Latest News Archive

Please select Category, Year, and then Month to display items
Previous Archive
21 July 2021 | Story Prof Philippe Burger | Photo Sonia Small (Kaleidoscope Studios)
Prof Philippe Burger is Pro-Vice-Chancellor (Pro-VC): Poverty, Inequality and Economic Development at the University of the Free State.

Government needs to see the private sector as a true partner, whose expertise and capital can leverage its plans

Opinion article by Prof Philippe Burger, Pro-Vice-Chancellor (Pro-VC): Poverty, Inequality and Economic Development, University of the Free State

Many South Africans watched in disbelief last week as KwaZulu-Natal and Gauteng descended into looting, chaos, and destruction after Jacob Zuma’s imprisonment. Though probably instigated by disgruntled pro-Zuma supporters, it is clear that the protests very quickly spun out of control.

In newspapers, the question was repeatedly asked: did we see the hungry poor looting for food, or the opportunistic middle-class turning up in cars and bakkies to grab big-screen TVs and fridges? While images and videos clearly show that the latter were present in large numbers, the sight of other people – including gogos – ransacking supermarkets and running off on foot with loaves of bread and bags of maize meal, point to the former. In short, if people had jobs and hope that their lives would improve, I doubt we would have seen such anarchy.

Only a matter of time before protests and unrest occurred

With official unemployment above 30% and the broad unemployment rate – which includes discouraged work-seekers – in excess of 40%, it was only a matter of time before protests and unrest occurred. Zuma’s imprisonment was surely incidental. If it hadn’t been that, something else would have triggered the chaos.

COVID-19 also aggravated the situation, with 1,4 million people losing their jobs as a result of lockdown measures. In addition, the R350 COVID-relief grant expired at the end of April, leaving many with less food on the table.

A number of people argue that, in light of what has happened, we should bring back the relief grant; government may not have much choice now, given the lingering effect of 16 months of COVID restrictions on levels of unemployment and poverty. It will simply have to rearrange its budget to do so. However, we can’t stop at grants.

Even though a grant puts a bit of food in your stomach, it does not give you hope that the future will look better than today. It’s that bleak-looking future, that sense of nothing to lose, that fuels the looting and gives unsavoury politicians leverage for their selfish interests. Contrast this behaviour with that of taxi drivers, who came out to protect malls and chase away looters. They did so because they have something to lose, a stake in the economy to protect.

Every South African has a stake in the economy

We need to ensure that every South African has a stake in the economy. That way, people will have a sense of belonging, they will have options and agency, and they will have resources to improve their lives. They will have hope that the future will look better than the present. A person with a stake in the system is unlikely to break that system. 

We therefore need to seriously reconsider our policies, speed up much-needed change, and start building a believable message of hope – hope stemming from real concern for the plight of the poor, and serious implementation of policy. To help the poor, we need to create jobs, and for that we need investment.

Analysis of economic data shows that for every percentage point rise in private investment as percentage of GDP, we lift GDP growth by a third of a percentage point. And, on average, for every percentage point that GDP grows, employment increases by 1%. In recent years, private investment has averaged a mere 12% of GDP. If we can lift it to 15%, or even to 18%, GDP can grow by an extra one or two percentage points. It might not sound much, but after a decade or two it makes a big difference.

However, for this to happen, the government will have to see the private sector as a true partner whose expertise and capital can leverage the state’s plans. With such an approach, for instance, it would not be necessary for government to own and run an airline – a private operator will fill the gap in the market with its own capital, saving government billions of rands. And the government could long ago have let the private sector play a key role in the generation of electricity, instead of resisting change and only belatedly agreeing to lift the cap on private generation capacity from 1 MW to 100 MW.

Build communities where people escape poverty and have hope

The type and location of investment is also important. Data from the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research shows that SA’s urban population will have increased to between 50 million and 52 million by 2035. This is an increase of 12 million to 14 million compared to 2018.

We must use the opportunity to build green industries. It will save money and build a better environment. In short, as a growth strategy, we need a green, urban-driven investment strategy that caters for SA’s burgeoning urban population.

