Constitutional Hill

The historical amnesia of Pieter Mulder

Dr Pieter Mulder, Freedom Front Plus Leader and deputy minister of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, last week provided South Africans with a textbook example of the kind of historical amnesia that has befallen some of my fellow white South Africans. Almost every day one has to listen to some or other fellow on the radio complaining about how black South Africans are obsessed with the past.

This complaint is usually followed by a demand that we should all stop harping on about the past (in other words, that we should pretend that apartheid never happened and that its effects do not linger on in our society) and that we should look towards the future – as if the past has absolutely nothing to do with the problems faced by our country today.

The problem is that this yearning (expressed by some white South Africans) to forget the past is not only illusory, it is also deeply dishonest and self-serving. This is because those who argue in favour of a kind of moral amnesia often have very little knowledge or understanding of the very past which they now claim we need to forget. How, I wonder, can we be asked to forget the past if we do not even know (or pretend not to know) about the injustices committed by our forefathers against black South Africans and if we have no understanding of its lingering effects?

An exhortation to forget the past is really an exhortation to rewrite the past and to invent a completely new past in which white people never oppressed black South Africans, never exploited black South Africans economically and never actually dispossessed black South Africans of land and of opportunities – including educational opportunities. This Stalinist yearning to whitewash the past and to try and make us forget about the role white people played in the exploitation and dispossession which occurred during the periods of colonialism and apartheid is dangerous and infuses some white South Africans with an undeserved (and, quite frankly, bizarre) sense of moral self-righteousness and superiority which is at the heart of the continued racisms in our country.

Mulder is only one of a long line of white settlers who wishes to rewrite the past in order to enforce and perpetuate their own sense of moral superiority and their sense of supposed victimhood. Speaking in President Zuma’s State of the Nation debate with a chutzpa that is breath-taking, Mulder ignored the past 300 years of colonialism and apartheid to try and make a point about land ownership and dispossession in South Africa, stating that:

Sir, Africans in particular never in the past lived in the whole of South Africa. The Bantoe- speaking people moved from the equator down while the white people moved from the Cape up to meet each other at the Kei River. There is sufficient proof that there were no Bantoe-speaking people in the Western Cape and North-western Cape. These parts form 40% of South Africa’s land surface.

He “forgot” to mention, amongst others, the long process of colonialism and concomitant land dispossession, which culminated in the Glen Grey Act of 1894 and the Natives Land Act of 1913.

The Glen Grey Act, as Davenport pointed out, “was designed to set a pattern of African land-holding throughout the Cape African reserves”. It imposed a labour tax on Africans which was aimed at forcing Xhosa men off their land and into employment on commercial farms or in industry. It further “excluded property ownership altogether as a voting qualification for blacks who held under Glen Grey title”.

Even worse was the Natives Land Act which was passed in 1913 by the Union Parliament as part of its first efforts to formalise land dispossession of Africans and to lay the groundwork for full racial segregation which culminated in the adoption of apartheid policies. The Natives Land Act included a “Schedule of Native Areas,” incorporating all the African reserves that had been established in the various provinces prior to 1913. The Act carefully delineated the boundaries of these reserved areas. The schedule brought under the coverage of the Act about 22 million acres of land (just over 7 per cent of South African territory) within the four provinces of the Union.

As Feinberg has pointed out, the creation of a schedule, defining the boundaries of the African reserves by national law, was a very important part of the Act. The most important provision of the Act stated that Africans could no longer buy, lease, or in any other manner acquire land outside a scheduled area, except by acquiring that land from another African, and Europeans were prohibited from buying or leasing land from an African. Only Africans could buy land within the scheduled areas. Although the territory covered by these schedules were increased in 1936, the effects of this Act on landownership by Africans was devastating.

From 1913 to 1991 black South Africans, were therefore denied the right to acquire land in most parts of South Africa. Feinberg sums up the effects of this Act as follows:

The long term results were worse than anyone anticipated. Rapid population growth among Africans and soil erosion in the reserves (partly due to over-grazing) seriously undermined African agriculture. And, after 1948, the reserves became the cornerstone of a key part of the apartheid system, the homelands.

Of course, by the time the Land Act was passed, the dispossession of land had almost been complete. Feinberg again:

Before 1910 just under two million Africans lived in reserves, some of which were overcrowded. They lived in these reserves because, during the last third of the nineteenth century, Africans were conquered by Europeans who took control of a large proportion of African land, leaving only remnants for the survivors. Over half (1,149,438) of the Africans living in reserves were in the Cape Province. Africans could purchase land in the Cape, Natal, and, after 1905, the Transvaal (as a result of a court decision). The number of Africans buying land in the Transvaal was very slowly increasing after 1905. However, Africans owned a mere 2,104,300 acres in the Union, and this land was occupied by fewer than 124,000 people. Africans could not buy land in the Orange River Colony or in the Orange Free State, and the holdings of a few dated back to special circumstances from the nineteenth century.

It is exactly because (unlike Mulder and his cronies) the drafters of our Constitution did not suffer from historical amnesia that section 25 of the Constitution explicitly recognises the need for land reform in our country. This section allows for an expropriation of land in the public interest, and section 25(4) explicitly states that “the public interest includes the nation’s commitment to land reform, and to reforms to bring about equitable access to all South Africa’s natural resources”.

This section also places a positive duty on the state to take “reasonable legislative and other measures, within its available resources, to foster conditions which enable citizens to gain access to land on an equitable basis”, while section 25(8) could not have made this general point any clearer when it stated that:

No provision of this section may impede the state from taking legislative and other measures to achieve land, water and related reform, in order to redress the results of past racial discrimination, provided that any departure from the provisions of this section is in accordance with the provisions of section 36(1).

As I have written before, to this end the property clause therefore does not require expropriation of land in accordance with the “willing-buyer willing-seller” principle. Nor does it require the payment of market value for that land in all circumstances.

These provisions can be viewed as responding directly to the history of land dispossession of black South Africans which went hand in hand with the process of colonial conquest. Mulder’s argument, which (even if it was historically correct) hinges on a requirement to completely forget the past 300 years of land dispossession that went hand in hand with colonial conquest, is thus completely at odds with the provisions of the Constitution itself.

It is strange that a Deputy Minister in the Cabinet would make statements that so utterly disregard the provisions of the Constitution, given that it is this very same Constitution which he invokes in other contexts to try and argue for special rights for white farm owners or for what he would term “Afrikaners” (but what in reality amounts to right wing whites).

  • bob

    You wouldn’t expect the most fair explanation of land ownership from the leader of the FF+, would you.

    But his arguments about migrations in Southern Africa are correct, this was mostly due on the fact that Bantu tribes used tropical crops which meant they could not settle and farm in areas which have winter rains and summer droughts. The European used “European” crops which are geared exactly for this pattern hence they were successful in establishing farming communities in the Cape.

    His one-sided argument was not about the land act from 1913 or other lovely moves from the old Apartheid machine but to counter the also one-sided arguments of the current crop of ANC brainwashed croonies who believe that South Africa was 100% black.

    And frankly Zuma is one to talk about the sensitivities of land ownership. Don’t recall him telling his former ally Malema to cool it when he basically called all whites in this country thrieves that need to be punished.

    In fact even the Northnern territories weren’t really that filled because of the Rinderpest that came down from East Africa and decimated the cattle holding tribes and the subsequent Zulu wars that were to a long extent driven by the fact that they needed cattle to compensate for the losses due to Rinderpest.

  • Maggs Naidu –

    Pieter Mulder and Richard Dawkins may have something in common!

    His next volley was the suggestion that I should make financial reparation for the sins of my ancestors.

    Reparation to whom? Should I make a pilgrimage to Jamaica and seek out the descendants of the slaves whom my ancestors wronged? But why the descendants of people who were oppressed by my ancestors 300 years ago rather than to people who are oppressed today? It’s that “sins of the fathers” fallacy all over again, taken a good couple of generations further than even Yahweh had in mind.

  • Lee

    I cannot and will not deny that Mr Mulder got his facts spectacularly wrong but on the other hand, the man seems to have tasked himself with the defending the self worth of white people which has become a very emotional issue. I think many, you included, make the erroneous assumption that white people wish to deny that apartheid ever existed; alternatively they wish to diminish its brutality and subsequent effects. This is simply not true. When white people beg for government, black people and liberals to rather turn their focus away from apartheid and the ugliness of the past, we wish that to happen so that the daily guilt of living as a white person in SA would feel less painful. It’s selfish, I know. My heartfelt wish is that we could claim some victories and advances made in the last 18 years that would in some way mitigate the pain of the past but we have either not made any advances, or we are failing to acknowledge some progress made to further a political cause. It seems to me though, that many people are determined (hell bent) on dredging up the evil that I am responsible for, which makes me feel guilty and black people resent me even more. Oh woe is me.

  • bob

    The key argument of land restitution hinges on the argument that it was taken, in most cases these claims have been settled because they were easy to proof. But in most of the country this did not happen because it was never “theirs” to begin with. In our area land claims are created by lawyers going to shebeens asking around if their family lived there for long and then they ask if they want to do a land claim. No proof required, even in areas were areal photographs showed no settlements at the beginning of the 20th century these claims are accepted by the authorities. There is absolutely not interest in real history, just greed.

    One argument that annoys me is this thing about 300 years of slavery (it was blacks who captured black slaves btw) and occupation. The number of white people in the interior of Southern Africa was extremely limited, most so called oppressed tribes had never seen any whites until basically the advent of motorisation.

  • Mikhail Dworkin Fassbinder

    @ Lee

    “Mr Mulder got his facts spectacularly wrong”

    Lee, you are wrong that Mulder is wrong.

    Mulder is right that the “Bantu” had little interest in settling the deserts and semi-deserts of the western half of the country. Mulder’s real amnesia is that he does not note that these areas were settled long before his diary-wielding Boers arrived – by Khoi and San.

    That is why I endorse Manyi’s suggestion that the latter’s nearest living descendants, the so-called coloured of the Western Cape, disperse themselves evenly across the desert, and reclaim their birthright!


  • Maggs Naidu –

    February 21, 2012 at 11:02 am

    Hey Lee,

    “It seems to me though, that many people are determined (hell bent) on dredging up the evil that I am responsible for, which makes me feel guilty and black people resent me even more.”

    If you (or others) think that this will be resolved in this lifetime or the next, then don’t hold your breath.

