Deputy Speaker, the current strike exposes two sets of rights, both clamouring for ascendancy. In this regard, government and the unions are contesting the wage issues from different policy approaches. Both claim legitimate grounds for their actions. There are no courts to adjudicate whose rights should enjoy greater ascendancy, but a compromise is possibly the best deciding factor creating space for both parties in which to pursue their respective mandates in an open and democratic manner.
The FD is of the view that the right to strike should not be accompanied by violence and intimidations. Otherwise the process will be derailed by criminality and opportunism. Furthermore, the strike should also not be too protracted and a stay-away from essential services should be managed to cause as little harm as possible to the community.
Similarly, the state should be sparing with its intimidation and not antagonise an already tense standoff between it and the unions. Therefore, it was unacceptable to watch on television, a few nights ago, the brutal manner in which the police hit and teargased elderly women who peacefully exercised their rights to strike.
The images took me back to the 1980s when the machinery of state was used to attack defenceless women. We have entered a new era and this is no way for the organs of a democratic state to govern its people. The state must also act with caution with regard to intimidation and threatening workers. All workers in a strike do so in solidarity with one another and therefore penalising some instead of the whole is not the solution.
Finally, both government and the unions must be flexible and negotiations must be done in the interest of the country as a whole. As a sign of goodwill all workers must return to work while a suitable settlement is quickly negotiated. I thank you. [Time expired.]