One cannot help but wonder what is actually going on at South African Airways. The former SAA CEO Khaya Ngqula was paid R935m last year to terminate his contract by the very same company that is now suing him. Why?

The payment, according to media reports, include his R3, 831-million salary and ‘termination of contract benefits’ equal to R9, 35-million.

Recently, a forensic investigation into the airline’s financial mismanagement revealed among others, the R27 million that Ngqula paid to [his] executives as ‘retention bonuses’, an amount he was “not authorised to do” as it “was outside the board-approved mandate for payments”.

Now the airline’s new chairperson, Cheryl Carolus, is reported to have said that SAA will sue Ngqula for R30.8 million, and recover the R141m “in mis-spent sponsorship money”. She said the R27 million was in excess of the maximum financial limit and such excesses were not authorised by the board and this has resulted in Ngqula being found to have “acted illegally by approving it.”

On the list are also the two sports sponsorships that Ngqula allegedly approved between 2006 and 2009, Fin Week, South Africa’s weekly financial magazine, has reported. “One was R21m for Angel Cabrera, an international golf player, and the other one R120m for the ATP tennis tour.” She said the This R27 million was in excess of the maximum financial limit and such excesses were also not authorised by the board

Ngqula was apparently only, allowed to approve sponsorships of between R1m and R2m a year at most, Carolus told Fin Week, but instead, he went ahead and approved those of higher value than was expected of him.

The investigation, which began more than a year ago, was instituted after tender irregularities and fraud allegations were leveled against Ngqula. In the month that followed, March 2009, Ngqula left SAA “under a cloud” “after accepting a golden handshake of about R8m”, according to Fin Week.

What has since worsened the legal action against Ngqula is his failure to co-operate with the airline in its findings as he “demanded all sorts of conditions which made it impossible … to proceed with the interview [in which he will have had the chance to state his side of the story], according to a Business Day newspaper report, and therefore the “process was concluded without his input” despite him having “had the time to react to the findings, but had not co-operated.”

Despite there being ‘various weaknesses in SAA’s internal controls and procurement processes’, according to the then CEO André Viljoen – there was no reason for Ngqula to have taken advantage of the system as he seems to now have as indicated in the report. “The KPMG report showed there were huge gaps in terms of corporate governance, procurement and internal policies, which were now being addressed by CEO Siza Mzimela, said Carolus.

Business Day has reported that given the finding of the investigations against Ngqula, the latter was found to have been a “cavalier leader” and treated SAA as his “his own personal empire”. Ngqula is further alleged to have “spent R500000 hosting friends and associates at the expense of the airline. These included trips to the Soccer World Cup in Germany in 2006, the Rugby World Cup in France in 2007 and a tennis tournament in Monte Carlo in 2008” the newspaper reported today.

What is even worrying about the findings of the report is the failure of the previous board and the then CEOs’ failure in trying to solve these “transgressions seriously” just before the Public Enterprises Minister Brigitte Mabandla intervened in February last year, the Business Day has wondered. Of course this is very true.

Both opposition party, Democratic Alliance (DA), and COSATU welcomed the board’s decision to pursue legal actions against Ngqula. COSATU said the decision was “a great victory for the SA Transport and Allied Workers’ Union (SATAWU) whose members first blew the whistle on the [Ngqula]”.

It congratulated its affiliate and stated that this was a “warning to any other executives that the trade unions will now be even more determined to follow SATAWU’s example and to blow the whistle of such examples of crass materialism and theft from a state-owned asset”.

DA shadow minister of Public Enterprises Manie van Dyk reportedly said in a statement (see here) that SAA’s decision to sue Ngqula represented a “departure from the general lack of responsibility that has come to define the other heads of state-owned entities (SOEs) responsible for financial mismanagement”.

Akanyang Merementsi blogs at Akanyang Africa.

BY HYLTON TAYLOR

The environment is a topic which seems to bring out a number of emotions in most people. Because of this it is usually difficult to obtain any “facts” which haven’t been manipulated in favour of one side or the other, and so my facts come with a disclaimer!

As an engineer I find it surprising and scary that there are people who have such strong opinions of a subject (and are occasionally willing to get into violent protests) of which they have very little understanding, and have not bothered to actually read up both sides of the story. Yet, I am in awe of these people – imagine been so passionate about something in your life!

Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill

And so, I am not what people of the other side would term a “tree-hugger”. I remain doubtful about the “facts” behind the global warming argument yet I do believe in the principle for its sound logic, but the rate remains dubious in my mind. The same environmentalists were telling us in the 80’s and 90’s that industrial and household appliances using CFC’s were causing the hole in the ozone layer.

