National Assembly - 20 September 2001
THURSDAY, 20 SEPTEMBER 2001 __
PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY
____
The House met at 14:05:
The Speaker took the Chair and requested members to observe a moment of silence for prayers or meditation.
ANNOUNCEMENTS, TABLINGS AND COMMITTEE REPORTS - see col 000.
SA GOVERNMENT'S RESPONSE TO TERRORIST ATTACK ON USA
(Statement)
The SPEAKER: Order! I wish to advise the House that the Minister of Foreign Affairs has requested an opportunity to make a statement. I have agreed to this. I understand the Chief Whip of the Majority Party has a motion for the Order. The CHIEF WHIP OF THE MAJORITY PARTY: Madam Speaker, I do not have a motion. I thought it was sufficient that the Minister made the request to you, and that you had granted her the opportunity to make a statement. We have agreed with the other parties that we will give ourselves an opportunity, as parties, to respond to the statement, probably some time next week.
The SPEAKER: Order! The issue is really that I will allow that opportunity before we take notices of motion.
The MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS: Madam Speaker, hon members, comrades and friends, last week, on the fateful Tuesday, 11 September 2001, the whole world watched with horror, disbelief and shock the deplorable acts of terror perpetrated against the United States of America and its people. These carefully calibrated acts of terror, which maimed and killed thousands of innocent people deserve our strong and unequivocal condemnation.
We join the international community in expressing our heartfelt condolences and deepest sympathies to those who fell victim to these acts by these faceless terrorists. Our Government has also conveyed its message of support and sympathy to the president and the government of the United States. Driven by our outrage at these unmitigated acts of terror and a spirit of solidarity, the people in our country, through various formations, have markedly demonstrated that the pain of the American people in their darkest hour is also ours. The response of the public has been overwhelming, as shown through church services and the signing of a book of condolences.
True to our character as South Africans, we collectively responded to the calamity that befell the people of the United States. Sadly, there are still six South Africans who are not accounted for. Government, through its mission in the US, and working with the relevant United States authorities, is continuing to search for these South Africans who were in the vicinity of the affected area. South Africa has a long history of struggle, but in that long history it also has a long history of adopting a policy and principle of anti- terrorism. Even as we were struggling for freedom in this country, opposed to the suppression and oppression of our people, we continued to make a distinction between military targets and civilians. Informed by the morality of our struggle, we always resisted the temptation of using violence indiscriminately against civilians.
South Africa and the South African Government condemns terrorism without any equivocation. Attacks against civilians cannot be justified. This approach is integral to the humanitarian values that inspired our struggle and governed its conduct. These principles inform the core values of our Constitution.
South Africa therefore will co-operate with all efforts to apprehend the culprits and bring them to book. Justice must be done, and must be seen to be done. South Africa therefore recognises the right of the US Government to track down the culprits and bring them to justice. Any action should be informed by a thorough investigation and proper targeting of the culprits.
In his conversation with our President Thabo Mbeki yesterday afternoon, President Bush of the United States conveyed best wishes to the people of South Africa and thanked them for their response to the tragedy that befell the American people. Again, in their conversation, they agreed that the issue of terrorism needs to be confronted by all countries, but has to be approached in a calm and cool-headed manner.
The two Presidents also agreed that this fight against terrorism should not be seen as a fight against any religion, culture or race and as an act of collective punishment or collective guilt. They agreed that they should make every effort to ensure that whatever is done is directed at the perpetrators and the terrorists. They also agreed that the world should unite in a coalition against terrorism, that this coalition still needs a serious discussion and that a lot of inputs are needed to define and shape it.
In this regard we also, as South Africans, would like to condemn acts of violence perpetrated against any particular group and any particular race in this country. Coming from the successful World Conference against Racism, any acts that are directed at any particular people on the basis of their colour, race, religion or faith should be opposed as this will play into the hands of the wicked forces that are committing these acts. Islamophobia, anti-Arabism, anti-Semitism and any other form of prejudice and discrimination must be eliminated from our society.
The South African Government has been approached by the United States Government for assistance and for co-operation in tracking down the perpetrators of terrorist acts. The assistance that we have been asked to render is in line with what we have been doing and what we would like to do in combating crimes such as terrorism. And we are co-operating with the United States government and all other governments in doing what we need to do to eradicate terrorism.
We are also aware that in the long term it would be important that we pay attention to the role of the United Nations and how the UN should itself, as an agent of collective security, be involved in this fight against terrorism. We would like to see the UN taking this as one of its priorities.
The South African Government has not considered any military involvement in the operations envisaged. We have not been asked to render any military assistance and the matter has not even arisen. So, within the context of our approach both to immediate and long-term challenges in dealing with the scourge of terrorism, the issue has not arisen.
Lastly, I would like to say we will, as the Government of South Africa, and also as part of the international community, remain seized with the developments both in the United States and the world over, and we will commit whatever we need to commit to fight against the scourge of terrorism in our country.
I would like to express the Government’s appreciation to the people of South Africa for the way they have responded to the tragedy of enormous proportions that befell the people of the United States last week. [Applause.]
NOTICES OF MOTION
Mr M S BOOI: Madam Speaker, I hereby give notice that on the next sitting day of the House I shall move on behalf of the ANC:
That the House -
(1) notes that United States President George Bush called President Thabo Mbeki yesterday to thank him for South Africa’s support in the wake of terror attacks at the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon;
(2) notes Mr Tony Leon’s comments that South Africa needs to do more than providing humanitarian support;
(3) believes that Mr Tony Leon’s comments reflect his desire to score cheap political points at the expense of the pain of the American people;
(4) calls on the Leader of the DP, Mr Tony Leon, to desist from making opportunistic statements; and
(5) supports the Government in its endeavour to provide the most appropriate support to the American people, which has been appreciated by the President of the United States.
[Applause.]
The LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION: Madam Speaker, I hereby give notice that on the next sitting day of the House I shall move:
That the House -
(1) notes with approval the Minister of Foreign Affairs’ unequivocal condemnation of terrorism and the appalling acts of horror unleashed last week against the USA;
(2) regrets the equivocal stance of other leading members of the ANC on this issue;
(3) regrets deeply the fact that six South African nationals are missing or dead in the vicinity of the World Trade Centre in New York; and
(4) believes the SA Government should follow the precedent of the British Government and offer free or assisted passage to New York for the families of the six missing South Africans.
[Applause.]
Prince N E ZULU: Madam Speaker, I hereby give notice that on the next sitting day of the House I shall move:
That the House -
(1) notes that King Shaka forged a Zulu national identity which to this day is maintained and defended vigorously by the Zulu nation with its proud cultural heritage;
(2) further notes that this year’s King Shaka Day ceremony will be held on Saturday, 22 September, at KwaDukuza; and
(3) expresses the hope that all South African communities will contribute to building a common national identity as they celebrate their individual cultural heritage and tradition on Heritage Day, 24 September.
Mr N H MASITHELA: Madam Speaker, I hereby give notice that on the next sitting day of the House I shall move on behalf of the ANC: That the House -
(1) notes the cessation of hostilities between Israel and Palestine is undermined by sporadic incidents of shooting from both sides;
(2) believes that these incidents do not assist in finding a lasting solution to the political problems in the Middle East; and
(3) calls on all those involved to desist from engaging in violent actions and to heed the call for a ceasefire.
[Applause.]
Mr J J DOWRY: Madam Speaker, I hereby give notice that on the next sitting day of the House I shall move:
That the House -
(1) condemns the arson attack on the Cape Town offices of the Muslim Judicial Council and any other form of intimidation and violence against any member(s) of the Muslim community or any religious community;
(2) confirms once again that South Africa must become a beacon of tolerance where all religions are treated with respect; and
(3) calls on Minister Tshwete to take steps to improve security and to send out a strong message that this kind of behaviour will not be tolerated.
[Applause.]
Mr T ABRAHAMS: Madam Speaker, I hereby give notice that on the next sitting day of the House I shall move on behalf of the UDM:
That this House -
(1) condemns in the strongest terms the use of violence and the manifestation of political intolerance in all its forms;
(2) supports and promotes the practice of free political activity in every part of South Africa;
(3) calls for a thorough investigation by the provincial authorities into the murder of Nzomntu Tutuka of Samora Machel settlement at the weekend; and
(4) further calls upon the Directorate of Public Prosecutions to conduct an in-depth investigation into the failure of the police to bring to book the assailants of UDM members in greater Cape Town since 1998.
Mrs N D MBOMBO: Madam Speaker, I hereby give notice that on the next sitting day of the House I shall move on behalf of the ANC:
That the House - (1) notes the cowardly attack on the offices of the Muslim Judicial Council in Athlone yesterday;
(2) believes that the attack is unwarranted and misguided; and
(3) urges all South Africans to show zero tolerance on acts of vandalism and to report such acts to law-enforcement agencies.
Mr I S MFUNDISI: Madam Speaker, I hereby give notice that on the next sitting day of the House I shall move on behalf of the UCDP:
That the House -
(1) appreciates the fact that as we approach Heritage Day, there are signs of acceptance of the present reality among some academic institutions that recognise good work done by other people;
(2) notes that the late Mr Davidson P Moloto, an octogenarian and author of repute in the Setswana language, will be honoured by being awarded the Chancellor’s Medal posthumously by the Potchefstroom University for his ``exceptional contribution’’ to the development of that language;
(3) realises that the late Mr Moloto wrote four novels and headed the Setswana Language Board that was responsible for the development of the vocabulary and orthography of the language; and
(4) commends the Potchefstroom University for recognising this literary giant and for deciding to make the award on Friday, 21 September 2001, in time to celebrate Heritage Day the following Monday.
Ms N E HANGANA: Madam Speaker, I hereby give notice that on the next sitting day of the House I shall move on behalf of the ANC:
That the House -
(1) notes that since the December 5 local elections the DA’s Western Cape provincial government and unicity council have made life worse for the people of Cape Town;
(2) also notes that the DA’s campaign against the poor includes -
(a) the cutting of basic services like water and electricity;
(b) evicting poor people from their houses in Tafelsig, Macassar,
Elsies River and Faure;
(c) taking poor people to court instead of developing humane payment
policies; and
(d) focusing more on its own internal squabbles instead of coming up
with a plan for speedy delivery of services to the poor; and (3) calls on the DA to abandon its fight against the poor and
marginalised in the Western Cape.
[Applause.]
The SPEAKER: Order! Before calling the DP I want to call Dr Mogoba because the PAC had a turn, and I overlooked that.
Dr M S MOGOBA: Madam Speaker, I hereby give notice that on the next sitting day of the House I shall move:
That the House -
(1) notes that the Pan Africanist Student Movement has won a landslide victory in the SRC elections at the Cape Technikon College by winning 12 out of 16 seats;
(2) congratulates these gallant students for winning such a victory with limited resources; and (3) recognises that the writing is on the wall for the forthcoming elections in our land.
[Applause.]
Dr J T DELPORT: Madam Speaker, I hereby give notice that on the next sitting day of the House I shall move:
That this House -
(1) notes the ruling by Judge Landman, in which he upheld the legality of the pay strike by state attorneys;
(2) also notes the recent motion of no confidence in the Minister for Justice and Constitutional Development by a group of prominent magistrates; and
(3) calls on President Mbeki to intervene in the salary dispute between state attorneys and the Department of Justice, as the situation has reached the point where the officials of his department have clearly lost confidence in the Minister, and the Minister clearly lacks the will, ability or competence to deal with the matter.
[Applause.]
Mrs I MARS: Madam Speaker, I hereby give notice that on the next sitting day of the House I shall move on behalf of the IFP:
That the House -
(1) notes with deep concern the increase in teenage pregnancies as reported in the Sowetan of 18 September 2001, entitled ``Too soon a Mother”;
(2) recognises that a number of factors contribute to teenage pregnancies, including poverty, economic disparity, dysfunctional families, a lack of education, urban migration, gender discrimination, erosion of spiritual values and irresponsible sexual behaviour;
(3) notes that pregnant girls are often ostracised and stigmatised by classmates and communities, which often result in high dropout rates from schools;
(4) further notes that children born to teenage girls are at high risk of infant mortality and malnutrition and are at an even greater risk of neglect; and
(5) calls on the Minister of Education to speed up the inclusion of the subject of sexuality in the curriculum.
Mr K A MOLOTO: Madam Speaker, I hereby give notice that on the next sitting day of the House I shall move on behalf of the ANC:
That the House -
(1) notes that the SA International Trade Exhibition, Saitex, is to host events aimed at boosting trade and investment in the Southern African Development Community;
(2) believes that this exhibition will provide an ideal platform for foreign visitors to investigate investment opportunities in the Southern African region;
(3) further believes that this exhibition reflects the commitment of the ANC-led Government to economic growth and development of the region; and
(4) welcomes the decision by Saitex to host exhibitions in the region.
Dr P J RABIE: Madam Speaker, I hereby give notice that on the next sitting day of the House I shall move on behalf of the New NP:
That the House -
(1) notes that -
(a) the recent 16 day strike in the tyre and rubber industry cost
employers R160 million in lost turnover and R16 million in
wages; and
(b) Dumisa Ntuli stated that the four-week strike had been very
successful, even though 5,88 million people in South Africa find
themselves without work;
(2) calls upon the Government to encourage labour and industry to do all that is possible to avert strikes and to negotiate wage disputes in a responsible manner; and
(3) acknowledges that foreign direct investment is a prerequisite for sustained economic growth and may be diverted to other emerging markets if wage disputes are not settled.
Prof L M MBADI: Madam Speaker, I hereby give notice that on the next sitting day of the House I shall move on behalf of the UDM:
That the House -
(1) cautiously welcomes the Minister of Social Development’s request to Cabinet and Parliament for an increase in social grants and pensions;
(2) notes the Minister’s acknowledgement of the economic burden resulting from the impact of HIV/Aids, which adds to the mounting evidence placed before the President against his false logic;
(3) further notes that theft and corruption in the department should be eradicated, thereby saving the department huge amounts of money that could be used to alleviate the suffering of the poor; and
(4) calls on the Government to analyse priorities carefully to reflect the needs of the people properly.
Mrs M P COETZEE-KASPER: Madam Speaker, I hereby give notice that on the next sitting day of the House I shall move on behalf of the ANC:
That the House -
(1) notes that -
(a) Minister Zola Skweyiya visited the central Karoo which the
Government has identified as a nodal point for development; and
(b) the Government announced that it has voted R83 million in
preparing for development projects in rural areas;
(2) applauds Minister Skweyiya for actively pursuing the Government’s Integrated Rural Strategy Development Plan; and (3) supports initiatives by the Government to combat poverty in rural areas.
SERVICE DELIVERY WEEK
(Draft Resolution)
The CHIEF WHIP OF THE MAJORITY PARTY: Madam Speaker, I move without notice:
That the House -
(1) notes that -
(a) the Department of Public Service and Administration has planned
a service delivery week from 25 to 28 September 2001 with the
theme of ``I am proud to serve''; and
(b) this initiative will give public representatives opportunities
to perform on-the-spot audits on compliance with service
delivery - Batho Pele; and (2) calls on all public representatives to devote their time to
participation in service delivery audit programmes in their
constituencies.
Agreed to.
CONGRATULATIONS TO PROTEA CRICKET TEAM
(Draft Resolution)
Mr D H M GIBSON: Madam Speaker, I move without notice:
That the House -
(1) congratulates the Protea Cricket team on the success of their recent 5 day test series in Zimbabwe; and
(2) wishes them well for their upcoming 1 day series against Zimbabwe.
Agreed to. ORDER OF PRECEDENCE: QUESTIONS
(Draft Resolution)
The CHIEF WHIP OF THE MAJORITY PARTY: Madam Speaker, I move without notice:
That, notwithstanding the provisions of Rule 29(8), Questions shall not have precedence on Wednesday, 26 September 2001.
Agreed to.
HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENT BILL
(Second Reading debate)
The MINISTER OF EDUCATION: Madam Speaker, hon members, this Bill has been extensively discussed in the portfolio committee, and its chairperson, Prof Mayatula will analyse it in detail. I would like, with the permission of hon members, to refer to some basic principles underlying these amendments. As I indicated in our review of education since 1994, the nature of the debate in education and the focus of attention has shifted to delivery on the policies that we have put in place. In April this year I tabled in the House the National Plan for Higher Education, which provides the Government’s blueprint for the fundamental restructuring of the higher education system. I need not remind hon members that the end result of restructuring is to enable the establishment of a higher education system that is sustainable, of high quality, contributes to the national reconstruction and development agenda, particularly the Government’s human resource development agenda, and enables greater access to the education system. The national plan, I am pleased to report, has met with widespread support both within and outside the higher education system.
The few voices that have come out in opposition to the national plan - and I am sure that the House is familiar with these from the press reports - are largely driven by narrow, personal and institutional interests. The worldwide experience is that large-scale educational change is not without pain. There already is and there will be much contestation around the restructuring processes. Vigorous debate about the form and nature of new institutions, new academic programmes and new research areas can only enrich the process. This is what higher education thrives on and, particularly, on freedom of speech and a free flow of ideas. However, there is no place for narrow personal agendas, which have the potential to derail progress. I want to assure the House that we will not allow our transformation agenda to be either sidetracked or ambushed.
I am also pleased to inform the House that the implementation of the national plan is on target. The various working groups that I have established facilitate implementation, are hard at work and are committed to meeting the very tight deadlines set in the national plan. My final proposals for institutional restructuring will be with the Cabinet early in the new year. But I must advise the House that we may have to take provisional measures because of crises that one or two institutions are facing at present. In the meanwhile, those mergers announced in the national plan are proceeding apace.
The main purpose of the introduction of this amending Bill is to help in the implementation of the restructuring of the institutional landscape of higher education, in particular institutional mergers as outlined in the national plan. In this regard, the amending Bill provides for the establishment of interim councils to facilitate the creation of new public higher education institutions resulting from the merger of one or more existing institutions.
