Admin
08 Oct, 2008
Let’s Talk: Politics of realignment – a possible breakaway party from the ANC
South Africans have long been calling for a realignment of the political landscape and the establishment of an alternative to the ANC; of late this topic has taken on new impetus with rumours of an eminent breakaway from the ruling party. The majority of the population have gradually come to realise the need for realignment, starting as early as 1998 when the first signs appeared that corruption and nepotism were becoming the order of the day. The strategy employed by the Tripartite Alliance was to contain the resentment of the people by using COSATU – and to some extent the SACP – who would strategically join the bandwagon to attack the policies of the ANC Government, but on the eve of every election would encourage people to vote for the ANC. That strategy worked until the 2004 election, and I dare say they might attempt to do the same in the forthcoming election. However, in the last few years the COSATU leadership has come under pressure for being more interested in politics and ANC battles, than promoting the interests of workers. There is a big debate among the workers themselves, and the public at large, about the role COSATU should play, and that debate has reached fever-pitch with COSATU’s entanglement in the ANC infighting. It has already claimed the head of COSATU AND SADTU President, Mr Madisha, and soon Mr Nondwangu, NUMSA SG may also become a victim of this. COSATU is caught in a trap of its own making and it looks like their leadership has dragged the federation into a factional battle within the ANC. A situation has now arisen where COSATU members who are also members of the ANC might receive conflicting instructions of how to behave in each organisation. The COSATU leadership seem determined to prescribe to the ANC, who has historically been the leading partner in the Tripartite Alliance. COSATU has reneged on its neutral role in the Alliance by siding with one ANC faction. The interesting question is whether the workers will heed the call to vote for the ANC and be treated like convenient voting cattle. Which brings us to the eminent establishment of a breakaway party from the ANC. Should such a party be established, the leadership of COSATU and the SACP will see in hindsight their own role in contributing to the creation of such a breakaway, because they chose sides. If such a party is established the major partners in the Tripartite Alliance who will suffer most are the ANC and COSATU, because many workers who previously tolerated COSATU’s pro-ANC stance and preoccupation will now begin to expect neutrality from the affiliate unions as well as the federation itself. It will soon lead to significant numbers of workers threatening the establishment of their own unions and federation, if COSATU does not comply. If COSATU heeds that call, both the ANC and the SACP will be weakened. It is worth remembering that this dilemma of the Tripartite Alliance was precipitated by Mr Zuma selling the soul of the ANC to its alliance partners in order to gain office and avoid prosecution. A new political party splitting from the ANC is potentially good news for democracy, because it would undermine the bad culture of centralising power in a one-party state and expecting mindless compliance from everybody. In the long run this breakaway party could play a role in realigning the political landscape and ensuring that we have a healthier balance of power. It has also already helped to confirm to many people that the ANC is not infallible. Our analysis of the changing socio–economic-political order in South Africa, indicated that from 1994 there would be discernible political shifts along interest group divides, distinguished by common concerns and aspirations. Eventually this process will move towards the crystallization of two major political streams. One that expresses the ethos of the beneficiaries of the established order, and another that expresses the aspirations of the emerging major social groupings that are marginalized at present. This will necessitate the emergence of two major political formations representing these interest groups. The focus for an emerging political formation will be to articulate the concerns and aspirations of the vast number of marginalized people of all colours and races in South Africa; thus there is a need for an economic policy which will centre on investing in enterprise development, to alleviate unemployment among others, and narrow the gap between the haves and have-nots. This breakaway party should join the current debate in the country, where people are calling for the establishment of an alternative. The time to form such an alternative by like-minded political parties before the next elections is too short, but there is no doubt that after the 2009 polls the discussions on such an alternative will be a priority. However, people will be watching whether this isn’t a Trojan Horse formed in order to capture disappointed ANC voters who are moving towards other opposition parties, only for this new party to enter into a cosy coalition with the ANC after the elections. It is up to them to demonstrate their bona fides.
Admin
26 Apr, 2004
National and Provincial Elections 2004
Better Future Plan UDM Manifesto 2004 MESSAGE FROM BANTU HOLOMISA – FREEDOM FOR ALL Dear Fellow South African This year we celebrate ten years of freedom. We understand freedom as the ability of individuals and groups to make choices and pursue their aspirations freely. This includes choices such as where to live, what work to choose and where to engage in it, where and what to learn, where and what business to pursue, and many others. This means that the level of freedom depends on the socio-economic conditions. The better the socioeconomic conditions, the greater the freedom of citizens to pursue their aspirations and address their concerns. Our democratic Constitution seeks to guarantee our freedom, but this can only be achieved if the socioeconomic environment allows the Bill of Rights to become a reality for all South Africans. Freedom is not just a political condition; freedom is also a social and economic condition. Political freedom, without social and economic freedom is a hollow concept. Has the political freedom gained in 1994 translated into social and economic freedom? Freedom of choice will be the key symbol of our celebration of ten years of liberation. South Africans will exercise their freedom of choice to determine who must govern, both and national and provincial levels. This political choice will not only determine who governs, but also which political party is best suited to keep an eye on the ruling party. This party will use Parliament to ensure that the ruling party sticks to the mandate it received and that it serves the entire nation, not just those that voted for it. After all, the entire nation, irrespective of party political support, contribute to the funding of Government through taxes and are equal under the Constitution. The United Democratic Movement (UDM) is ready, willing and able to fulfill either of these roles: to govern and deliver, or to hold the ruling party accountable to the citizens of this country. The UDM is seven years old, but already has established itself as a significant player on the political landscape. In less than two years since our launch the UDM participated in the 1999 elections and gained 16 seats in Parliament, and representation in six provincial legislatures. In the process the UDM became the official opposition in the Eastern Cape and Limpopo legislatures. The UDM has given value to all South Africans who voted for us in the 1999 elections, and to those who did not vote for us but who are committed to the democratic principles of good governance. Three examples of this are: The floor-crossing legislation When the ruling party, with the support of the DA and NNP introduced the floor-crossing legislation, it was the UDM that took the fight for the rights of voters to the highest court. Voters need to ask these parties why they supported this law, and thereby gave the right to a single individual politician to nullify the votes of tens of thousands of people. The Arms Deal The UDM is amongst those who took the lead in challenging the Arms Deal that appears to be a hotbed of corruption and fraud. Eventually certain Government officials were found to have been guilty of improper behaviour. Even now, the matter is not resolved, with powerful people linked to the ANC facing court trials, and a cloud of suspicions hanging over Deputy President, Jacob Zuma. The Hefer Commission came about as a direct result of these unresolved matters relating to the Arms Deal. The UDM will continue to pursue this matter because corruption cannot be tolerated. We disagree with the wastage of billions of Rands of weapons of war when the real enemies of our country are unemployment, poverty, crime and HIV/AIDS. This is part of the UDM’s commitment to accountable and responsible government. We have the resolve and commitment to fight corruption, and take on any party, no matter its history or power, to ensure that South Africans have the ethical governance that they deserve. Taxi Recapitalisation When Government announced its Taxi Recapitalisation programme most South Africans were justifiably relieved that the existing taxi fleet would be upgraded and the industry would be democratically run. However it quickly became evident that Government was bungling the process, not sticking to its own deadlines and blaming taxi owners for Government’s mistakes. Government was unable to answer commuters’ questions about affordability and availability of services, whilst owners’ questions about equity remained unanswered. Government refused to apply relevant safety regulations to existing makes of vehicles, and offered owners a small scrapping fee regardless of the roadworthiness of their current vehicle, thus making it virtually impossible for owners to afford the new vehicles. It became apparent that this process was in danger of becoming a self-enrichment scam for the elite, at the expense of commuters and black business people in the industry. It would be wrong for an industry that supplies millions of people with transport and tens of thousands of people with jobs to be undermined in this fashion. The UDM together with most of the taxi associations actively campaigned for Government to address these concerns, since Government itself had unreasonably delayed the process and was making it impossible for the industry to transform. As a result Government recently agreed to postpone the deadlines to ensure that the Taxi Recapitalisation is properly implemented and that commuters are not deprived of services whilst thousands of entrepreneurs in the industry are bankrupted. These are but some examples of the UDM’s active role in national politics and the further consolidation of South Africa’s democracy. Being a viable, trustworthy and reliable opposition party is a demonstration that we are equally up to the task of governing. Fundamental values The UDM and its leadership understand the fundamental values that South Africans apply when choosing their government. We understand that: – South Africans want a sense of ownership of their government. – South Africans want direct control of their government. – South Africans want an accountable, ethical and incorruptible government. – South Africans want mutual trust between them and their government. – South Africans want to be in charge of their own destiny. – South Africans want a say in the management of the country’s resources. A vote, at national or provincial level, for the UDM is a vote for these values. Ten years after the achievement of political freedom we need to ask how free are South Africans. How much has freedom grown for South Africans of all races and creeds since 1994? Reviewing ten years of freedom We must deliberately measure our progress since 1994, because true freedom is not a once-off event but an ongoing process. The UDM understands that the growth of freedom depends on certain basic conditions that affect citizens’ physical ability but are also directly linked to their dignity, including the following: Jobs. Without productive employment and a decent living wage people will not be able to experience the fruits of freedom. In the long term, food security can only be achieved and hunger beaten if people have jobs Education. Without knowledge and skills people cannot make informed decisions and achieve their goals, and so enhance their livelihoods. Health. People need to be healthy and have adequate health care in order to reach their full potential and share in the benefits of a democratic society. Security. People who feel under siege from criminals in their homes, neighbourhoods and places of work cannot fully concentrate on pursuing their aspirations. Property ownership. Without ownership of land and property people are unable to participate actively in the economic and social life of the country. The UDM understands that if these conditions are lacking or inadequate, freedom for all has not yet been achieved. Unemployment and poverty is a direct contradiction of freedom. Real freedom – political, social and economic – provides dignity to a nation. On the other hand, unemployment and poverty undermines it. Similarly, crime, rampant HIV/AIDS and inadequate education are all factors that undermine freedom. Whilst Apartheid undermined the majority’s dignity and freedom, the current levels of unemployment, poverty, crime and HIV/AIDS are taking many South Africans back to that same state of hardship and suffering experienced under Apartheid. Therefore, when we assess South Africa since 1994 we need to ask: Are South Africans more free now that ten years ago? The answers are well-documented and visible all over our country. Despite major strides that have been taken: unemployment is rife; poverty and homelessness are evident everywhere, HIV/AIDS affects millions, crime is holding people hostage in their own homes, education fails to provide adequate skills for employment and the majority are still without property and landless. This is a clear indication that in ten years we have not seen the advancement of our freedom that we deserve. Whilst real freedom still eludes the majority a new black elite connected to the ANC are reaping the rewards of freedom. The ANC’s Black Economic Empowerment amounts to real freedom only for their political comrades. Real freedom is about equal opportunities for all, not immoral wealth for the few. Women, youth and people with disabilities The UDM is particularly aware that these challenges of unemployment, poverty, crime, HIV/AIDS and Education have a greater impact on some sectors of our society. It is especially women, youth and people with disabilities that are more prone to suffering under these conditions. A society that claims to be democratic and free but allows its women, youth and people with disabilities to be left behind is immoral and unjust. Especially the youth are faced with huge obstacles and whilst many of them are trapped in unemployment, it is impossible for them to prepare for their role as future leaders of our society. It is It is our task to lay a foundation for them, a better future, in order that they may deliver for their children not merely a better, but a greater future. Women, Youth and people with disabilities will be specifically included in the UDM’s government programmes/policies to deal with unemployment, crime, HIV/AIDS and Education. The current Umsombovu Fund must be scrapped and replaced with a mechanism that is not used solely for ANC aligned youth groups and people. Stringent measures to stop crime and abuse perpetrated against women and children must be implemented. UDM’s Mission Real freedom for all is the UDM’s mission. The achievement of real freedom for all can only be gained through massive socio-economic delivery. In this manifesto we outline the UDM’s proposals for achieving this massive socio-economic delivery. Our point of departure is that this massive socio-economic delivery can only be achieved by a Government that is willing to invest in its own economy and people. This is a philosophy that says Government must do more. It stands in stark contrast with the thinking of other parties that hold the view that Government must do less and everyone else must do more. This manifesto is the UDM’s pledge of commitment. We offer no “contract”, no fine print, no loopholes and no excuses. Whilst policy issues on jobs, poverty, crime and HIV/AIDS will be central to the debates during this election campaign, I wish to place the issue of responsibility and integrity on the agenda alongside these policy discussions. I believe that it is time for all political leaders to be held accountable for the promises they make. I believe it is time for responsibility and integrity among all political leaders to become the rule rather than the exception. I believe that the voters should judge all political parties, not just on their policies, but on their leaders’ integrity and willingness to accept responsibility. The UDM is an established and growing organisation with the vision as well as capable women and men from all races who are bound together in their quest to achieve real freedom for all. As South Africa embarks on the second decade of political freedom, the UDM undertakes to translate that into social and economic freedom for all. We need a government that puts South Africa and its people first. You deserve a Government that does more! Yours sincerely President, United Democratic Movement THE ECONOMY, JOBS AND POVERTY Fundamentally the UDM is convinced that the Economy, Jobs and Poverty are inter-linked issues. We believe that Jobs are the ultimate weapon against Poverty and that the Economy must be managed to ensure the achievement of this goal. Government has a responsibility to intervene and protect the South African economy and South African jobs when necessary. Whilst Free Market Capitalism is the best economic system developed by humanity, it is still fraught