Hon Speaker, hon members, progress has been made in the education sector although challenges still remain in a number of provinces. We are doing well in promoting free basic education for all. Over 8 million children are now in no-fee schools. Our school nutrition programme feeds more than 8 million children in more than 20 000 schools, increasing their performance in class.
We have impressive figures with early childhood development. Grade R enrolment has increased from 300 000 to more than 700 000 between 2003 and 2011. We are therefore on track to meet our target of having 100% coverage for Grade R by 2014. Work is ongoing to eradicate mud schools, with R8,2 billion having been allocated to the programme.
The matric pass rate percentage is on an upward trend. The pass rate was 67,8% in 2010 and 70,2% in 2011. We are working on improving the quality of teaching maths and science as well as the teaching of literacy and numeracy. We are also working hard to improve literacy and numeracy in primary schools, given the fact that many of the learners who reach Grade 12 operate at literacy levels below Grade 12. In this regard, we instituted Annual National Assessment tests.
For the first time we are now able to objectively assess the health of the education system below Grade 12. The 2011 results confirmed that levels of literacy and numeracy are very low. For example, Grade 3 learner average scores are 28% and 35% for numeracy and literacy respectively. These are the figures that were apparently used by the World Economic Forum recently. We want schools to use the results to produce development plans. The factors that we are dealing with include school management, improving teacher training and increasing the levels of accountability in schools.
The schools must also have the tools of the trade such as workbooks and textbooks. The Department of Basic Education is working on improving the distribution logistics so that books arrive in schools on time next year to avoid the problems that arose in Limpopo and other provinces. As members are aware, the national government has intervened to deal with severe managerial challenges faced by the Limpopo and Eastern Cape education departments.
The interventions in the Eastern Cape and Limpopo are focused on a number of issues, including overexpenditure; failure to deal with excess teachers; financial and supply chain management; and the nondelivery of learning and teaching materials. I have received a report from the Presidential Task Team on the Limpopo challenge led by the Deputy Minister of Finance, Mr Nhlanhla Nene. I am considering the report and will indicate the way forward in due course. We are continuing to work with the Eastern Cape as well to improve the situation in that province. I thank you, hon Speaker. [Applause.]
Mongameli, mangizwakalise ukubonga ngempendulo ecacile yangakhetha amabala, impendulo ekwaziyo ukuveza izingqinamba ezikhona kanye nempumelelo eseyenzekile. Mongameli, ngiyathanda ukuzwakalisa ukuthi uma ngiyilalele impendulo, - yebo ngiyasho ukuthi izingqinamba ziyavela - kodwa siyabona ukuthi izinzuzo sezithe ukuthi xaxa, zithathe igxathi eliphambili impela. Sengathi kungaqhubeka kube njalo Mongameli, ikakhulukazi izinto ezinjenge ngqalasizinda okuyiyona nto eyinkinga kakhulu esibhekene nayo eminyangweni yethu ukuze abantwana bethu bafunde kahle ezikoleni.
Siyabona futhi siyakuthakasela ukuthi ukuvezile empendulweni yakho nalokhu kuhlolwa okukhona okuhamba umhlaba wonke ukuze abantwana bethu bajwayele ukubhala ukuhlolwa ukuze kunyuke nezinga lemiphumela yezezibalo nokufunda. Okungithusayo kodwa nengifisa ukuthi ngikuveze ukuthi: kukho konke esesikuzuzile okungaka, sazi futhi ukuthi sisabhekene nazo zonke lezi zingqinamba, amasu namaqhinga abekiwe ukuthi lo mgwaqo omuhle esihamba ngawo njengezwe ukuze isizwe sisizakale kwezemfundo, asingasasuki kuwo. Kuthi noma sibhekene nezingqinamba singabe sisaphuma emugqeni omuhle kangaka. uMongameli angakwazi yini ukwabelana nathi nalawo masu namaqhinga angabe akhona ukuze sibhhekane nezinto ezinjengalezi. Ngiyabonga.