That way, we can build communities where people have a stake in the economy, where they have jobs and businesses, escape poverty, and have hope that their future and that of their children will improve.

• The article was first published in Business Day


News Archive

UFS policies want to help all students
2005-03-09

The death of Hannes van Rensburg, a first-year student from the JBM Hertzog residence, this past weekend, placed various aspects of student life in the spotlight.  Dr Natie Luyt, Dean:  Student Affairs at the University of the Free State (UFS), and the Student Representative Council (SRC) of the UFS explain which policies are in place to counter these practices.

At all tertiary institutions there are rules and policies to guide students and provide direction for certain behaviour and practices.  The same applies to the University of the Free State (UFS).

“At the beginning of the year the UFS provides every residence committee with a manual to establish a framework for meaningful and orderly relations within and among residences on the campus,” said Dr Natie Luyt.

However, it is one thing to set rules, but it is an impossible task to enforce all aspects thereof.  Policies currently in place include an alcohol policy, a policy on the induction of first years and a policy on banned practices in residence orientation. 

“The alcohol policy was compiled in cooperation with students and their input was constantly asked,” said Dr Luyt.  We also liaise on a continuous basis with residences and senior students to encourage the responsible use of alcohol, especially around activities like intervarsities and Rag. 

In the policy, recognition is given to the right and voluntary and informed choice of every individual to use alcohol on the UFS campus in a responsible way. 

Guidelines for the use of alcohol on campus include among others the following: 

Only authorised points of sale will be permitted on campus.  In this case it is the various league halls in most of the male residences on campus.

Alcohol will only be made available during fixed times and is not permitted in residence rooms.    

All alcohol-related functions are regulated and an application for a temporary alcohol license must be obtained from the Dean:  Student Affairs.     

The UFS obtained a liquor license in March 2004 which must be administered by senior leagues in various residences on campus.   Normal liquor license conditions and the county’s liquor laws apply.  Liquor can only be sold to members of the senior league (or special guests) and also to persons over the age of 18 years.  Liquor may not be used in public (outside the senior league) or on campus.    

The senior leagues may only be open three nights per week and within prescribed times.  No liquor could be used in any other place than the senior league halls.  Senior leagues could buy liquor from club monies generated by themselves. 

The right of senior leagues to serve liquor was suspended by the Rector and Vice-Chancellor the UFS, Prof Frederick Fourie, on Monday 7 March 2005 – pending an investigation of the recent events on campus. 

The policy on banned practices include among others that no swearing and shouting at first-years may take place, no first-year student may be targeted individually, no senior may enter the room of a first-year student without an invitation or permission from that first-year student and no senior under the influence of alcohol may have contact with first-year students. 

The induction of first-year students takes place by means of three functions, namely an information function (the introduction to the various facets and possibilities of the university system), an induction function (the first-year student becomes involved in various campus and residence activities) and a development function (the first-year student is motivated to take charge of his development potential). 

No first-year induction activity may commence before the residence committee’s contracting with the senior students is not completed.  This meeting is attended by the residence head and all senior students.  The induction policy, residence induction policy of first-year students and first-year rules are discussed.

The senior students sign an attendance list to show that he/she was informed about the policies.  A senior who does not sign, may not be involved with any induction session with first-year students.  

No physical contact is allowed during the conclusion of the first-year students’ official induction period.  The induction of first-year students as full members of the residence is a prestige event, presented by the residence committee.  No physical or degrading activities may take place. 

The Dean:  Student Affairs also has a daily meeting with the primarii of all the residences during the induction period.  This helps to monitor the situation and counter any problem behaviour or tendencies.

“Enforced behaviour – where a senior student forces a first-year student to do something against his/her own free wil – is not allowed.  Where there is any sign of this, it is met wortel en tak uitgeroei,” said Dr Luyt.

“In any group of people – whether it is a group of students or people at a workplace – there will always be those who will break the rules or those who would like to see how far they could push it.

The SRC, the UFS management and myself are and will stay committed to make each student’s life on this campus a school of learning and an experience which would be remembered for ever,” said Dr Luyt.

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