Very few people implicitly and unconditionally trust all government officials, all members of the cabinet and all the members of the intelligence services of their country. Few, surely, believe that they will always act scrupulously, honestly and in strict accordance to the law and the Constitution. (Hell, I am not even sure President Zuma fully trusts all his own ministers.)
One might well implicitly trust ministers and government officials if they belong to the politically party that one passionately supports. Thus, some DA members might blindly trust Helen Zille, while some ANC members might blindly trust Jacob Zuma. But very few of those DA supporters would blindly trust Zuma and very few of those ANC supporters would blindly trust Zille.
And whether one is a die-hard ANC supporter or a die-hard DA supporter, there cannot be too many people around who would blindly trust the members of the intelligence services (in other words the spies whose job it is to deceive, to keep secrets, and to obfuscate, all in the name of protecting national security). Given the way in which our spies have been implicated in various political plots relating to various ANC factions, only a fool will tell you that he or she believes our spies always respect the letter and the spirit of the law and always act honestly, and in the best interest of the Constitution and us citizens.
Most would worry that our spies might at some point act in the interest of one or other faction in the ruling party, in the interest of members of the police or the military (as some did in attempts to try and protect the corrupt former Police Commissioner) or merely in their own interest. After all, members of the intelligence service have often acted unlawfully and unconstitutionally over the past few years and quite a few were eventually fired as a result.
This is why a discussion of the dangers of the Protection of State Information Bill passed by the National Assembly today (and now to be discussed by the National Council of Provinces), raises difficult questions. On the one hand the Bill on its face is not nearly as draconian as members of the media keep arguing. The Bill represents a vast improvement on the truly draconian Bill first tabled in Parliament last year and — at least on paper — now contains many safeguards to protect us against the emergence of a secretive national security state or the abuse of the Bill to cover up corruption, maladministration and other kinds of criminality in government.
However, on the other hand, the Bill cannot be judged on paper only, but must be judged in the context in which spies and politicians have often been revealed over the past few years to be less than honourable and respectful of the law.
The problem with the new “improved” version of the Bill and the safeguards included in it, is that it assumes that we can blindly trust all government Ministers, state officials and spies to understand the intricacies (and seemingly contradictory aspects) of this Bill and to always apply it in accordance with this perfect understanding of the various provisions of the Bill. It also assumes that those who are empowered to classify documents and review the classification of documents will do so with one eye on the Constitution. Furthermore, it assumes rather optimistically, that the Minister of State Security (whose wife was recently convicted of drug running), other Ministers authorised to classify documents and the spies whose job it is so sow confusion, spread lies and generally to deceive others while hiding behind a cloak of secrecy, will not abuse their powers and will only act in accordance with the letter and spirit of the Bill.
Of course we know that a number of Ministers, including Defence Minister Lindiwe Sisulu and State Security Minister Siyabonga Cwele, have refused to answer questions about their travel costs and hotel stays on the grounds that this would compromise their personal security, displaying a rather authoritarian view on keeping secrets in the interest of so called “security” and abusing the excuse of security to evade accountability for possible wasteful expenditure (or worse). One will therefore have to be an eternal optimist to believe that Ministers, spies and other officials authorised by this Bill to classify documents as secret or top secret will not abuse that power at some point or another.
(And even if one is such an optimist as well as a member of the ANC, one should remember that no government remains in power for ever and that this Bill will one day also be applied by people who are not ANC members.)
Having said that, it is clear that the main aim of the Bill is not to protect Ministers or the government more generally from exposure for corrupt and other nefarious activities. Section 3(2) of the Act states that the classification, reclassification and declassification provisions of the Bill apply to the security services of the Republic (in other words, the Army, the Police and the Intelligence Services).
However Section 3(2)(b) also allows any organ of state (including any government ministry) to ask the Minister of State Security to empower them to classify documents that could supposedly threaten “national security”. If the Minister exercises this power prudently, the scope of the Bill will be much reduced. However, given the paranoid and defamatory statements by the Minister that those who oppose passage of the Bill are being funded by foreign spy agencies, and given that there is a serious question mark over the Minister’s probity and judgment, it is not clear that he will not abuse this power.
Section 12 of the Act states that state information may be classified as confidential “if the information is sensitive information, the disclosure of which is likely or could reasonably be expected to cause demonstrable harm to national security of the Republic”. State information may be classified as secret “if the information is sensitive information, the disclosure of which is likely or could reasonably be expected to cause serious demonstrable harm to national security of the Republic”, while state information “may be classified as top secret if the information is sensitive information, the disclosure of which is likely or could reasonably be expected to demonstrably cause serious or irreparable harm to the national security of the Republic”.
‘‘National security’’ is defined as including (and one therefore presumes, is not limited to) the protection of the people of the Republic and the territorial integrity of the Republic against the threat of use of force or the use of force; as well a hostile acts of foreign intervention directed at undermining the constitutional order of the Republic; terrorism or espionage; exposure of a state security matter with the intention of undermining the constitutional order of the Republic; and exposure of economic, scientific or technological secrets vital to the Republic. It explicitly excludes lawful political activity, advocacy, protest or dissent.
With the exception of the subsection dealing with economic or technological secrets, this list looks innocuous. But the list is not a closed list, which opens the door wide for any crook or authoritarian to abuse the provisions of this Bill to keep secrets relating to the undermining of democracy or the hiding of corruption. Moreover, this definition must be read together with section 14(3) of the Bill which states that those classifying Bills as secret must consider whether the disclosure may
- expose the identity of a confidential source, or reveal information about the application of an intelligence or law enforcement investigative method, or reveal the identity of an intelligence or police source when the unlawful disclosure of that source would clearly and demonstrably damage the national security of the Republic or the interests of the source or his or her family;
- clearly and demonstrably impair the ability of government to protect officials or persons for whom protection services, in the interest of national security,are authorised;
- seriously and substantially impair national security, defence or intelligence systems, plans or activities;
- seriously and demonstrably impair relations between South Africa and a foreign government, or seriously and demonstrably undermine ongoing diplomatic activities of the Republic;
- violate a statute, treaty, or international agreement, including an agreement between the South African government and another government or international institution; or
- cause life threatening or other physical harm to a person or persons.19
If a spy (or a Minister who wishes to hide the fact that he or she has been living it up at the Mount Nelson or has visited a girlfriend in a Swiss jail) read section 14(3) in isolation, he or she may well classify information that would clearly have very little to do with national security. What is therefore limited by the definition of “national security” might well be smuggled back into the act via the back door in section 14(3) of the Bill.
I can already imagine Minister Lindiwe Sisulu from pointing to the second bullet point above to justify the classification of all sorts of documents that might embarrass Ministers or might expose the corruption they have been involved in. Because the Bill is so complicated, it would be difficult to make plausible arguments in the public domain that the Minister is abusing the Bill. Some executive minded judges might even agree with the interpretation by a Police Chief (remember the two most recent ones have both fallen under the bus because of corruption), a Minister or a spy relying on section 14(3).
But this is not the end of the matter. Section 32(1) does provide a safeguard which could in certain circumstances be effective. It states that a person who wants to gain access to a classified document may apply to a court for appropriate relief after the requester has exhausted the internal appeal procedure against a decision of the relevant Minister of the organ of state in question. If one has every reason to know that a document exists (for example, that a document exists which sets out the cost of a Minister’s travel and Hotel stays) , this avenue will be costly but mostly effective (unless one is unlucky enough to have to argue one’s case before a slavishly pro-executive judge).
The problem arises where one receives a document that is classified and the only way one would have known of its existence is if one had been leaked the document. One must then immediately hand back the document to the Police before one can challenge the wrongful classification. If one fails to do so, one could be prosecuted and sentenced to jail. If one holds on to the document, the Minister might say that such a document does not exist and one would not be able to contradict him or her as this would amount to an admission of committing a crime. Moreover, how one would convince a court that a document should be declassified if one does not have access to the document, is not clear.
In short, on paper the Bill that was passed today is not as bad as many in the media argue. But in practice it might be devastating as it might protect our spies and our politician from scrutiny, the very scrutiny required to keep them on the strait and narrow. It might set us on the slippery slope towards a secretive national security state — as Steven Friedman argued today in Business Day. As an afterthought, it might also help to protect the venal and the corrupt.
Although safeguards do exist in theory, in practice these safeguards will often be illusory (especially for anyone without access to very clever lawyers and pots of money) unless those entrusted with applying the law will always act absolutely honestly, with brilliant insight into the law and with one eye towards the Constitution. The chances of this happening is about as slim as the chances of me winning the Miss World Competition.
This means, for example, that where activists of Abahlali baseMjondolo or the Landless People’s Movement are illegally targeted by the security services because they are perceived to be a threat to the ANC government and their phones are bugged, their houses attacked or their leaders tortured and murdered, it would be almost impossible for the organisation to prove this when all the documents that could do so are classified. Ironically, only the media will have the resources to expose such abuse of power, but this would require the media (targeted at middle class readers) to display far more concern for the well-being of these social movements whose interests do not always align with the interests of the middle classes served by the serious media.
I don’t know who to trust but I can always rely on what my grandmother taught me :
Never trust a man who puts his private parts in another man’s bottom
Spot-on!
I think, at the very least, we can trust Mac Maharaj who is a close friend of Nelson Mandela and not only transcribed his biography but also smuggled it out of prison.
Once again Pierre, thanks for your explanations. Much appreciated.
We are a nation that lost its way to transformation.We always reflect back and yet do little to go forward.
I am an ANC member and enough is enough.
Challenging their decision is only fair,afterall in politics there are no permanent friends nor enemies.
Mangaung conference will free us from people suffering political diarrhea,who abuses power to push their own interests.
Lebogang Mathora says:
November 22, 2011 at 19:13 pm
“We are a nation that lost its way to transformation.”
Sure. Perhaps the ANC should do something about the over-concentration of self-loathing White liberals at UCT.
And f..k the poor.
Adriaan Poggenpohl
November 22, 2011 at 18:25 pm
Eish Adriaan,
“Never trust a man who puts his private parts in another man’s bottom”
Grandpa was a rascal, né!
Hey maybe grandma was not so attractive.
A very well written + balenced piece (except for the concord). I agree that the people who write stuff for their editors to alter completely according to their particular target market i.e. “The media” have overplayed the thing. The media profession is an oxymoron!
De Vos, I thought you would point out any potential constitutional implications in the revised Bill. I could not find any. The Bill does not relate to Journalists at all. It is a law of general application without exception which limits the rights in the constitution pursuant to section 36 of the Constitution.
