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

To tan or not to tan: a burning issue
2009-12-08

 Prof. Werner Sinclair

“Some evidence exists which implies that sunscreens could indeed be responsible for the dramatic rise in the incidence of melanoma over the past three decades, the period during which the use of sunscreens became very popular,” says Prof. Werner Sinclair, Head of the Department of Dermatology at the University of the Free State. His inaugural lecture was on the topic Sunscreens – Curse or Blessing?

Prof. Sinclair says the use of sunscreen preparations is widely advocated as a measure to prevent acute sunburn, chronic sun damage and resultant premature skin aging as well as skin malignancies, including malignant melanoma. There is inconclusive evidence to prove that these preparations do indeed achieve all of these claims. The question is whether these preparations are doing more harm than good?

He says the incidence of skin cancer is rising dramatically and these tumours are induced mostly by the ultra-violet rays.

Of the UV light that reaches the earth 90-95% belongs to the UVA fraction. UVC is normally filtered out by the ozone layer. UVB leads to sunburn while UVA leads to pigmentation (tanning). Because frequent sunburn was often associated with skin cancer, UVB was assumed, naively, to be the culprit, he says.

Exposure to sunlight induces a sense of well-being, increases the libido, reduces appetite and induces the synthesis of large amounts of vitamin D, an essential nutritional factor. The use of sunscreen creams reduces vitamin D levels and low levels of vitamin D have been associated with breast and colon cancer. Prof. Sinclair says the 17% increase in breast cancer from 1981 to 1991 parallels the vigorous use of sunscreens over the same period.

Among the risk factors for the development of tumours are a family history, tendency to freckle, more than three episodes of severe sunburn during childhood, and the use of artificial UV light tanning booths. He says it remains a question whether to tan or not. It was earlier believed that the main carcinogenic rays were UVB and that UVA merely induced a tan. The increase in UVA exposure could have severe consequences.

Prof. Sinclair says the UV light used in artificial tanning booths consists mainly of pure UVA which are highly dangerous rays. It has been estimated that six per cent of all melanoma deaths in the UK can be directly attributed to the use of artificial tanning lights. The use of an artificial tanning booth will double the melanoma risk of a person. “UVA is solely responsible for solar skin aging and it is ironical that tanning addicts, who want to look beautiful, are inflicting accelerated ageing in the process,” he says.

On the use of sunscreens he says it can prevent painful sunburn, but UVA-induced damage continues unnoticed. UVB blockers decrease vitamin D synthesis, which is a particular problem in the elderly. It also prevents the sunburn warning and therefore increases the UVA dosage that an individual receives. It creates a false sense of security which is the biggest problem associated with sunscreens.

Evidence obtained from the state of Queensland in Australia, where the heaviest and longest use of sunscreens occurred, boasted the highest incidence of melanoma in the world. A huge study in Norway has shown a 350% increase in melanoma for men and 440% for women. This paralleled the increase in the use of UVB blocking sunscreens while there was no change in the ozone layer. It did however, occur during that time when tanning became fashionable in Norway and there was an increase especially in artificial tanning.

Prof. Sinclair says: “We believe that sunscreen use does not directly lead to melanoma, but UVA exposure does. The Melanoma Epidemic is a reality. Sunscreen preparations are not the magical answer in the fight against melanoma and the irresponsible use of these preparations can worsen the problem.”

Media Release
Issued by: Mangaliso Radebe
Assistant Director: Media Liaison
Tel: 051 401 2828
Cell: 078 460 3320
E-mail: radebemt.stg@ufs.ac.za
7 December 2009

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