Pittige Allegaartjie 2021-02-18 deur Fanie

Pittige Allegaartjie 2021-02-18 deur Fanie

Goeiemiddag en welkom by Netradiosa, wereldwyd by www.netradiosa.co.za . Dit is Fanie met Pittige Allegaartjie. Hierdie is die program waar ek die humor in die politiek, Sport ekonomiese en Sosio Maatskaplike wereld bekyk.Ons Suid Afrikaners en veral Afrikaners is mos daarvoor bekend dat ons menige ernstige situasies met humor ontlont as’t ware as ‘n ontvlugtings meganisme. 

Ek bevestig net hiermee dat hierdie program heelwat onsinnige kommentaar bestrooi met satire bevat en geen politieke of ander standpunt ondersteun word nie. Enige toevallige standpunte is die aanbieder s’n self en Netradiosa ondersteun of onderskryf sodanige standpunte/menings nie noodwendig nie. Netradiosa hou hulseld die reg voor om om hulle van enige standpunt / mening/uitspraak ter eniger tyd te distansieer.

Nou in die nuusflitse inset begin ek oudergewoonte met Sakeliga se weeklikse kyk na knelpunte in die ekonomie. 

Eerste: Groot protes teen uitbreiding van TV-lisensies. Tweedens: Akademici wil “kos-stelsel”, verbruik skerper reguleer. En laastens: Die minimumloon se impak op landbou bekyk. 

Maroela Media het onlangs berig oor die DA se petisie teen planne om TV-lisensies op aanlyndienste soos Netflix af te dwing. 

Ons het vantevore hierop kommentaar gelewer. Hierdie plan is luidens ‘n konsepbeleidsdokument van die departement van kommunikasie en digitale tegnologie. 

Die DA noem hierdie plan, met reg, ‘n geheime reddingsboei vir die SAUK. Sodoende poog die departement om die beleërde SAUK sentraal te plaas ten koste van ander dienste en verbruikers. 

Deel van die departement se kommer is skynbaar sogenaamde digitale skeiding tussen mense. Maar, indien tegnologie soos selfone vir die SAUK se onthalwe belas word, maak dit dan nie juis toegang tot tegnologie duurder vir almal nie. Veral vir die meer behoeftiges. 

Die departement reken nie die impak van bykomende belasting in nie. Verder is daar heelwat wantroue in die SAUK.

Om dit so te probeer red gaan waarskynlik verdere reaksie ontlok.  

 

Volgende: ‘n Groep van akademici (van verskeie plaaslike universiteite) het onlangs uitgevaar oor die “kos-stelsels” in Suider-Afrika-lande. Hulle voel dat sommige maatskappye uitsluitlik ongesonde, ‘kits’kos “te aggressief” bemark. (Lees op Moneyweb.) 

Wat nodig is, meen die groep, is ‘effektiewe’ staatsbeleide oor kos. Maar hoe lyk so in hulle oë? Meer regeringsreëls, voorskrifte, beperkings, subsidies en belastings uiteindelik, waar regeringsdwang private lewenstylkeuses kwaaier voorskryf. 

Sulke ingrypings by die mark is natuurlik nie ekonomies neutraal nie in bring ander probleme mee. Die toenemende aanslag van openbare gesondheid op verbruikers- en sake-vryhede duur egter voort. 

Sigarette en drank sien lank reeds belasting. Binnekort kan belasting en beperkinge op kitskos, vetterige kos, vleis en suiker (anders as koeldrank natuurlik) en ander produkte volg.  

Deskundiges in openbare gesondheid beywer gereeld vir groter staatsingrypying. Maar lê die oplossing nie moontlik daarby dat individue self die koste moet dra vir hul ongesonde lewensstylkeuses nie? 

Maar daardie aansporings word, in effek, juis ongedaan gemaak wanneer sodanige koste deur openbare gesondheidsebeleid gesosialiseer word. 

En laastens, die onlangse verhogings van die nasionale minimumloon het hewige reaksie ontlok, veral in landbou. 

TLU-SA spreek veral sy kommer uit oor groente-produksie. (So berig Rapport.) Groenteboere gebruik baie arbeiders. TLU-SA vrees dat hierdie sektor kan omskakel na minder arbeidsintensiewe bedrywighede. 

Hoekom maak dit saak? So ‘n omskakeling kom neer op ‘n “tweede beste” opsie in die mark gemeet teenoor dit wat boere tans doen. Dit is dan waarskynlik minder ekonomies doeltreffend en raak uitset. 

Selfs al sien ons dan ook nie dadelik werksverliese nie, kan daar ander ongesiene effekte wees. Meer geld op lone meen minder geld vir ander sakebesluite soos uitbreiding, dividendebeatlings en meer – wat ook nadelige effekte vir toekomstige produksie en investering kan inhou. 

Om loonkoerse werklik te kan verhoog is ‘n meer produktiewe ekonomie nodig. Dit is iets wat moet ontstaan in ‘n gesonde beleidsklimaat – dit kan nie met ‘n diktaat afgevaardig word nie.  

Dan lees ek ook die volgende interessante brokkie op Netnuus raak. 

Die Beyers Naude – Munisisipaliteit beleef ‘n geldnood. Derhalwe word munisipale bates soos Graaf Reinet se karavaanpark, dorpswembad en vleigveld as te koop aangebied. Die munisipaliteit verdrink in die skuld, insluitend R141 Miljoen aan Eskom.

 

 

__________________________________

 

Die Daily Maverick plaas die volgende lys van vra wat Adv Paul Pretorius aan Oud President Zuma sou wou vra, sou hy hom wel by die Zondo kommissie kon kry. 

Zuma has been implicated in State Capture by more than 40 witnesses in the three years in which the Commission of Inquiry into State Capture has heard evidence of grand corruption in South Africa.  

Faced with an empty witness seat, evidence leader Paul Pretorius said, “There is a constitutional duty and a public duty owed to the citizens of this country. Whatever the noise out there… we have a mandate to obey,” he said. The public had a right to know the questions Zuma was being asked to answer even as he refused to account.

“The work of this commission is not about widespread corruption; State Capture is more than that – it would concern a network of relationships inside and outside government. When one puts together all the elements, what do they tell us?” 

Pretorius said that while Zuma’s failure to give evidence would not be able to stop a final report being tabled by Zondo, “there is substantial evidence requiring an answer before you make your final report”, he told the judge.

The 40 areas of questioning and lines of evidence that Pretorius wanted to pursue with Zuma this week are:  

The Gupta family’s ability to divine Cabinet appointments before they happened or to influence those appointments. 

The Gupta family’s efforts to gain business advantage from these appointments. 

The Gupta family and its related entities’ substantial benefits gained from the relationships with these Cabinet appointments. 

The repurposing of state-owned enterprises to redirect state resources into the hands of select individuals. 

Zuma’s personal involvement in the business of state entities, where he did not have a direct reporting line. 

“Vastly corrupt activities” at Eskom, Transnet, Denel, Prasa and SAA that took resources from these entities and placed them in the hands of private individuals and entities. Was the outcome at these institutions intended or was it coincidental? 

Why did the former president involve himself in board and executive appointments at SOEs like Eskom, especially in the final years of his presidency? 

Was it a coincidence or intended that ultimate financial benefit flowed to the Gupta family as a result of these board appointments? 

About the cash taken to and given away at the Gupta residence. 

About the illicit flow of money to influencers in the Gupta circle. Were these random and ad hoc occurrences or part of an organised project to redirect money? 

