Latest News Archive

Please select Category, Year, and then Month to display items
Previous Archive
20 February 2025 Photo Supplied
Prof Johan Coetzee
Prof Johan Coetzee, Chairperson: Department of Economics and Finance, University of the Free State.

Opinion article by Prof Johan Coetzee (MCBI, CMBE), Chairperson: Department of Economics and Finance, University of the Free State.

The Minister of Finance has not had it easy in 2025 and the budget speech not read yesterday pays testament to this. Postponing the speech to 12 March is unprecedented, and is due to the Government of National Unity (GNU) not reaching consensus on a way forward to tabling a budget. It seems as if the fallout was based largely on a proposed 2% increase to VAT that was rejected by two parties. I personally would not have supported this proposal either as the tax burden shifts disproportionally to the poor.

My initial response of the postponement was frustration and disappointment. But I soon realised that it is the outcome of a new government dispensation made up of many voices, and many dissenting at that, becoming more important. In principle, this is good for the nation, but unfortunate for us expecting the budget to be read on the day. It also does not necessarily send a good message to the markets, with the rand weakening by more than 1% within an hour of the announcement. There could also be knock-on effects that a later tabling will have on service delivery and operations of government. After some reflection, however, I have concluded that on balance, the decision to postpone is not as problematic as many have made it out to be over the past 24 hours. Clearly there are many balls to juggle by Minister Enoch Godongwana and many added complexities that have both national and international dimensions.

Lead-up to the budget

Internationally the strong nationalist policy drive by US President Donald Trump has already shown that the ‘make America great again’ mantra is alive and well as reflected in the intentional actions taken against South Africa since his second term started in January. We will see how this plays out over the coming months, but my view is that South Africa as a nation needs to be more deliberate in its policy agenda. We are at an inflection point where we must reflect on who we are as a nation and where we want to be down the line. We cannot afford to rely on handouts from other nations. There is more opportunity to this situation than threat, but we need intentional leadership to exploit it.

My big concern in the lead-up to the budget speech was that the minister would not take a firm stand on fighting the culture of non-compliance within state entities which has invariably led to unsustainable levels of irregular expenditure. For the 2023/24 financial year, the Auditor-General of South Africa reported that irregular expenditure totalled almost R50 billion, up from just over R27 billion the previous year. To put this into perspective, irregular expenditure equals approximately 2.2% of total government spending for the 2023/24 fiscal year. This might not seem significant stated as a percentage, but it has basically doubled since the previous year, and every preceding year before that too. Moreover, irregular expenditure equates to approximately 20% of the 2023/24 social grants budget and just about equals the 2024 National Student Financial Aid Scheme allocation. This is clearly a management failure and nothing seems to have been done about it over the years. As a result, the problem is escalating at an alarming rate. It is quite astounding that accountability management is not more explicit as it is clearly a very unpopular political message to send. But at what cost?

South African economy is not growing

To make matters worse, the South African economy is not growing both enough and fast enough. The most recent real GDP growth figure showed a decrease of 0.3% in the third quarter from the second quarter of 2024. Since 1994, the period with the highest annual rate of growth was a three-year period from 2005 to 2007 where growth exceeded 5% for each respective year. This period preceded the global financial crisis and since then, growth has struggled to reach 3% annually, doing so on only two occasions barring the 4.7% in 2021 which was not a true reflection of reality given the low base of the preceding year amid the COVID-19 pandemic. This is a major concern for the Minister, because with economic growth comes increased tax revenues, which in turn capacitates better budget management. Very simply, the more people spend; the more businesses sell; the larger the profit outcomes; the larger the tax revenue collections. If the economy grows, the fiscus collects more tax revenues without explicitly increasing tax rates. This built-in cyclical dynamic is simply not happening and creates a serious constraint on the ability of the Minister to manage deficits going forward.

Further to this of course is that as deficits are run, all things remaining constant, public debt increases. The public-debt-to-GDP ratio for 2023/24 already exceeds 72% which is higher than the generally accepted benchmark of 60% and almost 2.6 times what it was in 2008 (27.8%). This has resulted in the average interest on public debt approximating R1.1 billion a day, equating to about 22% of total tax revenues, or almost 20% of total government spending respectively. To put it differently, for every R1 government spends, 20 cents is first channelled to pay the interest on the debt before any spending occurs on roads, education, infrastructure, social grants and the like. These are deeply concerning figures in an economy with already high levels of unemployment and inequality.