with weaknesses and failures that must be actively managed. South Africans are suspicious and mistrust Government because of perceptions that Government is not equitably distributing the resources of the country. A new privileged political elite exclusively enjoys the resources. There is no consensus on a macro-economic policy that can transform the economy in a manner that could create and spread wealth wider and improve the lot of disadvantaged majority. There are in particular concerns about the inadequacies and contradictions of the fiscal and industrial policies. The harsh reality is that we are suffering from: – a 42% rate of unemployment. – the economy is unable to create jobs. – more than a million jobs have been destroyed. – economic growth is too slow to absorb new entrants into the labour market. The prospects of reversing this dismal trend appear far-fetched under the present economic policies and performance of the ruling party. Consequently the gains of liberation in 1994 have not translated into real economic freedom for all. Our economy suffers from jobless growth due to the confusion created by an ambivalent Tripartite Alliance (ANC, Cosatu & SACP). This ruling clique preaches elimination of unemployment in the streets and legislate retrenchments and greater unemployment in parliament. The governments of the USA, Europe, China, India and most others recognise the responsibility that they have towards their citizens and intervene to protect their domestic jobs and businesses. A Government that proposes anything less does not care about its people, and is not willing to accept responsibility for their welfare and prosperity. During the UDM National Congress of 2001, the UDM adopted the policy of responsible government intervention in the economy through infrastructure development to create jobs. A UDM Government will focus on job creation and stimulating economic growth, investor confidence and efficient service delivery, but will be equally aware, and willing, to responsibly intervene in the economy to open up business and employment opportunities for all South Africans. Because South Africans deserve to have an input in how the economy is run and how job creation is pursued, the UDM proposes the establishment of a Presidential Council on Planned Sustainable Development representing all stakeholders in society, not just Government, Business and Labour only. This forum will afford broader society the opportunity to advise a UDM Government on issues related to the economy, infrastructure development and job creation. THE BROKEN PROMISES OF THE PAST TEN YEARS – In 1994 under RDP hundreds of thousands of jobs and massive development was promised. – In 1996 GEAR promised hundreds of thousands of jobs with its inception. – In 1998 The Presidential Jobs Summit promised hundreds of thousands of jobs. – In 1999 under the Arms Deal 65 000 jobs were promised. – The 2003 Growth and Development Summit promised jobs. BUT IN 10 YEARS MORE THAN A MILLION JOBS WERE DESTROYED! UNEMPLOYMENT AND POVERTY UNDERMINES THE PEOPLE’S FREEDOM! To create jobs, strengthen the economy and alleviate poverty, a UDM Government will: Create jobs through Small Business Development. A UDM Government will assist South Africans to create their own wealth whilst creating jobs for others. Launch Planned Sustainable Development programmes (like building roads, schools and clinics as well as providing water, electricity and creating irrigation schemes) to create jobs on a large scale and make communities economically and socially viable. Implement a Manageable Budget Deficit so that government can responsibly intervene in the economy by investing in Planned Sustainable Development programmes. In other words a UDM Government will lend money, if necessary, to finance these job creation programmes. Involve all stakeholders in society in growing the economy, creating jobs and developing infrastructure. A new body, the Presidential Council on Planned Sustainable Development, representing all stakeholders, will monitor infrastructure development and job creation and advise a UDM Government. Pursue an economic growth rate of 8% within five years, which is necessary and achievable. Support progressive taxes – taxing those who can afford it more – so that the poor can take their rightful economic and social place in society and help contribute to tax revenue and the success of South Africa. We propose that 1% of income tax you already pay (R1 billion per year) should be equally divided as additional funding that will be spent directly on Skills Creation and Crime Prevention in order to address these urgent concerns. Implement new supportive measures for South African industries and businesses to excel in domestic and international trade. All international trade deals will, in the first instance, serve the interests of South African workers and businesses. Recognise that education and skills development is pivotal to the long-term success of any economic strategy. A UDM Government will improve Sectoral Education and Training Agencies, make schools more skills-orientated and focus on literacy and numeracy. Embark on an intensive skills training programme in the civil service to enhance the quality, speed and efficiency of all Government services, because the success of all Government programmes is dependent upon qualified and motivated civil servants. Target tourism and agriculture as industries that have massive economic growth and job creating potential. Initiate immediate poverty alleviation. We support a Basic Service Subsidy to assist poor people to afford basic rates. Furthermore, a comprehensive food parcel system operated with smart-cards will be implemented, so that poor households can use the smart-card to receive a minimum of food and basic household goods every month. In addition, a UDM Government will address the current discrimination against rural areas in the provision of social grants and housing subsidies. Ensure that credit bureaus are strictly licensed and controlled, and current blacklisting practices will be abolished. A proper system will be legislated, based on ratings, and bureaus will be allowed only to report a person’s rating and no other private or personal details. Every person will have the right to contest their credit rating and the information it is based on. Implement Equal Economic Empowerment in an effort to genuinely help all South Africans, especially those who are economically marginalised. This must replace the current government’s Black Economic Empowerment policy that has become a buzzword for self-enrichment by a new elite. The emphasis of Equal Economic Empowerment will be focused on industries that create jobs, as opposed to the current Black Economic Empowerment policy that consists of merely handing over shares and stock options to a small elite that does not grow the economy or create jobs. Equal Economic Empowerment will be about growing the economic cake, instead of just giving a bigger slice of the current cake to a select few. Under fiscal policy a UDM Government will: Maintain real interest rates at internationally competitive levels, while constantly guarding against an unsustainably high Rand exchange rate. Whilst we recognise that interest rate volatility can be caused by international trends such as the strength of other currencies, there are also domestic factors. Interest rate volatility is often the result of domestic factors such as crime, corruption, rampant HIV/AIDS and the slide to a one-party state. These factors undermine the image of South Africa in the eyes of investors and currency traders. Monetary policy does not exist in a vacuum, but is directly affected by the perceived stability of the country. Therefore a UDM Government will actively address these issues to ensure monetary stability. Constantly review South Africa’s international trade tariffs and duties to protect developing local industries, encourage exports, increase international trade and support inbound tourism. Adapt fiscal policies to suit the particular circumstances in South Africa as a developing nation. Blindly imitating neo-liberal policies – that the developed world themselves do not follow strictly – is damaging our economy. Policies that directly stabilize the cost of strategic commodities such as oil will be preferred. To create jobs and build infrastructure, a UDM Government will: Establish a new body called the Presidential Council on Planned Sustainable Development to guide planning and coordination of these Sustainable Development programmes aimed at building infrastructure and creating jobs. Business, labour, civil society groups and affected communities will be represented at national and provincial level on the Council. This will ensure that proper consultation takes place in the development of infrastructure. The Department of Public Works will play a central role. Implement this strategy, whilst creating jobs, with the aim to turn all communities into productive and safe environments that will improve the quality of life of all South Africans, especially those who are economically deprived and marginalised. Ensure that security of tenure for homeowners will underpin all housing intervention strategies. This will reduce the risk of evictions and make it easier to provide communities with essential services. Ensure that Planned Sustainable Development programmes recognise that South Africa can be divided into two economic parts, urban and rural, with different needs. Follow an aggressive national recruiting campaign to reach out to all the unemployed and informal sector workers, in order to accommodate them in Planned Sustainable Development programmes. Ensure that every Planned Sustainable Development programme seeks to create as many jobs as possible in all its activities. The focus of these job creation efforts will be Small Business Development. A UDM Government will engage in infrastructure delivery by sub-contracting and training skilled and unskilled people to handle aspects of infrastructure construction and maintenance. It will mean that these emerging small businesses will have contracts for the period of a specific infrastructure development programme, and thereafter will have the necessary skills and experience to continue unaided as viable, privately-owned businesses. To promote Small Business Development, a UDM Government will: Place Small Business Development at the core of the UDM economic plan. A UDM Government will vigorously pursue policies that encourage and generate opportunities for those who wish to start up and grow their own businesses. Improve the coordination between national, provincial and local departments dealing with small business support. Dissolve the current financing agencies, Khula and Ntsika, and replace them with a new small business-financing agency, operating according to corporate principles. Ensure that the Department of Trade and Industry becomes visible nationally, also in rural and disadvantaged areas, by establishing Small Business advice and support centres. Ensure that the Department of Trade and Industry actively promotes small business to domestic and international consumers. Give small businesses preferential access to government tenders and will help them to secure further contracts and financing. Review all regulatory and licensing obstacles that stand in the way of Small Business Development. Small businesses will be heavily promoted in urban and rural areas, in labour intensive (manufacturing and production), knowledge-based and service orientated, industries and sectors. Ensure that the Department of Trade and Industry establishes a partnership with the South African Postal Service and Telkom, so that small businesses can harness and take advantage of modern technology at preferential rates. Ensure that we retain our developed technology and highly trained citizens, and that we take the lead in technological breakthroughs. To promote Agriculture and Land, a UDM Government will: Recognise that agriculture receives government aid in all first world countries, and will introduce subsidies and grants for farmers and emerging farmers. Provide all subsidies and grants with the overall aim of allowing farmers a fair and sustainable return on the capital invested. Aim subsidies and grants at start-up funding for commercial farmers. Encourage sound agricultural practices, because government aid will only go towards farmers that avoid wasteful and unsustainable practices. Encourage the employment of farm workers – in sectors where long-term growth is possible – by short-term subsidization of their wages, to ensure that the minimum wage is paid. Encourage beneficiaries of land redistribution to engage in commercial farming. Recognise the role and value of Traditional Leaders. Issues of land and administrative duties involving local government will include Traditional Leaders. All laws affecting Traditional Leaders and the millions of people who recognise them will be reviewed in consultation with those affected. Reverse the neglect of rural areas. It is essential to recognise the inequity of subsidizing homes in urban areas whilst, rural communities who also pay taxes receive no such subsidy. A UDM Government will ensure that rural areas receive an equitable share of subsidization aimed at agricultural activity, so that where an urban beneficiary is supported to build a home, a rural beneficiary is supported to begin farming (with for instance seed, fertilizer and implements, such as tractors). In this way people will be able to feed themselves and their families, and in the long run are placed on the path towards becoming commercial farmers. HIV/AIDS AND HEALTH ISSUES The UDM is committed to protecting and promoting the constitutional right of all South Africans to basic health care, and providing proper and immediate responses to the major health risks facing the country. Too many people in our country still cannot access proper health care. Too many clinics and hospitals have fallen into squalor. Too many people and babies have died unnecessarily of HIV/AIDS. ANC GOVERNMENT’S HIV/AIDS FAILURES HAVE LED TO: – 7 million people being infected. – Cemeteries filling up. – A growing population of AIDS orphans. – More and more households losing breadwinners and sinking into poverty. – The productive sector of the population dying at an increasing rate. – The plight of South African women worsening because they are the majority of people living with HIV/AIDS. This state of affairs means that many South Africans are condemned to a life lacking in dignity. This is a reversal of the gains of liberation, and simply undermines our hard-earned freedom. DON’T YOU DESERVE BETTER HEALTH CARE? HIV/AIDS AND POOR HEALTH CARE UNDERMINE THE PEOPLE’S FREEDOM! To improve health care, a UDM Government will: Improve health facilities, including the maintenance of hospitals and clinics. Ensure that all hospitals and clinics are properly stocked with medicines and other medical supplies. Increase the number of hospitals and clinics, and upgrade facilities to deal with the massive increase in demand due to HIV/AIDS. Ensure that all staff at primary health care facilities are properly qualified and trained. Streamline referral procedures to ensure that all patients requiring specialised care receive speedy and appropriate treatment at the relevant medical facility. Strive towards ensuring that no medical practitioner, ambulance service, hospital or clinic should be allowed to refuse treatment, aid or admission to any person based solely on his/her ability to pay. Maintain the current spending on the health budget, excluding HIV/AIDS programmes, because this would be sufficient if spent appropriately and effectively. “Savings” or budget rollovers will not be tolerated. Ensure that all persons without a private medical aid and lacking sufficient resources to pay for medical treatment are considered Government Aided Patients. In consultation with the organized medical profession, a UDM Government will negotiate fair treatment for such people and provide reasonable payment to doctors and nurses handling such cases. Such patients will receive medicine subsidized by Government. Ensure that the Primary Health care system is tailored to respond effectively to the major diseases, aside from HIV/AIDS, threatening the South African population, such as TB, Cholera and Malaria. All are preventable and can be treated. Ensure that nutritional issues and family planning forms a basic part of Primary Health care, recognising that appropriate education and training in these areas will have a major impact on the well-being of communities. Ensure that the Department of Health is part of an integrated response to alcohol and drug abuse, recognising that substance abuse contribute to high levels of violence, death and the social breakdown of South African society. To deal with HIV/AIDS, a UDM Government will: Implement and take the lead in a National Plan of Action to fight HIV/AIDS, including the implementation of a comprehensive education and awareness programme. Ensure that the National Plan of Action to deal with HIV/AIDS sets aside adequate funding for credible research into treatments and vaccines for HIV/AIDS. Make HIV/AIDS a notifiable disease, with due regard to confidentiality, to ensure that accurate and continuous information on the exact incidence and prevalence of HIV/AIDS is available to guide the fight against the pandemic. In partnership with business and organised labour, will prepare for the anticipated impact of HIV/AIDS, both economically and socially. Ensure that the primary health care system provides the necessary medical and counseling support to all people living with HIV/AIDS to extend and enhance their quality of life. Urgent attention will be given to the fair, equitable and universal provision of anti-Aids drugs and treatment. ACCOUNTABILITY Integrity and honesty in politics will remain under threat as long as the floor-crossing law continues to exist in its current form. Voters must remember that aside from the ANC’s openly opportunistic attitude in passing this law, that they were