  1. Why was Zuma personally involved in trying to ensure that Siyabonga Gama was appointed as Transnet CEO and was later involved in the appointment of Brian Molefe as Transnet CEO?
  2. Why Zuma was personally involved in the appointment of Dan Mantsha at Denel?
  3. Was the sale of Denel IP to VR Laser Asia (which followed Mantsha’s appointment) a coincidence or part of an intended consequence?
  4. There was a similar pattern of evidence at the passenger rail agency, Prasa. Was Zuma aware of this?
  5. What was Zuma’s knowledge or his action or lack of action on what happened at various state-owned enterprises? Was the outcome intended?
  6. There were substantial attempts to repurpose government to advantage specific individuals, predominantly at the Department of Minerals and Energy and at the Government Communication and Information System. Former minerals and energy minister Ngoako Ramatlhodi had given evidence about his pressure to meet with and favour Gupta family-owned entities. He was removed and replaced by Mosebenzi Zwane. What was the former president’s role in this?
  7. National Treasury came under significant pressure because it finances procurement and was seen as a stumbling block to irregular procurement deals. The former president removed both Nhlanhla Nene and Pravin Gordhan as ministers of finance who had oversight of Treasury. Were these coincidences?
  8. Why was a nuclear deal, as testified to by Nene, contemplated in the first place?
  9. Why was a ministerial task team, chaired by Zwane, appointed to investigate why banks had closed the Gupta family and related entity accounts?
  10. Why did Zuma attempt to remove the authority for deciding on the national Budget from Treasury?
  11. Nou voort met die voorgestelde vrae deur Adv Pretorius
  12. How did the Gupta family have prior knowledge that Nene would be removed as finance minister?
  13. What are these links and was the purpose to facilitate the eventual outcome (of State Capture)?
  14. Why was Gordhan removed as finance minister while on a trip to London and where did Operation Checkmate (the intelligence report used to axe him) come from? Why was it necessary to change the incumbent of the ministry? Were the outcomes and consequences intended?
  15. Why did Zuma have a personal involvement in the Bain & Co plans to reorganise the SA Revenue Service?
  16. What was Zuma’s role in the illegal landing at Waterkloof of the Gupta family’s private charter plane for a family wedding at Sun City?
  17. Why did Zuma concur when the Waterkloof wrongdoer Bruce Koloane was appointed ambassador to the Netherlands?
  18. What was Zuma’s role at the Department of Communications when pressure was placed on the GCIS to finance through advertising The New Age newspaper owned by the Gupta family?
  19. Was this pressure designed to benefit certain parties?
  20. What was the exact nature of Zuma’s relationship with the Watson family who owned the Bosasa logistics and facilities management company which has been heavily implicated in State Capture?
  21. The former president’s son, Duduzane Zuma, has benefited substantially from his relationship with the Gupta family. Where did the benefits ultimately flow to?
  22. Did Zuma receive regular monthly payments from a project of the State Security Agency as heard in evidence by acting SSA director-general Loyiso Jafta?
  23.  
  24.  Voort met die vrae wat Adv Pretorius aan oud Presiedent Zuma sou wou vra
  25. Did the Guptas fund the ANC or do favours for the governing party?
  26. Would Zuma have been asked about the use of untraceable cash as a medium of transfer?
  27. In the era of State Capture, where were the defenders of our legal order? Where was Parliament? Where were the various oversight bodies? Where were the law enforcement agencies? Were they deliberately neutered to allow the project of State Capture to continue?
  28. Was it coincidental that the law enforcement agencies failed to prosecute and detect wide-scale corruption or had they been deliberately and substantially weakened? Why were the law enforcement agencies used to target people?
  29. Why were certain people, like the former head of crime intelligence Richard Mdluli, protected?
  30. Why was there such instability at the top leadership level of the National Directorate of Public Prosecutions? Was it deliberate, or coincidental?
  31. As president, why did Zuma not do anything when evidence of grand corruption was exposed? Was it neglect, or was it a coincidence?
  32. How did Zuma decide on his appointments to important roles in the law enforcement agencies?
  33. How is it that the State Security Agency came to operate as a private army, as Sydney Mufamadi, the chairperson of the high-level panel investigating the intelligence structures asked the commission? What was Zuma’s role in this?
  34.  

 Dit was dan Jan Blohm Groen Trui 

Die mees belangrike nuus gebeure die week was natuurlik President Ramaphosa se Staatsrede en hier is ‘n ontleding daarvan deur die Daily Friend-mondstuk van die Instituut vir Rasse Betrekkinge. Strook nogals met my uitgesproke sentimente op hierdie platform die afgelope tyd. 

Despite the many pious platitudes in last week’s SONA (state-of-the-nation address), the only ‘reforms’ President Cyril Ramaphosa is busy implementing are the policy shifts needed to advance the national democratic revolution (NDR) to which both he and the SACP/ANC alliance have long been committed.

One such shift came to fruition last week with the decision by Thulas Nxesi, minister of employment and labour and deputy chairman of the SACP, to raise the national minimum wage by 4.5% for most employees, 16% for farmworkers, and 22% for domestic staff.

These mandatory and double-digit increases are sure to worsen job losses. This is especially so in agriculture, where 72 000 jobs were lost last year, and also in domestic service – where jobs decreased by 165 000 as the Covid-19 lockdown took its toll. From the NDR perspective, job losses are useful in increasing anger and despair and so adding to revolutionary potential.

Then there is the Employment Equity Amendment Bill of 2020 (the EE Bill) – currently open for public comment until tomorrow – which Mr Nxesi has been seeking to push through Parliament since 2018.

This bill empowers the minister to set binding racial targets – quotas, in all but name – for designated private sector employers in specified economic sectors. It will also, says Mr Nxesi, give the state ‘the force it needs’ to compel compliance with the goal of demographic representivity at management and other senior levels.

However, the NDR notion that members of different race groups will, in the absence of racial discrimination, automatically fan out into the workforce in accordance with their share of the economically active population is irrational and unattainable. Individuals are not inter-changeable representatives of their racial groups, but differ sharply in age, skills, experience, motivation, values, and a host of other attributes.

Cannot sensibly be achieved

In South Africa, demographic representivity effectively requires 75% African representation in management and other senior posts. But this cannot sensibly be achieved when roughly half of all black people are under the age of 25 and lack necessary experience. In addition, only some 5% of black people have university degrees, even though such qualifications are often needed or advisable for senior positions.

The most important of the pending NDR bills is, of course, the Draft Constitution Eighteenth Amendment Bill of 2019. This is intended to amend Section 25 of the Bill of Rights (the property clause) so as to allow expropriation without compensation (EWC) for both land and any ‘improvements thereon’ that are taken by the state for ‘land reform’ purposes. Such improvements could include houses, office blocks, shopping centres, factories, and other structures.

Having kept the public in the dark about the progress of this EWC Bill for many months, the Ad Hoc Committee responsible for its drafting has suddenly picked up its pace. The written submissions made by the public last year are being brushed aside, it seems, so that the committee can approve the measure by 19 March. The EWC Bill will then be submitted to Parliament to be rubber-stamped by both houses – albeit by the necessary special majorities – and so enacted into law.

Almost as important is the Expropriation Bill of 2020, now open for public comment until the end of this month. This Bill is not in fact a ‘land’ measure, as the government and other commentators persist in pretending, for the property it covers is expressly ‘not limited to land’.

With tax revenues declining, a key purpose of the Expropriation Bill is to open the way to compulsory asset prescription for the country’s R4-trillion-rand pot of pension savings. Another important objective is to facilitate the nationalisation of the South African Reserve Bank (SARB) and so usher in the ‘quantitative easing’ (essentially, the untrammelled printing of fiat money) that will be needed to finance the further stages of the NDR.

Damage would still be enormous

Even if the Expropriation Bill was in fact confined to land, the damage from it would still be enormous. Its ramifications in the land sphere are best understood by re-assessing it in the light of the July 2019 report of the Presidential Advisory Panel on Land and Agrarian Reform.

This panel was appointed by Mr Ramaphosa to advise him on EWC and other possible land and farming interventions. Its recommendations – most of which have since been endorsed by the Ramaphosa administration – help illuminate the NDR thinking behind the EWC and Expropriation Bills.   

According to the panel, Section 25 must indeed be amended – and in very much the way the EWC Bill now provides – so as to ‘move away’ from the mandatory compensation the Constitution requires.

In addition, the panel lists ten instances (double the five currently contained in the Expropriation Bill) in which ‘nil’ compensation may be appropriate: for example, where land has been ‘abandoned’ or is held ‘purely for speculative purposes’. The panel also makes it clear (as does the Expropriation Bill) that the circumstances meriting ‘nil’ compensation should not be limited to the ones it lists.

The panel further recommends that expropriation aimed at redistribution should continue until land ownership has become demographically representative. It also seems to think that the government should seek to ‘redistribute the country’s 72% of land which is in private ownership’.

This last proposal highlights the scale of the expropriation envisaged. It also points to an ideological hostility to the very notion of private land ownership – and echoes the NDR’s demand for state ownership or control of all land in the country.

New compensation policy

Particularly relevant to the Expropriation Bill is the panel’s proposal of a new compensation policy, under which compensation will range from ‘zero’ or ‘minimal’ to ‘substantial’ or ‘market-related’.

The panel also recommends that municipalities across the country, including those in urban areas, should use ‘the input of local residents’ to identify well-located and appropriately serviced land that is suitable for redistribution. ‘Individual owners of properties that meet the criteria of land required for redistribution…may [then] offer their land as donations, or enter into negotiations with the state, failing which the state may proceed to expropriate’, it states.

