Latest News Archive

Please select Category, Year, and then Month to display items
Previous Archive
15 February 2022 | Story Prof Sethulego Matebesi
Prof Sethulego Matebesi
Prof Sethulego Matebesi, University of the Free State

Long before delivering his fifth State of the Nation Address (Sona), concerns reverberated in the political and social corridors surrounding President Cyril Ramaphosa, urging him to make conclusive statements, to have the heads roll of those implicated in corruption, and to report on achievements and challenges. However, the somewhat overwhelming dismissive responses from prominent opposition party leaders may seem as if they are not eager to engage with the Sona constructively. Thus, it seems that no matter how well the Sona is delivered, there will always be those who dismiss it as a trivialisation of South Africa’s challenges.

There were times during one or two of the ‘family meetings’ – live broadcasts by the President, addressing the nation on the status of the COVID-19 pandemic and the regulations to be amended – that it was vividly evident that Ramaphosa was taking strain. However, all this was gone when President Ramaphosa delivered the Sona like a true statesman, without any visible signs of the ambush he was facing from within and outside his own political party. In fact, the need to be bold and resolute about the government’s stability has never been stronger after recent attacks on several national key points across the country.

Assumed power of reports from commissions, advisory panels, and advisory councils

In a recent Reading Group Session of the Department of Sociology, we discussed the assumed power of documents when conducting research. The emphasis was on the need to avoid an over-zealous reduction of a research question to documentary evidence without considering the document’s terms (or context). Similarly, it is interesting to note that since 2018, President Ramaphosa has established 24 advisory panels, advisory councils, task committees, and commissions. While it may seem rather obvious that some of these panels have been designated by statute for a specific purpose, the assumed powers of the reports produced are sometimes the most difficult to unravel.

One such instance is the report of the Zondo Commission of Inquiry into State Capture, which was viewed as a magic wand that would root out corruption and strengthen the rule of law. In the face of the complex set of interlocking challenges that are hampering structural growth and change in South Africa, reports from committees may provide an in-depth examination of issues. However, there are at least two problems with policy makers who invariably think that these reports, including national addresses such as Sona, are solutions to the country’s myriad challenges.

First, a recent publication of Transparency International highlights how some governments are trivialising the results of its Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI). The trivialisation mainly happens when leaders who have come into office with a strong anti-corruption narrative, fail to make inroads against this scourge. For example, in South Africa, pronouncements on corruption – one of the leading causes of the state’s failure to deliver on promises – have been so subtle that those involved in corrupt practices may not even notice the seriousness of their acts.

The other problem is the reluctance to change non-performing accounting systems that are susceptible to abuse. South Africa has been trying to fix the puzzle of corruption long before the arrival of the Zondo Commission. Therefore, acknowledging that public institutions and state-owned enterprises (SOEs) have been infiltrated by a criminal network intent on looting public money is merely a starting point but not a satisfactory explanation in its own right. Moreover, it does not account for the government’s glaring failure to act upon the Auditor-General’s annual findings on irregular and unaccounted expenditure. It would have been more desirable for the government to insist on better financial accountability than its over-reliance on commissions or advisory panels.

As the nation waits with bated breath to see how corruption is tackled ‘once and for all’, as the President announced, a further qualification needs to be made regarding the proposed disposal of the government’s non-strategic SOEs. Estimates of global trends in privatisation indicate that privatisation activities are on the rise. In South Africa, there is a great deal of evidence that a handful of politically connected individuals often benefit from the privatisation of government assets. This raises important questions that are beyond the scope of this contribution, for example, how SOEs will be further weakened to hasten the process of privatisation.

Victorious we can emerge, but only if …

President Ramaphosa made a bold statement through his promise and commitment to revitalise the country’s weak economy, deal with Eskom’s unreliable electrical supply, and bring about changes to security agencies, among others. The extent, urgency, and sincerity with which the government will implement these and many other commitments, will determine whether we will ‘emerge victorious’, as Ramaphosa announced.

Mr President, we know the road ahead will not be easy. But in many ways, there has been an improvement. One possible solution to continue this trajectory of accountability and improved service delivery is to take full advantage of the benefits of the digital age. A digitisation drive underscored by a consequence management approach may assist in implementing the Sona promises and commitments in a more efficient, flexible, and sustainable manner. In this way, South Africa will begin to ‘walk the talk’ against poverty, unemployment, and inequality.


