Latest News Archive

Please select Category, Year, and then Month to display items
Previous Archive
29 June 2020 | Story Edward Kagiso Molefe and Dr Nico Keyser
Edward Kagiso Molefe, left, and Dr Nico Keyser.

The 2020 supplementary budget comes at a time when the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic is causing widespread disruption in the world’s economy and continues to affect it negatively. Even though the precise economic and social consequences of the pandemic still remain uncertain, there is prevalent agreement between economists and policy makers that it will leave the world overwrought with the uncertainties of the future. According to the International Monetary Fund, the world economy is expected to contract sharply by 5,2% this year, due to the huge lockdown to curtail the spread of the COVID-19 pandemic. The South African economy is also expected to contract by 7,2% in 2020, and according to the Minister of Finance, Tito Mboweni, this is the largest contraction in almost 90 years. Therefore, the South African government currently finds itself in an unfortunate and restricted fiscal position. Minister Mboweni does not have much room to move within his emergency budget and therefore calls for a pragmatic approach, the reprioritisation of expenditure, and the implementation of austerity measures within the public sector and its state-owned enterprises (SOE).

Zero-based budgeting
However, the country should be applauded for responding to this economic shock with a set of unmatched measures. The Minister further highlighted that, for the first time in history, all stakeholders – including the private sector, labour, communities, and the central bank – participated in responding to the storm that came without an early warning system. This has proven the validity of the long-sung gospel that by working together, we can do more. R500 billion of government’s COVID‐19 economic support package was directed straight at the problem. Against the background of ongoing measures to address the pandemic in South Africa, the Minister’s supplementary budget of 2020 stressed several key aspects:

The first burning issue addressed in the supplementary budget was the mounting debt-to-GDP ratio, which is envisaged to reach 80,5% in this fiscal year, as compared to a projection of 65,6% in February. Although the Minister has confirmed strategies to curtail the debt and widening deficit, no sign of stabilisation was presented. South Africa continues to experience contracting revenue and is relying extensively on loans from international sources, since savings is a non-starter. The Minister has also called for zero-based budgeting as one of the strategies in building a bridge to recover, and to close the mouth of the ‘hippopotamus’, which is eating our children’s inheritance. The zero-based budgeting is a big step in the right direction; it will make all role players in government understand the economic crisis we are facing. 

Prioritising infrastructure development
The other positive part of the supplementary budget was the prioritisation of infrastructure development. The South African government has already considered almost 177 infrastructure projects that will assist in boosting the economy and curtailing unemployment. The Sustainable Infrastructure Symposium, hosted by President Cyril Ramaphosa, announced 55 projects that are ready to be rolled out in due course. Government needs to further stimulate its partnership with the private sector to ensure more infrastructure development and job creation. Infrastructure development will also ensure jobs for the unskilled labour force, which makes up the largest part of our unemployment. 
In terms of job creation, an economic support package of R100 billion has been set aside for a multi-year, comprehensive response to our job emergency. Moreover, the President’s job creation and protection initiative will be rolled out over the medium term. This will include a repurposed public employment programme and a Presidential Youth Employment Intervention. The country is looking forward to further details regarding this presidential initiative, particularly with regard to the Presidential Youth Employment Intervention, as the youth is the future of this country.
Despite the envisaged revenue adjustment of R1,43 trillion to R1,12 trillion, the country is expected to continue spending. An additional R21 billion is allocated for COVID‐19‐related health-care spending. The supplementary budget has also proposed a R12,6 billion allocation to front-line services. An additional R11 billion is set aside towards improved water and sanitation, and an additional R6,1 billion for youth employment ensures that the most vulnerable are supported. However, the effectiveness of this allocation in the supplementary budget is sorely dependent on the ability of our government apparatus to spend the money.   

Opening the economy
The only worrying issue that the minister did not dwell on much, was the public sector wage bill, which still remains a challenge. According to the Minister, nearly half of the consolidated revenue will go towards the compensation of public service employees. The compensation of employees continues to put much pressure on service delivery and is pushing government in the direction of borrowing. On the other hand, the government of South Africa is still under pressure to implement the 2020 salary adjustments. However, the question still remains why the South African government is not considering the same process as the private sector or finding an alternative way of setting salaries at an appropriate, affordable, and fair level. This could save government money to focus on other areas that require financing, such as debt-service costs.

