Who is this man?

Watching No 1 deliver a speech in his familiar amateurish way, makes a mockery of all officials and leaders in South Africa. Not only does he give the impression that he has no clue of what he is delivering, or supposedly did any preparation on the subject, he compounds this inefficiency with childish ridicule of fellow parliamentarians who simply exercised their right of free speech and filibustering in the House. 

His childish antics during his response to the president’s budget vote yesterday (27-05-15), shows the level of maturity (or lack thereof) of the man known to be our leader.  How does this show of idiocy reflect on the international community and what is thought of South Africans who elects someone to the highest office in the land, with the character to that of a retired clown struggling to make a comeback to his former glory. His responses to the challenge from the opposition to release the reports for the two scandals of Nkandla and Marikana borders on infantile. My 4 year old grandson would conduct himself with more maturity than this mampara did yesterday. I shudder to think what his fellow BRICS partners really think of him as our leader.

We, as the electorate, should insist that this idiot do NOT represent the South African people abroad, and that his speeches are delegated to his deputy instead. The more he is kept out of the public eye the better we (the South African people) are seen as a legitimate nation with reputable and effective leadership. He has become more and more embarrassing every time he appears in public and even in parliament. It’s time we overturned that 62% majority to a 38% minority vote. And it starts with the local Government elections next year, 2016. Vote anything but ANC next year!!

The scourge that is racism.

You are probably thinking, “Ai, not another opinion/complaint of racism!!”

The more the topic is discussed and incidents of it are exposed, the better our chances of eliminating it from our society.

Being 21 years into our democracy much has changed regarding racial discrimination in society. The racial integration of schools and higher education institutions has empowered our future generations to be colour blind in the post-apartheid social sphere. Greater society has strived to eliminate the disease of racism in our lives, although various forms of it still very truly and openly exist. A typical example is the protest #Rhodesmustfall, from UCT students recently.  Very few people knew or understood that the protest was not only against the presence of a racist bigoted figure of the past, but was actually a result of their experiences of institutionalised racism within the policies of UCT. This kind of racism is still alive and well in our everyday lives. In the corporate world, the camouflaged presence of institutionalised racism is clear for all to see. People are still being side-lined from promotion opportunities, from enhancing their careers, or from being professionally trained in their line of expertise.

Other forms, like symbolism (stereotypical) or economic (Marikana?) racism evidently still exists in our society, and it may take another generation or more, to eradicate. Although I read about racist incidents daily, I’m utterly disgusted to still experience it in my own life with friends and sometimes family. I had the unfortunate incident of experiencing first-hand, disgusting discrimination of the worst kind from an old friend, who I thought was someone with an open mind given that this person hails from an alleged educated background and serves in the academic field. I was taken aback by the comments made, and realised I didn’t really know this person as well as I thought I did.

The gaffer who is Allister Sparks

One of my earlier posts included a reference to Alister Spark’s article on the state of the nation with his comments and thoughts regarding the #Rhodesmustfall protests at UCT. I objectively argued that his understanding of the protests were taken out of context and that it seemed convenient for him and other Rhodes apologists to brush the issue aside, and label it as  trivial and time consuming. It only took a matter of time for Mr Sparks to reveal his true colours and show what he really thinks of apartheid South Africa. With almost sixty years of journalistic activism against the apartheid regime, Mr Sparks had washed all of that away with a single line expressed in sheer arrogance. His utterances regarding Hendrik Verwoerd being an intelligent politician and leader sent shockwaves and disbelief in journalistic circles. His motivations or reasoning for including Verwoerd in his list of admirable leaders seemed to be a weak attempt of justification, but the damage was done. Subsequent to his speech, the question that could not be answered still lurks. How could someone so intelligent formulate a policy that disadvantages millions of people, and destroys, instead of builds, relationships between cultures?

As with all other apartheid apologists and protectors of apartheid privilege, even Mr Sparks with his glittering career in journalism and his outspoken views against the regime, cannot contend with or understand the concept of being discriminated against.  The life of privilege which he led under apartheid can never compare to the life that the millions of his South African compatriots had to endure during that era. Mr Sparks will NEVER know what it was (and still is) like to be a black man in South Africa, or anywhere else in the Western world.

The answer to the question that lurks is one of pure hatred and bigotry for anyone of a different culture or persuasion.  A case in point is Professor Anton Stander from the University of Stellenbosch. This is a man with an impeccable list of academic achievements who is a nuclear physics lecturer. He revealed his racist bigotry with demeaning text messages to a fellow student on campus. How stupid can one be to send a sms, and not think that the number can easily be traced back to him? This proves that racism and bigotry makes the most intelligent people look like idiots!