This approach is fundamentally coercive. Combined with the draconian powers to be accorded all expropriating authorities under the Expropriation Bill, it virtually guarantees that expropriation for ‘zero’ or ‘minimal’ compensation will soon become the state’s favoured method of land acquisition.

Though the panel ignores this issue, the ramifications for the banking system will be severe. Particularly telling is a clause in the Expropriation Bill stating that any mortgage over expropriated land will automatically end when ownership passes to the state. The underlying debt will not be extinguished, however, which means that expropriated owners – despite the loss of their key assets – will still have to pay off what they owe.

Under the current Expropriation Act, the repayment burden on erstwhile owners is significantly less onerous, as the compensation payable on expropriation must be based on market value, plus damages for all resulting losses, including any loss of income. Under the Bill, by contrast, compensation could often be ‘nil’ or ‘minimal’ – and is likely to fall far short of the amount of any outstanding mortgage loan.

This situation is profoundly unfair to expropriated owners. In practice, the obligation to pay off outstanding mortgage loans could push them into bankruptcy and make it impossible for them to replace assets lost through no fault of their own. Banks will also come under severe strain. Many mortgage debts will inevitably remain unpaid, which will jeopardise the credibility and sustainability of the banking system and could unleash a massive banking crisis.  

After three years of meaningless social compacting, empty reassurance, and ever more damaging NDR interventions under Mr Ramaphosa’s watch, it is time to call a halt. 

We must repeal coercive labour laws, scrap the EE Bill and other damaging BEE requirements, jettison the EWC and Expropriation Bills, uphold property rights, and give secure title to millions of black South Africans with informal land-use rights so as to bring their ‘dead capital’ to life.

Unshackle the economy

Above all, we must abandon the NDR and unshackle the economy from the leg-irons it has forged. Only on this basis can we attract sufficient direct investment, escape the Eskom death spiral, reward and expand scarce skills, build up the value of homes, businesses and other assets, raise the growth rate to the emerging market average, and start generating the millions of jobs so urgently required.

The formula for success is a simple one that has demonstrated its value in countries across the world. And, much as the SACP/ANC alliance would like to keep using the promise of Mr Ramaphosa’s ‘new dawn’ to help advance the revolution, the gathering economic crisis can also be harnessed to repudiate the NDR and embrace the proven path to prosper

Nou gou bietjie tyd vir Fanie se waansinnige onsinnighede

Benewens die President se abortiewe staatsrede was die hele Jacob Zuma sage veral in die nuus. Soos ‘n stout kind wat daardie sweetie wil he gooi die oud Pres sy tantrum en stamp sy voete. Kwansuis sou die hele stelsel teen hom wees, gekaap deur die wit monopolie kapitaliste en dan die mees verstommende een dat die Zondo kommisie , wat toevallig deur Zuma homself daar gestel is, slegs daarop uit is hom wat Zuma is te na te kom. Nou Pres Zuma, dit is ‘n klomp geld wat spandeer word om spesifiek jou te ne te kom. Sou mos baie goedkoper gewees het om net by ‘n gewone hof klagtes te le of hoe. Maar die dag in die hof waarna daar soooo uitgesien is word darem erg vermy. Die persoonlike bysleep van die persoon van oud regter Zondo kan natuurlik erg (in ingels se hulle-backfire en dink ek dat na die afhandeling van die aangeleentheid gaan die regter nog ‘n goeuie saak vir naamskending en siviele eis he. Wonder wat gaan die klompie in uniform onder leiding van die aarts leuenaar dan doen. Miskien sal die 250 (so se hulle) dan oorlog verklaar teen die wit monopolie kapitaal beheerde regering. Net om die belaglikheid uit te wys is dit juis die rgegering wat soos hier bo aangedui deur die Daily Friend die voltooinng na die NDR, wat al die klompie na so smag besig is om te implimenteer. Die aksie is dus duidelik nie ideologies nie, maar gerig op die herstel van vorige bevoorregting, dit waarvan die sg wit apologete deurgans van beskuldig word. Partykeer moet mens maar na kyk na die balk in die eie oog

Dan het bdie berig hierbo en dan die hofsaak wat gewen is deur die inwoners teen die munisipaliteite van onder andere Swartruggens dalk net die pad vorentoe aangewys. Begin die ekonomiese herstel op eie (peoples) terme hier op die laagste vlak. (dis natuurlik die strategie gewees van Mao sedong in China-uprising by the peasants). Nie noodwendig oproer nie, net die koop van bates, oorneem van dienslewering op munisipale vlak en dan dit so doen dat almal bevoordeel raak. Die regering sal nie veel verweer hierteen kan he nie en die peoples sal hopelik ook die voordele hiervan begin besef en besef dat ‘n verandering van stem gedrag dalk beter kan wees. Hier moet mens noem dat die vennootskap ooreenkomste in dorpe soos Senekal, Coligny en andere wat deut South African Day gedryf word tot dieselfde uitkoms kan lei.

Daar is Syia Kolisi toe by die Sharks en baie tranerig oor sy tyd by WP. Korrek so, maar tog so bang om reguit te se dat die besluit aanleiding gegee is deur die onbeholpe en gierige bestuurspenne van die afgelope tyd. Ek vermoed ons gaan nog baie groot name tranerig sien afskeid neem van die provinsie. Sou Cape Exit gebeur sal hulle nie eers toetse teen Namibie en Zimbabwe kan speel nie.

Op ‘n ander noot vra Network24 dat daar aan hulle kommentaar gelewer word oor die inhoud van hulle berigte, kwaliteit ens. Dit is nogals moeilik om te beantwoord aangesien Network24 beslis nie vals nuus sou duld nie en beslis net feite weergee. Dit is natuurlik die hoe en die konteks wat verskaf word wat somms ‘n probleem veroorsaak. (Ek kon die nuwe gier van uitdaging gebruik het maar probleem bly vir my beter. Hoe antwoord ek News24 dat hulle eintlik die feite “besmet” of in ingels Taint, om ‘n sekere narratief te bevorder. So ek se liewers niks nie.

 Baie, baie dankie dat jy saamgeluister het. Soos altyd het ek dit baie geniet om jou te probeer vermaak, maar darem ook bietjie te laat dink en hopelik so af en toe laat glimlag of dalk selfs uitbundig lag. Jy het geluister na Netradiosa by www.netradiosa .co.za. Bly asseblief ingeskakel vir heerlike musiek en programme. Ek groet jou tot volgende week wanneer ek weer op dieselfde plek en tyd lewendig met jou praat. . 

 

Pittige Allegaartjie deur Fanie 2021-02-12

Pittige Allegaartjie deur Fanie 2021-02-12

Pittige Allegaartjie 2021-02-11

Goeiemiddag en welkom by Netradiosa, wereldwyd by www.netradiosa.co.za . Dit is Fanie met Pittige Allegaartjie. Hierdie is die program waar ek die humor in die politiek, Sport ekonomiese en Sosio Maatskaplike wereld bekyk.Ons Suid Afrikaners en veral Afrikaners is mos daarvoor bekend dat ons menige ernstige situasies met humo

r ontlont as’t ware as ‘n ontvlugtings meganisme.

 

Ek bevestig net hiermee dat hierdie program heelwat onsinnige kommentaar bestrooi met satire bevat en geen politieke of ander standpunt ondersteun word nie. Enige toevallige standpunte is die aanbieder s’n self en Netradiosa ondersteun of onderskryf sodanige standpunte/menings nie noodwendig nie. Netradiosa hou hulseld die reg voor om om hulle van enige standpunt / mening/uitspraak ter eniger tyd te distansieer.

In die eerste van informasie uit verskillende bronne kyk ek wweer na f.ekonomiese flitse soos deur Sakeliga saamgestel. 

[1] Die Banking Association of South Africa (BASA) het onlangs kommentaar gelewer oor die Covid-waarborgskema vir klein besighede.

 

Ons sal onthou dat sowat R200 miljard bestem was vir verligting deur middel van hierdie skema. Dit was deel van die R500 miljard Covid-verligtingsprogram wat president Ramaphosa (in 2020) aangekondig het. 

Sover is slegs R18 miljard uitgeleen. Die swak opname van hierdie lenings stel sommige teleur.

Maar banke is uiteindelik besighede. Ons kan nie verwag dat banke onwinsgewende lenings moet maak nie – daarom maak sakevooruitsigte soveel saak. 

Maar hoekom is dié lenings juis so swak opgeneem? BASA (in Moneyweb) noem drie punte: Sake-eienaars is huiwerig oor bykomende skuld. Verder wek stadige ekonomiese hervorming kommer.

En baie ondernemings het eerder van ander vorms van verligting gebruik gemaak. 

