[ Home ] [ Speeches & statements ]

26 May 2005

Thank you very much, Madam Speaker and Deputy Speaker and Speaker Mwanamwambwa - I am very glad to see you here. As you know, I am also a Zambian.

Hon leaders of our political parties and Members of Parliament, Ministers, Deputy Ministers, distinguished guests, friends and comrades, yesterday we celebrated Africa Day. Perhaps it is fitting that we follow that day with yet another important campaign on our national agenda and that is bringing a girl child to work. I'd like to say welcome to all of the girl children in the House.

And in particular I want to welcome the ones that were part of the staff of The Presidency today, namely Noluvyo Sixholo, Anelisa Balfour, Celiwe Luthuli and Lauren Hendricks, who are sitting in the box here behind me.

Indeed it has so far been a most enlightening morning for all of us and I trust that at the end of the day, the girl children who had been working with government and with Parliament, by the time they leave, they will have a better insight of the workings of government at all its levels. From the ones that we had in The Presidency, I think, we have four potential presidents for the country.

Indeed their presence among us reminds us that the things that we have to do today are very directly relevant to what happens to them in future. They have asked me to raise a number of questions with the National Assembly about matters that they think are important to the future of our country. I have undertaken to do that as faithfully as I can. They have asked that after we adjourn here, that we should meet. They would want to give an assessment of whether I represented them correctly.

One of the issues they raised is the following: They say that knowledge is power and therefore it is critically important that we should attend to the matter of education, and drew particular attention to education in the rural areas. Many children in the rural areas are disadvantaged and don't have access to the sorts of facilities that they need to have to and therefore it is a matter that we need to attend to. They mentioned also the issue of street children. We need to ensure that we reach out to the street children so that they themselves get empowered by having access to education. In that context they also raised the question of the need to provide bursaries for the poor to ensure that no young person is excluded from education, simply because they come from a poor family. They said that the matter of education relates directly to the issue of unemployment. The focus that they were paying to the matter of education relates to ensuring that our people do not end up unemployed because they are uneducated.

In that context they raise the issue of the need to take some steps to increase levels of employment and in that regard referred in particular to matriculants. They said that health is one of the critical challenges that we face and it seems to them that there are some shortages in terms of health personnel. Why don't we then take matriculants who have completed their schooling, give them the necessary training so that they can make up the shortfall with regard to health workers? With regard to the area of health, they raised the question of the availability of anti-retroviral drugs for pregnant mothers. They said that it is important also to move faster with regard to some of the social challenges that we face such as housing. Some people have waited for too long to have access to housing and that is why some people are resorting to violence. They don't approve of it but that is the reason for the violence, namely that people have waited too long for such services.

They said that one of the matters that we need to address is the issue of gender parity. They say historically men have put down women. But that what we need now is a 50-50 solution.

In this regard the boys should bear with the girls, because the girls are determined. It had been believed in the past that girls would not be able to understand and cope with subjects like engineering, but they are determined to show the boys that they can cope with such subjects.

They said that within our society women are also taking charge and they are determined that we should pursue this task of ensuring gender equality. They said that people needed to be patient with regard to meeting the challenges that we face. It was in relation to the matter of resorting to violence with regard to housing but that things will take time and we need to be patient. They also said it is important to address the challenge of the people who were disempowered. Therefore there shouldn't be complaints within our society about black economic empowerment. It is important that black economic empowerment programmes should continue in order to bring in people who had been excluded in the past. They said that this related to the challenge that we don't want to see our people working as sex workers or becoming drug abusers. This would happen if we did not engage this process of black economic empowerment which would bring people into the economy and enable them to earn a livelihood other than that of a sex worker and give them hope, which would ensure that they don't resort to drug abuse.

It is important that in our society we should stop discriminating against one another. It is important that we should understand one another, coming as we do from different backgrounds, the understanding of one another is important in terms of building a new society. They raised the question about how to deal with the problem of language use in schools and because they come from this province, generally the Eastern Cape, the Western Cape, and the Northern Cape (they cited examples of schools where you might have a clash in terms of use of Afrikaans and Xhosa as the mediums of instruction). They believe that it is important to avoid these divisions and conflicts and suggested that in situations of that kind, it is necessary to find a neutral language to use so that you don't have this competition between these two languages. I will explain this later to them why I am not going any further with their proposal on this matter.

They raised this question and said that we needed to find a way of dealing with the tensions that arise at school with regard to this medium of instruction. It may very well be that rather than having a fight to the end as between two languages, to find another language with which both factions would be comfortable. I will explain to them why I am not going any further with their proposals with regard to this matter.

Finally, they said that they believed that it was important that the Members of Parliament should give answers to these particular challenges that they posed to them. The Members of Parliament should give direction to the country as to what we should do with regard to this matter, as well as with regard to the matter of gender equality, language equality, black economic empowerment, struggle against poverty, access to education, and so on. Indeed, Madam Speaker, I believe that they raised questions that are relevant to the future of our country, as relevant as the matters that were raised by the honourable members yesterday.