The need for interim councils is precisely to ensure the creation of new South African higher education institutions, based on the values and principles of nonracism and democracy. This is the case in the proposed mergers of the M L Sultan Technikon and the Natal Technikon, and that of Unisa, Technikon SA and the distance education centre of Vista University, which are in process. These must not be held to ransom by particular interests, whether they are individual or institutional.
The interim councils have a very specific function and cannot be constituted along traditional lines where one has constituencies representing workers, business, alumni, the academic staff and the administration staff. This was particularly the point raised by some constituencies and the DA, which suggested this in the deliberations in the portfolio committee. I would have thought, I would like to say to the hon Boy Geldenhuys, that this elementary logic would have found some place in the DA. But then, I suppose, we would be asking too much of the DA to understand logic, elementary or otherwise, or even good manners, as not reflected by the Leader of the Opposition in his response to the tragedy in New York.
Properly constituted and functioning university and technikon councils are essential to the success and good governance of higher education. They are trusted by the public to ensure that the higher education institutions discharge their teaching and research mandates, and that they do so in a responsible and accountable manner.
However, good governance seems to elude a number of our higher education institutions, which are bedevilled by conflict and tension between management and councils to the detriment of their academic and educational functions. This is illustrated by the fact that in the recent past two university councils have been dissolved.
Therefore, the Bill seeks to fill a major gap in the Act, which, as it stands, does not provide a mechanism for the legal dissolution of institutional councils, which are unable to discharge their legal and fiduciary responsibilities. I am particularly concerned that some councils are not acting as vigorously as they should in combating corruption within institutions, and within the council itself.
In this regard, I want to highlight the growing public concern about the blatant abuse, by some councils, of public trust through the payment of exorbitant honoraria and fees to council members. Indeed, there are cases that have come to my notice which indicate that the payment earned from a council membership is so high as to render it unnecessary for an individual to seek gainful employment outside the service he or she performs within the council. One must remember that in the council, membership is a matter of public duty.
This cannot continue. It is my responsibility to ensure that councils do not abuse the public trust. I have therefore indicated to all institutional councils that no member should be paid more than R1 000 per meeting. If councils do not adhere to this and continue with the current practice, then I should give advance warning that I will have to consider amending the Higher Education Act to regulate payment in line with strict guidelines to be determined by the Minister of Education.
One cannot invoke academic or university autonomy to justify greed and avarice. In focusing on the problems and difficulties that confront councils in some institutions, we should at the same time not forget the many councils which carry out their responsibilities with the necessary commitment and probity. I want to salute the many men and women from all walks of life, who give of their expertise and time so willingly to serve on these councils.
The extension of the period to two years, for which the administrator can be appointed to manage a university, has been necessitated by our experience with the two universities where administrators are currently being appointed. Members will recall that to appoint an administrator is, in fact, to do something in a dysfunctional institution. I am particularly pleased with the progress that has been made this year at the University of the North, where teaching and research are now taking place under conditions of peace and tranquillity. The campus has therefore been stabilised for the first time in a decade. Its reorganisation is proceeding very well, but it will take longer than one year to achieve the functions and the aims that we have in mind.
I now want to turn to an aspect of the Bill which had some members jumping up and down as if they had ants in their pants. I refer to the repeal of the private Acts of the universities. The DA, I am sure, will portray this
- logic and common sense are not necessarily their forte - as a further intrusion on institutional autonomy and academic freedom. This could not be further from the truth. [Interjections.] I want to tell the hon Geldenhuys that academic freedom and institutional autonomy are protected by the Constitution - not institutional autonomy, but academic freedom. That institutional autonomy is protected by the Higher Education Act is precisely because of the far-reaching provisions of the Higher Education Act, including the guarantee of institutional autonomy that renders the private Acts no more than symbols of a past in which institutional autonomy was observed by some and their nationalist bedfellows in the breach thereof.
The leadership of higher education institutions support the repeal of the private Acts. The Bill also takes a further step in the establishment of a single, national, co-ordinated higher education system through repealing the Certification Council for Technikon Education, which has been responsible for quality assurance functions in the technikons. This function has now been taken over by the Higher Education Quality Committee of the Council on Higher Education for the entire higher education system - that is, both universities and technikons - thus bringing quality assurance under one umbrella, possibly the first time anywhere, in any country in the world.
I want to thank members and the portfolio committee for their work. This Bill seeks to strengthen the regulation of higher education and takes us closer to achieving the goal of a single, national, co-ordinated system of higher education. It also marks the process of cleaning up legislation. I commend this Bill to the House. [Applause.]
Mr R S NTULI: Madam Speaker, hon Ministers and hon members, I want to emphasise that the DP accepts and cherishes the fact that transformation of the higher education system is not only necessary, but also not negotiable. That is the issue, and this issue will not be delayed, we accept that. We also appreciate that transformation must reflect the changes taking place in our society and strengthen the values and practices of democracy to serve our new social order.
Transformation of higher education must not only meet our pressing national needs, but also respond to modern realities and, in particular, redress the past. The Higher Education Act, the subject of this amendment, attempts to establish a legislative framework for the creation of a single, co- ordinated system of higher education comprising universities, technikons and colleges. This Act charges the Minister with the responsibility of determining higher education policy after consultation with the Council on Higher Education.
In a very emotionally charged debate, the DP in particular, opposed the passage of the Act mentioned above, arguing that, while the Bill - and the corresponding White Paper - recognised the right to academic freedom and institutional autonomy, the Minister would, in future, be empowered to virtually determine the priorities of higher education.
The DP essentially challenged the centralisation of power in the hands of the Minister and the controlling body. Four years after the passage of the principal Act, the Higher Education Act, we are now faced with the present Higher Education Amendment Bill in conditions and circumstances not very dissimilar.
The Bill seeks to amend the Higher Education Act substantively by repealing private Acts of universities, which essentially means that the Higher Education Act will be the only legal instrument pertaining to the universities. We have no problem with that, essentially. After all, even the universities have indicated that most of these Acts are just symbolic.
In relation to the repeal of the Certification Council for Technikon Education, the Higher Education Quality Committee will take over the functions of the Certification Council for Technikon Education. We have no problem with that either.
In relation to the establishment of interim councils for new, declared or merged public institutions, in the case of a merger, an interim council will be established for the new institution. Both the chairperson and members will be appointed by the Minister.
It is this third objective of the amendment Bill that, to us, is a matter of concern. [Interjections.] We have a right to feel that way, whether or not the members say ``oh’’. We submit that the Government has two functions in respect of the provision of higher education, namely that the Government should establish a system for the provision of higher education, and that the Government should do so in a fair and transparent manner.
This point of necessity results in tension between the claim to institutional autonomy and the limitation imposed by the accountability to the Government for the funding that it provides. Consequently, higher education institutional autonomy or maintaining that the institution is accountable solely to itself in all its decisions, would ignore the reality of its existence as a social institution, funded largely by the Government. Therefore, higher education institutions recognise legitimate and reasonable restrictions to their autonomy.
The amendment to sections 20, 21 and 23 of the principal Act provides for interim structures, namely the council and management, in the event of the establishment, declaration or merger of public higher education institutions. If passed, this Bill will put a final end to a long tradition in the South African university environment, namely that Parliament, by legislation, brings life and death to universities. Henceforth, this power will rest solely with the executive. Parliament’s direct say becomes indirect control, via the accountability of the executive to the legislature.
As the Act stands, the establishment, declaration and merger of public higher education institutions are at the sole discretion of the Minister, subject only to consultation with the Council on Higher Education. The members of the Council on Higher Education are appointed by the Minister, as referred to in section 8(4). The Minister need not follow the advice of the Council on Higher Education, provided written reasons are given to the CHE for the nonacceptance of the advice.
The DP’s main concern is that without proper guidance for the discretion, the proposed provision for an interim council and management of institutions to be merged fails to appreciate institutional autonomy of public higher education institutions. It allows the Minister too much room for interference in the governance of established institutions and, ultimately, the possibility of the abuse of discretion on the part of the Minister.
What appears to be merely an administrative mechanism in the hands of the Minister can turn into a powerful political weapon or instrument of pressure. The amendments put forward by the DA were aimed at putting in place a few checks and balances on ministerial power. Such substantive amendments, though few, were rejected by the ruling party.
The ANC keeps on telling us that none of its Ministers will abuse power. This obviously cannot be taken for granted. We accept that the present Minister, being a man of integrity, will, in all probability, not do so. But what about the next Minister?
This piece of legislation will obviously be passed by this Parliament for obvious reasons. But we as the DP wish to register our objection by opposing the Bill. [Applause.]
Prof S M MAYATULA: Madam Speaker, hon ministers, hon members, I would like to take this opportunity to thank all the different stakeholders who made valuable submissions before the portfolio committee. Based on their submissions and the committee’s close scrutiny of the Bill, I thought we would be coming before this House speaking the same language, but unfortunately, it was not to be.
The DP and the New NP decided to vote against the Bill on two grounds: Firstly, that the Bill, they allege, tampers with the autonomy of universities, and, secondly, that they are against the repeal of private Acts.
In both instances they are not representing the views of higher education institutions of this country, but themselves. In both their written submissions and presentations before the committee, the SA University Vice Chancellors’ Association, SAUVCA, the Committee of Technikon Principals and the Association of Vice Chancellors of Historically Disadvantaged Institutions of South Africa supported the Bill.
SAUVCA in its submission, had this to say - it was not me, or the ANC, but a representative of SAUVCA - and I quote:
SAUVCA supports the policies and principles embedded in the Bill. While SAUVCA has reservations about the repeal of private Acts because of the symbolism involved in their repeal and the effect of this symbolism on university autonomy …
I will underline the next -
… SAUVCA accepts that there are both good and practical reasons for these changes, and also that the level of autonomy that public higher education institutions enjoy, which is not absolute, is provided for by the Constitution and Higher Education Act, and not by the private Acts.
Prof Itumeleng Mosala of the ASAHDI had this to say:
The Association of Vice Chancellors of Historically Disadvantaged Institutions of SA feels that one could not protect autonomy of universities through private Acts. Autonomy was already entrenched in the White Paper on Higher Education. It is the Government’s policy to allow institutions to have autonomy and academic freedom.
What more can one say? The stakeholders have spoken.
The main objective of the Bill is to provide for the establishment of interim councils for new, declared or merged public higher education institutions whose role will be to perform the functions relating to the governance of the institutions, except the making of an international statute. They should also, according to clause 3(10), firstly, appoint an interim body of three to manage day-to-day activities; secondly, ensure that a council is constituted; and, lastly, ensure that such other structures contemplated in section 33(3) are constituted.
The committee’s understanding is that the interim council is just that, an interim structure whose main task is to ensure that the real council is established. They are there to bridge a gap. They should not pretend to be the real council. They should aim to accomplish their tasks within six months and then leave the stage. The extension of their term, if any, should be the exception rather than the rule.
The following are some of the submissions which were not approved by the committee - except the DA, of course. My colleagues will elaborate on our reasons. My task is to give the broad thinking of the committee.
Firstly, it was proposed that the interim councils should not be obligatory. If we agree that the interim councils are there to bridge a gap and bring together already existing institutions, each with its own vested interests and baggage, such structures cannot be expected to be both referees and players. It is only an interim council that can play that role, if only to safeguard the interests of the weaker parties. We must be proactive, and rule out any possibility of any problems by establishing these interim councils. Secondly, it was proposed that interim councils must be representative of the institutions concerned. As indicated above, by its very nature, the task of bringing together new, declared or merged institutions needs a team of objective members without any direct links with the said institutions.
I want to inform the hon Ntuli that it is of vital importance to note that the role of the interim council is not to negotiate the establishment of new institutions or the declaration or merging of old institutions. That is going to follow a different path. Their role is mainly to facilitate the establishment of the council and other institutional structures.
Let us also remember that even the four members which the Minister must appoint are, according to clause 5(8)(a), from the nominations received from the public institutions themselves. More importantly, the three co- opted members of the interim management body come from the institutions of higher education concerned. In that case, the interests of the institutions concerned are represented in the interim council.
Thirdly, it was proposed that interim councils should be allowed to make institutional statutes. The making of institutional statutes is, by its very nature, a long and involved process which cannot necessarily be accomplished within six months. It needs the involvement of a fully fledged and well constituted council with a long-term vision and commitment to the institution. Surely, such an important task cannot be undertaken by an interim structure. We should also take cognisance of the fact that institutions of higher education do not make institutional statutes every year. It would be unwise to choose the transitional period to make such statutes.
Fourthly, it was proposed that the provision that the resignation of 75% or more of the members of a council at a meeting of that council, would result in the council being deemed to have resigned, should be based on the total membership of the council. This proposed amendment addresses special circumstances where in actual fact 75% or more of council members, in a formally constituted meeting, decide to resign.
Experience on the ground shows that those members who did not attend the said meeting tend to feel that they are not bound by such decisions, thus leaving the institutions in limbo, with a crippling effect on the governance of the institutions. Other forms of resignations are already covered in other laws.
Despite the repeal of the private Acts, the committee approved that section 3(4) to (6) of the University of Cape Town Act of 1999, continue to exist as if the Act has not been repealed. In the light of submissions made, clause 24 - on section 65A of the Act - has been adjusted to leave out the term ``research’’ in the determination of the seat of an institution of higher education.
Some stakeholders feel there is a need to give more power to the portfolio committee to intervene in the department. I want to refer members to the Rules of the National Assembly, in particular Rule 201(1)(c), which states:
A portfolio committee may monitor, investigate, enquire into and make recommendations concerning any such executive organ of state, constitutional institution or other body or institution, including the legislative programme, budget, rationalisation, restructuring, functioning, organisation, structure, staff and policies of such organ of state …
Given such power, what can the Minister do on which we as the portfolio committee cannot call him to order? Section 92(3) of our Constitution goes a step further:
Members of the Cabinet must -
(b) provide Parliament with full and regular reports concerning matters under their control.
If there is anything that the Minister does it behoves Parliament, through this committee, to call him to order. This Bill in no way reduces those powers. Parliament, through its committees, if it is to exercise its oversight role objectively, must not be expected to be involved in the day- to-day administration of the departments.
The ANC supports this Bill. [Applause.]
Mr A M MPONTSHANE: Chairperson, politics have often been defined as the authoritative allocation of values for the whole of society. Higher education institutions, universities in particular, come about as a result of the needs of society, and as such are part of society. When the core values of that society change, the character and the mission of that society’s institutions must, of necessity, reflect that change. Perhaps the question one might rhetorically ask is, whose function it is to allocate these values for this society.
The policy developments in the higher education sector have been driven by a concern to establish a single, national, integrated and co-ordinated system, hence the Higher Education Act of 1997 and the subsequent amendments to the principal Act. Obviously, during this process of transforming the higher education sector from a disjointed to a co- ordinated unified system, there may be some casualties. What is important, though, is to weigh these casualties against the values that the legislation aims to achieve.
The values of uniformity, access, equity and redress are central to the Bill we are debating today. We must point out that at one phase of the policy formulation one or two of these values will dominate, and at another phase another will be emphasised. The fact that one policy places one value at centre stage does not mean that the other values are insignificant.
I was particularly taken aback when, at the last hour - and, of course, I am using the words ``last hour’’ both figuratively and literally - the DP and the New NP, who came an hour late to the portfolio committee meeting, announced that they were opposing not only certain clauses of the Bill, but the whole Bill. [Interjections.] The reasons that were put forward by the New NP and the DP were, firstly, that it gave too much power to the Minister and, secondly, that it was taking away the autonomy of the institutions.
Lest we debate past one another, let me restate the main objectives of the Bill, namely to amend the Higher Education Act of 1997 so as to provide for the following: Firstly, the establishment of interim councils for new, declared or merged public higher education institutions; secondly, the dissolution of the council of a public higher education institution if 75% or more of the members resign, and for the constitution of a new council; thirdly, the repeal of the Certification Council for Technikon Education Act of 1986; and fourthly, the repeal of the universities’ private Acts and certain obsolete Acts.
The IFP is in support of these broad objectives of the Bill. This is the question that arises: Does the repeal of private Acts represent an infringement of the autonomy of the institutions of higher learning? We must note that most universities have been using private Acts that were passed during the apartheid era. Some of these Acts established universities on the basis of colour. [Interjections.] I am sure that the hon member over there agrees with me. Should we therefore retain these Acts in the name of autonomy?
The SA University Vice Chancellors’ Association felt, in their submission to the portfolio committee, that the repeal of the private Acts did not in fact infringe upon the autonomy of the universities. They said, and I quote:
SAUVCA accepts that there are both good and practical reasons for these changes, and also that the level of autonomy that the public higher education institutions enjoy, which is not absolute, is provided for by the Constitution and Higher Education Act, and not …
May I repeat -
… not by the private Acts.
We cannot but agree with SAUVCA. What is more, clause 26 of the Bill, which deals with the transitional arrangements concerning universities, provides that those matters contained in the private Acts that are not dealt with in the principal Act or institutional statutes will remain in the private Acts for a period of not longer that two years. These matters must, however, be matters which are indispensable for the running of a university.
I wish, in conclusion, to go back to the argument that this Bill gives too much power to the Minister. Well, we wish to submit upfront that it is not the Minister’s business to run the day-to-day activities of higher learning. This must be left to the institutions and their councils.
Section 20 of the principal Act provides for universities to be established by an Act of Parliament. According to the new Bill, this power now rests with the Minister, who must consult with the Council for Higher Education, which is a statutory body. In the past each time a university wanted to effect some changes, it had to rush to Parliament. This time around it will not be necessary.
If one speaks of university autonomy, the Bill does in fact enhance the autonomy of these institutions. Just imagine, in the 100 laws or Acts of universities that need to be passed, a university being expected to rush to Parliament each time it wants to effect a change. That would limit the autonomy of those institutions, which is contradictory to what the hon members to my left are saying. [Interjections.]
