Showing posts with label SONA 2015. Show all posts
Showing posts with label SONA 2015. Show all posts

Thursday, 19 February 2015

Never Trust a Smiling Cat



President Zuma replied yesterday to the matters raised during the SONA debate, but not really.  Smiling broadly, and sniggering as usual, the President assured the country and the world that everything was fine in the Rainbow Nation, and everything would continue to be fine.  He and his fellow Blacks would continue to love all of their fellow citizens, all of whom are South Africans with equal rights.  Racism does not exist.  Blah, blah, blah.

Any thinking South African, Black, Brown, Yellow or White will know the truth.  Zuma and his cronies are in power first and foremost to steal the country blind.  That has been established as a fact by the finding of the Public Protector, who stated unequivocally that Zuma had benefitted unduly from the upgrades to his private residence.  Zuma still owes the public a statement from him personally, not through spokesmen or ‘investigating committees’, and the public awaits that in March, a year after it was demanded by the Public Protector, without much hope, let it be said, that it will be frank, honest or adequate.  Numerous members of the ANC have been found to have cheated on the public or stolen from the institutions which they were entrusted to manage, and hundreds more will be exposed when a new Government takes over and institutes a comprehensive investigation into the doings of the ANC members now in charge. 

And therein lies the second imperative of the ANC under Zuma.  They cannot afford to allow any other party, except, perhaps the sycophantic IFP, to gain control of the investigative and prosecutorial bodies of Government.  That would be a disaster for those ANC members who have been lining their pockets and their Swiss bank accounts with public money, and who have used their positions of power to gain shareholdings and lucrative directorships in many of the companies that were previously viewed by the public as examples of business honesty.  In that regard, it will be interesting to see how many of the Black directors of listed companies retain those directorships after the change of Government.  The displacing of those men and women will be a testing time for the companies, as it becomes clear who was appointed director for his or her business acumen, and who for their political connections.  That will certainly be a subject for writers analysing the extent of the moral corruption of South African society under the ANC rule.

The State of the Nation furore has highlighted the discontent of a large proportion of the thinking public with the incompetence and corruption that has become endemic under ANC rule, and which has intensified under Zuma’s presidency.  All of the questions raised during the State of the Nation debate remain open.  The rather stupid speech by Lynn Brown, Minister of Energy, was purposely padded with meaningless words and asides to enable her to avoid answering questions about the Russian contract for the nuclear future of the country, a contract which was vigorously denied when it was first reported but which has been published on the Russian Government’s website.  The other Ministers, in their speeches of glorification of Zuma were equally uninformative in answering the many questions that have been raised.  Numerous other matters of grave concern to the country were not raised during that debate, such as the flight of major South African companies, the withdrawal of investment funds by wealthy and average citizens alike, the striking off the list of South Africa as a feasible investment destination by substantial foreign investors, the brain drain, of Whites and Blacks alike, young people with skills who cannot see any future for themselves in this kleptocracy and more mature people with skills and vast experience, who foresee the ultimate collapse of the economy, all people desperately needed in the country, who now turn their capabilities against the country, the abject failure of public corporations like Eskom, SAA, SABC and others, which exist solely by bleeding the public purse, the dishonesty of SARS, which has been used to promote the wealth of the senior ANC members, the rise and acceptance of systems like the new Apartheid, the ascendancy of the South African Communist Party, the radicalisation of the trade unions, which have no clue about how a modern economy works, the massive increase in riotous public protests demanding that their concerns and needs be met now. 

With all the smiling reassurances given by the President in his ‘response’ to the debate, many serious concerns still exist.  The electrical supply remains in a state of crisis.  The use of armed Policemen to remove innocent Members of Parliament remains a serious breach of the sanctity of Parliament.  The use of a cell phone jamming device in the Chamber is a clear infringement of the Constitution.  The arrest of non-demonstrating supporters of the Opposition outside Parliament can only be an unlawful act designed to intimidate people and Parties exercising their rights under the Constitution.  The conduct of the Speaker remains biased and unparliamentary.  The Black Empowerment legislation continues the Apartheid policies against which the ANC claims to stand.  The continuing high levels of incompetence in the public service and the publicly-owned corporations continues to waste both money and opportunity.  The rate of unemployment remains at more than three times the level of most Western countries.  The list goes on and on.

And through it all, Zuma shows his glee.  He has gone from insolvent to staggeringly wealthy, at the expense of the public.  He smiles through our adversity, while he plots the next stupidity.

Garfield said it clearly.  Never trust a smiling cat.