Waar die beleidsomgewing swak en onseker is sal sakelui minder gewillig wees om die risiko’s op te neem. Skuldterugbetalings kort uiteindelik gesonde vooruitsigte vir sake.   

[2] Volgende: Die Buro vir Ekonomiese Ondersoek (BER) wys op die standpunte van die Minerale Raad, laas week by die Mynbou-indaba. 

Die raad het, luidens berigte, openlike teleurstelling op die regering se gebrek aan beleids- en regulatoriese sekerheid uitgespreek. Nie net in mynbou nie, meer ook vir die hele ekonomie.  

Die buro noem verder ook die mislukkings soos dat radiospektrumveilings (ICASA) en Eskom se hernubare energieprogramme nie betyds afgehandel is nie. Dit meen hulle kan die moontlikheid van herstel weens entstof-optimisme belemmer.  

SA is deurspek met owerheidsburokrasie wat ‘n handrem bly op private oplossing. So word markoplossing teruggehou. Noodsaaklike hervorming kan nuwe energie ontsluit.  

[3] Laastens kyk ons na die verbruikerskommissie wat stappe wil neem teen winkels oor die prysstygings van gemmer, knoffel. 

Die Covid-19 situasie het duidelik die verbruikersvraag na gemmer en knoffel beïnvloed. 

Daar was ook in 2019 minder boere wat gemmer produseer het (luidens die Landbou Weekblad).

Maar veral vertroue in immuun-voordele het blykbaar gemaak dat heelwat meer mense skielik meer van hierdie produkte wou koop. 

Buiten prysaanpassings, hoe presies moet ‘n skielike groter markbehoefte na ‘n produk dan hanteer word? 

Ekonomies verwag mens gewoonlik ‘n (tydelike) nuwe hoër markprys, wat groter produksie (en invoere) sal aanspoor, gevolg met groter voorsiening, wat pryse weer kan afdruk. 

Sou pryse nie mag aanpas nie, sal produkte bes moontlik onmiddellik uitverkoop (of produkte andersins moet rantsoeneer). 

Diegene wat dan die dringendste sulke produkte soek sal dan buite die “gewone verspreiding” moet soek. Die gevolg: jy koop dalk jou gemmer spreekwoordelik uit iemand se ‘kattebak’ (waar prysbeheer nie geld nie) en betaal steeds ‘n hoër (mark)prys. 

Uiteindelik dink ons dat regulasies wat poog om markpryse laer te dwing nie die gewenste voordele gaan inhou nie. 

Mens moet ten minste dieper hierna kyk voordat aantygings oor misdrywe net bloot aanvaar word. 

Gou ‘n paar politieke flitse , die keer verkry by Radio Pretoria

President Cyril Ramaphosa het in sy weeklikse nuusbrief gereageer op die Spesiale ondersoekeenheid, oftewel SOE se verslag oor bewerings van korrupsie tydens die Covid-19-pandemie.

President Ramaphosa sê in sy brief dat die verslag selfs méér skokkend is omdat dié beweerde korrupsie plaasvind in ‘n tyd wat mense gebuk gaan onder een van die ergste mediese krisisse nóg.

Hy meen dit is selfs nog erger omdat die beweerde korrupsie nie plaasvind weens agterlosigheid nie, maar dat daar ‘n blatante wil is om mense te bedrieg.

President Ramaphosa sê dié mense het doelbewus miljoene rande van belastingbetalers gesteel en staatseiendom misbruik.

Die SOE het 2500 kontrakte, wat tydens die Covid-19-pandemie uitgereik is, ondersoek. In die verslag is daar onder meer bevind dat maatskappye byna oornag gestig is om veral persoonlike beskermde toerusting te vervaardig, voorsien en versprei.

President Ramaphosa sê die persoonlike beskermde toerusting is verkoop teen verhoogde pryse, in sommige gevalle was dit 400% duurder.

Volgens hom sal daar wel opgetree word teen diegene, wat hulleself aan korrupsie skuldig maak. 

Die Suid-Afrikaanse regering het die spreekwoordelike kat in die duiwehok gegooi met sy aankondiging dat hy die inenting van gesondheidswerkers teen Covid-19 tydelik gaan opskort.

Dit volg nadat navorsing daarop gedui het dat die AstraZeneca-enstof slegs 22% doeltreffend is teen die nuwe variant van die Covid-19-virus. Suid-Afrika het verlede week sy eerste 1-miljoen dosisse van die entstof ontvang. Dit vevral in April. 

Die Britse minister van gesondheid, Nadhim Zahawi het sy landsburgers gerus probeer stel deur aan te voer dat dié entsof goed werk teen die dominante variante wat in dié land voorkom. Daar is tans 100 gevalle van die sogenaamde SA-variant in Brittanje. 

Op sy beurt het die Australiese minister van gesondheid, Greg Hunt, vinnig gespring om Australiërs te verseker dat die entstof doeltreffend is in sy primêre doelwit.

Hy het bygevoeg dat daar tans geen bewyse is dat daar ‘n afname in die doeltreffendheid van die AstraZeneca óf die Pfizer entstof is om ernstige siekte of dood te voorkom nie.

Verder met die groot nuus rondom die entsof debakel en die Daily Friend wat namens die Instituut vir Rasse betrekkinge publiseer doen hierdie week se in diepte stukke en ek haal aan. 

A new study found that the AstraZeneca vaccine is significantly less effective against the new Covid-19 strain that emerged in South Africa. This is a major setback and expectations of an immunisation drive will have to be adjusted.

When the first vaccines against Covid-19 cleared phase three clinical trials late last year, there was palpable optimism that there might soon be an end to the pandemic that has gripped the world.

Some of the more expensive and innovative vaccines were reported to be 95% effective. Others, like the Oxford/ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine made by AstraZeneca, came in at 70% effectiveness.

The AstraZeneca vaccine was also the least expensive vaccine on the market by far, being sold at cost. In the EU, it sold for as little as $2.19, while in the US the price was $4.

That safe vaccines were developed so quickly and promised to be so effective could spell the end of the catastrophic lockdowns that authoritarian governments foisted upon their hapless citizens worldwide. This offered a rare ray of hope in an otherwise dismal 2020.

The South African government had to be slapped into action at the start of this year by public outrage that nothing had been done to acquire vaccines or plan for their roll-out, except for ordering an insufficient shipment from the World Health Organisation’s Covax facility that was only due to arrive by winter.

President Cyril Ramaphosa blatantly lied to the nation on 11 January when he said: ‘The South African government has also been engaging directly with several vaccine manufacturers for over six months.’

No, it hasn’t. It hadn’t engaged with vaccine manufacturers at all.

The Department of Health (DoH) had sought a deviation from normal procurement practices in November 2020 in order to order vaccines from the Covax facility. Before that, nothing at all had been done.

The DoH’s first request for a deviation to negotiate with vaccine manufacturers themselves – including the Serum Institute of India (SII), Pfizer, Johnson & Johnson, and Moderna – was made on 6 January 2021, a week after the media and healthcare experts laid into the government for having done nothing to secure an adequate vaccine supply.

Plans for the roll-out, such as training healthcare professionals on the handling and storage of Covid-19 vaccines and how to address public concerns about the jabs, only began in mid-January.

(I’d like to suggest an election slogan for the Democratic Alliance: ‘Rampahosa lied. People died’.)

Belatedly, the DoH cut a deal with the SII, which produces the AstraZeneca vaccine under licence. Someone’s cousin brokered a deal by which South Africa would pay only twice what it would cost to buy the vaccines directly from AstraZeneca.

A million-odd doses, destined for healthcare workers, duly arrived in the country last Monday, 1 February, to huge fanfare. Images of the crate of vaccines being unloaded from an aeroplane were plastered all over television screens. It was surrounded by a crowd of top government officials inspecting the manifest, with a massive cavalcade of black BMWs in the background to transport them all onto and off the airport apron.

Rarely has a nondescript freight container landed with more pomp and circumstance. The president took to his bully pulpit to announce the good news, forgetting to thank the Indian government, which was duly outraged.

Not a week later, a bombshell landed, which promises to throw a month’s worth of hasty planning into disarray.

On Sunday night, the Department of Health aired a webinar in which it announced the results of a small clinical trial conducted at Wits University under the leadership of Dr Shabir Madhi.

It found that although the AstraZeneca vaccine had high efficacy against the original coronavirus strain, it offered minimal protection against mild-to-moderate disease caused by the new South African strain. (The strain was once known as 501Y.V2, but just as we memorised that cryptic name, they renamed it to the equally cryptic B.1.351).