supported by the DA and NNP. Though these parties all pretend an immense concern for the voters’ wishes, they vigorously pursued floor-crossing for their own short-term interests. Though the DA and NNP expressed shock and cried foul when the opportunistic defection circus commenced, in truth they had been soliciting defectors for more than a year. Though the DA and NNP claimed surprise that floor-crossers did not defect on principles and that the whole exercise turned into a cynical abuse of the voters, the UDM had warned from the outset that opportunism would be the hallmark of such a law. DON’T YOU DESERVE ACCOUNTABLE PUBLIC REPRESENTATIVES? UNACCOUNTABLE PUBLIC REPRESENTATIVES UNDERMINE THE PEOPLE’S FREEDOM! Voters need to ask these parties why they supported this law, and thereby gave the right to a single politician to nullify the votes of tens of thousands of people. These parties must explain to voters why they supported this law when there was and is no mechanism to test the opinion of voters about each and every defection. The ANC, DA and NNP must explain to voters why anything they promise during the election should be trusted when they openly and enthusiastically support cheating the voters. The floor-crossing law must be scrapped until the electoral laws are amended so that public representatives are elected in constituencies and any floor-crossing triggers an immediate by-election. Then any floorcrosser will be voted out if he or she cannot convince the voters that abandoning their original agenda and election promises is correct. We cannot allow the situation to continue where tens of thousands of voters supporting a specific set of policies as expressed by a specific party can be ignored and their choices unmade on the whim of a single politician. Throughout the world, especially in younger democracies, it has been clearly demonstrated that floor-crossing leads to a one-party state. A vote for the UDM is your guarantee that we will be in Parliament actively pursuing this objective to increase your democratic right to determine how the country is run and by whom it is run. STRENGTHENING EDUCATION The UDM supports free public education from primary school until Grade 12, as well as more Government assistance for students studying in select subjects, such as Engineering, that will contribute to the overall economic and social development of the country. The high levels of functional illiteracy and innumeracy, and the uncoordinated attempts at skills development, together constitute a great obstacle to the development of South Africa into a flourishing, world-class nation. Foreign investors shy away from South Africa largely because of the low levels of education and skills of its workforce as a whole. Because of these challenges, the UDM supports an increased Education Budget, as well as greater resources being dedicated towards the development and maintenance of educational infrastructure. Government must dedicate a percent of income tax you already pay (half a billion Rand per year) as additional funding to assist in the vital task of Skills Creation. DON’T YOU AND YOUR CHILDREN DESERVE PROPER EDUCATION? LACK OF EDUCATION UNDERMINES THE PEOPLE’S FREEDOM! To enhance Education, a UDM Government will: Develop and maintain an Education system that produces school-leavers and graduates that are equipped with balanced job-related and life-skills to enter the job-market, economy and greater society and be productive and responsible citizens. Improve Educational Infrastructure, including human resources, physical infrastructure, as well as teaching materials. 2.1. Human Resources – Teacher training. Teachers will be properly equipped to implement the new syllabus through intensified in-service training and workshops. A UDM Government will recognise the central role of teachers in improving the quality of education in the country and pay them accordingly. 2.2. Managing Human Resources. Governing bodies and stakeholders will be empowered to monitor and measure the performance of teachers, lecturers, principals and senior management in the Department. This monitoring system will take into account indicators of access, equity, efficiency, and management delivery. 2.3. Physical infrastructure: The spending on the development and maintenance of school buildings, water, sanitation and electricity will be increased. It is immoral that the lack of potable water and adequate sanitation at schools remain reprehensibly common while about one-third of the capital budget for investment in school infrastructure goes unspent. This clearly points to a lack of capacity or commitment at Senior Management level in the present system, which a UDM Government will not tolerate. In line with UDM policy on infrastructure, education physical infrastructure will be prioritized. 2.4. Teaching materials and resources: Additional funding will be made available to ensure that every school has the required learning materials and resources. This will not be limited merely to textbooks, but will also include the provision of libraries, laboratories, computers and other relevant technologies. Increase the number of education institutions. A UDM Government will bring education institutions closer to communities, instead of the current trend of reducing the number of education institutions at high cost to the communities involved. Ensure that all education institutions promote a culture of continuous learning. Adult Basic Education and Training will be enhanced with emphasis on employable skills. Ensure that the curriculum starts from the values and rights enshrined in the Constitution, and will aim to foster respect for these rights and values, such as equality, dignity, as well as religious, racial, language and gender tolerance. 5.1. In line with international standards, learners will understand their individual duties and responsibilities in a democratic society. Every learner will understand the principles of sustainable development, including knowledge of the country’s resources and how they should be managed for this and future generations’ prosperity. 5.2. Curriculum development will be an inclusive process involving all stakeholders. It will also be a continuous process to adapt to changing needs in the job-market and society. 5.3. Career-orientated advice and education will be enhanced to ensure that children can determine their future careers timeously and can attain the various goals on the way towards their employment. 5.4. In line with the UDM’s proposed National Plan of Action to deal with HIV/AIDS, HIV/AIDS education and awareness will be a compulsory aspect of all curricula. Establish a Spirit of Excellence in education. It is vital that schools are places of discipline, order, neatness and productivity. The lack of commitment reflected in the neglect of the dress code by teachers and pupils, vandalism and truancy will be addressed. A UDM Government, the community, teachers and school children will unite in a spirit of excellence, determined to make every school part of the foundation of a world-class nation. 6.1. As professionals, teachers will be equipped and committed to contribute actively towards creating an atmosphere conducive to learning inside and outside the classroom. 6.2. Learners, similarly, will adopt a culture of learning and be taught to appreciate the value of time. Emphasis will be placed on discipline in order to promote learning and each school authority must develop effective and constitutionally acceptable ways to discipline pupils. 6.3. Children will be actively engaged at school during school hours. Specially trained people will deal with erratic attendance by pupils, with the involvement of their families. 6.4. Ensure that crime, especially sexual harassment and abuse, at schools receives zero-tolerance. Offenders will be removed from the institution and punished with the full might of the law.
Admin
03 Dec, 2001
COMRADES IN CORRUPTION II
Arms Deal Joint Investigation Report – UDM’S reaction Who is fooling whom? “The troughs have changed however the pigs have remained the same” Background Many public statements on the Arms Deal saga assert that Parliament approved the Defence Review and thereby approved the decision to purchase military equipment. ANC ministers and –politicians have made this assertion frequently during the Arms Deal investigation. However, it is fundamentally and demonstrably inaccurate. The inaccuracy has no bearing whatsoever on the allegations of impropriety against the “comrades in corruption”. The experts argue that the implications relate to policy, parliamentary mandates and the debate around state expenditure priorities. The Defence Review was conducted in terms of the overarching policy framework of the White Paper on Defence, approved by Cabinet and Parliament in 1996. The White Paper proclaims that national security is no longer a predominantly military and police problem. It encompasses the consolidation of democracy, economic development and the achievement of social justice. At the heart of this new approach is a “paramount concern with the security of people”. The White Paper goes on to declare that the greatest threats to the security of our people are socio-economic problems like poverty, unemployment, poor education and the lack of housing and adequate social services. In the absence of any foreseeable external military threat, there is “a compelling need to reallocate state resources to the Reconstruction and Development Programme”. The challenge facing the Department of Defence is “to rationalise the SANDF and contain military spending without undermining the country’s core defence capability”. We do not dispute the fact that the Defence Review contains a force design that lists the type and quantity of military hardware deemed necessary for the SANDF to fulfil its functions. The list includes submarines, corvettes and the other weapons systems that form part of the procurement package. However, the Review describes the force design as a “vision” that will change over time. The final detail concerning the type and quantity of weaponry to be acquired will “inevitably deviate from the vision” and “such deviations will be subject to parliamentary oversight”. Notwithstanding the binding agreement, President Mbeki’s Cabinet reneged on it and induced government to underwrite the R29.9 billion Arms Procurement Deal behind Parliament’s back. This has now escalated to R66 billion, and still mounting. The Minister of Finance, Trevor Manuel signed foreign loan agreements and credit guarantees early this year without the approval of Parliament by way of a special or other resolution. The Hansard of Parliament reflects that no such approval was sought or obtained. For the Cabinet to approve such agreements without the approval of Parliament is unlawful. Even the Public Finance Management Act of 1999 states that it prohibits the State from borrowing money or issuing guarantees without specific authority from Parliament. Given these qualifications, parliamentary approval of the Defence Review in 1998 cannot be construed as a mandate to buy weapons. Parliament was not asked to sanction the Arms Deal at the time of the Review or subsequently. It has exercised its oversight function only in relation to the charges of corruption and conflict of interest surrounding the deal, after the Auditor-General’s Special Review Report was tabled in September 2000. Moreover, the Review acknowledges that “national priorities and budgetary restrictions place constraints on defence expenditure”. It accepts that the force design vision is thus unaffordable in the short to medium term. At the time of the Review, Parliament consequently had no expectation of increased military spending. Indeed, the Review anticipates that annual defence expenditure between 1998/9 and 2005/6 will remain constant at R9.7 billion in 1998 rand-value. This target now appears likely to be exceeded substantially. In the many ways as described above, the R66 billion arms package is inconsistent with national policy on security and defence endorsed by Cabinet and Parliament. The package is in fact more likely to reduce than enhance security. This is undoubtedly true for millions of people in terms of human security: money spent on weaponry is money that could otherwise have been spent on education, housing, health, social services and policing. With few exceptions, the ministers responsible for these portfolios insisted in their budget speeches to Parliament that they were chronically underfunded. It cannot be argued convincingly that the package is needed for peace operations in Africa. It is hard to imagine how submarines and corvettes could play a significant role in containing civil wars, nor could we imagine these weapons being deployed in the shallow Great Lakes. Given Government’s policy emphasis on peacekeeping and reluctance in peace enforcement, fighter aircraft and other combat equipment are unlikely to be used often if at all. Department of Finance warnings The record escalation of the Arms Procurement costs from R29.9 billion to R66 billion to date was foreseen by the Department of Finance who warned the Cabinet as early as August 1999. It is disturbing that the Cabinet Committee responsible for the Arms Deal was warned by the Department of Finance in August 1999 about the risks involved in the deal. Four types of risks were identified namely: Exchange and Interest Rate Fluctuations, Counter-Trade as well as Macro-economic (growth) risks. These revelations raise a number of serious questions: a) Why did the Cabinet Committee take the decision to proceed with the deal knowing the risks involved? b) Why were the risks not explained to Parliament when the deal was announced? c) Why was the public not informed that the cost to the state would not be fixed at R29.9 billion? The Cabinet Committee, specifically Mr Mbeki, then Chairperson of the Committee, as well as Ministers Manuel and Erwin, need to answer these questions. Ignoring the warnings of the downside potential of any project places the full responsibility on the decision-makers; they must face the full consequences of their decision. Opposition parties, religious groupings and civil society at large questioned the logic of such staggering expenditure on weapons of war in peacetime when there was such a backlog of social delivery reflecting the historical imbalances of the old order. In their defence the Cabinet argued that the Procurement deal would generate 65 000 jobs and R104 billion in offsets (investment and counter-trade). If arms procurement is such a lucrative undertaking one wonders why developing countries do not embark on arms purchases in order to make more money and create more jobs. The people in the driving seat of this deal are the Cabinet subcommittee chaired by the President. The awarding of contracts for the supply of defence equipment in this deal was not done through the normal tender process. It was all done behind closed doors by the said cabinet subcommittee. This lack of transparency has been characterised by questionable selection of contractors where one contract for the supply of naval equipment was awarded to a more expensive German contractor to the exclusion of a Spanish bidder who could supply it for much less. Another glaring example of irregularity in the tendering process was when the committee changed the tendering procedures mid-stream in order to give bidding advantage to a more expensive British Aerospace contractor over a more affordable but effective Italian aircraft one for the supply of military aircraft. The media and public furore arising out of these scandals caused the Auditor-General to review the Arms Deal and the manner in which, it had been handled by the various stakeholders. In September 2000, he tabled a Special Review Report in Parliament, which revealed suspicions of conflict of interest in the awarding of tenders. Consequently the Standing Committee on Public Accounts (SCOPA), the parliamentary watchdog, after deliberations, endorsed the need for an in-depth investigation of the Arms Deal, especially the tendering process. Through Parliament’s 14th Report, SCOPA recommended that the investigation be undertaken by the Heath Special Investigative Unit (Heath SIU), the Auditor-General, the Public Protector and the Directorate of Public Prosecutions. However, as a result of panic, the ANC big-wigs, led by the Speaker of Parliament argued that SCOPA had no mandate to sub-contract its work to outside agencies and effectively overruled SCOPA and hijacked the responsibility and accountability for the investigation. The Heath SIU, was summarily dissolved and the investigation delegated to the remaining three Agencies with no Terms of Reference known to the public, despite our calls for such. Hereunder is an extract from the SCOPA 14th Report dated 30/10/2000 submitted to Parliament, which speaks for itself. It is important to note that SCOPA is composed of representatives from all political parties including the ANC, which has the majority representation. “After the National Assembly had referred the Auditor-General’s report to this Committee, the Committee received a large amount of unsolicited evidence, of varying plausibility, from a number of different sources. Amongst the numerous allegation and assertions were those which reflected common ground to a significant degree. It is on the basis of this, and the Committee’s perception of the other issues raised in this Report, as well as the need to prove or disprove once and for all the allegations which cause damage to perceptions of the government, that the Committee recommends an independent and expert forensic investigation. In this regard, the Committee will prepare a brief for such investigation which stipulates particular assertions that ought to be investigated, while placing no limitation on the scope of the investigation. In noting the complex and cross-cutting nature of the areas to be investigated, the Committee feels that the investigation would be best served by combining a number of areas of investigative expertise and a number of differing areas of legal