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

Position statement: Recent reporting in newspapers
2014-10-03

 

You may have read reports in two Afrikaans newspapers, regarding recent events at the University of the Free State (UFS). Sadly, those reports are inaccurate, one-sided, exaggerated and based not on facts, but on rumour, gossip and unusually personal attacks on members of the university management.

Anyone who spends 10 minutes on our Bloemfontein Campus would wonder what the so-called ‘crisis’ is about.

We are left with no choice other than to consider legal action, as well as the intervention of the South African Press Ombudsman, among other steps, to protect the good name of the institution and the reputation of its staff. No journalist has the right to launch personal and damaging attacks on a university and its personnel, whatever his or her motives, without being fair and factual. In this respect, the newspapers have a case to answer.

But here are the facts in relation to the reports:

  1. No staff member, whether junior or senior, is ever suspended without hard evidence in hand. Such actions are rare, and when done, are preceded by careful reviews of our Human Resource Policies, labour legislation and both internal and external legal advice. Then, and only then, is a suspension affected. A suspension, moreover, does not mean you are guilty and is a precautionary action to allow for the disciplinary investigation and process to be conducted, especially where there is a serious case to answer.
  2. At no stage was the Registrar instructed to leave the university; this is patently false and yet reported as fact. We specifically responded to the media that the Registrar does outstanding work for the university and that it is our intention for him to remain as our Registrar through the end of his contract in 2016.
  3. The Rector does not make decisions by himself. Senior persons, from the position of Dean, upwards, are appointed by statutory and other senior committees of the university and finally approved by Council. No rector can override the decision of a senior committee, and this has not happened at the UFS even in cases where the Rector serves as Chair of that committee. The impression of heavy-handed management at the top insults all our committee structures, including the Institutional Forum – the widest and most inclusive of stakeholder bodies at a university – which reports directly to Council on fairness and compliance of selection processes.
  4. In the case of senior appointments, Council makes the final decision. Council fully supports the actions taken on senior appointments, including a recent senior suspension. The fact that one Council member resigns just before the end of his term, whatever the real reason for this action, does not deter from the fact that the full Council in its last sitting approved the major staffing decisions brought before it. The image therefore that the two newspapers try to create of great turmoil and distress at the university, is completely unfounded.

Even if we wanted to, the university obviously cannot provide details about staffing decisions, especially disciplinary actions in process, since the rights of individuals should be protected in terms of the Human Resource Policies and procedures of the UFS. But that does not give any newspaper the right to speculate or state as fact that which is based on rumour or gossip, or to slander senior personnel of the university. For these reasons, we have been forced to seek legal remedy and correction as a matter of urgency.

Make no mistake, underlying much of the criticism of the university has been a distress about transformation at the UFS; in particular, the perception is created that white colleagues are losing their jobs. The evidence points in the opposite direction. Our progress with equity has been slow and we lag far behind most of the former white universities; that is a fact. More than 90% of our professors are white; most of our senior appointments at professorial level and as heads of department are still overwhelmingly white. Reasonable South Africans would agree that our transformation still has a long way to go and only the mean-spirited would contend otherwise. But based on the two Afrikaans newspaper reports, an impression is left of the aggressive rooting out of white colleagues.

In the past few years the academic standard of the university has significantly improved. We now have the highest academic pass rates in years, in part because we raised the academic standards for admission four years ago. We now have the highest rate of research publications, and among the highest national publication rate of scholarly books, in the history of the UFS. We have one of the most stable financial situations of any university in South Africa, with a strong balance sheet and growing financial reserves way beyond what we had before. We now attract top professors from around the country and other parts of the world, and we have the highest number of rated researchers, through the National Research Foundation, than ever before. And after the constant turmoil of a number of years ago, we now have one of the most stable campuses in South Africa. Those are the facts.

The UFS is also regarded around the world as a university that has become a model of transformation and reconciliation in the student body. The elections of our Student Representative Council are only the most visible example of how far we have come in our leadership diversity. Not a week goes by in which other universities, nationally and abroad, do not come to Kovsies to consult with us on how they can learn from us and deepen their own transformations, especially among students.

Rather than focus on what more than one senior journalist, in reference to the article in Rapport of 21 September 2014, rightly called ‘a hatchet job’ on persons and the university, here are the objective findings of a recent survey of UFS stakeholders: 92% endorse our values; 77% agree with our transformation; 78% believe we are inclusive; and 78% applaud our overall reputation index.  Those are very different numbers from a few years ago when the institution was in crisis.

This is our commitment to all our stakeholders: we will continue our model of inclusive transformation which provides opportunities for study and for employment for all South Africans, including international students and colleagues. We remain committed to our parallel-medium instruction in which Afrikaans remains a language of instruction; we are in fact the only medical school in the country that offers dual education and training in both Afrikaans and English for our students - not only English. We provide bursaries and overseas study opportunities to all our students, irrespective of race. And our ‘future professors’ programme is richly diverse as we seek the academic stars of the future.

We are not perfect as a university management or community. Where we make mistakes, we acknowledge them and try to do better the next time round. But we remain steadfast in our goal of making the UFS a top world university in its academic ambitions and its human commitments.

END

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