The Bill also allows the Minister to appoint interim councils from the nominations submitted to him by the merging institutions. We accept this ministerial role as an interim measure aimed at transformation and co- ordination of institutions of higher learning. It must be remembered that one of the merging institution may not have had a council. Therefore, for purposes of uniformity and administrative justice, it is right that members of the interim council be appointed by the Minister.
However, we would have wanted to see a provision in the Bill which provides for the removal of dysfunctional councils. As long as the Bill does not infringe on the autonomy of institutions and as long as institutions retain the freedom and powers to make their own decisions, the IFP will support this Bill.
In conclusion, I must say that I never saw the submissions of the DP and the New NP. All they did was to depend on the submissions of the stakeholders. [Interjections.] There were no formal submissions that were submitted by these parties. [Interjections.] I am surprised, therefore, to hear them say that they submitted their proposals.
The IFP supports the Bill. [Applause.]
Dr B L GELDENHUYS: Mr Chairperson, thank heavens there are parties that still listen to the inputs by experts! [Applause.] Yes, we did listen to the stakeholders and we did base our amendments on the proposals made by the stakeholders because that was the very purpose of the public hearings. [Interjections.]
The previous speaker accused the DP and the New NP of being late during the final discussions. [Interjections.] Yes, we were, but it was due to a very genuine misunderstanding. We attended all the public hearings. We were there in the informal discussions and we were the only two parties that actually proposed amendments. The hon member of the IFP sat through all the hearings and discussions and did not come up with a single amendment. [Interjections.]
I want to thank the hon Chairperson of the Portfolio Committee on Education for the very unbiased and efficient manner in which he conducts the meetings of the portfolio committee. I would like to say to him: Thank you very much.
The hon the Minister accused the DA of not understanding the basic principles of logic. Now, yes, we may be unlogical, but fortunately we are not undemocratic. Therefore, we still believe that democratic processes should be pursued even in the composition of an interim council. [Interjections.] And, yes, that was not originally our proposal, it was the proposal of Nehawu and we thought it was a very good one. [Interjections.]
The New NP opposes the Higher Education Amendment Bill. The underlying point of departure, which led to the amending Bill, is flawed. The tendency to increase ministerial discretionary powers to promote effectiveness of administration of the higher education institutions is unacceptable and erodes institutional autonomy. According to the Oxford English Dictionary, autonomy means control over one’s own affairs. I am not referring to the private Acts.
The provisions of this Bill constitute everything but control over one’s own affairs. On the contrary, they constitute ministerial control over the affairs of higher education institutions. Legislation is not the answer to every managerial problem that may arise at a specific institution. One simply does not legislate for the exception to the rule, one only legislates for the rule. [Interjections.]
It must also be pointed out that the public hearings were a make-believe exercise. Yes, the chairperson welcomed the stakeholders but it was a make- believe exercise. Twenty-two amendments were proposed by experts. Only two, dealing with two minor technicalities, were accepted. Surely the hon the Minister and the department cannot have all the wisdom in store.
The New NP furthermore opposes the Bill for the very same reason we voted against the principal Act in 1997. Too much power was vested in the Minister and this is not ad hominem. We think the hon the Minister is a good Minister. It is ad rem. But too much power was vested in the Minister. He could, of his own accord - and he can still do so - establish, declare and merge higher education institutions without really being accountable to anyone. If one aspect of the principal Act needs to be amended, it is undoubtedly the unfettered discretionary powers of the Minister.
Parliament should at least - this was also proposed by one of the experts - provide the Minister with guidelines on the exercise of the ministerial discretion concerning the establishment, declaration and merger of public higher education institutions. The vast powers of the Minister embodied in the principal Act are simply perpetuated in the amending Bill. For example, it will be possible for the Minister, in terms of clause 5, to exercise control over a merged institution for a full year - there was reference to this earlier - because he not only appoints the chairperson of the interim council, but also appoints the members although they are nominated by the institution.
Another cause for concern which emanates from the principal Act is the lack of consultation with the councils of those institutions which are earmarked for possible mergers. If a merger is to succeed for whatever good reasons, it will have to carry the unconditional support of the institution involved. One cannot simply ride roughshod over them.
During the visit of the portfolio committee to various universities, it became clear that some of these institutions experienced the modus operandi of the working group appointed by the hon the Minister to make recommendations on possible mergers in a very negative way. They experienced the working group as being arrogant, prescriptive and not prepared to listen to alternative proposals. One must not underestimate the capability and willingness of these institutions to rationalise, to cut out duplication and to work together in such a manner that huge cost savings can be achieved. The hon the Minister should keep on talking to them and not use the big stick.
Institutions with severe financial constraints have, under new management and over a short period of time, demonstrated their capability effectively to manage themselves out of the financial ditch of the past few years. A last request in this regard: the hon the Minister should not be too harsh on the historically disadvantaged institutions. The state will have to come to the party in order to bail some of them out for the time being so that they can continue with a clean slate.
The New NP cannot condone clause 24, which repeals all existing private Acts of universities. My colleague in the DP said this earlier, and I am also going to use that exact wording. Unisa made an excellent input. I know the Minister and Unisa do not always see eye to eye, or at least the council of Unisa and the Minister. [Interjections.] That is what I read in the newspapers, but perhaps the Minister can react to that. [Interjections.] In any case, Unisa correctly indicated that this Bill will put a final end to a long tradition in the South African university environment, namely that Parliament, by legislation, brings life and death to universities. Now this power will squarely rest with the executive.
No wonder the SA University Vice Chancellors’ Association also said:
The implicit change from parliamentary to ministerial oversight of university charters, which the repeal brings about, is significant.
The New NP remains convinced that the right way to go is to amend the Acts, instead of repealing them. The amendment route would have brought the private Acts in line with the Higher Education Act and the Constitution, whilst simulteneously preserving those measures reflecting the unique elements of the history and character of the universities.
It has been argued that some provisions of the private Acts could be accommodated in the statutes. If this is to be the case, a provision must be inserted in the Higher Education Act requiring the Minister to place a resolution for adoption of the statute before Parliament, because then one can at least debate the decision of the Minister.
Ek gaan nou in Afrikaans afsluit deur net twee versoeke aan die agb Minister te rig. Die agb Minister moet asseblief in gesprek tree met die Universiteitsraad van die Universiteit van Potchefstroom oor die moontlikheid om die Christelike grondslag waarop die Universiteit berus, in hulle statuut op te neem. (Translation of Afrikaans paragraph follows.)
[I will now end in Afrikaans by putting two requests to the hon Minister. The hon the Minister should please discuss with the Council of the University of Potchefstroom the possibility of incorporating the Christian ethos of the university in its statute.]
The Minister should engage the Council of the University of Potchefstroom on the possibility of entertaining the Christian foundation in the statutes of the university.
Die Minister moet ook in gesprek tree met die Universiteit van Stellenbosch om die kwessie van Afrikaans as onderrigtaal, wat op die oomblik in die privaatwet is, ook in hulle statuut op te neem … [The Minister should also hold discussions with the University of Stellenbosch to incorporate the issue of Afrikaans as the language of instruction, which at present appears in its private Act, in its statute … ]
… and engage with the Council of the University of Stellenbosch to take the issue of Afrikaans as a language of instruction and accommodate that in the statute. [Applause.]
Nkk P N MNANDI: Sihlalo, boNgqongqoshe abahloniphekile, bahlonishwa, maqabane nezihlobo. Kufanele njalo sikhumbuzane ukuthi alikho izwe elake lakhululeka ngaphandle kokuzabalaza, ukuzikhandla nokuzinikela.
UKhongolose ukwenzile konke lokhu futhi usaqhubeka. Kusukela ngonyaka ka- 1994 kuthatha uHulumeni oholwa nguKhongolose, lelizwe libone izinguquko ziza ngendlela emangalisayo futhi ziza ngeisikhulu isivinini. KuMnyango wezeMfundo khona, singebale ngoba kuyacaca ukuthi ikusasa leNingizimu Afrika lisenhliziyweni yawo lo Hulumeni. Siyabonga kuKhongolose ngoba akawavuli nje amasango emfundo, uwavula gengelezi baze bapaquze o-DA no-NNP bathi kuyashisa, ngenxa kaKhongolose. UMthetho weMfundo ePhakeme ka-1994 wanikeza uNgqongqoshe igunya lokuhlanganisa izikhungo ezithize zemfundo ephakeme kuleli. Namhlanje siza kule Ndlu nesichibiyelo esithi uNgqongqoshe akanikezwe igunya namandla okumisa izigungu zesikhashana zokongamela izikhungo ngenkathi zisahlanganiswa.
Kungani thina njengoKhongolose sihambisana nokuhlanganiswa kwalezi zikhungo na? Kuningi ukuqhudelana okukhona ngezifundo ezifanayo ezikhungweni zemfundo ephakeme. Lokhu kudala ukuthi ezinye izikhungo zidlondlobale kakhulu kanti ezinye zifadabale.
Akubo nabo omahambanendlwana bezikhungo la kwelakithi. Uma lokhu kuqhubeka, siyogcina sinemijondolo yezikhungo. Labo mahambanendlwana basetshenziselwa futhi ukugcina abafundi, ikakhulukazi abamnyama, abakude le nezikhungo ngqo. Manje sizama imizamo yokuyiqeda nya le mikhuba ngalo Mthetho. Sifuna ukuthi izikhungo zilawuleke kahle ngendlela ukuze izinga lemfundo lihlale liphakeme njalo. Ngizobeka izibonelo zalezi zikhungo esithi mazihlanganiswe. ENyuvesi yaseNtshona kunegatsha laseQwaqwa, kodwa iQwaqwa ikude le eFreystata. Abaziyo bathi ingamakhilomitha ayi-500 ukusuka eFreystata. Sithi iQwaqwa ayihlanganiswe neNyuvesi yaseFreystata. [Ihlombe.] INyuvesi yaseVista yona inezikhungo cishe ezweni lonke. Sithi kufanele ihlakazwe, kube yilelo nalelo gatsha lihlanganiswe nesikhungo esiseduze nalo.
Kunohlelo olubekiwe, ngiyamangala uma i-DA ingalwazi, lokuthi uNgqongqoshe kufanele enze njani ngaphambi kokuba ahlanganise lezi zikhungo. Kuthiwa, okokuqala, kufanele abhalele izikhungo ezithintekayo. Okwesibili kufanele enze izimemezelo ephephandabeni, asho nezizathu zokuthi kungani lezi zikhungo zihlanganiswa. Kufanele anikeze ithuba kuzo zonke izikhungo ezithintekayo ukuthi ziphawule ngalolu daba, nanoma ngubani-ke nje omunye oqhamuka emphakathini unelungelo lokuphawula.
Lo mthetho uphinde usho futhi ukuthi uNgqongqoshe kufanele abalalele labo abaphawulayo futhi azanelise ukuthi abaqashi balezo zikhungo bayayilandela yini yonke imithetho yabasebenzi mayelana nabasebenzi abathintekayo kulezo zikhungo. Sazi kahle kamhlophe ukuthi ubandlululo alukapheli lapha eNingizimu Afrika futhi angeke luncibilike. Yingakho kufanele ukuthi uNgqongqoshe simnikeze igunya namandla okuhlanganisa lezi zikhungo ngoba uma singathi abazihlanganele ngokwabo, inkomo ingazala umuntu. UKhongolose kuphela okwazi ukubhidliza izindonga zobandlululo lapha eNingizimu Afrika.
Okwesibili, yingani sithi izikhungo ezithintekayo azingabi ngongqoshishilizi kulolu hlelo? Useshilo-ke ushlalo. Uthe uma ngabe kube njalo, kusho ukuthi sithi abadlali ababe ngonompempe. Akukaze-ke kwenzeke lokho. Okunye-ke asingamangali bakwethu uma sibona o-DP no-New NP benza nje. Phela babeyingxenye kahulumeni wobandlululo. Basincisha wonke amathuba. Namhlanje bayapaquza uma sishaya imithetho enobuchule, enobuciko nenobunyonico obungaka. Bahluleka, mabakhohlwe. Ngeke baphinde baliphathe leli zwe. (Translation of Zulu speech follows.)
[Ms P N MNANDI: Chairperson, hon Ministers, hon members, comrades and relatives, we should always remind one another that no country has attained freedom without first struggling, working hard and dedicating itself to this.
The ANC has done all these things and is still doing so. Since 1994, when the ANC came into power, this country has witnessed the changes that have happened in a fast and surprising way. With regard to the Department of Education, we cannot even mention the things that the Government has done. It is clear that education is dear to the heart of this Government. We thank the ANC, because it not only opens the gates of education, it does so in such a way that the DP and the New NP are shaking, saying that it is hot here, and that is caused by the ANC.
The Tertiary Education Act of 1994 gave the ANC the right to unite the institutions of tertiary education in this country. Today we come to this House with the amendment which states that the Minister should be given the right and the power to appoint interim councils that will oversee the institutions while they are being merged.
Why do we as the ANC support the merging of these institutions? There is too much competition on the same subjects in the institutions of higher education. This causes some institutions to flourish, while others are failing.
There are plenty of mobile institutions in our country. If this situation persists we will end up having plenty of informal institutions. These mobile institutions are used to delay students, especially black students who are far from real institutions. Through this legislation we are trying to put an end to this custom. We want tertiary institutions to be governed in a good way, so that the level of education will stay high.
Now I will give examples of these institutions that I say should be merged. The University of the North has a branch in Qwaqwa, although Qwaqwa is in the Free State. Those who know the place say it is about 500 km from the Free State. We are saying the Qwaqwa branch should be merged with the University of the Free State. [Applause.] The Vista University has branches almost everywhere in the country. We say they should be closed down. These branches should be merged with the institutions close to them.
There is a programme that is reserved. I wonder if the DP does not know this. The programme is about what the Minister should do before he merges these institutions. It states, firstly, that he should write letters to the institutions concerned. Secondly, he should make announcements in the newspapers and give the reasons why these institutions are being merged. He should give the institutions concerned the opportunity to comment on this issue. Every member of the public has the right to comment.
This legislation also provides that the Minister should listen to those who are making comments and he should ensure that the employers in those institutions follow the labour laws concerning the employees who are affected at those institutions. We know very well that apartheid still exists in South Africa and it will not just disappear. That is why we should give the Minister the right to merge these institutions. The reason for this is, if we can say they should do it themselves, a cow will give birth to a human being. It is only the ANC that can demolish the walls of apartheid here in South Africa.
Thirdly, why are we saying the institutions concerned should not lead this programme. The Chairperson has already answered this question. He said that if this were so, it would mean that the players would have no referee. Such a thing has never happened. Another thing is that we are not surprised to see the DP doing what they are doing. In fact, they were part of the apartheid regime. They deprived us of all the opportunities. Today they are shaking when we pass intelligent, artistic and creative legislation. They failed, they must now forget about it. They will never ever run this country.]
Prof L M MBADI: Chairperson, Minister of Education, all the Ministers and colleagues here, the Higher Education Amendment Bill of 2001 seeks to amend the Higher Education Act of 1997, so as to provide that the Higher Education Quality Committee is deemed to be accredited as an Education and Training Quality Assurance Body; to provide for the establishment of interim councils for new, declared or merged public higher education institutions; and to provide for the dissolution of the council of a public higher education institution if 75% or more of the members resign, and for the constitution of a new council.
We see the Higher Education Amendment Bill as an instrument setting in motion the process of realising the vision or goals set out in the National Plan for Higher Education for the transformation of the higher education system in this country. Thus section 7 of the principal Act is amended by the insertion after subsection(1) of the following subsection:
The Higher Education Quality Committee is deemed to be accredited by SAQA as an Education and Training Quality Assurance body primarily responsible for higher education.
The Higher Education Quality Committee drives the process of reconfiguring the higher education system, which must play a central role in national, regional and local development.
In point 1.7 of the National Plan for Higher Education, the Ministry allays the fears of many institutions of higher education that they face closure under the Higher Education Amendment Bill. The goals and strategic objectives, inter alia, are to provide increased access to higher education to all, irrespective of race, gender, age, creed, class or disability, and to produce graduates with the skills and competencies necessary to meet the human resource needs of the country; and, secondly, to promote equity of access and to redress past inequalities by ensuring that the staff and student profiles in higher education progressively reflect the demographic realities of South African society.
In order to achieve a complete reconfiguration of the higher education system, the Bill provides the Minister with a tool or instrument, namely, the interim council. The Minister must establish an interim council for a period not exceeding six months to perform the functions relating to the governance of the institution, except the making of an institutional statute. This body facilitates the process of merging institutions that desire to do so. If the process of merging has not been completed, the Minister may extend the period of the interim council once for a further period not exceeding six months.
The interim council which paves the way for the establishment of the council is appointed by the Minister and consists of five members, that is, the chairperson and four others. It must co-opt three members of the interim management and these members have no voting powers. Even if they had them, they would be outvoted in any case. [Time expired.]
Mr L M GREEN: Chairperson, the two minutes provided do not allow me to completely express myself on the matter. But, let me start by saying that the ACDP concurs with the view held by several independent thinkers such as Unisa on the issue of the autonomy of higher education institutions. Let me quote what they say:
Government has two functions in respect of the provision of higher education. Firstly, it should establish a system for the provision of public education by creating institutions and demonstrating the objectives. Secondly, it should make resources available in a fair and transparent manner to the public higher education system. This necessitates the introduction of control measures ensuring accountability but it is not the function of Government to administer the system in all its ramifications from a control point.
A balanced approach to what a university is cannot be attained and maintained when there is unnecessary interference in the internal affairs of the institution. Overregulation of the university by Government endangers its functions as a seeker of the truth, and as a conscience to the Government and society in general. It endangers the university’s functions to serve as a centre of excellence where basic questions can be asked and where the value issues of society can be drawn into the disciplined context of rational enquiry and dialogue.
The ACDP is concerned that the overregulation that is prescribed by this Bill could become a grave threat to the academic freedom of higher education institutions. The issue is not unity or the merging of the institutions. We agree that we must do away with apartheid in the institutions, but our concern is the loss of autonomy in that process.