    In reading Mulder’s comments (and yours) among others it’s difficult not to conclude that ‘some among us’ would prefer to ostrichise the structural and systemic consequence of decades, if not centuries, of iniquity.

    Foremost of the “victories and advances made in the last 18 years” is perhaps only that we have a robust Constitution and equally robust constitutional democracy (never mind what Zuma and Co would have us believe).

    Unless all of us give a lot more and ask a lot less, even the foundation needed for true social, political and economic transformation will take a long time to be established.

  • Gwebecimele

    Thanks to the likes of Pieter Mulder for reminding us that they have it all planned and we are just shooting in the dark. Our universities and experts are in no position to challenge Mulder with facts because they never challenged these facts in our history books and teachings. Instead they wish that he be fired or silenced. Our oral history was never properly recorded and our education is administered by the likes of Mulder assisted by our coconuts who are only happy to given titles such as Chair, Prof, Dr etc.

  • George Gildenhuys

    Prof thanks for this history primer.

    Quite shocked about the arrogance of Pieter Mulder and his ilk.

    I do have a question about the other points in Mulder’s speech (rant), what is the CURRENT land ownership my demographics?

    I do not trust Pieter Mulder’s figures and neither do I trust the government’s!

    And how many people black and white do really want to go into commercial agriculture? i for one have no interest…

  • Maggs Naidu –

    Mikhail Dworkin Fassbinder
    February 21, 2012 at 11:29 am


    “That is why I endorse Manyi’s suggestion that the latter’s nearest living descendants, the so-called coloured of the Western Cape, disperse themselves evenly across the desert, and reclaim their birthright!”

    Sorry but that land is earmarked already.

    Mulder is making a case for Shell to occupy land that was never owned by anyone.

    The so-called desert, as the say in the classics, is going to be a gas!

  • Lizard

    You have neither interpreted what Mulder said properly, nor countered the facts as stated in his speech. In fact he agrees with most of what you actually say here.

    It seems fashionable to bash anything from the FF+ or any body that appears to defend the interests of minorities. Try not to jump on the bandwagon.

  • 5c

    @Mikhail Dworkin Fassbinder: The San are still very much alive (although in small numbers). The coloureds do have white ancestors too – perhaps they qualify only for a fraction of reparations?

  • Gwebecimele

    Whilst it is important to know our history, it is very sad that as Blacks we always console ourselves about our great departed leaders and how good we were and not much is said how well we are doing NOW and how good we going to be. After Mandela we are unable to point to an individual who is worthy of our praises and neither can we point convincingly to a time in the future that will deliver on our hopes despite the fact that we are in charge. We keep each other drunk on memories of the struggle.

    We do not want to hear the truth and neither are we prepared to act on it. Who ever thought that it would take us more than 18 yrs come up with a coherent land redistribution programme? Who ever thought that whites would make more money under a black govt than during apartheid?

    Mulder is giving us a wake up call and if he was black (like Azapo, PAC, Bahlali Basemjondolo) his message would have been missed.

  • 5c

    Lizard please give us the proper interpretation then? (Maybe he should have had an interpreter?)

  • Gwebecimele

    Where are the San, Khoi, “Couloureds” in this debate??

    Mulder has a point the 87% figure cannot be accurate and Land Affairs must produce convincing figures.

  • Gwebecimele
  • Mikhail Dworkin Fassbinder

    @ Gwebe

    “Who ever thought that it would take us more than 18 yrs come up with a coherent land redistribution programme?”

    Yes, I too am flabbergasted.

    Perhaps I was naive, but I thought 400 years of history would need no more than a month or two to set right!

  • Brett Nortje

    So, my dear Pierre, how does this compensation regime you propose compare to and differ from that of the pre-constitutional era?

    “As I have written before, to this end the property clause therefore does not require expropriation of land in accordance with the “willing-buyer willing-seller” principle. Nor does it require the payment of market value for that land in all circumstances.”

  • Brett Nortje

    The second question which I wish to pose to you was whether there was a similar tax regime for white men as imposed by the Glen Grey Act?

    Or, perhaps, an extensive welfare safety net for white men?

    “The Glen Grey Act, as Davenport pointed out, “was designed to set a pattern of African land-holding throughout the Cape African reserves”. It imposed a labour tax on Africans which was aimed at forcing Xhosa men off their land and into employment on commercial farms or in industry.”

  • Brett Nortje

    Another brief question? The last, I promise.

    Why – would you say – “Europeans were prohibited from buying or leasing land from an African”?

    What was the objective of such a prohibition?

  • Mikhail Dworkin Fassbinder

    @ Lizard

    “You have neither interpreted what Mulder said properly, nor countered the facts as stated in his speech.”

    Poor Lizard. You do not get that Pierre is not really interested in the so-called facts. (Note his throw-away line: “even if [Mulder] was historically correct.”)

    Bear in mind that, as something of a post-modernist, Pierre believes that the so-called “facts” are to a large extent generated by the ideological lens through which they are viewed. That is why, as as the sage of Darling says, the future is clear; it is the past is always changing.

  • Jama ka Sijadu

    Mikhail Dworkin Fassbinder says:
    February 21, 2012 at 11:29 am

    Mulder’s real amnesia is that he does not note that these areas were settled long before his diary-wielding Boers arrived – by Khoi and San.

    According to Mulder & co, the Khoi & the San are not Africans.

  • Henri

    Maybe the prof should just explain again.

    Mulder made the point that 85% of the land was never owned [or occupied, for that matter] by Blacks. So all of it was never taken from them.

    Then the prof harks about the Glen Grey Act and the 1913 Land Act. OK. Point taken.

    But how does that proves or justifies, that 85% percent of the land must now perforce to be owned by, or be “returned” to, Blacks?

    Or am I missing something?

  • Lee

    Oh gosh, so I got it spectacularly wrong. Sorry about that. It appears though that the jury is still out on who’s got it right. Is there such a thing as an objective historian?

  • Brett Nortje

    Henri says:
    February 21, 2012 at 13:01 pm

    Henri, you are starting to approach the point that Pierre should have been examining: Given the challenges of the time how could responsible government not try to formalise land ownership? And, how to do it?

  • Brett Nortje

    Pierre’s obsession is portraying the Afrikaner white as possibly the vilest, most vicious of the species, unparalleled in history.

    I have ripped this link/source for the Enclosure Movement off from one of my favourite websites

    Read the article and tell me this is what my people were doing, not that ‘the landed gentry in the Cape were doing the same as their peers in the UK’…

  • Pierre De Vos

    The amount of land owned by black South Africans is a completely irrelevant red herring. Land ownership evolved in South Africa as part of the process of colonialism and the laws put in place in SA prevented black South Africans from acquiring land in most parts of the country. Harping on about how much land was owned by whom when colonialism started or in 1994 is a ridiculous and utterly irrelevant side-show as it ignores the fact that the situation – whatever it is – is the result of the factors I have mentioned. A failure to engage with these factors are dishonest and immoral.

  • ozoneblue

    Pierre De Vos
    February 21, 2012 at 13:42 pm

    “Harping on about how much land was owned by whom when colonialism started or in 1994 is a ridiculous and utterly irrelevant side-show as it ignores the fact that the situation – whatever it is – is the result of the factors I have mentioned. A failure to engage with these factors are dishonest and immoral.”

    Agreed. And that coin spins both ways when the Black nationalist propaganda assert that “whites have [historically] stolen all the land from Africans” – which is what I understood Mulder to have said.

  • ozoneblue

    Jama ka Sijadu
    February 21, 2012 at 12:52 pm

    “Mulder’s real amnesia is that he does not note that these areas were settled long before his diary-wielding Boers arrived – by Khoi and San. According to Mulder & co, the Khoi & the San are not Africans.”

    Then who are those “COLOUREDS” that your racist friend Jimmy Manyi said are over-concentrated in Western Cape? I have also noted different categories of South African’s in the wording of “demographics” in AA/BEE and EEA i.e. “Africans”, Indians, “Coloureds” and Whites.

  • Gwebecimele

    @ Dworky

    I hear in Slovenia it takes 18 yrs to develop a programme. Add a multiplying factor if the programme is trying to correct a more tha 400 yrs of legacy.

    Hence no Minister or President can start and complete the formulation of a programme in their term.

  • ozoneblue

    Brett Nortje
    February 21, 2012 at 12:22 pm

    “It imposed a labour tax on Africans which was aimed at forcing Xhosa men off their land and into employment on commercial farms or in industry.”

    Exactly. Much the same happened to the Boers driven off their land into concentration camps during the Anglo-Boer war.

  • Zoo Keeper


    Your last post is ridiculous. Mulder’s point, however badly made, is about how much land is subject to redistribution. He actually has a point, even though I find his politics a fair way from my tastes just like you.

    The historical analysis of this is actually very important.

    By the way, Mulder stated that the Bantu-speaking people and whites met each other at the Kei. The Bantu tribe still lives in Northern Uganda and their cousins marched south along the eastern seaboard. The white and black tribes clashed in 1820 in the Kei Region.

    Prior to that the indigenous inhabitants were the San and Khoi, overtaken or killed in equal measure by white and black. Mulder used the word “African” just the way the ANC does – “African in particular” means no coloureds.

    On Shaka’s famous battlefield where he defeated Zwide, the rocks are adorned with San paintings showing who was really there first, and also who got the sharp end of the iklwa.

    So it is wrong for you and other commentators to elevate this to a denial of history, if anything it is trying to get history to play its part in resolving the present uncertainty regarding land.

    Of substantial importance is the effect of population growth on this issue. When the land was parcelled up the relative populations were a fraction of present levels. This thing about redistributing land wholesale is simply a fiction given the extent of population growth. Population growth in homeland areas was not because the whites gave out free viagra so overcrowding is hardly a white guilt issue.

    Preventing land purchase and natural expansion perhaps though remember that those old governments didn’t want blacks in their SA, they wanted them to have their own territories. The 1922 rebellion by your beloved SACP was to keep cheap black labour OUT of the mines, such was the resistance to cheap black labour. In fact, the Apartheid govt had to legislate job reservation to minimise the impact of cheap black labour on white workers! Not like the Apartheid machine encouraged cheap black labour, in fact there is a cogent argument to be made that the Apartheid government did not want cheap black labour in SA.

    Food for someone’s masters in history, if they’ve got the nuts to be politically incorrect.

    I think Mulder has done us a favour, maybe we’ll get somewhere on this land issue thanks to his politically incorrect point.