The environmentalist were right about those CFC’s, but it turns out that during the famous volcano / mountain eruption of Mount St. Helens in the USA duringthe 1980’s more natural CFC’s were released into the atmosphere than man has ever made or ever will make. It turns out that it was a brilliant marketing campaign to sell new household appliances, which was driven by environmentalists who hadn’t bothered to read up both sides of the story. I’m sure the various manufacturers were pleased.

The Gulf of Mexico

And so I send this story in a completely different direction and towards the Gulf of Mexico, where there is the small issue of an oil platform (Deepwater Horizon) which blew up on 20 April, killing and injuring numerous workers, and the oil well which continues to spew crude oil into the sea. You know, the one where they keep putting funny caps on which don’t always seem to fit because they keep fitting them, to capture oil because the “blow-out preventer” failed (sounds like a contraption made by Dr Evil in an Austin Powers movie..?).

Apparently it is big news in the south of the USA, but I haven’t really heard anyone in SA talking about it. In fact there are approximately 44 500 personnel, more than 6 563 vessels and 113 aircraft engaged in the surface oil clean up operations.

Unlike global warming this is an environmental disaster that one can see, and even if the numbers are been manipulated, the dead animals and oil washing onto shores et cetera, cannot be hidden. Such is the visual aid, even non-“tree-huggers” can see there is a problem here.

Estimates are that the well continues to leak up to approximately 50 000 oil barrels per day. With the new containment cap which is currently been commissioned, most of the 50 000 barrels will be captured. Up until now though there has been one oil collecting and gas flaring (burning) ship with a capacity of approximately 17 000 barrels per day, and a second oil and gas flaring ship with a capacity of 8 000 barrels per day. A third oil and gas collection ship, which will collect the balancing 25 000 barrels, will be used once the new containment cap has been commissioned, assuming it works. This does however still leave the question of where the 25 000 barrels was going, and the rest of the oil before that.

The various oils in crude oil have different densities, some being heavier than water. So whilst you see some oil washing up on the shore and being cleaned by crews or skimmed by the skimming ships on the surface, just remember there is oil which remains below the surface coating the sea floor, killing off coral and sea life which cannot be cleaned, let alone reached by humans. And what is really scary is that they are still finding oil from the Exxon Valdez incident 20 years ago, which is just as toxic to the environment today as it was then.

Which begs the question, “Why haven’t they fixed it yet?” Unfortunately at 2km below the surface, humans would be crushed and only robotic machinery can be used, which makes things tricky. Typically, repair technology only catches up years after the technology to do something becomes available, such as to pump oil from 2km below the sea surface. Did you ever hear about the rescue plan for the Apollo space missions? That’s because there wasn’t one.

As an engineer it brings my engineering philosophy into question though. I’ve always believed that with enough time and money, anything is possible. But here is a problem where all the money in the world has not provided an adequate solution (numbers vary from $2 – $50 billion!). Containment caps, pumping concrete and clay, skimming ships, drilling relief wells, centrifuges, Kevin Costner’s centrifuges (hey, desperate times call for desperate measures…), and even suggestions – apparently from the Russians – to  use a nuclear bomb to shut the hole….

But here is a question. What is the volume of an oil barrel? Surprisingly, most people don’t know! Thankfully however (and thank you Wikipedia), an oil barrel is smaller than the typical barrel you see in SA. The typical barrel seen in SA is a 55 US gallon barrel, which is approximately 210 litres. An oil barrel however, is a 42 US gallon barrel, which is 159 litres.

This equates 50 000 barrels to 8 million litres per day. With that oil, approximately 3.5m litres of petrol could have been made, enough to fuel my car for 50m km. Of course been a Citro?n it would have broken down after 20km, but that is another story. And that 2^nd ship is incinerating 1.25 m litres – enough to fuel my car for 8m km! Imagine that ship’s carbon footprint!

So is this as bad as the Exxon Valdez incident? It turns out that the Exxon Valdez incident was not the worst oil spill in history, although it is considered the biggest environmental disaster owing to its proximity to wildlife and an environmentally sensitive area. Exxon Valdez is only the 14^th worst oil spill at a total of 750 000 barrels. The Lakeview Gusher incident in 1910 remains by far the worst incident at 9m barrels, with the Gulf War intentional oil spill by Iraqi forces lying in 2^nd place at somewhere between 2 – 8m barrels. The Gulf of Mexico (Deepwater Horizon) incident as at 8 July – somewhere between 2.6 – 4.4m barrels, putting it in 3^rd position in the all time worst oil spills, and making it far worse then the Exxon Valdez incident.

So why are they getting oil from 2km below the sea surface? Because we need it, and at $75 per barrel it is financially viable. Don’t be surprised if we hear about another one of these incidents again in the future…

Coffee Time

So what does this have to do with coffee time? Probably not that much because we are too busy talking about our carbon footprint because some environmentalist who didn’t read up on his “facts” told some B-list “celebrity” to tell us about global warming and we listened.

