Hon Speaker and hon members, we must continually reiterate that South Africa comprises people who originate from many parts of the world who have brought with them values and cultures that over the intervening years have been blended into one rich tapestry of diversity.
Perhaps our greatest challenge in this country is not merely striving to be tolerant of this diversity, but to actively explore it, engage with it, and ultimately to understand and harness it.
In this way, a central vision that defines the parameters of progressive and critical discourse is one that says we as South Africans are one people with one destiny. And, it is this galvanising vision that will sustain our spirit in the course of fighting poverty and inequality, and that will keep us as a people focused on building a nonracial future for all.
It, therefore, remains our collective responsibility to keep championing the vision of building a united, nonracial, nonsexist, democratic and prosperous South Africa. I thank you.
Thank you, Mr Speaker. Mr Deputy President, this will be the last question. Thank you, Deputy President, for your reply. I agree with you and I think so should every member of this House - that is, agree with your reply.
In your address during the Ahmed Kathrada Foundation lecture on 1 October 2010, you identified a few developments which are accountable for the dimming of our nonracial aspiration. My question, Deputy President, is: How do we redirect or reverse such developments to make our nonracial aspiration a flame that burns in every heart, so that we live out the wording on our national coat of arms of "unity in diversity"? I thank you.
Thank you, hon Koornhof. There are a number of efforts that would have to be made in order for us to ensure that this vision of creating a nonracial society in our country is realised. Key among these are improving the education system -ensuring that we give access to education institutions, and ensuring that all of our messages, including the secondary messages, do not undermine this effort of attaining a nonracial society.
Through word and deed we must always be communicating the message that it is important for all of us to contribute towards the creation of a nonracial society. This is because many people in our country tend to emphasise points of difference, rather than the areas that bring us together as a people.
The richness in our diverse backgrounds and cultures is a strength that we must all appreciate and build on, rather than emphasise that we are different groups, we are different people with different interests, and so on. I think this requires an all-round ongoing effort because those who are conservative, and want to hang on to the past, will also latch on to opportunities, from time to time, to try to divide. But if those of us who have access to public platforms can utilise these platforms to communicate this message, I believe we will be able to succeed or to lay down a foundation, at least, for a truly nonracial society to be created in our country. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr Deputy President. Mr Deputy President, one of the laws that fundamentally underpinned the apartheid government was the Population Registration Act. Now that had many consequences: we had to declare our race and that led to a divided society and a racialised society - and we know what the consequences are of that. Notwithstanding the fact that that law was repealed in 1991, why - if you really want unity, if you really want nonracialism - does government still insist that we declare our race on many applications that have to be made on official documents?
Thank you very much for that point. I think it's a rather vexed question in the sense that we are in the early days of transition. Sixteen years is nothing; it will take 100 years for us to bridge this divide, because the material basis for discrimination was the expropriation of the land. That was the basis, and the consequences thereof we will live with for some time. That is why it is important that we strike the right balance, because we can very easily start on a new footing and pretend that all historical factors must be forgotten and that we are now this wonderful rainbow nation, and we move forward.
However, our Constitution is a transformative Constitution. It directs and inspires us to build this nonracial society on an ongoing basis, taking along everybody. We mustn't steam far ahead of our people. You know, it would be very simple for government to declare, but we know now that social engineering doesn't work like that. We know now that people have to create and grow to become a united people, and they must have a sense of belonging.
I want to cite one example. Recently, just before the Fifa World Cup tournament, the Blue Bulls qualified to play in the semi-finals and the finals of the Super 14. And because Loftus, which is their home base, had already been handed over to Fifa, they had to search for an alternative home ground. Orlando Stadium, which has been upgraded, met their demands, their requirements, and they saw that as an opportunity to go to Orlando Stadium. The provision of the physical infrastructure enabled them - because some of them had never been in a township - to integrate.
If we had addressed, for instance, the social and economic infrastructure needs in the underdeveloped and depressed parts of the country, we would have achieved provision of the physical infrastructure for integration, because then people would settle and move anywhere, enrol in schools anywhere, and so on. So there are these limitations that we have to take into account.
