Organised business and Nedlac

The National Economic Development and Labour Council (NEDLAC),so they say, facilitates discussions to reach consensus between Government, organised business, organised labour and organised community groupings on various issues of social and economic policy. Important for me however is to know and understand the actors participating in NEDLAC and the extent to which their involvement influences the direction and the values of NEDLAC. Secondly and equally important is to know the background culture and the patriotic commitment of the actors involved in the discussions in the NEDLAC.

It is said that Business organisations such as the Chamber of Mines, the South African Chamber of Business (SACOB), the Black Business Council, the National African Federated Chamber of Commerce (NAFCOC), the Afrikaanse Handelsinstituut (AHI), the Foundation for African Business and Consumer Services (FABCOS), the South African Foundation and foreign chambers of commerce in South Africa regularly liaise with Government and also comment on draft legislations. My concern though is not about their participation because that is necessary to influence the direction of the legislation but the greatest concern is whose interests are these organisations represent? Organisations exist for specific motives. Any organisations have their constituencies hence they carry mandate in whatever participation. The COSATU stand, protect and wish to continue representing the plight of the working class and the poor. They neither compromise nor hide their stand but I do not know what the organised business organisation stand for. In the last state of the nation address the president of the republic pointed out that the last decade has been kind to the business. He complained that they lack the will and the commitment to nation building and alleviation of poverty.

On the B-BEE seminar Bongani Ngeleza reveal shocking statistics saying that black owned public enterprises listed in the JSE comprises less than 2% while Blacks makes about 39.9 million of the total 45 million national populations. Also mentioned that black women CEOs and black CEOs in general in the private sector raises questions. Now this confirm my suspicion that business sector in South Africa is not as patriotic as it should be or they are patriotic but not facilitated enough to participate in nation building.

However the lack of commitment in the business might also be caused by the fact that there is a lack in government commitment to actively participate in Nedlac. On 29 September 2005 in weekly newspaper Mail and Guardians, Sibiya of BUSA complained that “there are very few directors attending meetings at Nedlac” in addition he also pointed out that when ministers are required to attend crucial meetings in Nedlac they do not come. My analysis therefore tells me that there are draft legislation debates which when facilitated by Nedlac end up taking directions which they would not have had the participation from government been adequate. Vic van Vuuren, the chief operating officer of Busa, in the same newspaper, was quoted as saying “The truth is that when ministers are required to attend crucial meetings in Nedlac, they do not come.

Sexual Harassment

Women like to be complimented. After showering in the morning, after a night of sleeping over, she would ask "how do I look?" I often say you look great without even having looked at her. She would say "really?" And I would say yes. Guess what? when they ask these question they do even look at you so that is why my yes is always yes even if I did not look. I know she is not looking at me. Anyway my point is women like to be appreciated.

Now, tell me when harassment becomes harassment? Let me tell you a secret, if it is an ugly men whistling at her while passing by that is harassment but! if it is a stylish, trendy and gorgeous metrosexual men oooh! that is compliment. If he is standing next to a BMW 5 series or 280 mercedes compressor ooh gosh! "he has got a taste". If she is in a company of her friends she would say proudly "this man can definitely see his match". Regardless of the fact that this man also whistled to her like an ugly guy three blocks down the road she would have no problem in dating him. The poor ugly guy would be, if charges were laid and enough evidence produced, be languishing in jail.

With the same crime the guy of over-extended beauty will get away with murder. If an ugly guy touches a woman's buttocks she will go over the roof but if the gorgeous rich guy does the same, immediately she realises it was this guy, she would say softly with a smile "do not do that". The next thing she would say "can we go out on weekend?". So it leads me to conclude that harassment depends on who does the actual thing. Harassment is a subjective thing, it depends on person being "harassed"

Wait a minute did I say get away with murder? Yes, but temporarily of course. On harassment, an ugly guy will get less punishment, on the crime he knows of course, considering the extent of the severity of his transgression. On the other hand, the life style emersed gentleman will, if things go sour, be even charged with rape he did not do. Our modern ladies do not mind being abused by rich gorgeous guys if they know prospect of marriage in the future. But if there is no guarantee for the future; things turn ugly so quickly. A poor trendy guy will be accused of many things including multiple rapes and abuse with an intent to do a bodily harm. In laying charges woman insist on civil than criminal charges. She would insist on compensation, against the guy and lot of money in the process will be paid.