News Archive

Bloemfontein's quality of tap water compares very favourably with bottled water
2009-08-04

The quality of the drinking water of five suburbs in Bloemfontein is at least as good as or better than bottled water. This is the result of a standard and chemical bacterial analysis done by the University of the Free State’s (UFS) Centre for Environmental Management in collaboration with the Institute for Groundwater Studies (IGS).

Five samples were taken from tap water sources in the suburbs of Universitas, Brandwag, Bain’s Vlei, Langenhoven Park and Bayswater and 15 samples were taken of different brands of still and unflavoured bottled water. The samples were analysed at the laboratory of the IGS, while the interpretation of the analysis was done by the Centre for Environmental Management.

“We wanted to evaluate the difference in quality for human consumption between tap water and that of the different brands of bottled water,” said Prof. Maitland Seaman, Head of the Centre for Environmental Management.

“With the exception of two samples produced by multinational companies at their plants in South Africa, the different brands of bottled water used for the study were produced by South African companies, including a local small-scale Bloemfontein producer,” said Prof. Seaman.

According to the labels, the sources of the water vary from pure spring water, to partial reverse osmosis (as an aid to standardise salt, i.e. mineral, content), to only reverse osmosis (to remove salts). (Reverse osmosis is a process in which water is forced under pressure through a pipe with minute pores through which water passes but no – or very low concentrations of – salts pass.)

According to Prof. Seaman, the analysis revealed some interesting findings, such as:

• It is generally accepted that drinking water should have an acceptable level of salt content, as the body needs salts. Most mineral contents were relatively higher in the tap water samples than the bottled water samples and were very much within the acceptable range of drinkable water quality. One of the bottled samples, however, had a very low mineral content, as the water was produced by reverse osmosis, as stated on the bottle. While reverse osmosis is used by various producers, most producers use it as an aid, not as a single method to remove nearly all the salts. Drinking only such water over a prolonged period may probably have a negative effect on the human physiology.

• The pH values of the tap water samples (8,12–8,40) were found to be slightly higher (slightly alkaline), like in all south-eastern Free State rivers (from where the water is sourced) than the pH of most of the bottled water samples, most of which are sourced and/or treated in other areas. Two brands of bottled water were found to have relatively low pH levels (both 4,5, i.e. acidic) as indicated on their bottles and as confirmed by the IGS analysis. The health implication of this range of pH is not significant.

• The analysis showed differences in the mineral content given on the labels of most of the water bottles compared to that found by IGS analysis. The possibility of seasonal fluctuation in content, depending on various factors, is expected and most of the bottling companies also indicate this on their labels. What was a rather interesting finding was that two pairs of bottled water brands claimed exactly the same mineral content but appeared under different brand names and were also priced differently. In each case, one of the pair was a well-known house brand, and the other obviously the original producer. In one of these paired cases, the house brand stated that the water was spring water, while the other (identical) “original” brand stated that it was spring water treated by reverse osmosis and oxygen-enriched.

• Nitrate (NO3) levels were uniformly low except in one bottled sample, suggesting a low (non-threatening) level of organic pollution in the source water. Otherwise, none of the water showed any sign of pollution.

• The bacterial analysis confirmed the absence of any traces of coliforms or E.coli in any of the samples, as was also indicated by the bottling companies. This is very reassuring. What is not known is how all these waters were sterilised, which could be anything from irradiation to chlorine or ozone treatment.

• The price of the different brands of bottled water, each containing 500 ml of still water, ranged between R3,99 and R8,99, with R5,03 being the average price. A comparison between the least expensive and the most expensive bottles of water indicated no significant difference in quality. In fact, discrepancies were observed in the most expensive bottle in that the amount of Calcium (Ca) claimed to be present in it was found to be significantly different from what the analysis indicated (29,6 mg/l versus 0,92 mg/l). The alkalinity (CaCO3 mg/l) indicated on the bottle was also found to differ considerably (83 mg/l versus 9,4 mg/l). The concentration of Total Dissolved Salts (TDS) was not given on the product.

“The preference for bottled water as compared to Bloemfontein’s tap water from a qualitative perspective as well as the price discrepancy is unjustifiable. The environmental footprint of bottled water is also large. Sourcing, treating, bottling, packaging and transporting, to mention but a few of the steps involved in the processing of bottled water, entail a huge carbon footprint, as well as a large water footprint, because it also requires water for treating and rinsing to process bottled water,” said Prof. Seaman.

Media Release
Lacea Loader
Deputy Director: Media Liaison
Tel: 051 401 2584
Cell: 083 645 2454
E-mail: loaderl.stg@ufs.ac.za  
3 August 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