I am looking forward to a constitutional challenge. Any authority is susceptible to abuse, including judicial power, that is why there are checks and balances.
The media want scoops whilst the State requires legality in the process of obtaining information. This competing interests must we weighed and balances in the relevant circumstances.
The bill must be interpreted in the context of PAIA and PDA, which legislation deal with access and protection. The media want a clause which grants them almost absolute access to information.
Since they have promised civil disobedience, let us wait for the Bill to become law and one deliberately steals intelligence records and publish them without following the procedure.
Hey we have an adventourous Public Protector who already thinks of ventilating her stance on the legality or otherwise of the law. I thought the CC is the proper port of call. I marvel at her robust approach to issues. Send me a copy of her correpondence if you have.
I have voted in favour of the bill, may I add.
Thanks
ISHMAEL MALALE
November 22, 2011 at 19:57 pm
Hey Ishmael,
“I have voted in favour of the bill, may I add.”
If it is it true that all ANC MPs were instructed to vote in favour of the bill then what you or other ANC MPs think about the bill is irrelevant. In that case you aren’t paid to think.
Oh my our young democracy certainly developed a serious illness today.
Put all the gloss they like without strong checks and balances this Bill can be the start of even more draconian legislation.
Fortunately there is a way to go and we must continue protests et al all the way to the Concourt who have been wise in the past
Adriaan
Your grandmother was WEIRD.
Ishmael
But of course. You must eat. And, after all, you did not struggle to be poor!!! You do Mac Maharaj and Jacob Zuma proud.
Oh hell!! Sounds serious!!
At first I thought it logical from government perspective but from the sounds of it seems like a Dictatorship on the rise!! Gulps!!
I’m happy with this bill. As far as I understand it is in line with all other democratic countries and all I see the the usual paranoia and knee-jerk opposition from the Whiteliness crew.
Last thing we want is repetition of the embarrassing Zuma/NPA/Scorpions circus where confidential NPA documents were “leaked” with almost orchestrated regularity to our socalled “free and independent” media that were clearly operating in cahoots with the state security apparatus.
@ Ismael
There are three details you may be missing here.
First, the tried and tested method of putting out something extreme, and than hope we’re all going to be happy we didnt end up with the extreme version, is now wearing thin.
Second, had this Bill arrived in the early days of the ANC junta, with some modicum of decent PR, we might have thought it reasonable. Coming, as it does, after 17 years of self-serving pigging out at the communal trough, you’ve lost the benefit of the doubt. The first questionm for me anyway, is no longer “does this sound reasonable”, but is now one of distrust and suspicion. You earned it.
Third, not sure how you look in the mirror. You’ve collectively shown yourself to be nothing more than some useful idiots in the deploy of some of the dudes in Luthuli House, with the occassional foray to the trough yourselves. No original thought between the lot of you, it seems, or a developed backbone. You have betrayed the movement that put you where you are, and are an embarrasment to any democrat. My advice to you? Shut the fuck up, and go sit in a corner until the master whistles for you again. Don’t confuse yourself with someone who matters. We’ll ask the guys in Luthuli when we want to know what you do. Ok? Losers.
Pekkil says:
November 22, 2011 at 21:43 pm
“First, the tried and tested method of putting out something extreme,”
What is so “extreme” about it, how does it differ from other democracies?
Most blogs and forums (enjoy them while you have them) today have suddenly been flooded by self-confessed ANC MP’s. What’s the matter? Guilty (sub)consciences? Hardly. Or are they feeling a bit lonely up against the (sane) rest of the nation? Or does it feel uncomfortable when the mask begins to slip a little and reveals an rather ugly (yet true) face? Or maybe they feel that this pious victory is likely to backfire in the long term, and consolidate all opposition, civil society and all conscious freedom-loving citizens of all colours, creeds and social groups like nothing and no one ever before?
(P.S. Wow Maggs, who would have thought?!)
I’m not as unhappy with this Bill as with Siyabonga Cwele and his narco-trafficante wife.
I’m not as unhappy with this Bill as I am with the opponents who have still not connected the dots that start to spell surveillance society and who are sniping at Mac The Bek over Thales but not asking him when the ANC are going to start surrendering their arms caches.
Lastly, I still think of Ishmael Malale as one of the MPs who tried to make a Minister heed a Parliamentary Portfolio Comittee and changed the tone in relations between the Legislature and Executive in ways that still resound.
Also many thanks to Pierre de Vos for a much needed, awaited and well written balanced article (not a word about afrikaners either!). It would have also been interesting to read his prognosis and analysis on the possible developments and outcomes – ConCourt challenge etc. Btw what happens if/when this bill is implemented and the first journalist is arrested?
[...] ek is ook ongemaklik met die Protection of Information Bill. Pierre de Vos verduidelik van die probleme daarmee. Maar daar is vir my meer daaraan. Die hele idee dat lande [...]
On a slightly different note. It is understood that Tokyo Sexwale made a play for a stake in M&G a couple of years ago. It has also been abundantly clear that Trevor Ngcube did not appreciate Zuma’s Indians opening a newspaper like the New Age that may be competition to the M&G in the “intellectual” Black market.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/07/20/us-pht-newscorp-britain-corruption-idUSTRE76J25L20110720
”
Analysis: Is Britain more corrupt than it thinks?
Britons love to lecture the world about integrity and the rule of law, but the News of the World phone hacking scandal has laid bare a web of collusion between money, power, media and the police.
Far from the innocent, upright democracy of its self-image, Britain is showing a seamy side that anti-corruption campaigners say is getting worse and may be politically explosive as society becomes more unequal due to the financial and economic crises.
Behind a facade of probity, London offers a haven for oligarchs and despots, a place where foreign media magnates have bought access to and influence over the government.
The scandal engulfing Rupert Murdoch’s media empire has already destroyed a newspaper, cost two top police officers their jobs, seen the arrest of powerful media figures and embarrassed the prime minister and political elite.
But it points to a bigger problem in British society — overly cozy relationships among elites that are ethically dangerous, even when they do not involve outright criminality.”
So one does get the impression that M&G has been sitting with this stale Mac Maharaj story for a very long time waiting for this week when the PIB had to be voted in and then intentionally stirring a storm with premeditated and calculated dramatic effect.
Ozoneblue, could it be that a whistleblower only gave it to M&G only last week?
I am not committed to defending the bill. But I so think that its liberal opponents, most of whom have not even read it, called yesterday BLACK TUESDAY, apparently confident that we would recognize something “black” as bad.
[...] Cobus van Wyngaard has written a throughtful blog post about it at Was #blacktuesday dalk te maklik? | die ander kant, and if you don’t read Afrikaans, Pierre de Vos makes some similar points in this piece Who can we trust? – Constitutionally Speaking. [...]
Oh my, Pierre. Okay, I’ve seen this line argument evolving – so now the argument is not that it is a ‘draconian’ piece of legislation as some of you have argued either directly or by insuniation. The new argument is that can we really trust THIS governement to implement properly? Hmmm, it helps when people make arguments after they have actually read what the bill says.
This isn’t a great bill, but nefarious it is not. What you and the likes and Nic Dawes and the R2know campaign have served to is completely mischarecterise the framework of this debate thereby robbing us of the very real debate on the balance between the role SoSS and society at large, this was never a media bill. You harped on about public interest defenses and how it was inevtibale that journalists would go to jail with the mere stroke of a pen. The MASS hysteria yesterday was the culmination of the single largest excercise of mass propaganda this country has seen since 94, and I say that with no sense of irony or hyperbole. Lord. And one of the key things overlooked in this bill is the ‘embedded defence’ journalists and the like have against missclassification of information by the state, especially if one believes that they are exposing corruption. The defence is akin to public interest defence. Anyway, nice arguments Pierre, you should have made these before you jump-started the bandwagon
Snowman says:
November 23, 2011 at 1:25 am
Don’t think so. Whatever the case we can’t afford the situation we had with Zuma where it was clear that there was somebody working inside the NPA/Scorpions that had their own agenda and was consistently “leaking” confidential documents into the the media. This not seriously only undermined the work of the NPA but also the case against Zuma.
hmmmm, what sounds better?
blacktuesdayleaks.org or whatwerewethinkingleaks.org
malome tom says:
November 23, 2011 at 6:15 am
This Bill bears a passing resemblance to the first draft.
ozoneblue says:
November 23, 2011 at 6:31 am
“Everyone has the right of access to any information held by the state”?
Can one speak of ‘leaks’ of information? To us?
“A free press is one of the pillars of democracy.” Nelson Mandela”"
Mikhail – it’s meant to be a reference to legislation that prohibited the media reporting on what was happening during apartheid. The day that bill was passed became known as “Black Wednesday”. This vote was originally meant to happen on Wednesday but was brought forward a day.
I have re-read this post. prof you’re a hypocrite and you were a victim of the sound bite. i have listened to you and seen writings by yourself on this bill and you were far less nuanced and sober prior to this piece. why didn’t you make these arguments before. the Grand Narrative, as you would put it, has always been that the anc government’s primary primary instincts were towards implementing legislation that seeks mainly to cover up corruption and embarrassment. the argument was always nonsense given a basic reading of the bill. even landers, God bless him, in all his ineptitude made solid arguments to the “death of democracy” line of thinking. fact is pierre, you speak people listen and quote and recycle your politics and thoughts, so as far as i’m concerned you contributed quite bit to how this discourse shaped up. we were really robbed of a proper debate on this, we focused on nonsense.
no-one thinks, even the thinking types. sycophants
ISHMAEL, what corruption are you guilty of that you’re trying to hide?
Who can we trust indeed!
Makhosi Khoza, a candidate for the top job at the eThekwini municipality, has withdrawn from the race because of death threats
Khoza – who was last week appointed ANC chief whip in the KwaZulu-Natal legislature – was short-listed with three others for the post of municipal manager: Msunduzi administrator Sibusiso Sithole, adviser to the premier and chairman of the KwaZulu-Natal planning commission Cyril Xaba, and Eastern Cape Amathole district municipality city manager Vuyo Mlokoti.
http://www.timeslive.co.za/politics/2011/11/23/ethekwini-municipality-boss-race-gets-dirty
Malome Tom, if you trust that crook Jackie Selebi absolutely; if you trust suspended Bheki Cele absolutely, if you trust Sicelo Sicheka absolutely, if you trust Lindiwe Sisulu (who appointed a fugitive from justice as her advisor) absolutely; if you trust every Minister who has ever stayed in the Mount Nelson or some other exorbitantly expensive Hotel for long periods of time while mosquitos infest their house given to them by the state; if you trust the the members of the same intelligence services who took sides in the Zuma/Mbeki fight absolutely, then this Bill is for you. If, however, you believe that crooks and anti-democratic forces should not be given power to hide and to turn us into a secretive national security state, then the Bill is not for you. Do you really trust “the dog ate my homework” Selebi? Do you really trust Cele or Cwele? Why? Reminds me of some whites who still believe Hansie Cronje was not really a crook. Blindness and ignorance knows no race, it seems.