We believe that the Christian culture and foundations of Potchefstroom University should be maintained if the university authorities and the student population support the present culture. University culture, preferred language and positive traditions should be determined by autonomous universities and should not be left to the sole discretion of the Minister. The virtually unfettered discretion of the Minister to decide the fate of public higher education institutions is a grave concern to us. It does, however, appear that autonomy is a very loosely defined concept in regard to lines of authority, and, of course, universities and the Government have different views on this.
A case in point is the Minister’s interference in the selection of Potchefstroom University’s new chancellor. The university wanted to appoint a person who subscribes to their values, but the Minister’s approach was such that Potchefstroom University had to implement directives from him as the education boss.
Dr P W A MULDER: Mr Chairperson, the universities of Oxford and Cambridge in the United Kingdom are located quite a distance from London, the symbol of government power and government control. It may be a coincidence, but in a certain way, it is also a statement of the autonomy and the independence of some of the oldest universities in the world from government control. In the last 40 years in South Africa, I can remember more than once the big clashes and conflicts between the old NP government and the universities of the Witwatersrand, Natal or any of those. The government of the day tried to put pressure on those universities, but they successfully defended themselves and their autonomy.
As far as I know, a woman is either pregnant or not. There are no degrees of pregnancy. The same applies to autonomy. One is either autonomous or not, there are no degrees of autonomy, as I understand it.
It is our job as Parliament to make it as difficult as possible for the Minister, whether he is good or bad, or any future PAC or AZAPO government Ministers, to be in a position where he may be tempted to undermine the autonomy of universities. Therefore, this situation must be able to hold for a long time. As far as we are concerned, this amending Bill, as well as the original Act of 1979, give too much power to the Minister. Die VF het om dieselfde redes teen die oorspronklike Wet op Hoër Onderwys in 1997 gestem. Dit is moeilik om te argumenteer dat ‘n mens die wysigingswet steun as jy reeds probleme met die oorspronklike wet gehad het.
Prof Gerwel is besig om sekere voorstelle te doen oor universiteite. Verskeie van die VF se voorstelle is deur prof Gerwel aanvaar, en ons is dankbaar daaroor. Met ander van sy voorstelle verskil die VF. Die vraag is of hierdie wet nie moet wag tot ons ook duidelikheid het oor die implikasies van prof Gerwel se aanbevelings, en hoe dit geïmplimenteer moet word nie. Miskien is dit dan makliker in daardie stadium om die wet te steun al dan nie.
Die VF gaan teen die wysiging stem. (Translation of Afrikaans paragraphs follows.)
[The FF voted against the original Higher Education Act in 1997 for the same reasons. It is difficult to state that one supports the amending Bill if one has already had problems with the original Act. Prof Gerwel is making certain proposals about universities. A number of the FF’s proposals have been accepted by Prof Gerwel, and we are grateful for that. The FF does not agree with several other of his proposals. The question is whether this legislation should not wait until we also have clarity about the implications of Prof Gerwel’s recommendations, and how they should be implemented. Perhaps at that stage it would then be easier to support the legislation or oppose it.
The FF is going to vote against the amendment.]
Mr I S MFUNDISI: Mr Chairperson and hon members, in 1990, 11 years before his death and four years before South Africa had a democratic government, the late Dr Govan Mbeki sounded prophetic while delivering the annual Richard Feetham Memorial Lecture on Academic Freedom at the University of the Witwatersrand. He said, and I quote:
It may therefore be that we need to reopen the discussion about the concepts of academic freedom and autonomy of the university, so that no question should arise to suggest that we are pleading the cause of popular and democratic transformation as a means of limiting the legitimate democratic rights of the university.
How right the sage was! During deliberations on the Bill, some of our colleagues took issue with clause 4 of the Bill, which states that: ``The Minister must establish an interim council for a period not exceeding six months.’’
They preferred the wording: The Minister may'', but we feel that to drive
transformation through, the word must’’ is used to leave nothing to
chance. An interim council has to be established when institutions merge.
Neither institutions’ council has to lead their merger.
The UCDP also fully subscribes to the notion that institutions of higher learning should be registered provisionally, rather than conditionally. The former means that such registration is for the time being, whereas the latter may mean permanent registration on condition that some criteria have been met.
If and when the rationalisation of public higher education institutions takes place, as approved by this House in April, there will be no need for private Acts of each of the merged institutions to remain in place. It is logical that as a new institution with a new corporate image, new council and new management, there will be no need to bring along any private Acts from any of the merging institutions. All such Acts have to be repealed and new ones, for the merged institutions, be put in place.
In 1994, when former President Nelson Mandela delivered his inaugural address to this House, he said, to enthusiastic applause: ``Our people said they want change, and it is change that we are going to give them.’’
This Bill seeks to do that, and therefore the UCDP supports it.
Dr M S MOGOBA: Chairperson, universities, since their inception in the 10th and 11th centuries, have always reflected the type of society in which they were established. They also played an important part in challenging society and its beliefs, and helped to mould society. In the complex, racially divided society that characterised South Africa for a century or more, universities were a mirror image of South African society. They also conformed to the norms of our nation, in some cases becoming glorified high schools.
A university that does not grapple with ideas and is not gripped by the quest for the truth is not a university at all. Our South African universities developed, with time, into racial and ethnic ghettos. Even our showpiece, Wits University, as shown in the transformation saga, called the Prof Willie Makgoba case, was a ghetto with a veneer of academic respectability.
It is against this background that we support this Bill, which we hope will achieve rationalisation and co-ordination of our institutions of higher learning. Our tertiary institutions must guard against losing their uniqueness, character and academic independence.
The universities must strive to become centres of excellence and attain standards that will be the envy of others. Much will depend on the vigilance of the SA Certification Council and the Quality Assurance Council. The Minister of Education and provincial MECs of education are given extensive powers, which, we hope, will not in time fall into the hands of officials who may politicise the system and allow it to develop seeds of disintegration.
Some Western countries have allowed universities and technikons to mushroom everywhere, with the result that some dubious institutions emerged, giving some people easy and lofty degrees which were not worth the paper on which they were written. The elimination of this danger is the strongest argument in support of this Bill.
This Bill has another function, which, I believe, is important: It is the assessment of the examination system, including marking of the examination scripts. The Bill also ensures that there is accreditation of providers. [Time expired.]
Miss S RAJBALLY: Chairperson, Minister, the MF asserts that education is not a privilege but a right. This right is firmly inculcated by section 29 of the national Constitution. The MF also confidently supports the correction of past imbalances in education and supports the efforts to correct this. As equal people, we have the right to equal education. Not only will this provide harmony, but also an educated nation, which is a better and stronger nation.
The MF acknowledges that previous higher education institutions have been utilising private Acts that were passed during the apartheid era, creating institutions on the basis of colour. The MF notes the urgency to correct this inequality and unacceptable practice. The MF hereby applauds the department for having repealed these private Acts.
The MF has no reservation on the transfer of duties from the Certification Council for Technikon Education to the Higher Education Quality Committee of the Council on Higher Education. The MF views the establishment of the interim council for new, declared or merged public institutions as a mechanism for guiding what the previous Bill had not provided for. However, the MF does note the inability of the interim council to make an institutional statute and is, therefore, concerned as to whether there will be guidelines for the council to use in the interim.
The MF notes the clarity that the amending Bill provides regarding registration. This clarification is surely catered for in the concise categorisation of a situation, and support for the amending Bill will ensure that the higher education institutions operate within prescribed policies. The MF supports the Higher Education Amendment Bill. [Applause.]
Mnr C AUCAMP: Voorsitter, hierdie wysiging aan die Wet op Hoër Onderwys is op sig self, niks nuuts nie. Dit is in wese bloot die naskok van ‘n slag wat reeds gelewer is in 1995 toe die aanvanklike wet aanvaar is. Daardie wet oorspan reeds die huidige privaatwette van universiteite. Die skrap van hierdie wette maak dus nie wesenlike verskil aan die huidige situasie nie, maar reël dit juridies.
Die vraag is nou of ons met hierdie saak kan saamgaan. Die AEB se probleem lê nie by hierdie wetswysiging as sodanig nie, maar in die geheel; nie by enkele klousules wat vandag deurkom nie, maar by die koers wat reeds ingeslaan is met die aanvaarding van die oorspronklike wet. Die AEB se teenstem teen hierdie wet is dus nie teen bepaalde klousules, maar teen die status quo wat nou gereël word en bevestig word.
Die agb lid van die IVP het gevra of skrapping van die privaatwette outonomie in die gedrang bring. Kom ons kyk na die situasie. In die praktyk word tersiêre inrigtings se outonomie prakties gereël deur sy statute. In die verlede is dit op sy beurt begrens deur die universiteite se privaatwette. Hierdie wet kon slegs gewysig word deur die Parlement en universitêre outonomie was dus parlementêr gereël. Nou is dit een wet en die statute is afhanklik van die uitvoerende gesag.
Uiteraard is die pad van ingrype in eie sake van ‘n inrigting nou soveel makliker en in een persoon gesentreerd. Dit is ‘n verskuiwing van parlementêre na ministeriële oorsig oor universiteite. Die foute wat bestaan in privaatwette kon gewysig word. Ons moenie die kind saam met die badwater uitgooi nie. Die privaatwette was inderdaad simbool van die pragtige beginsel van selfstandigheid van universiteite as instellings van die burgerlike samelewing.
Hierby wil ek net by wat die agb Geldenhuys gesê het voeg, dat die statute ten opsigte van die PU vir CHO reeds in ooreenstemming gebring is met sowel die Grondwet as hul Christelike karakter. Ons beroep is op die Minister om dit te eerbiedig en ons wil glo dat die handhawing van die PU vir CHO se Christelike karakter, die toetssaak vir die huidige Minister se mooi woorde oor outonomie aan die universiteit sal wees. Ons teenkanting teen die wet is dus teen die oorspronklike en nie teen die wysigings as sulks nie. (Translation of Afrikaans speech follows.)
[Mr C AUCAMP: Chairperson, this amendment to the Higher Education Act is, in itself, nothing new. It is in fact merely the aftershock of a blow which was already struck in 1995 when the original Act was adopted. That Act already spans the current private Act on universities. The repeal of these Acts therefore does not make a significant difference to the current situation, but regulates it judicially.
Question now is whether we can go along with this matter. The AEB’s problem does not lie in this statutory amendment as such, but in the whole; not with single clauses which are coming through today, but with the direction already taken with the adoption of the original Act. The AEB’s vote against this Act is therefore not against particular clauses, but against the status quo which is now being regulated and confirmed.
The hon member from the IFP asked whether repealing the private Acts would jeopardise autonomy. Let us look at the situation. In practice the autonomy of tertiary institutions is practically regulated by their statutes. In the past this in turn was confined by the universities’ private Acts. This Act could only be amended by Parliament and university autonomy was thus parliamentarily controlled. There is now one Act and the statutes are independent of the executive authority.
Naturally, the path of intervention in an institution’s own matters is now so much easier and centralised in one person. This is a shift from parliamentary to ministerial oversight of universities. The faults which exist in private Acts could have been amended. We must not throw out the baby with the bath water. Indeed, the private Acts were symbolic of the sound principle of the autonomy of universities as institutions of civil society. I would also just like to add to what the hon Geldenhuys said, that the statutes with regard to the PU for CHE have already been brought in line with both the Constitution and their Christian character. Our appeal to the Minister is to honour this and we believe that the maintenance of the PU for CHE’s Christian character will be the test case for the current Minister’s fine words about autonomy for the university. Our opposition to the Act is therefore to the original and not to the amendment as such.]
Prof S S RIPINGA: Chairperson, hon Ministers, comrades, ladies and gentlemen, transforming the South African higher education system in such a way that the legacies of inequality are eliminated and it makes a major contribution to national reconstruction and development requires a massive national effort. In supporting the Higher Education Amendment Bill, we in the ANC wish to thank the Minister for steering the transformation of higher education to this point, and we do so on behalf of our people out there.
Our Constitution and other pieces of legislation provide the requisite
powers to the Minister to execute this mammoth task. In fact, we in the ANC
are surprised that the issue of power is being debated here. Our
Constitution makes provision for this and other legislation provides for
this. The issue of must' or may’ as contested by some members on my left
is a nonissue.
It might be an issue of semantics in another context. We, of course, would be quite happy to teach members of the opposition a lesson or two about semantics. Their first lesson was from their leader, Tony Leon, who is well known for not knowing front from back. Starting from the back, he only got as far as antics.
The fundamental point of policy on which all stakeholders in the higher education system are agreed - and with which some members on the left disagree - is that higher education must be planned, governed and funded as a single national co-ordinated system. This, obviously, will overcome the fragmentation, inequality and inefficiency we inherited from the members on the left, as part of their legacy. It will also successfully address present and future challenges of reconstruction.
We will forsake our role as educators if we do not remind the opposition parties that transformation is a process and not an end in itself. So, we shall support the proposed amendment to the principal Act in order to fine- tune, streamline or consolidate the higher education system into a single co-ordinated system.
For instance, the repeal of private university Acts and the provision of a seat for a public higher education institution, as proposed in the Bill before us, are fundamental to the transformation of the Higher Education Act. The private university Acts of the apartheid era represent a legacy of colonial and commonwealth traditions in university governance. The continued existence of these Acts has perpetuated fragmentation of public higher education institutions and has constrained the achievement of a single co-ordinated system of higher education. The SA University Vice Chancellors’ Association, the Committee of Technikon Principals, the Association of Vice Chancellors of Historically Disadvantaged Institutions of South Africa and other stakeholders, support the Bill. I am surprised that the members of the opposition do not support the Bill, whilst the institutions themselves support the repeal of private Acts.
Reservations that might have existed on the basis of the impact that the repeal of the old Acts would have on autonomy have been aptly clarified by the Minister and my colleagues, and I would also like to thank my colleague, hon Mpontshane, for his input on the issue of autonomy. However, I wish to add that the fundamental principle of institutional autonomy is not an end, but a means to an end. This principle should be understood in relation to other principles that guide the transformation process of higher education, and not in isolation therefrom. The glorification of institutional autonomy is, therefore, unjustified.
The diversity of higher education providers and the greater competition for fewer available students have changed the physical operation bases of higher education institutions. The proliferation of satellite campuses, the use of satellite technologies, e-degree and telematic education have created a new challenge in the planning of higher education and the establishment of a single, co-ordinated system of higher education.
There is a need, therefore, to bring legal certainty to the physical operational boundaries of higher education institutions. So the amendment will ensure that all higher education institutions operate within prescribed policy.
Allow me to respond to some of the issues that have been raised in respect of the amendment. The issue of institutional autonomy has been raised by the hon Ntuli, and the issue of power has also been raised. These matters have been clearly clarified. We have been clarifying the issue of autonomy from 1994 to date.
Secondly, to respond to hon Mr Mpontshane, regarding the issue of casualties, it is quite obvious, in fact, that in the process of consultation or transformation there might be casualties, as he indicated. However, the consultation that is provided for by the democratisation process will allow for these casualties to be addressed in a positive and constructive manner.
The hon Geldenhuys made reference to experts that made inputs during public hearings. The experts normally provide the relevant knowledge, but it is up to the party to refine and process that input in such a way that it is relevant to the issue concerned. So it is not a question of using the input of the so-called experts in its entirety.
Concerning the issue of basic logic, I think the Minister was referring here to elementary logic. He was referring to common sense, and common sense is not always common. So that is the reason I am not surprised that the hon Geldenhuys could not understand, because basic logic is common sense, which is not always common.
Furthermore, I think reference to the dictionary meaning of the word ``autonomy’’ is a problem - I direct this to Dr Geldenhuys - because the dictionary meaning of a word changes according to context. It means something in one context, and something else in another. So using a definition from the dictionary is out of order. [Interjections.]
The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order!
Prof S S RIPINGA: As far as lack of consultation is concerned, as outlined by my colleague hon Mnandi, sections 22 and 23 of the principal Act spell it out in respect of mergers, declared institutions and any type of transformation that is going to take place.
I also note the appeal by the University of Potchefstroom that those values
- religious and Christian values - and the question of language, should be smuggled into the institutional statute. I think the ANC will make sure that any issue, expression and values that are offensive and are in conflict with the Constitutional obligations are not taken on board in the institutional statute.
The issue of overregulation of universities is a danger to academic freedom. I think I find it difficult to engage the hon Mr Green because he did not attend meetings and these matters had been dealt with there. Otherwise, I would like to thank the other hon members that have supported the Bill.
The system of higher education must be reshaped, firstly, to save the new social order; secondly, to meet national and regional needs; and, thirdly, to respond to new realities and opportunities. The creation of this system is overdue. The ANC supports the amendment to ensure that planning and governance of reconfigured higher education institutions are realised. [Applause.]
The MINISTER OF EDUCATION: Chairperson and hon members, I sat next to the previous Minister of Education for five years, particularly when the Higher Education Bill was before Parliament. There is a sense here that nothing has changed in our country because I heard the same sentiments and statements made then as I heard this afternoon. But the hon Mike Ellis is not here. He said I must not be petty and partisan while I was speaking. I shall try not to be petty and partisan, but he is not here. He should not have shouted, when the hon Mpontshane was speaking, that he was only saying what he said because he wanted to join the ANC. This is not in keeping with the kind of dignity that Mr Ellis wants.
I have gone through this Bill as Minister and after five years, I have not seen any illustration from my department or anybody else that the Bill has been used to violate those sacred principles of autonomy or the constitutionally protected principle of academic freedom. On the contrary - and Mr Heine can bear this out - the DP asked me to intervene at Technikon Mangosuthu three or four times.
Time and again I have been asked to intervene by students because they felt that their chancellors or vice chancellors were not carrying out their duties. I have refrained from intervening because a council must in fact make up its mind. Similarly, when the Public Protector has asked me to investigate corruption in universities and technikons, I have said that the council of the institution must carry out the investigation. I have in fact respected the authority of these institutions. Therefore, I want to inform Dr Mulder that autonomy cannot be used as an elastic principle. It is self- evident.