Except for the fact that the artificial sweetener you just put in your coffee – because you are avoiding sugar due the same B-list “celebrity” suddenly declaring sugar was no longer natural (it boggles the mind) – is probably made from a chemical derived from a crude oil product, unless it is made from Xylitol.

So next time you’re out for coffee start talking about the Deepwater Horizon and how you are going to reduce your oil footprint. You don’t need a B-list “celebrity” to explain someone’s special mathematical model. You can see the pictures of the dead animals, the clean up crews on the beaches, and the skimming ships. You can even watch the live video feed showing the oil gushing out of the oil well if you want to.

Take care of that oil footprint and you will find that carbon footprint will take care of itself…

Hylton Taylor is a South African engineer working in Kwa-Zulu Natal, and a first time Soapbox contributor

Professor Jonathan Jansen, Rector of the University of Free State, wrote a brilliant article in the Times newspaper yesterday in which he advised the Grade 10 “students to be sent to university before they finish high school”. And just who will pay?

This is one of the noble ideas thought by someone as senior in a tertiary level as Jansen. Not even the ministry of higher education has thought of it. Anyway, this should be welcome, I think. Jansen saw this as a solution to the “damaging loss of money and talent that comes with tens of thousands of South African students dropping out of university”.

Jansen wrote at the time:

“The consequences of failure and drop-out are devastating: universities lose funding resources, parents lose out on hard-earned savings invested in their children, students lose confidence in their ability to gain a university education, and the country fails to gain another skilled graduate from university.”

He said these consequences were not only ‘devastating’ for students, but that they were as equally devastating to their families, the universities themselves and the country at large. Unfortunately, few universities had come up with ‘imaginative solutions to an old problem’ of ‘high drop-out rates’.

In his great proposal, Jansen said, for example, a university should go to Grade 10 pupils by offering them the option of going to university “every Saturday morning from 9am to 3pm where [they] can do either Psychology I or Chemistry I or Accountancy I over a three-year period – during [their] senior high school years”. This, said Jansen, as an effort to bridge the ‘gap between a poor school education and a demanding university training [that] will be too much’ for them as they were likely ‘destined to drop out’.

This will further provide an opportunity for students to:

1. Gain the one thing that first-generation university students desperately need – university knowledge,
2. Learn how to take summary notes in large classes,
3. Learn to use the computer as a tool for learning,
4. Learn to find their way through a university library using both online resources as well as sources in the stacks,
5. Learn to work on complex problems in psychology or accounting in groups consisting of talented but equally disadvantaged students from other schools,
6. Learn to consult with tutors and professors,
7. Learn to find their way through the campus buildings, and
8. Learn to find their own voices in classrooms, laboratories and seminars.

He said students would learn ‘disciplinary knowledge’ in one of the three subject areas and gain the ‘skills and the confidence to negotiate’ their way through what is often a frightening experience: university life. However, it was acknowledged that this may not be the solution to the ‘high drop-out rates’ but it was worth exploring and was likely to attract negativity from some quarters.

“This kind of innovation demands the best university teachers and an intensive model of academic support. A strong mentorship programme is critical and open, regular feedback is important to guide [students] over the three-year period. But once these foundations have been laid, [students] would have the competence and confidence to deal with the rigours of university life, including lousy university teachers”, said Jansen at the time.

He said one of the important and acknowledged advantages of this proposal is that should students pass these three while at high school, they could gain the credits for the course once they register at the university offering this plan. “[They] would not have to pay a cent for the course and, in addition, [they] will have a lighter first-year load than other students.”

This is one hell of a brilliant plan/strategy/proposal; however, there is something which either Jansen forgot to mention or someone missed. And before I say that, a friend of mine warned me the other day, as a society, of always attaching ‘value’ whenever we talk of progress, change and developments. He was referring to name changes of cities, streets, municipalities and special venues and the nationalisation of the country’s mines and how much these were likely to cost the tax payers.

With this now said, so, Prof: who is going to pay for these ‘Saturday classes’ for these pupils and just how many universities, yours included, are willing to do that if they cannot afford to assist their ‘financially struggling’ students?

Akanyang Merementsi blogs at Akanyang Africa.

E.TV’s 3rd Degree show and post debate on 3rd Degree Plus on 25th May 2010 centred around racism and left one deeply saddened at the entrenched racism in our society. The show covered a number of incidents from the effects of the AWB Leader Eugene Terre’blanche murder, to the both previous and recent incidents at the University of the Free State (UFS). It is the ethnic nationalism which was witnessed on the show that left one with the greatest lesson of them all: We must rid our society of ethnic nationalism and promote unity.