I am sorry for this and I really am because there are genuine rape cases but hey rapes that involve politicians, football stars, singers, top DJs and women of poor background need to be looked at differently or scrutinised.

My walk at constitution hill

The political struggle of South Africa is a one amazing journey. I am forever indebted to the world of work for taking me to constitution hill. There are many journeys in my life but I believe the constitution hill "walk" was a distinct one. Like Islamic religion would say 'it is a spiritual imperative that all muslims at least once in their lifetime to take a journey to Mecca". I believe it is an obligation as well to all South Africans old and young, at least once in their lives, to take a journey to constitution hill. The place gave me mix feelings, that of joy that the country had indeed changed for the better and that of hatred a discovery of how many of our people were humiliated by apartheid. After a long walk in the Constitution Hill you finally find peace within yourself knowing your responsibility to the human race, you get to know what you as an individual can do and not do to other fellow human beings. It is a fulfilling experience.

However as a critic I believe constitution hill will cause a dependency syndrome among South Africans. Many South Africans will find it difficult not to vote the ANC in any elections after taking a walk at this hill. Considering the fact that the government has made it part of educational curriculum for school children to visit the hill, I would wait with great anticipation to see who will oust the ANC from power in the future elections.

Minimum Wage

I often hear the above discussed by the department of labour over what farm workers or domestic workers need to be payed. Fascinating though is what is often neglected (benignly of course) about the actual meaning of the word minimum wage. Minimum wage is in fact a very derogative term. It means the employer would love to have workers but he will pay because that is required by law otherwise he would love to have them working for him for free. In reality minimum wage is paid to people whom the employer would love to have them as slaves. Secondly the minimum wage is not about meeting personal needs but is about keeping the person alive so that he would come to work the next day. It is the money that keeps a "slave" alive.

If you are paid a minimum wage just know that you are preferred as a slave.

Nepad is an extension of robbery

Let us say, hypothetically, Africa is a big house with hundred and twenty rooms. At some stage long time ago the original owners were kicked out of their rooms. Now they are scattered somewhere in the sea. Some in the Atlantic and others in the Indian sea. After hundred of years they decide to trade among themselves, where would they trade? inside the house or in the sea?. Let us say originally they were trading in the living room. If my memory serves me well in the aftermath of colonisation all Africans were driven out of their rooms, so practically they can't trade in the living room because they are not there. What Nepad should be addressing first is question of ownership or sharing of rooms before speaking about trade. If South Africa and Zimbabwe were to trade who will be doing the actual trading in the true sense of the word? In reality it will be those who owns the house, resources and means of production. In the context of this article it will be those inside the rooms. If we want Nepad to be fruitful, we need to off load people from wandering ships in the sea and bring them back to their rooms so that they will participate in the trade happening in the living room.

I did enjoy seminar on the subject but disturbed that nothing was said about Africa's stolen land and the millions of destitute people. I am not of the argument that rooms should be reposessed but rather I am of the view that they need to be shared.

Bible may just be a celebrated piece of junk: too much inconsistencies

My duty as a political philosopher is not only to ask questions but to provide answers as well. Please venture through this article and tell what you think.

There are times when I ask myself as to how bible got the kind of fame that it enjoys yet it seems to breath lies wherever it goes. Think of Joshua 10 verse 12-14. It says Joshua stopped the sun in the village of Gibeon and Moon in the village of Ajalon. How on earth can one stop something that does not move? Categorically  our modern science says it is the earth that moves around these celestial bodies not the other way round. I believe the deceivers or kingpins behind the bible never anticipated that science will one day be so advance.