UMONGAMELI WERIPHABHLIKHI: Somlomo, angibonge kakhulu kwilungu elihloniphekile lesiShayamthetho. Kuyiqiniso ukuthi umzila esihamba ngawo yiwo oyimpendulo ezingqinambeni zasezinseleleni esibhekene nazo. Sihamba ngawo-ke futhi umehluko uyabonakala futhi awukwazi ukungabonakali umehluko uma sihamaba ngendlela eyiyonayona. Asikwazi-ke ukuziqeda zonke izingqinamba nezinhlupheko ezalethwa yincindezelo iminyaka eminingi. Yonke into eseyenzekile uma usuyilungisa uqala lapho kufanele uqale khona, ungene ubheke phambili. Isizulu phela sithi: impandla ikhwela ngamanhlonhlo. Senzenjalo ngeke siphume siqale impandla eceleni, sizohamba la kufanele kuhambe impandla, silandele amanhlonhlo kodwa ukuthi imizila nendlela esihamba ngayo yiyona impela eya ekhaya, ayisidukisi nezeneze. Sizohlala kuyona-ke ngoba yiyona le esibophele khona amasu namaqhinga ukuthi sizohamba kanjani size sifike lapho siya khona. Siyaya impela phambili noma nje siyofika ilanga selishona kodwa sizofika lapho siphokophele khona. Ngiyabonga Somlomo. (Translation of isiZulu paragraphs follows.)
[Ms N GINA: President, thank you for your clear and comprehensive response - it highlights all the challenges faced by the department and the successes that it has attained. President, I was listening carefully to your response - it states clearly that the department has achieved more successes and has had fewer challenges in comparison. We wish that its performance continues to improve so that it may overcome challenges like its poor infrastructure. That is the greatest challenge faced by most departments. The development of infrastructure will ensure that our children obtain quality education.
We are pleased with the introduction and implementation of Annual National Assessment tests, which will help to improve the levels of literacy and numeracy. It will also help familiarise our children with national assessment standards. What I want to highlight is this: We have achieved so much but we are still facing challenges, therefore, we must not deviate from the decisions taken to improve our education system. We would like the President to share the resolutions he has taken with us. Thank you.
Speaker, I wish to say thank you to the hon member of the National Assembly. It is true that we are following the right path leading towards overcoming the challenges we are faced with. We can all see the difference this has made. We cannot, though, eradicate all the challenges that were brought about by many years of oppression. We have to start putting things right from way back so that we can move forward. There is an isiZulu saying that goes like this: Baldness starts with a hairline receding from the front. Therefore we can only follow that direction, which is the natural path to follow. We cannot, for instance, expect the hairline to recede from the sides. Therefore, we are following the right path, even though it will take us a long time to achieve success. Thank you, Speaker.]
Are you hon Koos van der Merwe today, hon Mpontshane?
Hon Speaker, through you to our President, on behalf of the IFP I just want to say that government doesn't seem to be meeting its targets. Mr President, two years ago you promised laptops to teachers but they haven't received those laptops. Incentives were promised to teachers teaching in rural schools, but they have yet to receive those incentives. With regard to scholar transport, we still have learners travelling more than 10 km to school. But most importantly, the process whereby principals and deputy principals have to sign performance agreements has been held to ransom by unions in the Education Labour Relations Council, ELRC, for two years, and that has a bearing on the provision of quality education. Last week the Global Competitiveness Report released results in which South Africa was ranked number 142 out of 144 countries in education. I hope that Cabinet has seen this report. If we were meeting our targets, why are we ranked the lowest? I thank you.
Hon Speaker, I hope that the hon member is not trying to say that this government has created the problem of education, because we are dealing with the backlog of the majority of this country who were not provided with proper education. Many were not provided with education at all. If you made a comparison between South Africa and countries that never experienced apartheid, again that comparison was not looked at prudently. You cannot compare the problems of South Africa with those of countries that had been there all the time when we, in the first instance, had to fight the monster that is apartheid and change the education system so that we could begin to catch up with those countries. These are matters that we need to bear in mind when we pose questions instead of posing questions as if we started on the same basis as other countries, because we didn't. We just started 18 years ago. We believe that we are making very good progress. [Interjections.]
Order, hon members!
With regard to the unions, once again, I don't know how people appreciate these things. Once we adopted the system of democracy, the workers too achieved their democratic rights. They have a constitutional right to make demands and to go on strike. There is nothing untoward in that situation. We have to find democratic ways to solve the problems between the department and the unions. If we decided that we did not care about the unions and we did what we liked, you would be saying that this government was causing chaos in this country, or you would be calling us dictators as well. We have to adhere to principles, persuasion and negotiation because that is what democracy demands, unfortunately. Thank you, hon Speaker. [Applause.]