In one clip during the show, host Debora Patta at the University of the Free State proceeds to question the campus Freedom Front Plus (FF+) Youth Leader about the nature of racism on campus, and further goes on to accuse her of being a racist. The young female leader turns to tears as she tries to explain her “nonracist” character. But what was really interesting is her tendency to promote ethnic nationalism through her party, and left me unable to refrain from addressing this issue for once and for all.

What the FF+ Youth Leader fails to understand is that she belongs to an ethnic nationalist party whose policy is based on the development of a separate homeland to preserve that ethnicity. The FF+ is no less an ethnic nationalist party than the AWB because they both stand to preserve their ethnicity using the smokescreen of culture maximisation as has been seen by both AWB Secretary-General Andre Visagie, and FF+ Leader Pieter Mulder in many instances. Ethnic nationalism places the interests of one group of people over that of the rest of the populace. That is why it breeds racism, and causes divisions. It is the root cause of all the suffering in our history, and that in many parts of the world.

South Africa today must find every means to reject ethnic nationalism and promote unity. This immediately starts with rejecting organisations which promote it. The FF+ and AWB are some of the most forthright ethnic nationalist parties today. The IFP, perhaps on paper does not promote ethnic nationalism, but it certainly cannot be said to be a party accommodative of all people, and leaves one to wonder whether they have a single Xhosa within their senior party ranks considering the social divide amongst Xhosas and Zulus.

The South African electorate needs to reject all these parties as an act against ethnic nationalism. The African National Congress (ANC) is also a party which does not promote unity amongst people adequately. The ANC promotes racial representation within its party and government in an attempt to correct the injustice of the past. The idea that only blacks can represent blacks, and only whites can represent whites et cetera. This is the same approach favoured by Verwoerd in his day and the ANC today, and we must reject it. We must always remain vigilant that, in our attempts to address the legacy of the past, we don’t fall into the trap of seeing people simply as representatives of racial groups. This is precisely what we need to leave behind in our country. Racial representation or even ethnic representation serves more as a barrier to unity than a bridge because it instils a sense of racial ethnic responsibility to promote one’s identity to that group and hence becomes another form of ethnic nationalism.

The Democratic Alliance (DA) on the other hand, is the only party which is truly becoming a party for all. Unlike the ANC, the DA does not believe in groups of people, but in individuals, and groups of individuals. We believe that all individuals are equal both in worth and dignity. The DA is a party which is for blacks, whites, Indians and coloureds. It is for Zulus, Xhosas, Sotho’s, Tswana’s, Afrikaners, Swati’s, Ndebele’s, Venda’s et cetera. The DA is a national entity which swings far beyond the narrow objects of ethnic nationalism, to a party which promotes a single nation. That is why the DA promotes the slogan of “One Nation, One Future”. It is the only party which has earned that right to do so.

The DA believes strongly in the value of diversity and sharing if we are to build a united South Africa. During apartheid, the government refused to share South Africa with all whom resided in it and sought to eliminate diversity through separate development. In the DA we reject this, and promote entirely the opposite. Diversity in comparison to racial ethnic representation is about bringing in decision-making people of wide-ranging experiences and perspectives, without assuming that people can only be represented by others of the same colour or gender.

Ethnic nationalism is an implicit threat to driving South Africa into a passage of continued racism, and plants the seeds of division which we once before sought strongly to remove. We must bring back that spirit by rejecting ethnic nationalism in all forms, and promoting diversity and sharing. The AWB, FF+, and ANC do not stand for these ideals. Only the DA does.

Hlanganani Gumbi is provincial youth chairperson of the Eastern Cape DA.

World Movement for Democracy is an international network of organizations who share the common goal of promoting democracy. Its missions are to strengthen democracy where it is weak, reform and invigorate democracy even where it is longstanding, and bolster pro-democracy groups in countries that have not yet entered into a process of democratic transition.

The World Movement for Democracy Assembly was held in Jakarta, Indonesia, during 11 – 14 April 2010. This assembly brought together over 600 democracy and human rights activist, NGO leaders, politicians, businessmen, academics, and other friends of democracy and human rights. I was fortunate enough to be invited to this assembly and share experiences with people from all different backgrounds.

The worst part of the trip was the sad and constant reminders about Julius Malema, and the threat he poses to our democracy. A prominent Zimbabwean student leader who has been pushing for democratic reform in Zimbabwe even implicitly mentioned Julius Malema in his speech. He spoke about how Julius Malema endorses Zanu-PF’s dictatorial rule of Zimbabwe, and the human rights abuses with which it comes. He mentioned how he has been sucked into the demagoguery of revolutionary talk that elders promote. At the end of it all, Julius Malema was the centrepiece of a negative speech delivered to the world where our African youth brothers warned us to guard against those who threaten our democracy.