The question of leadership and the Elephant in the room

The latest round of xenophobic attacks around the country, have sparked off much debate, concern, and condemnation of such despicable acts of violence. The most blatant example is the open attack and subsequent death of one Mozambican, Emmanuel Sithole, in the township of Alexandria. With the SAPs seemingly inept in managing and controlling the chaos, the questionable decision of deploying SADF troops to quell the violence was more an over-reaction by Government than a genuine attempt to once and for all resolve the crisis efficiently. The subsequent shooting of an EFF member, while protesting the xenophobia attacks in Alexandria, a few days later proves there is little tolerance for those sympathising with the situation, hence the SAPS leadership running for cover!

The fact that the xenophobia debacle has reared its ugly head again since the attacks in 2008, proves that the Government has not done enough to prevent the same from recurring.  In an act of blatant denial various top officials in Government blamed everything from collusion of third force elements in society to criminal elements among the mobs instigating the violence. The most farcical excuse came from none other than our Karaoke king, who once again played the Apartheid card as the main source of violence in this country and as the indirect course of the violent attacks on foreigners. Not once did he mention or condemn the irresponsibility of our leaders inciting violence on foreigners.

Our Government and Leadership are solely to blame for the attacks happening again.  It’s quite clear that very little or nothing was done to prevent it from recurring. Our borders are still as porous as it was, and possibly worse since 2008. There are little regulations governing the influx of foreigners, whether legal or illegal. The unemployment rate has steadily stagnated since 2008, with no significant decrease.  No measures were put in place to ensure South African citizens gets first privilege for job security or business entrepreneurship. There is no process to ensure illegal immigrants are deported back to their home countries. There is no legislation outlawing the practice of employing foreigners at a fraction of the cost of employing South Africans. Prominent leaders in society make public speeches with vitriol bordering on hate speech, and then get protected by government unconditionally.

Instead, Msihini wam stands on a podium making his annual Freedom day speech and claims that they (the Government) is not the only ones to blame for the chaos. Forget about him being the responsible leader and taking accountability. Forget about the buck stops with him. Similarly, writing open letters with empty promises to foreign journalists is not considered to be part of a 10 point plan. Turning a blind eye to reckless public speeches by prominent leaders is reminiscent of an ostrich with his head in the sand. The disgraceful way that our Leaders have conducted themselves throughout this chaotic mess, has culminated in retaliatory actions from our African neighbors with far reaching effects in diplomatic relations in the short to medium term. It’s time we as the South African electorate demands real leadership.

Will the axe fall on our top Cop, Riah Phiyega?

The pressure on our top cop, Commissioner Riah Phiyega is mounting. Reports in Weekend newspapers suggest that she will face a disciplinary committee for interfering with investigations into the Western Cape Commissioner Arno Lamoer for fraud, racketeering and a string of other corruption charges. She also faces possible charges stemming from the Farlam Commission of Inquiry into the slaying of 34 striking miners during a protest at the Lonmin mines in 2012.

Although a committee has been setup by Police Minister Nathi Nhleko into the conduct of the commissioner, it remains to be seen if she will be taken to task through the recommended disciplinary hearing for her behaviour as the top cop.  History suggests that the final decision lies with our singing president whether the committee will proceed with steps to have her disciplined.  As in previous cases with action by the president, it all depends on the benefit the commissioner can offer him in terms of his survival in his second term.  The previous incumbent, the flamboyant Bheki Cele, did not prove to be of much significant benefit to the Nkandla Crooner, and therefore was expendable, with the result of him being fired as the top cop. Although the new Commissioner boasted a wealth of experience in the corporate world, in various parastatals and NGOs, she had no previous policing experience, as with the two previous top cops, Cele and Selebi.  Her close relationship with the singing president proved to be enough for her to land the post, with or without policing experience. Similarly with the two previous incumbents, her lack of experience will prove to be her ultimate departure as the number one cop in the country.

So, as the Nkandla crooner weighs his options regarding the Commissioner, will she prove to be of enough benefit to him in the medium term, and thus have all the controversies brushed under the carpet? Knowing the Nkandla crooner, he would probably have her seconded to a less significant post, ala Bheki Cele, and then promote another close friend into the post until a new wave of controversies hits the new incumbent.  By that time he (the Mshini wam rapper) would probably have bought enough time to implement his next tactic via the SAPS/Security Establishment for his political survival, and thus keep him from donning those orange jump suits distributed freely at our Correctional Institutions!

The more sex you have, the more you may earn.