Malome Tom, you might not be aware but the BIll was drastically changed since I last commented on it. Pity you did not follow the debates in Parliament and the passage of the Bill, otherwise you would have known that.
“Secrecy is the freedom tyrants dream of.”
- Bill Moyers -
malome tom
November 23, 2011 at 6:15 am
Hey MT,
“The new argument is that can we really trust THIS governement to implement properly?”
That ought to have been the most fundamental principle when our Constitution was drafted.
The result is that there’s no password on the cash-flush State ATM.
Idiots have the proclivity to hurl insults all the way of a discourse because thay are robbed of brains. That is so unfortunate.
This debate requires cogent ideas and thoughts as to why we think this legislation may not survive unremitting constitutional scrutiny. I have found no such convincing debate. I so desperately wanted to learn and thus shape my attitude towards this.
All we here is anus debates and insults what a shame. The bill as revised is solid and constitutional. There is not any law which had permitted illicit and unprocedural leaks. We are not a lawless state where there media are the law unto themselves.
I truly appreciate and embrace the watchdog role of the media and their criticality to anchoring democracy. PAIA is there to access information from all other departments. PDA there for whistleblowers.
ISHMAEL MALALE
November 23, 2011 at 8:50 am
Et tu Ishmael,
“All we here is anus debates and insults what a shame.”
You say “There is not any law which had permitted illicit and unprocedural leaks.”
What exactly are the leaks which we as a nation ought to be concerned about? Some examples would be wonderful.
And on my note to you (November 22, 2011 at 20:19 pm) – if you disagree do say. Throwing toys out of the cot does not dispel what has been reported.
@ Ismael
“Idiots have the proclivity to hurl insults all the way of a discourse because thay are robbed of brains. That is so unfortunate”
Wow! Did you just make that up, all by yourself? What does it mean?
You defend what you clearly (were told you) thought was a good idea, and people disagree, and now you’re sulking?
I can’t help but wonder whether some minimum entry criteria for Parliament is going to be necessary soon. But in secret, of course.
Get a job
Yes pierre, an adhominem attack is a sufficient response, condescend away. I particularly reference your very last commentary on these pages, concerning your certitude around the constitutionality around inter alia a lack of public interest defense. And I have heard you time and time again state your views on air. Pierre you overreacted, your own initial instincts were incorrect. And whether I trust the individuals you lsit above is neither here nor there. And that’s the nub of it all, like so many talking types in the public space, you tend you over-emphasise the politics of the personal over giving sober analysis on policies. The only question to be asked is whether I buy into the system, one that has me voting every 5 yrs, electing parliament etc and being free to vent and express my opinion as I see fit. On your logic, where do we draw the line? Do I pick and choose the govt dept that I deem to be legitimate, that are led by people I personall trust? Nonsense argument. And btw, who said I am black? And does that really matter to the arguments I am making? Your inference and analogy is noted nonetheless. Next you need to be more nuanced in your arguments to policy debates, don’t just argue by headline and soundbite. I wonder if your public wager of a year’s salary still stands in re the constitutionality of a lack of public interest defense mechanism.
And btw, I would not have voted for the said bill if I were a voting member of the house. And there’s no contradiction to what I state above.
@ Ishmael
“Idiots have the proclivity to hurl insults all the way of a discourse because thay are robbed of brains”
Ishmael is right. But these are no ordinary idiots, Ishmael. They are prisoners of the cult of whitishness, which has a proclivity to breed DISTRUST of the leaders that Our People have elected to serve in Parliament and in the executive branch of government. I say the best antidote to this is UBUNTU, an ancient philosophy that urges us to trust, yes, even love one another in shared project of nation building.
Mikhail Dworkin Fassbinder
November 23, 2011 at 9:21 am
Hey Dworky,
“They are prisoners of the cult of whitishness”
Are they, then, idiots who have NOT been robbed of brains?
Perhaps Brett can help us out – did White people after stealing all the land, then the mines now started stealing brains too?
Unlike Ishmael, Shiceka did not vote for the Bill.
http://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/Politics/ANC-rebels-dodge-info-bill-vote-20111123
Malema’s absence will make us focus on what is important within the ANC.
It seems as if the real issues are popping up like party ballons.
TRUST AVUSA AND SOWETAN
Someone must tell residents of Soweto that this bill has nothing to do with the high price of electricity they are currently paying. Infact its people like Godsell who applied for a 25% price hike on electricity as chairman of the board of Eskom only to report massive profits the following year.
What is the picture of shacks have to with the topic?
http://www.sowetanlive.co.za/news/2011/11/22/concerned-soweto-residents-oppose-info-bill
Malone Tom is saying what has needed to be said, since commentary on the 2010 Bill first commenced. Hurl ad hominem arguments and appeal to examples of corrupt officials as much as you like, but, Mr. De Vos, you cannot escape that you were instrumental in creating the perception that the Bill was DESIGNED as a means to cover corruption and to stifle media investigation.
This means that, for over a year, important and legitimate debate around the Bill has been sidetracked by strawman panic (as Friedman hinted at yesterday). There are, indeed, and always were, problems with the Bill and ones that require public debate, which debate should take place within the context of what the Bill ACTUALLY says (the media has been terrible at this). Instead, we have spent a year hurling accusations at the Ruling party, who have had to frantically defend their intentions around the Bill, as opposed to debating the possibly questionable provisions of the Bill, within an environment/presumption of trust (which would, ultimately, have been far more productive and might have actually had the ANC willing to listen).
Correct: the Bill has changed significantly since 2010, but, not to the extent that one could say that the 2010 Bill was a product/design of corruption, whereas the latest version reflects a complete turn around. The very fact that the changes were made indicates that the ANC (as a whole) was not originally out to get the Media, as you (and many others) sought to originally suggest. You were wrong about the original intention behind the Bill … you resorted to knee-jerk publishing and that is reflected in your (finally) balanced article above.
The mass hysteria that has followed has never been around a balanced reading of the Bill (as the average person has never read it). It has always been around the perceived intention of the Bill, as was created by respected commentators, beyond whose words the average reader feels no reason to explore. It serves little to now blame the media for the panic, as they are after all (bless them) not legal academics, who had every opportunity to butt in and put things straight. An ex post facto ‘whoops’ does little at this stage, where egos are at stake, damage has already been done and people are unlikely to admit having been mistaken.
Read yesterday’s social media comments on the Bill (e.g. 25 years for exposing corruption and EVEN daring to question the contents of it!?!) … where did these perceptions come from? Certainly not from a reading of the Bill … People have been fed this nonsense by Media houses that they think they can trust. Do not blame these people for being gullible. This perception was allowed to be created and fed to people. It’s all been quite irresponsible and, as MT has said, borders on propaganda.
Pardon my ignorance, is the public allowed to read the bill? If so, where can we read it … ??
Chantal Olivier
November 23, 2011 at 11:01 am
Chantal Olivier
http://www.info.gov.za/view/DownloadFileAction?id=151319.
Don’t quote me – I’ll deny it!
Ishmael Malala
So:
The ANC says it wants to have public consultations.
It schedules the consultations for this passed weekend.
It doesn’t even consult some of the provinces. In some provinces, the ‘consultation’ amounts to a song, a dance, a meal, and a handing out of propaganda pamphlets. In Mangaung, the ANC representative that was supposed to be at the consultation didn’t even show up.
After these rushed public ‘consultations’, Parliament was supposed to vote on POSIB on Wednesday.
The vote gets moved to Tuesday. ‘Oops’, I guess.
The ANC rams the vote through Parliament- after instructing its MPs as to how to vote and even what it can wear. (No black.)
NOW you want to talk to people about the Bill?
NOW?
LOL!
The ANC could not be more condescending if it tried.
And instead of being patient with people- in the light of the above events, it would behoove you to show a little bit of patience and humility- it is your duty, after all- you are a SERVANT OF THE PEOPLE- you call us idiots.
GTFOOH.
THE FREEDOM OF HYDE PARK, RONDEBOSCH, SANDTON etc
“Since 1994, freedom has been preserved here largely because the suburban elite that dominates business and the professions has been strong enough to dissuade a government they distrust from tampering with their liberties. This does not mean that a desire for freedom is restricted to the suburbs — the evidence suggests that it is shared by many at the grassroots. But it is the affluent who have the resources and the connections to make themselves heard. And the government knows that there are economic costs to ignoring them.
This has benefited the entire society — the poor need freedom at least as much as the better off. While they have often been denied it by local power realities that do not affect the suburbs, poor people would be even worse off if our freedoms go. But for how long can a freedom preserved by only a fraction of the society endure?
We may not yet have reached a pass at which freedom will be in dire peril if its only advocates are the suburban middle classes. But we are sure to reach it sooner or later.
In a limited way, perhaps we already have — would the bill have survived if it had faced the sustained resistance of the grassroots, who stand most to lose from it?
The fact that the bill is now before Parliament should serve as a warning.
If our mainstream debate remains obsessed with the freedom of the few and ignores that of the many, that freedom will remain fragile.
If, however, we understand that the chief victims of unrestrained official power remain the poor and that poor people must play a key role in protecting all our freedoms, we may yet ensure that we not only hold onto the freedoms we have but ensure that more and more of us enjoy them.”
• Friedman is director of the Centre for the Study of Democracy.
Here is the first State Secret.
http://www.politicsweb.co.za/politicsweb/view/politicsweb/en/page71654?oid=268255&sn=Detail&pid=71616
Am I understanding correctly. There is nothing wrong with this bill if applied anywhere in the world except South Africa because we do no trust our elected officials!!
Vuyo
Not exactly. Our Constitution commits us to an open, transparent, accountable way of government. This Bill is not supportive of these objectives.
The proposed legislation may well suit other countries, countries that are not keen on being responsible to their people, or on being transparent and open in their actions and motives, but it does not suit the ideals of (what) South Africa (is supposed to be).