In the same assembly, I had the pleasure of interacting with people from over 110 different countries. Sadly so, the conversations where international leaders have shown concern for Julius Malema are the ones that stick out. In one conversation, an American activist expresses his alarm about Malema’s behaviour and the direction in which the country is heading with him in a seat of power. Another European wondered how investment will continue flow to South Africa with his current behaviour, and he described the nationalisation of the mines as the beginning of the end for South Africa.

Julius Malema is a powerful man, and some even say more powerful than the president of the republic himself. Due to the views which he portrays, and the influence he holds, Julius Malema is a direct threat to our democracy. Julius opposes a free media, and wants to personally decide what appropriate and fair coverage is. Malema by admission supports a militant land expropriation method which disregards human rights, and threatens property rights in its entirety. Malema fuels racial tensions and easily plays on the emotional connection South Africans have to the past in order to provide a smokescreen for his ill-conceived agenda. He is an opportunist that gets rich off the money from the taxpayer, and hence he contributes to a cycle of growing poverty in South Africa.

The Democratic Alliance must continue to defend and promote the constitution. It is the only thing that can stop people such as Julius Malema, and protect South Africans from becoming a failed state because of such leaders. We must always protect and guard against those who threaten our democracy.

Hlanganani Gumbi is provincial youth chairperson of the Eastern Cape DA.

Rustenburg, South Africa.  Until the town became better known to the world as one of South Africa’s host venues for the 2010 World Cup which will be swamped by English and USA fans on June 12th, it was known by locals as one of South Africa’s fastest growing urban areas on the back of the platinum mining boom of the past decade.

But this is neither a post about the world cup nor about platinum.  This is a tale of two shops.

In Rustenburg there are two supermarkets that teach us about freedom, ownership, and governance.  The shops are situated close to one another and compete for clientele.

Shop 1 is a subsidiary of the giant retail group which we’ll call MassMarket.  It is a modern, clean facility, has very impressive floor space, good position in the town to attract footfall and spend, and is backed up by the massive buying power of a large retail group, meaning that it can offer lower prices than its competitors for many goods.

Shop 2 is owned by a local Portuguese family and managed by three brothers.  It is smaller, less physically attractive, less well positioned, and is not supported by anything other than sales and the personal wealth of the family that runs it.

It’s a case of Beauty and the Beast.

The large store, Shop 1, is fully supported by the parent company, MassMarket.  It has state of the art electronic stock management systems and buying procedures.  It benefits from a stock distribution network already firmly in place, and, because it is integrated with all other stores of its kind around the country, it simply runs the promotions it is told to run, for the length of time stipulated at group level.  Its manager is an appointee of the group and reports directly to the group.

The small store is not so fancy.  It does not rely on any special stock management system, has to manage its own stock distribution network of suppliers, run its own promotions on the products it chooses for the prices it determines and for the length of time it deems appropriate.  Its managers are not the blue-eyed corporate boys anointed from above – they are ordinary businessmen making things happen at the coalface.  They have skin in the game.

Which shop do you suppose out-competes the other?  That’s right, shop 2.  Walk into Shop 1 on any given day of the week and the floors and shelves are clean, but largely because it’s half empty.  Walk into Shop 2 and it’s less pretty to look at, but it’s packed full of customers.

Image courtesy of HumanAction.co.za

Why?  Because Shop 1 is being run Soviet-style.  Directions come from the central planning committee at MassMarket and filter down to the minions at floor level.  Ordering new stock might be well systematised, but it takes too long.  The manager does not own the store and his directives are from above, so he sits pretty in little office while real life happens below.  When he eventually ventures onto the floor and discovers a certain product is out of stock the battle is already lost.  He then tropes upstairs to his lair, punches in a few numbers into his clever system, and waits for the central planning chain to kick in.

By the time his stock arrives, Shop 2 has already cleaned up.  The managers of the family business are hands-on.  Because their families’ livelihoods depend on the performance of the store, these three brothers are permanently on the shop floor, managing, checking, cleaning, interacting with customers, guarding their stock, and making sure their shelves never run dry.

These unencumbered store owners are nimble, competitive, and can steer their business in a far more flexible manner than can Shop 1.  They don’t have to run promotions that don’t work, they don’t have to take orders from a detached management chain, and they don’t need fancy systems.  They spend their lives immersed in the market they serve.

The net result is that while all the external gloss would suggests that Shop 1 should be the better business, the reality is that Shop 2 is the winner by far.

This is a great lesson in the folly of central planning.  It renders the system cumbersome, inefficient, and unresponsive to real needs.  The Shop 2 model on the other hand is a classic case of economic freedom.  It may have an uglier look and feel about it, but when it matters most it is able to respond quickly and effectively to customers needs.