A week ago my office was asked by parents why no teaching was taking place in the law faculty of a university. Senior officials enquired, but because of parliamentary Rules, I cannot say what they actually said; they said we should mind our own business. They said this to my officials. On the basis of that, what happens inside a university, eg when no teaching is taking place, is the university’s business. This is licence of the worst kind. No one can say that a national department which has a responsibility and spends R7 billion towards education, has no right to enquire on behalf of parents why a university or any other institution similar to it, is being officiously incompetent.
Therefore, we have to be very careful how we continue to fight the battles of 1996-97 today. What we are trying to do now - and the hon Ntuli was the only one who mentioned this word - is to transform. We are trying to change the spatial geography of apartheid, which was wasteful and did not meet the needs of our society. We are also trying to change the way in which irrelevant subjects are being taught in a repetitive and competitive way. We drew attention to this fact in the National Plan for Higher Education.
I would have thought, without being paternalistic, that members of this House would have turned, as Comrade Mnandi did, to the National Plan for Higher Education. A centrepiece, as Comrade Mnandi has pointed out, is the need to turn to what we inherited and change it consistent with the assumptions on which we operate. It is therefore a pity that we continue fighting some battles that are long lost.
The hon Ntuli stated his objections to the Minister setting the priorities of higher education. I know of no government in the world that does not steer higher education systems in support of broad policy goals. But it is not a question of interference: it is part of meeting national needs. After all, universities and technikons are not the guild system where one has self-regulation. No one recognises the guild system in higher education today, where one has self-regulation. After all, many governments make large investments in higher education.
In the current financial year this House has voted R7 billion to higher education. This is equivalent to the top 25 countries in the world, ie the OECD countries. Surely we have a right to ensure accountability of these very important public resources. Indeed, it is our obligation to ensure that universities and technikons respond to our goals of equity, quality teaching, learning and research. Very little research is being done, and therefore, we will use money to help institutions do research.
I am beginning to wonder why so many members of the opposition continue to muddy the difference between academic freedom and institutional autonomy, because we must be quite clear regarding those concepts. Is it not about time that this red herring was put to rest? Then we might be able to move on.
I mentioned that academic freedom is enshrined in the Constitution. In France one cannot use academic freedom to deny the holocaust. It is a criminal offence. No academic can write books denying the holocaust, and France is a democratic country. We do not have those restrictions.
In the same way we must remember that academic freedom does not mean that universities can carry out sectarian policies. The hon Green, who was not in the portfolio committee when I was there, should at least have some respect for the facts. I did not interfere in the appointment of anyone at the University of Potchefstroom. What I did say, when I saw the advertisement about to be sent out, was that the filling of the position must be based on certain fundamental principles. I drew attention to the Constitution and to the equality legislation of our country, which forbids anything to the contrary.
If Mr Green thinks that this is prescriptive, I think he should go and talk to people who have interfered in universities. Autonomy and freedom of speech were violated under NP rule. But of course autonomy cannot be unbridled. In fact, I would not be spending hours and hours mediating change and resolving conflict in the higher education system if I wanted to interfere, as the opposition tends to imply.
It is a pity that Dr Geldenhuys chose to misrepresent the principal Act. I want to remind members that the Higher Education Act sets out very clearly, in detail, the steps that the Minister of Education has to follow before finalising a merger. I cannot look into my bosom, however intelligently I may do that, and unfold the great panorama of change in South Africa. I have to do it in the prescribed way. Of course, that prescribed way is very public. It is, in fact, a process which includes a vast amount of consultation. I have been an academic for 30 years. It is impossible to have mergers or changes without sharp, decisive action by ministerial authority in the democratic countries I know of.
Contrary to what hon Boy Geldenhuys says, there has hardly been any co- operative activity, any exchange of students or staff, or any attempt to co- operate on a regional basis. If the national working group - a tough lot of academics, I must say - are rude and tough, it is because they are not time servers. They wanted reactions from people, but they did not get any. I set up this committee to assist me.
If the ANC and its Government wanted to act with speed, I would have announced in January this year, the mergers, proposals and abolition of institutions. In fact, some of the commentators said that I lacked the courage to do so. All I did was to announce the plan and set up a national working group of very distinguished people who had no axe to grind. They are now going around the country. They will make recommendations by Christmas on the basis of which I will act. This is the tradition of the ANC. We did not want to act immediately and do things as they have done in other countries.
I also remind Dr Geldenhuys that the White Paper on Higher Education and the National Plan for Higher Education also provide for policy parameters within which I have to act. So, I do not have a total discretion to do so.
It seems Dr Mulder is losing his republican tradition. He now quotes the United Kingdom, nogal, as a good example. I think it is a remarkable thing for Dr Mulder to quote the United Kingdom as an example. I wonder whether he knows that the United Kingdom’s higher education system is far more regulated than the South African system. Not only Mrs Thatcher did that, but the labour government as well.
I have fewer functional authorities in higher education than the secretary of state for education in the United Kingdom. They have a very strict range of prescriptions with respect to financial matters, financial controls and quality controls. The funding system is very different too. So I am pleased that Dr Mulder referred to the United Kingdom, although I am bemused that a republican refers approvingly to the United Kingdom. However, I just wanted to point out that the UK in fact, has less discretion than we do in South Africa.
In the same way I would like to say that we cannot get change or transformation in South Africa unless we are able to reach out and say: What does a particular region want? What does a particular locality want? What is in the national interest? And for that there has to be action taken. That is why the interim councils will set up an executive body to look after the teaching and all the arrangements. This is for a six month period. I join everyone in saying that we need a democracy countervailing centres of power. Universities are another, like trade unions or welfare organisations. So technikons and universities are part of the countervailing basis of power in a democracy which we need very strongly.
However, we must remember that we inherited a rather awful situation: We inherited a situation where only 14% of our African brothers and sisters are in higher education. Only 14% of coloureds are in higher education. We cannot countenance that any more. Forty-two per cent of Indians and 42% of white South Africans are in higher education. We have to get more coloureds and more Africans into the system. We can only do so if we are able to persuade these institutions to be open and more accessible.
Privilege, whether it just stops at religious privilege or economic privilege, can no longer be countenanced in South Africa. We will look at Potchefstroom and Stellenbosch in the context of the reports we get from Prof Gerwel and from the national working groups. I will come back to this House and we will have a proper debate before they are implemented.
I thank the members very much for their participation. It was an enormously important thing for us to move ahead, so that we can build a higher education system suitable for South Africa in the 21st century. [Applause.]
Debate concluded.
Bill read a second time (Democratic Party, New National Party, African Christian Democratic Party, Freedom Front, Afrikaner-Eenheidsbeweging and Federal Alliance dissenting.)
HERITAGE DAY - THE ROAD TO A TRANSFORMED SOCIETY
(Subject for Discussion)
MOTLATSA-TONA YA BOKGABO, SETSO, SAENSE LE THEKENOLAJI: Monnasetulo,
gompieno ke batla go rotloetsa setpšhaba gore fa re akanya kgotsa re bua ka
boswa ba rona re gopoleng dinatla tsa lefatshe la rona tse di re
tlogeletseng lefa. Ke bua ke akanya ka bo Rre Mbeki, o re neng re mmoloka
maloba. Gape ke bua ka boRre Gumede, Shope, Mpetha, Braam Fischer, O R
Tambo, Dadoo le dipresidente tsa maloba rona tsa bogologolo, bo Makgetha le
boLuthuli. Ke gopola Rre Archie Gumede sentle fa re ne re le ko tirelong ya
segopotso sa Rre Luthuli. Rre Gumede o ne a mmakatsa fa a tla tirelong
moketeng a tshwere drip''. Beke tse tharo pele Rre Mbeki, yo neng a
itsiwe jaakaOom Gov’’, a tlhokofala, o ne a bua a e kemiseditse ka Rre
Pemba
Ke gopola Rre Archie Gumede sentle re le kwa tirelong ya go gopola rie
Luthuli. Rre Gumede o ne a mmakatsa tota fa a tla kwa tirelong eo a tshotse
drip''. Dibeke di le tharo pele Rre Mbeki, yo o neng a itsege jaaka Oom
Gov’’ a tlhokafala, ke gopola a bua ka Rre Pemba, a ma tlotlomatsa. Fa ke
leba banna ba, ke lemoga gore le bomme ba ba ntseng jalo ba teng. Nka dira
sekao ka go bua ka Mme Kate Molale. Ke kopa gore maloko a a tlotlegang a
intshwarele, ka ke sa tla fa go bala maina a bagale ba ba rona. Ke mpa ke
naya dikao. Re gopole gore batho ba, ba re tlogeletse boswa.
Ba ba sa ntseng ba tshela, jaaka boRre Sisulu, le bona ba ntse ba re kgothatsa. Baagi ba Gauteng ba a itse gore fa go na lebaka a matona rie Sisulu, le fa a ka tswa a tshwaregile jang, fa e le gore o kgona go emelela, o a tla go re kgothatsa jaaka bana. Re na le boRay Alexander, bommaarona e leng bomme Sisulu le Tambo. Re letlhogonolo tota rona maAforika Borwa.
Gompieno ke nagana gape ka ga Feroza Adams yo re nang le go mo lebala. E ne e le yo mongwe yo o neng a setse ntlha ya gore re nne le Molaotheo o o siameng. Ke a ba gopola fa re bua gompieno, ka gore maina a bona a amana le boswa ba rona. (Translation of Setswana paragraphs follows.)
[The DEPUTY MINISTER OF ARTS, CULTURE, SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY: Chairperson, today I want to encourage the nation that when we talk about our heritage, we should remember the legends of our countrymen who left them for us. I am referring to people like the late Mr Mbeki, Messrs Gumede, Shope, Mpetha, Braam Fisher, O R Tambo, Dadoo and our former presidents Makgetha and Luthuli.
I remember the way Messrs Archie Gumede and Govan Mbeki used to encourage me, seeing that I was keen to see developments in our country. I remember Mr Archie Gumede coming to Mr Luthuli’s memorial service attached to a drip. Three weeks before Mr Mbeki, who was known as ``Oom Gov’’, passed on, he was talking about Mr Pemba and honouring him. When talking about these men, I realise that there are also women like them, for example Mrs Kate Molale. I would like hon members to bear with me as I did not come here to present a list of our heroes. I was just giving examples. We should remember that these people left us a heritage.
Those who are still alive, like Mr Sisulu, continue to encourage us. People who stay in Gauteng know that when there are important matters, Mr Sisulu, no matter how busy he might be, is there to encourage us as young people. We also have people like Ray Alexander, and our mothers, Mrs Sisulu and Mrs Tambo. We are very fortunate as South Africans.
Today I also remember Feroza Adams, whom we often forget. She was one of the people who made sure that we had a reasonable Constitution. I remember them today because their names are related to our heritage.]
This year, Government begins the process of engaging the public about our national symbols. This is as it should be, because national symbols are at the core of how we perceive ourselves as a nation. This is about our sense of identity. Our national symbols should be considered in the context of our Constitution. And, indeed, it is in this context that I, then, recall some of our great leaders who in fact informed what was to be the substance of our Constitution.
Our national symbols should be considered in the context of our Constitution. South Africa is, indeed, a constitutional state. We, as a nation, commit ourselves to the values enshrined in our Constitution. Equality, freedom, the right to social and economic development, the right to dignity, protection of cultural and linguistic rights are some of the principles enshrined in our Constitution.
This is in keeping with our new value system. Colleagues will recall that we raised our new national flag of the Republic of South Africa on 27 April
- The design was chosen from a short list of four as it fully represented the diverse colours of flags used by political parties and liberation movements that were involved in the negotiations and, subsequently, participated in the Constitutional Assembly.
The founding mothers and fathers of our Constitution believed that the flag design they had chosen symbolised the unity of South Africa’s people. The people of South Africa have demonstrated their national pride by hoisting the flag at important events. We all know what happens when we have big sporting events. The Department of Education together with the Department of Arts, Culture, Science and Technology will be designing an educational kit especially for students, informing them how the flag should be used and handled. There is a convergence of the concept informing the design of the flag and the words reflected in the coat of arms, which really advocates unity in diversity.
The national coat of arms is the highest visual symbol of the state. It is also a central part of the great seal traditionally considered to be the highest symbol of the state. Absolute power is given to every document with a mark of the great seal on it, as this means that it has the support of the President of South Africa. A new coat of arms replaced the one that had been in service since 1910.
The coat of arms is a series of elements organised in symmetric oval shapes placed on top of one another. The motto in the green semicircle is !ke e:/xarra//ke, written in the Khoisan language of the Xam people, and it literally means ``Diverse people unite’’. It calls for the nation to unite in a common sense of belonging and pride, that is unity in diversity.
The elephant tusks symbolise wisdom, strength, moderation and eternity. The ears of wheat in the oval shape formed by the tusks symbolise fertility, growth and the development of potential, the nourishment of people and the agricultural aspects of the earth. The shape of the gold shield is drumlike. It has a dual function, the display of identity and spiritual defence.
The human figures from Khoisan art, derived from images on the famous Linton Stone, the primary example of African rock art, now in one of our museums, demonstrate an attitude of greeting and unity, symbolising again unity in diversity. The protea, an emblem of the beauty of our land and the flowering of our potential as a nation, in pursuit of the African Renaissance, symbolises the holistic integration of forces that grow from earth, nurtured above. The rising sun, a symbol of brightness and glow, symbolises the promise of rebirth, the active faculties of reflection, good judgment and willpower.
I would like to use this occasion and call on all South Africans to rally behind the campaign for popularising our national symbols. I would like to say that our national anthem also symbolises unity and consensus, reconstructed from the previous national anthem combined with the popular Nkosi Sikelel’ iAfrika. We must strive to build a nation at peace with itself, determined to succeed notwithstanding its difficulties.
Colleagues, let us draw inspiration from our President. During his inauguration, this is what he said:
No longer capable of being falsely defined as a European outpost in Africa, we are an African nation, in the complex process, simultaneously, of formation and renewal, and in that process we will seek to educate both the young and ourselves about everything all our forebearers did to uphold the torch of freedom. We, too, as the people of South Africa and Africa must together run our ``comrades marathon’’. [Time expired.]
Mnr S E OPPERMAN: Voorsitter, een van die veeleisendste wedlope op die atletiekprogram is die hinderniswedloop. Dit is ‘n wedloop oor hoë hekkies, deur watergate en dit is lank en uitputtend. Dit kos aanhou en uithou. Dit vra stamina en deursettingsvermoë net om klaar te maak; en ons praat nie eens van wen nie. Dit is waarmee ek die moeisame pad van transformasie vergelyk. (Translation of Afrikaans paragraph follows.)
[Mr S E OPPERMAN: Chairperson, one of the most demanding races on the athletics programme is the steeplechase race. It is a race over high hurdles, through waterjumps and it is long and exhausting. It requires perseverance and staying-power. It requires stamina and persistence just to finish the race, let alone win it. This is what I compare the laborious road of transformation to.]
Transformation is not a slogan. It cannot be a form of retaliation or another form of discrimination. It must be a change for the better; a comprehensive change; a profound change; a planned change; a progressive change; a fundamental change from what we had to what we want and from where we are coming from to where we want to go!
Therefore I believe we need to reach consensus on what is meant by transformation. If our destination is equal opportunities for every South African regardless of race or language, creed or political affiliation; if we extend opportunities to all sections of the population by improving education and job creation through a growing economy; if we are willing to turn our back once and for all on state-sponsored racism, then and only then can we speak of a fundamental change and use the term transformation.
If it is still general practice to kill one’s political opponents, to destroy the houses of those one does not agree with …
Met die indien van mosies het ons gehoor daar was heelwat teenkanting teen uitsettings, maar ons het getuienis van mense wat nie net uitgesit is nie - hulle huise is vernietig. Hulle enigste sonde is omdat hulle aan ‘n ander politieke party behoort. (Translation of Afrikaans paragraph follows.)
[When motions were submitted we heard that there was considerable opposition to evictions, but we have evidence of people that were not merely evicted - their houses were destroyed as well. Their only sin was that they belonged to another political party.]
So, we need to mobilise. But if we mobilise unconstitutionally to keep our opponents out of specific areas, the no-go areas, then we are far removed from what we so easily call transformation. Minister Zuma spoke about a commitment against terrorism. I think we must show our commitment against terrorism by dealing decisively with these issues.
For real transformation to take place, we must commit ourselves passionately to promoting the establishment and the maintenance of an open society in South Africa, founded on the principles of liberty, justice and equality, the values of merit, individual responsibility - that is a vital part of transformation - tolerance of dissent and differences, fairness and compassion. This, to me, is the essence of what we want in a new dispensation. It is different from what we had. This is where we should go. We cannot return to where we are coming from!
Some of us must define or redefine our values, beliefs, ideas, customs, concepts and identities. For others it may imply a paradigm shift in value systems.
Sommige van ons sal oor die hekkie moet spring van arrogante, impulsiewe, politieke domastrantheid. Vir ander wag daar ‘n hoër hekkie van arrogante, intellektuele, politieke snobisme! (Translation of Afrikaans paragraph follows.)
[Some of us will have to clear the hurdle of arrogant, impulsive, political insolence. For others an even higher hurdle of arrogant, intellectual, political snobbism waits!]
The more specific question before us this afternoon is: How can we use our heritage as a tool, a vehicle or leverage to assist in the process of transformation in order to reconstruct and develop? I believe our heritage can be a powerful tool if it is based on truth, and not on political manipulation.
As ons bereid is om ons self te gee, ons taal, ons kultuurgoedere, die erfenis wat aan ons toevertrou is, kan ons die basis lê om ‘n beter erfenis oor te dra na die volgende geslag. [If we are prepared to give of ourselves, our language, our cultural inheritance, the heritage that was entrusted to us, we can lay the foundation to hand over a better heritage to the next generation.]