We were never going to get objective commentary on this. Lines were drawn long ago. Glenda Daniels, ostensibly a Mail and Guardian journalist, for instance is one of the conveners of the R2knw campaign. So, one of the largest voices in this debate, the MnG has a reporter that offers reportage, analysis and at the same time participates as an activist. How were we ever going to get a balanced approach to this issue. Bluster bluster
HERE IS A POLOKWANE RESOLUTION WITH A FULLL MANDATE THAT NEEDS THE SAME EFFORT.
“Draft amendments to the Labour Relations Act (LRA), Basic Conditions of Employment Act and Employment Equity Act, and a new piece of proposed legislation – the Public Employment Services Bill – were published in the Government Gazette in December.
The amendments propose a repeal of section 198 of the LRA, which regulates labour brokers.
The contentious matter is currently before the National Economic Development and Labour Council. Business says banning labour broking will result in a huge knock to the economy, while organised labour will settle for nothing less than a total ban.
Members asked if there is a cut off date for reviewing the Bills and labour law. Nhleko said there is a process of social dialogue that needs to be undertaken and so the period is difficult to predict.
The DG said he hopes there would be clear direction by the end of 2011, but he could not be certain.” by ITWEB
Baer says:
November 23, 2011 at 11:05 am
I can’t recall seeing your objections when the ANC did the same and worse during the committee stages of the multi-billion-Rand black hole Firearms Control Bill?
Vulo that’s essentially the new argument. It’s not that the bill is inherently ‘draconian’ (a favourite adjective) the argument now is that officials are inherently corrupt and can’t be trusted. We need plurality of voices
Sheeple says:
November 23, 2011 at 10:47 am
Are you going on record that the Bill that was voted on yesterday is substantially the same as the Bill that was before Parliament a year ago?
Are you saying there was a lacuna in the law? Remind us quickly what the mischief was that HAD to be addressed.
Could you give us an example of a democracy where Siyabonga Cwele would still hold his job?
P.s. You forgot to comment on Pierre’s elevating ‘Sien mamba, mamma se kleintjie’ to a genocidal chant….
TRUST TELKOM.
Over R7bn already lost Telkom in Nigeria, R2bn lost on setting up 8ta(wisdom of selling profitable Vodacom only to start a loss making 8ta), R500 million on pay tv and R4bn to go. SA at its best.
This is just petty cash for us hence not a single person has been held responsible.
http://www.techcentral.co.za/telkom-faces-r4bn-multi-links-damages-claim/27550/
Gwebecimele says:
November 23, 2011 at 11:35 am
Could you please wait until the country is in a full-blown recession again before you raise this issue?
Hey, Gwebecimele, when are you going to start lobbying government to introduce employment quotas?
If Cosatu could strike a deal with its partners in government that only 10% of every year’s Matriculants may ever be employed think how high you could push up the unit price of labour?
Brett Nortje:
“Are you going on record that the Bill that was voted on yesterday is substantially the same as the Bill that was before Parliament a year ago?”
No – Read what I wrote, specifically “the Bill has changed significantly since 2010″. Am I to deal with straw-man arguments?
“Are you saying there was a lacuna in the law? Remind us quickly what the mischief was that HAD to be addressed.”
Ah, now we’re asking the right questions and not assuming, in the absence of a good answer, that ‘it must be an attack on the media’. Perhaps we should be debating what the drafters say the mischief is and whether it requires addressing. This debate has never moved beyond the media being under attack.
“Could you give us an example of a democracy where Siyabonga Cwele would still hold his job?”
No. Does this mean that the Bill was designed to enable this kind of thing? If so, how do you reach this conclusion (with reference to what is written therein, please).
“You forgot to comment on Pierre’s elevating ‘Sien mamba, mamma se kleintjie’ to a genocidal chant….”
Indeed.
“@TIME: South Africa’s “secrecy” bill is a blow to post-apartheid democracy | http://t.co/mq3e0D6j“
malome tom
November 23, 2011 at 11:42 am
Hey MT,
“the argument now is that officials are inherently corrupt and can’t be trusted.”
Corruption is endemic.
And the institutions of state, the Chapter 9 institutions, parliament, Cabinet are pretty neutered.
Want some examples?
Prof
I’m sure you know from the Ellen Jordan case that the constitutionality of a legisalation is not judged on how it is applied or likely to be applied but on what it says(the actual provisions).
What I’m not getting from your piece is whether or not you belive the Bill in its current form is unconstitutional.
RE: “…the fact that the governing party … have (has?) squandered the trust and goodwill it had acquired over many years of struggle.”
Who can we trust? TRUST NO ONE!!!
http://www.anc.org.za/docs/anctoday/2011/at44.htm#art3
Vulo
November 23, 2011 at 11:22 am
Hey Vulo,
“because we do no trust our elected officials!!”
Guess what?
The ANC itself resolved so!
That our accumulated weaknesses include inability to effectively deal with new tendencies arising from being a ruling party, such as social distance, patronage, careerism, corruption and abuse of powers; ineffective management of the interface between the movement and the state; a flawed approach to membership recruitment, a decline in ideological depth amongst cadres; and a lack of institutional resources to give practical effect to the movement’s leadership role.
http://www.anc.org.za/show.php?id=2536
Aha! Yes! Corruption is endemic and we have very good reason to be suspicious of the motives of the Ruling Party. But, does this entitle us to frame all commentary on the Bill within this context? Should the commentary not have first provided an objective overview/summary of the Bill (so that the public was on the same page) and then proceeded to deal with (political) criticisms of it, if that’s the route the commentator wished to take? If we had had ‘balanced reporting’, this would have been the manner in which the debate would have unfolded and it may (or may not) have taken a different path … it’s too late now to say.
Instead, commentary was opened with the assumption that the Bill was intended to enable corruption and stifle the media and then (select) pieces of it were fed to the public, without the soothing context of many important clauses (the average person that I speak to is still quite surprised to learn that the Bill [including the 2010 version] makes it illegal to classify for [ulterior] purposes – again, just look at yesterday’s Facebook comments to learn what people think the Bill says).
Ultimately, the point is that people believe what they read. The media, political commentators etc. should be well aware of this and should, at a minimum, ensure that their readers are thoroughly informed of the premises, before conclusions are drawn. It’s sad that the average reader will not read the Bill for themselves and this is not the fault of commentators … but, it IS the reality within which we have to work and one to which (responsible) commentators should cater.
If balanced reporting and analysis had been the order of the day and people had still reacted the way they did yesterday, I’d have no gripe and would conclude public opinion to be against the Bill. Instead, public opinion is against what people THINK to be the Bill. They were told what to think, long before the substance of the Bill was discussed and that, to me, is propaganda.
@ Sheep
“People have been fed this nonsense by Media houses that they think they can trust. Do not blame these people for being gullible.”
Sheep is right. The liberal media — and their “black” stooges, Justice Malala and Mondli being two — have a lot to answer for. They have sown the moral panic that makse sensible debate on whatever flaws may remain in the bill quite impossible. But Sheep, it frustrates me beyond measure that you seem unwilling to call a spade a spade. What is it that ultimately lurks behind resistance the bill? Whitish RACISM, pure and simple. Am I not right?
How are we to trust an ANC that no longer even trusts itself?
“The sins of incumbency” are not just an Achilles heel anymore, they have become a cancer & our “leading national liberation movement” appears to be terminal, if its members are now prepared to murder one another for positions.
‘I’m sure you know from the Ellen Jordan case that the constitutionality of a legislation is not judged on how it is applied or likely to be applied [...]‘
???
That’s exactly how it’s interpreted.
I’m not familiar with the Ellen Jordan case. Summarise for us the pertinent portions?
Mikhail Dworkin Fassbinder
November 23, 2011 at 12:46 pm
Dworky,
“Sheep is right. … Whitish RACISM, pure and simple.”
Hmmm!
Sounds like a case of baa baa Black Sheep.
WDYT?
Jama ka Sijadu
November 23, 2011 at 12:52 pm
JkS,
“if its members are now prepared to murder one another for positions.”
It gets worse!
Check the link in my post above (November 23, 2011 at 8:15 am)
When a dedicated stalwart and activist like Makhosi Khosa is subjected to what has been reported and the ANC is SILENT, expect anything, notwithstanding the cheap spin which has been punted here.
@Fassbinder:
“What is it that ultimately lurks behind resistance the bill? Whitish RACISM, pure and simple. Am I not right?”
Hmmm, maybe a little bit reductionist for my liking (perhaps that’s me unable to get past my ‘whiteness’) …
The ANC happens to be majority black. The fact that people distrust the ANC is not (necessarily) because they are black, as, let’s face it, their track record has not been impeccable, which could just as easily have happened (in fact, did happen) with a white government.
My concern here (my only concern) is that distrust was the starting point of the analysis fed to the public. Whatever your reason for not trusting, that should not creep in, as a starting point, for anything that one wishes to be referred to as ‘objective’.
The public was told to be suspicious from the start and, hence, they were. I cannot say, with any certainty, that yesterday would have been any different, had we all been more ‘objective’, but, it may have been and I’m irritated that this potential was never afforded an opportunity to manifest.
Sheeple says:
November 23, 2011 at 12:02 pm
Brett Nortje:
“Are you going on record that the Bill that was voted on yesterday is substantially the same as the Bill that was before Parliament a year ago?”
No – Read what I wrote, specifically “the Bill has changed significantly since 2010″. Am I to deal with straw-man arguments?”
If you concede that the Bill voted on bears only passing resemblence to the Bill a year ago how can you castigate the comments on the Bill a year ago rather than thank the commentators?
WHo set the tone for the confrontation?
If the media has little to fear from the Bill why not allow a bona fide public interest defence?
How do you reconcile the Bill then and now with this:
‘Everyone has the right of access to any information held by the state’?
‘I can’t recall seeing your objections when the ANC did the same and worse during the committee stages of the multi-billion-Rand black hole Firearms Control Bill?’
I was still old enough to be playing with the toy versions, BN. My apologies for not coming to your rescue.
*young enough, that is.
Anyway, I’m done emulating Switzerland.
DA all the (foreseeable) way.
Baer
November 23, 2011 at 13:15 pm
Hey Baer,
“DA all the (foreseeable) way.”
So you no longer, as you recently declared, swing both ways?
Just when you were about to be introduced to Grandfather Poggenpohl!
@Brett Nortje:
I believe that you think I’m suggesting that nothing has been achieved between the 2010 Bill and the Current. This not the case. The amendments that were made, as a result of commentary, protests etc. are all commendable. Thank you, Mr. Nortje and Mr. De Vos for pointing out that these were good things and pushing for them. Happy?
