You have to love that man Julius . . .

The CEOs of banks like those of mining companies are looting the country's resources for their individual pockets. This, or words to that effect, is what the man Julius said on television news this morning.

Just when you would have thought that the income disparities would receive proper attention and ventilation, enters the man Julius. Of course there is some difference between the mining and the banking industries. There are similarities too. The captains of either industry are the country's if not the world's, handsomely rewarded individuals. Whether they should or not be as handsomely rewarded is of course a mammoth debate. There are those who argue that the combination of the abilities, qualifications and responsibility of these individuals is enough justification for their envious pay packets. Then there are those that would say: "to each according to need and from each according to ability."

Julius simply says that they are earning far too much for an individual and that must be fixed forthwith.

What then, if I may ask, would be an appropriate salary for a CEO of a bank? Julius doesn't say but I am sure he has a number in his head that would be appropriate and in the national interest. Let us not lose sight of the prevailing negative sentiment where bankers and stockbrokers are concerned, the world over. There is sufficient smoke there to justify a suspicion of a fire, without the methylated spirits that Julius was dispensing at the Garankuwa student gathering.

It is not the first nor will it be the last time that the man Julius shall enthrall students with his brand of oratory. You will recall that he had some inspiring words and lyrics for the students of the University of Johannesburg not too long ago. Then there were the statements that led to a human rights court proceedings. Incidentally, whatever happened to that case?

The way I see it is that while there are somewhat serious and hopefully cerebral conversations happening elsewhere, someone has to keep the youth entertained. Now who other than the inimitable Julius Malema would be up to such a task, bearing in mind the short concentration span most youth suffer from? Or can it be that the ANCYL does have a programme that will see the mines nationalised and private sector salaries set by legislative fiat? I do not think that there is too much resistance to the idea of some form of public ownership of the mines. Afterall the public already owns the minerals, the mining companies only have a licence to mine and sell the minerals, at their cost. For this privilege the public, through the state apparatus, collects royalties. This is not quite the case with financial services unless something happened in Durban that changed the rules and I missed it. As far as I have been able to work it out, financial services sector is regulated for the protection of and in the public interest. As long as the institutions follow the letter of the law, they are at liberty to pay what the believe is the right price for the services of their employees, all the way to the most senior employee. This approach to business is according to Julius wrong and if he has his way, will soon be changed. For this, the youth applauds.

The irony of this whole saga is that the very students, once they qualify or is it if they qualify, stand to be employed by the very private sector that they hold in such low regard. Having accumulated knowledge and experience in their respective careers, would they accept that the government or some public formation determine how much they should earn? Maybe that problem does not arise because they probably do not wish to grow up to be a CEO of a bank or of a mining company. Maybe they wish to grow up to be a politician.

Whichever way you look at this, it can only be that the address of the man Julius can only be acknowledged for its entertainment value, if anything at all.

Consider the other call that the rich must be taxed to fund the proposed National Health Insurance. With the passage of time and declining CEO salaries (if Julius gets it right) who will then fund the NHI? Possibly the proceeds from nationalising the mines? Incidentally, how much would the CEO of the NHI be paid or will she be a public servant whose salary shall be determined by law?

Don't say this has not been entertaining please, there is a funny side to this. On a completely different note: how much would Julius say is too much for an official car of a minister? The cost of minister Davies' Toyota Fortuner or the cost of minister Nzimande's BMW?

I have to say it once more, you gotta luv that man Julius.

Our divisive constitution . . .

The constitution is too important a matter to be left to lawyers and politicians alone. This is no fancy speak; in fact I don't recall being more serious in this space than I am now, writing this post.

This weekend I had a rare privilege of reading one of the speeches written by the late Robert Sobukwe. If you can, do get a copy of that booklet of speeches by one of this country's foremost leaders. Sobukwe writes, in this particular speech, to set out the policies of the PAC - "to set the record straight" as he puts it.

On the issue of rights of the citizens under a new constitution (speaking prospectively of course) he says that the PAC would not consider minority or group rights. He goes on to say that it is the view of the PAC that granting and guaranteeing individual civil liberties would be the highest order of rights for the citizens. He says that in a free South Africa there would be no need for group rights as each individual citizen would be assured civil liberties.

I do not do Sobukwe justice in my paraphrasing of some of the views he expresses in this particular speech but I urge you to find and read it. A copy of the booklet of speeches may be found at bookshops and at the Market Theater precinct.