I would like to thank the honourable members for their participation in that debate, in which we sought to focus particularly on the issue of the role of the state in meeting our development challenges and try to indicate what the government is doing to improve the capacity of the state to respond to those development challenges.

But, naturally, this being the debate of the Vote of The Presidency, it allows for much wider discussion and, indeed, I think that the honourable members raised issues that are of importance to the general challenge of transformation. I would like to mention some of these.

For instance, the honourable Pieter Mulder, who raised issues about Afrikaners, Afrikaans, place names of the Afrikaner heroes and heroines and indicated a sense of unease - I suppose, to put that mildly - about a process he believes is a process of marginalisation with regard to the Afrikaners, to Afrikaans and the destruction of place names that are of great emotional value to the Afrikaner people.

The honourable Lee raised similar concerns about coloureds, and even suggested, Minister of Sport and Recreation, that Brian van Rooyen is in trouble because he's a coloured.

The honourable Carol Johnson raised issues concerning white fears and black stereotypes. I believe that all of these issues are indeed very important in terms of what happens to South Africa today and tomorrow.

The honourable Motsoko Pheko, perhaps like the girl children, said that the people have waited too long for houses, for jobs, for land and so on, and explained what has been happening in some of our towns and cities on the basis that the people, indeed, have waited for too long, which seems - I think - to substantiate or perpetuate, or support the notion that it is possible in one decade to eradicate the legacy of the past. And, therefore, ten years or 11 years becomes too long.

Hon Rev Meshoe suggested in that same context that this legacy that we talk about has become immaterial to contemporary South Africa; that we should therefore not even refer to it. To refer to it is a mere device to avoid our responsibilities.

Hon Bantu Holomisa thought that, to succeed in our effort to address our socio-economic challenges, we need national consensus, and therefore suggested that we needed an economic Codesa; suggesting that so deep seated are the problems that they require the most effective forms of national unity for us to be able to overcome them.

Hon Tony Leon presented the views of the DA on the important matter of the relationship between the state and the market and this is a critically important question about how we construct our society; who plays what role, who does what, in order to meet the challenges that we face.

And, in responding to the honourable Dr Buthelezi, the honourable Mbulelo Goniwe suggested that we asked the question: Whether we understand South Africa in the same way? And suggested that if we cannot agree on this, even the terms of understanding South Africa, how could we agree on what action to take?

When he discussed the Freedom Charter and apparently some comments that had been made about this the honourable Diale, I think, raised issues that concern the question of which elements of our history constitute part of our national heritage. Similar questions, I am sure, will arise from the comments made by the honourable Pieter Mulder, as to what constitutes in our history part of our national heritage.

When they were speaking, particularly with regard to the matter of place names, I thought about the town Grahamstown. Grahamstown, as I'm sure the honourable members are aware, is named after Colonel Graham, a Scotsman, who was part of the British forces at the time of the so-called frontier wars in the process of the colonisation of South Africa in the Eastern Cape. In IsiXhosa this place is called Rhini, but it is officially known as Grahamstown.

I have mentioned the matter of place names. Rhini had a place name before it became Grahamstown and if some people say we should return to the traditional name of this place and another says no, we should keep the current name that was born out of the system of colonialism it raises a tension because we want an inclusive South Africa that belongs to all who live in it, united in their diversity. And yet these challenges arise.

I discussed with the Minister of Sport and Recreation what was happening to rugby a few days ago, and indeed he assured me that he has made no decisions about what should happen to the leadership of rugby, because it's not a ministerial decision but a decision of the sports organisations. But there's an important issue that's arising with regard to that - and I'm sure all of us are interested in this - namely, this franchise. Who should get this franchise in terms of the Super 14?

I'm currently reading a book about the history of cricket in South Africa. It's a very interesting history written by André Odendaal, who says that there is a false image of the history of cricket in this country, which doesn't recognise the fact that some your first cricketers in South Africa were black people in the Cape. It's a similar story to the evolution of the development of rugby, but that discussion about this franchise has got fundamentally to do with this question: What is it that we need to do in order to produce, create, a non-racial South Africa?

It produces tensions and conflicts, and challenges the issue that we are indeed trying to build a South Africa that belongs to all who live in it, united in our diversity, because if you say dissolve the Cats and let the Lions and the Bulls form one franchise, and give another franchise to the Eastern Cape, the Transkei and the Southern Cape, somebody has lost something. Somebody else has gained something. In the totality of this matter, has the country gained? Has it communicated the message that it belongs to all who live in it, united in our diversity? The tensions can't be avoided.

We say all of us that we need a non-sexist South Africa. I see iNkosi Mangosuthu Buthelezi is here and he might correct me here, but some of our traditional leaders may very well say that succession is determined according to the male line in the family.