Yep, according to various studies undertaken by Scientists in the UK and Brazil, it was concluded that people engaging in 3 or 4 times of sexual intercourse per week, earned approximately 4.5% more than those individuals who had sex less than three times a week. See post here : http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/11553243/People-who-have-sex-twice-a-week-earn-4.5pc-more-than-those-who-dont.html.

One can take the results of these surveys with a pinch of salt and weigh the information objectively. Firstly, it’s a widely known theory that people who lead active sex lives are more content and happy in their lives. See this post http://www.healthline.com/health-slideshow/ways-sex-helps-you-live-longer. They are more confident than the person leading an average or below average sex life. Their attitudes in their work environment reflect a more positive tone than their average colleague.

This assumption stems directly from the fact that during sexual intercourse a string of happy hormones, i.e. Oxytocin, Serotonin, etc. are released into the body. So it stands to reason that the more sex one has, the more happy hormones one releases, and the more one is content with the world around you.  Pair this up with a situation where such an individual loves their job and work environment and you have a consistently above average performer.

The study mentioned is basically based on the trends of individuals mentioned above. This is where it gets tricky; the objective of the exercise was to ascertain the earning levels of individuals who have more sex than those who are less active. The problem with the survey is that it cannot be ascertained whether the exercise was thoroughly exhaustive of any other theories for people earning 4.5% more than others.  For example, did an individual with drive, high performance, motivation, ambition, but little sexual activity, actually earn less than a person with a high sex life, whose performance may not have been on par? You may argue that the person with the active sex life would have performed in his job better than the person with a less active sex life, based on the theory in the previous section. The results of the survey also do not suggest the ratio of people who performed very well in their jobs were ALL individuals with a higher than average sex life. It only suggests that individuals who had healthy sex lives earned higher than those who didn’t!

So unless we are assured that the survey was thoroughly exhaustive of all probabilities, I’m not convinced this theory is conclusive.  I may be pissing up the wrong tree, but that’s my take and I’m sticking to it!

Statues and things that remind us of the bad old days

Prior to the removal of the CJR (Cecil John Rhodes) statue from the UCT campus, there was vociferous debate around it’s defacing and the protests of its existence after 21 years of democracy. There were some thoughtful comments and reflections from Academia, the media and from Industry.

The student protests at UCT and elsewhere, in my opinion, is called "exercising freedom of expression". Let's be clear on one thing, Rhodes was a racist bigot, who just as much admitted it.  What he built in his time at the Cape Colony was done for his settlers and their descendants, as he also admitted.  He very much declared that he “would use the native’s blood sweat and tears, to build his empire”. The Rhodes scholarship found in his name would never have materialised while he was living, and if so would only benefit his descendants.  The main reason this scholarship was founded was to whitewash his racist identity and paint his legacy as heroic and beneficial to all South Africans and Africans in general.

The fact that we are now in a democratic dispensation, with an inclusive society, is enough reason for us to have statues and the like to remind us of those individuals who brought us this dispensation. Those students were protesting exactly this little ignored detail of our new democracy, by demanding that reminders of the past be eradicated and replaced with our heroes of the day. Let the Rhodes apologists rant and rave all they want, and try to ignore his real identity. But the fact remains, the memory of his bigotry was there for all to see through the existence of his statue. That’s why his and all other statues reminding us of our belittled past, should be removed accordingly.

With UCT Chancellors still refusing to acknowledge that this piece of history had  be removed and that student protests had to remind them of it, speaks volumes of their commitment to an open, inclusive and democratic society in campus life.  It gives the impression that they (those reluctant Rhodes apologists) still needs something to cling to their chequered past to remind them of the “us and them” separate worlds from the bad old days.

A typical example comes in the form of an article written by Alistair Sparks, a respected journalist with a string of literary achievements and credentials to his name. See http://www.news24.com/Columnists/AllisterSparks/Lets-leave-the-past-and-focus-on-todays-failures-20150422. Although I acknowledge and respect his opinion on the whole statue debacle, it seems that the purpose of the protests, are taken out of context.  As Sparks suggests the country is in dire straits and have serious economic, social, political and other issues to be resolved, and we therefore do not have the time and energy to debate something as trivial as colonial and apartheid era statues.  That is all fair and well, but we find that there are wide ranging debates of various topics surfacing regularly, with the statue debate just being one of them.  To suddenly discount a very valid topic and write it off as time and intellectual waste, gives one the impression that Sparks is trying to brush off the issue by suggesting it’s not important.  If the students unanimously feel that it is of importance, and does affect their daily lives, then it must be up for discussion and resolution. Especially given the extent they went to, to have their voices heard.

The path to resolving the country’s issues will be littered with speed bumps in different forms which may require the attention of recognised leaders in our society, and the Statue debate was just one of those bumps that required immediate attention and resolution.