DA’s criticism premature – NYDA
In recent weeks the National Youth Development Agency (NYDA) has been hit with an avalanche of criticism from the Democratic Alliance and its youth wing. We feel it necessary to tackle a few myths.
There is a general distortion of the facts about the mandate of the NYDA and, more specifically, about its 2009-10 six-month performance. I will limit my comments to two issues: the mandate and the NYDA report for the 2009-10 period.
Since the establishment of the NYDA, there has been no sign of optimism from the DA and its youth that the new youth development trajectory might yield results. Apart from the statement made on November 21 2008 by DA MP Mpowele Swathe in support of the NYDA Bill, there is no evidence of DA support.
Swathe expressed the hope that the NYDA would address the shortcomings of the former Umsobomvu Youth Fund and the National Youth Commission, that it would appoint officials with good track records and relevant qualifications, be transparent and render equal opportunity to the youth, irrespective of political affiliation.
He did not suggest it was proper to discriminate against members of the ANC Youth League (ANCYL) simply because they belonged to that organisation. The NYDA has in the past few months been engaged in staff recruitment based on open and transparent processes.
It is irresponsible of DA MP Athol Trollip and the DA youth to insinuate that the members of the ANCYL recruited into the NYDA lack skills.
The DA was too quick in its negative evaluation of the performance of the NYDA in its first six months of existence.
It should note the following:
- The R11-million in irregular expenditure did not amount to untoward or corrupt tendencies (it was made on the basis of policy inherited from the former institutions);
- The audit for 2009-10 did not result in an audit opinion. But the sources of evidence required for 2009-10 improved drastically;
- For the financial year under review, the NYDA inherited the funding leftovers and programmes of the former institutions;
- When the NYDA leadership, in keeping with the due-diligence report, explained the limitation of the R370-million budget allocation for the financial year 2010-11 and called for support in mobilising more funds for youth development, the DA youth was nowhere to be found.
To label the NYDA as underperforming is premature and malicious, especially since the DA youth has never engaged us on matters of youth development. We wish to assure the youth that we are on course. — Steven Ngubeni, chief executive, NYDA
Elementary physics missed
In your Critical Thinking Forum article, “Nukes to the rescue?” (November 26), your contributors voice many fallacies about nuclear power.
Tristen Taylor of Earthlife Africa needs to learn some elementary physics. He says nuclear energy “produces highly radioactive carcinogenic waste that lasts for hundreds of thousands of years —”
This is nonsense. The radiation-decay law tells us that radioactivity is inversely proportional to half-life — the longer the half-life, the less radioactive. If a radionuclide has a half-life of 10 seconds, it is highly radioactive.
If it has a half-life of hundreds of thousands of years it is very feebly radioactive. Think of a candle and a stick of dynamite with the same energy content. The dynamite is more dangerous because it discharges its energy in a shorter time.
Consider a radioactive waste from wind energy, thorium. This is a waste from the mining of neodymium, used in the generators of modern wind turbines. It has a half-life of 14-billion years, roughly the same as the age of the universe.
Its radioactivity is therefore very feeble. (Neodymium, a rare earth, has special electrical properties, which is why it is used in wind generators. Its mining, mainly in China, produces dreadful pollution, of which thorium is probably the least of the problems.)
Chemical wastes are different. Toxins such as cadmium, arsenic and lead, used in solar photovoltaic power units, remain dangerous forever — not for billions of years but forever. The solar industry has no plan for storing them forever, or any plan for recycling them forever.
Does the solar industry therefore constitute a great threat to “future generations”? Of course not, but still less does the nuclear industry, which, alone of all energy technologies, has procedures for storing its waste safely.
Peet du Plooy of Trade and Industrial Policy Strategies is wrong to say wind and nuclear power are “broadly compatible price-wise”. Wind is far more expensive, everywhere on Earth, which is why it cannot run without big subsidies. But, more importantly, nuclear power is highly reliable and produces electricity whenever you want it for as long as you want it.
Wind is hopelessly unreliable and only produces electricity intermittently and unpredictably (unpredictable a month ahead, let alone a year). For many customers, perhaps all, wind power is useless — but very expensive.
Per kilowatt hour, wind all around the world is always far more expensive than nuclear. In South Africa the renewable energy feed-in tariff for wind is 125c/kWh compared with Eskom’s average price of 44c/kWh. My calculations indicate that a new nuclear station here would generate electricity at 60c/kWh – and reliably, too. — Andrew Kenny, Noordhoek
South Africa joins the homophobes
I note with concern that South Africa’s United Nations delegation has voted to remove references to sexual orientation from a UN resolution on extrajudicial killings.
In doing so, South Africa has voted in the company of states that impose the death penalty for consensual sexual acts between adults of the same sex: Iran, Nigeria, Yemen, the United Arab Emirates, Sudan and Saudi Arabia.