We owe it to the next generation to take them to higher grounds, to better opportunities and stronger foundations on which they can continue the work that has been started. We must not underestimate the role that each one of us can play and we must not frustrate others in the role that they can play.
Wanneer ons ons taal gebruik, laat ons dit met die regte motiewe gebruik. Nie om te ondermyn, nie om inligting weg te steek nie, nie om ander mense te probeer verneder nie. Wanneer ons ons kultuur beoefen, laat ons dit doen sonder om hoogmoedig neer te sien op ander kulture; asof dit minderwaardig sou wees. Wanneer ons ons geskiedenis voorhou, laat ons dit nie doen asof ons vlekkeloos uit die stryd getree het nie. (Translation of Afrikaans paragraph follows.)
[When we use our language, let us use it with the right motives. Not to undermine, not to hide information, not to try to humiliate other people. When we practise our culture, let us do so without scornfully looking down on other cultures, as if they were inferior. When we present our history, let us not do so as if we stepped out of the struggle blameless.]
Let us all, in humility, acknowledge our own shortcomings and use our culture to support the values of our Constitution, for example, human dignity, nonracialism, nonsexism, the supremacy of the Constitution and the rule of law. Let us ensure accountability, responsiveness and openness. Let each one of us commit ourselves to take the small step to real transformation, a small step that can be a giant leap for mankind. [Applause.]
Mr M F CASSIM: Chairperson, on behalf of the IFP it gives me great pleasure to explore the topic: Heritage day - the road to a transformed society. The Scots have a song of someone taking the high road and someone else taking the low road. Metaphorically, our high road is the moral road, the road to a secure future, to fulfilment and happiness. This is the road we in South Africa should be taking. In the above context, Heritage Day offers all of us as South Africans the opportunity to take the high road leading to a transformed society.
The question is: Do we need our society to be transformed? The answer is that we certainly do. Outwardly it would appear that we are a fully transformed society. Ask if there is anyone who supports apartheid, and there is no one who will respond positively to the question. Yet, the hidden impulses that shape our thoughts and direct our actions reveal themselves from time to time. These actions are as ugly as any which were sanctioned by apartheid.
Many people look backward and yearn for the political system that is dead and buried. Though we have freedom and rights at a level never before enjoyed in our country, we do not uniformly and together celebrate with joy and affirmation this freedom that we have. Celebrating our freedom, the kind of thing the Deputy Minister spoke about, and the need to look at our new heritage in the making does not mean that we should overlook the mindless and pervasive violence that expresses itself daily in cruel and brutal ways.
We have our freedom. We also have our problems. We are one of the freest of societies in the world, and yet we are also one of the most brutal societies in the world. Some of our citizens walk the high road; others, unfortunately, still walk the low road. Yet we have the answer.
The answer, as we all know, is ubuntu. Traditional leaders, whose continuity we support, know and understand the significance of ubuntu. The high road to a transformed society begins with the transformed individual. This requires that we infuse our hearts and minds, vision, philosophy, daily transactions, prayers and deep understanding with ubuntu. This also requires that our education and politics should be rooted in ubuntu and, thereafter, should feed all the processes with ubuntu.
We, as members here, have spoken of ubuntu before, and pleaded with each other and fellow South Africans to become proponents and practitioners of ubuntu. Ubuntu is a manifestation of mutuality, and mutuality is a manifestation of ubuntu. Until this mutuality is deeply infused into our beings, we shall be outwardly civil to each other but inwardly harbour savage intentions towards each other though we are fellow South Africans.
The future turns on whether on not ubuntu finds a way into our hearts, minds and souls. Bitterness, anger, racist prejudices, unwillingness to let go of thoughts, dreams and ideas that are no longer in conformity with our Constitution pose as much of a threat to us and the future as do the people who seek to terrorise and attack us daily. As a new country, unwilling to have anything to do with the legacy of the past, we have the urgent need to create a new heritage that will be proudly received by generations not yet born. That is our duty and that, happily, is also our privilege.
For seven years, we in the IFP have been asked what underpins our political philosophy, conduct and expression. The answer is ubuntu. For seven years, we have been asked about our expectations for the future. Unwaveringly, our big vision for South Africa is that our Constitution should dovetail with the practice of ubuntu. Ubuntu is the road to a transformed society. For me, my colleagues, hon members and all of South Africa ubuntu is the high road. Ubuntu is the way forward.
No one can transform society from the top. We heard, today, in the education debate, about the need to transform - the manifest need to make sure that the institutions of our land are transformed. But that transformation will never happen as long as we remain, in our own hearts and thoughts, untransformed. No transformation can come from the top. Transformation can only come from the inside. If the heart wills, the will will take heart, and this is the issue that Heritage Day presents to us as South Africans.
Are we now ready, after seven years, to negate the legacies of the past completely, to make a new beginning to find each other and one another in a rare opportunity of the kind of unity that the Deputy Minister spoke of? Until we begin in our minds to consent to this willingness to transform, transformation cannot take place.
I would like to thank the Chief Whip for the opportunity to be able to raise this issue and I do hope, plead and beg that all of us will take ubuntu as the basis for transformation in South Africa. [Applause.]
Mr S SIMMONS: Mr Chairperson, on a point of order, whilst the hon member Opperman was speaking, hon member Hangana said: ``We will kill you.’’ I just want to know if this is parliamentary.
The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order! Hon Hangana, did you say that?
Ms N E HANGANA: Chairperson, yes, it was a political statement.
The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Could you withdraw that.
Ms N E HANGANA: I beg your pardon.
The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Could you withdraw that?
Ms N E HANGANA: Yes, I shall withdraw it. I am not your Hangana, wena!
Ms H M MPAKA: Chairperson, members of Parliament and Ministers, it is crucial for us to understand the meaning of Heritage Day celebrations. September 24 was marked in the calendar of the old regime as Shaka Day. With the ushering in of the new democratic, nonracial and nonsexist Government in November 1994, which is led by the ANC, 24 September was liberated and transformed into a day of reconciliation and nation-building.
It is intended to build unity amongst our people, irrespective of race, colour and creed. A date which in the past was used to emphasise ethnicity and racialism and to celebrate the humiliation of one section of our community, was liberated and given a new aura by our new democratic Government. A country’s heritage is that part of its background or environment that shapes its identity. It includes that country’s history and the way it is told by its people, its culture, arts, crafts and language; the food its people prefer, the music they make and the way its buildings are designed and built. In South Africa a rich blend of different forms of heritage makes our people unique in the world. Our heritage sets us apart from other nations and allows us to stand out as a uniquely proud nation.
Although South Africans have diverse cultures, elements of national unity, nation-building, reconciliation and national patriotism should be emphasised. The ideal is to preserve, exhibit and promote our diverse but connected cultures. Heritage Day should encourage the youth, in particular, to embrace South Africa’s common heritage.
Ukuthabathela phezulu amagugu nelifa lethu yinto ebaluleke kakhulu ekwakheni nasekuphuhliseni uMzantsi Afrika. [Honouring our heritage is a very significant factor in building and developing South Africa.]
Our national anthem Nkosi Sikelel’ iAfrika, Maluphakanyisw’ uphondo lwayo [Lord, bless Africa, May her spirit rise high up] - so truly did the hymn speak of the time that it was taken up by the people, in what became South Africa and far beyond its borders.
Nkosi Sikelela is, then, a hymn born of the clash of vast historical forces. But what a hymn it is, this simple appeal for national redemption, for continental salvation.
Morena boloka is not a clarion call to arms. It is not an incitement to the barricade or a scream for revenge.
God sëen Afrika might have warmed the blood of slaves with the fire of faith, but it is not a tune of glory to the might of one over the other. It has always been an ode to peace, a celebration of human solidarity in diversity. Lord bless Africa speaks quietly, only of thanks and blessing for the people, their teachers and the land we live in. It is a prayer for crops and rain, for harvest, health and peace for all.
It unites towns and countryside, workers and professionals, students, teachers and those without formal education, religions of every denomination and those with no formal religion. The vision which once sustained the oppressed now unites all in our liberated nation.
And so today we celebrate Enoch Sontonga’s gift to us, a heroic message of calm, written in the eye of the storm. Today it forms part of our national anthem, and along with Die Stem, it embellishes various strands of our past in a unison of inclusiveness, of the oneness of South Africa’s people.
During colonial and apartheid times our museums and monuments reflected the experiences and political ideas of a minority, to the exclusion of others. Many people had little or no say in the depiction of their history in textbooks, libraries or research institutions.
The demeaning portrayal of black people in particular, viz African, Indian and coloured people, is painful to recall. Of all our museums, only a handful represented the kind of heritage which glorified mainly white and colonial history. Even the small glimpse of black history in the others was largely fixed in the grip of racist and other stereotypes.
Whilst museums in the past served the interests of the few citizens of the country, they are now expected to reposition themselves so that they serve the entire South African population. Unfortunately, we have to acknowledge that the redressing of this situation has barely began.
Having excluded and marginalised most of our people, is it surprising that our museums and national monuments are often seen as alien spaces? How many have gone to see one of our monuments? In other countries such places throng with citizens. Through the apartheid years people responded to the denial and distortion of their heritage with their own affirmation as, indeed, Afrikaners had done in an earlier period. They celebrated their heritage outside of the country’s museums and monuments - in song and in ceremony, in festivals and carnivals, in the selling of their own wares and in buying items associated with their heritage, and by working the history of their communities into everyday artifacts, as the women of Hlabisa weave their stories into beer baskets.
With democracy we have the opportunity to ensure that our institutions reflect history in a way that respects the heritage of all our citizens.
Owayesakuba ngumongameli wokuqala eBotswana, uMhlekazi Seretse Khama, wathi, ndiyacaphula:
… isizwe esingena kamva sisizwe esilahlekileyo, nabantu abangenakamva ngabantu abangenamphefumlo. (Translation of Xhosa paragraphs follows.)
[The first president of Botswana, the hon Sir Seretse Khama said, and I quote:
… a nation without a future is no nation, and people who have no future have no life.]
Government has taken up the challenge. Our museums and the heritage sector, as a whole, are being restructured. Community consultation, effective use of limited resources and accessibility are our guiding principles as we seek to redress the imbalances.
Owayesakuba nguMongameli weli, uMnu Nelson Mandela, kwintetho yakhe yokubhiyozela uSuku lweMveli ngenyanga kaSeptemba ku-1995 wathi, ndiyacaphula: (Translation of Xhosa paragraph follows.)
[The then president of South Africa, the hon Mr Nelson Mandela, in his speech on celebrating Heritage Day in the month of September 1995, said, and I quote:]
… South Africa, for the first time as a country, can look back as a united nation on our past in order to help build on a common future.
He said that the time had come for us to work towards a common understanding of our past, one that all South Africans could identify with. He said:
That task is crucial to the reconstruction of our country. It is part of the healing of our society and the restoration of its dignity.
The recently established legacy project will promote a fuller representation of our nation’s heritage through new monuments, and preserve the whole of our diverse heritage. When they invite the public and interact with the changes all around them, they will strengthen our attachment to human rights, mutual respect and democracy, and help prevent these from ever again being violated.
When Cabinet decided that Robben Island should be developed as a national monument and national museum, it set in motion its redevelopment as a cultural and conservation showcase for South Africa’s democracy, which will also maximise its educational potential. Today, the second phase of the Island’s redevelopment begins. This ceremony confirms for us that the struggle for human dignity and freedom throughout the world and, in particular, in South Africa, is an ongoing one.
The new coat of arms replaces the one that served South Africa since 17 September 1910, as the Deputy Minister has indicated. The change reflects Government’s aim to highlight the democratic change in South Africa and a new sense of patriotism.
In conclusion, symbols have been used as an easy method of democratic empowerment, especially for those South Africans who have for so long been excluded from most of the decision-making processes in this country. The symbols of political parties were used in the 1994 elections for easy identification on ballot papers.
The three primary national symbols that were mentioned by the Deputy Minister represent this new democracy and replace all previous equivalent symbols. Key values underpinning these new symbols are: reconciliation, unity in diversity and nation-building.
Through these symbols every South African is encouraged, mobilised, energised and inspired to own the process of taking this nation from a divided past to a unified future. I think it will be wrong for me not to mention our flag …
… iflegi yesizwe. Kuya kukhunjulwa ukuba iflegi yethu entsha saqala ukuyisebenzisa ngomhla wama-27 kuApreli ka-1994, kanye ngexesha ekwathi ngalo kwazalwa ngokutsha esi sizwe. Imibala yale flegi ibonakalisa imibala eyintloko kwimbali ukusukela mhla mnene ukuza kuthi ga ngoku. Kwakhona, le mibala ayina ntsingiselo inye. Ngokwesigqibo sangethuba leengxoxo, ubani nobani unelungelo lokunika intsingiselo yakhe malunga nokuba le mibala imele ntoni na.
Umbindi wale flegi uqala ngenkangeleko kanobumba u-v, wehle njengomcu ongajongwa njengobonakalisa ukuhlangana kunye koluntu loMzantsi Afrika lungena kwindlela eya phambili njengeqela elinye. Oku kuhambelana twatse nomxholo we-Mbasa yeSizwe yethu entsha ethi: ``Abantu abohlukileyo bayamanyana.’’ [Kwaqhwatywa.] (Translation of Xhosa paragraphs follows.)
[… the national flag. It will be remember that we started using our flag on 27 April 1994 at a time when this country was reborn. The colours of this flag are an indication of their significance in the history of this country. Furthermore, these colours do not have one meaning. According to the negotiations, everyone has a right to attach his or her meaning to the colours.
The middle of this flag appears like a v', and it goes down showing the
people of South Africa taking the same route towards unity. This is exactly
in line with what is symbolised by the coat of arms, that, People who are
diverse could be united.'' [Applause.]]
Mev A VAN WYK: Mnr die Voorsitter, die ramp wat Amerika en die beskaafde
wêreld getref het, gee aan die herdenking van Erfenisdag dieper betekenis.
Dit is duidelik dat ná die val van kommunisme, groot beskawingsgroeperinge
hul in nuwe posisies bevind. Formele simboliek ondergaan 'n hernuwing as
samesnoerende elemente in moderne state wat ruimte moet skep vir die
toenemende bewuswording en belangrikheid van diverse kultuur identiteite.
Deur die grubeelde oor die internasionale TV heen, het die
alomteenwoordigheid van die Amerikaanse stars and stripes’, die
belangrikheid van nasionale simbole tuisgebring soos nooit tevore nie.
Oral waar ‘n nasie ‘n gevoel van onderlinge gebondenheid en gedeelde lotservaring beleef, in vreugde óf smart, soek hy ‘n simbool wat dit kan sein en waarby hy hom kan skaar. Simbole speel só ‘n rol waar die burgers van ‘n land die geborgenheid van nasieskap ervaar, en waarvan die bindweefsels onbetwiste aanvaarding van ‘n gedeelde waardestelsel is en waar almal met vertroue kan glo hul owerheid streef om hierdie waardes te handhaaf en uit te bou. Dít is die soort omvorming wat in die Suid- Afrikaanse samelewing dringend noodsaaklik is. Ons waardestelsel berus op ons erfenis, die demokrasie, en dit is die vernaamste instrument tot ons beskikking om Suid-Afrika te omvorm tot ‘n nasie van wenners. (Translation of Afrikaans paragraphs follows.)
[Mrs A VAN WYK: Mr Chairperson, the disaster that struck America and the civilised world gives a deeper meaning to the commemoration of Heritage Day. It is evident that, after the fall of communism, large groupings of civilisation find themselves in new positions. Formal symbolism is undergoing a renewal as elements of co-ordinating forces in modern states that must create an opportunity for the increasing awareness and importance of diverse cultural identities. With the horror images shown on international TV the ubiquitousness of the American Stars and Stripes has brought home the importance of national symbols like never before.
Whenever a nation experiences a feeling of mutual solidarity and common destiny, in happiness or sorrow, it seeks a symbol that can signal this and with which it can associate itself. Symbols play such a role when the citizens of a country experience the security of nationhood, binding elements of which amount to an acceptance of a shared value system, in which everybody can confidently believe that their government is striving to uphold these values and to promote them. It is this kind of transformation that is urgently needed in South African society. Our value system is based on our heritage, democracy, and that is the most important instrument at our disposal to transform South Africa into a nation of winners.]
South Africa is the proud custodian in Africa of this great inheritance. There are many moments in history that punctuate the arduous path travelled before democracy, as a civilised system to regulate the affairs of humankind came into being.
In die Middeleeue reeds, is een van die boustene van liberale demokrasie neergelê. Feodalisme het die regte van leenmanne beskerm teen die regte van leenhere, met ander woorde die regte van die magtiges is beperk waar mense in ‘n ongelyke verhouding tot mekaar gestaan het. In die politieke gisting van die Franse Revolusie, is die beginsel van etiese gelykheid vir die eerste keer erken. Ander groot momente sluit in die vrystelling van slawe. Nog ‘n bousteen is die verklaring van menseregte in 1948. ‘n Belangrike deel van die uitbouing van menseregte tans, is die vele verklaringsmanifeste en aktes wat die regte van minderhede oor die wêreld erken en bevorder. (Translation of Afrikaans paragraph follows.)
[As long ago as the Middle Ages one of the building blocks of liberal democracy was established. Feudalism protected the rights of feudal tenants against the rights of feudal lords, in other words the rights of the powerful were limited where people found themselves in an unequal relationship. With the political ferment of the French Revolution the principle of ethical equality was recognised for the first time. Other major moments include the emancipation of slaves. Another building block is the declaration of human rights in 1948. Currently, an important part of the promotion of human rights is the many declaration manifestos and acts that recognise and promote the rights of minorities throughout the world.]
There are many, possibly as yet unrecognised, moments of transformation in South African history inspired by democratic striving. The American author James Brice called the old Free State a model state in recognition of the human rights charter included in its constitution of 1854. The ANC’s Freedom Charter contains many of the basic elements of a modern democracy. Another important milestone of democratic transformation was the recognition of the rights of workers by the establishment of trade unions in the 1970s, based on the Wiehahn Commission’s findings.
