is reaching proportions worse than our government officials and business people.
How many of you can look in the mirror and say that you have not bribed a traffic officer or a policeman, that you haven’t given someone an under-the-table envelope in return for a contract, that you haven’t claimed more than was due to you from your insurance company, or lied about the value of the goods that you need replaced when stolen. If your answer is genuinely ‘no’ then my hat is off to you. If your answer was ‘yes’ then the truth is that you have no leg to stand on when complaining about corruption. You are part of the problem. Corruption is endemic in our country and is quickly getting to the point of no return. Instead of saying ‘well our leaders do it, why can’t we?’, let us rather make a bold statement to our leaders and show them what morality is and stand up for what is right!
Now define criminal.
If this is a bit close to home...GOOD!
What if I said that you are just as bad as corrupt politicians or organised crime bosses if you buy counterfeit CDs or DVDs? Don’t come with a justification! I have heard them all and they are superficial and self-justifying. The reality is that if no one bribed cops then it would not be happening, if no one bought counterfeit DVDs then no one would sell them. We have the power to stop this cancer, one person at a time.
Now, I am in no way saying that I am perfect, or expecting you to be. Nor am I saying that you cannot be upset by the state of corruption in our country. But what I am saying is that next time you hear a story of corruption and you shake your head, stop yourself, do some introspection, change your life… and then shake your head.
The problem lies with all of us, thus we all have the responsibility to fix it.
Define criminal.
Comments?
However, I would like to take the Judge’s comments one step further… corruption among civilians in South Africa is reaching proportions worse than our government officials and business people.
How many of you can look in the mirror and say that you have not bribed a traffic officer or a policeman, that you haven’t given someone an under-the-table envelope in return for a contract, that you haven’t claimed more than was due to you from your insurance company, or lied about the value of the goods that you need replaced when stolen. If your answer is genuinely ‘no’ then my hat is off to you. If your answer was ‘yes’ then the truth is that you have no leg to stand on when complaining about corruption. You are part of the problem. Corruption is endemic in our country and is quickly getting to the point of no return. Instead of saying ‘well our leaders do it, why can’t we?’, let us rather make a bold statement to our leaders and show them what morality is and stand up for what is right!
Now define criminal.
If this is a bit close to home...GOOD!
What if I said that you are just as bad as corrupt politicians or organised crime bosses if you buy counterfeit CDs or DVDs? Don’t come with a justification! I have heard them all and they are superficial and self-justifying. The reality is that if no one bribed cops then it would not be happening, if no one bought counterfeit DVDs then no one would sell them. We have the power to stop this cancer, one person at a time.
Now, I am in no way saying that I am perfect, or expecting you to be. Nor am I saying that you cannot be upset by the state of corruption in our country. But what I am saying is that next time you hear a story of corruption and you shake your head, stop yourself, do some introspection, change your life… and then shake your head.
The problem lies with all of us, thus we all have the responsibility to fix it.
Define criminal.
Comments?
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
The dreaded 'N' word
If we are honest with ourselves, we would have to admit that independence in Africa is not all that it has promised to be. The cases of corruption, abuse, war-mongering and dictatorship are well documented and need not be mentioned here. What I would like to mention though is that most of these independence movements quickly moved to Nationalise (that 'N' word) what they considered 'National' assets. Inveriably, these were most often mines as they are often very lucrative and the newly independent state needed money to repair the corruption, abuse, war-mongering and dictatorship of the coloniser. In most cases, Nationalisation was a failure since bribery, corruption and mismanagement destroyed any hopes of development for the country.
In recent months, South Africa has had to deal with the surfacing of the 'N' word and quite frankly it has terrified many people. One of my students (sorry, learners) asked what I thought about it and after some thought I gave the following reply:
If we look at the track record of Nationalisation around the world, there is a lot to fear. However, the ANC has proved to the world that it is able to do what everyone else said was impossible. Remember the free and fair elections, remember the embrace of white people as part of this country, remember them having two-thirds majority but not changing the Constitution. So it seems as if the ANC is capable of breaking out of the shackles that seem to have enslaved so many other independence movements.
But on the other hand, if we are to accept government taking over the mines we need to take a look at what government is currently running and how well (or not) they are doing: Eskom is in trouble, SAA has been running at a loss for years, the SABC is a shambles, Health Care is dismal, Education is falling apart (there are fewer libraries and Science Labs in government schools today than in 1994... FEWER! What did they do with them?), Home Affairs, Licensing Department and Border control are beset with problems! Actually, if I think about it, there seems to be no government-run business entity that has a permanent CEO (or the equivalent). The government is not only doing badly, but seems to have made many things worse!
If we take a non-biased look, we could say that the government has its hands full trying to take care of what it already has in its basket, it makes no sense adding an additional weight. Until they prove themselves with what they are currently busy with, I would say they should not even be thinking about Nationalising anything!
Your views?