Do I believe that the same result could have been achieved by being more objective and not telling people that we were relapsing into Apartheid and without allowing misinformation about the Bill to circulate? Yes.
I still want you guys to educate me on the unconstitutionality of the bill. idiosyncracies and preferences may not be helpful. some Members of Parliament are receptive to constructive constribution and can be convinced by rational thought. Where lies bone of contention?
@Maggs
There’s a list as long as my arm of “idealistic” ANC people, from Mpumalanga to KZN who were not just threatened but actually murdered, for nothing more than standing in the way of scum who join the ANC for no other purpose that to get rich from various tenders.
ISHMAEL MALALE
November 23, 2011 at 13:27 pm
Hey Ishmael,
“Where lies bone of contention?”
Let’s start with your assumptions.
“PAIA is there to access information from all other departments.”
If you believe that is true then explain this for example.
THE embattled Eastern Cape department of education has failed to submit crucial documents to the auditor-general to back up payments worth billions made during the last financial year. …
According to yesterday’s presentation to the portfolio committee, the department failed to provide records for the following payments:
http://www.dispatch.co.za/news/article/2379
You’ve said previously that Parliament is not toothless.
The evidence contradicts that.
@ Ishmael
Is it too much to ask if you voted for the dissolving of the Scorpions?
ISHMAEL MALALE says:
November 23, 2011 at 13:27 pm
“some Members of Parliament are receptive to constructive contribution and can be convinced by rational thought.”
But they still don’t vote on legislation according to their conscience. They tow the party line because they know which side their bread is buttered
http://www.timeslive.co.za/politics/2011/11/23/34-anc-mps-absent-from-info-bill-vote: “It also reported that Turok, one of the ANC’s leading free-thinkers and a veteran who played a big part in the writing of the 1955 Freedom Charter, slipped out of the Assembly as voting time approached.”
What would be the point of convincing an MP of anything that does not involve travel vouchers?
Trust the likes of Godsell to milk the poor. In case you were wondering what happened to the tarrif increases, the Execs are about to win a lotto.
http://www.iol.co.za/business/companies/eskom-profit-up-35-to-r12-8bn-1.1184851
@Gwebecimele
http://www.ewn.co.za/Story.aspx?Id=72840
(Eskom CEO Brian Dames did not take kindly to being quizzed about his salary at a press conference in Cape Town on Thursday.
“We’re kinda like the largest company in the country, we kinda like make sure the lights stay on, we kinda like do quite a lot of things,” he sarcastically told a journalist.)
Jama ka Sijadu
November 23, 2011 at 14:55 pm
JsK,
“I think between Paul and I – my finance director – I think we’re getting less than one person in the private sector maybe,” he added.
That one person – Bill Gates perhaps?
Maggs in terms of the Audit Act read with the Public Finance Management Act the department can be enjoined to produce and furnish such records and their distruction or failure for keeping such records constitutes a statutory offence.
The law enforcement agencies can be approached in this instance. I quipped with the Chairperson of SCOPA and retorted that the Police must be advised ofo this matters. I suggest that you send the matter to the police, such a proactive approach.
The minimum threshhold for membership to parliament is political activism; satisfaction of the eligilbility; and successful election thereto.
@ Maggs
He is technically correct.
See http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-11-07/firstrand-s-nxasana-south-africa-s-best-paid-bank-chief-executive-in-2011.html
Perhaps what grinds people about the Eskom story is that the R3 million bonus is not performance related (how many power outages did we have this winter?)
24% tariff increase = 109% increase in executive remuneration.
Can we trust the government & it’s parasites (erhm…I mean parastatals) to make excellent use of the taxpayers’ hard earned money?
ISHMAEL MALALE
November 23, 2011 at 16:09 pm
Hey Ishmael,
We seem to agree that getting people to do what they are compelled to do in terms of the law is in many instances very challenging notwithstanding the successes of our everyday heroines and heroes (like Ms Gudwana, Kevin Wakeford, Hugh Glenister and Terry Crawford-Browne among others).
To emphasise what I’ve said before, the drafters of our Constitution weren’t even able to contemplate the possibility that crooks will invade the corridors and have control over the levers of power and resources in our country. And thus they controls which ought to have been in place today are absent. For example it’s all very easy to say executive prerogative and power lies with the President when now we know how easy it is to remove a sitting President.
If we embark on a road based primarily on trusting the incumbent leaders/officials with nearly unbridled power and control then our legacy to future generations may well be very tarnished. Posterity can be a bastard.
Take for example the Classification Review Panel which, as I read it, is established by the Joint Standing Committee on Intelligence and approved by the national Assembly.
In other words a rubber-stamped panel akin to (or worse than) the JSC – a powerful tool in the hands of those who will most likely in the future (and now) have nefarious agendas.
I would find it hard to believe that you and the many, many good ANC cadres deployed to national are proud of this nonsense that is going.
ISHMAEL MALALE
November 23, 2011 at 16:09 pm
Here’s a window to the future, Ishmael!
Gauteng Premier Nomvula Mokonyane today refused to reveal where Local Government MEC Humphrey Mmemezi was rushing to on 5 November when his vehicle knocked down 18- year-old Thomas Ferreira in Krugersdorp while flashing Blue Lights
http://www.politicsweb.co.za/politicsweb/view/politicsweb/en/page71654?oid=268255&sn=Detail&pid=71616
Who do you think should appoint the Review Panel?
Maggs, The intelligence reports, police dockets, military assighments and reports related thereto can’t be accessed even in terms of PAIA unless you prove the fundamental public interest which swings the pandelum in favour of removal of the security veil.
The bill really only applies to three areas of state operation, police, military and intelligence. It is a criminal offence to classify information to conceal corruption. A wistleblower who does not seek to exact justice but simple publicity is not protected by the Protected Disclosure Act.
The media were so opposed to the Bill as not to focus on the progressive improvement of the Bill. By the way transformation of the judiciary seems to be a site of ferocious struggle amongst the ruling class and the ruling political forces. The loser would be those who do not want constructive engagement and those thisrty to learn from those bitterly mistrustful of us.
Politics entails robust engagement, disagreement and consensus. If the bill has some speck of unconstitutionality, the guardian of the constitution the Constitutional Court will certainly intervene. It is the final arbiter.
Ishmael, could you please give these nice people who might be wondering about Maggs’ question a quick basic intro to participation – perpetrators complicity and accessories?
Why is Nomvula Mokonyane an accessory after the fact and Humphrey Mmemezi an accomplice (at the very least) to leaving the scene of an accident in which someone was seriously injured?
Any idea when Simelane is going to charge them?
Ishmael
Let me just add upon what Maggs has started.
Remember the hotel stays this year alone that amount to millions of wasted Rands? The relevant people refuse to release the reasons for the stays because of ‘security reasons’!
What about our wonderful Defense Minister, who sat with a smirk on her face in Parliament yesterday as she voted for the POSIB, who refuses to give Parliament information on a regular basis?
I’m sure you can think of further examples on your own.
I wish I were in the same room as you so you could look me in the eye when you (attempt to) tell me with a straight face that things will not get worse with a POSIA.
Things will only further spiral with the Bill as it currently stands.
Sheeple says:
November 23, 2011 at 13:03 pm
We have pretty much clarified the issues in dispute so we know what we are not going to agree on.
So tell me: Co-incidence that the POIB and Media Tribunal were announced simultaneously? Almost in the same breath?
Ishmael Malale, can you please give us concrete examples of the (according to the state security minister) rampant information peddlng and espionage that will now finally be stopped?
And could you tell us if you agree that R2K is paid for by foreign interests? If not, do you think minister cwele’s comment was appropriate?
Thanks fot making yourself available on this blog, btw.
ISHMAEL MALALE
November 23, 2011 at 17:22 pm
Hey IM,
“Who do you think should appoint the Review Panel?”
Definitely not GOD – its hands are full appointing Chief Justices.
It’s something you and other MPs must figure out – when I and others like me support, campaign and vote for the ANC, we do so in the belief that we delegate to you the authority backed by the institutional support to make suitably informed decisions to defend and deepen democracy.
Even without this impending law, ministers and others in control of state resources have been showing South Africa the middle finger when they really ought to have been explaining themselves.
You say that “(i)t is a criminal offence to classify information to conceal corruption” – maybe so, but how will we know that the information has been classified to conceal corruption?
You say “(t)he bill really only applies to three areas of state operation, police, military and intelligence.”
We’ve been told for over a decade, for example, that the arms deal was free of corruption. Now the President has appointed a judicial commission – surely it cannot be that he did so without being satisfied that there is infact corruption!
Re the police – let’s remind ourselves that we’ve had two successive National Commissioners booted out of office because of corruption/criminality.
Intelligence, if reports are anything to go by, seems to be embroiled in serious controversies. Gibson Njenje was fired. mabasa was reportedly involved with some seriously shady types. And there’s more.
If this bill, when/if it becomes law, presents the slightest possibility of protecting such actions – we’re heading into a dark place.
Except for the almost-blasphemous part – well said, Maggs.
Hehehehehe!
Some smart politicians seem to have learned all about computers.
random access memory … where such storage medium belongs to or is under control of the State
With rapid developments in content addressable memory and cloud computing and other technological leaps, it may soon have to be back to the drawing board.
@Maggs Naidu – maggsnaidu@hotmail.com
November 22, 2011 at 20:19 pm
“Hey Ishmael,
“If it is it true that all ANC MPs were instructed to vote in favour of the bill then what you or other ANC MPs think about the bill is irrelevant. In that case you aren’t paid to think.”
I think this (may I call it a quote) is my all time favorite response to another’s post.
RickySA says:
November 23, 2011 at 17:40 pm
“can you please give us concrete examples of the (according to the state security minister) rampant information peddlng and espionage that will now finally be stopped?”
Ivor Powell. Scumbag journo who formerly worked for the M&G before he joined the Scorpions and was most likely responsible for continuously “leaking” NPA documents into the media, most likely getting paid handsomely in return.
http://www.iol.co.za/news/south-africa/scorpion-powell-makes-bail-1.386755
@Adriaan Poggenpohl
November 22, 2011 at 18:25 pm
Your response and others who post regularly or irregularly throughout Prof’s many blogs, are an repeated illustration of why we are so fortunate to live (perhaps I should say ‘struggle’) under the umbrella that our Constitution gives us, that of freedom, freedom of speech under the law, redoubtably the most important in a Democracy, and many more benefits to such freedom too numerous to mention.
