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

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