In recent months, South Africa has had to deal with the surfacing of the 'N' word and quite frankly it has terrified many people. One of my students (sorry, learners) asked what I thought about it and after some thought I gave the following reply:
If we look at the track record of Nationalisation around the world, there is a lot to fear. However, the ANC has proved to the world that it is able to do what everyone else said was impossible. Remember the free and fair elections, remember the embrace of white people as part of this country, remember them having two-thirds majority but not changing the Constitution. So it seems as if the ANC is capable of breaking out of the shackles that seem to have enslaved so many other independence movements.
But on the other hand, if we are to accept government taking over the mines we need to take a look at what government is currently running and how well (or not) they are doing: Eskom is in trouble, SAA has been running at a loss for years, the SABC is a shambles, Health Care is dismal, Education is falling apart (there are fewer libraries and Science Labs in government schools today than in 1994... FEWER! What did they do with them?), Home Affairs, Licensing Department and Border control are beset with problems! Actually, if I think about it, there seems to be no government-run business entity that has a permanent CEO (or the equivalent). The government is not only doing badly, but seems to have made many things worse!
If we take a non-biased look, we could say that the government has its hands full trying to take care of what it already has in its basket, it makes no sense adding an additional weight. Until they prove themselves with what they are currently busy with, I would say they should not even be thinking about Nationalising anything!
Your views?
Julius and the Facebook Saga
The other day I received an email which had an attachment of a Facebook page supposedly from a page dedicated to Julius Malema. I am sure most of you have seen it and have been shocked by what the post mentions. It is vulgar, racist nonsense that does not belong in this world, never mind this country. The e-mail spread like wild-fire and talk-shows and newspapers were all over it like Graeme Smith on a leg side delivery. People were saying things like: "How can Julius Malema make statements like that?" and "what a racist!" and the classic line "where is this country going?".
I had a proper look at the page and quickly came to a few conclusions:
1. Julius Malema never actually made those statements, someone else did.
2. Anyone can open a fan page on Facebook and put whatever they want on it. How do we know that Julius Malema even knows about it
3. Does anyone even know if the person spewing this racist nonsense even exists!
Some very educated and bright people got so caught up in the heat of the moment and blamed Julius Malema for something that he, in all likelihood, had nothing to do with!
It turns out that Julius Malema doesn't even have a Facebook page and has never been on Facebook.
This reminds me of a similar incident that took place a number of years ago....bear with me.....
In 2006, Jacob Zuma was accused of raping a close family friend. Everyone jumped on the band-wagon and labelled him 'a rapist'. He was on trial in the media, in bars, around braais and dinner tables, in classrooms, etc. You name the place and people were talking about 'Jacob Zuma the Rapist'. My classroom was no different, except that I said, and still say, if I was accused of anything (particularly something as heinous as rape) I would want to be assumed innocent until proven guilty. This is enshrined in our Constitution and needs to be aplied to all. If that is how I want to be treated then I need to treat EVERYONE in the same way; Jacob Zuma deserved the same. He was proven not guilty, thus he is not a rapist....end of story!
To get back to my original rant: Anyone can start a Facebook page in my name and place any trash on it that they want and I cannot be held responsible. Furthermore, I would want people to do a proper investigation before making a judgement on me based on the content. If this is how I would want people to treat me then I need to treat others -no matter how high-profile or hated- in the same regard.
Julius Malema may have many faults but let's not compromise what we believe and the principles we stand for. What we want applied to ourselves we need to apply to others, no matter who they are!
I had a proper look at the page and quickly came to a few conclusions:
1. Julius Malema never actually made those statements, someone else did.
2. Anyone can open a fan page on Facebook and put whatever they want on it. How do we know that Julius Malema even knows about it
3. Does anyone even know if the person spewing this racist nonsense even exists!
Some very educated and bright people got so caught up in the heat of the moment and blamed Julius Malema for something that he, in all likelihood, had nothing to do with!
It turns out that Julius Malema doesn't even have a Facebook page and has never been on Facebook.
This reminds me of a similar incident that took place a number of years ago....bear with me.....
In 2006, Jacob Zuma was accused of raping a close family friend. Everyone jumped on the band-wagon and labelled him 'a rapist'. He was on trial in the media, in bars, around braais and dinner tables, in classrooms, etc. You name the place and people were talking about 'Jacob Zuma the Rapist'. My classroom was no different, except that I said, and still say, if I was accused of anything (particularly something as heinous as rape) I would want to be assumed innocent until proven guilty. This is enshrined in our Constitution and needs to be aplied to all. If that is how I want to be treated then I need to treat EVERYONE in the same way; Jacob Zuma deserved the same. He was proven not guilty, thus he is not a rapist....end of story!
To get back to my original rant: Anyone can start a Facebook page in my name and place any trash on it that they want and I cannot be held responsible. Furthermore, I would want people to do a proper investigation before making a judgement on me based on the content. If this is how I would want people to treat me then I need to treat others -no matter how high-profile or hated- in the same regard.
Julius Malema may have many faults but let's not compromise what we believe and the principles we stand for. What we want applied to ourselves we need to apply to others, no matter who they are!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)