The study was too small, and its participant profile too young and low-risk, to determine effectiveness against moderate-to-severe disease, hospitalisation or death. However, a study of a very similar vaccine, made by Johnson & Johnson (J&J) subsidiary Janssen, did assess effectiveness against moderate-to-severe disease, and found efficacy was maintained for the new virus strain.

Dr Madhi still holds out hope that the AstraZeneca vaccine will have a role to play in South Africa’s vaccination campaign and will still prove to be protective against severe disease, but in light of the new findings, the DoH has put its roll-out on hold for now.

Instead, it will fast-track the procurement of vaccines from Janssen to begin inoculating healthcare workers. J&J recently applied for emergency authorisation to use the Janssen vaccine in South Africa.

The suspension of plans to roll out the AstraZeneca vaccine comes as a body blow to healthcare workers, who for nearly a year have been risking their own lives and those of their families to test and treat Covid-19 patients. Several hundred have died in the line of duty. Most pinned their hopes on the early availability of a vaccine to protect them from the dangers of the job.

There is a silver lining to the dark cloud, however. The Janssen vaccine is the only one that comes close to competing with the AstraZeneca vaccine on price, at $10 per dose.

More importantly, unlike any other existing Covid-19 vaccine, it has a single-dose formulation, which makes it much easier and quicker to administer. We would not need to make sure that every vaccine recipient returns for their second shot at the right time. In a country as badly run as ours, that will make a huge difference.

In global trials, the Janssen vaccine has proved to be 66% effective against contracting Covid-19 and 85% effective in preventing severe disease and death. In its South African trial, led by Dr Glenda Gray, it appeared to be 57% effective against contracting the disease. It could be better, but it’s not nothing, either.

According to Madhi, the setback for the AstraZeneca vaccine and the likelihood of future strains of the virus that causes Covid-19 being able to evade other existing vaccines, “force us to recalibrate thinking about how to approach the pandemic virus and shift the focus from the aspirational goal of herd immunity against transmission to the protection of all at-risk individuals in the population against severe disease”.

Herd immunity would have been first prize, since it also protects those who do not take the vaccine, for whatever reason, and holds out hope that the virus can be eradicated altogether.

Now it seems more likely that Covid-19 will be with us for a long time, mutating into new variants that can re-infect previously immune populations. The goal then is to adapt vaccines to target the new strains and use them to reduce the risk of severe disease in at-risk individuals, much like we do today with seasonal influenza.

Efforts are already underway to develop a new generation of vaccines that protect against emerging strains by means of booster jabs, according to Wits.

How exactly this will shake out remains to be seen. It is too early to abandon the goal of vaccinating at least 67% of South Africans. After all, even in young, healthy individuals, Covid-19 can cause death or severe and lasting damage to the lungs and other organs.

However, this development does caution us to temper our expectations that a simple vaccination drive will be enough to eradicate Covid-19.

To prevent further destructive lockdowns, it remains of the utmost importance to take sensible precautions against spreading the virus. Don’t party like it’s 2019. Practise social distancing. Avoid crowded places, especially indoors. Wear masks when near other people (and anywhere in public if you don’t want to be jailed). Don’t touch your face. Regularly wash your hands.

These measures cause minimal inconvenience and economic harm, unlike the government’s much harsher lockdown rules that will surely be reimposed if new waves of infection strike in future.

Instead of hoping that Covid-19 can be wiped out, we will probably need to learn to live with it for a long time to come.

.Daar is al baie gese oor die beoogde onteiening van grond, maar ek voeg graag hierdie ook by soos deur die Daily Friend uiteengesit. Daar word eers ‘n hele relaas gegee rondom die 1913 sowel 1936 wetgewing wat grondbesit in Suid Afrika op rasse grondlsag gevestig het en slegs sowat 13% grondgebied aan Swart mense in die sg tuislande gemagtig het. Maar dan word daar verder gekyk na die ANC regering se “regstelling” van die onregte van die verlede.

So although the government had waited 23 years before providing for the addition of the ‘released’ to the ‘scheduled’ areas, blacks themselves had not been idle. Thousands of them had been buying land outside these areas on the open market.

Where ‘black spots’ adjoined a homeland, they were usually allowed to remain. But where they were surrounded by white farms they were gradually cleared. Tribes who owned land were generally offered alternative land of equivalent worth adjoining a homeland. Individual owners had to sell to whites or the state, or face expropriation with compensation. If they owned more than 20 morgen they could buy land adjoining a homeland. If they owned less than this, they were entitled to a free site in a closer settlement in a homeland, but without the right to keep cattle.    

The ANC has had 26 years to rectify the effects of the land acts. It has persuaded many in business, including banks and some agricultural organisations, that ‘land reform’ is an ‘imperative’. It has persuaded them of this ‘imperative’ even though opinion survey after opinion survey has shown that the great majority of blacks think the provision of jobs is far more important than ‘land reform’. To the annoyance of the ANC large numbers of blacks entitled to have expropriated land restored to them have chosen financial compensation instead.

Most of the ANC government’s own land reform projects have failed, thanks to factors that include corruption and lack of financial and technical support for beneficiaries. Although the ANC recoils from admitting it, where land redistribution from white to black has been most successful, it has taken place via the market – blacks buying land from whites following the repeal of the land acts in 1991, just as they had done before the acts first came into operation and in the intervening years.

Enter expropriation without compensation. To ‘address the injustices of the past and restore land rights’ the ANC plans not to strengthen but to attenuate land rights. The land acts subjected land ownership rights to the colour bar. The ANC plans to remove the colour bar, but without fully restoring the rights that previously existed. Freehold ownership rights stand to be replaced by leases in the gift of the state, thereby extending the ANC’s already extensive powers of patronage. Despite the obvious success of colour-blind market mechanisms prior to, during, and after the apartheid era, the ANC wants to impose further restrictions.

For many people, ‘land reform’ will mean transfer of title not from white to black, but from white, or black, to the state as ‘custodian’. However, the expropriation bill goes further than land, since property is not limited to land. All kinds of property, from land to houses to mining rights to intellectual property rights to pensions to other financial assets, could be at risk, with no guarantee either of fair procedure or of equitable compensation or even of any compensation at all. The planned amendment of Section 25 of the Constitution will in due course no doubt further undermine property rights. 

The essential point about legislation of this kind is not where it starts but where it may end. Large-scale expropriation without compensation may not happen immediately. But the key point is that legislative provision for it to be implemented will be on the Statute Book. While repeatedly proclaiming its intention to restore land rights removed by the land acts, the ANC will have taken an important step towards empowering itself to remove both land and other property rights and take them unto itself.

In short, the ANC is using the land acts as a pretext for the weakening of property rights and the further empowerment of Luthuli House.

Nou tyd vir daardie inset-waansinnige onsinnighede.

Sien die President is erg geskok oor die geweldige korrupsie met die aankoop van bekermende kleredrag vir gesondheids werkers (sg PPE). Dit is nie die 1ste keer dat die President so geskok is nie en Mnr die President dit gaan nie die laaste keer wees dat jy dit sal moet se .hoofsaaklik om gesig te behou. Die President skep dan self sulke geleenthede tot korrupsie. Wat sou jy nou as staatsdienswerker dink as die President se dat daar is geleenthede vir herstel van die ekonomie en die kans om transformasie te bevorder vir swart entrepeneurs in die verspreiding van die vaksiene.

Dan sien ek een van die mees irrelevante organisasies (soortgelyk aan die ANC Jeuglige en Vroeliga) die MK veterane organisasie wil ook tee gaan drink by Oud President Zuma en dit dan om hulle steun toe te se aan . ‘n Mens kan seker nie meer vverwag van enige organisasie vir wie Carl Niehaus ‘n beduidende rol speel, nie

Dit lyk, soos ek verlede week asof die gevegslyne tussen die Brredweg Zuma Magushule en Ramaphosa faksie getrek is. Nou wat beteken dit vir jou en my. Nou dis waar die hoofstroom media die verskil maak. Ramaphosa goed vir die land en Magashule sleg. Maar ekonomiese, politieke en sosiale beleid sal dieselfde bly ongeag wie wen. Die hoop is dat die sg Ramaphosa faksie korrupsie gaan aanspreek en uitroei. Rerig, mens kan net die toekoms beoordeel op wat in die verlede gebeur het en Ramaphosa se aksies rondom korrupsie en dan ook staatskaping bestaan bloot eenvoudig nie. En soos John Kane Berman hierbo rondom die inentings en verkryging van Vaksiene gese het, hy hat al voorheen vir die land gelieg.