Order, hon members!
Mr President, it is a fact that under your leadership we have witnessed an ever-worsening basic education system. Even prominent members of the ANC have described this system as worse than the apartheid system. [Interjections.]
Order, hon members!
I can give examples of those prominent ANC members. Mrs Winnie Mandela and Dr Pallo Jordan have expressed their misgivings about the current system. This system is affecting the poorest of the poor. How can you convince South Africans that, without textbooks in Limpopo and the Eastern Cape as well as North West, you are serious about lifting our people out of poverty? The reality is that, on the quality of the education system, South Africa is not even ranked number 140 out of 144 countries. Grade 3 learners scored 35% for literacy and 28% for numeracy. That is horrible, Mr President! We pay 15 times more per learner than Mozambique, yet, Mozambique learners outperform our learners. Is it a deliberate strategy to keep South Africans uneducated so that they become dependent on government, get grants and vote for your party? As I sit down I say you have to fire the Minister of Education. Do you have the capacity? If you don't have it, I say, sit down as well. [Interjections.] [Time expired.]
Hon Speaker, the hon member knows very well that the situation has changed for the better in education. [Interjections.] I am not sure whether he was teaching a strategy of undermining education in this country because he was a teacher not long ago. I have just explained the achievements we have made in education but it looks like the hon member was not listening, and that is a problem. Even if a person has views, the person must be able to balance his or her views with reality.
The reality is that there are more people at school in South Africa today than there were during the apartheid era. There are more and better facilities in schools than there were at other times. [Interjections.] If the member believes that, in fact, it is worse than during the apartheid era, then I don't know whether he was around at that time. [Interjections.]
The fact is that we have prioritised education in this country as priority number one. We spend more money on education and we are doing everything we can to ensure that South Africans are educated. South Africans know that this government has prioritised education and do not need to be convinced by anyone. I have indicated that, for the first time, this government has identified poor schools as no-fee schools, and that has never happened before. Under apartheid, many children did not go to school if they did not have money, but they go to school today. [Applause.] If you do not see that difference, then you are living in another South Africa. Thank you, hon Speaker.
Mr President, I agree with you. I have witnessed an incredible commitment to education in the last three years and have seen incredible strides going forward. However, young people on political social networking sites are concerned about the ranking of South Africa with regard to education. I link that to our brutal honesty and transparency in reporting and also to the 10-year era of denial, the "Mbeki era", which undermined the education sector. They are also worried about schools facing closure in Mpumalanga and the Western Cape. Mr President, what do you want to say to young people about those closures?
Is the hon member saying closure of schools?
Yes, Mr President.
Well, that is not acceptable. We can't be closing schools when we need more schools, unless you have details as to why those schools are being closed. We should create more facilities for education, and more schools so that more of our people can receive education. Therefore, young people must know that we want to have more schools, rather than to close schools. That is the message I am giving young people. We are working hard to improve education and create facilities for education. That is the objective of this government. Thank you, hon Speaker. [Applause.]
Particulars regarding criteria for special remission of sentences, and incidence of reoffending
17. The Leader of the Opposition (DA) asked the President of the Republic:
(1) What are the criteria he considered when he granted special remission of sentences as announced by him on 27 April 2012;
(2) whether he has been informed (a) how many of those who were released reoffended and (b) in what categories of crime they reoffended? NO2908E
Uyayitapa ntombazane le mibuzo, ungathi kukhona la oyitapa khona. [So many questions, lady! Where do they all come from?]
Hon Speaker, the granting of special remission of sentences, pardoning and many other forms of amnesty is a worldwide phenomenon or practice where heads of government or state undertake to commemorate special days in the history of their countries. Special remissions have been granted on four occasions since 1994.
The remissions were announced on Freedom Day to encourage the offenders to turn a negative past into a positive future and for them to turn their backs on crime and become better citizens. The remissions were granted in accordance with section 84(2)(j) of the Constitution of the Republic. This was done to achieve a few objectives. It was to provide the sentenced offenders a second opportunity to behave, repent and to become better and rehabilitated persons.