    It will help us draw the line where redistribution ends. Is it land confiscated, even bought, after 1913 or are we going further back to before the Union?

    The ANC needs a klap here to be honest. It needs some courage to say “this is where land redistribution starts and ends”. Once we’ve finished, we’ve finished. No more land claims, no more ESTA. Just keep calm and carry on.

    Let’s end this debate and carry on with our lives. If your great-grand daddy lost out – tough shit. That’s the way I look at a monumental loss by my forefathers at the business end of British muskets. Sure ain’t going begging for an apology or complaining or begging compensation – that’s just the way it went back then.

  • ozoneblue

    Zoo Keeper
    February 21, 2012 at 14:28 pm

    “The Bantu tribe still lives in Northern Uganda and their cousins marched south along the eastern seaboard. The white and black tribes clashed in 1820 in the Kei Region.”

    I guess that is what Apartheid history taught you. The Bantu tribes migrated over centuries from up north and most definitely long before any Europeans arrived in Southern Africa.

  • Gwebecimele

    Snr Public officials will attend drawing lessons and that goes for Land Affairs as well who should be able to draw a map and boundaries.

  • Zoo Keeper


    Didn’t do apartheid syllabus at my school. But please read up about the frontier wars (renamed of course). I know enough about history not to use wikipedia as my primary source too…

    But tell me, why do the immigrants who came over land have more rights than those who came over the sea?

  • Michael Osborne


    “Harping on about how much land was owned by whom when colonialism started or in 1994 is a ridiculous and utterly irrelevant side-show”

    Agreed. What matters is the balance of political power now. As in the Middle East, all sides invoke myth of history as a way of legitimating present-day demands. Anyway, why do both African and Afrikaaner nationalists frame their arguments in terms of the baseline of arbitrary colonial boundaries? If anyone was seriously interested in the question of who settled where first as a basis for current moral claims to land, they would have to take into account patterns of settlement in Mozambique, Lesotho, Namibia and Botwana’s also.

  • Gwebecimele

    White men at it again. Sucking municipalities dry.

  • Maggs Naidu –

    Zoo Keeper
    February 21, 2012 at 14:28 pm

    Hey Zooky,

    “Let’s end this debate and carry on with our lives. If your great-grand daddy lost out – tough shit. That’s the way I look at a monumental loss by my forefathers at the business end of British muskets. Sure ain’t going begging for an apology or complaining or begging compensation – that’s just the way it went back then.”


    Great idea and well said.

    So the ANC could also then justifiably say – nationalisation and land redistribution without compensation. Whoever loses out – TOUGH SHIT!

  • Zoo Keeper


    Brilliant point!

    Africa is defined by colonial boundaries on the whole, recently changed by South Sudan and a couple of other minors. Basically though the map hasn’t changed since it was drawn in Europe.

    Very important not to blame whitey though, since the OAU (now the AU) voted unanimously to keep the colonial boundaries.

  • Andrew

    Let us accept, at least for arguments sake, that both the Dr and the Prof is correct. It would mean that black people could not accumalate land beyond the borders imposed by the 1913 Act.

    Relying on the blog by Prof, it would seem that close to 93% of land was reserved for non-blacks by the 1913 Act.

    It is the limitation of the 1913 Act that seems a bit, shall we say, racist and immoral.

    The constitution as suggested by Prof allows for expropiation and reasonable compensation.

    It is up to goverment to formulate an appropiate policy or legislate how land redistribution should be accomplished.

    The latter, policy and law, could be challenged in court if it does not pass the constitutional test.

    The Dr’s argument seems to suggest that we should not look at the totality of the effect of white minority rule?

  • vuyo

    “Much the same happened to the Boers driven off their land into concentration camps during the Anglo-Boer war”. You neglect to mention that theses Boers afterwards, and despite what ought to have been a salutary lesson of the evils of imperialism, colonialism, racism and oppression, they chose to align themselves with the British in a grand enterprise which led to the oppression, brutalization, rape, pillage and murder of millions of black Africans.

  • vuyo

    Amazingly, the wounds of the Boer War remain fully recognized by white Afrikaners whereas we are informed to forget 300 hundred years of heinous oppression and colonialism. We are even informed that white South Africans have noting whatsoever to be forgiven for! Accordingly, what black Africans require to cleanse the wounds (and insults) of the histories is radical transformation of all social, political and economic relations, including by means of expropriation without compensation, wealth taxes (including the super tax on the proceeds of finance capital and even a 100% tax on deceased estates beyond a certain threshold) as well as the immediate criminalization (with the pain of a decades long imprisonment) for all exclusionary acts based on race (subject to the constitutionally protected exclusion, viz AA and BBBEE, and similar measures). Sweden, Denmark, Norway, and the like, reached a social-political-economic accommodation, post WWI (and WWII) in terms of which stability was achieved. A similar accommodation is required in South Africa based on 1) the recognition of the heinous nature of apartheid and its predecessor systems, 2) the acknowledgement of the benefit derived by whites (generally) from this heinous system, 3) the quantification of the lost benefits caused by apartheid (if it can be done fro propaganda purposes by Harvard in regard to nevirapine, I am confident it can be done for reconciliatory purposes in regard to apartheid), 4) development and implementation of a once off radical redistributive effort to compensate those detrimentally affected by apartheid (including where necessary, the socialization of mines and the financial sector), 5) re-enactment of the TRC Act and rigorous investigation of all corporations and business, as well as natural persons who benefited from apartheid, and who where culpable therefor, 6), pursuant to 5), establishment of a Nuremberg type tribunal to expose, prosecute and forfeit (by attainder, if needs be) all property, liberty, etc, of all those found culpable (including their estates, if deceased), and 7) all causes of inequality, commencing with the private ownership of property capable of reproducing capital.

  • Heywood Jubleauxme

    Perhaps it’s true what they say: “a myth is not easily dispersed with facts”.

    I have been following the fall-out in the printed media resulting from Pieter Mulder’s reply to the president’s SONA and have noticed something peculiar. One of the many things that Mulder touched on during his reply was the myth that whites own(ed) 87% of land in South Africa. Of all the points raised by Mulder on that day, this is the one that no-one, and I mean no-one has the courage to engage with.

    Just in case you missed the point that Mulder made (rather badly) I would like to repeat it. The Development Bank of SA in 2001 calculated land ownership in South Africa to be: State – 25%, Corporations – 2%, Black – 20%, Coloured – 8%, Indian – 1%, White – 44%. Just a hint for all those members of parliament, cabinet ministers, political commentators and secondary school teachers who are unfamiliar with the concept of the percentage – the total has to add up to 100%

    What I find interesting about the whole land question is the fact that a large portion of our population live in the former homelands but can never own the land which they have occupied for centuries because tribal chiefs remain the custodians of these vast territories. Just imagine the amount of wealth that could be created over-night if those who occupy land in the former homelands were awarded title deeds for that land.

    The Traditional Courts Bill 1 of 2012 is currently before the National Council of Provinces. It is the latest in a series of significant legislative affirmations to give traditional leaders even greater authority over their subjects.

    I find it strange that all those commentators who are jumping up and down with rage about Mulder’s insensitivity regarding the injustices of the past have sweet nothing to say about the contemporary injustices being inflicted on rural black people.

  • vuyo

    7) should read: ABOLISH all causes of inequality, commencing with the private ownership of property capable of reproducing capital.

  • Gwebecimele

    @ Heywood

    Brilliant point. Infact we should start telling poor that the promises of freedom charter cannot be realised. That promise of the 87% land was never there nor there will be any Nationalisation in our lifetime.

  • sirjay jonson
  • vuyo

    @Heywood Jubleauxme

    I propose that you falsify reality. The objective reality, using your data is that 25% of land is supposedly held by government. Government is neither black, white, or Martian. 2% of land is owned by corporations, the vast majority of whose shareholders are white. The fact therefore is that 60% of land is owned by whites with the remainder being owned by blacks. As stated by you, the vast majority of the land owned by blacks is in rural areas, and is therefore in custodianship and thus not owned by individuals. The consequence therefore is that the economic value of such rural land is vastly diminished vis-à-vis the individual black citizen. We are therefore still faced with the same quandary: of 60% of the land with economic consequence being owned by whites whilst the rest hold diminished title AND the ownership by whites of that portion of land is not a result of their toil but a DIRECT CONSEQUENCE OF A CRIME AGAINST HUMANITY. It is disingenuous to claim that resources controlled by government (on behalf of all citizens and residents) are the property of blacks (unless of cause you subscribe to the racist notion that the national government is a government of blacks and not all South Africans; in which case you are deserved of a speedy transference to the nearest re-education camp). In sum, you and Dr Mulder are falsifiers of reality and should therefore be ashamed. I reiterate, we require radical transformation measures, if needs be, including the redistribution of land without compensation. The mere fact that such fraudulent scholarship and statements pass without our collective vomit, shows how entrenched privilege and racism and denial of the consequences of racism is so prevalent in this country. Clearly there can never be an amicable accommodation in regard to issues of economic normalization (a moral necessity); therefore there must be unilateral action by a radical governing party (truly aligned to the masses) to ensure that the commanding heights of our economy (including land ownership) is accessible to all South Africans, black, Martian, coloured, white, etc. The racial question shall never be resolved until such a time that there is economic equality; after all, the parkhurst madam remains as such only until such a time that the “boy” and “girl” own her house, automobile, and restaurant (together with all resources in the supply and other value chain).

  • Gwebecimele


    ‘Dr Roelof Botha, the independent economist who conducted the study, explained at the results presentation that the tolling system leads to motorists spending less time on the road. This could mean that they are more productive if they use their new-found spare time doing something other than travelling.

    In his words: “If a motorist uses just 15% of the spare time that they now have, not travelling, on productive work effort, then there is the potential for the individual to generate R8.84 for every R1 they spend on tolls.”

  • bob

    That SA is an unfair society is well known but if the goverment keeps on launching figues of “white” land ownership that are wrong then it is time to contradict these liars. I agree that we should move away from black vs white debates and rather think how we can help rural communities to help themselves. Exactly what the whole debate is not conductive to. And we also know very well that the ANC has zero interest in actually solving the problems.

  • Chris (Not the right wing guy)

    February 21, 2012 at 16:58 pm

    That is why Zuma reacted the way he did.

    The inconvenient truth.