Economic agents need ownership and freedom, and a market of free and unencumbered producers, suppliers and sellers needs to be able to determine what people want, not a bunch of central planners.  We don’t need to study the Soviet Union to know why central planning fails, we just need to take a look at our two shops in Rustenburg.

The ultimate purpose of any economic system or structure is to meet people’s needs in the best way possible.  The lesson from the tale of two shops is that needs are best met when people can act freely in their environment and not be bound by directives from a group of moribund central planners.

Now that’s freedom in action.

Freeman is a financial market economist. He writes for SA economics blog Human Action in his spare time.

About 130 000 members of the South Africa Municipal Workers Union (SAMWU) were expected to embark on a nationwide strike today. This follows a ‘failed application’ by the South African Local Government Association (SALGA) which sought to halt the industrial action by the union, Mail & Guardian Online has reported.

According to the report, several roads around the City of Johannesburg have been closed for the strike and that strikers have been asked to “ensure that the rights of non-striking workers are respected [and protected too, of course] during the strike”. And this is right because there is a tendency among strikers to threaten and injure non-striking workers, and even people in general.

For example, last year during strike at Impala non-strikers were threatened and promised to be ’shamboked’ as they were accused to viewing those who were striking as “[di]phokophoko, known as ghosts…”.

It remains to be seen if striking members will head to a call by the City Spokesperson Nthatise Modingoane that the union leadership must ensure that its members “refrain from any act of intimidation or lawlessness whilst exercising their right to strike”.

Workers reportedly demand a job evaluation system that will “grade all jobs in the local government sector” and also accuses SALGA of “firing workers, thereby undermining service delivery and wasting money on expensive lawyers to handle labour related cases.” And this is true in some cases, but not all of them. So, any concrete proof for this serious allegation(s)?

But SALGA, according to a Mail & Guardian Online report, was “surprised with the union’s demands as there were already agreements signed by itself and SAMWU”.

Were this to be believed – it then brings into question negotiation skills and process of the two parties, especially SAMWU. This is because on several occasions (without ignoring the facts, of course) and even during the Impala strikes, negotiators were and have always been accused of agreeing to a deal “without approval of the large union members” and this has resulted in prolonged salary negotiations and unnecessary delays. Employers are as much to blame too for these “unnecessary” delays.

According to BuaNews – a government news agency – market related wages, changes to be made for employees to be evaluated and the usage of the disciplinary code that municipalities use, are some of their demands.

One hopes and prays that the strike will not result in any injuries and or shambokking as this would somehow confirm the perception that striking members can be as “stupid” as they allege to be seen and viewed by the society and non-striking workers.

Akanyang Merementsi blogs at Akanyang Africa.

Stories emerge every day of a new act of corruption and connivance.  Goldman’s role in the AIG bailout, talk of dodgy swap agreements between banks and Lehman’s prior to its collapse, Goldman’s ”off balance sheet” deals with Greece to help it cover up a shocker of a debt book, political corruption and thievery at every turn, Tim Geithner ‘forgetting’ to pay taxes owed (yes, that’s the tax collector guy in the US right now), SA president Jacob Zuma ’forgetting’ to declare all assets and ‘gifts’, Julius Malema scoring sweet tender deals via cozy ANC connections, and on and on and on.

Wherever the government-central bank-commercial banking cartel is involved you can be sure dodgy you-scratch-my-back-I-scratch-your-back deals are being forged, ‘favours’ being rendered, contracts being awarded, and grubby fingers being put in many a filthy cookie jar.

How’s this for a little theory: give the sheeple enough freedom and they’ll turn a blind eye to all this skullduggery.

It’s not that it doesn’t piss us off or that the media isn’t trying to unearth some of the rotten sludge, but it’s just that all the media snoopery only manages to scratch the surface.  Our valiant but lazy journos are like bloodhounds on the scent of wounded rabbit.  They’ve pounced on Malema and made him the poster boy for what’s wrong with our leaders.  All the better for the thousands of other gravy train merchants out there flying completely under the radar and pillaging the productive society with their political privilege.

All of us suckers just suck it up because, well, we all have a serious case of corruption burnout.  Most of us cease to be outraged when we hear of the latest theft by a public official or corruptitude among the banking elites.  We’re burnt out folks.  We can chase and hound and snoop and scoop and scratch and dig and do all the things we’re supposed to do to hold our political and monetary masters ‘accountable’, but in the end, unless the relationship between citizen and state is fundamentally changed, all we’ll ever be doing is chasing our tails from cradle to grave.

Corruption burnout is debilitating and citizens feel helpless, so the state has to feed us all just enough freedom and comfort so that we don’t take to the streets with pitchforks and petrol bombs.