It was meant to reduce and relieve congestion and overcrowding in correctional facilities, which currently stand at 34% above capacity. Overcrowding adversely affects the ability of any correctional system to rehabilitate, train and secure offenders. The President granted six months special remission of sentence to all offenders, probationers and parolees. An additional 12 months special remission was granted to offenders who were not convicted of aggressive, firearm-related or sexual offences and drug- related crimes.
Those declared dangerous by the courts and who were still at large after escaping or absconding, and those who evaded the justice system following their release on bail pending appeal against their convictions or sentences, were excluded from this special remission.
I have not been formally briefed yet on how many of those released have reoffended. The Minister of Correctional Services is required to provide a status report to the Justice, Crime Prevention and Security cluster and to the President 3 months after completion of the 10-week special remission process, which was completed on 6 July 2012. Such a report is due in October 2012.
The following preliminary information has, however, been provided to the Presidency. A total of 114 alleged reoffenders out of the 45 033 persons who were released during the 10-week process reoffended and were rearrested. They were rearrested for crimes ranging from theft to housebreaking, assault, drugs and rape. It is unfortunate that some of them failed to positively use the opportunity granted to them. Instead they went on to commit new crimes and caused untold pain to families and society.
However, there are also success stories. Fredoleen Isaacs, who was serving his sentence at St Albans Correctional Centre in Port Elizabeth, is now a manager of a pharmacy. [Applause.] Kassavan Naicker, who was released from the Pietermaritzburg Correctional Centre, is now his own boss, working as an electrician, a skill he learnt while incarcerated. [Applause.] Vumokwakhe Mkhize, also from Pietermaritzburg, now owns a panel-beating company, a skill also learnt from Correctional Services. Paul Evans from the Western Cape fruitfully used his time of incarceration to acquire a qualification in information technology through Unisa and is now employed at a company as an information technology, IT, specialist. [Applause.]
I appeal to society to assist particularly those who will fall on hard times. They need all of us to successfully reintegrate and permanently divert them from a life of crime. In this way we will be contributing immensely to the fight against crime in our country.
Hon Speaker, I must say that I have just given a few examples. In fact, there are more success stories than about the ones who did not succeed. I thank you, hon Speaker. [Applause.]
Mr Speaker, South Africa has been shocked by a series of violent crimes committed by the beneficiaries of President Zuma's special remissions programme. Earlier this year, it was reported that a 94-year-old KwaZulu-Natal woman was attacked and raped by a paroled prisoner who had been released in terms of this programme. A woman in Porterville was kidnapped, held captive for three days and raped repeatedly by two men, one of whom was a beneficiary of the programme. Another prisoner who benefited was arrested after he had broken into a woman's house and brutally raped her too. In total, 114 beneficiaries of the programme have reoffended. Those are only the numbers we have so far.
I hear the President telling us about the successes of the programme. But this is an indictment of a programme that released prisoners without any rational decision-making on an individual basis about whether or not they were suitable for parole.
Would the President not concede to this House that the special remissions programme didn't provide for that rational decision-making and was a serious mistake, given how many people in our country have been victims of crime by reoffenders? And will he apologise today, here in this House where he stands, to the families and the victims of those who have been so brutally affected by his decision? Thank you very much. [Applause.]
Hon Speaker, I am sure the hon member knows that all citizens are not the same. They are different. Those who get arrested and go to prison after conviction are also not the same. Some indeed stop criminal life and others don't. The unfortunate thing is that they do not have anything written on their foreheads and therefore you cannot see who is still a criminal.
Even those who come out when their term ends - some don't commit crime and others do. We have a constitutional system. The President did not do anything out of the framework of the law and the Constitution.
Special remission, as I've indicated, is done and it is a normal thing done universally. We have those who were released and, of course, did wrong things, and we accept that what they have done is wrong. We sympathise with the families who were the victims of this. It's a matter that we can deal with specifically from that point of view. But I don't think, if you take a decision with regard to the system that screens people and recommends that these are the people who can come out because in terms of our observation we think these ones indeed deserve to benefit from this, that you can say the system would be perfect. Once they are out and they commit crimes they have to be rearrested. Therefore, I don't appreciate your point when you say that I must apologise for giving special remission. Special remission will be given because it is within the framework of the Constitution.