  • Pingback: Pieter Mulder and Afrikaner Manifest Destiny | Medialternatives()

  • ozoneblue

    February 21, 2012 at 15:52 pm

    “You neglect to mention that theses Boers afterwards, and despite what ought to have been a salutary lesson of the evils of imperialism, colonialism, racism and oppression, they chose to align themselves with the British in a grand enterprise which led to the oppression, brutalization, rape, pillage and murder of millions of black Africans.”

    Nah. Not much worse than Thabo Mbeki and Nelson Mandela such proud Xhosas sucking Tony Blair’s cock after all those unspeakable atrocities and promising to repay apartheid debts + spending 45 billion on BAE arms procurement instead of repairs.

  • Brett Nortje

    vuyo says:
    February 21, 2012 at 15:52 pm

    Really? WHere are those millions of murdered black people buried?

  • Brett Nortje

    vuyo says:
    February 21, 2012 at 15:53 pm


    Well, then those black Africans should not have entered into Codesa negotiations and – by your narrative – gained power they could not by force by means of the subterfuge of a constitutional modus vivendi between black and white.

    They should have put those bottom-line demands squarely before the world and said “No thank you! No peace in our lifetime!”.

    Anything else was sheer bad faith.

  • ozoneblue

    February 21, 2012 at 16:39 pm

    I can smell the pseudo-Marxist Black nationalist bullshit.

    “As stated by you, the vast majority of the land owned by blacks is in rural areas, and is therefore in custodianship and thus not owned by individuals. The consequence therefore is that the economic value of such rural land is vastly diminished vis-à-vis the individual black citizen. ”


    “It is disingenuous to claim that resources controlled by government (on behalf of all citizens and residents) are the property of blacks (unless of cause you subscribe to the racist notion that the national government is a government of blacks and not all South Africans;”

    You are right – you and your racist brother Juliass Malema needs a couple of months in a political re-education camp.

    While we are on the topic – why are Nigeria and Kenya still dependent on British foreign charity just in order to feed themselves?

    500m children ‘at risk of effects of malnutrition’

    “It says much more needs to be done to tackle malnutrition in the world’s poorest countries. The charity found that many families could not afford meat, milk or vegetables. The survey covered families in India, Bangladesh, Peru, Pakistan and Nigeria. One parent in six said their children were abandoning school to help out by working for food.”

  • Brett Nortje

    Well said, Sirjay!

    The tragedy is that it has to be said.

  • Maggs Naidu –

    February 21, 2012 at 20:10 pm

    Hey OB,

    “I can smell the … bullshit.”

    You really should not be sticking your nose under the bull’s tail!

  • Gwebecimele
  • sirjay jonson

    In case you folks so concerned with the past missed the link posted earlier, I suggest you don’t miss this present deceitful abhorrence on another matter: Arms Deal Inquiry; think Secrecy Bill as we can realistically and justifiably imagine it, and never doubt this: as the ANC intends it.

    Over to you Fass.

  • ozoneblue

    Maggs Naidu –
    February 21, 2012 at 20:27 pm

    Do you think Mulder also has his nose firmly stuck up the bull’s poop hole. Or perhaps the stink he is causing is nothing but the truth?

    “I said land is an emotional issue. Propaganda figures and emotional slogans will not bring us to answers. Realistic debates with real figures however will.

    The size of arable land under production dropped by 30% from 1994 up to 2009. Failed land reform, where 9 out of 10 farms are not successful, played an important role in this. Farmers now have to produce more food on less land for South Africa’s population of 50 million.

    I agree when minister Nkwinti says it does not help to merely chase after hectares. If that land does not produce food, we will have famine very shortly and then people will be running in the streets as they recently did in Mozambique when bread prices increased due to shortages.

    In 2000 Zimbabwean farmers produced 2 million tonnes of maize. Last year, following land reforms they produced only 900 thousand tonnes. In 2000 Zimbabwe had 250 thousand tonnes of grain, last year they only had 10 thousand tonnes. It is not the result of drought. In the same time Zambia grew to where it has started exporting maize.

    I want to repeat a quote which I used in the Cabinet Lekgotla. Mondli Makhanya wrote in the Sunday Times: (28/2/2010)

    “…we are wasting valuable time and energy trying to restore people to their peasant ways.

    Ordinary South Africans either do not want land or just do not have the capacity to work it. They want to go to cities and work in the modern economy… Large-scale, highly mechanised commercial farming is now the way of the world. You cannot turn the clock back four decades. That is just the reality. Furthermore, the young people would, as has happened elsewhere, have simply upped and headed for the towns and cities. Yet we continue to nurse the notion that we can reverse the inevitable march to an urban future. We keep wanting to fight the logic of large scale commercial farming… The money and energy that is spent on getting peasants back into subsistence (farming) would be better used to create a strong class of black commercial farmers who actually do farm for commercial rather than sentimental reasons.””

  • ozoneblue

    “…we are wasting valuable time and energy trying to restore people to their peasant ways.”

    VIVA. It is a sick fucking joke really.

  • Maggs Naidu –

    February 21, 2012 at 20:39 pm


    “Or perhaps the stink he is causing is nothing but the truth?”


    Dr Mulder has made a convincing case that WHITE people were in the Western Cape first.

    So you’re correct that Dr Mulder has spoken truth to power.

    p.s. No I don’t think that Dr Mulder “also has his nose firmly stuck up the bull’s poop hole”.

    He tried but was disappointed to find that you got there before him.

  • sirjay jonson

    February 21, 2012 at 20:39 pm

    “…we are wasting valuable time and energy trying to restore people to their peasant ways.”

    I’m a decade in food security OZ. And I must say, thanks, what a great quote.

    So the answer begs: do we who are blacks, disadvantaged, poor, want peasantry under dictatorial chiefs, or would we rather have all the goodies and benefits of the modern world?

    I say: let the people eat inexpensive broadband. They’ll be much happier, especially their children who are after all the future.

  • Gwebecimele


  • sirjay jonson

    February 21, 2012 at 21:04 pm

    How long do you think Gwebe that the hated whites (by the black elite) will be given a chance to participate in the development of the future of South Africa.

    When I was but a boy I realized if I wanted to play a better game of pool (snooker), then I had better play with my betters, those more skilled in the game. I took this same approach to cricket and rugby. I wanted only to play with the best. When it comes to running a successful society, a successful business, why oh why do we not want to play with those who after all got it right with respect to competence and effective game play. Its all a game after all, winners and losers.

    In pool, cricket and rugby, I couldn’t care less whether I liked my skilled opponent or not, I just wanted to learn how he did what he did so well. And not surprisingly, I did learn just that, becoming eventually a skilled player in all fields. I give due thanks and credit to all of them, my skilled opponents who in all cases rather surprisingly to me, became mentors.

  • Brett Nortje

    sirjay jonson says:
    February 21, 2012 at 21:04 pm

    I also think it is a great quote, Sirjay.

    My second most abiding impression of Mozambique was walking around Maputo harbour and seeing bags stamped ‘Gift from the people of Great Britain to the people of Mozambique’ being offloaded under the watchful eye of the UN peacekeeping force and later seeing people sitting on those bags in the market – selling them.

    That helped the process of the rose-tinted specs coming off to the firm abiding belief now that cadres like Gwebecimele and Vuyo in conjunction with busibodies like Pierre fuck it up every time.

    This week I paid R129 per bag of breeding mix for my pigeons. 6 Months ago it was R95.

    Do you see people like OBS outside Brian Lever’s house with placards telling him and his kids to drag themselves away from the Alliance Grain Traders’ windfall for a couple of minutes to come answer a few questions?

  • Pingback: Mulder, Zuma and the press | Zimbabwe Telegraph()

  • ozoneblue

    Mulder, Zuma and the press | Zimbabwe Telegraph
    February 22, 2012 at 2:15 am

    Mulder, Zuma and the press
    Published: February 22, 2012

    “Bу African people Zuma wаѕ referring tο black South Africans, nοt Coloureds οr whites. Thе clear implication οf hіѕ statement wаѕ thаt thе entire land mass οf South Africa hаԁ once belonged tο black Africans аnԁ thе Land Act hаԁ deprived thіѕ group οf 87% οf thіѕ area.

    In hіѕ аnѕwеr tο Zuma’s speech Freedom Front Plus leader Pieter Mulder contested thіѕ assertion. Hе stated: “Africans іn particular never іn thе past lived іn thе whole οf South Africa. Thе Bantu- speaking people wеnt frοm thе equator down whіƖе thе white people wеnt frοm thе Cape up tο meet each additional аt thе Kei River. Thеrе іѕ sufficient proof thаt thеrе wеrе nο Bantu-speaking people іn thе Western Cape аnԁ North-western Cape. Thеѕе раrtѕ form 40% οf South Africa’s land surface.”

    Nowhere ԁіԁ Mulder claim thаt thе Khoikhoi аnԁ thе ‘San’ wеrе nοt thе first inhabitants οf thіѕ area – іt wουƖԁ hаνе bееn absurd tο ԁο ѕο. Thіѕ іѕ SA History 101 stuff. If anything іt wаѕ Zuma whο wаѕ denying thіѕ group’s – аnԁ thеіr descendents – historic presence іn thіѕ area. Thіѕ matters аѕ thе ANC іѕ currently trying tο impose racial quotas based οn national demographics іn employment іn thе Western Cape. Thеrе′s nο reason whу thе ANC wouldn’t ԁο thе same wіth land іn thе province (іf thеу сουƖԁ).”

    Exactly. Yet the author of this blog also demonstrated his absolute lack of honesty and integrity by setting up a thousand little strawmen arguments around what Mulder said that he then proceeded to knock down. It was a staunch reminder of what our pitiful “academics” who have also sold out and become subservient to all sort of fascist nationalist agendas have become.

  • Maggs Naidu –

    February 22, 2012 at 6:59 am

    Hey OB,

    This guy look like you.

    Is it you?

  • Brett Nortje

    Mulder, Zuma and the press
    James Myburgh
    22 February 2012

    James Myburgh says the past week has not been a good one for our media

    In his State of the Nation Address to Parliament President Jacob Zuma stated that “The year 2013 will mark the centenary of the Natives Land Act of 1913, which took away 87 percent of the land from the African people.”

    By African people Zuma was referring to black South Africans, not Coloureds or whites. The clear implication of his statement was that the entire land mass of South Africa had once belonged to black Africans and the Land Act had deprived this group of 87% of this area.