competence and authority. It therefore recommends that an exploratory meeting convened by the Committee, be held within two weeks of the tabling of this Report in National Assembly. The Auditor-General, the Heath SIU, the Public Protector, the Investigating Directorate of Serious Economic Offences, and any other appropriate investigative body should be invited, so that the best combination of skills, legal mandates and resources can be found for such an investigation. Once this is established, the Committee will issue an investigation brief to the team for its input. Also, the chosen investigating body will be requested to report on its progress at regular intervals to the Committee, as well as at the conclusion of its work, in order that this might be included in the Committee’s final report to the National Assembly on the matter.” As a result of the Speaker’s meddling in SCOPA’s business, ostensibly at the instance of the ANC party bosses, the ANC component in SCOPA reneged and withdrew their support for the 14th Report which they had previously co-authored, and which was unanimously endorsed by the National Assembly. The situation became ugly when the Deputy President and his Cabinet colleagues publicly berated SCOPA and thereby undermined Parliament’s decision. The Executive interference led to a trail of incidents, which undermined the credibility of any investigation, conducted at its instance i.e.: a) SCOPA’s independence and effectiveness as a watchdog on tax-payer’s money were severely compromised; b) The Heath SIU, which had more powers than the other three Agencies, was withdrawn from the investigation and subsequently dissolved. c) Parliament and SCOPA were not informed of the Terms of Reference of the pending investigation. d) Consequently the investigation had no public legitimacy and the outcome could be predicted. Despite the President and his Cabinet’s protestations that the deal was above aboard, even using the public broadcaster to mount this propaganda, the patriotic media and opposition parties continued their independent probe and exposed many wrong-doings which are now public knowledge, e.g., it emerged that one senior defence public official was implicated in influencing the awarding of a contract to a company in which his brother was a director. Some contractors had links with key political figures in South Africa and selected prime contractors were twinned to local ANC-aligned subcontractors. It also emerged that European Aeronautic Defence and Space Company (EADS), a subsidiary of Mercedes Benz doled out expensive motor vehicles at massive discounts to prominent Parliamentarians, the Chiefs of the Defence Force, and Airforce, Government Officials and other public figures. It’s not yet clear what the motive for this bonanza was. Neither does the report of the three Agencies mention these incidents in detail. On realising that the executive had hijacked the investigative process against the wishes of Parliament, the UDM questioned the conduct of the Speaker on the Arms Deal and recommended to her on the 14th May 2001 some Terms of Reference for the investigation and also to the three Agencies on the 18th July 2001. These are quoted hereunder: Terms of Reference a) The probe must be officially gazetted with clear Terms of Reference and time frames. b) In the light of further revelations of the possible proliferation of irregularities in the entire deal, the investigation must go beyond examining sub-contracting procedures and cover the entire arms procurement transaction including the main contractors. What was the motive for the Cabinet Committee to opt for a British Aerospace expensive purchase against the advice of Defence Force and arms procurement negotiating team. c) Attention must be drawn to the sub-committee, which was chaired by the President, which apparently positioned itself as the “Tender Board” in the allocation of contracts with the view to bringing clarity regarding its role in the whole saga. d) The need to empower the investigating agencies with the same authority previously enjoyed by the Heath Special Investigative Unit i.e. powers to cancel irregular contracts, etc. e) Were any monies paid to individuals or political groups by tendering companies in order to facilitate the granting of contracts to themselves, such as in the case of British Aerospace which paid the ANC an amount of R5 million just prior to the awarding tenders? f) Special focus be made on the possibility of individuals or groups holding public office being beneficiaries of monies or shares from international companies which have been awarded contracts. g) The role played by individuals in the sub-committee chaired by the President in the awarding of contracts and whether any of them received any payments or shares. h) Are there any family members of the Mbeki sub-committee or close associates benefiting from the awarding of these contracts? i) Whether the Black empowerment companies who were awarded sub-contracts have the capacity to perform or were mere fronts for the main contractors? j) What were the motives for EADS in subsidising 30 motor vehicles sold to politicians, Armscor/Denel personnel, civil servants and Defence personnel as they have publicly confessed? k) Whether the executive deliberately misled Parliament and the public about the true cost of the arms procurement exercise when they quoted it at R30 billion when in reality it is +R50 billion to date. l) According to the Defence Review, R9.7 billion was focused for 1999 – 2006 financial years, as approved by Parliament. Who authorised the R30 billion expenditure? Did Parliament endorse this expenditure? Whether the Defence Review, which identified the Defence needs which culminated in the current arms procurement was a genuine analysis of our national Defence needs or a smokescreen to cover self-enrichment by individuals in the ruling party circles. i. With special reference to the estimated R4 billion which ANC members who own sub-contracted companies in the arms procurement deal will earn and in particular the role played by the former Defence Minister, Mr J Modise and General L.A. Moloi in establishing the following companies, as suggested by financial media: - Are these companies African Defence Systems (ADS) - Futuristic Business Solutions - Applied Logistics Engineering - Nkobi Investments - Temoso Technology - M.K. Technologies - X Cell - Dynamic Cables ii. conduits for channelling arms procurement funds back to ANC coffers? This must be investigated. iii. Were these companies lobbied by the main international contractors who were awarded procurement contracts? Were they paid any monies by them and if so how much? iv. Did these sub-contractors lobby any members of Parliament and ministers? If so did they pay them any monies and how much? The Auditor-General on behalf of the Agencies responded and refused to consider our Terms of Reference and boasted that his office had the capacity to carryout the investigation. The Speaker did not even respond to our call. Instead she threatened to sue the President of the UDM and tabled his letter in Parliament charging that it undermined her integrity as Speaker of Parliament. Government censorship of the audit report??????? Our worst fears that the investigation lacked credibility were confirmed. The Auditor-General secretly, without the knowledge of SCOPA submitted the report of the investigation to the Cabinet, which was an integral component of the investigation. The media exposed this unusual step by the Auditor-General. He confirmed this when he justified his action on the grounds of apartheid era legislation, the Special Defence Account Act, which mandated him to submit the report to the Cabinet for “security reasons.” Clearly that report was edited or sanitised in the interests of “security”. Parliament, SCOPA and the public are in the dark as to what was excised from the report for “security reasons.” The tabled report does not show that any forensic audit of the banking accounts of the individuals and contractors being investigated was done, despite the earlier undertaking by the Auditor-General that this would be done. This apparent omission leads one to the conclusion that this forensic audit could be part of the excised report. In evaluating the Arms Procurement saga, it is important to note that the Apartheid-era Special Defence Account Act, which empowers the government to censor the report of any investigation was used by Chippy Shaik at the Cabinet Sub-Committee’s instance to censor certain aspects of the Auditor-General’s report to Parliament which sparked off the investigation of the Arms Deal. This report enabled Chippy Shaik, a Defence procurement official to influence the awarding of the contract to his brother’s company, according to reports. Notwithstanding the apparent cover up by the Investigating Agencies, the media continues to probe and reveal irregularities which leave us with no doubt that there was large-scale wrongdoing in the Arms Deal process, and the Cabinet has used its powers and archaic apartheid-era laws to mount a monumental cover-up of these irregularities. The invoking of the Special Defence Account Act for censoring the Auditor-General’s Special Review report in 2000 set a pattern which has been repeated with regard to the current report of the investigating Agencies. For example, prior to the tabling of the Auditor-General’s Special Review Report in September 2000, which had already been censored by the executive, the Minister of Defence Mosiuoa Lekota had given the Auditor-General carte blanche authority to investigate any irregularities in the Arms procurement deal. He was to access all relevant documents without hindrance. However, the then Deputy President Thabo Mbeki, as chairman of the Cabinet sub-committee charged with overseeing the Arms acquisition, intervened to reverse Lekota’s decision. In the letter of the 28th September 2000 the defence ministry’s Brigadier-General Keith Snowball wrote to the Auditor-General advising him that it had been brought to the attention of Minister Lekota that a decision had been taken prior to his appointment as Minister of Defence that only the Cabinet sub-committee had authority to approve the audit of documents regarding the Arms packages. This reversal of Lekota’s earlier carte blanche approval in effect required the Auditor-General to clear his Terms of Reference with the executive. From the onset President Mbeki’s sub-committee positioned itself to influence the course of the investigation by establishing an “audit steering committee” on 29 November 1999, on which sat people suspected of wrongdoing in the Arms Deal, including Chippy Shaik. Notwithstanding the independence conferred on the office of the Auditor-General by the Constitution, the Auditor-General has allowed himself to be swayed by the executive and compromise the integrity of his office by allowing members of the Auditor-General’s office to serve in the Cabinet appointed Audit Steering Committee. Chippy Shaik has now become the focus of blame for conflict of interest, with justification. However his culpability must be seen in the context of a Cabinet that had a vested interest to see an outcome that suited it in the investigation. In other words Chippy Shaik enjoyed Cabinet backing to do what he did. The latter share the responsibility for sanitising both reports and deceiving the public. This scenario has echoes of the Apartheid-era info-scandal of the Roodies and Mulders. Chippy Shaik may well go the way of a sacrificial lamb and carry the sins of his masters to the execution block as Herschell Roodie did. However, the Nationalist government of the day had stirrings of conscience, which prompted Mulder and John Vorster subsequently to resign from their posts. One wonders if our leaders will have the moral courage to emulate this historical example. Time will tell. Auditor-General’s role The conduct of the Auditor-General in this episode is cause for concern. He refused to heed the appeals of Parliament and opposition parties and SCOPA that the four Agencies including the Heath SIU draw up the Terms of Reference or the Brief of the investigation. He openly supported the Cabinet in excluding the Unit from the investigation. We now know that he allowed himself to be persuaded by Chippy Shaik to remove certain aspects of the original Auditor-General Special Review report of September 2000 to Parliament, as a result of which sanitation, arose Chippy Shaik’s conflict of interest. He has again defended the submission of the Report of the three Agencies to Cabinet for perusal prior to tabling, in terms of the apartheid-era Special Defence Account Act, for “security reasons”. He further denies that Cabinet has made any “substantial” changes to the original report. That remains to be seen. SCOPA has been kept in the dark about the progress of the investigation despite appeals that they be kept informed. Members of SCOPA and Members of Parliament were not implicated in the Arms Deal, and therefore there could have been no justification for withholding information about the investigation from them. Yet the Cabinet to whom he submitted the reports are themselves material factors for investigation. The Auditor-General conceded to Parliament and SCOPA that there were merits for the investigation of the Arms Deal. He was mandated by them to carry out this investigation and remained in principle and morally accountable to them. Instead he abused their trust, turned his back on them and kept the probe a private and confidential affair which he shared with the Cabinet. There is only one conclusion; the Auditor-General has betrayed the trust of Parliament and SCOPA. The Speaker of the National Assembly castigated the Chairman of SCOPA for identifying the four Agencies to investigate the Arms Deal on the grounds that SCOPA had no powers to sub-contract to these Agencies. It was the same Honourable Speaker who recently held a celebratory press conference inside Parliament with the very Agencies, which she barred SCOPA to deal with. The whole episode is a farce; hence the UDM termed the outcome of the probe “a celebrated palace verdict”. Findings of the probe The investigating Agencies have been hasty to exonerate the government from any wrongdoing in the awarding of the contracts. Yet they concede that there were irregularities in the awarding process. In view of the fact that it was the Cabinet Committee, which awarded the contracts, there is a glaring contradiction in their findings. The tendering cannot be found faulty and the instrument responsible for that process be found faultless. We now scrutinise some of their findings hereunder: a) Fighter Aircraft. The SANDF experts and technical committees who evaluated the tenders for the fighter aircraft were unanimous in recommending the Italian Contractor Aeromacchi as a preferred bidder. This was despite the then Defence Minister Modise’s mid-stream injunction that cost should not be used as a criteria in selecting a bidder. The minutes of the meeting on 30 April 1998 at the technical committee, record that Defence Minister Joe Modise told the gathering that “the most expensive option was not necessarily the best option”. He instructed the defence acquisition staff to bear this in mind during the selection process. The acquisition staff followed the normal prescribed rules in doing their evaluation and selection. They used the costed criteria and chose Aeromacchi over the British Aerospace bidder. However, according to the UDM’s research, Mbeki’s Cabinet Sub-Committee intervened when British Aerospace lost the bid, and instructed the acquisition staff to determine both a costed and a non-costed option in their selection. The uncosted option would be deemed to have other weightier non-cost considerations, which would make a company a preferred bidder. After determining both the costed and uncosted options the Italian Aeromacchi still won the tender ahead of British Aerospace. SANDF experts used objective criteria to arrive at this decision. The joint Airforce and Armscor technical team still preferred the Italian trainer even after considering both options. Cabinet, through Chippy Shaik imposed the selection of British Aerospace and justified this intervention on the much questionable superiority of the British fighter trainer – which claim is hotly contested by the technical experts who obviously have the technical expertise lacking in the Cabinet, which imposed their choice. A Cabinet Committee chaired by Mr Mbeki opted for the more expensive British Hawk on the basis of superior offset. However, it is reliably known that the list of counter-trade offsets attached to the British Aerospace final tender proposal in April 1998 was not the same as the list which was put before the Cabinet, on which they are supposed to have based their decision. The Agencies themselves in their findings raise serious questions about British Aerospace’s industrial offset offerings and the way in which they were evaluated. It is common knowledge that British Aerospace gave out substantial cash inducements (R5 million) to the ANC just before the Arms Deal tenders were issued. The UDM made reference to this transaction when it submitted its suggested Terms of Reference to the Agencies. They now argue that the Cabinet used their prerogative in making their selection, despite the compelling evidence against their decision as stated above and the Agencies’ own serious reservations about the Cabinet evaluation criteria. The Agencies’ position in this report is untenable and raises our concerns about the integrity of their report. b) Corvettes. The Agencies further exonerate the government from any wrongdoing on the Corvette deal despite their own findings. None of the bidders on corvettes complied with the key criteria affecting their financing, among others, with the exception of Bazan of Spain which lost the bid to Frigate Consortium, which should have been disqualified for not providing the required guarantee. The report shows that Bazan would have beaten German Frigate Consortium, had it not been for the high scores awarded to the German Company by