Ek sien Syia Kolisi is toe oppad na die Haaie toe. Maar skielik kom die WP/Stormers met ‘n oordrag fooi van sowat R1 miljoen. Maar die Haaie by monde van Eduard Coetzee se nee daar is nie ooreengekom op sodanige fooi nie. Nou weereens natuurlik kyk mens na die geskiedenis om huidige of toekomstige bedrag te voorspel en dan lyk dit waaragtig of WP /Stormers gou die enetjie ingeglip het om ‘n vinnig “buck” te maak. Net soos die fooi wat aan Mazotti gevra is om die Kaapstad stadion te besoek. Ek se jou hulle gaan wragtig eendag probeer om die Kaapstad Stadion ook te verkoop. Stad Kaapstad’ loop lig, die manne is op ‘n misie om geld te in.

 

 

 

Pittige Allegaartjie deur Fanie 2021-02-04

Pittige Allegaartjie deur Fanie 2021-02-04

Pittige Allegaartjie 2021-02-04

Goeiemiddag en welkom by Netradiosa, wereldwyd by www.netradiosa.co.za . Dit is Fanie met Pittige Allegaartjie. Hierdie is die program waar ek die humor in die politiek, Sport ekonomiese en Sosio Maatskaplike wereld bekyk.Ons Suid Afrikaners en veral Afrikaners is mos daarvoor bekend dat ons menige ernstige situasies met humor ontlont as’t ware as ‘n ontvlugtings meganisme. 

Ek bevestig net hiermee dat hierdie program heelwat onsinnige kommentaar bestrooi met satire bevat en geen politieke of ander standpunt ondersteun word nie. Enige toevallige standpunte is die aanbieder s’n self en Netradiosa ondersteun of onderskryf sodanige standpunte/menings nie noodwendig nie. Netradiosa hou hulseld die reg voor om om hulle van enige standpunt / mening/uitspraak ter eniger tyd te distansieer.

Ek vermoed my skeptiese standpunte rondom politici soos ek gereeld voorhou is baie bekend onder gereelde luisteraars. Dink maar aan my verwysings na my wyse oorlede vader wat toentertyd gese het dat “politici” werk net vir daai klein sakkie (natuurlik die geldsakkie). Toe ons dus nou in die Agrarian Care projek ‘n afspraak by die Minister van kultuur en Sport in die Wes Kaap kry vir verlede week kan jy dink dat ek nie veel verwagting rondom die afspraak gehad het nie. MAAR was ek nie verkeerd nie.Anroux Marais is een van die mees formidabele, maar bowenal eerlike mense wat ek in my lewe ontmoet het. (En ek het al ‘n paar van diesulkes se paaie gekruis. ) MAAR hierbenewens was haar hoof van die Departement Herman van Der Westhuizen ook by die gesprek. Opvallend was die samehorigheid – en durf ek se glad nie geforseerd nie- by die 2 persone. Ons is hartlik ontvang en tydens die gesprek rondom die opheffing van plaaswerkers by wyse va sport, kultuur en ook opleidings programme was die positiewe wil om hierby betrokke te raak tasbaar. Die minister het aan ons verduidelik dat daar in die Wes Kaap ‘n verskeidenheid van soortgelyke projekte is, maar nooit is die gevoel van oorbodigheid of onnodige duplisering geskep nie. Die gesindheid was eerder – waar kan Agrarian Care by bestaande projekte aanklank vind en positief bydra en aanvullend wees tot die bestaande inisiatiewe. Herman het in ‘n stadium opgemerk dat die tydsduur van die aangename vergadering ‘n nuwe rekord vir die minister is. (Sy het ook aangedring dat ons haar op haar naam kan aanspreek). Nietemin 2 ure later het ons die kantoor verlaat. Beide Anroux en Herman het ons tot by die hyser vergesel.

Beslis kan die gebeurtenis daartoe lei dat ek my opinie-wat oor jare gevorm is-binne 2 ure verander het. Baie dankie aan Anroux en Herman en ek weet dat ons heerlik konstuktief gaan saamwerk om nog verdere stukrag te gee aan die uitmuntende projekte wat reeds onder julle leierskap daargestel is.

Die goeie nuus is dat Anroux ingestem het dat ek volgende week met haar ‘n onderhoud kan voer om veral dan te poog om die uitstekende werk wat hierdie ministerie en Departement verrig aan die groot klok te hang. Daar is by my geen twyfel dat die portefeulje bedryf word soos mens verwag van jou verkose verteenwoordigers-uiters professioneel.

Baie dankie Anroux en Herman vir al die positiewe werk wat julle verrig en die bereidwilligheid om ons nederige klompie by te staan oom die lewe van plaaswerkers verder te verbeter. Anroux het telkens ook verwys na die leierskap en kundigheid (veral uit bereiking van doelwitte deur sy span) en is die respek vir die premier -Alan Winde- tasbaar.

Dit is rerig so verskillend van wat mens vind in die res van hierdie landjie. Soos hulle se -doet so voort.

Nou goed dan tyd ‘n paar nuusgebeure/verklarings wat nie noodwendig in die hoofstroom media gedra word nie.

Sakeliga reik die volgende verklaring vir die week uit. 

Eerste: Hoewel die Internasionale Monetêre Fonds (IMF) meer optimisties is oor globale groeivooruitsigte, het die instelling SA se vooruitsigte afwaarts aangepas (vir 2021 en ’22).

Die Buro vir Ekonomiese Ondersoek (BEO) skryf vroeg vandeesweek in sy weeklikse oorsig dat ‘n verslapping van sekere Covid-regulasies, waarskynlik was.

Dit was toe die geval en president Ramaphosa het verslappings aangekondig. 

Verligting van die Covid-maatreëls word natuurlik verwelkom. Maar die sake-omgewing is steeds omvergewerp. Bedryfskade en koste het in verskeie sektore opgehoop.

Die nuwe verslappings skakel ook nie die beleidsrisiko’s uit nie – soos die toekomstige herinstelling van nuwe inperkings. (Veral nie indien Covid-maatstawwe weer verswak nie.) 

Sover was die boodskap vanuit Pretoria hard en duidelik: Sekere ondernemings en bedrywighede sal eenvoudig, hardhandig, en met min meegevoel geheel en al verbied word.

Inperkings dreig dus steeds, veral in sommige sektore. Daarom bly gewone sakebedrywighede soos voorraadaankope, produksie en investering in blootgestelde sektore (soos drank, toerisme en vermaak) baie riskante praktyke.

Groter toekoms-sekerheid oor inperkings is nodig om sakelui oor aanstellings, voorraadaankope, produksie en investering gerus te stel.

Voorts sal Suid-Afrika se jurisdiksie se gunstigheid deurgaans nog meer teenoor ander jurisdiksies opgeweeg word.

Sakeliga vra daarom vir besliste markvriendelike hervorming in die komende Staatsrede.  

Volgende: Werkloosheid (uitgebreid) kan tot by 50% styg, volgens Rapport.

Luidens ‘n berekening deur Mike Schüssler en Phumlani Majozi kan die uitgebreide koers van 43% tot by 51% styg – ‘n risiko weens volgehoue Vlak-3-inperkings. Dié inperkings is intussen gedeeltelik verslap, wat natuurlik die prentjie effe sal verbeter.

Luidens dieselfde berig noem Cosatu ook kommer oor werksverliese, sluitings van ondernemings en miljarde rande se verliese. Klaarblyklik het begrip van koste en opwegings by hierdie alliansievennoot posgevat. Moontlik ‘n ligpunt.

Ann Bernstein (van die CDE) reken dat werkloosheid nie opgelos sal word sonder sneller en volgehoue (arbeidsintensiewe) ekonomiese groei nie. Bernstein hoop daarom dat fabrieke na Suid-Afrika gelok sal word.

Die vraag is egter tot watter mate die huidige beleidsklimaat gunstige verandering ondersteun.

Veral gegewe neigings van verskerpte BEE, gevare van die herinstel van Covid-inperkings, en ander probleme vanweë onoordeelkundige regeringsideologie.

Dit word lank reeds veronderstel dat mediese dienste en regerings-sentralisasie en -burokrasie hand aan hand loop.

Dis die geval omdat die mediese sektor al lank onder state se regulering setel. Maat tot watter mate speel sodanige burokrasie en sentralisering ‘n rol in die huidige krisis?  

Moneyweb skryf onlangs, byvoorbeeld, oor junior dokters wat selfs te midde van die Covid-19-druk op hospitale nie aanstellings kon bekom nie. Druk op hospitale en mediese personeel is wel gebruik is om die drakoniese ekonomiese inperkings te regverdig – inperkings wat groot skade aan lewens en lewensmiddele aangerig het.