    In his reply to Zuma’s speech Freedom Front Plus leader Pieter Mulder contested this assertion. He stated: “Africans in particular never in the past lived in the whole of South Africa. The Bantu- speaking people moved from the equator down while the white people moved from the Cape up to meet each other at the Kei River. There is sufficient proof that there were no Bantu-speaking people in the Western Cape and North-western Cape. These parts form 40% of South Africa’s land surface.”

    Nowhere did Mulder claim that the Khoikhoi and the ‘San’ were not the first inhabitants of this area – it would have been absurd to do so. This is SA History 101 stuff. If anything it was Zuma who was denying this group’s – and their descendents – historic presence in this area. This matters as the ANC is currently trying to impose racial quotas based on national demographics in employment in the Western Cape. There’s no reason why the ANC wouldn’t do the same with land in the province (if they could).

    In his reply to the debate Zuma accused Mulder of callousness and a “bold denial of historical facts about land dispossession.” He urged “Honourable Mulder to tread very carefully on this matter. It is extremely sensitive and to the majority of people in this country, it is a matter of life and death.”

    This response did not constitute a rebuttal, on the facts, as much as a threat. This reaction was imitated in the Sunday papers.

    In the Sunday Times Mondli Makhanya accused Mulder of “crude denialism about South Africa’s evil past” and of driving a “sharp knife into the belly of black South Africans.” Again, Makhanya did not rebut Mulder’s statement factually instead translating it to mean: “Shut up you darkies! We whites were right to mess you up all these decades.”

    In City Press Fikile-Ntsikelelo Moya stated that “Mulder best personifies why many black people believe that their white compatriots have spat on the hand they extended in the name of building a non-racial society.” And he accused the Freedom Front leader of denying the truth “that African people’s claims to Africa is unquestionable.”

    He followed this up with a thinly veiled threat of genocide if the white minority did not learn its place. He suggested in the process that the Jews of Europe and Asians of Uganda had brought their destruction on themselves. According to Moya’s interesting reasoning “Fascists and strongmen [like Adolph Hitler and Idi Amin] tend to materialise when a people who have endured degradation and oppression decide they’d rather live in dignity than in a democracy that perpetuates their dehumanisation.”

    On early Monday morning a dairy farmer – David Hall – was murdered by a gang of five armed men on his farm in the North West province for no apparent reason.

    In a more decent society a killing like this might sober the media up a bit. But the denunciations of Mulder continued unabated. Pierre de Vos accused Mulder and other white South Africans of “historical amnesia”. De Vos did not actually dispute Mulder’s statement, launching instead into a tangential lecture on the 1913 Land Act based on some undigested reading of the literature.

    Finally, at least one newspaper had the bright idea of asking an expert for their opinion. The Mail & Guardian proudly reported that the “historical evidence disproves Mulder’s argument” citing as its authority David Coplan, the professor and chair of anthropology at the University of Witwatersrand.

    Coplan accused Mulder of perpetuating the “empty-land myth” of the early apartheid-era before conceding both that white farmers and the Xhosas had indeed “met” near the Kei River and that there had been no Bantu-speakers in the Western Cape when the Dutch arrived.

    The past week has not been a good one for the South African media.

  • Mike

    @Pierre De Vos – My understanding is that at the time of the 1913 land Act the Afrikaaner farmers had just been decimated by the Boer war.There were no reparations and the Brits according to Emily Hobhouse renaged on the IOU’s for the farm animals that they took.
    It is also convenient to be able to point to recorded history but you do realise of course that when these land grabbing settlers arrived the blacks had no written language, a gift that was eventually given to them by the settlers.
    The world at the time of the Glen Grey Act was a very different place and South Africa’s black population was some 5million people.
    The blacks in this country have been warned for a long time about their culture of fathering 12 children from 3 different women and now we have a choice and that is subsistance farming or food on the table for the entire population.

  • Gwebecimele

    5 convictions in 10 yrs and Radebe is not aware.

  • Gwebecimele
  • Gwebecimele
  • Michael Osborne

    @ Mike

    “when these land grabbing settlers arrived the blacks had no written language, a gift that was eventually given to them by the settlers”

    You taught me language; and my profit on’t
    Is, I know how to curse you

    Caliban, The Tempest

  • Maggs Naidu –

    Brett Nortje
    February 22, 2012 at 8:13 am

    Hey G,

    Well done to Dr Mulder – his rolling stone is gathering a lot of kak.

    Unfortunately his brainwave (that the Western Cape was devoid of people when Ozone Guy’s uncles arrived) has become irrelevant.

    Dr Mulder implied that if something is lying idle it can be taken by whoever wants to take it.

    But Prof MO’s plan is even better – let’s solve this debate by poking our noses in Mozambique, Jamaica, Alaska.

    And Zooky’s plan – take anyone’s possessions. If they don’t like it – TOUGH SHIT. Kinda like “finders keepers, losers weepers”.

    There’s more equally fascinating stuff emerging.

  • Brett Nortje

    1) That is not what Mulder said, Dumbass! Similarly, you misrepresent what ZooKeeper said.

    2) Yes – it is called a res nullius. Ask Michael – but shut up about your Steetwise 2.

  • Mikhail Dworkin Fassbinder

    @ Maggs is right.

    We must analyse our problems within established colonial boundaries. We can’t always be revisiting the past. Let us rather look to the future.

    And Maggs, I am sorry to have labelled you a racist. I was emotional and unthinking that day.

  • Jama ka Sijadu

    Our wonderful commercial farmers in the Western Cape, once again demonstrating what Afrikaners are made of.

  • Maggs Naidu –

    Mikhail Dworkin Fassbinder
    February 22, 2012 at 11:39 am

    Hey Dworky,

    “And Maggs, I am sorry to have labelled you a racist.”

    I am racist.

    You don’t have to be sorry about saying it.

    And you are correct about colonial borders.

    Before colonial borders there was Pangea.

    We should start there.

    Maybe we should ask Adam and Eve for their views too about the South African land issue – especially let’s ask them if there were any people in the Western Cape before the elder Mulders descended there.

    p.s. Don’t worry too much about my racist views – I am sitting in India with 1.2 billion other coolies watching cricket and eating bunny chow (thanks to OB).

  • Maggs Naidu –

    February 22, 2012 at 10:49 am



    Anyway – there’s some interesting stuff to emerge in the Budget.

    At last some real progress is on the horizon.

  • Gwebecimele

    Speaking to workers at a soccer field in the middle of the Shaft Six hostels, Vavi first apologised for only addressing the workers in what is now the FIFTH week of the illegal strike, citing the education crisis in the Eastern Cape as a reason for his delayed intervention.

    “We’re standing firm and shoulder to shoulder in saying that the 18% increase must be shared among all the workers,” he said.

    “We’re going to focus all our energies on ensuring that they meet that demand.”

  • vuyo

    Ozoneblue, history is on my side. No society can succeed without resolving inequality and the consequences of historical injustice. You may refer to my ideas as pseudo Marxist or even Black Nationalist, but I expect that in time they will be the mainstream. The current South African social-political and economic model (trickle down economics and state accommodation of big business, etc) simply cannot and will not work. The only solution to class and racial inequality lies with the elimination of all sources of such inequality (which includes the concentration of capital in a minority and the failure to compensate materially those who suffered from a patent historical injustice).

  • vuyo

    Maggs, what interesting stuff?
    What will basically happen is that infrastructure spending will fill the coffers of the same corrupt construction companies that filched the taxpayer from the capital formation preceding the world cup. The same guys who admitted to having colluded in stealing from the fiscus. Add to that the simple reality that much of the machinery to be used will be purchased from foreign countries (chiefly in the west), thus what will be attained is simply the subsidization of the dying old world economies. Its pure junk economics, intended to bolster the pockets of the financial elite that owns our politicians (across the political spectrum). Such large scale capital formation will simply benefit big business (the same big business that routinely retrenches workers, under guise of competitiveness, and labour laws, whilst reaping record profits routinely). What is needed is that local communities (possibly, through the vehicle of local government) should make determinations of expenditure based on their local needs, and not for central government (in cahoots with corrupt capital) to determine what the future debt burden will be for Ms so-and-so in Khayelitsha without even the minimal consultation.

  • vuyo

    From where shall the funds be derived for the newly announced feeding frenzy? From increased borrowing by government and the parastatals, leading to increased deficits and in future austerity measures akin to the Greek scenario. Big business lacks the loyalty to create work and therefore increase aggregate demand. The tragedy is that they do not realize that more employment means more consumers of their products. They are more focused in cutting costs, dodging tax and therefore creating false profits. Yet sadly, it appears our government is so aligned to the business elites that it will not even consider increasing the tax rate (to about 35%, corporate rate) and the marginal tax rate (to about 50%), not to mention the tax on capital gains and estate duty (respectively, a 70%inclusion rate and 50% death duties). All of these would ensure that sufficient revenues are available for redistribution to the poor and employment creation (even if it means direct employment by mainly the public sector), therefore increasing aggregate demand, and ensuring greater economic output as a result.

  • Gwebecimele

    @ Vuyo

    Apparently all that is required is a “Integrity Test Pack” for the construction firms, tick against the usual pink & fluffy stuff and “Wallah” the tender is yours.

    Oil companies have just paid fines for fixing “tar” prices and cleansed themselves, will be ready to supply for the roads construction.

  • Mike

    @Vuyo I work in construction and the thieving companies you talk about are those BEE companies that had a free ride rather than compete in the normal way for tenders.Tokyo Sexwale’s Civil Engineering practice had a cut in every single stadium.
    Vivien Reddy gets every major electrical contract from the Ethekweni municipality in Durban, why because the contract point system is rigged that way.
    Money will concentrate where it is generated, so as the tax records will confirm it is a minority that is generating tax for the fiscus.You appear to not understand that you cannot go against the natural laws of economics, I would have thought Zimbabwe would have been a obvious lesson.

  • vuyo

    Pray tell Mike, what are these natural laws of economics? Privatization of profits and socialization of debt perhaps?

  • vuyo

    Gwebs, I quote from the minister, in regard to the corrupt construction sector: “Poor tax compliance is also apparent in respect of trusts and in parts of the construction sector…” Yet the state intends to further feed this sector with public debt!

  • Gwebecimele


    And who got the other slice of the cake other than the 10% BEE crumbs ? Are u suffering from Mulderism ?