the Department of Trade and Industry, specifically on the non-defence industrial participation component of the German bid. The German bid of R8.5 billion won the day over the Spanish one of only R1 billion. The non-defence industrial participation which tilted the scale in favour of the German Company is the non-starter at Coega Industrial Development Zone (IDZ). During the tender period the non defence industrial participation entailed an offer by the German Ferrostal steel group to build a R6.5 billion integrated steel plant at Coega. Immediately after the tender was awarded this figure was scaled down to R1.2 billion. Recently, Business Day reported that Ferrostal’s often revised and down scaled plans now stand at R860 million. To compound the problem, former Minister Joe Modise who just before he retired awarded the contract for the supply of Corvettes to the German Company in return for the Ferrostal’s involvement at Coega is now the beneficiary in that transaction through his chairmanship and shareholding in Khutele Project which has been awarded a contract to conduct an integrated transport study at Coega. There is no doubt he had a vested interest in awarding the contract to the German Company. All this damming evidence of impropriety has been ignored by the Agencies who cursorily dismiss this important transaction and exonerate the government from wrong-doing. c) Submarines. The Agencies’ Report finds that the German Submarine Consortium, which won the bid did not make the grade where its defence offsets were concerned and should not have been awarded the contract, at the first round. It says Armscor’s legal division submitted a legal opinion that the Germans had “failed materially to meet the essential requirements of the defence offsets”. This opinion was not passed on to the selection panel. The investigators concede that Chippy Shaik and a colleague allowed the bidders who did not comply to get their house in order before the next round. However to the Agencies all is forgiven. d) Cost of the Arms Deal. The Agencies and their consultants are critical of the Cabinet’s affordability assessment of the Arms purchase because they ignored the currency fluctuations. The contracts, they say, are long term and the final cost would be subjected to the vagaries of the rand. They say the forecasts on which the government study was based were too optimistic. This assessment is in stark contrast to the exoneration of no wrongdoing by the Cabinet. There is no question that the Arms purchase debt continues to escalate especially with the fast depreciation of the rand against the major currencies of our trading partners. The final figure after 20 years of the duration of the debt is anybody’s guess. Armscor estimate is R66 billion. Yet it could be much more than that. The disturbing feature of this transaction, apart from channelling scarce resources to the purchase of arms in peacetime at the expense of social priorities, it does not quantify with any certainty the trade and investment offsets which have been so liberally used as arguments to justify the awarding of tenders. Ultimately, according to some authorities, the finance and interest costs will be born by the taxpayer as part of the budget deficit. Do we really need this extravagance? We submit hereunder Armscor’s breakdown of the original Arms Deal purchase cost as at 18 November 1999 exchange rate, which excluded financing costs amounting to 49% of the procurement costs e) Sub-contracting – your right to know Government has been voluble in denying any responsibility for main sub-contractors who have been linked to the tenderers who have been awarded contracts. This is strange indeed because it was one of government’s pre-conditions to would-be offshore suppliers that they would have to subcontract to local empowerment contractors. This is government policy. The Government denies that it got involved in choosing sub-contractors, so it could not have been influenced by the fact that several sub-contractors benefited relatives, ANC, friends of the ANC leadership and government officials. Government claims that prime (main) contractors were responsible for selection of sub-contractors. However, records will prove in the case of naval combat suite, that Armscor, a government institution, issued tenders for the corvettes and stated that with a few specified exceptions, South African companies (empowerment companies included) were going to supply the components. Foreign bidders for the ship contract were supplied with a list of the nominated sub-contractors and what equipment they would be providing. Even the price had been fixed ±R1,47 billion. The navy did not thumb-suck this figure. Nominated local contractors had provided detailed cost estimates for the sub-systems. These were further audited and approved by the Navy/Armscor team. For example, after the German Frigate Consortium (GFC) was chosen, it then joined forces with Thomson/African Defence Systems (ADS). The price of the combat suite suddenly went up dramatically from R1,47 billion to R3.9 billion. This prompted Captain (now rear admiral) Johnny Kamerman, to write an angry letter in March 1999 to the German Frigate Consortium complaining that the ADS quote for the combat suite was nearly double that tendered by the South African supplier. But the prime contractors simply blamed the price increase on the risk premium they had added for using South African contractors. In effect, ADS was able to massively inflate prices, trading on the strong political commitment both to ADS and its well-connected comrade empowerment partners and to deal with Germany. Do you want to tell us that Thabo Mbeki and Trevor Manuel, Minister of Finance, were not aware of this anomaly? Never! An example: the price quoted by ADS for one subsystem was R64.73 million. But, when forced by the Navy to quote against another bidder, ADS quickly dropped their price to R29.65 million – less than half their original bid, but still higher than the other company’s tender, which was for R26.43 million. ADS got the tender. Another example: The price quoted by ADS for another subsystem was R46.9 million. Again, when forced by the Navy to quote against a competitor, ADS dropped their price to R18.9 million. This time the competitor won the contract, with a quote of R14.1 million. One of the subsystems on the corvette was the contract to supply the massive gears which form the link between engine and propellers. There were two bids: the one from Maag, the other from Renk, both foreign. The GFC chose Maag, as did the Navy’s technical team. (The Navy team formally informed the GFC of their choice in June 1999). Then Armscor wanted Renk. In August Armscor wrote to the GFC stating that it wished to “notify GFC of the importance of Reumech Gear Ratio to Armscor and the Department of Defence.” Reumech Gear Ratio, a local company which was in the process of being sold to British defence firm Vickers, relied on its profitable relationship with Renk. So here a selection made by the preferred prime contractor and formally endorsed by the Project Control Board (consisting of the Navy, the Department of Defence (DoD) and Armscor), was later overturned by the latter – so much for the government’s contention of no involvement in the selection of subcontractors! Despite the fact that Maag upped their industrial participation offer and offered to source some of the work from Gear Ratio, the nod went to Renk. Could it be possible that the decision had something to do with the fact that a company called DGD Technologies (co-directors: Diliza Mji and Moeletsi Mbeki) was negotiating for a stake in Reumech/Vickers? Dr Diliza Mji is a Director of Armscor and Chairperson of British Aerospace South Africa. Unfortunately , these questions would never be answered unless we appoint an Independent Judicial Commission of Inquiry. These sub-contractors are manned by ANC activists. They were clearly hand-picked by the ANC leadership in government. What is of serious concern is that it was known by government that these contractors do not have the technological expertise to handle the high tech that comes with modern defence equipment. Yet at the time of winning the tenders they were scheduled to earn ±R4 billion from the deal. How was it expected they would perform without the necessary skills? Were they mere conduits through whom the government wants to channel funds to the ANC? There is no other possible explanation for this clumsy arrangement. Government cannot bury their heads in the sand like ostriches. Government has erred and acted irresponsibly in allowing sub-contracts on such sensitive transactions to go to people over whom they have no control or responsibility, as they claim. Their denial of responsibility is an admission that they have placed the security of the country in the hands of unqualified people over whom they have no control. Disappearance of Cabinet documents Much has been said about the disappearance of Cabinet documents related to the Arms Deal in the wake of Chippy Shaik’s suspension and his brother Schabir Shaik’s arrest. The latter is a director of among others, Nkobi Investments. The Deputy President, Jacob Zuma has publicly admitted that they are long-standing comrades and close associates. Mr Zuma acknowledged that Schabir Shaik paid for his children’s’ education and that he was at one time his economic advisor in KwaZulu-Natal government. Schabir Shaik revealed in the media that his company channelled funds to ANC coffers. Quite clearly there is a cosy relationship between Schabir Shaik and the ANC. The disappearance of Cabinet documents, therefore cannot be an inexplicable mystery in the circumstances. It would have been in the interest of the ANC for Shaik to obtain inside information on competing tenders in order to have advantage over his competitors. His companies apparently are cash cows of the ANC. Indeed Schabir Shaik’s companies namely: · African Defence Systems, · Thompson-CSF Holdings, · Detexis Data, · Nkosi Investments (named after ANC’s late Treasurer General, Mr T Nkobi). These are some of the subcontracted companies who stand to benefit from the awarded tenders. While the Agencies have found a lot of flaws in the tendering process, and a litany of irregularities in the awarding of sub-contractors, there is a big omission in their probe however. There is no forensic audit of bank accounts of these sub-contractors to determine their financial viability, and the way funds are channelled. Is this a deliberate omission? Had the Agencies conducted forensic auditing of bank accounts of these sub-contractors, it would have exposed the channelling of taxpayers’ monies to the ANC coffers as admitted by Schabir Shaik. Outstanding questions to the investigation agencies UDM has studied the Joint Investigation Report and consequently will participate in Parliamentary deliberations in this regard. In light of these glaring deviations from the legal procedures in the Arms acquisition process and the joint investigation’s own acknowledgement irregularities in this exercise, UDM, as part of its contribution to the corrective effort by parliament and public we represent, submits for clarification the list of questions that appear hereunder, and these questions will be posed to the three Agencies: a) What was the Joint Investigation Team’s Terms of Reference, and who provided these? b) Has the “Special Review by the Auditor-General on the Strategic Defence Packages” (September 2000) been shown before its publication and tabling in Parliament to: i) Members of the Executive ii) The Chief of Acquisitions (Mr Chippy Shaik) and have they changed anything in the draft shown to them? c) The media reports that an “Audit Steering Committee” was established by the Executive: i) What was the role of this committee in the entire arms procurement exercise? ii) At what stage did its operations begin and when will/did they stop? iii) Did the committee influence the Auditor-General’s Review of September 2000 prior to its tabling in Parliament? iv) What are the powers of this committee? d) Did the Investigating Agencies interrogate the Cabinet subcommittee on the whole Arms acquisition deal? e) Having conducted the investigation and discovered certain abnormalities, on what did the Joint Investigation Agencies base their absolution of the government from any wrongdoing? f) In view of the fact that the Joint Investigation Agencies were delegated by Parliament in terms of the 14th Report what authority do the Agencies have to absolve the government from wrongdoing even before they have reported to their principal (Parliament)? g) Why did the Agencies show their report to the Executive without first consulting Parliament and SCOPA to whom they were accountable? Why did they go public with their report without first briefing SCOPA? h) Has the “Joint Investigation Report into the Strategic Defence Packages” (November 2001) been shown in a draft form to the President, any member of the Cabinet or any government official, before its release on 14 November 2001? Was any fact, finding or recommendation changed, adjusted, added or removed from such draft report, and if so, what are the details? i) Is it true that the Joint Investigation Report has found that there was no wrongdoing by government and its members in the Arms deal, why were there such frantic steps taken to exclude the Heath SIU from the investigation, involvement by executive (Deputy President Zuma) in the work of the parliamentary committee SCOPA, and unprecedented interference by the Speaker in this investigation? j) From the total of eight serious allegations listed in the Joint Investigation Report, no less than six allegations are still under investigation. How can government claim it has been vindicated? Against this background, who has decided and for what reason, that the Joint Investigation Report is a final report and not an interim report or is Parliament expected to rubberstamp this decision? k) Did the investigation team investigate the allegations that British Aerospace paid a substantial inducement to the governing party? If not, why not? l) The report found that the Chief of Acquisitions, Mr Chippy Shaik, breached a series of procedures and rules and allowed a serious conflict of interest to contaminate his role in the decision-making process. Did any member of the executive know about this conflict of interest, and in what sense is anyone of them responsible for the actions of such a senior official? Where does the accountability of a minister stop for a public servant? Why are the actions of a government official in a government department different from the responsibilities of government? Why didn’t the report address this question of ministerial accountability? m) Will the contracts given to companies, as a result of Chippy Shaik’s behaviour, be cancelled? Who should take this decision? n) Why does the Report not recommend that government use the option open to it, based on adverse economic circumstances such as the drastically escalated cost of the arms deal, the risks involved related to industrial participation, etc, to postpone or cancel the second leg of the deal, namely to buy 19 Gripen light fighters and 12 Hawk jet trainer aircraft? o) Why was the Cabinet subcommittee the “clearing house” of the Strategic Defence Packages? Why did the Minister’s Committee intervene in certain circumstances, i.e. overriding the tender procedures in Lead in Fighter Trainer (LIFT), deciding on light utility helicopters before key documents have been finalised and allowing the initialling of the submarine contracts before the affordability study had been completed? p) Did the Joint Investigation Team study the contracts and investigate them? Have they established beyond any doubt that all transactions were in order? q) The Report has uncovered numerous deviations from procedures. Have they investigated the impact of these errors and failures on the legality of purchases? r) A number of allegations have been made about the role and influence of Mr Joe Modise in the Strategic Defence Packages. Had it been established whether he acted with the knowledge of his Cabinet colleagues. s) The Auditor-General pointed out in his “Special Review” report that the technical evaluation of the LIFT represented a material deviation from the originally adopted value system? A special Ministerial briefing decided that a non-costed option should be recommended as the preferred option. Has it been determined whether anyone received a kickback from this change in the deal for the fighter trainer aircraft? Allegations in this regard go to the heart of the question of possible corruption hanging over the Strategic Defence Packages! t) Who kept the minutes of the Minister’s Committee meetings? Was it the Chief of Acquisitions? u) Regarding the light utility helicopter programme, it was found that the implementation costs of R176 million were not included in the total programme cost submitted to Cabinet in September 1999. This amount had to be incorporated in the normal SAAF operating budget. Has it been established who was responsible for this expensive oversight? Has action been taken against any individual? v) The Report highlight serious errors and mistakes regarding the Industrial Participation process with reference to the purchase of submarines. Of special importance were the roles of senior government officials. What action has been taken against those officials? How did their actions and decisions influence the selection of the preferred bidder? On what grounds, given the contents of the report in this regard, were government exonerated of any wrongdoing? w) Did the investigators come across instances where government had insisted to primary contractors that certain sub-contractors had to made use of? If so, was any evidence of conflicts of interest uncovered? What criteria were used for black empowerment companies chosen as sub-contractors, and specifically, were tenders issued for all black empowerment companies to apply? Was any investigation conducted to determine whether money accruing to sub-contractors have flowed back