What remains evident and feasible is that South Africa should continue opening the economy to revive sectors hit hard by the great lockdown. Allowing trade to take place, doing business, and markets to function would provide the ultimate boost to a struggling economy. A reduced role by government could pave the way for the private sector to play a larger role in the economy. Moreover, structural reforms are required to create a favourable environment for growth and to restore South African fiscal credibility. 

Opinion article by Edward Kagiso Molefe, Lecturer: Department of Economics and Finance, and Dr Nico Keyser, Head of Department:  Economics and Finance

News Archive

Stem cell research and human cloning: legal and ethical focal points
2004-07-29

   

(Summary of the inaugural lecture of Prof Hennie Oosthuizen, from the Department of Criminal and Medical Law at the Faculty of Law of the University of the Free State.)

 

In the light of stem cell research, research on embryo’s and human cloning it will be fatal for legal advisors and researchers in South Africa to ignore the benefits that new bio-medical development, through research, contain for this country.

Legal advisors across the world have various views on stem cell research and human cloning. In the USA there is no legislation that regulates stem cell research but a number of States adopted legislation that approves stem cell research. The British Parlement gave permission for research on embryonic stem cells, but determined that it must be monitored closely and the European Union is of the opinion that it will open a door for race purification and commercial exploitation of human beings.

In South Africa the Bill on National Health makes provision for therapeutical and non therapeutical research. It also makes provision for therapeutical embryonical stem cell research on fetuses, which is not older than 14 days, as well as for therapeutical cloning under certain circumstances subject to the approval of the Minister. The Bill prohibits reproductive cloning.

Research on human embrio’s is a very controversial issue, here and in the rest of the world.

Researchers believe that the use of stem cell therapy could help to side-step the rejection of newly transplanted organs and tissue and if a bank for stem cell could be built, the shortage of organs for transplants would become something of the past. Stem cells could also be used for healing of Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s and spinal injuries.

Sources from which stem cells are obtained could also lead to further ethical issues. Stem cells are harvested from mature human cells and embryonic stem cells. Another source to be utilised is to take egg cells from the ovaries of aborted fetuses. This will be morally unacceptable for those against abortions. Linking a financial incentive to that could become more of a controversial issue because the woman’s decision to abort could be influenced. The ideal would be to rather use human fetus tissue from spontaneous abortions or extra-uterine pregnancies than induced abortions.

The potential to obtain stem cells from the blood of the umbilical cord, bone-marrow and fetus tissue and for these cells to arrange themselves is known for quite some time. Blood from the umbilical cord contains many stem cells, which is the origin of the body’s immune and blood system. It is beneficial to bank the blood of a newborn baby’s umbilical cord. Through stem cell transplants the baby or another family member’s life could be saved from future illnesses such as anemia, leukemia and metabolic storing disabilities as well as certain generic immuno disabilities.

The possibility to withdraw stem cells from human embrio’s and to grow them is more useable because it has more treatment possibilities.

With the birth of Dolly the sheep, communities strongly expressed their concern about the possibility that a new cloning technique such as the replacement of the core of a cell will be used in human reproduction. Embryonic splitting and core replacement are two well known techniques that are associated with the cloning process.

I differentiate between reproductive cloning – to create a cloned human embryo with the aim to bring about a pregnancy of a child that is identical to another individual – and therapeutically cloning – to create a cloned human embryo for research purposes and for healing human illnesses.

Worldwide people are debating whether to proceed with therapeutical cloning. There are people for and against it. The biggest ethical objection against therapeutical cloning is the termination of the development of a potential human being.

Children born from cloning will differ from each other. Factors such as the uterus environment and the environment in which the child is growing up will play a role. Cloning create unique children that will grow up to be unique individuals, just like me and you that will develop into a person, just like you and me. If we understand this scientific fact, most arguments against human cloning will disappear.

Infertility can be treated through in vitro conception. This process does not work for everyone. For some cloning is a revolutionary treatment method because it is the only method that does not require patients to produce sperm and egg cells. The same arguments that were used against in vitro conception in the past are now being used against cloning. It is years later and in vitro cloning is generally applied and accepted by society. I am of the opinion that the same will happen with regard to human cloning.

There is an argument that cloning must be prohibited because it is unsafe. Distorted ideas in this regard were proven wrong. Are these distorted ideas justified to question the safety of cloning and the cloning process you may ask. The answer, according to me, is a definite no. Human cloning does have many advantages. That includes assistance with infertility, prevention of Down Syndrome and recovery from leukemia.

 

We use cookies to make interactions with our websites and services easy and meaningful. To better understand how they are used, read more about the UFS cookie policy. By continuing to use this site you are giving us your consent to do this.

Accept