Editor of The Star and Saturday Star responds to an article by the Mail & Guardian‘s Craig McKune, readers weigh in on the public protector, teachers unions and more.
Do not blame teachers’ unions
One unequivocally acknowledges that our education system is fraught with myriad challenges, but David Macfarlane and Kathleen Chaykowski (“Bunking teachers fail learners“, July 15), in reporting on the research into the poor academic achievements of pupils in most public schools, presented us with a limited version of a bigger picture. They failed to cite other problems that contribute to pupils’ poor performance.
The challenges in the education system are not solely the result of teachers taking time off for union meetings. There is a wide range of problems, such as poor governance and management, inadequate training of teachers and assault of teachers by unruly pupils.
The article sought to indirectly advocate the non-unionisation of teachers, but it does not have problems with unions other than the South African Democratic Teachers’ Union, such as the National Professional Teachers’ Organisation of South Africa.
Workers in public service are victims of underqualified managers who often abuse their powers for their own selfish ends. Are Macfarlane and Chaykowski suggesting teachers be left vulnerable to such malpractices? The question of teachers’ rights to be unionised cannot be juxtaposed against pupils’ right — they are equally important.
Teachers are generally underpaid. Let the government begin to address outstanding issues such as the occupation-specific dispensation so that teachers can be motivated to do their jobs. — Mabake wa-Masweneng, Ga-Tisane, Sekhukhune
Protect and be protected
We expect the Mail & Guardian to distinguish, for the benefit of its readers, between its reporter’s opinion and a hard-news story. It is a basic principle of journalism.
Craig McKune’s report, “The Madonsela mix-up: No closer to the truth” (July 15), makes serious ethical accusations against the titles of Independent Newspapers, without any attribution. There is nothing wrong with McKune being given the space to “comment” but you should have informed your readers accordingly.
Second, a subject of so-called critical reporting deserves the right of reply. We have publicly provided our view and comments to reporters and analysts regarding the Thuli Madonsela saga. We would have expected McKune to call us for our views or for clarity. Had he done the basic journalism, he would have realised our story on the public protector was not simply based on one South African Police Service investigation note.
We expect to be criticised by our peers and the public but such criticism should be fair. McKune asks pertinent questions: Was there ever a probe of Madonsela? Who was behind it? Was Independent Newspapers manipulated? By whom and why? It would have taken McKune a telephone call and a notebook to get answers to his questions and criticise us from an informed position.
For the record, we stand by our story and believe it was in the public interest. We never treated Madonsela as a criminal suspect but as a subject of a bigger plot. Our report probably prevented Madonsela’s arrest, which would have turned the matter into a bigger scandal. — Moegsien Williams, editor, The Star and Saturday Star; editorial director, Independent Newspapers SA
I read the public protector’s “Against the Rules” report, dated February 22 2011, with keen interest. The latest report, “Against the Rules Too”, is currently not available on the protector’s website, which is bizarre because she has already shared its contents with the public through the media.
What both reports highlight in the most vivid manner are the dangers of a widening gap between policy and practice in our democracy. Even the public protector publicly admitted that there is less knowledge of the system and therefore less adherence to its regulations. Cosatu has said many times that our major challenge is the application and
implementation of policy.
What we ought to be doing as a country is to address the root cause of the problem rather than focusing only on the symptoms. Though one is not privy to the details and merits of Madonsela’s cases against the department of public works and commissioner of police, and we don’t know whether these are political games to eliminate political rivals or strictly good-governance matters, either way, the price of corporate governance failure is way too big to contemplate — the country’s international image and reputation are at stake.
It is undeniable that at least three quotations from comparable bidding entities is standard and common practice whenever office space is sought by the government. Even small organisations do that, regardless of whether formal bidding is necessary or not. The department of public works and the national police commissioner have a case to answer, and we cannot wait to hear them out.
I would caution against saluting Madonsela as our country’s new heroine, not because of uncomfortable skeletons in her closet but because state institutions have been used before to settle political squabbles. Whenever state entities such as the public protector and National Prosecuting Authority conduct their business through the media, I get nervous. This was the downfall of the Scorpions, and it clearly does not work. — Thami Jeje, East London
More evidence of some stakeholders serving a sinister, power-hungry agenda — Was the Hawk who threatened Sbu Mpisane with trumped-up charges (unless he co-operated in nailing national police commissioner Bheki Cele) trained by the Hawks’s predecessor, the Scorpions, which threatened people to collaborate in incriminating Jacob Zuma?
That intriguing question catapults us to another controversy — the fictitious “imminent arrest” of public protector Thuli Madonsela, in respect of whom the Hawks also abused their misappropriated power.
Here’s where it gets really interesting. The Star decided to publish that sensational story, a story about such serious, high-level charges that nobody in law enforcement or justice knew anything about them.