This is all so citizens may live their lives in an optimal environment mutually supportive by each other and government, and even free to love whom ever they wish, or for that matter, to play with whom ever they wish.
Is it possible you are against true freedom and evolving human rights in this one respect.
The Constitution is here to protect not only we who are living today, but our descendants throughout the future.
SHMAEL MALALE says:
November 23, 2011 at 13:27 pm
“I still want you guys to educate me on the unconstitutionality of the bill.”
I think it is clear that there is nothing unconstitutional in the revised bill. PdV and others should be complemented for making a fuss about the first effort and the government should be complimented for amending it accordingly. System works – no matter what all the rabid Afro-pessimists are whining on about again – good job, democracy has won.
sirjay jonson
November 23, 2011 at 19:03 pm
@Adriaan Poggenpohl
November 22, 2011 at 18:25 pm
Adriaan,
Grandma says to ignore Sijay.
Grandma also says you must pass this message from her to Grandpa and the milkman :
http://thehostages.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/granny.jpg
And now that she is rid of Grandpa she’s also found love!
http://media1.break.com/dnet/media/2007/7/jul25gal09-granny-loves-it.jpg
Antie Zille’s girl don’t like it.
“On Tuesday, the ANC was the only party to support the bill, which DA parliamentary leader Lindiwe Mazibuko warned that, if passed, would “unstitch the very fabric of our constitution. It will criminalise the freedoms that so many of our people fought for”. ”
Such a typical DA drama queen lol. Where were the DA when the NPA were abusing the media like two-pence whores?
@ozenblue
You’ve got to be kidding. There may well be a significant number of supporters to this bill but the majority of clear thinkers don’t support it at all, indeed they see it for the very real threat (well its more than a threat now, isn’t it) for reasons which are perhaps beyond you, no insult intended, in that the evidence shows virtually every civil society organization which supports human rights and Democracy are determinedly united against it. But thanks to Maggs, I’ve now got it. Its all about thinking, as in who can, and who can’t, or should I say: isn’t allowed to.
Maggs Naidu – maggsnaidu@hotmail.com
November 23, 2011 at 17:41 pm
“If this bill, when/if it becomes law, presents the slightest possibility of protecting such actions – we’re heading into a dark place.”
Maggs: You know very well, can you deny this, that it will be abused? I mean really, have we not been abused for years by this government. Aids denialism, Mugabe, support of tyrants (money laundering by the way), hatred of the west who helped to free us, corruption (obvious) and today abstention on Syrian violence – please).
In all my years here one thought has continually harassed me, and justifiably, as in:
it could all be so different.
sirjay jonson says:
November 23, 2011 at 20:02 pm
Oh – and who censored Julius Malema? Who just fired two corrupt ministers? The ANC never gets credit for much do they?
Moan, whine all day long about nothing and feel sorry for yourselves, it is all some people are good for.
Maggs Naidu – maggsnaidu@hotmail.com
November 23, 2011 at 17:18 pm
One final note for you Maggs, and then bed.
Even though she herself lost a child a year ago. Talk about confused loyalties.
If you are going to be politically correct –
you will be X-cominicated
ozoneblue
November 23, 2011 at 20:10 pm
Do you have any idea how many International and white/colored/indian South Africans initially supported the ANC, myself included as an intense and proud activist in the communities intent on improving services and conditions (they never sent me my member’s card by the way even though I paid for it at Worcester).
You are defending the indefensible. Truth always outs.
You don’t get it, do you? We loved the ANC, then we saw and suffered their criminal reality. Either you haven’t seen it, grasped the coup since Madiba, suffered its contradictions and consequences, or you choose not to.
Sorry bro but it seems to me, according to your posts as… ignorance or cowardice.
malome tom says:
November 23, 2011 at 6:15 am
Sheeple says:
November 23, 2011 at 10:47 am
You two have disseminated a lot of bullshit today. Are you going to explain the strange coincidence of the security-bill-not-a-media-bill being introduced in the same time and space as the vaunted Media Tribunal as well as the fact that it was punted in the same breath by the same people?
Want your feet held to the fire?
Bless you, Sirjay – you believed in a chimera.
Prof:
I suppose I’m rather verbal tonight since I’m presently living with shock, horror and some fear, as I think many South Africans are.
But I want to post to you something a close family member who is lesbian, said to me many years ago. I am repeating her compliment to me which I forward to you for your courage (don’t blush) and your commitment, as follows:
“Thank you for touching my life.”
@Brett Nortje
November 23, 2011 at 20:46 pm
Thanks Brett: always look forward to your posts. We should hunt together one day.
Wouldn’t that be a blast. cheers.
@ Ozone
“System works – no matter what all the rabid Afro-pessimists are whining on about again – good job, democracy has won.”
Ozone is right. Freedom without limit is pure license. It is not the media that represents our people. The Constitution says that Parliament represents our people. And two thirds of our people have said ENOUGH to the liberal medias’ campaign of character assassination. I am just bitter that a man with the struggle credential of Ben Turok has turned his back on the values of the struggle at this crucial hour. But he is welcome to join his whitish liberal “friends” in the DA if his adherence to liberal conception of “free speech” is more important than the NDR!
Jama ka Sijadu
November 23, 2011 at 16:12 pm
Eish JkS
“taxpayers’ hard earned money”.
I’ve been doing battle with ‘some among us’ for a long time now re the phrase “taxpayers’ money”.
I assume that by taxpayers’ money you mean state funds.
The notion of taxpayers’ money as is generally used is seriously flawed.
I hope that people will recognise this and stop referring to state funds as “taxpayers’ money”.
And btw everyone is a taxpayer be it through income tax, VAT, duties, levies and or other indirect taxes – nobody escapes paying some or other form of tax.
That’s because you are a silly ANC supporter and ipso facto intent on consumption rather than production.
Who produced that money?
@Brett Nortje:
Bullshit? Perhaps … damn freedom of speech, hey!
As for POIB and Media Tribunal being punted at the same time, by the same people? Ignoring that correlation does not equal causation, I’m happy (and, in fact, have never been unhappy) to concede that it raises suspicions. As I said (although you seem to be very picky in acknowledging what I say) we have good reason to be distrustful of government …
Does this entitle you to misrepresent the contents of the Bill (even if it is through omitting the mention of certain clauses) to the public, in order to garner support for your opposition? Maybe, but, then do not try to label yourself as an objective analyst. You’re then an activist. You simply cannot escape that the vast majority of people are misinformed about what the Bill says. Where, Brett Nortje, do you propose their information to have come from? Opposition to the Bill is FINE, but, it should be INFORMED opposition – not opposition based on the filtered version offered through the media.
The problem is not that there was speculation as to political intent. The problem is that this speculation was never separated from what the public was told was contained in the Bill. Media coverage always made out as though the Bill (standing alone) disclosed government mala fides (“a draconian/apartheid piece of legislation”), whereas it did/does not … that was read into it by media commentators, who never bothered to distinguish what the Bill said and what they thought of it.
Brett Nortje
November 23, 2011 at 22:47 pm
Hey Goofy,
“Who produced that money?”
Your granny?
I see references to protected disclosures being permitted by the Bill. This must be based on section 43:
43. Any person who unlawfully and intentionally discloses classified information in contravention of this Act is guilty of an offence and liable to a fine or imprisonment for a period not exceeding five years, except where such disclosure is—
(a) protected under the Protected Disclosures Act, 2000 ( Act No. 26 of 2000)…
But there seems to be a problem if you go to the definition of “protected disclosure” in that Act.
“protected disclosure” means a disclosure made to—
(a) a legal adviser in accordance with section 5;
(b) an employer in accordance with section 6;
(c) a member of Cabinet or of the Executive Council of a province in accordance with section 7;
(d) a person or body in accordance with section 8; or
(e) any other person or body in accordance with section 9,
but does not include a disclosure—
(i) in respect of which the employee concerned commits an offence by making that disclosure…
So how does that work? The Bill makes it an offence to disclose classified information, so the disclosure is excluded from the definition of a protected disclosure and the Act does not apply? Chicken and the egg situation!
Sheeple
November 23, 2011 at 22:51 pm
Hey Sheep,
It’s not clear what you base your views on apart from a perception that people are not sufficiently informed.
Ishmael points out that “(t)he bill really only applies to three areas of state operation, police, military and intelligence”.
7. (1) The head of each organ of state, where applicable, must establish policies, directives and categories for classifying, downgrading and declassifying state information and protection against alteration, destruction or loss of state information created, acquired or received by that organ of state.
And the head of each organ of state is :
‘‘head of an organ of state’’ means—
(a) in the case of a department, the officer who is the incumbent of the post bearing the designation mentioned in Column 2 of Schedule 1, 2 or 3 to the Public Service Act, 1994 (Proclamation No. 103 of 1994), or the person who
is acting as such;
(b) in the case of a municipality, the municipal manager appointed in terms of section 82 of the Local Government: Municipal Structures Act, 1998 (Act No. 117 of 1998), or the person who is acting as such;
(c) in the case of any other institution, the chief executive officer or equivalent officer, of that public body or the person who is acting as such; or
(d) in the case of a national key point declared as such in terms of the National Key Points Act, 1980 (Act No. 102 of 1980), the owner of the national key point;
Do you really want for example to have municipal managers with the power and legislative authority to classify information as contemplated in this Bill?
Airports are national key points – do you really want not to know what the rate of baggage theft is from ORT or that the jet fuel has been contaminated with water?
Or that some really shady/seedy characters have been ‘strategically deployed’ in ‘classified roles’ in critical government departments/institutions?
@Maggs:
Who ‘informed’ those people, knowing full well that they would not/had not read the Bill?
Who told them that the Bill ENABLED corruption, never bothering to clarify that this was how they thought the Bill would be misapplied, as opposed to it being evident on the face of the Bill?
Who listened to all this mumbo jumbo circulate on the airwaves and never bothered to step in and say ‘hold on’?
Let’s face it – the misinformation around the Bill suited the push to have the Bill scrapped/suitably amended. Where the majority of you seem to disagree with me is around whether this was ethical. I still maintain that it was not.
Sheeple
November 24, 2011 at 7:31 am
Hey Sheep Guy,
I’m not sure what you mean – “those people”, “misinformed” and “misrepresented” for example.
How does expressing a view strongly, even if it is wrong, lead to that?
The issue here is the free flow of information which the Bill seems to seriously restrict – a municipal manager able to ‘classify’ information.
Have a look at this shit – http://www.timeslive.co.za/politics/2011/11/24/public-works-rotten-with-corruption-matutle
State resources are being ravaged – the possibility that this bill becoming law is, in the current context, ‘too ghastly to contemplate’.