So that's in the tradition; male succession, but we'll say that no, we want to build a non-sexist society. Why shouldn't women succeed? That will raise tensions, and yet we are saying that we want a South Africa that belongs to all who live in it, and therefore don't want exclusion of the traditional leaders from that society. We want their inclusion, but at the same time we are saying we want to build a non-sexist South Africa. Tensions arise. How do we resolve them?

I've had discussion and I've had people raise this matter with me about issues of race and gender. It's an interesting challenge, with black women saying that in a number of instances you've seen that indeed the gender issue has been addressed, and it gets addressed by putting in place, recruiting, appointing and so on, white women. So the gender issue is addressed, but the black women say the race issue is not addressed. We can't object to white women being appointed, because the gender equality issue is important, but how do we balance these two?

I'm mentioning this to again illustrate the tensions that arise, some of which you can discuss within the context of the matters that were raised by the honourable members yesterday, one of whom raised this bit of a conundrum that in terms of our saying we need a democratic South Africa you have one party that gets 70% of the votes. It's a democratic outcome, but seen by some people as a threat to democracy.

How do you deal with that?

Perhaps we need to discuss the question of what the role is of the political minorities, I'm not talking of racial minorities, in determining national policy, because of this fear that a democratic majority might be a threat to democracy. Perhaps you could seek to address it by saying, to deal with the challenge of people who might feel marginalised because they are political minorities, excluded and therefore not part of this South Africa to which they belong, united in its diversity, isn't there something that we should do and discuss to increase their sense of participation in determining national policy.

It might relate to what the honourable Holomisa said about an economic "Codesa" so that we, despite whatever majority the ANC has, with regard to fundamental matters like the direction of our country in economic terms bring in the political minorities as well to decide what should happen to the economy. It may be that we need to discuss things like that. As I've indicated, one of the girl children says: "People must understand the importance of black economic empowerment."

But one of the tensions that arises in the public discourse is that we're a capitalist country with some very successful capitalists that we celebrate every day. But there's an argument with regard to black economic empowerment that it should not produce successful black capitalists. When it does there's something that is wrong about it.

The honourable Mbulelo Goniwe raised this matter yesterday. The existing capitalists must remain and succeed as capitalists. The new ones who are being born - No, no, they shouldn't be. There should be broad-based ownership.

One understands it because indeed we want broad-based development and a general attack on poverty and all that, but how do we deal with this tension that we defend and protect and work within a capitalist society, but are averse to the emergence of black capitalists? The honourable Nefolovhodwe spoke about this and spoke about how few black people accept sponsored travellers he sees on SA Airways, and he said he's well-sponsored by Parliament! I can give many examples of this.

You have the problem of access to land. This is part of the process of building a prosperous South Africa, which is an inherent part of the South Africa that belongs to all of you and all who live in it, united in their diversity. We say therefore we must expand access to land. But the landless cannot own land until somebody else who owns land loses some of the land. It's unavoidable.

State land, sure, but how much state land is there?

No, we shouldn't - Let's leave the propaganda about this matter. I'm talking about the bulk of the land in this country. You can't deal with the question of equitable access to land without somebody who owns land losing that land. You can't do it!

But we will all agree that yes, indeed we need to produce a non-racial South Africa. We need to expand the base of the economic actors, one of the elements of which is access to land. We'll all agree. In practice particular challenges arise.

I believe therefore that there's a particular challenge that faces this House, namely to ask how this House answers the questions posed by these young people. If we're talking about gender equality, beyond the good speeches that all of us in this House would make about it, when we come to the practical detail of effecting it, what is it that we need to do? You are the leaders of our people in this House, recognised by the nation as our leaders. What do our leaders say?

When we say we want to produce a non-racial South Africa in all of its elements, how do we sort out the tensions that must arise in the process of transformation towards creating a non-racial South Africa? How do we balance the losses and the gains?

I believe that, given our history, given our challenges, given our possibilities, the things that we are discussing, the things that the girl children raised today are matters that in reality also preoccupy many other countries in the world. I think our particular fortune is that we have the possibility actually to make significant progress with regard to the solution of these challenges.

But together we must perhaps do what the honourable Holomisa was suggesting, namely to put our heads together actually to answer the questions as to what is to be done. I do not believe it needs a "Codesa" other than this "Codesa", and let this "Codesa" discuss these matters. I haven't in the 11 years of our democracy ever seen a 10-page pamphlet coming out of Parliament, saying these are the practical steps that the National Assembly says should be taken to create a non-racial South Africa.

I've never seen it. And yet these young girl children here expect that these leaders who sit here will indeed answer these questions for them. Why don't we do that?

I'd like to thank the Deputy President, the Minister and The Presidency, the Director-General and our entire staff for their tireless efforts towards fulfilling the obligations to which we are committed. I'd also like to thank the Ministers and Deputy Ministers of other departments, premiers, provincial and local governments for the co-operation that they've shown towards the Presidency, and I'm sure that working together we will be able to answer quite correctly these various questions. I thank the members for their attention.

Issued by: The Presidency
26 May 2005