Xa wonile … wonile
Whether Deputy President Jacob Zuma should resign should not depend on his being tried and found guilty. If the accusations of his inability to live within his means are true (exposing him to the risk of a conflict between his official responsibilities and private interests); if he has been found by a court of law to be party to a corrupt relationship; and if he did act inconsistently with his office by lying to Parliament about his relationship with Schabir Shaik, he has violated the Constitution and failed in his duties to Parliament and the people.
As a 21-year-old South African, I hope the Constitution of my country is above people’s political wills. If the Constitution is not adhered to, what is the use of having it? Xa -wonile … wonile (If you have sinned, you have sinned). — Yeyethu
I am sick and tired of the hogwash you write about Zuma. Your views impinge on his right to a fair trial, and smack of being driven by patrons of racism bent on splitting the ruling party.
The Mail & Guardian has long been an apartheid propaganda newspaper. It should be closed down.
The case against Zuma was pre-determined as far back as 1999. The conspirators will handpick another apartheid-era judge (like Joos Hefer and Hillary Squires) to handle the case, if it sees the light of day.
President Thabo Mbeki should not be deluded that we voted for him last year. We voted for the African National Congress and accepted him unwillingly. He wants to put his own stooge in as president, who he can manipulate once he is out of office. Mr President, that ain’t going to happen, and you have to learn to accept it lest you become like other African leaders who cling on to power because they have stamped on too many toes.
We, the masses, have urged uMsholozi to be resilient because we will vote him into power at Potchefstroom in 2007. — Musa
Whether some of us like it or not, the Shaik trial has an impact on the man supposed to take the reins from Mbeki when he steps down in 2009. Judge Squires’s declaration that Shaik and Zuma’s relationship was corrupt makes Zuma’s candidacy as future president questionable.
However, the current electoral system, and the fact that many voters are illiterate, favour Zuma’s return as president. The small portion of politically literate voters will only slightly sway the votes against the ANC in future elections. — Lesego Sechaba Mogotsi, Azapo
Zuma is innocent until proven guilty. But in well-established democracies, political responsibility is an important value. Politicians understand they must take a step back when they are put in a negative spotlight for professional or private malpractices. You cannot fulfil your political duties when a dark cloud hangs over you. Zuma cannot run a moral regeneration effort, nor be in a government that has launched a fight against corruption, when a court has directly linked his name to a businessman convicted of corruption.
It’s time to act with political responsibility and put the nation first. — Concerned citizen, Johannesburg
Here are 10 propositions for the welfare of the new South Africa:
- Renovations to homesteads in KwaZulu-Natal should be based on realistic assessments of income and not on handouts from third parties.
- The number of a man’s wives often reflects his prestige in his community but can negatively affect his bank balance.
- To keep their minds on their work, senior politicians should be married to one partner and have no major business interests.
- To save what is left of their credi-bility, convicted struggle veterans of one religion should not use texts from other religions to support their claims of innocence.
- Anti-apartheid leaders in politics and business should have moral standards reflecting a concern for just, transparent government and fair business practise, as well as the redistribution of wealth, and not be guided by self-enrichment.
- Although dancing in Parliament is preferable to fighting, MPs should carefully choose the occasion, lest they be accused of being better dancers than legislators and judges of character.
- The glaring absence of objective reasoning among some trade union and youth leaders bodes ill for the country’s future and should be tackled with courage and vigour.
- Some trusts cannot be trusted and some loans cannot be lauded.
- As bribe-givers are as guilty of corruption as bribe-receivers, payers of bribes, foreign and local, should be prosecuted or blacklisted for government work.
- Claiming that a judge is prejudiced because of skin colour in cases where the evidence is overwhelming should be considered contempt of court and punishable by law.
— Robert de Neef, Howick
The outcry of the masses over Zuma is a critical challenge to our maturing democracy, as people regard the Shaik trial as settling old political scores through legal corridors.
KwaZulu-Natal Judge President Vuka Tshabalala, who chose Judge Squires to try the case, should have foreseen the political ramifications. — Nkonzwenhle Mqadi, KwaZulu-Natal
This issue is not so much whether Zuma should have his day in court as whether he is an unrehabilitated insolvent. How does someone worrying about monthly bills begin to concentrate on the serious business of running the country?
Your image is tarnished permanently. For the sake of our children, show your struggle credentials and do what is honourable. — Teboho “Biki” Pitso, Bedworthpark
The Shaik trial was no more than a political move to destroy Zuma’s reputation. The aims of those who held off-the-record briefings and leaked confidential information to the media has paid off.
Instead of showing the maturity of our democracy, the trial has been a backlash from the failure of the ANC’s democratic project, particularly with regard to the judiciary.
Since the advent of our democracy, black people continue to be the only culprits, while people like Wouter Basson and Magnus Malan escape justice. — Muzi Ndlovu
Criticise — and risk name-calling
Drew Forrest hit the nail on the head in “The anti-Semitic canard” (June 10).
There is a lack of humanity in most public discussion by the South African Jewish community on the Palestinians. Although its leadership is trying, the community tends to be inward and rather apprehensive in the new dispensation.
In their love for Israel, they cannot acknowledge it is capable of doing wrong. Criticise it publicly and risk name-calling: “anti-Zionist”, “anti-Semitic” or “self-hating Jew”.
The community seems to miss the point, which is not whether other countries behave more despicably than Israel.