Nonetheless, I am not in agreement with Turok and Borman, among others. The ANC has been working hard at bringing discipline to its ranks – the effect of their actions may well disrupt that.
http://mg.co.za/article/2011-11-23-anc-vows-action-against-secrecy-bill-dissidents
In my opinion the most compelling voices in this debate are those of Ben Turok and Gloria Borman who have demonstrated great personal courage in withholding their votes. South Africa owes them a word of thanks. It would be wonderful if others in the ANC were able to display similar personal courage. Message to ANC MPs…….make it aspirational folks.
Having now read the act I share the views of those that are of the opinion that the greatest danger lies in abuse by those in Government. It is virtually inevitable. Section 47 provides only limited comfort to those who might fall foul of the bills harsh provisions.
The most telling development is the threat by the ANC to take action against those of its members who failed to to toe the party line when voting. This tells us all that freedom of ideas is not tolerated and this in turn is suggestive of how this and similar legislation is formulated within the party. It is a compelling insight into the bona fides of Luthuli House and should add urgency to those who oppose the legislation.
By the way I believe that the media and / or opposition should provide civil society with a synopsis of the act and explain exactly why they are unhappy. Come DA shake a leg. Pierre…an online lecture?
anton kleinschmidt
November 24, 2011 at 8:57 am
Hey AK,
“It would be wonderful if others in the ANC were able to display similar personal courage.”
Juju displayed similar personal courage.
South Africa bayed for his blood!
@Maggs:
I think that we’re arguing cross purposes. OF COURSE strong opinion and opposition on/to the Bill is not wrong. I’ve never said otherwise. BUT, it should be balanced/informed opposition.
The problem is that the (political) opinion on the Bill was never separated from what people were told was contained ON PAPER. The distrust was allowed to taint any kind of reporting on what was ACTUALLY said in the Bill, so that, on “Black Tuesday”, I was confronted with various staunch Facebook updates against the Bill, which would normally be fine, had they not said things like “25 years in prison for exposing corruption” and “25 years in prison for questioning the contents of the Bill.”
Clearly “those people” (the average media follower) had not read the Bill. They had relied on commentary and what TV/Radio personalities had fed them (frankly, I was shocked at what was ‘authoritatively’ coming out of the mouths of the likes of John Robbie, who later conceded to not having read it). That is the “misrepresentation” of which I speak and that is what caused “those people” to be “misinformed”.
If you’re an activist against the Bill, then fine. But, do not try to wear the clothes of activist and balanced reporter at the same time, certainly not when you’re going to present a limited (even distorted) picture of the Bill, as it was/is on paper. People took the media’s word on the contents of the Bill, because they believed that were are being provided with a balanced picture. What has emerged is that, because the media felt under threat, they saw fit to discard the trappings of ‘balanced reporting’, in favour activism against the Bill and it is precisely that confusion of roles that has resulted in “those people” thinking the ridiculous things (about the CONTENTS of the Bill) that they do today.
O how the mighty have fallen – If Turok & Borman are to be “disciplined” essentially for not voting, the ANC is surely losing its way. The only people who should be disciplined are those MPs who did not bother to show up at all.
Since when has ambivalence been classified as ill-discipline?
Sheeple
November 24, 2011 at 9:27 am
Sheep Guy,
The vacuum, created by the ending of the era of participatory democracy post 1994 during which all major policies were truly in the public arena, has been filled by the media.
It’s naive to assume that all (or anything) put out by the media is necessarily accurate, balanced, reasonable or even truthful and without nefarious agendas.
That aside the free flow of information (to the extent that it does not disrupt, endanger, harm the security of our state and people) is vital to our Constitutional Project.
The checks-and-balances in this bill are pretty ineffective – in the context of the challenges we face (see the ANC Polokwane resolutions and LGE Manifesto for some of those) this bill if it becomes law will undermine the will of the people.
A fundamental assumption in this bill is that we must rely on the integrity of the people who have the authority to classify. That’s as cuckoo as it gets!
A question from a non-legal person for Prof de Vos, Maggs, Brett N & all the other smart people here:
If a journalist (or any other individual) outright steals “confidential” documents or bribes some government official to access documents that expose corruption / wrong doing, should that journalist or individual be punished as a thief or protected as a whistle blower?
The Premier and the Bachelor (THE REAL STORY)
http://www.iol.co.za/news/politics/bachelor-da-leader-feels-premier-s-wrath-1.1184815?showComments=true
Jama ka Sijadu
November 24, 2011 at 9:38 am
JkS,
“the ANC is surely losing its way.”
I disagree with you.
This is not a private club – it’s the ruling party.
Turok & Borman are not forced to be members of parliament – and party discipline is not only for those whose voices we don’t like.
If every member of the ANC in parliament pulls in a different direction there will be more chaos than we already have.
Nonetheless I am bothered by the “instruction” issued to vote for the bill if media reports are correct – I would prefer to think that these are loyal, disciplined ANC cadres who will respect internal party democracy without having to be instructed to do so
@Maggs:
“A fundamental assumption in this bill is that we must rely on the integrity of the people who have the authority to classify. That’s as cuckoo as it gets!”
Is that not an assumption that we make on a daily basis?!? On this thinking, I suggest that you dive head-first into a constitutional attack on the Criminal Procedure Act, insofar as it relates to lawful arrests, as that also relies on the integrity of people who have the authority to arrest and because we all know that they’re a fine bunch of leading role models in our society.
“It’s naive to assume that all (or anything) put out by the media is necessarily accurate, balanced, reasonable or even truthful and without nefarious agendas.”
Finally, someone acknowledges this! However, the vast majority of readers/listeners/viewers ARE naive on this point. They make that assumption (evident from what was seen on Tuesday). This is the reality, to which we MUST, unfortunately, cater. That is why I started off (if you’ll humour me and read that far back) by stating that we should assume the media to do this and that it is, therefore, the job of (respected and informed) commentators to provide some balance, or to contradict the ‘mumbo-jumbo’ floating around out there. This never happened, as the misinformation around it all suited the push for the amendment to, or scrapping of, the Bill.
I’m NOT calling into question that you are fighting a good fight (so, please, let’s drop that point). Thank goodness there are people willing to make a stand! What I am calling into question are the means that were used to achieve the ends. The spreading of half truths is not, in my mind, ethical in the circumstances. If I recall, Friedman attempted to provide a bit of balance at the start of this all and was made to face a barrage of ad hominem attacks from multiple sources. This was never about providing balance, it was about fighting the Bill. If it’s acknowledged that this was the point behind (most) reporting, then I’m happy to leave things there, as my point (however little weight you afford it) will have been sufficiently made.
@ Maggs
The Chief Whip is supposed to have a caucus meeting for MP’s and as you have mentioned we expect ANC MP’s to engage each other in a fairly democratic way and adopt a particular position on the matter. Only last week Turok kicked to touch the Yolanda Botha matter and if he was as committed as he claims against corruption he should have acted differently. Apparently there is no evidence that he raised his concerns at the caucus.
I agree with you no one is forced to be an ANC MP especially at age 84.
Tardiness in our parliament has been with us for a long time and many ill-prepared pieces of legislation have gone thru this ineffective process before without any much resistance.
Numerous COPE and some DA MPs absent from national assembly
These are the names of the MPs who, according to the Parliamentary Monitoring Group, missed the vote on the Protection of State Information Bill in the National Assembly on November 22 2011:
ABSENT- 62
Mr S Abram (ANC)
Ms V Bam-Mugwanya (ANC)
Mr K Bapela (ANC)
Mr G Boinamo (DA)
Mr T Botha (COPE)
Ms S Bothman (ANC)
Mr B Buthulezi (IFP)
Ms D Carter (COPE)
Mr I Davidson (DA)
Mr P Dexter (COPE)
Ms I Ditshitelo (UCDP)
Mr M Fransman (ANC)
Mr T Godi (APC)
Mr S Huang (ANC)
Ms N Khunou (ANC)
Mr X Mabasa (ANC)
Ms T Mabhudafhasi (ANC)
Mr G Mackenzie (COPE)
Ms W Madikizela-Mandela (ANC)
Mr W Madisha (COPE)
Ms N Mapisa-Nqakula (ANC)
Ms F Maserumule (ANC)
Ms L Mashiane (COPE)
Ms M Matladi (UCDP)
Mr F Mbalula (ANC)
Ms M Mentor (ANC)
Mr E Mlambo (ANC)
Mr S Mokgalapa (DA)
Ms E Molewa (ANC)
Ms J Moloi-Maropa (ANC)
Mr A Mpantshane (IFP)
Ms H Msweli (IFP)
Mr E Mtshali (ANC)
Prof L Ndabandaba (ANC)
Mr S Ngonyama (COPE)
Mr N Nhanha (COPE)
Mr M Nonkonyana (COPE)
Ms T Nwamatwa-Shilubane (ANC)
Mr G Oosthuizen (ANC)
Dr M Oriani-Ambrosini (IFP)
Ms S Plaatjie (IFP)
Mr M Rabotapi (DA)
Mr S Rwexzna (COPE)
Mr H Smit (DA)
Ms S Shabangu (ANC)
Mr S Shiceka (ANC)
Mr M Skosana (ANC)
Ms T Sunduza (ANC)
Ms J Terreblanche (DA)
Ms T Tobias (ANC)
Prof B Turok (ANC)
Mr D Van Rooyen
Ms T Xasa (ANC)
Source: Parliamentary Monitoring Group
Amongst others here is a Municipal Manager you can trust.
http://www.sowetanlive.co.za/news/2011/11/24/scandal-prone-moqhaka-council-misused-r9m
THANKS BUT NO THANKS MADAM.
“However, convenor of NPC communications, Cameron Dugmore said in an email that: “Minister [Trevor] Manuel [chairperson of the NPC and minister in the presidency] has asked me to inform you that the NPC chooses to ignore the statement issued by DA leader, Helen Zille”.”
@ Maggs
http://www.anc.org.za/show.php?id=9197
“The conduct of Comrades like Ben Turok in raising their objections by abstaining …smacks of ill-discipline and will be handled internally by the ANC.
Issued by: Jackson Mthembu”
As an aside, the (arrogant?) manner in which Mthembu addresses respected people like Turok, & Kastrils, by attacking their persons (in Kastril’s case) & with thinly veiled threats (in Turok’s case), rather than the substance of their arguments is yet another indication of the direction that the once great ANC is going.
