Fed up with Mpofu
I am fed up with the SABC CEO Dali Mpofu’s spin-doctoring of the SABC’s cheap political propaganda. He has failed to deal with legitimate media criticism that the corporation is failing to cover news impartially and accurately.
This year has seen the controversy over the booing of Deputy President Phumzile Mlambo-Ngcuka, the canning of the documentary on President Thabo Mbeki and the banning of certain political commentators, followed by the commission of inquiry.
It is appalling that Mpofu and company tried for a court interdict to gag the M&G Online from publishing the findings of the inquiry, after he had said it was in the public interest for it to establish the truth.
I don’t pay my television licence for this sort of nonsense. The public wants to hear and see authentic coverage.
I now agree that the SABC newsroom is pervaded by a climate of fear and suppression of other political views. — Jerry Motlhabi, North West University
I am seriously worried by Mpofu’s behaviour over the ”blacklist report”. As an advocate, he should not swap integrity for expediency.
It was an insult to hear his poorly expressed views on SAfm. All his arguments failed to alter the fact that the SABC has moved away from being a public-interest broadcaster to being a state mouthpiece. I believe the blacklist saga is just the tip of the iceberg. — Kamutenga Dillon
Snuki Zikalala’s compelling and deeply thoughtful reason for blacklisting Paula Slier’s Middle East copy — because the ”movement” he comes from has always supported the PLO — should have been music to the ears of Ronnie Kasrils. Kasrils also cannot see or think beyond the ”movement” on the Israel/Palestine issue.
Both Zikalala and Kasrils have a clear case of ideological constipation. Let’s hope they get a fresh movement soon. — Bruce Cohen, Johannesburg
![]()
When the government starts interfering with the information afforded to us by the media, one has to wonder how far it will go to eliminate scrutiny of the way it exercises power.
I am not saying that the courts are unable to do this. They do this effectively — one only has to look at the many Constitutional Court decisions that curb the aberrant exercise of government power.
But please leave the mass media alone. Government must realise that an effective and vocal opposition can only benefit the electorate. This nonsense at the SABC is very upsetting. — Adam Pike, Cape Town
![]()
On the one side is the Mail & Guardian. On the other: the SABC. Thankfully I sometimes go deaf. — D George
![]()
Justice demands land grabs
Edward Lahiff and the Programme for Land and Agrarian Studies are seriously detached from the reality of landlessness faced by the majority of our population (”No need for Zim-style land grabs”, October 20).
Lahiff admits the willing-seller, willing-buyer approach has failed dismally, but then argues that the market can meet our land reform needs.
His focus on ”just” compensation for white farmers, above justice for indigenous people, raises suspicions about whether the source of his funding, the Ford Foundation, has clouded his judgement.
Government’s miserly and passive approach to land reform has effectively put the process in limbo, with the onus on proving redress placed squarely on the victim.
Many dispossessed people and communities lack the resources to institute successful claims, particularly before the ridiculous cut-off date of December 1998. It is likely that a significant portion of those who qualify for restitution have fallen through the chasms in the system.
Broad reparation is the key to just redress — and that means expropriation.
What is needed is a comprehensive land and agricultural policy with defined goals. Instead, the department of land affairs persists with subtle changes to failed policies. Half-hearted pilot projects are doomed to fail. In Bapsfontein, for example, the land affairs department bought more than 20 000 hectares of farming land in 1996. Commitments to dispose of the land have since become entangled in a web of corruption and maladministration.
With little effective change for rural people, the ruling party clearly lacks the administrative capacity and political will to effect meaningful land reform.
Two percent of land has been transferred in 12 years of democracy. Studies have shown that black land ownership is unlikely to exceed 4% by 2014 — unless there is a radical policy shift, with expropriation at its centre. — Samore Herbstein, secretary for information and publicity, Azapo, Gauteng
![]()
Marriage about ownership
Reading through the recent submissions and minutes of the meetings in Parliament on the Civil Unions Bill, I feel two points are worth raising.
First, there is the frightening ignorance and prejudice of those making submissions and of committee members about sexual orientation and the lifestyles and practices of the gay and lesbian communities. Compassion and tolerance are profoundly missing — but perhaps it’s a case of none being so blind as those who will not see.