First, surely the person/s plotting an attack on Madonsela’s hitherto impeccable credibility could do better than that pre-emptive strike? Second, the South African media, I’m sure, are not aspiring to employ News of the World machiavellian tactics and lose our hard-earned credibility. How could the editor responsible not be absolutely certain of what his paper was about to print, sell and feed to a trusting public?
The Star cannot seriously tell us it was lied to and manipulated into running a suspicious and unsubstantiated story, and then say it “stands by it”, unless it reveals on its front page who provided a fraudulent document that, by no stretch of logic or imagination, conclusively spelled an “imminent arrest”. That would be the only way the paper could redeem itself and redefine its integrity, professionalism, direction and role.
The destabilising tactics of apartheid-style agents have no place in our country. The burning question is: Why are they not being investigated and exposed once and for all? In the public’s best interest both our public protector and press ombudsman must immediately address and ventilate all these emerging issues. — Shabnam Palesa Mohamed
Thank God for the wisdom of Madiba
I thank God for Nelson Mandela, for the grace and reconciling wisdom he showed as the first president of our democratic nation. I thank God, too, for Albert Luthuli and John Dube, Mandela’s mentors, who first clearly articulated a vision of a South Africa in which people of every race and culture would have a place in the sun. Their vision came from the Bible and their deep Christian faith, which gave them unerring direction as they sought to express the kind of nation we should be building.
It is a dangerous thing to confuse the messengers of such goodness with the source of their message. We put them in danger by placing them on pedestals. And we endanger our nation because we begin to think that we can find our salvation without God. Have we forgotten that God intervened in 1994 to save us from civil war?
Perhaps the source of the mess the ANC finds itself in at present comes from the fact that they turned their back on the Lord. — JV Larsen, Howick
When I think of Mandela, or indeed any members of the ANC, my thoughts turn not to birthdays but to the Pretoria bomb blast of May 20 1983, which killed 19 innocent civilians and injured 217. Or perhaps the December 23 1985 bomb blast in Amanzimtoti, where the ANC murdered five innocent South African shoppers, injuring a further 40. Or possibly the June 14 1986 bombing of the Why Not restaurant and Magoo’s Bar in Durban, murdering three and maiming 73.
Or, indeed, the tidal wave of crime that was started by the political transition and stays with us to this day, killing and maiming 20 000 South Africans each year — by now a total of more than 340 000 citizens — while the new regime asked “What crime wave?” and went to yet another taxpayer-funded lobster-and-caviar lunch.
So, did I sing “Happy birthday” to former president Mandela? Not so as you’d notice. — Grumpy of Gillitts
Who knows best?
The judiciary has the right to regulate its own process (“Judge weighs in on urgent bill“, July 15). Consequently, in the event of a challenge, the onus will be on the government to show that it has a bona fide reason for wanting the chief justice and the president of the Supreme Court of Appeal to serve for a minimum of seven years. This could prove exceedingly difficult.
First, the chief justice recently argued in a minority judgment that the disbanding of the Scorpions had not been unconstitutional, thereby opening the door to the suggestion — or helping to fuel the perception — that the hastily drafted Judges’ Remuneration and Conditions of Employment Amendment Bill is underpinned by the desire to hold on to a loyal chief justice and remind the other members of the Constitutional Court that the government has (thanks to the judiciary’s obsequiousness or unassertiveness) the ability to ensure loyalty is rewarded.
Second, in providing for a chief justice to serve on the Constitutional Court for almost 19 years, we add weight to the argument that the other members of the court should be allowed to serve for longer than 12 years, and the president for more than two terms. This is because the argument in favour of restricting the president to two terms is informed by the same logic as that in favour of restricting Constitutional Court judges to 12 years. The domino effect is likely to come into play.
The minister of justice last year toyed with the idea of allowing Constitutional Court judges to serve until the age of 70. We should be wary of assuming that the government knows best and is motivated by good intentions. We need to take a close look at the ramifications of this Bill, which, because the chief justice retires on August 15, is an incredibly tall order.
The government appears to have bitten off more than it can chew. — Terence Grant, Cape Town
Going round in circles
Eusebius McKaiser’s article of July 1 refers. Headline: “Confronting whiteness.” Blurb: “White people must find an ethical way to live with the shame of a racist past they still benefit from.” Pull quote: “Shame and regret are difficult emotions to own up to. It is easier to focus attention on others.”
I respond. Headline: “Confronting blackness.” Blurb: “Blacks must shed their deep-felt sense of inferiority and find practical and principled ways of using their majority in service of the poor.” Pull quote: “Failure and embarrassment are difficult emotions to own up to. It is easier to focus attention on the past and on others.” An unhelpful intellectual circularity? — Tim Bester, Johannesburg