It was not surprising to note the commentary by Grant Shimmin (“Ramsamy has tough questions to answer”, November 24 to 30) in which he attacked the president of the National Olympic Committee of South Africa (Nocsa), Sam Ramsamy. Shimmin has repeatedly worn his heart on his sleeve in being part of the lobby that seems unable to accept the circumstances around the men’s hockey team circumstances that have been accepted now by those in charge of hockey.
Shimmin’s allegations cannot be allowed to pass unchallenged, not least his unsubstantiated allegation that “Ramsamy had taken ‘buddies and wives’ to the Games with money that should have been spent on athletes”. Your commentator fails to complete his article by telling readers who these “buddies and wives” are.
Nocsa took only those people to the games who justified the expense. For example, the attendance of representatives of its federations, a practice common among other Olympic committees, took place in the interests of these officials gaining Olympic experience, making contact with their fellows from other parts of the world and generally advancing their knowledge and experience so that they are equipped for future Olympic Games.
Shimmin leads with his chin when he indicates that Nocsa does not accept that Olympic sport belongs to the people of South Africa. It is the people of South Africa from whose ranks the Olympic team comes all the people of South Africa. When the team appears in their Olympic events in Sydney or Atlanta, and in Athens in four years time, it will be the people of South Africa that they proudly represent. In so far as Shimmin’s mantra-like regurgitation of the hockey issue is concerned, let me remind him of the facts of the matter. The SA Hockey Association lost the appeal in Rio de Janeiro against the decision not to send a men’s hockey team to the Sydney Olympics because it could not provide any evidence that the team could finish ninth or above in Sydney, in line with Nocsa selection policy. Neither could the Federation of International Hockey.
Both Nocsa and the association were invited to Rio to explain their respective positions regarding the men’s hockey team. Both delegations were represented. We fail to understand why Shimmin suggests there is something sinister about this, other than availing himself of an opportunity to have a cheap shot at the Nocsa president. Dan Moyo, secretary general, National Olympic Committee of South Africa All out of integrity
It is a sure sign of bad government and fiscal management of government departments when Minister of Mineral and Energy Affairs Phumzile Mlambo-Ngcuka has to admit: “We [are] actually running out of sufficient people of integrity and experience to fill the necessary boards where needed.”
The president of Malawi fired his whole Cabinet, so why don’t you do the same? It seems corruption and self-enrichment is the norm in government these days.
If you are exposed (and it seems that the Mail & Guardian is the only newspaper prepared to expose, not like the so-called Independent papers), you get suspended on full pay and transferred or made an ambassador.
I only hope that, unlike your predecessor, our present minister of justice, you don’t end up costing the taxpayer a fortune in legal costs. Defending Penuell Maduna’s ego and incompetence cost the taxpayer approximately R70-million. He is also one of those transferred. Wake up, we ran out of people of integrity and experience a long time ago. John Milligan, Merewent
Mercedes bends Mercedes Sayagues romanticises violence murder, rape, torture in Zimbabwe, as if this is the exciting tale of a legendary elephant hunter in the Forties (“Change is in the air”, November 24 to 30). I really don’t think that wild, desperate partying makes it all OK. I am quite sure that the emaciated, grimly ill and brutalised people of Zimbabwe would rather take a nice quiet night at home than the juice that fear and poverty inject into conversation.
Congratulations, though on producing a paper that is always topical and invariably stimulating. Lynne Somerset, Research Surveys
More graduates needed Question: do we need to graduate more students, or less, if the country is to survive HIV/Aids, with a growing economy?
Answer: more. Assume that the economy needs 1?000 graduates a year, in order to grow, in the knowledge century.
Assume that one-third of each set of new students fail, or otherwise drop out (becuse they have fallen in love; have decided they wish to be aromatherapists; or have got religion and are sitting at the feet of a guru in Katmandu).
In other words, assume that two-thirds graduate. Then, to get 1?000 graduates, we need to start with 1?500 new students.
But with HIV/Aids, assume that an extra third of students will die, with 10 years, in addition to the third that fails or drops out. In other words, assume that only one-third graduate, and continue to live.
Then, if we want to end up with 1?000 graduates so that the economy will still grow, we need to start with 3?000 new students.
But university entrance matric passes are diminishing yearly. So, university registrations are dropping rather than increasing to the level needed to survive HIV/Aids, with a growing economy. Yes, the population will be smaller. But those who survive will have to pay for the extra health care of the dying, as well as having to transform the economy under global pressures.
So, the survivors will have to be much more productive. This will demand better education all round. It will especially require larger numbers of tertiary education students. Remember, two-thirds will drop out or die.
We must therfore increase the funding of students’ bursaries and loans, so that studying is feasible and desirable. This is a national priority, if we want a growing economy after HIV/Aids.