Prof. Alex van den Heever, ‘n kenner in openbare gesondheid, reken die regering se mediese begroting is “nie aanpasbaar genoeg nie”. Daarom kon, meen hy, kon sulke dokters nie aangestel word nie. Daar is egter ook talle ander regeringsregulasies wat die aanbod moontlike van mediese dienste en innovasie beïnvloed.

Enkele voorbeelde: Opleiding van dokters en gemeenskapsdiens word sentraal bestuur; hospitaalbeddens word regulatories vasgestel (sertifikate van behoefte), middels, soos Ivermectin, word sentraal goedgekeur (SAHPRA).

Die lys van regulasies is lank en beïnvloed die mate wat mediese dienste en mediese innovasie kan realiseer, asook die prys van dienste.

Die mark in mediese sorg sien baie rompslomp en is geensins ‘n “vrye mark” nie. Is dit dan regtig ‘n verrassing as ‘n stelsel wat só deur burokrasie en regulasies bemoei word nie maklik by groot uitdagings soos Covid-19 kan aanpas nie? 

 Nou die Daily Maverick plaas die volgende brokkie 

Section 66 of the Public Finance Management Act is prohibiting the South African government from indemnifying pharmaceutical companies and thus holding up the rollout of vaccines. The section of the Act aims to ensure contractual legality and equity, but the hold-up by the Treasury is frustrating the Department of Health and has the potential to put hundreds of thousands of South African lives at risk. It’s also hypocritical since SA suspended the indemnity requirements during the 2010 Soccer World Cup. 

Dan se Piet Croucamp on die Vrye Weekblad die volgende 

SWART entrepreneurs moes eerder geleenthede gekry het wat entstof-vervaardiging betref of die kans om die infrastruktuur te skep wat dit moontlik sou maak om die entstof in elke uithoek van die land te kry. Daar waar Clicks of Mays se apteke nie is nie en waar die meeste armes van die land eerder oorleef as bestaan.

Tans is dit totaal onduidelik hoe ‘n staat wat onbeholpe is met die uitbetaling van toelaes aan 17 miljoen armes, nou aan 50 miljoen Suid-Afrikaners ‘n billike geleentheid gaan gee om ingeënt te word. Dit is hier waar ‘n mededingende netwerk van swart entrepreneurs geleenthede kon kry om ‘n institusionele geheue van effektiwiteit op te bou deur gebruik te maak van ‘n kombinasie van staatsfondse en privaat finansiering. Die ruim welwillendheid van internasionale organisasies soos die Wêreldgesondheidsorganisasie (WGO) sou boonop so ‘n onderneming kon bystaan met vaardighede. 

Die Daily Friend aanlyn publikasie van die IRR reageer as volg op die President se beskuldiging van nasionalisering van die bestaande vaksinnes deur ryk lande.

Instead of blaming ‘rich countries’ for South Africa’s vaccine debacle, President Cyril Ramaphosa should own up to his own government’s incompetence and recognise that the root of the disaster is the ANC’s obsession with state control and its hostility to free enterprise and business, says the Institute of Race Relations (IRR).

The IRR was responding to Ramaphosa’s comments in a special address to the World Economic Forum (WEF) at its digital Davos summit.

The president said: ‘We are concerned of vaccine nationalism. The rich countries in the world went out and acquired large doses of vaccines from the developers and manufacturers of these vaccines. Some countries went beyond and acquired up to four times than what their population needs. This is being done to the exclusion to other countries in the world.’

In a statement, the IRR says Ramaphosa should not try ‘to blame others for the catastrophic failures of his own government with regards to Covid-19 vaccine’.

‘The acquisition and roll out of Covid-19 vaccines in South Africa has been a disaster because of the SACP-ANC government’s obsession with state control and its hostility to free enterprise and business,’ the IRR said.

The statement goes on: ‘While the President is correct in saying that countries should collaborate so that no country is left behind, he cannot shy away from the fact that his government was found asleep at the wheel when it came to saving South African lives and livelihoods through an effective vaccine plan. It is absurd that the president can drop the ball, and then accuse other countries, with whom South Africa needs close collaboration, of rigging the game.’

Says IRR Head of Strategic Initiatives Hermann Pretorius: ‘South Africa’s political elites can only play the blame game for so long before the people they are supposed to be serving run out of patience.’

The IRR points out that reports over recent weeks ‘have established the painful and embarrassing reality of a government missing one opportunity after another to seek constructive collaboration with global partners to procure Covid-19 vaccines for one of the worst-hit countries of this pandemic’.

‘These failures happened over many months – a shameful indictment of the Ramaphosa government’s seemingly callous lack of concern for the lives and livelihoods of South Africans. Requests for collaboration and various efforts to engage with the Ramaphosa government went unanswered, each being a missed opportunity for the SACP-ANC government to put South Africans ahead of its own ideological obsession with state control and its irrational and dangerous disdain for business.’

Dan se Pretoruis op RSG die volgende 

Daar is bepaalde skuiwergate in die beoogde wetgeing met betrekking tot onteiening van vergoeding. Die wetgewing word gepromulgeer onder die konstitusionele voorsiening vir herstel van grondregte. MAAr die wetgewing dra die onteiende eiendom oor aan die staat. Daar is dus geen sprake van herstel van grondregte wat die sogenaamde benadeeldes sal bevoordeel nie. Daar kan dus moontlik ‘n ernstige saak uitgemaak word, dat as gevolg van die tekortkomimg die voorgestelde wetgewing onkonstitusioneel sou wees. 

Die Daily Friend voeg die volgende hier by 

The Bill is unconstitutional in at least three ways:

First, its open list of the circumstances in which ‘nil’ compensation may be paid for land is void for vagueness. It also contradicts the rule of law, the ‘supremacy’ of which is guaranteed by the Constitution’s founding provisions in Section 1.

Allowing expropriation for nil compensation is inconsistent with Section 25 (the property clause), which requires ‘an equitable balance’ between the nation’s interest in land reform and the interests of the expropriated owner. Since the expropriated owner cannot be expected to shoulder a disproportionate share of the costs of meeting a broad societal need, nil compensation is intrinsically inequitable and invalid.

Second, the Bill’s procedural rules allow an expropriating authority to act as judge and jury in its own cause. This contradicts, among other things, Section 1 of the Constitution (with its emphasis on the supremacy of the rule of law), Section 25 (with its objective requirements for a valid expropriation), Section 33 (which guarantees fair and reasonable administrative action) and Section 34 (which gives people the right to have the compensation payable decided by the courts before the state unilaterally takes ownership and possession of their key assets).

Third, the Bill defines ‘expropriation’ in a way that is intended to allow the government to take custodianship of all land in the country without having to pay any compensation at all. It seeks to achieve this by drawing a technical and artificial distinction between the taking of ownership by the state – which counts as an expropriation requiring ‘just’ compensation – and the state’s assumption of custodianship, which does not. However, what the Constitution means by the term ‘expropriation’ is not so easily circumvented.

 Ek haal gou vir oulaas twee facebook plasings deur Jean, filosoof en facebook digter aan. 

Daar is ‘n nuwe liberale konserwatief. Sensuur. Taboos. Beperkings. Filters. Veilige spasies. Voorskrifte. Vryheid is nou net vryheid indien almal gelyk vry is anders is dit privilege. Dus moet almal nou eers slaaf totdat almal vry is. Dis soos mans wat nou vrouens kan wees as hulle wil, al vul hulle vroue spasie in sport of misbruik hulle manlike fisiese voorsprong. Êrens word iemand se vryheid erg ingekort as eie reg en eie wil veroorsaak dat ander se wil en reg ingekort word. Uitbuiting van enige voorreg of reg of wet bly uitbuiting. Akteurs en kunstenaars en modelle word voorgeskryf watter kultuurrol hulle kan speel, beskryf of ten toonstel. As jy nie in jou geboorte kultuurvakkie bly nie is jy ‘n kulturele dief. Vryheid is nou net vryheid as die vryheidsdiktators toestemming daartoe gegee. Vryheid van spraak geld net as dit aan streng liberale wette en voorskrifte voldoen. Die regses kry seker dêm lekker. Hulle het ons mos gesê. Eintlik is ekstreme liberales en ekstreme regses bloedfamilie. Beide wil jou DWING om soos hulle te dink. 