It is in the context of reading this speech that, as I have always believed, the short-comings of our constitution became clearer than before to me. I suppose that when one has been deprived (of anything really), even the smallest token resembling that which you have been wishing for would suffice. Of course hindsight is perfect vision and it is of course easy to sit in the comfort of my home and muse about the past as if I am an expert of sorts. For the record, I am no expert. I am a keen student of events.

The constitution of this country was born of negotiations which were meant to end the struggle, apartheid, poverty, etc. Moreso, the constitution was meant to end all forms of discrimination and to bring the nation together. You will therefore appreciate my confusion as I try to make sense of Proportional Representation. This system of voting is meant, among others, to protect the rights of minorities lest they get overrun by the black masses and become the new-age dispossessed.

What group rights such as proportional representation and the "vote for the group" rather than the individual has done is to perpertuate the very divisions that the constitution was meant to eliminate.

The result is that there is no division between the party and the government. Maybe there shouldn't be such a division but the problem here is that the executive is not accountable to parliament (representatives of the South African people) but to the party. This is no small matter. It is government of the organisation, by the organisation for the organisation. The people do not matter that much.

It is for this reason that you should not leave the constitution to the lawyers and the politicians alone. This document ultimately determines how you live your life and carry on your trade, raise and educate your children. It is a document that ought to give you the power to choose who should be in charge of public health and education. Under the current system, the political party not you, makes that choice. Loyalty to the party (whichever party that may be) is rewarded at the expense of your vote.

This will remain the case, for as long as group rights are prioritised above individual rights as it is under our divisive constitution. A constitution that is apparently one of the best in the world. Best for who really? Definitely not for the people.

Protection of Information Bill and the Media Tribunal; much ado about everything

As far as information goes the media in South Africa does not seem to be the best source. I decided to look for information on the Protection of Information Bill, which has caused much ado about everything in the last few days. I also searched around for information on the Media Tribunal which I am led to believe will be introduced in the near future if the ANC has its way. Well, that is a small if.

First the Protection of Information Bill. There is very little in the media that provides information on the Bill but there is a lot that informs one about the dreadful things the Bill, once it becomes law, will do to media freedom. Similarly, reports on the impending Media Tribunal are more about the ugly stuff the tribunal will do to our beloved press and less about what this ghastly thing is or intended to be.

Back to the Protection of Information Bill. During a short and rushed interview conducted by one Chris Gibbons on 702 Talk Radio, the chief state law advisor, one Enver Daniels was called to defend the Bill. Defend it he did, eloquently too, if my opinion in that regard counts for anything.

Armed with a laptop and some bandwidth, I decided to give up on the media and to ask Google for help. Google gave me a copy of the Bill. The Bill tells me that [it intends] To provide for the protection of certain information from destruction, loss or unlawful disclosure; to regulate the manner in which information may be protected; to repeal Protection of Information Act, 1982; and to provide for matters connected therewith.

I have no reason to doubt the Bill when it tells me that. Mr Daniels also told Mr Gibbons that in the view of the state law advisers, the Bill does not in any way infringe upon any of the rights set out in the Bill of Rights. About that I am not sure but I am sure that if there is doubt, those clever lawyers who wear long green dresses will set the record straight.

So I decide to spend some more time with the Bill. It tells me that:

• Unless restricted by law or by justifiable public or private considerations, State information should be available and accessible to all persons;

This and other statements of principle will form the basis on which the Bill, when it becomes an Act, will be interpreted and applied. So I decided there isn't much to worry about at this stage but to wait and see what the powers that be does with this Bill. At this point I did not see any of the claims that the Bill signals the end of press freedom. Satisfied that I will for a time being continue to happily blog without the threat of prison or harm, I moved on to the Media Tribunal question.

Let us not lose sight of the reality that as we speak (or is that read or write?) there is a thing called the Media Ombudsman. I have little information on what it does but I am told that it is there to protect the public against the excesses of the media. With that, bear in mind the cringe-worthy reports about individuals and organisation that the media published only to retract later, if that.

I am not sure what form the Tribunal will take - very little information available except from the ANC who are the proponents of the Tribunal. What I know is that other than the Ombud, the only recourse I have when the details of my messy divorce are liberally reported in the press, will be to go to court and by then the damage will have been done already. Mind you, I don't really care much about my sordid shenanigans being published, it is just that my children now have to bear the brunt of the untruths. As I said, that is too late now. There is a small matter of protection of minor children but I guess that was lost on the journalist reporting on the story of young boys who are said to be used for the pleasure of paedophile tourists. So, once again I decide to wait and see what the Tribunal will look like and the powers it will be given to protect the citizens or to bludgeon freedom of the press.