The public debate that ensued in the 1980s over political and human rights for all South Africans, resulted in the abolition in the 1980s and early 1990s of the building blocks of apartheid. Despite apartheid, strongly democratic institutions existed, such as an independent judiciary. The Group Areas Act collapsed, in no small measure as a consequence of the verdict in the Govender case of 1982, which determined that the state had to provide equal alternative accommodation.
Great importance was given to the coming liberalisation of this state by the yes vote in the 1992 referendum. When F W de Klerk released Nelson Mandela and unbanned the liberation movements, this paved the way for our sitting down together to draft the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, which encapsulates the democratic striving of the people of this country.
It is this heritage we must protect and develop. Ignorance, poverty and crime are the enemies of our fledgling democracy. Wherever ugliness, dirt, disease, misery, hate speech and incitement flourish, despair and danger also flourish. Wherever irresponsibility and indifference, arrogance and corruption flourish, resentment and recklessness also flourish.
The wounds struck in the body politic of South Africa over the centuries, are barely healed. In transforming South Africa into a properly functioning democracy, let us lend a hand in the fight against terrorism and fulfil our leadership responsibilities in the subcontinent to eradicate the causes and breeding grounds of violence and destruction.
The day South Africa can say, in the words of Thomas Paine:
… my poor are happy, neither ignorance nor distress is to be found among them, my jails are empty of prisoners, my streets of beggars, the aged are not in want, the taxes are not oppressive, the rational world is my friend because I am a friend of its happiness …
We shall have taken our place among our peers in the rational world; we shall have rejected the forces of evil; and we shall have achieved real, time-honoured transformation. [Applause.]
Ms A VAN WYK: Chairperson, Heritage Day, on 24 September, is a day on which we celebrate what each of us considers to be significant to our past, where we come from, who we are, where we are now and, most importantly, where we are going. We come from diverse pasts, not merely in terms of the languages that we speak at home, the cultural group that we feel ourselves part of or our social economic status in life, but most of all, our very diverse political background.
For years our society was divided into the oppressed and the oppressor, the haves and the have-nots, the minority that controlled and determined the politics for and on behalf of the majority. All of this changed after the first democratic elections, in 1994. Or did it? Are we really a transformed society, seven years down the line, or have we simply substituted one regime with another? The answer is not one that this Chamber can provide. The answer for this we can only get from the millions of South Africans whom, collectively, all of us in this House represent.
I believe that in order for South Africa to become a truly transformed society, a few basic things need to be done. The first is addressing the economy. The wealth of our country needs to be distributed more evenly. This should be done by increasing the wealth resources that we have and involving more people in participating in the economic activities in the country. South Africa needs a second liberation: an economic liberation that will empower all South Africans with equal opportunities, to share and participate in the active economy.
The second is a political transformation, which will require from us that we break free from our voting patterns of the past and allow ourselves to mature in our democratic practice of choice. The four free democratic elections that we have had since 1994, clearly indicate that South Africans still vote along racial lines.
All parties have a role to play and every citizen in South Africa has a responsibility to realise that democracy means that I can, may and should make a different political choice from the one that I have made before. This is how we, as ordinary citizens, indicate to governments - local, national and provincial - whether we are satisfied with the quality of governance that they are providing us with.
Political transformation simply means judging the performance of your party of choice, and then taking the responsibility, by using your vote, of sending them an assessment of their performance. It does not mean disloyalty. It requires courage and commitment, and this House has a responsibility to ensure the freedom and right of each South African to make that choice. It is only once we can break free from racial divides that determine our voting patterns, that we will be on our way to a truly transformed society.
Lastly, we need to look at social transformation. It is here that our heritage comes into play once again. We cannot deny who we are - we should not. It should not be expected of any person to deny who he or she is, and where he or she comes from. We are a diverse nation. We speak 11 official languages. We look different, pray differently and our cultures differ.
All of these things form part of our heritage. Each of these differences makes up the colours that define the rainbow nation. If we force a single person or group of people to deny part of their heritage, we will be detracting from these colours that make up the rainbow.
Our diversity is our strength. It is our nation’s heritage and provides us with a melting pot of ideas, creativity and opportunities. It is a rich tapestry. But if one stands too close, one will only see individual stitches in their different colours, on their own not making much sense. But, it is when one take a few steps back and sees the full beauty of that tapestry that one realises the value and contribution of each individual stitch to the aesthetic value of the final product.
To put SA truly on the road to a transformed society, we need to concentrate more on our shared values, that which we have in common, than on our differences. What we do, say and decide today, how we act …
The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order!
Ms A VAN WYK: … and interact with each other, will not merely disappear into oblivion. The actions, decisions and statements that we make today will become the heritage of tomorrow’s generation. [Time expired.]
The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order! Hon members, before I recognise the next speaker, let me say that Hansard can only record one speaker at a time. And hon members who are expending extra energy trying to be heard, I am afraid, will not be recorded in Hansard.
Mrs C DUDLEY: Chairman, our South African heritage is a legacy in the making. This heritage is still in its infancy and like any infant, it is vulnerable. On this road we have already witnessed the miraculous, as apartheid crumbled in a climate of relative peace and a desire for reconciliation gripped the hearts of most South Africans.
The road, however, has been a rocky one with many detours and dangers. Realities such as unemployment, currently running at between 25% and 35%, and crime, are serious concerns for ordinary people. Whilst few people would question the link between apartheid and current backlogs and inequalities, constant reference to the past, apportioning blame and focusing all efforts on exorcising racism, as tempting as this may be, will not deal with the situation.
The fact is that there can be no real or lasting reconciliation of racial or other differences outside of Jesus Christ, the Lord of lords and King of kings. Division was God’s response to man’s efforts to unify outside of Him in the past. Is it not glaringly obvious that this is still His response today?
The world has had a very loud wake up call as we watched symbols of world power and world trade come crashing to the ground in New York and Washington. The genius of men and women is no substitute for the protection of an Almighty God.
Sadly and shamefully, South Africa is building a heritage not unlike that of the United States, in murdering her unborn children, flooding our homes with every kind of debauchery, teaching our children to disrespect authority and even their own bodies, embracing homosexuality and prostitution, and much more.
The roots of civilisation are only one generation deep and if that generation forgets the truth and fails to understand the lessons of history, it can easily revert to the barbarism of the past, or perhaps an enhanced barbarism, as we witnessed in the attacks on the USA, enhanced by the technological marvels of the age.
Without God, existence becomes meaningless and moral values are arbitrary. Where are we headed on this road? How will we respond? [Time expired.]
Mrs T J TSHIVHASE: Chairperson, I am happy that at least some of the speakers know what heritage means.
Maṱanzwu maswa a tikwa nga malala. Lushaka lu si na vhaaluwa ndi lushaka lwo xelaho kana lu songo khwaṱhaho. Vhaaluwa ndi nḓila yo fhelelaho ya u sumbedza uri ri lushaka lwo khwaṱhaho. Ri na maambele na mirero zwine zwa sumbedza u pfuma ha luambo, sa ḽiambele ḽine ḽa ri: ``vhana vha muthu vha ṱhukhukana ṱhoho ya nzie.’’ Ḽiambele heḽi ḽi sumbedza zwauri hu na demokirasi na matshilisano vhukati ha vhathu. U kovhana ndi zwithu zwa vhuṱhogwa kha vhathu vhoṱhe vha hashu.
Arali vhaaluwa vho vha vha siho, vhaswa vhashu vho vha vha tshi ḓo wana ngafhi iyo nḓivho na vhuṱali? Vha tea u livhuwiwa na u themendelwa kha lupfumo lwe vha ri siela. Lupfumo lwashu lu tshilaho, nḓivho yavho itea u rekhodiwa u itela uri i kone u fhiriselwa kha mirafho na mirafho.
Phuresidennde washu wa kale Vho Nelson Mandela, vho tamba ḽiga ḽihulwane vhukuma ḽa matshilisano. Oom Gov Mbeki na vhone vho lwela mbofholowo yashu roṱhe. Vhaendelamashango vha ḓa vha tshi bva kule vha tshi khou ḓa u vhona vhiḓa ḽa khosi Tshaka. Madzina a ḓivhazwakale o bviswa ha dzheniswa maṅwe, sa tsumbo, Nelson Mandela drive ire ḓoroboni ya Tswane sa khuliso, Beyers Naude drive ya mbofholowo ya ḓorobo ya Johannesburg, sa pfufho ya u dzhenelela hawe kha matshilisano na mvusuludzo. Vhuendalamashango vhu fanela u ṱuṱuwedza vhutsila ha vhathu vhashu vhoṱhe. (Translation of Tshivenḓa paragraphs follows.)
[Chairperson, young people get support from the elderly. A nation without its elders is a lost nation. Elderly people are a total expression of being a society. We have idioms and proverbs which show the richness of the language, eg people should share. This idiomatic expression shows that there is democracy and the policy of communism amongst our people.
If our elderly people were not there, where would our young generation get these values? They need to be appreciated and rewarded for the wealth they left us. They are our living treasures. Their knowledge should be recorded, so that it can be passed from one generation to the next.
Our former president, Nelson Mandela, played an important role in reconciliation. Oom Gov Mbeki as well, fought for our liberation. Tourists arrive from far away, coming to see Shaka’s grave, geographical names such as Mandela Drive in Tswane city, Beyers Naude received the freedom of the city of Johannesburg, a reward for his contribution towards reconciliation and transformation. Tourism as well, should promote the creativity of our people.]
The Government is putting a lot of funds in the SABC which should cover the rural poor, so as to get the messages from our elderly. Instead, the media covers urban areas where they think there is a market. Therefore, transformation is very slow in the media sector. The language of any nation or society plays a central role in societies or nations. All developmental issues are an integral part of language. Examples are communication and life skills for survival objectives. We impart knowledge through language. Through language we carry on traditions of ancestral origin. This is the value of ubuntu, as hon member Cassim has stated.
Tshifhingani tsho fhiraho nyambo dze dza vha dzi tshi shumisiwa Afurika Tshipembe, dzo vha dzi tshi shumiselwa u khethulula. U dzhiela nzhele mvelele zwo ri thusa uri ri shandukise mihumbulo yashu, ri dzi vhona dzi ludzi luthihi lune lwa khou ri vhofhekanya. (Translation of Tshivenḓa paragraph follows.)
[In the past, languages spoken by South Africa’s people were used to divide them. Recognising them as our heritage, has helped to transform our mindset and view them as a significant cord that binds us together.]
The draft language policy which encourages South Africans to know or learn at least three of the official languages, will help to eradicate the myth of the existence of inferior and superior languages.
Ḽaiburari dzi tea u vha tsini na senthara dza lushaka, nahone, dzi shume sa zwiko zwa mafhungo zwa vhathu vhoṱhe. Vhaṅwali vha vharema vha tea u pfufhiwa u itela uri vha ṱuṱuwedzee. Maṅwalwa a kha khomphutha a tea u ṅwalwa nga nyambo dzo fhambananaho, u itela uri muṅwe na muṅwe a kone u swikelela mafhungo. Hezwi zwi ḓo sumbedza uri ri kha ḽiga ḽone-ḽone ḽa tshanduko. Vhaṱuku-ṱuku vhe vha vha vha khou ḓiphina, vha kha ḓi ḓiphina na ṋamusi. (Translation of Tshivenḓa paragraph follows.)
[Libraries have to be next to the community art centres and serve as sources of information for all people. African writers should be given rewards to encourage them. Information on computers should be available in different languages so that everybody has access to information. This will show us that we are on the right track to transformation. The few people who were previously advantaged are still benefiting.]
We are urging scientists to create proper facilities to cater for language groups which were previously disadvantaged. What can Government, Parliament and the communities do to ensure that literature is written in African languages within the spirit of writing more creative books? Our heritage should make us unique. This will attract people to us. If we look at the role played by language during the negotiations to reach consensus at Codesa, we can see the importance of language, hence the transformation we see.
Mvelele sa ḽiga ḽa tshanduko, ḽi na vhukando vhuhulu vhune ḽa tea u vhu dzhia. Mvelele i na mikhwa na milayo, fhedzi tshiṱalula tsho ri fhiriṱanya. Arali ri tshi nga lavhelesa kha pfunzo dza mishumo ya zwanḓa, vhathu vha vho amba-vho vhoṱhe, hoṱhe hune vha vha hone.
ANC i tenda kha maanḓa nga u pfana. Arali ri tshi fara vhaṅwe vhathu vhane vha vha vhahashu nga nḓila ine ra tama vha tshi ri fara ngaho, hezwi zwi sumbedza zwauri ri khou tshila nga nḓila yo teaho. Ndi zwone zwine zwa khou ṱoḓea kha matshilisano nga hohu u kunguwedza hashu hei herithedzhi.
Kha zwiṅwe zwigwada, musi vhathu vha tshi lumelisana, muṅwe u tea u gwadama ngeno muṅwe a tshi fanela u tou ima. Naho ro fhambana nga maitele, ri lushaka luthihi lwa Afurika Tshipembe lu teaho u farana. Vhanna vha vhavenḓa kanzhi vha tshi khou tshimbila, u ṱoḓa u vhona mufumakadzi wawe a tshi khou mu sala murahu, ngeno vha vhatshena a tshi ṱoḓa u mu vhona a tshi khou tshimbila phanḓa hawe. Hezwo zwoṱhe, vhanna havho vhoṱhe, vha vhona vha tshi khou zwi itela u tsireledza vhafumakadzi vhavho, ngeno i mvelele. Riṋe musi ri tshi zwi sedza ra vhona zwauri zwoṱhe zwi pfi u tsireledza. Zwi amba uri havho vhathu vhoṱhe vha khou ṱhonifha mvelele dzavho. (Translation of Tshivenḓa paragraphs follows.)
[Culture has a role to play as a vehicle for transformation. Culture has norms and values. Apartheid kept us separated. If we look at vocational education, different people now talk to each other.
The ANC believes in power through peace. If one treats other people the way one treat one’s own people, that is real transformation. This is what is needed in socialisation by celebrating this Heritage Day.
In some groups when people greet one another, one is supposed to kneel down, whereas the other one must be standing. Even though we differ in culture, we are one South African nation which must be united. In most instances when Venda man is walking, he wants to see his wife walking behind him, whereas a white man wants to see her walking in front of him. According to these men, this is done for protection and it is in accordance with their cultures.]
Let our artists portray African creativity, and not be seen as barbaric artists. Through art one portrays one’s identity. We all know that there is a portrayal of job creation in African culture through the creativity of our rural women who are surviving on what they have. We must be proud of what we wear, for example our jewellery and our dresses. They have to be promoted, and not just be taken for granted. These women need to be encouraged by having beauty contests or fashion parades featuring their products.
We in the ANC still believe that South Africans should join hands to build this country together. That is why we are celebrating this Heritage Day today. Let us join hands together and be united as Africans.
Musi ri tshi khou sedza vhathu vhoṱhe vha Afurika Tshipembe, hu na zwine vha fana ngazwo, nga maanḓa mvelele. U hulisana na matshilisano, ndi zwithu zwine havha vhathu vhoṱhe kana vho faho, vha vha vho fela zwone, uri shango ḽashu ḽi ye phanḓa, uri ri tshile sa vhathu vhathihi vha dzulaho Afurika Tshipembe.
Ri fhano roṱhe ri a zwi ḓivha zwauri ro ḓa nge vhaṅwe vhathu vha shuluwa malofha vha tshi khou ṱoḓa zwauri yeneyi mbofholowo ine ra vha khayo, ri tshile ri khayo, nahone ri ḓiphine ngayo. Ndi a tenda zwauri a ri ngo dzula lwa fhedzi, nahone malofha ha ngo shuluwa lwa fhedzi, o shulutshela uri ri tshilisane sa MaAfurika Tshipembe vhane vha tea u vha vho vhoxwa nga ludzi luthihi. Ri vhathu vha fhano Afurika Tshipembe, ri tea u tshila nga matshilisano a vhuḓi. [U vhanda zwanḓa.] (Translation of Tshivenḓa paragraphs follows.)
[When we look at all South Africans, there is something similar about them, more especially when it comes to culture. Respect and living together is what these people or the dead, died for, so that their land can develop and so that we can live as one.
We all know that we are here because other people shed their blood for the freedom we are enjoying now. I believe that we are not here for nothing and that the blood was not shed for nothing, but we should live together as South Africans who are united. We are South Africans, therefore we must live together in harmony. [Applause.]]
Mr M T GONIWE: Chairperson, on a point of order: Apart from the pathetic interpretation services, these gadgets are not working. [Applause.]
The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order! Hon member, I thought it was only the device which I had which was malfunctioning. I thought you were generally being better serviced. Let me assure you that the presiding officers have put out to tender the need to improve the sound system in this Chamber. I think I can ask for you forbearance. In due course you will have sound that will be of an adequate quality here.
In the meantime I must apologise for the sound. As for the quality of the interpretation, I think you are sitting right next to the best person to possibly attempt to see if that could be improved. So, I take both your points.
Mr J H SLABBERT: Chairperson, on a point of order: Will the closing date of that tender be before 2004? [Laughter.]
The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Hon member, I give you the assurance that this matter is being taken in hand, and that we should have a better quality of sound. The pay-off for that will be to expect hon members thereafter to listen to the speaker at the podium. At the moment I am being a little bit indulgent, seeing that the sound quality is not that good.
Mr I S MFUNDISI: Mr Chairperson and hon members, let me take the middle course and say the advent of democracy came as a blessing to the multicultural people of this country.
We have home-grown national symbols to be proud of: the interim constitution of 1993, the national flag, the national anthem, which embraces different languages to indicate our diversity; the new Constitution of 1996; and the coat of arms. While we have 11 languages, it is unfortunate that the nation has been systematically anglicised. The people’s heritage in the form of their indigenous languages is being kept in the background.