The second point is that many people, especially religious groupings, forget, or are ignorant of, the genesis of and reasons for marriage.
It was originally a patriarchal institution in which men took ”ownership” of women, gaining control over the means of production represented by heirs (boy children) and bargaining chips (girl children).
One hopes that those who really wish to enter into a same-sex marriage understand and reject this founding principle.
Marriage is floundering — divorce rates are high, single-parent households common. Yet the Catholic Church, in particular, insists that marriage is the only way to a moral society. If the religious bigots are honest, they will admit the issue is really one of control, power and ownership. — Graham C Reed, Pretoria
![]()
Bible vs Constitution
Robert de Neef’s view (Letters, October 20) that the Bible should take precedence over the Constitution is worrying.
Despite the fact that the Bible’s claim to be divinely inspired is highly dubious — reading it with a knowledge of ancient pagan beliefs puts this into perspective — given his view that it is ”God-breathed and its truth never-changing” I can only assume De Neef takes it literally.
Leviticus 18:10 states that homosexual acts are an abomination. So, taking the Bible as arbiter (as opposed to the Constitution and, by implication, the law of the land), what would the church have us do about it?
Read on further and all is revealed. Leviticus is categorical that homosexuals should be killed (20:13) along with other miscreants such as cheeky kids (20:9). And these are direct quotes from God — no allegory here.
If De Neef supports the Bible on these matters (and he should; it is ”God-breathed”, after all), then he is a danger to society. If, on the other hand, he believes these punishments should be contextualised in relation to the norms of the day, then why not contextualise the ”crime” of homosexuality?
If the church wants to stay rooted in antiquity, so be it. But it should not expect to be regarded as a role player in a country with an enlightened Constitution such as ours. — Peter Gibb, Durban
![]()
No justice for Somalis
It pains me to read about the brutal way Somali people are being treated in South Africa. The M&G reported the murder of 40 Somalis in three months, and the headline, ”We’ll drive out Somalis”, suggests concerted ethnic cleansing that the authorities do not seem to be trying to stop.
South Africans should remember the support the Somali people gave them in their hour of need. Successive Somali governments stood by the ANC in its fight to remove the scourge of apartheid. It is a shame to treat the friends of yesterday so badly today.
If innocent Somalis are being targeted in this brutal way in South Africa for racial reasons, what has changed? Yesterday, whites discriminated against and persecuted blacks. Today, black South Africans are discriminating against and persecuting Somalis.
Was the struggle against apartheid for freedom and justice for all, or was it just to replace the white rulers with black rulers while maintaining injustice? — Mohamoud Abdi, London
![]()
Mosala’s ‘party department’
Your grading of arts and culture Director General Itumeleng Mosala in last week’s directors general report card (F) is too lenient — an F- (or Z-) would have been more accurate.
Not only does Mosala hardly put in an appearance at the workplace, he takes the whole of senior management with him wherever he goes. Since the M&G reported that he rarely attends management meetings, he’s decided to remedy the situation by making the meetings attend him.
Sun City and Durban are favourite venues for management meetings these days, usually tacked on to some departmental event. This means that meetings are a mere formality and most items are simply postponed.
Under Mosala, arts and culture has become the ”party department”, with the director general and virtually the whole of senior management constantly attending launches and events all over the country and enjoying only the best accommodation, food and drink at the taxpayers’ expense.
The department’s expenditure on ”subsistence and travel” since Mosala’s appointment is a very good indication of the fat-cat culture that prevails. — Insider
![]()
You do not seem to have assessed all the directors general. I can’t find the director general of Statistics South Africa and others. — Liezl Krause
![]()
Experts needed
Tom Eaton has never written a positive word about the South African cricket team or its captain. Yet both Graeme Smith and Stephen Fleming had hard words about the state of the pitch in their Champions Trophy game, as did most of the commentators and other columnists. And the ICC rushed in its ”pitch specialist” to apply PVA to the strip next door.
Absorbing cricket requires a fair contest between bat and ball. In South Africa’s match, the 15 single-figure scores and four scores higher than 20 suggest this was not the case.
Please bring back the experts for cricket commentary. — Kevin Charleston, Cape Town