The press must be free to do its civic duty and no government, however popular should be allowed to mess with that. I also believe that my right to privacy especially the privacy of the more vulnerable members of our society is even more important. The press must continue to unearth information for the benefit of our society without fear, favour or prejudice. Where they mess with the wrong guy they will be sued or like in the case of Mr Bullard, be fired. What about where they mess with the vulnerable? Would there still be objection if special courts were established for the single purpose of hearing media excesses claims - for free maybe?

Of course governments and liberation movements are not to be trusted - for the simple reason that they have people in them. On the other hand, if all journalists had the common sense of Anton Harber or the humility of Ryland Fisher we probably would not need a media tribunal; or would we?

As I said, it is much ado about everything and I suspect it will be fun yet.

Just a thought . . .

Why is it that when you trick someone (illiterate) to sign over their asset (which they did not think of as an asset) over to you, it is not regarded as theft? I'm fondly reminded of my forebears who signed over land because they thought they were signing an alliance or for a bag of tobacco.

I guess the law is the law.

When all else fail, give it a name . . .

How is this for a name: Xenophobia! It comes with an exclamation point because it is meant to make you sit upright and pay attention. Similarly, "Farm Murders" is meant to say something other than human beings killing other human beings. So what is new, you may dare ask - nothing really, except the number of deaths. Oh, and the number of heads buried in the sand.

I still don't know how it has helped the people of this country to have named the senseless killing of human beings whose apparent fault is that they are not South Africans, Xenophobic (sic) attacks - how has it helped the victims and their families (yep they do have families, like you and I). A comedian, Chris Rock puts it rather crassly but aptly: ". . . just because you came out of a pussy in Detroit you think you are better?"

Does it make it better or worse that a victim of such ghastly crime is a South African or a foreigner, white or black, farmer or farm worker? Some of us remember the days when there was violence and then there was "black on black" violence. What happened in Bosnia and elswhere in Europe was however never termed "white on white" violence. What is this obsession with name-calling? Does the name-calling give us a better handle of the matter? Or is it some coping mechanism?

What is it that stops us from seeing this for what it is: murder fuelled by irrational self-hatred and envy? This is not new either. E'skia Mphahlele writes of incidents back in the days of Marabastad where people would attack each other based on some group identity or other group irrationality. Soweto, divided into language groups as it is, has had its fair share of violence between that group and the other.

This crime persists for one reason and one reason only: we tolerate it! We even encourage it at some level. I have heard ordinary South African say how their neighbourhoods have become riddled with all manner of crimes since "these people" moved in. These people steal their women, their businesses and who knows what else. It is all these people's fault. A representative of some traders' association was on the radio the other day arguing that these people are bad for the local businesses. Apparently these people under-cut the local traders on every level. These people sell bread cheaper than the local traders can afford to and so the local consumers flock to these people's shops the result being that the local traders lose business and some are even forced to close shops.

Is that reason now for the local people who according to their own argument are benefitting from cheaper goods, to destroy these people and their property? Why is it then called Xenophobia? Why if it is xenophobia does it have a definite African bias to it? Has anyone heard of people from Eastern Europe being hounded and killed? As for the "these people bring crime to our areas" argument; is it not a better response to report the crimes and to cooperate with the police in rooting out the crime and the criminals, wherever they may have been born? I have argued on this space before that to believe that these crimes are xenophobic in nature is to fool ourselves and to make these crimes worse.

Do we not have the capacity to defend people who are being attacked because of their origin? What makes it right for a father, mother, brother, child to be killed brutally by other human beings just because they are classified as another? Then comes Saturday and we are happy to watch other foreigners playing soccer for local clubs - with love and adoration?

The call to the media and authorities is to abandon the name-calling of crimes and to attack the crimes and criminals for what they are: muderers, thieves and arsonists. These are the people who do not deserve a place in our neighbourhoods - not people whose crime is to sell bread cheaper and to have come out of a vijayjay outside the borders of this country. If there is a need to name, let us name and shame the murderers, thieves, rapists and arsonists.

Apparently the LOC is a private body - FIFA a swiss club?