to politicians and officials in government or the ruling party, considering the public utterances of Schabir Shaik indicating donations from his company went into ANC coffers. x) How could it be allowed that a former member of Cabinet (Mr Joe Modise) initialled a contract for submarines at a cost of R4.5 billion, before an affordability study had been undertaken? y) Did the Joint Investigation Team investigate the most likely success/failure of the promised Coega stainless steel plant, as part of the industrial participation offer for the submarine deal? z) Regarding the corvettes, the Report states that due to non-conformance to critical criteria, as well as deviation from the value system, it had a far-reaching impact on the eventual selection of the preferred bidder for the corvettes. What was the consequence on the final outcome and does it provide sufficient ground for cancelling this main contract? aa) There is a difference of R916 million between the costs presented to Cabinet on 18 November 1998 (R6001 million) and the costs contracted for (R6917 million) for the corvettes. Who is to blame for this deviation/error? bb) Regarding the state of the Strategic Defence Packages, who is to be blamed and held accountable for the cabinet approval of R30 billion on 1 December 1999, and an estimated total cost in excess of R66bn, two years later? Where does the buck stop? Who decided not to include financing costs in the total price over the future period? Why were there warnings in the “affordability report” ignored? This report clearly emphasized certain risks, i.e. foreign exchange movements, non-materialisation of industrial participation benefits, and the impact of interest obligations. Despite these warnings, the cabinet decided in December 1999 to go ahead with the Arms Deal. A media briefing at that time gave no suggestion that the real cost of the transactions was well in excess of R30.3 billion or that the deal was subject to any risks. cc) Did the Joint Investigation Team do any forensic audits on bank accounts of any individuals or organisations, and if not, why not? dd) When (date) did Parliament approve the Strategic Defence Packages, and at what cost? Was this R30.3 billion procurement in line with the spirit and letter of the White Paper on Defence and the Defence Review? ee) What happened to the promise by Government to create 65 000 jobs and that Industrial Participation projects would amount to R104 billion in investment, due to the Strategic Defence Packages? Many allegations pertain to contracts awarded to subcontractors. These allegations did not fall within the scope of the “Special Review by the Auditor-General” and the Joint Investigation Report has only few pages devoted to it. Will there be further investigations into these allegations? Will the complaints of competitors against the process that was followed for the selection of subcontractors be investigated? ff) Persons involved in the overall acquisition process received various gifts (including luxury vehicles) Excluding Mr Tony Yengeni and Mr Woerffel who were arrested and prosecuted, have any other public representatives, official, public servant etc. been investigated, and if not, will they be investigated? And if so, by whom? gg) The Joint Investigation Report indicated that Mr Chippy Shaik did not recuse himself from the important Project Control Board (PCB) meetings, but continued to take part in the process that led to the ultimate awarding of contract to companies. He also signed the minutes. Has it been established what effect these actions could have had on the awarding of contracts? hh) Why didn’t the Joint Investigation Team investigate the authority of the Joint Project Team any further? The Joint Project Team allegedly played a significant part in the award of contract to subcontractors regarding the combat suite for the corvettes. Of particular concern are: i) No minutes were kept of meetings and decisions. ii) No tender procedures were applied. iii) No records were kept of the process. iv) Unfairness was at the order of the day regarding the handling of certain proposals. v) No proper risk evaluation was done. vi) Conflicting statements by senior government officials. vii) Withholding of important information (i.e. Detexis is a Thomson company) viii) The manner in which a risk premium was calculated. ix) Was a proper risk assessment made? ii) Taken into account all the outstanding allegations, how will eventual finding of criminal conduct influence the main contracts entered into? Have these contracts been scrutinised by the Joint Investigation Team? jj) Why were the main contract not fully investigated and what are the chances that the validity of these contract my by impacted by the findings of criminal misconducts? kk) Mr Shaik (Chippy) did not recuse himself from no less than 8 out of 11 Project Control Board meetings (PCB) regarding the conflict of interest he had with the supply of the combat suite to the corvettes. Where he did recuse himself, he remained present in the meetings. Did the Joint Investigation Team not find enough evidence in this case to declare the awarding of this subcontract null and void? ll) ADS became part of GFC (preferred bidder and main contractor for the corvettes), ADS was also the Combat Suite contractor for the corvettes, ADS was also a contender for sub-contracts: this is contradictory to any good procurement practice. Hasn’t this event cast sufficient shadow over the awarding of the contracts (main- and subcontractors) for the corvettes? How has these events influenced the validity of the awarded contracts? mm) How could the alleged meeting of 19 August 1999 (with no records) decided to award a major subcontract, especially where evidence of this meeting is contradicted by other witnesses? nn) What powers did the Joint Investigation Team have at their disposal to obtain access to all personnel and records, before and after the date of 03 December 1999, in order to make a proper evaluation of DIP and NIP contracts? How can the Report express a view on DIP and NIP contracts if they have not studied their contents, performance guarantees, and likely changes to succeed? oo) The Joint Investigation Team has successfully identified numerous gaps, failures and procedural wrong-doings in the Report yet, regarding the scrutiny of the main contracts, they have devoted less than five paragraphs (1 page) to the main contracts. Is there a possibility that any of their findings in the Report may have impacted on the validity of any of the main contracts, and any o f the subcontracts? pp) Did the Joint Investigation found any evidence of gaps that existed between actions taken/orders received by government official and public representatives. Were gaps identified between what official presented to politicians and what politicians told official to do, find and say? Role of European Aeronautic Defence and Space Company (EADS) The Joint Investigations Agencies have been significantly reticent in their probe and resulting report on the aspects of the role of EADS , a beneficiary of the Arms Deal, which raised a number of questions about the integrity of some public officials. EADS, a subsidiary of Mercedes Benz, doled out gifts of motor vehicles at ridiculously low prices to key public officials and other national figures. The revelations of these gifts clearly showed that no purchase contracts existed in respect of some of the vehicles given to these public figures. However, when the shady deals were exposed, hasty hire purchase arrangements were made to cover-up the shady deals. For instance, it was revealed that President Mbeki had been given a luxury S600 bullet proof Mercedes Benz for test-driving for a period of six months. Tony Yengeni test-drove his for seven months. Mbeki’s car was only returned to Daimler Chrysler when the media exposed in March 2001 Tony Yengeni’s deal. All enquiries by the media about detail of the transaction hit a solid wall of reticence. Daimler Chrysler’s spokesperson Ms Chakela said that she could not talk. “I cannot comment due to Daimler Chrysler’s policy of providing no comment to the press until the investigation into the Arms Deal has been concluded.”. President Mbeki’s acquisition was valued at R2 million. It is not clear what the details of the test-drive were and the secrecy with which it was handled is cause for concern. It also raises questions why the test-driving took so long and why it was terminated and the car returned after enquiries made by the media. The media, in the following transactions, exposed both Daimler Chrysler and EADS: a) Tony Yengeni only made financing arrangements after media enquiries of his 4x4 Mercedes Benz acquisition and several months down the line. b) Nafcoc officials were also given expensive vehicles by Daimler Chrysler and had to return them when the media exposed these transactions. c) SANDF Commander General Siphiwe Nyanda was also given two Mercedes Benz at a sizeable discount. d) General Roelof Beukes, former Chief of the Airforce, was also given an expensive Mercedes Benz on similar generous terms. e) Vanan Pillay of the Department of Trade and Industry was also a beneficiary in this bonanza. He was part of the negotiating team in the Arms acquisition exercise. If not for the intervention by the senior German management who suspended their EADS Managing Director, Michael Woerffel, after exposures of this corruption our government would not have conceded the need for the investigation, which they are now so eager to sweep under the carpet. It has now become a pattern for would-be suppliers of goods to short-circuit transactions by directly approaching political heads, who in turn manage and steer the transactions to a pre-determined conclusion, disregarding legal tender processes. Corruption has seeped deep into the public sector, tarnishes governance and erodes the moral fibre of our entire society. Civil society must take up the cudgels against this scourge and rescue our nation from the moral decay into which it has sunk. Role of President Thabo Mbeki In view of the adverse economic climate such as the drastically escalated cost of the Arms Deal, the risks involved related to the non-defence industrial participation which may not materialise, the uncontrollable depreciation of our rand against major currencies of our trading partners, UDM urgently and strongly recommends that government cancel the second and third legs of the deal. People need jobs, adequate health care and education, not arms. President Thabo Mbeki stands out like a sore thumb as the major architect of the whole Arms Deal fiasco. He has taken pains to present himself nationally and internationally as the champion of the cause of fighting poverty at home and in Africa. He has spear-headed the Africa recovery initiative, now encapsulated in New Partnership for African Development (NEPAD). Yet his actions are an antithesis of his much-publicised initiative. The wild idea of an arms procurement of these dimensions, his high-jacking of the tendering process, the emasculation and marginalisation of SCOPA, and Parliament and compromising the exalted office of the Auditor-General all conspire to project him as the unmistakable driving force behind this Arms Deal debacle. In hindsight, it is not surprising that he came out guns blazing in defence of the deal at an earlier press conference after the media revelations of corruption in the Arms Deal. His damage-control endeavour however has not succeeded in putting the matter to rest. The joint investigation by the Agencies has omitted to probe the Cabinet sub-committee over which the President presides. Instead they hastened to absolve them from wrongdoing without interrogating the facts which are continually surfacing. His record in addressing the socio-economic problems leaves much to be desired. His dabbling in the scientific discourse about HIV/AIDS, is tantamount to venturing where eagles dare, and has cast a dark shadow on government commitment and capacity to drive the anti AIDS campaign. The UDM acknowledges the call by former President Nelson Mandela for political leaders to be at the forefront of the fight against HIV/AIDS. The leadership of the UDM accepts this responsibility without hesitation. The overwhelming majority of the civic, religious and political leaders and organisations in this country are similarly committed. It is only President Mbeki, and his increasingly dazed and confused National Executive Committee (NEC) sycophants, who play with words and rather waste money to defend the indefensible in court. They are two-faced, considering the fact that they claim a lack of funds prevent them from distributing affordable lifesaving treatment, but they have money for court cases. They are hypocrites because they claimed victory earlier this year against the pharmaceutical companies, but now that they are free to use their victory they have new excuses. They are deceitful because they argue lack of resources whilst they simultaneously go on a R66 billion shopping spree for unnecessary weapons. But perhaps the greatest deceit is that committed by the leader of a country, who would not admit his undeniable errors publicly, but rather gets his party lapdogs (NEC) to issue a watered-down statement in response to justifiable criticism that comes from within where it cannot be denounced or ignored out of hand. His administration has created a crisis of confidence in education, job creation, and poverty alleviation. The time has come for the ANC to call on him to recuse himself from public office. He is driving this country to the edge of a precipice. He is not fit to govern. Conclusion The report has been held up by the government as a complete and definitive exoneration of the Arms Deal, one that absolves them of wrongdoing. We disagree. One simply has to look at the context in which this report finally came to Parliament. The truth is that the public lost confidence in the process when Mbeki rejected calls for a Judicial Commission of Inquiry and stopped the Heath SIU from participating in the investigation. The subsequent interference by the executive, the unwarranted attacks on Parliament, the ANC’s pig-headed behaviour in the public accounts committee, and finally the Speaker’s involvement, all conspired to turn this investigation into a farce of monumental proportions. One year after the Government launched the investigation, the investigators still refuse to state what their Terms of Reference were. The UDM is astounded that despite this interference and manipulation the government has the temerity to celebrate its innocence and label anyone who disagrees a racist. The truth is the report finds senior government officials guilty of despicable behaviour, but somehow we are asked to believe the politicians did not know and are not culpable. This is nonsense! When qualified officials’ advices are ignored and the Cabinet instead approves a vastly more expensive deal, the report finds that the politicians did not do anything wrong. It is attributed to Cabinet “prerogative”, which explain nothing. But when corruption occurs it is attributed to the officials. And as the politicians make the officials their fall guys for gross mismanagement, we are still expected to believe that the integrity of the deal is intact, despite ample proof that at the very least the politicians didn’t exercise proper control over the process. The ANC has taken this country to the edge of the abyss. All that stands between South Africa and the cesspool of corruption is a handful of dedicated opposition parties and the media. It is time for Mbeki and his cronies to realise that “struggle credentials” and skin colour do not automatically make them immune to mismanagement and corruption. Nothing has served to illustrate this sad fact more acutely than this botched investigation – and Mbeki’s stubborn and misguided views on HIV/Aids. The original budget for the Arms Deal took into account the socio-economic demands of our society, hence the Defence Review’s conservative figure. These social considerations have been echoed by Mbeki in his discourse on the HIV/Aids pandemic. How do we explain this surreptitious escalation of the Arms Deal budget to R66 billion when these socio-economic conditions have not changed? UDM recommends that Parliament and SCOPA should regard the findings of the investigation by the Agencies as an Interim Report, which indicates areas of further in-depth investigation by an Independent Judicial Commission of Inquiry. That commission should unearth the rot at the centre of this Arms Procurement Deal, and propose recommendations that will lead this country out of the depths of corruption, which underpin the flourishing culture of depravity and moral decay that confronts our society. The Comrades in Corruption can rest assured that this matter will not be allowed to be swept under the carpet. They can no longer shield themselves behind the hackneyed baseless charges of racism to people who expose their misdemeanours. The concerns of the Arms Deal controversy are not sectarian or racial. They are embraced by all South Africans irrespective of race or creed. The time has come for the Cabinet to take the public in its confidence by accessing it to their threat analysis, which motivated their decision on expenditure on Arms. If they fail to do so, they leave us with the conviction that this procurement was designed to line their pockets and fund their party. In light of Mbeki government’s behaviour, one wonders what prompted Mr Nelson Mandela to lament that little did he know that the corruption, which had characterised the apartheid regime, was now endemic among his ruling comrades. The old adage that “The troughs have changed however the pigs have remained the same” is appropriate to describe this situation. Sources a) Joint Investigation Report b) SCOPA’s 14th Report c) Defence Review and White Paper on Defence d) The Mail and Guardian e) The Sunday Times f) Noseweek g) Financial Mail h) Zapiro i) Centre for Conflict Resolution
Admin
08 Aug, 2001
Contribution: UN Conference on Racism – Is South Africa winning the battle?