Might be beginning of something better

There is a leadership void that cannot be ignored anymore. It needs to be intentional and deliberate. The GNU provides the platform to exploit ‘the best that South Africa has to offer’ as it promotes a broad-based and more inclusive political structure and played itself out yesterday. I welcome this in principle, but my concern is that political in-fighting will prevail and perverse politicking will trump working together in the best interests of the South African people. Although the postponement could be interpreted negatively in terms of the GNU not being able to find common ground, I think it is rather a sign of more rigorous engagement and the enablement of a collaborative environment amongst parties in the decision-making structures of the state. Remember this day as it might be the beginning of something better than what we are used to. 

News Archive

Statement on protest at the UFS
2005-03-04

Following a protest by student and non-student organisations today, the management of the University of the Free State (UFS) would like to place the following facts on record:

1. There is a well-documented process underway to further transform the UFS. At the official opening of the UFS on 4 February 2005 , the Rector and Vice-chancellor, Prof Frederick Fourie, announced that the UFS would draft a comprehensive Transformation Plan to guide the next phase of transformation at the institution.

The UFS appeals to student formations, staff associations, trade unions and other role-players to make a constructive input into this Transformation Plan.

The UFS management has been - and always will be - willing to engage with role-players and is prepared to do so even after today’s protest.

2. There is thus no regulation or policy prescription which separates students in hostels according to race.

The reality is that students exercise their freedom of choice as to which hostel they wish to be placed in. This was agreed upon by black and white students in 1997/8.

However, the unintended consequence and practice of this hostel placement policy has been that students themselves have tended to choose to stay in hostels which have over time become black hostels and white hostels.

This is a matter of concern for the management of the UFS as such a situation does not promote interaction across language, cultural and socio-economic groupings of students.

This matter is receiving attention and an intensive consultative process, which will include students, will be launched to review this policy.

The management is convinced that such interaction will enhance the learning experience of all students and sensitise them to the reality of a multicultural South Africa and a multicultural world.

3. No student organisation has been banned from operating at any of the three campuses of the UFS.

In the past few weeks, SASCO, the Young Communist League and the ANC Youth League (ANCYL) have held meetings on all three campuses, namely the Qwaqwa campus, the Vista campus and the main campus.

There are also regular interactions between top management and the leadership of SASCO and the ANCYL on campus.

In fact, the UFS upholds the right of students and staff to associate freely and to organise themselves as they see fit.

The UFS also upholds the rights of staff and students to engage in legal and peaceful protests.

The management however remains committed to discussing issues that affect staff and students in a constructive manner and appeals to student organisations in this case to engage with management.

4. The issues of registration, fees, debt and financial aid are continually monitored, and interventions to assist students are made regularly. To assist as far as possible those academically deserving students who face financial difficulties, the UFS management has put in place a structure called the Monitoring committee that includes management and student representatives.

The purpose of the Monitoring Committee is to review the cases of individual students to determine how best they can be assisted.

This applies to the Qwaqwa campus, the Vista campus and the main campus.

It is generally the case that students who perform academically will not have any difficulty in obtaining financial assistance. However, according to the requirements of National Student Financial Scheme, students who perform poorly will have difficulty in obtaining such assistance.

5. With regard to student governance, the process to institute an inclusive Central Student Representative Council (SRC), on which all three campuses will be equitably represented, was launched in July 2004, and a preliminary constitution has just been drafted. At the same time an inclusive process to review certain elements of the constitution of the main campus SRC was initiated at the end of 2004. This process, which includes all relevant student organisations and structures, is planned to produce an outcome within the next couple of months.

6. There is no policy at the UFS that is based on racism or that discriminates on the basis of the race of students and staff.

As part of the building of a new institutional culture within the broader transformation process, the UFS management is determined to eradicate all elements of racism that may occur on its campuses, and has already instituted inclusive forums on campus to discuss the issue of values and principles for a non-racial university.

Issued by: Mr Anton Fisher
Director: Strategic Communication
Cell: 072 207 8334
Tel: (051) 401-2749
4 March 2005

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