  • Gwebecimele

    “The recent Voluntary Disclosure Programme has attracted approximately 18 000 applications, and has yielded almost R1 billion in additional tax so far. It has also provided useful insights into areas of non-compliance that will receive focused attention, including:

    Under-declaration of income such as rental and foreign income and capital gains
    Claiming of excessive income deductions
    Under-declaration of VAT outputs and inflating of VAT inputs
    Abuse of share incentive schemes by corporate executives
    Abuse of benefits granted to foreign persons employed in South Africa
    Non-payment of PAYE and failure to submit PAYE returns by employers.

    Poor tax compliance is also apparent in respect of trusts and in parts of the construction sector, and the role of tax practitioners and other intermediaries will come under scrutiny. Analysis of compliance among the country’s 34 000 tax advisors shows practitioners owe over R260 million in outstanding taxes and have more than 18 000 income tax returns outstanding in their personal capacity. If that is their attitude to their own tax compliance, one shudders to think what advice they are giving to their clients!”

  • Mike

    @Gwebecimele – the BEE component is a lot higher than 10% so check your facts before confirming your ignorance.Try a compliance figure of 40%.

  • Mike

    @Vuyo – Privatisation of debt and socialization of debt are not natural laws of economics.They political decisions in response to economic policy.I suggest you educate yourself by reading the Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith written in 1776, before blacks had a wtitten language in this country by the way, as starting point.

  • Gwebecimele


    Stop this Mulderism? Which one of the top 5 has 40% BEE Ownership or who got 40% of the cut on the stadium deals?

  • Mike

    @Gwebecimele – showing your ignorance again are you? The percentage of subcontract work on a building contract can be as high as 60% of the contract value.
    The BEE % is achieved in this area as well as in the listed companies themselves like Group5 which has Union shareholding.
    You are opening your mouth about something that you clearly dont understand the workings of.

  • vuyo

    Mike, Adam Smith, were he alive today, would be considered a social democrat rather than the pro-capitalist hero that you suppose he is (you clearly are unable to comprehend written text, , despite the supposed cultural advantage of over 300 years of the written word, unlike me, a black African). Let me teach you: Smith opposed big business, opposed super profits and low wages, was a relative progressive regards race relations, supported the rights of the consumer (and therefore the wage earner, seeing that he is the primus consumer). Read some of his remarks and be ashamed of your ignorance:

    “The disposition to admire, and almost to worship, the rich and the powerful, and to despise, or, at least, to neglect persons of poor and mean condition is the great and most universal cause of the corruption of our moral sentiments”

    “Wherever there is great property, there is great inequality”

    “No society can surely be flourishing and happy, of which the greater part of the members are poor and miserable”

    “Our merchants and master-manufacturers complain much of the bad effects of high wages in raising the price, and thereby lessening the sale of their goods both at home and abroad. They say nothing concerning the bad effects of high profits. They are silent with regard to the pernicious effects of their own gains. They complain only of those of other people.”

    “People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices.”

    “The interest of the dealers, however, in any particular branch of trade or manufactures, is always in some respects different from, and even opposite to, that of the public.”

    “All for ourselves, and nothing for other people, seems, in every age of the world, to have been the vile maxim of the masters of mankind.”

    “Consumption is the sole end and purpose of all production; and the interest of the producer ought to be attended to, only so far as it may be necessary for promoting that of the consumer.”

    “There is not a negro from the coast of Africa who does not, in this respect, possess a degree of magnanimity which the soul of his sordid master is too often scarce capable of conceiving. Fortune never exerted more cruelly her empire over mankind, than when she subjected those nations of heroes to the refuse of the jails of Europe, to wretches who possess the virtues neither of the countries which they come from, nor of those which they go to, and whose levity, brutality, and baseness, so justly expose them to the contempt of the vanquished.”

  • Gwebecimele


    At some point you will let us know who got the bigger slice.
    I hope Reddy and Sexwale will take you up on your claims.

  • Mike

    @Vuyo – I never said he was a pro-capitilist hero, I said if you want to know about the natural laws of economics then read his book.You argue like a typical black when rebuked for writing crap and that is to accuse me of something I never wrote.

  • Mike

    @Gwebecimele – You display a trait that so often arises with BEE contractors and that is if they win a contract for R20million they think that money is theirs and they dont have to pay creditors.
    The 60% of the building contract by the main contractor gets paid out in wages material suppliers, the two big ones being concrete and reinforcing steel and plant costs as well as site overhead costs.The average for construction company profits which can be obtained from the JSE is 2% on turnover, M&R share price was a R110.00 years ago it is now R25.00 and why do you think that is.

  • Zoo Keeper


    You obviously don’t run a business. The purpose of business is profit not charity.

    But business creates the wealth that sustains a state. No business = no money.

    Greece is having a time because the Greeks don’t pay much tax and they have a heavy government structure that has paid out more than it collected.

    Big government does not work at all in the long run.

    Personally I see the tax rate as too high because the tax base is too small. Many individuals and companies are beginning to look abroad because the straws are creaking the camel’s back.

    Also you need more money in the public’s hands. more money = more spend. More spend = more business opportunities for entrepreneurs. More entrepreneurs = jobs = more taxpayers = greater prosperity.

    The tax-paying public is really at the end of its tether and the government – which is a conglomeration of career politicians with no frikken clue about life outside of politics – is not seeing that it is not doing the right thing. The failure to support and educate the majority is biting hard too. An ANC failure that too.

    Also, government employees are paid salaries something like 45% higher than private sector equivalents in general. That is an average figure by the way.

    Public sector employees do not generate any wealth and do not contribute to the fiscus. They are paid with tax money and their tax simply reduces the tax drain.


    If you want a good lesson in the results of your economic theory, such as removing all private property – please have a read up on the financial history of the Bolsheviks, 1917 to 1922. What you propose leads to disaster, because then nobody has any incentive to work!!! Nobody has anything and nobody can pay any tax. The only way to extract money is to send in the army to rob the populace.

    Just like the Bolsheviks did. Russia is still, nearly 100 years later, recovering from their deeds.

  • Maggs Naidu –

    February 22, 2012 at 15:22 pm

    Hey Vuyo,

    All your concerns (and more) have been addressed.

    The foundations have been set, now it’s up to all of us (not only government) to get this country working as we want it to.

  • Maggs Naidu –

    Hey Dworky,

    I see what you mean about the clean governance practised by the DA.

    Today the provincial parliament will elect a new Speaker after the DA redeployed Sheikh Esau to the national assembly. Publicly the DA says the reason for the change is Esau’s ill-health. However the real sickness is the hypocrisy of the DA – giving one explanation to the public whilst MPLs know the actual reason is the illegal involvement of Esau in allocating tenders and the lies told to the public to cover this up.

    In contravention of the Public Finance Management Act, Esau interfered in the procurement of transport for an oversight visit by the provincial parliament to the Southern Cape in 2010, ensuring that the contract was given to a friend.

  • Maggs Naidu –

    Brett Nortje
    February 22, 2012 at 11:36 am

    Hey G,

    “but shut up about your Steetwise 2.”

    Party pooper!

    But I like that res stuff.

    Let me know when you house is unoccupied.

    p.s. Did you see the crap that Prof Jansen wrote?

    Given that Mulder is not the audience, the president should have taken time to say what one of the world’s most respected scholars of Africa shared with me: there is solid archaeological, linguistic, and genetic evidence that Africans populated what became South Africa hundreds of years, perhaps 1000 years or more, before Jan van Riebeeck arrived in 1652.

    For example, Nigel Worden, in the fifth edition of his The Making of Modern South Africa, addresses this claim and refers to African arrivals 10000 years ago (hunters and gatherers), 2000 to 3000 years ago (herders), and 1 000 BC to 200 AD (pastoralists).

    From William Beinhart to Chris Ehret to Cavalli-Sforza, the notion of European settlers arriving in vacant space, before or at the same time as Africans, would today be regarded as a figment of colonial imagination

  • Brett Nortje

    Maggs – I think, like you – I find this argument over who was here first and who has the right to stay here and blood-feuding over whose greatgrandparents did what to whose greatgreatgrandparents where utterly futile, profoundly depressing, atavistic and anti-cerebral.

    What do you say then who someone whose parents were murdered last year?

    ‘Er, blood-feuding over murder is wrong’?

    If you want proof of iron-age settlement go walk around Melville Koppies.

  • Jama ka Sijadu

    Brett Nortje says:
    February 23, 2012 at 9:09 am

    “…this argument over who was here first and who has the right to stay here…utterly futile…”

    There should be no argument over who was here first; there is plenty of proof for this, if you read ‘objective’ history (& not just the diaries of colonists).
    There should equally be no argument over who has the right to be here as we have all already agreed that the country belongs to ALL who live in it.

    If we (as South Africans) can agree on these things, why can’t we agree that the status quo is untenable & actually taking us backwards?
    Why can’t we agree that something radical needs to be done to address inequality in the land question & get on with it?

  • Maggs Naidu –

    Brett Nortje
    February 23, 2012 at 9:09 am


    In a sense, you’ve stumbled on relevance.

    Mulder’s brainwave was entirely idiotic.

    Contemporary South Africa, particularly the nearly obscene socio-economic disparities, is a consequence of structural and systemic iniquity and inequity.

    It informs nearly everything that adversely affects us all.

    Pretending that awful things did not happen or trying to mitigate its impact/effect will not diminish it – that’s just going to make things worse and thus less bearable for the “denialists”.

    Jama ka Sijadu (February 23, 2012 at 10:07 am) has captured it well.

  • Gwebecimele

    Bring back Homelands. The Pedi’s want to remain in Limpopo.
    I hope this does go to court and I doubt if our courts will bring back the Homelands and Manyi might have a good laugh.

    I also want a job closer to my roots and ancestors.

  • Heywood Jubleauxme

    Opening Agri SA’s annual conference in Stellenbosch, Trevor Manuel noted that the price of agricultural land was high and that farmland often lay fallow for a decade – with no investment made in it – from the time the deal is made until the sale goes through. “By the time there is an actual payment, there is no correspondence with the price of the land,” Manuel said.

    I’m a science graduate and I know preciously little about economics and finance. But, it sounds strange to me that Manuel would hold the seller accountable for the depreciation of the asset. Surely the onus is on the buyer to ensure that his asset does not depreciate? Usually when one buys a house, you take occupation immediately; paying occupational rent until the deal is concluded.

    How does one go about purchasing a business? I don’t know but it seems to me that Manuel doesn’t know either.