INTRODUCTION The United Democratic Movement (UDM), while recognising the global character of racism, will nevertheless confine itself to dealing with the scourge here on the home turf. Racism still permeates the entire social fabric of South Africa. Its origins are in the nature and course of our history. The encroachment of a relatively advanced technology in the hands of racially and culturally different people on a people with an inferior technology and of a different cultural identity resulted in economic disparities along racial and cultural divisions. The colonisers subjugated the indigenous peoples who did not have the technological know-how to resist the invaders and imposed their political and economic will on them. During a period of over 350 years economic divisions crystallised and assumed a racial character. Every effort was made by successive governments to exploit the racial issue in order to create a permanent caste/ class structure that benefited the dominant White race at the expense of the indigenous Black peoples. The latter were systemically reduced to a social position of servitude and penury. MANDELA’S LEADERSHIP It took the unique leadership skills of Nelson Mandela and his colleagues to negotiate a peaceful transition from an institutionalised racist society to a democratic one based on the most enlightened constitution in the world. The wisdom, statesmanship and skill with which the transition from Apartheid to democracy was made stunned the world by creating such a miracle of peaceful change in a situation that could have been a bloody catastrophe because of the latent racial animosities inherent in our brutal and hateful past. This unique historical feat generated such euphoria in our new democracy that we have tended to take our past for granted and believed that racism would suddenly disappear at the flick of a magic wand. It would not be, ours is a deeply divided society. All the elements of our history have conspired to reinforce a wide social chasm between sections of our nation that will require the type of wisdom and skills, the temperament and accommodation that characterised our historic CODESA negotiations, in order to bridge it and enable the weavings of a coherent and harmonious society in our nation. However, our achievement was made possible by the compromises reached at CODESA, which guaranteed the integrity of existing property relations and therefore the preservation of a status-quo (at least for the present) that would leave the White minority an economically and socially dominant class. It was hoped that the new democratic order would have removed the racial barriers that prevented social and economic advancement of the disadvantaged Black majority. REVERSE RACISM The advent of democracy and the social and political opportunities created by this dispensation for blacks have ushered in a new milieu and terrain within which our racist legacy manifests itself. Policies and strategies advanced by the state for the transformation of our society, re-ordering of historical imbalances evokes protest of “reverse racism”, and discrimination against the former privileged white minorities. This section of our society still enjoys economic privileges and their loss of political power tends to crystallise white economic exclusivity which todate has incorporated a token of black elite and rented black surrogates while retaining the basic class/race structure of white economic domination over a largely impoverished and increasingly unemployable and least educated black mass who vent their frustration and disillusion at unfulfilled expectations in crime, emasculating and energy dissipating internecine conflicts. These complaints are exacerbated by the present government who practises chronism and nepotism when appointing people in various positions. At the same time, there is a tendency by the government to shun responsibility and apportion blame for failure to a historical past. There is a growing perception that the black leadership has not begun to grapple with the nation building challenges head-on. It is believed that our psyche is still trapped in the past in which we lament our historical misfortunes rather, than turn these into strength with which to conquer the future for posterity. We are therefore faced with a situation where there are subjective perceptions about race on both sides of the social divide. What we need is an objective appraisal of our society, which will place it in its historical perspective, that approach will distinguish those structural features of society which nurture racism and devise ways of removing them. It is universally agreed that race was exploited to engineer an oppressive social order which resulted in acute socio-economic disparities between black and white in South Africa. Nothing short of an economic revolution will rid us of racism. A radical economic transformation has to occur within acceptable time-frames that can avert the type of a social explosion that the CODESA negotiations succeeded in avoiding. The creation of our economic egalitarian society cannot be left to the vagaries of the market forces only that are inherent in government’s GEAR policy. Nor can we tolerate the ANC, COSATU and SACP Alliance political massage and collective posturing by them, while the country ‘s economy is sliding. NEW ECONOMIC REVOLUTION We need a creative state intervention, which recognises that artificially created impediments to social advancement of the disadvantaged majority are removed and a programme of accelerated wealth and land redistribution is implemented without delay. None of the current economic strategies of para-statal’s privatisation and selective black empowerment can achieve that objective. A transformed economic order will give impetus to other social and educational programmes that are designed to truly integrate our society and create a new democratic South African ethos. We should not forget that we emerged from a regime that was characterised by state intervention in the economy. It is not practical to make a right-about-turn and plunge into a Western-type free market economy and in the process render a whole nation unemployed. We should look at a middle course that will cautiously transform our production relations, in a manner that will incorporate a social programme that brings relief to the millions who are beginning to believe that they lived better under apartheid where the state was not shy to intervene albeit under the separate development policies. The present economic policy is incomprehensible when implemented by a Black former deliberation movement government. It is difficult to understand why a government which has been carried to power on the crest of the wave of mass support should be shy to intervene constructively in economic reconstruction on behalf of the very disadvantaged people who put them in power. In 1948 the Nationalists did it for their own people. For example, the membership of COSATU alone at that time was close to three (3) million, today it is estimated at 1,3 million (take note of the fact that we had economic sanctions during this period). If unemployment is this country’s public enemy number one (No 1), then our strategies must be geared towards elimination of unemployment and creation of sustainable quality jobs. There is also a need to balance the interest of the employed and the “majority” unemployed. Since its transition to democracy, South Africa is undergoing a path-breaking struggle to achieve structural reforms. Evidently, academic economic analysis and debate needs to move on to the development of a detailed and far-reaching policy agenda capable of tackling the inheritance of apartheid and radical enough to turn around the South African economy and society. It is not enough to draw on international evidence only without addressing the peculiarities of the South African situation. For this country, we still need a regulated, state-led growth and development strategy that offers the possibility for economic change sufficiently deep and sustainable to address the problems of poverty and inequality, and to strengthen democracy. It is too early and immoral for government to throw the fate of South Africans to the performance of the market forces without any form of government intervention. Instead, the present economic policy has opened floodgates for over R50 billion to leave the country without prospect of getting them back. Although the partnership between business, labour and government is often emphasised it is clear that there is confusion about the political basis of economic policies. Government must accept its responsibility in social and welfare spheres even in the context of economic strategies based on GEAR. Ideologically, the widespread acceptance of economic orthodoxy, from stabilisation to trade liberalisation and privatisation has been the key reason for lack of progress in the delivery of social and physical infrastructure. POLITICAL TRANSFORMATION We would like to note that there is a strong opinion that the transformation process cannot be confined to the economic sphere only and that in the political arena transformation is also needed. South Africa has a painful history in which racial divisions and social inequalities have co-incided with party political formations. The resultant antagonisms and mutual suspicions will continue to mar our society for sometime yet, because they cannot be easily wished away by the constitution that highlights the non-racialism and unity in diversity. Today, South Africans are still voting along racial lines, e.g. Blacks vote for Black political parties and Whites vote for White political parties. Proponents of this view suggest that such a transformation will culminate into the emergency of two major political parties in the centre stage of national politics in our society. Experiences in established democracies elsewhere give credence to this view. Britain, France and USA are examples that come to our mind. The economic and political stability of these countries is common knowledge. We are convinced as a party that such a process will need the support of and acceptance by the majority citizens of this country. Such support will not only give legitimacy to these developments but most importantly will prevent them from degenerating into tendencies wherein appeals to racist and narrow class interests are utilised as a vehicle for the mobilisation of followers in pursuit of short term gains. The 1994, 1999 and 2000 election campaign by some political parties is a living testimony A two party system that is anchored on a commitment to the transformation of our society provides the best prospect for democratic consolidation in South Africa. Our analysis of the changing socio-political order in South Africa indicates that there will be discernible political shifts along interest group divides distinguished by common concerns and aspirations and not along racial lines as we witness today. This process will move towards the crystallisation of two major political streams, which express the ethos of the beneficiaries of the established order, on the one hand, and the aspirations of the emerging major social groupings that are marginalized on the other hand. This will necessitate the emergence of two political formations representing these interest groups. I once said that, the tremors of social change have dislodged people, and groups from familiar traditional positions. Five years ago on one in his wildest dreams could have visualised top Afrikaner academics, businessmen, the likes of Derrick Coetzee (who murdered ANC’s Mxenge in Durban), Chris Fismer and Pik Botha campaigning for the African National Congress, their erstwhile mortal foes, urging their Afrikaner volk to take the great trek into the ANC. We encourage these trends, because they defuse racial political polarisation. NARROWING OF THE GAP After seven years of democracy the rich become richer and the poor regressed to unparalleled levels of poverty. Consequently the racial divide has been consolidated and entrenched the racial antipathies because of the suffering that has ensued. The diminishing of resources occasioned by the economic policies pursued by the government has inflamed xenophobia among South Africans who feel threatened by the flood of migrants and refugees who have swarmed our borders in search of better opportunities. The historical inequalities are exacerbated by lack of access to capital by the majority. Past apartheid policies confined 80% of the population to 13% of the land surface of South Africa. They could not acquire title deeds on that little land in which they were crowded, save a few from the homelands. As a result, seven years after Uhuru celebration of 1994, Blacks in the main do not have the collateral with which to borrow from the commercial banks. These same institutions have demonstrated a marked resistance to liberalise their lending policies in a way that can facilitate greater black economic empowerment. This situation is aggravated by the present government’s housing policy in terms of which people still do not have title deeds to the residential units being built. It is difficult even to talk of a housing policy where people are allotted poor quality rooms euphemistically described to as houses. Even, had these units been freeholds they would not qualify as security to obtain bank loans. There are growing perceptions, that the CODESA compromises can no longer be ignored or sustained as they continue to haunt us. A democratic order cannot endure on the foundations of a society with social and economic disparities. The preponderance of education, and technological skills among a privileged minority and the absence of these among a disadvantaged majority ensure the perpetuation of the racial-cultural divide and economic inequalities that have been handed down by history. The Ministry of Education is not helping the situation by closing down Black teacher training institutions and tertiary institutions while preserving the historical White institutions, which have been the bastions of White privilege and continue to treat Black students with patronage and condescension. Instead of spending scores of billions of rands on armaments during peace time, the government should be strengthening the former Black Colleges they are now closing, and building more among the disadvantaged communities. Government should be financing educational programs that will empower our Black youth with technological skills such as information technology, science and mathematics and mastery of the language of international communication. It baulks imagination, that at a time when there is so much to be done to correct these historical imbalances, we have a government which retrenches teachers and closes down black teacher training institutions and universities in a country with approximately 80% illiteracy. The UK, the founder of South Africa’s literary tradition, a first world developed country, which has long overcome illiteracy, is currently recruiting teachers and medical personnel from South Africa. The South African government on the other hand would rather import teachers and doctors from Cuba than employ its own. Government should be spending more money on job creation (infrastructural programmes), accelerating the transfer of land from the landed minority gently to the landless who have been systematically dispossessed by colonial and apartheid regimes. There need to be a commitment by South Africans who currently enjoy the monopoly of skills and wealth to be willing to take significant steps, of their own free will to reverse the situation of social and economic disequillibrium. Reconciliation is a two way reciprocal process. We must all be prepared to part with something and give to our fellow countrymen that do not have. Equally the disadvantaged must also have the responsibility and generosity of spirit to work harmoniously with their erstwhile privileged fellow countrymen to build a better society for posterity. Government has a central role to play in the transformation of our society into one in which all share its resources and work with comparable commitment to build a secure future. Our empowerment policies have been gravely flawed. Government has not restructured public enterprises in such a way that the primary beneficiaries are the poor and unemployed. Instead they have enriched offshore companies and their own party cronies and relatives. They must rearrange their order of priorities so as to place the interests of the poor and disadvantaged at the top. The reordering of priorities is reinsurance against land invasions resulting from homelessness. It will inhibit chronic industrial stoppages, rampant unemployment and retrenchments, escalating crime and xenophobia. ETHNICITY, DISCRIMINATION AND CORRUPTION Our patriotic duty requires that we spell out the truth and not delude ourselves into thinking that all is well when the contrary is the case. Ordinary South Africans are experiencing more hardships now than before. More people are walking the streets without the prospects of getting employment. Vast expenditure on overseas trips by the President, his cabinet, nine Premiers, countless MECs and their senior officials and advisors, purporting to attract foreign direct investment has not been matched by foreign investments’ inflows into the country. Economists recently expressed their concern at the lack-lustre performance of our economy as a result of decline in investor confidence and sluggish growth. The government is insensitive to workers opposition to the kind of restructuring of state enterprises that has been embarked upon, which renders tens of thousands of workers jobless. This pattern of total disregard for the interest of our people is also reflected in the developments, which followed the Defence Review of 1998. That Review’s budget was estimated at R9.7 billion and was subsequently approved by parliament up to 2005/6. The aim of the Defence Review was to reduce personnel costs through demobilisation in order to free funds for capital expenditure. The R30 billion budget, which has now escalated to R51 billion, has not been authorized by parliament. The investigating agencies will have failed in their task if they do not establish the source and reason for the departure from the original mandate. That original budget had taken into account the socio-economic demands of our society, hence the conservative figure. President Mbeki has echoed these social considerations in his discourse on the AIDS pandemic debate. How do we explain this surreptitious escalation of the arms budget to R51 billion when these socio-economic conditions have not changed? There is no sign of the promised massive employment creation, instead we read in the media how MPs, ex-minister of Defence and some military personnel in the command structure of the SANDF, being unable to account how did they end up owning mansions, flashy cars and even shares worth R40 million by an individual etc. etc. All these “sweets” being paid for by companies who won tenders in the arms deal. On the other hand, the victims of racist apartheid regime are struggling to make the ends meet. This looting spree of our resources is no different from the strategy used by our former oppressors. Even former President Mandela has publicly complained about corruption in our government today “little did I know that some of our comrades are also corrupt”. South Africa, because of its history provides a fertile environment for the proliferation of discriminatory tendencies and ethnicist perceptions. In the struggle days, martyrs who fell were never characterised as African, White, Coloured or Indian. They were freedom fighters who had paid the supreme sacrifice. Today there are perceptions of “Xhosa-Nostra”, “Indian hegemony” etc, etc in certain state departments. These are unhealthy sentiments, which have been thrown up by a less than fair culture of allocation of resources, which has tended to accentuate the latent ethnic prejudices of our past history. Deployment into lucrative positions in state enterprises and the private sector has been the exclusive preserve of the ruling party favourites. One of the mechanisms of dealing with these realities and perceptions is a robust and deployment of competent South Africans from across the political divide. Companies are reluctant to contribute donations to opposition parties out of fear of losing state tenders if such donations come to the knowledge of the ruling party. Discrimination breeds more discrimination until it becomes a vicious circle. We must all take stock of our attitudes and conduct in the public and private domain. Work-seekers who do not carry ANC membership cards have little chance of getting employment at employment bureaus. Government contracts are awarded on a preferential basis to ANC supporters e.g. subcontractors in R51 billion Arms Deal. There are numerous complaints from NGOs and old age pensioners who have been discriminated against on the basis of political affiliation or sympathies. We must not bury our heads in the sand by pretending that these inimical attitudes and behavioural patterns do not exist. Let us face them squarely and admit them where they surface in order to deal with them. On the other hand people should not shield their inadequacies behind accusations of racism and ethnicity It will be seen from the above that racism and discrimination has a material basis. People do not simply become racists because they are bad people. It has evolved from a socio-historical process that sought to structure a society that would benefit a few at the expense of many. Government, business, education and all other stakeholders must join hands to structure a social environment in which democratic values can thrive and brotherly love and mutual support flourish in order to build a greater nation for our future generations. Thank you!