The explanation for this vote offered by our UN representative — that international law is “insufficiently clear on the definition of sexual orientation” is patently ridiculous.
Before becoming president, Jacob Zuma demonstrated severe insensitivity to the rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersexed (LGBTI) South Africans.
On one occasion, he stated: “When I was growing up, an ungqingili [homosexual] would not have stood in front of me. I would knock him out.” More recently, the president appointed Jon Qwelane, an outspoken homophobe, as ambassador to Uganda. Now, we are voting at the UN to weaken the international community’s response to extrajudicial killings based on sexual orientation.
This vote, to be frank, makes a mockery of our progressive Constitution and our commitment to advancing human rights. South Africa should be leading the way in promoting LGBTI rights on the African continent and further afield. Our foreign policy should set an example.
Instead, we are voting with states that publicly flog and execute their own citizens. — Kenneth Mubu, MP, Democratic Alliance shadow minister for international affairs and cooperation
Govt communicator shoots herself in the foot
As a former government communicator, I cringed at ministerial spokesperson Vuyelwa Qinga’s apparent attempt at professional suicide (“Trouble with the truth“, November 19).
It’s not a good idea to fly into a tirade against “the reporter” when you might just need the media at another time to create good publicity for the minister.
If “the reporter” fails to explain your “explanations”, perhaps it’s because the media see relatively minor instances of wasteful expenditure as symptomatic of government’s inward focus. By all means send wreaths to colleagues, but pay for them from your own pockets, not from tax money.
Budgets should be directed Âoutwards: to fix clinics, water supplies, sanitation systems and roads. Any cosmetic (inward) expenditure on flashy cars, hotels (and video recordings) will “antagonise” the public, hence the media attention.
Remember, the media hardly inhabit Planet Daft on the outer fringes of the galaxy, only taking regular visits here to harass one or other hapless South African politician. The media are us! Their questions and comments are the very same ones we — the populace at large — raise at dinner and in the workplace.
Is the proposed daft legislation on media a case of government’s unwillingness to hear us? Shutting up the media will definitely not stop people from raising their voices. So, listen to the media: it is the people talking! — Sam Jacobs, Pretoria
It’s just your opinion
I found the opinion piece “Factionalism a game of musical chairs” by Rapule Tabane (November 26) very amusing. It actually took inspiration from the biased presentation by the SABC on the Mail & Guardian regarding Robert Gumede.
Tabane’s description of Mosiuoa Lekota as a power monger is not a flattering one, but I consider it to be his personal opinion. As an avid reader of newspapers and a firm believer in the freedom of the press, however, I would suggest that all such comments be preceded with a sort of disclaimer along these lines: “The following piece is merely the opinion of the writer, influenced by his interests, prejudices and loyalties. Any other person may come to a different opinion.”
I believe this would be a win-win solution for the media and the ruling party, instead of going the legislation route to regulate the media. — George Aderibigbe, Pretoria.
Botes: Why do we care?
What on Earth was the M&G thinking by giving precious space to “Author stands by racist comments” (November 26), about Anneli Botes, the top writer who “fears blacks”?
A loyal reader of the M&G, I have become accustomed to articulate and dynamic debate, not the rehashed bigoted ramblings of a reactionary old lady.
I accept that the fuss over her removal as columnist at an established Afrikaans newspaper might just about deserve lip-service in a round-up of weekly news, but I am disturbed by the thought that the M&G may have been tempted by a cynical tabloid trick to elevate her diatribe to front-page news in pursuit of readership or — perhaps worse — some misguided sense of intellectual duty to devote column time to cover an “award-winning writer”.
Your choice of this story, plus its being flagged on page one, has served only to question the integrity of the newspaper among a mainstay audience while, to the less discerning, it offers a cold blast of apartheid-style rationale for a story that would otherwise have disappeared with the decisive action of Die Burger’s Âmanagement. — Tom Gale, Sandton
Lift standing of teachers
The debate about the education of teachers should go beyond the academy. Dr Michael Rice’s views of the past are rather romantic (“Universities vs teacher colleges”, November 26).
We certainly need to attract and develop the best minds (and hearts) to work with our precious children. It is obvious to all that the professional standing of teachers needs to be enhanced. This does largely depend on top-quality teacher education, but also on jealously guarding the final entry into the profession.
Unfortunately, it is here that we fall short. Professional standards are still in the hands of bureaucrats and quasi-bureaucrats and not the professionals themselves.
The teaching profession is still too strongly controlled by the state, as it was during apartheid. — Mark Potterton, director, Catholic Institute of Education
Dealer shouldn’t be free
Okay, so “Drug dealer Glenn Agliotti is a free man” (November 26). He’s off the Kebble hook. It’s a poor show, but that’s the way it goes.
Still, drug dealers ruin lives, young peoples’ lives, the hopes of our precious sons and daughters. If Agliotti’s drugs have ruined even the life of one person, he shouldn’t be a free man. — Carlos Liltved