  • vuyo

    Heywood Jubleauxme says:
    February 23, 2012 at 11:50 am

    No, risk ordinarily passes with ownership. The purchaser is only responsible for the depreciation of the asset as soon as he has taken transfer, through delivery, registration, cession or otherwise. Therefore the farmer is at fault under the circumstances. Obviously, the department of agriculture must also procure that their processes are expedited to ensure speedy transfer of title (but this is a policy matter rather than a legal matter).

  • Brett Nortje

    Maggs Naidu – says:
    February 23, 2012 at 11:09 am

    You’re setting up a straw man. Mischaracterising what Mulder said. Which leads me to speculate why. I have ticked your ‘dumb game’ box, So it is not easy for me to accuse you of Stockholm Syndrome unlike Pierre Stockholmsyndrome De Vos.

    Why are you deflecting from the threats made by the President who sat on the podium in Kimberley with a mouth full of teeth when Juliass was pushing for whites to be treated as criminals?

    In Stockholmsyndrome De Vos’ case the explanation is easy: He is saying “Moenie k*k maak nie julle gaan moeilikheid op ons bring!”

    But you, Maggs? Why are you so shaky because of an exercise in freedom of expression?

    Focus on that!

  • Brett Nortje

    vuyo says:
    February 23, 2012 at 13:13 pm

    What bullshit!

    I suppose then I am at fault because the useless ANC deployees have run the City of JHB into the ground to the extent that I have been paying R5000-R6000 a month for water for more than two years because no-one there can sort out a simple problem???

    Excuses! Excuses! The ANCs secondary product. Never them, is it.

  • Brett Nortje

    Jama ka Sijadu says:
    February 23, 2012 at 10:07 am
    Brett Nortje says:
    February 23, 2012 at 9:09 am

    The only reason landownership is a burning question is because the ANC needs alibis and scapegoats for its maladministration and corruption.

    Otherwise, it is irrelevant. Not a priority.

    “Why can’t we agree that something radical needs to be done to address inequality in the land question & get on with it?”

  • vuyo

    Brett Nortje, the legal trasnfer of rights and corresponding transfer of risks has nothing to do with the ANC, and everything to do with the common law (which is largely, roman-dutch and therefore originating in europe). The answer to Heywood’s question lies in the ordinary legal consequences of a contract of purchase and sale, not in the conduct of ANC potentates, etc.

  • Jama ka Sijadu

    Vuyo don’t you know that EVERYTHING that is wrong in South Africa is the ANC’s fault?
    From bad weather to your wife’s headache, it ultimately all boils down to the big bad ANC.

  • Gwebecimele
  • Gwebecimele

    Is this why Vavi jumped to join Implats STRIKE after 5 weeks of ignoring it.

  • Brett Nortje

    vuyo says:
    February 23, 2012 at 14:13 pm

    Could you try to argue honestly?

    “Heywood Jubleauxme says:
    February 23, 2012 at 11:50 am
    Opening Agri SA’s annual conference in Stellenbosch, Trevor Manuel noted that the price of agricultural land was high and that farmland often lay fallow for a decade – with no investment made in it – from the time the deal is made until the sale goes through. “By the time there is an actual payment, there is no correspondence with the price of the land,” Manuel said.”

    WHO, my dear Vuyo, is to blame for the fact that it takes ten years from the moment land has been earmarked for redistribution for the money to be paid over to the person it was taken from?

    It is a disgrace, and, if members of this government had a sense of shame they would be hanging their heads in it.

    Do you expect farmers to go on investing in farms that they have been divested of against their will? Are they placed on a retainer?

    Do you expect banks to grant loans for capital investment to farmers they know will soon have no title and their security tenuous?

  • Mikhail Dworkin Fassbinder

    @ Jama

    “EVERYTHING that is wrong in South Africa is the ANC’s fault”

    With respect, Jama, that is not so.

    While the ANC is not entirely blameless, almost everything is the fault of APARTHEID.


  • Gwebecimele
  • Maggs Naidu –

    Brett Nortje
    February 23, 2012 at 13:38 pm

    Hey Goofy,

    “You’re setting up a straw man.”

    Straw men have human rights too!

    “Mischaracterising what Mulder said” – what did Mulder say that is different to my understanding of it?

    p.s. I think Juju was wrong. Some White people are not criminals!

  • Maggs Naidu –

    Mikhail Dworkin Fassbinder
    February 23, 2012 at 16:04 pm

    Hey Dworky,

    “almost everything is the fault of APARTHEID”.

    Indeed it is – well spotted.

    APARTHEID was considered a crime against for good reason.

  • Maggs Naidu –

    Brett Nortje
    February 23, 2012 at 13:38 pm

    Hey Goofy,

    Check this out.

    Zuma used to think that White people are like alien invader plants!

    He wanted to KILL White people with bush knives!

    Zuma said he was once a militant youth league member and had been part of a plan to descend on Durban’s old Smith and West streets to kill white people. They had been gossiping among themselves outside meetings and decided they would buy bush knives and descend on the two streets around 11am on a Saturday when it was busy.

  • Pingback: Historical Amnesia | Africa Dash()

  • izeze

    “Start a revolution with bush knives, what a joke!! A AK or bomb maybe but not a bush knive nxa!!!” (Comment by Mr. Ngcobo, courtesy of Maggs)

    Whenever I stroll down the main street in my town, I see lots of people gossiping among themselves. They stare at me with their bloodshot eyes when I pass them, casually twirling my bush knive for all to see.

    Should I upgrade to a AK, or maybe a bomb? Wdys, Maggs?

  • Sarah K

    Interesting post. I like your approach to analyzing this statement in terms of the constitution. I blogged about your post on my blog. I do hope that’s OK.

  • Brett Nortje

    Maggs Naidu – says:
    February 23, 2012 at 16:40 pm

    Maggs, I want you to read Mulder’s statement with your left index finger under the words you are reading and a hi-lite in your right hand. When your finger comes to the words ‘Kei’ ‘Western Cape’ ‘Northern’ I want you to draw a line through those words with the hi-lite. When you have gone through the whole statement I want you to read the paragraphs with the hi-lited words 100x.


  • Maggs Naidu –

    Brett Nortje
    February 23, 2012 at 21:32 pm

    Hey Goofy,

    I want you to take the bush knife that Zuma had in your left hand.

    The chop off your head with the right hand.

    Then count to 100!

  • Brett Nortje

    Maggs Naidu – says:
    February 23, 2012 at 19:31 pm

    Maggs, lets see how well read you are:

    “Once before he had broken out like this. I had asked him something about the Zulu war; and that had started a flood of memories and excitement. In the midst of some description I asked why they killed the children; and he turned his glaring eyes on me and said,”Inkos, you are my Inkos; but you are white. If we fight tomorrow, I will kill you. You are good to me, you have saved me; but if our king says “Kill!” we kill! We see red; we kill all that lives. I must kill you, your wife, your mother, your children, your horses, your oxen, your dog, the fowls that run with the waggons -all that lives I kill. The blood must run.””

  • Gwebecimele
  • Maggs Naidu –

    Brett Nortje
    February 23, 2012 at 21:45 pm

    Ok G,

    I read that.

    Now what?

  • Mikhail Dworkin Fassbinder

    @ Goof-Creature

    Maggs is right. You are very goofy indeed.

    If you were not goofy, you would not be so pedantic as to ask Maggs to parse Dr. Mulder’s statement for its literal, propositional content. Maggs and everyone else knows that about half of Southern Africa is a parched wasteland in which you would not want to live anyway, least of all if you are a pastoralist with vast herds of thirsty cattle. But that boring fact is not really what this debate is about. You do not even need you to be Deputy Minister of Agriculture to know that!

  • Brett Nortje

    Wat Mulder eintlik sê

    2012-02-23 22:27
    Hermann Giliomee

    Daar is kere dat ’n mens wanhoop dat die politieke debat in die “nuwe” Suid-Afrika ooit volwassenheid sal bereik. Dit is klaarblyklik ’n skrale moontlikheid as dit oor ’n kwessie soos grond gaan, skryf Hermann Giliomee.

    Oor die laaste paar dae het ’n storm om die kop van dr. Pieter Mulder, leier van die VF+, uitgebreek omdat hy dit durf waag om die ANC se grondhervormingsbeleid te

    Hoofartikels en rubrieke het Mulder gestriem oor sy onsensitiwiteit, sy onkunde oor die geskiedenis en selfs oor die sogenaamde leuens wat hy vertel het. Business Day het verklaar: “Dr. Mulder het sy party en sy land in die steek gelaat.” (22 Maart.)

    Wat is die onvergeeflike, onsensitiewe flater wat Mulder begaan het? Hy het gereageer op die stelling van die departement van landelike ontwikkeling en grondsake en pres. Jacob Zuma dat nog net 8% van die grond sedert 1994 aan swart mense oorgedra is.

    Dit beteken dat die regering se teiken van 30% grond in swart hande in die gedrang is.

    Sedert 1994 is demografie en die eise wat daarmee saamhang ’n sentrale deel van die politieke spel. Veral in aanstellings in die staatsdiens en sport is dit ’n gevoelige saak.

    Maar al kan minderhede nie die regering se speletjies boikot nie, kan hulle vra: Die nasionale demografie of streeksdemografie?

    In die Wes-Kaap is mense woedend oor die regering wat die nasionale demografie wil afdwing op die gevangeniswese in die provinsie waar die demografiese proporsies heeltemal anders is.

    Die mees gewraakte sin in Mulder se toespraak het gelui: “Die ANC praat graag van ‘Black people in general and Africans in particular ’… (maar) ‘Africans in particular’ het nooit in die verlede in die hele Suid-Afrika gewoon nie.

    “… Daar is genoeg bewyse dat geen Bantoesprekendes in die Wes-Kaap en die Noord-Kaap gewoon het nie. Hierdie dele beslaan 40% van Suid-Afrika se oppervlakte.”

    Business Day se kommentaar daarop is dat historici baie van Mulder se feite betwis. Ek weet egter nie van ’n enkele historikus wat Mulder se stelling betwis dat “Black people in general and Africans in particular” teen die 1770’s nie in genoemde twee provinsies gewoon het nie.

    Die verhaal van die besetting van grond in die 18de eeu word uitvoerig beskryf aan die hand van argivale bronne in The Shaping of South African Society, 1652-1840.

    Ek het daarin aan die hand van argiefdokumente oor die eerste kontakte en konflikte tussen wit en swart tussen 1770 en 1812 geskryf, terwyl Martin Legassick die noordgrens (die huidige Noord-Kaap) behandel het.