I agree that discipline should be equally applicable regardless of one’s status or history in the movement.
However I do not agree that voting (or abstaining / not voting) with your conscience constitutes ill-discipline.
Ill-discipline in my mind applies to rather more serious offences & breach of the party’s constitution etc. Perhaps the fact that MPs are accountable to the party rather than to a particular constituency is the real problem.
Fine the ANC is not a club, but is it not contradictory to trust a person with a vote & then compel them to use it in a particular way? As you & others have argued on this very forum, this essentially means MPs are not allowed to think.
It is highly unlikely that 264 people who support the same party will all pull in different directions all the time. In my view, it is far more likely that they will broadly agree on most things & differ here & there on others. Given the ANC’s outright majority in both houses, one doubts whether allowing one or two dissenting views would seriously damage their position on any issue & perhaps a little more tolerance & maturity in this regard would win the ANC more goodwill.
wHO DO YOU TRUST BETWEEN A MINISTER AND BOARD MADE UP OF INDIVIDUALS PAID MAINLY BY BIG BUSINESS????
http://www.businessday.co.za/articles/Content.aspx?id=159441
Jama ka Sijadu
November 24, 2011 at 11:06 am
JkS,
“Fine the ANC is not a club, but is it not contradictory to trust a person with a vote & then compel them to use it in a particular way? As you & others have argued on this very forum, this essentially means MPs are not allowed to think.”
The debates, robust debates, lobbying, caucusing any anywhich way to ‘win friends and influence others’ needs to happen within the study groups, the parliamentary caucus meetings, at branches and other related structures.
Springing surprises on the ANC in parliament is not on.
I am equally appalled that ‘instructions’ are given to supposedly disciplined, capable, mature cadres to do what internal democracy expects of them.
If people cannot abide by internal democracy and processes they must make way for those who can and will.
MP’s saved from another voting embrassment. Depts must also take responsibility and how this even come to be published under Padayachee is a shock.
http://www.itweb.co.za/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=49599:doc-withdraws-ec-amendment-bill
@ Maggs…………”If people cannot abide by internal democracy and processes they must make way for those who can and will.”
A good description of …sheep, sycophants, etc
anton kleinschmidt
November 24, 2011 at 12:20 pm
LOL AK,
“A good description of …sheep, sycophants, etc”
Those who decide that democracy as defined by the ANC, on whose ticket they get travel vouchers and entertainment for father figures, can join the DEMOCRATIC ALLIANCE who I suspect will welcome them with open arms.
“Perhaps the fact that MPs are accountable to the party rather than to a particular constituency is the real problem.”
Precisely.
Don’t be misled by those who boast about how they voted as if they had an option. After caucus that “finger/brain”(FOR PRESSING THE BUTTON) belongs to the party.
Gwebecimele says:
November 24, 2011 at 11:10 am
Gwebecimele, wasn’t Gigaba a leader of the ANCYL when they were eating Kebble’s money?
Anyway, I reckon Manuel has learned the dangers in deploying loyal and disciplined members of the ANC to head parastatals… Remember Gavin Lewis’ article?
http://www.businessday.co.za/articles/Content.aspx?id=158444
“There is a cost to central planning in SA and nowhere is it more
apparent than in the costs to the economy, and thus to jobs,
through the chief implementation agencies of that planning, our
state-owned enterprises (SOEs). They form the centrepiece of the
“developmental state” that the alliance ideologues fondly imagine
exists so successfully in SA. Yet the cost of this is immense and
it is mounting. In the four years to last year, bail-outs of SOEs
cost taxpayers R243bn.”
R243bn, Gwebecimele! How many hits like that do you think SOuth AFrica can take?
R20bn lost to corruption from basically 3 departments, the municipalities wasting almost R40bn and JZ borrowing money like its going out of fashion to dispense patronage?
What happens if South AFrica faces a Greek scenario? Who is going to bail us out?
Brett Nortje
November 24, 2011 at 13:51 pm
Hey Goofy,
“Who is going to bail us out?”
Your granny?
Gwebecimele
November 24, 2011 at 13:50 pm
Hey Gwebs,
That’s a consequence of our Constitution.
And van zyl Slabbert!
Have a Balem day, Maggs!
“@DazMSmith: #secrecy ~ As it views secrecy & censorship as failure, the Internet finds ways 2 route around it. In an age of openness, secrecy is doomed.”
TRUST THE “NEW HOMELAND LEADERS” WHO ARE APOLOGISTS FOR WHITE CAPITAL. THEY DO NOT OWN ANY MINE, TELECOMS OR BANK BUT ARE ALWAYS READY TO BE APOLOGISTS FOR WHITES ON ISSUES OF NATIONALISATION, TRANSFORMATION ETC. EVERY BIG COPORATE HAS A “HOMELAND APOLOGIST”
http://www.businessday.co.za/articles/Content.aspx?id=159567
@ Brett
I will simplify it for you in this way. I would rather put a little bit of faith in a public official paid by the state answerable to all laws & organs of state than a businessman or a rented darkie.
Brett Nortje
November 24, 2011 at 14:03 pm
Hey Goofy
“Have a Balem day, Maggs!”
No need to be unkind.
I was just trying to be helpful!
Bloody, Greedy , Capital.
http://www.iolproperty.co.za/roller/news/entry/home_loan_overcharging_court_case
The Chairperson of the Committe on Police , Sindi is a rising star amongst the ANC MP’s. She took on Cele on issues of strategy,management and accountability way before it was fashionable to attack Cele. The effectiveness of this committe after a dismal performance by the previous committee and dept (Selebi,Williams, Nqakula and others) must be appreciated.
Well done Sindi and I am getting more convinced that women are more capable of saving SA from itself. I hope the ANC will support and empower people like you to deliver in their public duties.
A survey has been released today by StatsSA that citizens are feeling safer than before.
http://www.thenewage.co.za/36003-1007-53-Committee_wants_officials_charged
Gwebecimele, you must get someone to translate that interview I posted a while ago with DianneKohlerBarnard on Sindi.
Lets not forget the role of Mthethwa.
We look to Vavi as a shining beacon of integrity in a sea of gagga, Gwebecimele? Why is he not being honest with us that this is not the only thing dividing Cosatu?
Something has to give, and it has to be Cosatu.
http://www.businessday.co.za/articles/Content.aspx?id=159642
The global economic crisis has radically reduced the government’s fiscal room for manoeuvre. Government debt will have doubled between 2008-09, when the crisis unfolded, and 2013-14, when the Treasury hopes to have finances back on a sustainable path. The Treasury has been obliged to adopt the unhappy role of an immovable object placed in the path of irresistible and historic forces for change.
http://www.businessday.co.za/articles/Content.aspx?id=159619
Cosatu ‘divided’ by ANC’s succession race, says Vavi
Cosatu general secretary Zwelinzima Vavi has criticised the ANC’s leadership battles, but now admits they have infected his organisation
SAM MKOKELI
Published: 2011/11/25 06:44:51 AM
THE Congress of South African Trade Unions (Cosatu) was in a “worrying state” because of divisions caused by the leadership debate raging in the African National Congress (ANC), the federation’s leaders said yesterday.
Cosatu general secretary Zwelinzima Vavi has criticised the ANC’s leadership battles, but now admits they have infected his organisation. The admission follows Cosatu’s three-day central executive committee meeting this week.
Mr Vavi told a media briefing in Johannesburg the committee’s assessment painted a “worrying picture” of Cosatu’s political state.
He said there had been “thorough and frank debate” on the differences within Cosatu, and on the conflicts between the South African Communist Party and the ANC.
“In engaging with the ANC leadership on this political platform, we need to be constructive but critical, and refuse to allow political paraly- sis. We need to ensure that they help us to help them,” he said.
The emphasis on the need for Cosatu to be constructive in its criticism of the ANC suggests a change in tactics. Mr Vavi previously criticised President Jacob Zuma ’s leadership of the government and the ANC, which set him against his Cosatu colleagues’ conciliatory stance towards the ruling party.
Cosatu president Sdumo Dlamini is linked to a group that defends Mr Zuma. Mr Dlamini has the backing of large Cosatu unions, including the National Union of Mineworkers and the National Education, Health and Allied Workers Union.
Mr Vavi said the “premature” succession debate raging in the ANC was destabilising, even within Cosatu. “It is premature to engage in succession debates as this distracts us from the primary political tasks of taking forward our transformation mandate. We will encourage our members to assess the leadership of all alliance formations, at the right time.”
Mr Vavi warned against “blind loyalty” to groups or leaders. “Without maximum unity, Cosatu will cease to be the hope of South Africans across class and colour divides; it cannot be the moral compass, a fearless spokesperson of the most downtrodden, and a reliable friend and ally of the oppressed and exploited across the globe.”
Cosatu is not “a reliable friend and ally” to the unemployed – it behaves like a medieval guild, a cartel, to regulate who enters the job market in a country where most of the people are unemployed.
Even though most of its members are parents it keeps their children out of the job market and puts up with the antics of member SADTU which has destroyed the future of two generations of black children.
I think I am going to start a petition to put pressure on Vavi to support the NDP or else…
Brett Nortje
Hey Goofy,
“I think I am going to start a petition to put pressure on Vavi to support the NDP or else…”
Great plan!
Do you want some help?
Not me though, I’m unavailable.
I’m thinking maybe a family member who has got lots of time on her hands.
But I won’t say who – we all know how nasty you get when I make good suggestions!
@ Maggs
Here is another one for our friend AK who TRUSTS the relationship between pay and performance for executives.
http://www.moneyweb.co.za/mw/view/mw/en/page535475?oid=556666&sn=2009+Detail&pid=287226
@ Gwebecimele….I most certainly do not trust the relationship between “pay and performance for executives”. There are many cases where pay and performance are totally unrelated and excutives should be fired without getting a cent.
We can trust Mac Maharaj – bloody swine Shaik only gave the then Minister R510 000.
We can conclude that Maharaj did not know how to milk Shaik.
INVESTIGATOR: Do you know of any letter, or discussion between, your wife and Mr Colin Isaacs about a possible executive position in Shaik’s company?
MAHARAJ: … I mean, it was a unique opportunity for the bloody swine to give me a million instead of this measly R510 000. He could have just given my wife five million and sorted it out.
http://152.111.1.87/argief/berigte/citypress/2007/04/01/CP/6/jminter.html
[...] Ikamvanites (as Friedman points out). There are also major areas of concern in Pierre De Vos’s account of the technical aspects of the Bill and the powers it gives to government to guard and classify [...]