Monday, 16 February 2015

SONA, Jamming and Terrorism



One of the many acts of terrorism perpetrated by the ‘liberation Party’ that the ANC has worked assiduously to expunge from public memory is the series of ‘necklacing’ carried out by ANC cadres to ensure that the Blacks presented a united front against the Apartheid regime.  Necklaving was the brutal practice of a crowd of ANC sympathisers grabbing an innocent civilian, stripping him or her naked, tying their hands and feet with barbed wire, putting a car tyre (the ‘necklace’) over them, dousing them with gasoline or paraffin and setting them alight, to burn to death in a gruesome display of ‘democracy in action’, witness by a jeering crowd of the supporters of the ‘freedom movements’.  Those acts must remain as a statement of the extent to which the ‘noble’ ANC will go to gain and hold onto power.  They are not, by any stretch of the imagination, a statement of democracy.  They were cold-blooded murders in the name of politics and power, a series of acts which, in any rational mind, would exclude the perpetrators from any position of authority or influence in a civilized society.

Why raise necklacing now?

The reason is simple.  The murder of a person who might speak out against the policies and aims of the Party is, in essence, no different than the beheading of ‘non-believers’ by the Islamic militants, or the jamming of cellphone signals in Parliament, to prevent the truth of the actions and non-actions of Members of the ruling Party from escaping into the public.  It is in the same category as preventing the broadcast of scenes of Policemen illegally entering Parliament, the heart of democracy, to evict all Members of a Party that was demanding the giving of an account by the President of his abuse of the powers of his office, and the simple corruption committed by him.  It is akin to the arrest of supporters of the Opposition outside Parliament, when they were doing nothing other than what the supporters of the ruling Party were doing.  It is a simple brutal suppression of the expression of any view other than what the ruling Party would want the world to believe.

Thinking South Africans have been subjected to many instances of the rewriting of history to a form that suits the ANC.  They have been subjected to an insidious brainwashing over two decades of ANC rule.  In many cases they have succumbed, at least in public, to the pressures.  Businesses have come to understand that if they do not toe the Party line, they will be excluded from Government business.  Individuals have come to understand that any statement critical of Party members will result in them being targeted by SARS, the SAPS, the SARB or any of the numerous bodies stacked with incompetent but loyal cadres, who hold their jobs and receive their inflated salaries by the favour of the ruling Party.  Twenty-seven per cent of the employed people in South Africa receive their salaries directly from the Government (read ‘the ANC’), and many, if not most, of them can be relied upon to do what the Party wants, not what is their constitutional and democratic duty.  The Policemen who invaded the sanctity of Parliament to expel the EFF during the State of the Nation Address must have known that their actions were unconstitutional and outright illegal.  The fact that they did so, that they, Policemen and the upholders of the law, will no doubt be explained by the claim that they were following orders.  The trials of the Nazi war criminals at Nuremburg established clearly that ‘following orders’ in the commission of a crime is not an acceptable excuse.  Hopefully, the Courts in South Africa will not feel compelled to follow the Party dictates, and excuse the perpetrators.

Amongst the perpetrators who should be brought to trial in this extremely serious breach of the Constitution are the Speaker, the Chairperson of the National Council of Provinces and the President, who, in interviews after the event, discussed the actions of the EFF in a way that demonstrated clearly that he at least condoned the actions, if he was not an instigator.  As the leader of the Nation and supposedly prime upholder of the Constitution, his silence and lack of speaking out during the discussions regarding the illegal jamming of cellphone signals and the subsequent illegal expulsion of all Members of the EFF from the Chamber, speaks volumes of his failures as President and his unsuitability for the position.  The same is true of all other ANC Members present at SONA, and the subsequent failure of all members of the ANC disqualifies each of them from any position of leadership in South Africa in the future.  It is clear that being a member of the ANC is more important to these people than upholding the democracy they claim to have fought for, some of them by necklacing the people who were claiming the right of freedom of speech that the President and the ANC, even now, refuses to accord the people of South Africa.

It is of interest that numerous academics and talk show hosts have started to question the motivations behind the proposed new laws announced by the President during SONA.  Some have even gone to the extent of questioning the second agenda behind these proposals.  It seems that these daring people are, at last, willing to put themselves at risk in exposing the corruption of the ANC, joining the tens of thousands of thinking South Africans who discuss these things in private.  The next step is for the discourse to become public, and for the official Opposition to become more vocal, within Parliament and in the media, in protection of the rights of the individual and the limitations on the rights and actions of the Executive.

The Americans have a saying:  I may not agree with what you say, but I am willing to die to protect your right to say it. 

It is a great shame that the President, the Speaker and the ANC do not subscribe to that essential element of democracy.