This is an insidious system folks.  Most upper income earners in South Africa are paying about 1/3 of their income to a corrupt and inept state.  Let’s put that in perspective:  That means that from January through to the end of April, you’re working for the government.  From 1 May to 31 December you get to work for yourself.  Happy thought?  Didn’t think so.

Government is a legislatively protected enclave of parasites.  Corruption burnout has rendered us helpless and de-energised to do anything about it.  Our freedoms give us just enough comfort to be able to grudgingly ignore the thievery and unfair privilege.  Left alone this will render our social and economic system perpetually decrepit and sluggish.

The only answer to corruption burnout is for every free citizen to fundamentally rethink the role of the state and the role of the central bank and the commercial banking cartel.  This means more education and more people who know better standing up for freedom at every turn.

Yes, I’m on my soapbox today, but seriously folks, this is crucial to building real and lasting prosperity.

The state and the money manipulators have given us all corruption burnout.  This and our relatively comfortable freedoms have rendered the citizenry impotent.  The solution is to alter the view of what constitutes a free society.  South Africans gained a half-freedom in 1994, now its time to push on toward a truly free society and relegate the corruptocracy to the dustbin of history.

Freeman is a financial market economist. He writes for SA economics blog Human Action in his spare time.

The Freedom Front Plus has laid a hate speech complaint against African National Congress Youth League president Julius ‘Juju’ Malema and even called for his prosecution.

This came after Juju allegedly said the boers (reference to white people) must be killed for they are rapists when he addressed students at the University of Johannesburg’s Doornfontein campus, as reported by the Star. “Kill the boers, they are rapists”, Juju is reported to have said at the time.

Hasn’t he heard of some black people accused of rape before (although some of them being found not guilty, including Pres Jacob Zuma)? Or maybe he does not know any of this because he is “too glamorous, too rich… and too arrogant to indentify [himself] with [the lives of ordinary people]” as Jackie Mapiloko once wondered?

In opposition to the controversial remarks by Juju, University of Johannesburg vice chancellor and principal Ihron Rensburg issued a statement saying while the university supported the  right to free speech and encouraged it in its campuses, it, however, did not condone nor encourage “comments that are potentially inflammatory, provocative and defamatory”.

Ihron said that UJ had first refrained from commenting on Juju’s statements until “a number of staff and students registered concern(s) about Mr Malema’s statements” and that parents, fee-payers and members of the general public had also expressed concerns over Juju’s remarks at the time. UJ, as many have come to know it, reassured members of the public of its determination “to uphold [its] values which include, integrity and respect for diversity and human dignity, and which run counter to any statements that provoke racial, gender or religious tensions”.

It was disappointing and unfortunate that Juju, president of a youth movement that should be providing leadership, had uttered such regrettable words. As a president, Juju should have known better for it is ill-informed statements and remarks such as these that set us back in achieving the one human race we envision.

And despite UJ distancing itself from Juju’s remarks, the ANC’s Gwede Mantashe and Jackson Mthembu have, however, continued to defend Juju. Mthembu said Juju’s words had been quoted out of context and that he should not be blamed as he [Mthembu] will defend him while Mantashe on the other hand allegedly defended Juju as saying the song did not “constitute hate speech” and even “condemned opposition parties that had filed complaints against Malema for singing it” according to a Cape Times newspaper report.

Strange as this may seem (or maybe not?) it will not be the first time that Juju is made to face the music over his controversial remarks he’s popularly known for. Recently he had been found guilty for hate speech by the Equality Court after he alleged that “when a woman didn’t enjoy it [sex], she leaves early in the morning. Those who had a nice time [a reference to a woman president Jacob "Love Pants" Zuma had allegedly raped] will wait until the sun comes out, request breakfast and ask for taxi money”. He has, however — or his half-wit lawyer rather — indicated his intention to appeal against the Equality Court decision, according to the Mail & Guardian. Many commentators and editors have since questioned this and found it contradictory and unconstitutional, if not in contrast to the ‘right to opinion and freedom of expression’.

Pierre de Vos, a University of Cape Town Constitutional law expert said the decision [on Juju's hate speech] was wrong as it meant no one could say “anything rude about anyone” while Robert Brand, a lecturer in economics journalism and media ethics at Rhodes University, wondered if Juju’s words constituted any ‘hate speech’. Tim Cohen wondered how such words could have “explicitly [been] intended to do something as drastic as ‘incite harm’ or ‘propagate hatred’.

In his complaint sheet against Juju, Mulder said “kill the boer, kill the farmer” was declared a hate speech by the South African Human Rights Commission in July 2003 that he found Juju’s remarks as hate speech which is in contravention of section 16(2)(c) of the Constitution of South Africa. “In terms of this section, no person may advocate hate which is based on the grounds of race, ethnicity, gender or religion and which incites action to cause harm to others” read Mulder’s complaint sheet against Juju.

