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?
- 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?
- Why Zuma was personally involved in the appointment of Dan Mantsha at Denel?
- Was the sale of Denel IP to VR Laser Asia (which followed Mantsha’s appointment) a coincidence or part of an intended consequence?
- There was a similar pattern of evidence at the passenger rail agency, Prasa. Was Zuma aware of this?
- What was Zuma’s knowledge or his action or lack of action on what happened at various state-owned enterprises? Was the outcome intended?
- 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?
- 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?
- Why was a nuclear deal, as testified to by Nene, contemplated in the first place?
- Why was a ministerial task team, chaired by Zwane, appointed to investigate why banks had closed the Gupta family and related entity accounts?
- Why did Zuma attempt to remove the authority for deciding on the national Budget from Treasury?
- Nou voort met die voorgestelde vrae deur Adv Pretorius
- How did the Gupta family have prior knowledge that Nene would be removed as finance minister?
- What are these links and was the purpose to facilitate the eventual outcome (of State Capture)?
- 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?
- Why did Zuma have a personal involvement in the Bain & Co plans to reorganise the SA Revenue Service?
- 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?
- Why did Zuma concur when the Waterkloof wrongdoer Bruce Koloane was appointed ambassador to the Netherlands?
- 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?
- Was this pressure designed to benefit certain parties?
- 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?
- The former president’s son, Duduzane Zuma, has benefited substantially from his relationship with the Gupta family. Where did the benefits ultimately flow to?
- 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?
- Voort met die vrae wat Adv Pretorius aan oud Presiedent Zuma sou wou vra
- Did the Guptas fund the ANC or do favours for the governing party?
- Would Zuma have been asked about the use of untraceable cash as a medium of transfer?
- 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?
- 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?
- Why were certain people, like the former head of crime intelligence Richard Mdluli, protected?
- Why was there such instability at the top leadership level of the National Directorate of Public Prosecutions? Was it deliberate, or coincidental?
- As president, why did Zuma not do anything when evidence of grand corruption was exposed? Was it neglect, or was it a coincidence?
- How did Zuma decide on his appointments to important roles in the law enforcement agencies?
- 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?
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. .