There are, however, very important gains that we should concern ourselves with: the compromise national anthem is one such example. I remember when I spoke from this podium on the occasion of the millennium debate in November 1999, I decried that the national anthem was not known nor was it well sung. Most people remain tied to their former versions of their anthems and resist transformation. This is highly regrettable. The decorum in the deportment during the singing of the anthem has to improve, to show that we are a transformed nation that is proud of its nationhood.
It is such a pity that seven years down the road since democracy, one still sees the national flag being hoisted upside down at some Government offices. This should not happen. It tells a very pathetic and unpleasant story. As we approach Heritage Day, may we in the spirit of the centre design of the flag - which begins with a ``v’’ - accept that as peoples of this country there is a point where we, as diverse elements, converge and it is from this point that we can travel the road ahead in unison.
Let us come out of this journey a transformed society. As a nation, we should please guard against the sycophant syndrome symbol, which is a situation that mistakes made by other people are more serious than those made by us. This leaves us in the situation where we are seen to be racist and all that.
Dr S E M PHEKO: Mr Chairperson, on the subject of the road to a transformed society, I want to go straight to the heart of this debate.
Land was the primary contradiction and cause of wars of national resistance against colonialism. They were led in this country by our heroic kings such as Sekhukhune, Cetywayo, Hintsa, Moshoeshoe, Makhado etc. It is unfortunate that thus far no progress has been made in resolving the land dispossession of the African people. Section 25(7) of the Constitution has replaced the Native Land Act of 1913 and the Native Trust Land Act of 1936. The landless African people, whose population is now nearly 78%, are homeless, poor, unemployed, lack means for education and their health care is almost nil, especially where Africans live. This section must be amended.
It is political docility to think that African land can be claimed from
- Homeless and landless people have been evicted from land without being given alternative accommodation. This has been the case in many Bredells and Phola Parks of this country. The PAC is calling for an urgent land summit as a way to transform this society and socially emancipate those who the liberation struggle against colonialism purported to free from social degradation.
The mode of developing this country must change. It is still colonial. Economic and social improvements still happen in the traditionally white areas. This is where the best development is concentrated - the good hospitals are here, the best schools are here, the well-equipped police stations are here, the best roads are here and the best of everything is here. Meanwhile the rural areas and the townships remain cesspools of poverty and underdevelopment. The country needs a bottom-up economic and social development, not the up-bottom one which benefits a tiny minority. [Applause.]
Mr J P I BLANCHÉ: Mr Chairperson, the road to a transformed society starts on the day when that society decides to move away from living in conflict with itself and its environment and leads to where they eventually end up at peace with themselves. It is a continuous road along which every generation of that society develops new goals and dreams - goals and dreams that will determine their present position in the global society of their generation.
Whilst travelling along this road the society with wise and honest leaders and God-fearing families will take what was honourable from their past and remould out of that their children’s future. A society living and striving for excellence will not repeat unjust practices committed against them or others in the past.
If every member of society strives to improve his standing within that society and if every society becomes intolerant of corruption, low moral and ethical standards, then their road to reform will lead to a winning nation status. Only then can such a society claim that they have reformed.
No nation can claim that they are on the road to reform when they have only started on this road and have not yet stopped corruption and intolerance to minorities or groups. No nation can point fingers if their journey along this road still shows signs of their starting point.
If one’s starting point is a scene of necklacing, crime and corruption, and if after years one has not yet escaped these low moral standards, then one has not left the parking lot. Then one is not on the road to reform and had better take out the road map and replan one’s route.
If we cannot curb crime and corruption and control intolerance, then we should not hold a Heritage Day holiday and should be out there building a better society. [Time expired.]
Miss S RAJBALLY: Mr Chairperson …
An HON MEMBER: Malibongwe! [Praise!]
Miss S RAJBALLY: Malibongwe igama lamakhosikazi! [Praise the name of women!]
Chairperson, no matter how rich our heritage sounds and is, its content marks the beginning of our people, our nation, all around us. Everything we see, everything that exists has a story of its own origin, beginning and inheritance - a heritage that the MF feels calls for celebration.
It had been decided, this year, that our national emblems could be the theme set for Heritage Day. Our national emblems are the national flag, coat of arms, national anthem and national birds, animals, fish, trees and flowers. Each of these has a story. Our flag is a combination of the past and present flag-history of South Africa. The colours red, white and blue represent the past, and the colours gold, green and black mark the new. The design of the flag represents our diversities and unification, thus linking us to the national coat of arms.
Our national anthem, which is a combined version of the republic’s earlier anthem and the anthem of the people of the struggle, also demonstrates the unity of our people. The MF respects this symbolism that marks our unity, as a nation, and the heritage of our country.
The MF finds the celebration of the nation’s heritage important as it marks the celebration of our people, history, environment, who we are and who we have become. It has been a long road and a rich history. Be it in riches or in struggle, Heritage Day is a day of remembrance. It is the day of the beginning and the future. As we look back, we look forward.
The MF celebrates the national emblems that symbolise our rich heritage and sees these symbols which have the content of today and yesterday as a token of a transformed society. [Time expired.] [Applause.]
Mr C AUCAMP: Chairperson, when Cathy Freeman ran a victory lap after winning the 400 metre race at the Sydney Olympics, she proudly carried the Australian flag in her one hand and the Aboriginal flag in her other hand. This epitomises a society with respect for heritage.
Ons het in Suid-Afrika ‘n ryk, gedeelde erfenis - die land, die bodem, sekere dinge wat eie geword het aan die totale Suid-Afrikaanse samelewing, ‘n lotsgebondenheid aan dit wat ons aan ons kinders nalaat. Ons moet dit uitbou en koester.
Maar ons het ook in Suid-Afrika ‘n ryk verskeidenheid in ons erfenis, ‘n verskeidenheid van tale, kulture en gebruike. Ek wil vandag die stelling maak dat die sleutel tot die sukses van die geheel afhanklik is van die eerbied en respek vir die dele. Die eenheid van die leuse op die landswapen, afhanklik van respek vir die verskeidenheid wat ook daarin vervat is, die boustene vir ‘n Suid-Afrika waarin al sy kinders veilig en geborge kan wees, lê nie in 40 miljoen individuele erfporsies nie, maar in die eerbiedige ontvangs en oordrag van ‘n tiental gedeelde erfgoed.
Die beskerming van hierdie erfenis mag nie in museums opgesluit lê om nou en dan deur besoekers bekyk te word nie. Nee, dit moet geleef word, in ons harte, in ons strate, in ons alledaagse leefwyse. In dié opsig is ek bevrees dat ons dikwels lippediens bewys aan die ryke kaleidoskoop van die erfenis van al ons mense.
Die duidelikste voorbeeld hiervan was die radio-advertensie waarvan die bewoording gelui het dat Suid-Afrika gekies is vir die konferensie oor rassisme omdat ons talle kulture, tale en gelowe dit reggekry het om saam te smelt tot een. Nee, kulture en gelowe wat moet saamsmelt, is nie transformasie nie, maar deformasie. Dit beteken juis die vernietiging van ons erfenis.
Daarom wil die AEB ook sy spyt uitspreek dat die jaarlikse Cultural Conference wat deur die Departement van Provinsiale en Plaaslike Owerheid gereël word nou al vir twee jaar nie plaasgevind het nie. Die woord ``erfenis’’, en erns oor die erfenis, staan lynreg teenoor die verbruikerskultuur wat gebruik om op te gebruik. Ons wil gebruik om na te laat. (Translation of Afrikaans paragraphs follows.)
[In South Africa we have a rich, shared heritage - the land, the soil, certain things that have become part of the whole of South African society, a common destiny that we leave to our children. We must build on this and cherish it.
But in South Africa we also have a rich diversity in our heritage, a diversity of languages, cultures and customs. I want to make the statement today that the key to the success of the whole depends on the honouring of and respect for the parts. The unity of the slogan on our coat of arms, which is based on respect for the diversity contained in it, the building blocks of a South Africa in which all her children can be safe and secure, does not lie in 40 million individual inheritances, but in the respectful receipt and transfer of a tenfold shared inheritance.
The protection of this heritage may not be locked up in museums only to be looked at by visitors now and then. No, it must be lived, in our hearts, in our streets, in our everyday lives. In this regard I am afraid that we often pay lip service to the rich kaleidoscope of the heritage of all our people.
The clearest example of this was the radio advertisement that said that South Africa was selected for the conference on racism because our many cultures, languages and faiths have succeeded in merging into one. No, cultures and faiths that must merge into one is not transformation, but deformation. This in fact means the destruction of our heritage. This is why the AEB also wishes to express its regret that the annual Cultural Conference, which is organised by the Department of Provincial and Local Government, has not taken place for the past two years. The word ``heritage’’, and seriousness concerning heritage, is diametrically opposed to the consumer culture that utilises in order to use up. We want to utilise in such a way as to leave behind.]
The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order! The hon member might like to
know that in West Africa one finds cassies'' all over, not Cassie Aucamp,
butcassie’’ for cashier.
Mr R P Z VAN DEN HEEVER: Chairperson, since the ANC assumed power in 1994, it has embarked on the road to a transformed society. As a party, the ANC sought to transform South Africa from a racist and divided past to a nonracial democracy. As we today consider the various symbols representing the heritage of our nation, there is indeed a recognition of the heritage of diverse cultural groups in our country, as well as the heritage of single nationhood which has emerged as one of the hallmarks of the new South Africa under ANC rule.
The miracle of postapartheid South Africa is that our national symbols reflect both the diversity and the unity of our transformed South African society. We have a national anthem which symbolises the coming together of languages, traditions and the histories of our past. The coat of arms, with its motto in Khoi, !ke e: /xarra //ke, which literally means ``diverse people unite’’, reminds us that this land is for all of us who live in it.
We have a language policy in which all indigenous languages have been declared official languages. We have a national flag which is a synopsis of the principal colours of South Africa’s flag history, spanning from the earliest time to the present. Our Constitution guarantees freedom of worship and the official policy of the ANC Government is one of noninterference in religious practices.
We have different statues and memorials throughout the length and breadth our country, from Robben Island as a national monument standing at the southernmost tip of Africa, to the Voortrekker Monument in the north of our country, from the statue of Paul Kruger on Church Square in Pretoria, to the monument in memory of King Shaka in KwaZulu-Natal.
This is our diverse though united heritage as a South African nation. And what greater tribute has ever been paid to our unity as a nation than the awe-inspiring address by President Thabo Mbeki when he proclaimed ``I am an African’’? In his description of an African, he included every single South African, however diverse the cultural roots and historical origin of that South African may be.
Ek wil vandag bietjie teruggaan in die kultuurgeskiedenis om die erfenis van ons verenigde nasie te bepeins.
Ek wil vir die Huis en die nasie vandag die storie vertel van ‘n Khoi-vrou. Haar naam was Eva en sy het in die 1670s in die huis van Jan van Riebeeck grootgeword het. Eva was ‘n kleinniggie van Harry die Strandloper. Sy was ‘n mooi en intelligente vrou, en het gou vlot Hollands leer praat, en kon ook skaflik in Portugees kommunikeer. Jan van Riebeeck het haar as tolk gebruik, maar het haar ook aan ‘n Westerse lewenstyl in sy huis blootgestel. Sy het geleer om Westerse disse voor te berei. Sy het die moderne Westerse klerestyl begin dra, en het ook die Christelike geloof aangeneem. Sy is derhalwe ook as enkele Khoi-lidmaat van die Groote Kerk in Kaapstad bevestig. Sy het uiteindelik getrou met ene Pieter van Meerhof, ‘n ontdekkingsreisiger uit Denemarke.
Na ‘n paar jaar het die noodlot Eva oorval. Haar man is op brutale wyse in Madagaskar vermoor, en haar mentor, Van Riebeeck, het na Holland teruggekeer. Eva het nou ‘n swerwersbestaan begin voer, en geswerf tussen die inheemse Khoi-gemeenskappe en die Hollandse koloniste aan die Kaap. Sy het uiteindelik in drank en wellus verval, en is deur die Hollandse Kompanjie na Robbeneiland verban, waar sy ook uiteindelik gesterf het.
‘n Mens kan seker baie lesse neem uit die kleurryke dog tragiese geskiedenis van Eva. Eva het wel die geleentheid gesmaak om in ‘n huis volgens die kultuur en waardestelsels van die Hollandse Kommandeur, Jan van Riebeeck, op te groei. Sy het egter stelselmatig van haar wortels -``roots’’ - in die Khoi-gemeenskap losgeraak, en ‘n Westerse leefwyse saam met haar man en hoë vriende in die Kompanjie begin lei. (Translation of Afrikaans paragraphs follows.)
[Today I would like to go back in our cultural history to ponder the heritage of our united nation.
Today I want to tell the House and the nation the story of a Khoi woman. Her name was Eva and she grew up in Jan van Riebeeck’s house in the 1670s. Eva was a second cousin of Harry the Strandloper. She was an attractive and intelligent woman, and soon learned to speak Dutch fluently, and could also communicate adequately in Portuguese. Jan van Riebeeck used her as an interpreter, but also exposed her to a Western lifestyle in his home. She learned to prepare Western dishes. She began to wear modern Western clothing, and also adopted the Christian faith. In addition, she was also confirmed as the sole Khoi member of the Groote Kerk in Cape Town. She eventually married one Pieter van Meerhof, an explorer from Denmark.
After a few years, fate overtook Eva. Her husband was brutally murdered in Madagascar, and her mentor, Van Riebeeck, returned to Holland. Eva now took on a nomadic existence, and wandered among the indigenous Khoi communities and the Dutch colonists in the Cape. She eventually fell into a life of alcohol and wantonness, and was exiled to Robben Island by the Dutch Company, where she also eventually died.
One can probably learn many lessons from the colourful yet tragic history of Eva. Eva had the opportunity to grow up in a house according to the culture and value systems of the Dutch Commander, Jan van Riebeeck. However, she systematically moved away from her roots in the Khoi community, and began leading a Western lifestyle with her husband and illustrious friends in the Company.]
There is probably nothing wrong with cross-cultural pollination. But if only certain selected individuals are being assimilated into a new culture, there will eventually arise a clash of interests between the old culture and the new one. It has therefore been of the utmost importance that we create an open, nonracial society, with mutual understanding of and respect for different cultures so that by means of freedom of association our people can integrate and relate constructively to one another as equals and as fellow countrymen and women.
I now want to turn to the initiatives that have been undertaken in the educational field in celebrating our national symbols, as part of the Values in Education Initiative. The Constitution of the Republic of South Africa clearly expresses South Africa’s social values and its expectations of the roles, rights and responsibilities of citizens in a democratic South Africa. It is a pity that the hon Sydney Opperman spoke about new values and principles as if these values are not enshrined in our Constitution. His utterings were those of a person who sits in the House blindfolded. That is probably why Comrade Hangana responded metaphorically to his provocative speech.
Our new curriculum, Curriculum 2005, is premised on the goals and values of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa. The challenge for the new curriculum is how the goals and values of social justice, equity and democracy can be infused across the curriculum.
The promotion of values is important, not only for the sake of personal development, but also to ensure that a national, South African identity is built on values very different from those that underpinned apartheid education. The kind of learner that is envisaged is one who will, accordingly, be imbued with the values and act in the interests of a society based on respect for democracy, equality, human dignity, life and social justice. This is the kind of citizen that should emerge from a school system in a democratic society.
In the area of social sciences, history and geography, the new curriculum aims to develop informed, critical and responsible citizens who are able to participate constructively in a culturally diverse and changing society. In a multilingual country like South Africa, it is important that learners reach high levels of proficiency in at least two languages and that they are able to communicate in other languages. However, learners’ home languages will be used for the purposes of learning and teaching wherever possible.
I would like to conclude with the following words which flowed from our President in his ``I am an African’’ speech:
Our Constitution rejoices in the diversity of our people and creates the space for all of us, voluntarily, to define ourselves as one people.
With those words, I want to express the hope that our 2001 Heritage Day celebrations will again provide us with the opportunity of defining ourselves as one people out of our diverse cultures. [Applause.]
The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Hon members, I trust that you and all of South Africa will find fulfilment on Heritage Day.
Debate concluded.
The House adjourned at 17:37. ____
ANNOUNCEMENTS, TABLINGS AND COMMITTEE REPORTS
ANNOUNCEMENTS:
National Assembly and National Council of Provinces:
- The Speaker and the Chairperson:
(1) The following Bill was introduced by the Minister for Justice
and Constitutional Development in the National Assembly on 20
September 2001 and referred to the Joint Tagging Mechanism (JTM)
for classification in terms of Joint Rule 160:
(i) Judicial Officers Amendment Bill [B 72 - 2001] (National
Assembly - sec 75) [Explanatory summary of Bill and prior
notice of its introduction published in Government Gazette No
22681 of 18 September 2001.]
The Bill has also been referred to the Portfolio Committee on
Justice and Constitutional Development of the National Assembly.
In terms of Joint Rule 154 written views on the classification of
the Bill may be submitted to the Joint Tagging Mechanism (JTM)
within three parliamentary working days. COMMITTEE REPORTS:
National Assembly:
-
Report of the Portfolio Committee on Communications on the Postal Services Amendment Bill [B 63 - 2001] (National Assembly - sec 75), dated 19 September 2001:
The Portfolio Committee on Communications, having considered the subject of the Postal Services Amendment Bill [B 63 - 2001] (National Assembly - sec 75), referred to it and classified by the Joint Tagging Mechanism as a section 75 Bill, reports the Bill with an amendment [B 63A - 2001].
-
Report of the Portfolio Committee on Water Affairs and Forestry on the SADC Region Shared Watercourses Protocol, dated 19 September 2001:
The Portfolio Committee on Water Affairs and Forestry, having considered the request for approval by Parliament of the Revised Protocol on Shared Watercourses in the Southern African Development Community Region, referred to it, recommends that the House, in terms of section 231(2) of the Constitution, approve the said Protocol.
Report to be considered.