En dan die volgende juweeltjie
 

Ek merk dat mense dikwels as verskoning vir hulle eie blapse of blaps dade/uitsprake van hulle helde skrou konteks! konteks! Jip konteks is belangrik maar eers moet julle die kern reg kry. Kubaanse dokters se nominasie vir die Nobel Vredesprys of swak navorsing deur joere kan nie met konteks konteks reggestel word nie. Rangskik die feite van die begin af reg dat dit vir almal duidelik is. Laat die konteks die kern help verduidelik, maar gistraand se Big Surprise op die rug van swem en drank goeie nuus gaan mense nie almal oortuig dat Kubaanse kommie engel doktertjies pryse bo ons eie mediese engele verdien nie.

 

Nou ja tyd vir daai insetsel. 

Die volgende word op sosiale media geplaas, onthou dit is sosiale media, so enigeiets gaan

This company which registered on the 29th Of January owned by the daughter of the Mpumalanga premier was given a vaccines distribution contract of R200 million.before they arrived in the country and a R1,5 Million upfront payment.

Intussen vasgestel dat dit waarskynlik vals nuus is. Maar die konteks en die geskiedenis maak dit natuurlik moontlik dat dit ‘n mate van geloofwaardigheid het. Die Premier reageer onmiddelik, maar maak dan die argument uit dat iemand haar probeer diskrediteer. Miskien wel maar hoekom sal enige iemand met bietjie logika sulke vals nuus plaas as daar net moet gewag word totdat iets soortgelyks wel gebeur. Vals nuus is gewoonlik om ‘n standpunt te bevorder tot voordeel van iemand en tot nadeel van die persoon waaroor dit gaan.  

Die Oud President Jacob Zuma speel toe wat baie glo sy laaste kaart is, Hy verklaar dat die Konstitisionele hof politiek bedryf en dat hy nie aan die voorskrif om voor die Zondo kommissie te verskyn, gaan voldoen nie 

Feitlik onmiddelik kom sy bondgenoot en toevallig ook die Sekretaris Generaal van die ANC, Ace Magashule tot sy ondersteuning met die volgende juweeltjie -Die oud President het niks verkeerd gedoen nie- los hom uit en die ANC het dus geen optrede teen Zuma nodig nie. Nou dit natuurlik nog voordat Zuma sy lank beloofde versugting uitgespreek het om sy “dag voor die hof te kry” Vermoed ACE wil graag sien hoe dit uitspeel, hy het immers ook klagtes teen hom en hier kan dit dalk blyk dat jy eintlik nooit hof toe te gaan nie, ignoreer dit maar net. Die probleem is natuurlik dat die ZOndo kommissie nou so diep in is dat hulle eintlik nie meer nie kan optree nie. Maar ek en jy weet ook dat daar fanatiese ondersteuners (zombies?) wat beslis strate toe sal gaan -of selfs die polisie sou probeer verhoed, sou daar ‘n arrestasie gemaak word. Wat doen ons. Ek dink ons raak glad nie betrokke nie, kyk hoe die klompie die ANC heel moontlik skeur en geniet die post ANC tydperk wat wag. Soos hulle se die gevegslyne is getrek. 

Nou uit ‘n politieke party oogpunt le daar interessante tye voor. Juliua Malema van die EFF het reeds die 1ste skote gevuur. Hy vra vir Zuma of hy by hom kan kom tee drink -dis nou by Nkandla-. Zuma aanvaar. Gisteraand op kyknet verslag gesels daardie absolute bewonderaar van die EFF Jan Jan Joubert, oor die uitnodiging en maak 2 soort van verregaande stellings. Eerstens dat “”almal mos weet dat as die EFF eers ‘n standpunt bingeneem het hulle daarby bly. Sjoe – in my totale onkunde is dit half duidelik dat juis die teendeel waar is en die EFF juis willekeurig standpunt verander na gelang van die politiek voordeel vir hulle. Eers sal ons sterf vir Zuma, Toe moet hy tronk toe ens, daar is vele voorbeelde. Vriend Jan Jan voeg toe by dat Malema beslis vir Zuma gaan se dat hy op sy eie is en die grondwet kan oortree nie. Nou die betogings en heel moontlik anargistiese optrede wat voorle rondom die moontlik arrestasie van Zuma is EFF kos. Hulle is mal daaroor (Clicks-Senekal en vele meer). Hoekom sal Malema dit wil mis. Zuma voer hoeka aan dat die die grondwet hof se besluit is deur regters wat deur daardie magtige “wit monopolie Kapitaal” gekaap is, natuurlik om die verskriklik veronregte Zuma steeds meer skuldig te laat lyk. Die tipe van sameswerings teorie stem natuurlik heeltemal ooreen met EFF standpunte. Dus Jan Jan, ek vermoed Malema gaan daar uitstap by die teedrinkery en aankondig dat die EFF nie die inmenging van die sg Wit Monopolie Kapitaal kan toelaat nie en sal verseker dat Zuma nie in hegtenis geneem word nie. Natuurlik dan ook die President bykom as synde die agent van WMK te wees.

JAn-Jan as ek, in my onkunde verkeerd is sal ek plegtig om verskoning vra, maar ek dink die EFF het te veel om te verloor om nie die geleentheid aan te gryp nie.

Kom ons sit terug en kyk hoe die geveg uitspeel. Ek dink net dalk het Steve destyds by die KKNK tydens die rooi skoene episode te hardhandig met die man opgetree en hom dalk net tot by sulke ongelooflike uitlatings gebring.

En ek het net hierbo na die kwaliteite van die DA verwys , maar polities mis hulle soms die politieke spel. Net ‘n verklaring deur Glynnis Breytenbach dat Zuma gearresteer moet word is in die S A politieke opset bloot eenvoudig te min. Ek vermoed veel meer aktiewe optredes ens is nodig. Maggies man proteoptogte om die arrestasie te ondersteun, plakkate met arresteer Zuma, Korrupsie moet nou stop en dies meer is nou nodig. Dit is die straat politiek van daardie groepering wie se steun julle ook nodig het om die 2024 verkiesing te wen. Hierdie is Suid Afrika. Dit geld natuurlik al die ander partye buite die ANC?EFF dampkring. Maak soos Malema, maak oproerige pers konferensies, die “peoples” sal nie duld dat Zuma, wat ons besteel het vry rondloop terwyl ons swaarkry nie. Doen net iets. Hierdie is dalk die beste geleentheid in jare om die ANC/EFF ordentlik en op gelyke vlak aan te vat. Die skietgoed, waarmee baie mense (dalk die meerderheid) saamstem is daar.

 Laastens hoor ek van die gropering CANZUK, soort van gebaseer op die voormalige Europese Ekonomiese Gemeenskap en behels dat verhoogde Handel, Buitelands beleid samewerking, militere samewerking en interstaat mobiliteit deur burgers gevestig word tussen Kanada, Ausralie, nieu Zeeland en die Verenigde Konigkryk. Klink vir my na ‘n heelwat beter opsie as die ANC se Brics opsie en hopelik kan Suid Afrika toekomstig by so ‘n inisiatief betrokke raak. Die inisiatief word ook ondersteun deur dinkskrums soos die ADam Smith Institute, Henry Jackson Society, Bruges Group en politici van die 4 betrokke state.

Daar is ook in reaksie op die inisiatief sekere uitsprake met voor en nadele gemeld mbt tot die deelname van Suid Afrika nl 

It might work. Though it probably wouldn’t.

Like the CANZUK countries, South Africa:

  • Is a member of the Commonwealth of Nations
  • Has historical ties to the United Kingdom
  • Speaks English as an official language (among others)
  • Has democratic institutions, largely shaped by/inherited from Great Britain, featuring a hybrid Westminster/presidential system of government
  • Likewise, has rule-of-law which is enforced by a Western judicial system
  • Has a considerable population of British descent (though, unlike in the CANZUK countries, not a majority)

Unlike the CANZUK countries, South Africa:

  • Does not have the Monarch as its head of state
  • Does not have a majority of its population of British descent
  • Is not a developed country (South Africa is classified as an upper-middle income economy, quite well developed for its region with some obvious strong points in terms of rule of law, infrastructure and the fact that it has a market economy)

All in all, most of the reasons in favour of including South Africa in CANZUK could also be applied to numerous other Commonwealth countries, such as India or Singapore. Therefore, it most certainly won’t be.

  •  Dalk nog iets wat die opposisie partye in Suid Afrika aktief kan nastreef.

  Baie, baie dankie dat jy saamgeluister het. Soos altyd het ek dit baie geniet om jou te probeer vermaak, maar darem ook bietjie te laat dink en hopelik so af en toe laat glimlag of dalk selfs uitbundig lag. Jy het geluister na Netradiosa by www.netradiosa .co.za. Bly asseblief ingeskakel vir heerlike musiek en programme. Ek groet jou tot volgende week wanneer ek weer op dieselfde plek en tyd lewendig met jou praat.