This is an argument, among several, made by an advocated I hold in very high regard - the man taught me many years ago and always mesmerised me. I now get the urge to go back to my notes, just to check. I never thought about the status of the LOC as an entity until this morning when I stumbled on the story about it being in court defending an application by the Mail & Guardian, which wants copies of tender documents. Apparently the M&G wants to show the SA public who and what benefitted from the world cup infrastructure spend.

Back to what is the LOC. Once the question popped into my head I approached the source of all my seeming wisdom - google. If the imminent advocate is correct that the LOC is a private body and should not bow to the government procurement policies and legislation, then how come this site has such a distinct government feel? The content of the page, as you will see (bottom left) is copyright of the GCIS (Government Communications and Information Services). This is apart from the prominent SA Coat of Arms (top left) and this page which sets out how, contrary to the advocate's argument the government of SA provided guarantees to, entered into agreements with and passed an Act of Parliament as requiered by FIFA. The advocate contrarianly and with a straight face I presume, argued that the agreements are between FIFA and SAFA - not the government.

I seem to think I remember (if not hallucinating) various officers of the LOC proclaiming that they are doing this whole world cup thing for the people of SA not for themselves or for SAFA - but I may be wrong. What then is the difficulty with a request to show us how they made it happen for us? These are the kind of actions that lead us ordinary folk to think that there may be something to hide.

There may be a whole lot of reasons why the LOC would not want us to know who the beneficiaries of the world cup largese are but that they are a private body who owe us South Africans no such information, cannot be one such reason. For the LOC, through their legal representatives to argue such is simply disrespectful if not contemptuous.

Now, let us see what the judge is going to rule.

End of transformation? I think not!

A professional engineer whose name now escapes me, in a letter to the BusinessDay declares the untimely death of the word "transformation", at least as "we" know it. He mockingly thanks the BMF (Black Management Forum - not to be confused with the Black Mafia Family of Detroit origin) for offing transformation.

It is widely reported that Jimmy Manyi (a black male South African), a leader of the BMF, expressed disappointment at the appointment of one Futhi Mtoba (a black female South African) as the President of BUSA (Business Unity South Africa). It is said that Jimmy decried the election of Futhi as "a blow against transformation and the unity process in the South African business community and instead a victory for the interests of established business". It is because of this expression that the engineer believes "transformation" to have met its end. The reasoning behind this conclusion is quite interesting. According the engineer (and a few who commented on the letter) a black female cannot be a blow against transformation. One comment goes as far as to ask with a measure of exasperation: "how transformed must she be, must she be a homosexual as well" (or words to that effect). Well, we take that comment whence it comes.

It is the blackness that matters, or so it seems from the contributions that I have read on this matter. For Jimmy to have said what he is reported to have said, was to make nought of the meaning of the word "transformation". It is inconceivable to the good engineer that the appointment/election of a black woman can be a blow against transformation. Would it follow then, I wonder, that an appointment of a white male can never promote transformation?

It is these narrow almost knee-jerk responses to what are very important debates that continue to impoverish and debase what ought to make up a national conversation. It is convenient and easy to gloss over statements, to ignore facts and in this case jettison logic in favour of condescending if not insulting punchlines. If by this, dear reader, you believe me to agree with or to support Jimmy, then you should probably not be reading this.

I am in no position to agree with Jimmy. I am not sure what moved Jimmy to say what he said. Most importantly, I do not know Futhi and I don't know what she has done to deserve the label of a "blow against transformation". I do not believe that it would be anything to do with her blackness (whatever it means to be black).

I am fondly reminded of my previous place of employment where in the name of transformation, I was asked to serve on the management committee. It was impressed upon me that issues of transformation will receive better attention at that level of the organisation's management, thanks to my presence - or was that blackness - I could not tell. "If the issue is transformation", I protested, "then I propose that we appoint that caucasian fella to the management committee". The caucacian person I refer to has recently become very important so I may not use his name. This came as a mild shock to the listeners at the time and I must admit that I was not awake to their shock. You see, they were not prepared to accept that the caucasian person could add anything to, let alone lead issues of transformation. This was a job for a black guy and that was it. I duly served on the management committee with some disastrous consequences.

The fact is, when it comes to the discourse of transformation, that caucasian fella was or rather would have been a blow for (as opposed to against) transformation, his whiteness notwithstanding.

Transformation is alive and well as a word, just like racism in all of its glorious colours.