Admin
22 Mar, 1999
UDM Manifesto Launch Election 1999 “The future hope for all South Africans”
Address by Mr Bantu Holomisa, MP in Johannesburg, Gauteng It is most appropriate that the release today of our manifesto coincides with the weekend of our National Youth Conference, because we are charting a future, which will be led by the youth. Our objectives therefore address the needs of the future which belongs to them. We are grateful to our youth movement for inviting us to share ideas with them and keep us relevant to their needs and aspirations. In our manifesto we address the historical imbalances which are the heritage of this century. It is up to us to ensure that we do not enter the new millennium with the baggage and legacy of conflict, corruption, greed and selfishness of the 20th century. We must begin a fresh and promising era. This is the challenge facing us all. On the 2nd of June 1999, South Africans will be voting in the last South African elections this century. These elections are of a tremendous significance to the people of South Africa who will be choosing which political party has the most relevant vision and best capacity to lead the country into the next millennium. The main challenge of this year’s election is to give hope to millions of disillusioned South Africans who have seen most of the promises made by incumbent government evaporate before their eyes. South Africans demand an apology from the ANC government for failing them. Further, the choice which will be made on 2nd June 1999 will be about building a government that is clean, accountable and who cares for the people. It will also be about a government which will make South Africa a competent nation that enjoys the support of its citizens and the respect of other nations. As UDM we must give leadership and clarity to a people whose material well-being has degenerated to unparalleled levels even under apartheid. We must restore faith in governance by reversing the process of disempowerment. Our poor working people have been systematically edged out of employment with no prospects of alternative employment for them. Millions of the unemployed, whose ranks are annually swelled by school leavers and more retrenchments, stare a bleak future in the eye. The 1994 elections in our country provided a historic framework for the transition from apartheid oppression towards an era of democracy and prosperity. The transition was conceived in various phases with each phase costing the lives of many South Africans as they, in different ways, struggled to develop a common vision and purpose in the search for a democratic society. Unfortunately, for South African people, the reality in our country indicate that the ANC-led government neither has the will nor the ability to govern. This reality is seen in the escalation of unemployment, crime, interest rates, corruption and the general state of institutional decay in all spheres of government. We in the UDM must arrest this downward spiral which is turning state departments and corporations into a playground for ANC deployed members, who line their pockets by driving other black and white South Africans into the streets in the name of down-sizing and rationalisation. The UDM will substitute a new economic philosophy for ANC’s GEAR. The ANC’s policies are impervious to the needs of the disadvantaged who are bewildered by the disregard of their needs by a government they voted into power. The poor have paid the capital price to ensure the success of a struggle they waged in the fore-front when those who now enjoy the fruits of their labour were touring the capitals of the world. Our manifesto is a statement of intent, which provides a framework for a ten-year period within which we would govern when elected to government. The manifesto seeks to address the glaring national grievances and provides alternatives and solutions in the future as the way forward. Inspired by our unifying love for our country and respect of her people for each other we will address these grievances. It is only by means of genuine co-operation and partnership that we, South Africans, will be empowered to ensure a better quality of life and individual freedom for every citizen, family and community. This will be based on good governance and civil order. One of the most serious flaws in the economic policy of the present government has been a blind leap onto a band-wagon of globalisation without taking the necessary measures to protect local emerging industries and markets which have become the dumping ground for cheap foreign goods. The demise of local industries as a result of unfair competition resulting from inferior technology of the sanctions era has resulted in massive job losses and stifling of economic growth. Our manifesto recognises that globalisation is a reality, but argues for a balanced global strategy that does not reduce South Africa into a satellite economy. An UDM government will develop an economic policy that will enable our economy to withstand the external shocks that have rocked the Asian tigers and other emerging markets. To that end the UDM has adopted a policy of enterprise development to empower South Africans to create wealth and thereby narrowing the gap between the have’s and the have-nots. However, globalisation accounts for only part of our economic woes. Lack of investor confidence has been occasioned by lawlessness and escalating crime. Rightly or wrongly there is a growing perception that the relocating and delisting of mining giants like Anglo-American is linked to the deteriorating law and order and lack of confidence in the future of South Africa. We need to arrest this process and restore confidence. In this regard, the UDM will adopt realistic and committed strategies to stop the rampant crime wave and to transform the penal code into an effective mechanism for punishing wrong doers. In line with our philosophy of an integrated approach, we propose a single Ministry of Civil Order. This Ministry of Civil Order will combine the current ministries of Justice, Safety and Security, Correctional Services, National Intelligence and Defence into one, effective mechanism to combat crime and restore civil order in South Africa. In doing so we shall instil pride and commitment in our law enforcement agencies to ensure their loyalty and dedication to their job of protecting the public and divest them of the feeling of despair and disillusionment at the hands of a government which treats them with contempt. We will give the people an opportunity to decide whether the life of a murderer is more valuable than that of its victim, by holding a referendum on the death penalty. The UDM recognises that while students in centres of learning must be given a hearing and allowed to make a meaningful contribution to the learning process, their primary responsibility to themselves and their parents who pay their fees is to restore the culture of learning. Learn in the process and equip them to salvage the disadvantaged from the throes of perpetual enslavement. The students of today and in the future must take a leadership position in society which only skills can assure. Conversely, we will not countenance lawlessness, anarchy and disrespect for authority law and order. Ladies and Gentlemen, the foreign policy of the UDM will determinedly work towards reclaiming the international opportunities squandered under most favourable circumstances. We will play a leading role internationally by assiduously co-operating with other states, the U.N., the O.A.U. and the Non-aligned Movement to protect and promote human rights and democracy on a universal basis. The UDM believe that South Africa’s role on our continent and in our region can be meaningful without being hegemonic and coercive in our approach. For that to be a reality we need a foreign policy that reflects the wishes of our people and the wisdom of our parliament so that we are not accused of following destabilisation policies of the apartheid era. Therefore in our region, the UDM government will play a significant role through co-operation and consultation in all forms of interactions including trade, investments security and other forms of partnerships in order to bring shared development and happiness to the many disadvantaged in our region and continent who have yet to realise the material benefits of political liberation. As far as the elections are concerned, we are fully prepared for a hostile winter election. The ANC, by its own admission, is mobilising its forces to stop the growth of the UDM all over South Africa. We are hardly surprised that no other party has been targeted, like ours, because scientific forecasts indicate that the UDM is the fastest growing party in South Africa. The UDM is the only party that can erode the power base of the ANC. It is up to the UDM and all its supporters that all the checks and balances as enshrined in our constitution are guaranteed. As long as South Africa is being seen by the international world as drifting towards a one-party state, investor confidence will elude us. It is for this reason that we are calling for a more objective and non-partisan election monitoring mechanisms. To this end I have recommended to the I.E.C. Commissioners to convene a summit of all the leaders of the registered political parties to clear some concerns related to the levelling of the political playing field. However, it is to the credit of our leaders at all levels that our membership growth patterns reflect that we have support in all South African communities irrespective of colour, race or class. This is testimony to our total break with the past and the acceptance of the UDM as a political home for all South Africans. The UDM has a message for all South Africans. Our lack of resources should not constrain the distribution of this manifesto. We appeal to all South Africans to make this document accessible to all voters. This will enable them to make informed decisions when they vote. We have moved from the past and converged on a common course to a shared future. Any suggestions, as have been made, that we are a marriage of convenience or a home of outcasts is devoid of truth. We have severed all links with the past. We are a party of the future. We are a party of hope. Those who think otherwise are themselves extinct dinosaurs. In summary, the UDM believes in alternative, independent and competitive politics and responsible government; UDM believes in empowering all South Africans; UDM offers hope; this is our challenge. If you want to preserve South Africa’s beautiful land and cultural diversity; If you are concerned with the ANC’s economic dependence on outside forces and jobless growth; If you are aggrieved by the escalating crime; If you are concerned by the deteriorating health and educational standards in state hospitals, clinics and schools; If you are concerned with the uncontrolled influx of illegal aliens into South Africa, who deprive South Africans of employment opportunities; If you are concerned about our neglected senior citizens and handicapped; If you are concerned with the misuse of government resources, bribery and corruption, theft and fraud in the government departments; If you are concerned with the low morale of our law enforcement agencies. THEN VOTE UDM!!!!!! Thank you
Admin
19 Mar, 1999
Indictment of Allan Boesak
Statement by Bantu Holomisa UDM President There are few things more distressing in this world than witnessing a hero’s fall into disgrace, particularly when that fall is brought about by the hero himself. Many South African’s are suffering from a harsh sense of disillusionment today. After all, Allan Boesak was a world-renowned clergyman and a champion of human rights who showed tremendous courage in our struggle against apartheid. When a man who fought such a dignified and noble fight succumbs so easily and unabashedly to greed, mendacity and hypocrisy, those who had respected him are left feeling cheated, foolish, and, perhaps, a little cynical. The UDM only hopes that this shameful incident will serve as a wake-up call to South Africa. It is no secret that thousands of rands mysteriously disappear every year from the people’s coffers, and yet it is very rare that someone is actually held responsible for this money. It is time that we demand accountability and transparency from our leaders. We have come too far and suffered too much to allow ourselves to be exploited now. There is no longer any room for corruption in South Africa. The UDM applauds the Cape High Court for acting on its conviction in such a controversial and high profile case. Government must know that corruption will no longer be tolerated, and the ANC, in particular, must rid itself of crooked politicians and officials at the national and provincial level. Until this happens, the slogan, “A Better Future For All”, will continue to be quite a good joke.”
Admin
09 Mar, 1999
Murder of UDM members in the Western Cape
Statement by the National Deputy Secretary The UDM is deeply disturbed by the killing of three of its members in the Western Cape, during the past 24 hours. The President of the UDM together with all UDM leaders and members of the party would like to express its deepest sympathy to the families of the deceased, the wounded and the community. The political intolerance that is demonstrated through these kind of brutal actions is unacceptable in a young, fragile developing democracy like our own. The systematic killings of UDM leaders remind one of the assassinations of IFP leaders in KwaZulu Natal before the 1994 elections. All political parties and role players in democracy must condemn political connected incidents such as these in the strongest possible terms. The ANC as governing party must be careful to point fingers and allocate blame like they did yesterday morning after the killing of an ANC councillor. All political parties, including the governing party, should display maturity and responsibility in dealing with such sensitive matters. By making wild and unsubstantiated allegations, the lives of innocent people are put in danger. The UDM is perturbed by the threat that these type of actions so early in the campaign holds for the possibility of running free and democratic elections. The UDM calls on all political parties, the Independent Electoral Commission and institutions of civil society, committed to democracy, to speak out against these kinds of actions. The UDM asks that you add your voice to ours in calling for an independent investigation into these and other related incidents. Every victim is a reminder of our failure as democrats to act decisively with these matters, failing our responsibility to develop and protect democracy in South Africa. The UDM will work tirelessly in achieving free democratic activity in our country. We will not fail the electorate. Tomorrow, Wednesday 10 March, the President of the UDM, Bantu Holomisa will visit the families of the victims and address the community. He will meet with the police investigating these brutal killings and will raise with them the community and our concern of bias actions by the police.
Admin
03 Mar, 1999
UDM’s response to election announcement
Statement by Bantu Holomisa UDM President The UDM welcomes the announcement of the election date. It gives certainty, allows for proper planning, and gives parties time to inform the electorate about their policies. We hope the elections will be free and fair and that tolerance will be practiced, in the run up to the elections, on Election Day and after the results have been made public. The UDM calls on the IEC to stick to their timetable to ensure that the elections are run properly. All role players, (i.e.) political parties, IEC, Government, and the media should go into the election realising our democracy is still young and fragile and must be handled with care. The elections and the run up to the elections will contribute to the development of our young democracy.
- 01
- 02
- 03
- 04
- 05
- 06
- 07
- 08
- 09
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 26
- 27
- 28
- 29
- 30
- 31
- 32
- 33
- 34
- 35
- 36
- 37
- 38
- 39
- 40
- 41
- 42
- 43
- 44
- 45
- 46
- 47
- 48
- 49
- 50
- 51
- 52
- 53
- 54
- 55
- 56
- 57
- 58
- 59
- 60
- 61
- 62
- 63
- 64
- 65
- 66
- 67
- 68
- 69
- 70
- 71
- 72
- 73
- 74
- 75
- 76
- 77
- 78
- 79
- 80
- 81
- 82
- 83
- 84
- 85
- 86
- 87
- 88
- 89
- 90
- 91
- 92
- 93
- 94
- 95
- 96
- 97
- 98
- 99
- 100
- 101
- 102
- 103
- 104
- 105
- 106
- 107
- 108
- 109
- 110