Again if you look at Genesis 4 verse 15 just after Cain slain his brother, it says god stated unequivocally that one who kills or hurt Cain will be punished seven times more. Tell, who was going to hurt or kill him other than his mother or father? Could it be that there were other people somewhere? Will it be possible that Adam was not a first person to be created? Well if one continues to verse 16 of the same chapter it says Cain moved to a village east of Aden where he married and had Enock his son. This is just another cloud fused with a lot of hubbub/rubbish. His father is a first man to be created, second is his mother and, he and his brother the third now where he gets a wife? May be, to accommodate this rather very flabby story, he may have married his sister. However to accommodate this in this direction may mean accepting that we are a product, as a human race, of incest. Now I cannot accept that demeaning direction

Now let me move to Genesis 1 verse 27 , believe me this is an interesting stuff. This verse state ardently that god created man and a woman concurrently in his image. But chapter 2 verse 18 says he realized that it was not right for Adam to be alone so he created Eve from Adam's rib. This may be revealing of a mindset of a person writing the bible. It was written by a man who wanted to enforce gender imbalance and patriarch.  He realized later that if he stays with the first verse he would make men and women equal so he had to improvise to accommodate himself as a superior figure to a woman.

To give a balance view, let me say sheepishly, that the bible is a true account of how things came to be being. How come it is time bound, surely if it was commissioned by God it would not have said Joshua stopped the sun and the moon. I presume God is not time bound he knows what would happen in hundreds of years to come. Purely this error indicates that bible is a human invention. It was invented by people who structurally knew what they were doing. Put haphazardly, bible is about stealing, dismemberment,  prowling and brutal killing of innocent people by greed driven people. It is not about God. It is about certain group of people who lied to the rest by choosing to call themselves as chosen. This is a bizarre low level of morality. Bible is not only about greed but also cocooned inside it is an extreme barbarism and savage(sm).

Certainly God I believe in can't be all that. Bible is an insult to races who are not directly mentioned in it. If you look at Luke chapter 3 verse 23 to 37 it concisely trace Jesus back to Adam. What does that tell one who is a pure black and African: surely it says he was not created.

In conclusion, in Job chapter 1 verse 6-20 it shows how insulting the bible is to God. This chapter portrays God as a stupid god. It says sometimes devil collaborate with God to tempt and go to an extent to even kill people. In verse 6 God ask devil where he has been. He replies by saying "from wandering". God immediately out of the blue says "are you aware of my good son/servant Job?" He went on to say I can't find anyone so loyal and righteous than him. Devil says 'is is because you protect him that is why he is so loyal but if you can take his possessions he will turn away from you'. Then it continues to say God made a pact with the devil. They agreed that devil can do anything to Job on condition that he does not touch his soul. As a result of that pact Job lost his sons, his stock (cattle, sheep, horses etc). Tell me what kind of God who will allow such things to happen? It means God is a partner to pain and tribulations we go through everyday.

God do exist but it is not the one in the bible. Behind a fancy BMW there is a designer, so is a creator behind humans but we need to be a little critical to find him.

Darwin's Theory of evolution is rubbish

It is amazing how things have evolved over time. I often wonder how things were in the begininning of time. Could it be possible that Darwin or Creation as  presented in the bible is a correct argument about the origins of the human race? Well, I believe there is no one who could answer this question with absolute certainty. The irony is I am not intending to undertake answering the question as well.

Now let me start with Darwin's argument which is not quite plausible given the fact that we still have apes family. His case is that human race was never created. Instead evolved from apes. Among my greatest interests/hobbies is watching national geographics which is on SABC 3 every sundays at 18h00. I am still waiting apprehensively to see a half human monkey or chimpanzee. If his argument were to hold water we need to have some of the apes being the active participants in the process of transcending to the human league. In his argument which is widely taught in many first year university psychology students, argues that evolution is a process, if that is the case could it be that it was a once off process which ended with few monkeys or chimpanzees who were either unlucky to step on contaminated territory and mutated? Whatever happened, Darwin does not give any credible version of the coming of the human race which leads me to my next passage:creation

Creation is a sweet theoretical argument which is impossible to be backed by empirical/experiential evidence. However if you take Darwin's argument you will see that creation make an overwhelming "common"sense. Darwin would find it easy, may be because he hates God or had different of opinion over something, to argue that human race was never created but fall short of telling who created apes. In effect his argument becomes self defeating because whatever the person was before he actually became human the fact he was created. Therefore Darwin's argument is rubbish and an extreme case of stupidity. I would safely say I am glad I never met him.