The Israeli government has dispossessed the Palestinians of much of their land, torn down their olive trees and deprived them of their dignity and autonomy.
Our forefathers struggled for the true Jewish value of freedom. But now a much-oppressed people has turned into the oppressor. — Lorna Levy, Cape Town
Forrest reveals an abysmal ignorance of the history of Israel/Palestine, exacerbated by uncritical acceptance of the Arab version of events.
When it established Israel in 1947, the United Nations partitioned Palestine into Jewish and Arab entities. The armies of five Arab countries, mobilised months in advance, attacked Israel with the intent of destroying it. They have never stopped trying to destroy it, although today they choose to do so with a thousand cuts rather than by frontal assault.
In 2001, Ehud Barak offered to return 95% of the land seized in the 1967 war. Yasser Arafat rejected this and the second intifada was unleashed. The constitutions of the Palestinian Authority, Hamas and Islamic Jihad call for the destruction of Israel.
One-and-a-half-million Arabs are full citizens of Israel, most wanting no part of a new Palestine, while not one Jew will be allowed to live in Palestine, never mind enjoy full citizenship. — Larry Shapiro, Calgary, Canada
Fantastic piece! I’d venture to guess most South African Jews would agree with Forrest, but are too disillusioned, frustrated or busy to write anything about it. Forrest has done a great service. — Benjamin Joffe-Walt
Europe not based on ideals
Some of the assumptions in your article on the French “no” to the European constitution cannot go unchallenged (“Peter Pan politics”, June 3).
You correctly say the “no” vote was made by socialist voters, as 55% did not follow their leaders, who supported a “yes”. But the idea that this is a refusal to move forward, “a refusal to grow up”, to keep social advantages, merely echoes the neo-liberal dogma that the only path for all countries is that of a deregulated market economy. One would have expected your paper to adopt a more nuanced view.
Who are the “haves” and “have-nots” in present-day France? Workers’ wages have not increased in years, and they have seen the gradual deterioration of social ser-vices and pensions. The real haves, in France and Europe, are a new nomenklatura of high-ranking civil servants and managers, enjoying far greater privileges than those whose limited social benefits are said to harm competitiveness (as well as those whose income derives from the stock exchange and property, rather than salaries).
Europe’s direction has changed dramatically since the era of post-war ideals: many changes of the past two decades seem aimed at circumventing social protections in “older” countries. These are further undermined by the inclusion of countries with less comprehensive social protection systems, while the large-scale structural support which allowed Portugal, Ireland or Spain to catch up is not forthcoming.
Industries relocate to Lithuania or Romania, where monthly salaries are below â,¬200. Regulations will soon allow Polish builders to work in any country for Polish wages — what the unions call “social dumping”.
The “haves” can further spend their leisure studying the legal provisions that ensure they enjoy maximum tax reduction by choosing the country that will receive their profits.
In the meantime, more sacrifices are expected from the vast majority of the employed to finance social expenditure, while the wealthier are cajoled by a government fearing they opt out to a fiscal paradise within the European Union.
In that context, political leaders quickly realised the vote would be on social issues: suddenly, the constitution was presented as the way to foster a social and caring Europe.
The “no” vote, rather than a stubborn rejection of change, is a reminder that changes should be measured against their social costs. Society is, or should be, about the well-being of the majority, not further advantages for the happy few. — Michel Lafon, Johannesburg
If Triomf changed, why not Pretoria?
John Brunda (Letters, May 27) claims that “those who build roads, hospitals, schools and universities also name them”. He surely knows that Nguni-speaking Ndebele were the first people to recognise the aptness of the Apies river valley as a place to live and named the river after one of their chiefs, Tshwane. This was later translated into the Afrikaans “Apies”.
During Natal’s migratory wars, another group of exiles arrived under the leadership of Mzilikazi, but were forced to abandon their villages when fleeing from Zulu raiders in 1832.
Andries Pretorius arrived in the mid-19th century, and it was then that Afrikaner settlers named the area Pretoria, after Pretorius. The naming had nothing to do with the “building of roads, or hospitals”.
Brunda lives in Sophiatown, which was brutally removed from the South African map during the 1950s to be replaced by a white suburb called Triomf. Surely, the same principle that applied to that name-change must also apply to Pretoria?
I do not recall Pretorius building the Pretoria road in Kempton Park or Jan van Riebeeck building in Edenvale. These individuals have been given credit when they do not deserve it.
As a country, we have a responsibility to eradicate everything in our daily lives that reminds us of our painful past. History must be rewritten to reflect our collective heritage and not project “heroes” of the colonial era. — Sizwe Mthembu, Midrand
Arrogance
The arrogance of Absa’s recently launched advertising campaign “My Bank” is simply staggering.
The spirit of the campaign is to shift Absa’s position from that of being a financial service provider to that of the determining subject. How can a bank claim it is “my future, my insight, my wealth, my passion, my prize — my ‘everything'”?
I know First National Bank’s “How can we help you?” and Standard Bank’s “Simpler. Better. Faster.” are also just branding strategies. But there’s a different spirit — they don’t elevate themselves so blatantly to the centre of everyman’s universe. — Lise-Marie Keyser, University of Pretoria
E-mail a letter to the editor
Please include your name and address. Letters must be received by 5pm Monday. Be as brief as possible. The editor reserves the right to edit letters and to withhold from publication any letter which he believes contains factual inaccuracies, or is based on misrepresentation.