Latest News Archive

Please select Category, Year, and then Month to display items
Previous Archive
07 February 2023 | Story Dr Ina Gouws | Photo Supplied
Dr Ina Gouws
Dr Ina Gouws is a Senior Lecturer: Programme: Governance and Political Transformation in the Department of Political Studies and Governance, University of the Free State (UFS)

Opinion Article by Dr Ina Gouws, Senior Lecturer: Programme: Governance and Political Transformation, Department of Political Studies and Governance, University of the Free State.
The State of the Nation Address (Sona) of 2023 is upon us. What can South Africans look forward to in this address this year? According to the Presidency, the President will focus on the energy crisis and the rolling blackouts. He will hopefully also shed some light on the disaster legislation government intends to implement to address the energy crisis. Reports that the ANC wants Dr Nkosazana Dlamini-Zuma to oversee the load-shedding state of disaster does not inspire confidence at the onset. What we should take serious note of is what the President will have to say about the plans to move Eskom to the Department of Mineral Resources and Energy; a move widely criticised and frankly, feared. 

No new policies, focus on resolving policy implementation failures

Also, according to the Presidency, the outcomes of the Investing in Africa Mining Indaba taking place from 7 February 2023, will receive attention in the Sona. This event attracts more than 6 000 delegates comprising comprising investors, innovators, companies in the mining and natural resources sector etc. No doubt the President will paint a picture of substantial investments to look forward to which will lead to job creation, development, and growth; a promise made in every Sona of every year of his term without fail, for which there has been very little evidence. 

The Minister in the Presidency, Mondli Gungubele, also told the media that government will not look to introduce new policies but focus on resolving existing policy implementation failures since this is the final year of this government’s term. 

Other than these areas of focus, we can surely expect the usual stats and figures to indicate “progress” or evidence of a caring government; more people receiving social grants instead of no longer needing this assistance, and entirely unrealistic job creation numbers to name two. Collapsing municipalities and ongoing corruption will also probably get mentioned under the umbrella of service delivery with futile promises of eradicating corruption and appointing qualified cadres. This administration’s score card of the past four years justifies cynicism. 

From what I have heard among fellow South Africans and seen on social media, the interest in the Sona is at an all-time low because of the miseries mentioned. We are tired of politicians talking, promising, stating the obvious (a particular skill our President has polished) and blatantly underestimating our collective intelligence. We KNOW there is no concrete plan to address the energy crisis. We SEE incompetent ministers still have jobs. Promises for growth and job creation do not resonate at all because South Africans LIVE THE REALITY of unemployment and poverty. South Africans cannot be blamed when the idea of sitting through an address covering more of the same with no expectation of positive change is something we are not prepared to do.

Indifference towards Sona 2023

Does this indifference towards the Sona this year necessarily mean that the nation has lost interest in politics in general? Many would argue that this is indeed the case. I do not agree. The abject apathy that is taking hold of (especially young) South Africans concerning our country’s formal political processes is an issue widely researched and debated. Apathy is essentially having no feeling or connection to a situation or a complete lack of desire or interest to act or participate. Youth find the formal political processes frustrating, alienating, and less likely to yield desired results, consequently the evident apathy. More and more older South Africans are joining them in these attitudes and therefore have developed feelings of apathy of their own. However, apathy towards the formal political process and politicians (elections and electorates) does not mean that South Africans are not interested in politics in general. To be indifferent is to decide to show no interest and to not care or have any opinion about an issue, situation, or event. It differs from apathy because sufferings, experience and disappointment breeds apathy which is therefore not a decision, but a condition. Indifference towards the Sona 2023 is a decision South Africans make, but their interest, involvement and participation in civic organisations and representative processes remains vibrant. Therein lies our strength and in my opinion, the revitalisation of grassroots influence on South African politics. 

So, if you have better things to do on the evening of the 9 February 2023, go and do them. Spend the time with community members talking about what can be done where you live to help each other and hold your officials accountable. It might also be your group’s turn for a blackout, so spend the precious time with loved ones around a candle or that rechargeable LED light. Do not feel any guilt or that you are missing out. You are not apathetic, merely indifferent. An understandable choice.

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