This was a bit of a peroration. Now, coming to the specific question, why is there insistence on race in registers? Why is that still the case? I suppose it is the easiest way of finding or getting the data that would speak to the demographics. The existence of different people or races is in itself not a problem; the problem is when it is used for chauvinism. The existence of tribes and so on is not a problem. It is when tribalism is elevated to policy that it then becomes a problem. That is why we say we appreciate the rich diversity of nationalities in South Africa as they are a strength of this country.
Many other nations look to South Africa to solve problems of racism because we are better positioned to do so. I believe that if it serves no useful purpose, we must discard it. If the underlying rationale is that it only serves to maintain the division and separation of people, then we must discard it. But I don't think that's the intention. Thank you. [Applause.]
Thank you, Mr Speaker. Hon Deputy President, we have to agree that we require an all-round and an ongoing effort to ensure and promote the principles of nonracialism in our country. Certainly, the Constitution and other pieces of legislation provide the broad framework and principles for us to achieve that.
However, Mr Deputy President, speaking as one who comes from the ground and links up with people when I'm in my constituency, we know very well that amongst the affluent and wealthy in this country we have little cause for racial tension as money is truly a great leveller of the playing field. A rich person of whatever colour who wants to buy a particular service will go and buy that service. However, we have a problem with the lower-level income groups where the causes of racial tension are the limited supplies in terms of employment and government assistance to the poor.
Whilst in health, education and social welfare arenas there is equality in the provision of services, my observation is that in the area of government- promoted job-creation opportunities and, in particular, the provision of state-assisted housing - the Minister of Housing is here - there is a reality which leads to tensions as only certain groups of our society qualify in the main for state-assisted housing.
Now, Mr Deputy President, this happens with those that live in informal settlements who get priority over the backyard dwellers and those who live under a joint family system in crowded ... [Time expired.]
Thank you very much, hon Singh. As I understand it, the Ministry of Human Settlements is no longer in charge of the Reconstruction and Development Programme. It provides human settlements and therefore anybody who falls within a particular category can apply and they do qualify to access these houses. It's no longer the case that the poorest of the poor found in informal settlements are black people only.
As I said in my last response here: I gave an example of what happened in Kroonstad where 70 white families moved into Marabastad - there were houses that were provided. They applied like everybody else, precisely because in terms of the means test they qualified and they were able to move into those houses.
The issue of people who move into informal settlements, jumping the queue ahead of the backyard dwellers, is a problem that the Ministry of Human Settlements is attending to, because they are also concerned with this phenomenon. I hope that a solution will be found. These are some of the problems that come with democracy and the removal of legal restrictions on the movements of people, because today people can move to the Western Cape and occupy a piece of land and before you know it they have applied, they are on the list, and so on. It may very well be that the same people have applied for a house in Mpumalanga and actually received it. These are some of the challenges that the Ministry of Human Settlements is attending to, and I hope that we will be able to find a solution to them. Thank you.
Hon Deputy President, I'm sure you will agree that the building of a nonracial South Africa is a task that is not limited to government alone. It is something which we all need to be involved in, and we will be judged by our words and actions - not just by society at large - and, most importantly, by our political leaders.
In that regard, I was extremely shocked to hear over the weekend that the President of the ANC Youth League referred to the leader of the opposition as a cockroach that needs to be driven from her office. Surely, you would know, hon Deputy President, that this term is a weapon and is reminiscent of genocide and has absolutely no place in our political discourse. Given that, as we go into the election period, what measures will you be putting in place to ensure that such words and actions are not used to divide our population even further? I thank you.
Thank you very much, hon Greyling. I do agree with you. In fact, I really don't like the fact that, even though human beings are part of the animal kingdom, we tend to use other animals to insult each other. [Laughter.] I don't like that because some of these animals are really good animals, although nobody takes offence when it is said you are a lion or a blue bull. [Laughter.]
So, in a manner of speaking, we should, of course - and I know that the Independent Electoral Commission does monitor this from time to time - not be disrespectful when we campaign and we must not use insulting language. We must put our points across without trying to demean each other. I also think the fact that the gentleman you alluded to referred to a good lady as a cockroach is a bad thing. I think it's simply downright bad manners. Thank you. [Applause.]