More students are a necessity, not a luxury. We must fund them. Renfrew Christie, Rondebosch
No ID, no ANC candidacy Mike Kantey makes serious allegations, assertions and assumptions that are empty of any content and based on his own justifications (“Looking for greener pastures”, Letters, November 24 to 30).
The turning point Kantey raises was not the African National Congress’s failure to turn its back on nuclear power and a grant for what he calls “a rejected technology”. The ANC has discussed this matter with him and has kept a record of correspondence between ourselves and Kantey. Even the amount he quotes in his letter, R430-million, was not an ANC grant (we simply don’t have that kind of money), it was an Eskom initiative.
The truth, however, is that Kantey was supposed to be an ANC candidate in the coming local elections, but he did not have an identification document. The ANC arranged everything for him to get an ID in time, but he failed to collect his ID from the home affairs offices. At the last minute the ANC had to register someone else in Kantey’s place, simply because he did not show a commitment or a sense of urgency in the democratic process of candidate registration.
It is very improbable that Mr Kantey will be able to vote for the Green Party or any other party for that matter, on December 5 he still doesn’t have an ID!
But for a self-proclaimed stalwart of the ANC the choice of party must be an important one. Let me assist Mike: do you vote for a party that is in government; that has shown a commitment to the environment, environmental conservation and sustainable development; that has passed and implemented the very progressive Environmental Management Act; that has very defined constitutional principles about environmental conservation and equilibrium; and that has done a great many positive interventions to ensure environmental justice? Or do you vote for a party, like the Green Party, that has no public representatives, no structures in local communities and only operates on a macro and superfluous level? Max Ozinsky, ANC spokesperson on environmental affairs and tourism Party poopers
Please, some advice! Hypothetically speaking: how does one vote in the coming election if the candidate of your party is unacceptable to you whereas the candidate of your opposition party is the one you would like to vote for? Not to vote at all is not an option. Helga du Plessis, Oranjezicht
First World biogreed
Many thanks for the articles sounding the alarm regarding the patenting of human DNA with such other bio-patents involving various organisms (November 24 to 30). These patents again show there are no limits to greed.
Rather than Jeremy Rifkin referring to a “biotech century” it should be one of “biogreed”. There really is no need to bemoan the fate of the developing world as they seem headed for further exploitation in the process because they know of no other relationship with the developed world. In any case, they seem totally incapable of or are indifferent to protecting themselves. As for those companies tripping over one another to “patent life”, allegedly because of the problems of disease that the DNA segments promise to solve, they would do well to bear in mind that every solution has at least two problems: the one it solves and the one it creates. We can only hope that the new problems will not be Frankenstein monsters or bring about another Tower of Babel affair, which I regard as an allegory on the pitfalls of unbridled science. Michael E Aken’Ova, University of Venda
The last word I n “Last hunter San face extinction” (November 24 to 30) I have a problem with the use of the word “extinct” in relation to a South African community. According to the Oxford English Dictionary “extinct” refers to “family, class, species that has died out”. I expected slightly more from the M&G than to sanction the use of such a word, normally connected with various species of plants and animals that no longer exist, in connection with the human rights issues of a community. The use of “extinct” implies that those people who regard themselves as a part of a particular community are not only prehistoric but are the last of a particular species. To me this smacks of racism. Emma Sealy, Green Point
God or socialism? Cedric Mayson’s “You’ve gotta have faith” (November 24 to 30) reminds me of Jon Dewey’s proposal to Americans that they replace their traditional religions with a “common faith” of socialist struggle. He published his creed, A Common Faith, in 1934.
Mayson wants South Africa to replace the Judeo-Christian God with socialism as the unconditional object of desire. He wants the struggle for ” social justice” to be the country’s animating principle, the nation’s soul.
His vision of “God Socialism” is unlikely to be fulfilled. It is not an accident that the single most important variable in the cultural and moral conflict today is religious commitment.
As John Dewey found out in 1934, most Americans already had a religion and were not inclined to change it for his. I submit that the situation in South Africa today is no different. Norman D Clemo, Rondebosch Another freebie
I would like to thank Sean Power for suggesting that I have my own column (“Machanick does the job”, Letters, November 24 to 30).
I am pleased that my writing is appreciated, but I would like to point out that the M&G is able to save a lot of money by filling so much space with letters, which would otherwise have to be filled by articles that cost real money.
So: anyone who can write reasonably literate, interesting letters should not feel too flattered if they get published often. It’s just that the M&G is cheap. Philip Machanick, department of computer science, University of the Witwatersrand
My words, my faith, my joy My response of November 17 to 23, to Cedric Mayson’s column of November 10 to 17, in which I defended Christianity, appeared to emanate from the Department of Trade and Industry’s Policy Support Programme, as pointed out by one of your readers. This was an unintended error, and I take responsibility for my statements of faith, which were meant in my personal capacity only. Obviously the department as a government department has no mandate in terms of religion. As for the statements being “perversions”, here one man’s joy is another’s perversions, but I stand by what I wrote! Wolfe Braude