    Soos Jeffrey Peires in sy standaardwerk oor die Xhosa se geskiedenis aandui, het Xhosas nooit op grond anderkant Sondagsrivier aanspraak gemaak nie.

    Business Day verklaar ook dat Mulder se stelling aanstoot gegee het teenoor Suid-Afrikaners van alle rasse wat die onreg van die verlede probeer herstel. Dis nie presies duidelik wat daarmee bedoel word nie.

    Mulder het beslis nie die ou mite verkondig dat die land leeg was toe die wit mense hier aangekom het nie.

    Wat wel waar is, is dat die sogenaamde tuislandbeleid, soos dit deur dr. H.F. Verwoerd in 1959 aangekondig is, gegrond was op die foutiewe historiese aanname dat ’n groot deel van Suid-Afrika nie bewoon is nie.

    Dié opvatting was algemeen onder wit historici.

    In 1957 het Eric Walker se History of Southern Africa verskyn, wat ’n tyd lank as die standaard algemene geskiedenis beskou is.

    Oor die vestigings­patrone van “Africans in particular” (Mulder se woorde) het Walker geskryf: “In some parts of the present-day ­Union and Southern Rhodesia their occupation is not much older than that of the Europeans, and in the western half of the Cape ­Colony it is more recent than theirs.”

    Die eerste deel van die stelling is nie korrek nie.

    Gedurende die 1960’s het ar­geoloë ná ­nuwe opgrawings aangetoon dat die eerste deel van die stelling foutief is: Swart mense het inderdaad verspreid oor die land in die hele oostelike en noordelike deel gewoon.

    Die belangrike punt van Mulder was egter nie om sekere groepe se reg op die grond te verdedig nie.

    Vir hom het dit in die eerste plek daaroor gegaan dat mense nie die geskiedenis moet misbruik om swak beleid en die ewe swak toepassing daarvan te probeer regverdig nie.

    Die regering wil nou die vrywillige koper/verkoper-beginsel laat vaar omdat die boere glo nie wil saamspeel nie.

    Mulder voer aan dat die kernoorsaak nie die boere se onwilligheid is nie, maar die onbevoegdheid van die betrokke departement.

    Dit antwoord nie op boere wat grond aanbied nie en in baie gevalle sloer die departement lank om vir grond te betaal wat oorgedra is.

    Die departement stel dit ook nie duidelik wat hy bedoel met die doelwit van 30% besit in swart hande nie. Wat is swart? “Africans in particular” of swart, bruin en Indiërs saam?

    Die inheemse mense wat in die westelike helfte van die land gewoon het voor wit vestiging was die Khoikhoi en San en die regering se grondhervormingsbeleid is beslis nie op hul nasate toegespits nie.

    Die vraag is verder of die syfer slaan op alle besit, staatsgrond ingesluit, of grond in private besit.

    As dit gaan oor laasgenoemde, is die regering se doelwit reeds bereik, want hy kan by die 13%, wat in 1994 in swart hande was, die 8% toevoeg wat hy aangekoop het en die 25% van die totale landsoppervlakte wat volgens Mulder in die staat se besit is.

    Maar die regering stel waarskynlik nie in hierdie syfers belang nie. Die departement erken hy weet nie hoeveel grond die staat besit nie.

    In ’n Beeld-rubriek gister kryt Henry Jeffreys Mulder uit vir sy “desperate vorm van politiek”.

    Hy verdraai Mulder se woorde heeltemal wanneer hy verklaar dat Mulder gesê het swart mense “kan nie aanspraak maak op 40% van die grond nie”.

    Wat Mulder wel gesê het, is: “In die Karoo en Kalahari is groot plase beskikbaar. Waarom koop die departement nie van daardie grond om vinniger die 30% te bereik nie? Hierdie semi-woestyngronde word egter by die 87% propaganda-persentasie as wit grond getel.”

    Jeffreys behoort homself af te vra of dit nie hy is wat die gevaarlike speletjie speel waarvan hy Mulder beskuldig nie.

    Mulder is veral daaroor begaan dat die hoeveelheid vrugbare grond wat onder landbouproduksie is van 1994 tot 2009 met 30% afgeneem het.

    Hy verklaar verder: “Mislukte hervorming, waar 9 uit 10 plase nie suksesvol is nie, het ’n belang­rike rol. Landbouers moet nou op minder grond meer kos produseer vir Suid-Afrika se bevolking van 50 miljoen.”

    Zuma het op Mulder se toespraak gereageer deur te impliseer hy het op ’n onverskillige wyse ’n emosionele saak aangeraak. Vir sommige mense is dit “’n saak van lewe en dood”.

    Die vraag is vir hoeveel mense is dit so ’n lewensbelangrike saak?

    In die meningspeilings van die laaste 20 jaar het die behoefte aan grond nooit gefigureer as ’n belangrike kwessie vir swart mense nie. Werkgeleenthede, onderwys en bekostigbare kos, huise, dienste en misdaad is veel belangriker.

    As ’n mens die hele teks van Mulder se toespraak lees, is dit duidelik dat hy nie met goedkoop politiek besig is nie, maar op verantwoordelike wyse ’n belangrike saak aanroer.

    Waaraan die histerie in sekere van die media toegeskryf word, is moeilik om te bepaal.

    Miskien is dit heimwee na die stryd teen apartheid toe alles, moreel gesproke, gerieflik wit en swart was.

    Hermann Giliomee is mede-redakteur, saam met Bernard Mbenga, van Nuwe Geskiedenis van Suid-Afrika (Tafelberg 2007).

  • Maggs Naidu –

    Mikhail Dworkin Fassbinder
    February 24, 2012 at 0:00 am


    Ja, ja, whatever.

    Everyone now knows that the Western Cape was a parched wasteland, barren of people, when White people came here, thanks to Dr Mulder.

    Now it’s not barren – it is over concentrated with Coloureds (thanks Myani).

    And that justified the “early settlers” and subsequent evil governments just taking what did not belong to them.

    So, like you subtly point out, the history that was taught for decades was right after all – Blacks were lazy, murderous, criminals who (like JR frequently said before he died) sat under trees scratching their balls watching chickens scratching in the sand.

  • Mikhail Dworkin Fassbinder

    With respect, Maggs, I withdraw my withdrawal of my allegation that you are a flthy RACIST.

    You think the so-called “Bantoe” were so dumb that would settle the vast swathes of the western half of South Africa where it is so dry that their cattle would die terrible deaths of thirst!

  • Maggs Naidu –

    Mikhail Dworkin Fassbinder
    February 24, 2012 at 9:09 am

    Hey Dworky,

    I am a “filthy RACIST” – no need to be apologetic.

    Thanks for reminding us that all that the “bantoe” did was running around with cattle (and scratching their balls looking at chickens scratching in the sand).

  • Brett Nortje


    Maggs doesn’t lose an argument gracefully.

    He needs to go take lessons from Khosi.

  • Brett Nortje

    So, my dear Maggs, how do you feel the ANC is doing in the war of ideas mandated by your NDR?

    Not so well, I reckon?

    Har har har!

  • Gwebecimele
  • Maggs Naidu –

    Brett Nortje
    February 24, 2012 at 10:23 am

    Hey G,

    Not so well for sure.

    Our Constitution is structured well enough for the ANC government to do what is expected in order to achieve the aspirations of the NDR.

    It, the ANC Government, should stop farting and begin some serious transformation.

    The courts have said, for example, that expropriation and compensation are separate matters.

    Mining companies could be forced to add value to raw materials in South Africa rather than exporting it; he fastest growing economies China and India have taken drastic measures – we can too.

    The excuses are too feeble and too many.

    Anyway if the last few weeks are to be an indication then we’re on our way to doing a whole lot better.

  • Brett Nortje

    Maggs, you’re delusional. You’re saying mining companies should go into competition with their best customers.

    Where do you get these ideas?

  • Maggs Naidu –

    Brett Nortje
    February 24, 2012 at 16:47 pm

    Hey G,

    Ok – I did say that improperly.

    Our government should put in place measures to ensure that minerals are not exported in raw mined form, rather substantial conversion is undertaken.

  • Brett Nortje

    Have you ever put 2 diamonds under a loupe or, better, a microscope, one that was polished by an Indian, one that was polished by a someone trained by one of the Dutch/Belgian craftsmen living in SA? You know what? No one cares that the Indian product is substandard.

    This country’s backbone has been mining and agriculture.

    The mining sector is stuffed, courtesy of the ANC, and agriculture is on the way. And you cheerlead.

  • Mikhail Dworkin Fassbinder

    Maggs and Goofy, with respect, I now view you both as RACISTS, albeit to varying degrees.

    I demand that our mineral riches remain right here, where they will most augment our people. We can readily beneficiate our gold, platinum, coal and manganese to beautify our women and fuel our furnaces.


  • Brett Nortje


    So how do you propose ‘we’ do it?

    Do ‘we’ buy all ‘our’ coal? With what? And, where do ‘we’ keep it? Really don’t need coal lying around the house….

    Isn’t that ‘socialism’?

  • Maggs Naidu –

    Brett Nortje
    February 24, 2012 at 22:17 pm

    Hey G,

    “And, where do ‘we’ keep it?”

    I have a suggestion about where you can keep it.

    But this is a family blog, so I won’t say!


  • Jama ka Sijadu

    If you are looking for a filthy RACIST in South Africa, examples abound.

    Since it was outlawed in ’94, Afrikaaners decided to turn it into a cottage industry.

  • Pingback: The BIG land debate and the urgent need for a AGRIDESA and national land audit « RSA Politics()

  • Pingback: Fried chicken nationalism – Africa is a Country()

  • Pingback: Flame-Grilled Chicken Politics « Afronline – The Voice Of Africa()

  • Bhutiza

    Hi Prof,

    I’d like to find out if the 1991 CODESA negotiation documents are available for public consumption. I believe that what Pieter Mulder is saying is based on the hidden compromises that the former president Mandela entered into with the then right wing government, hence the audacity and ignorance from Pieter Mulder with regard to property clause.

  • listas vip costa breve

    Hi, i believe that i noticed you visited my website thus i got here to return the prefer?.I’m attempting to in finding issues to enhance my web site!I assume its adequate to use a few of your concepts!!











  • Lee

    Goodness, that’s a lot of shouting!

  • Pingback: Nando’s Grilled Chicken Politics | Africa is a Country()

  • Pingback: Before the Rainbow Shatters Irreparably- The 7 deadly sins of white South Africans - Black Diamonds()