Juju’s remarks are suspectedly linked to the farmers recently killed in Kwa-Zulu Natal according to Democratic Alliance. DA said the attacks came after Juju’s “public appearance, singing a song promoting the killing of farmers” with FF Plus also blaming the attacks on Juju’s “kill the boers” comments. FF Plus has also threatened to investigate “the possibility to lay charges against Malema at the International Criminal Court, or in the least make the court aware of a growing phenomenon of the victimisation of minorities and specifically the Afrikaner in South Africa which could escalate to international crimes”.

One would agree on and commend efforts, despite how this may be seen by others especially from the ANC circle, by FF Plus in investigating the influence Juju’s comments could have had on the killings of farmers around the country however strange it may seem. This is because not once before (or at least as far as one can remember) has a decision, or rather lack thereof, such as this one been taken at the time when many farmers (white) and farm workers (black) were murdered or  killed. Has race got anything to do with this?

Put mildly: is it because many of these farmers killed are white? If not, then forget I said anything. But these remain questions for many South Africans, irrespective of their race, as there is the impression that it is only when ‘white’ people are subject to these unfair and ill-actions that the likes of DA, FF Plus and AfriForum seem more concerned than when it is black people which then leaves many of us wondering if the life or death of white people is still more important and superior to that of black people.

It was disturbing of FF Plus to launch a “Prosecute Malema” website. Just how effective and helpful does FF Plus think the anti-Malema campaign is? And whoever thought the anti-Malema campaign was in the “interest of all South Africans in general” must be as crazy as its subject, Juju. Or maybe this campaign is ONLY in the interest of “Afrikaners and minorities in particular” as FF Plus claimed in its statement.  It is therefore racial statements such as these that will ONLY benefit a few selected members of our society, Afrikaners and the minorities in this case. And if Juju’s comments are hate speech as alleged by the FF Plus why then resort to the racist campaign and not await the decision of the HRC or the Equality Court whose recent ruling on Juju has been widely criticised?

By this I am not saying Juju is right or anything like that. Of course the half-wit youth league president is very wrong and surely there are steps – like previously done with the hate speech complaint lodged with the HRC that saw him being found guilty – that can be taken and certainly not that of the FF Plus that is rather racist and ill-informed. FF Plus can do better that this for this anti-Malema campaign is not going to help the situation (of farmers and their workers’ murders) at all. And instead, the campaign — a sign of firm demonstration and the ONLY language the ANC understands — will only make things worse.

Aren’t there other means that can be used to “prevent him from continuing with his racial incitement performance”? It is however not clear whether FF Plus anti-Malema campaign will put Juju’s life at risk as is alleged by the ANC. “This campaign poses a danger to the personal safety and security of Cadre Malema.  As the ANC, we draw the conclusion that it is meant to incite, instigate and mobilise some people to harm and even lead to the execution the ANCYL President” claimed the ANC.

And as said before, and also noted by the ANC, it remains to be seen if Juju’s remarks “led to the death of some farmers” as this seem too convenient for both FF Plus and DA. Farmers have died before, and who killed them then if they are now assumed to have been killed by Juju or that their murders have been attributed to Juju’s comments?

The ANC saw the campaign as a “clear deliberate ploy on their side to mobilise the farming community and their next of kin not to hesitate in causing harm to the Youth League President” which could be true.

And as advised before, FF Plus should instead approach the “law enforcement authorities” and report the incident(s) for failure to do so, as said the ANC, will be indicative that even the Freedom Front itself does not believe in what it claims.

The ANC will also approach the Equality Court for recourse on this matter because it viewed the campaign as indicative of hate speech meant to endanger and pose a threat to the well-being and safety of Juju, according to the issued statement and that it had “instructed [its] lawyers to file papers with the Equality Court on this [anti-Malema] matter, with immediate effect.”

And it’s worth emphasizing and repeating that its defence of Juju’s ‘kill the boers’ comments has not helped much too for if this continues, as noted Alex Matthews, we might as well kill all black people, gays and women. Does it really have to come to this because by supporting Malema as the ANC has to date, we may as well be heading to war, according to Inkatha Freedom Party.

However strange this may seem, I just could not agree more with AfriForum Youth that Juju has now become the biggest embarrassment of not only [us] the youth, but also of the country and if he has really broken any law when he called for a person of any race to be killed then we should arrest him instead of being prosecuted (or may be later) — he asked for it mos, didn’t he?

Or rather we let the law take its course?

And while we are at it, we must do away with these ‘struggle songs’ as they can be quite dangerous and at times incite fear among us and a sense of superiority as we’ve now come to know.

Akanyang Merementsi blogs at Akanyang Africa.