To simplify it for you, it's as if you have a family. In a family, not every child behaves perfectly. That is not the case, and it is not that you want your child to become something else. I am saying here that we are dealing with the system. You cannot have a perfect situation, particularly if you are dealing with inmates or former inmates.
They are observed by people in prison. These people make recommendations about who are the prisoners they believe have now repented. If they go out and commit crime, they are doing something wrong and we sympathise with the families. We certainly sympathise with the families where this happened.
I don't know what you are looking for, because I am saying your point is wrong because you're saying that I must apologise for giving special remission. Why? Because this is within the Constitution. You are demanding an apology on a wrong point. That is your problem. I can explain and say here without any hesitation that I sympathise with the victims who indeed were the victims of the kind of people who were taken out, thinking that they had already repented. Some of the people who actually committed crimes were at the point of finishing their sentences.
I am saying that from government's point of view we sympathise with the victims. We have rearrested the offenders and they are in prison. That is why we've got the number which we have. That's what we can say. Thank you, hon Speaker. [Applause.]
Speaker, Mr President, we put it to you that this process was poorly planned. Your announcement came as a surprise even to the Department of Correctional Services. You granted amnesty to prisoners who had not been rehabilitated or prepared to be reintegrated into the communities.
There are also prisoners in jail who should still be released. The result is that more than 100 of those granted amnesty have already been rearrested for a range of offences such as the rape of grannies, attempted murder, robbery, assault, kidnapping, stock theft, possession of drugs, possession of stolen goods and housebreaking.
Mr President, I'm asking you, can you safely, in front of that granny who got raped, say you're proud of releasing these prisoners who raped her? Can you safely say that in front of that granny? Thank you.
No, I will not say that in front of the granny, but I will sympathise with her. Thank you, hon Speaker.
Mr Speaker, and to you, Mr President, it is with a sense of uneasiness that I rise in your partial defence. There is a much larger issue. Your government, like any other government, can only operate within the Constitution. It can only hold people in prison in terms of the Constitution, and if it does not do so it is constitutionally bound to release them.
The issue of overcrowding is a major, major issue. The big issue behind the debate we are having here is that you may be constitutionally obliged to release more and more people just because your government cannot guarantee them that their detention is in terms of the Constitution and the minimum conditions that the Constitution requires.
A few years back the IFP's former Minister of Correctional Services, Dr Sipho Mzimela, put forward the notion of privatising prisons. What we need are two types of contracts issued by the government. The first one should be to companies to operate prisons which they build at their own cost and the other one to companies to make sure that the company that operates complies with all the rules of the Constitution or the statutes and the rules issued by the Department of Correctional Services.
This notion of government building and operating prisons does not work. It is that condition that forces you, Mr President, of necessity, to release prisoners whether they are ready or not. Unless and until we fix that structural problem, you may again be forced, willingly or unwillingly, to release prisoners whether or not they are ready to be released into society.
We need to look at the bigger issue as our prisons are failing. We dare say that if you want to determine the civility of a nation, you must look at its prisons. We are meeting that test. Can we note and look at the issue of privatising prisons and getting it right? [Time expired.]
Hon Speaker, basically that was the opinion of the hon member. That is his view. It's a view that needs to be debated. He is a Member of Parliament and I'm sure he can raise the issue here to be debated because that's what he thinks you need to do. It was not a question.
Mr Speaker, Mr President, given that prisoners are sentenced by a court after hearing all the circumstances of each and every case, mitigating and aggravating circumstances included, would you not agree that your actions in granting such large-scale remissions without taking into account individual circumstances in each case are undermining the decisions of the courts? If not, why not?
Hon Speaker, no, there was no undermining of the court decisions. As I said earlier, this is the system that is practised universally, and none of those who are empowered by a constitution to do so when they do that is undermining the decisions of the courts.
What happens is that once you say that there is a remission to be given to so many, you actually don't go as the President and point to this or that prisoner to go out. It is the system that screens and therefore looks at who must benefit. It is the system that looks at, among other things, the behaviour of those who have been in prison. As they have been recording the behaviour, they are able to identify, after screening, the ones who could go out.
I don't think that you could expect the President to know how each and every prisoner behaves in prison. That is impossible. All you do is that you use the authority that you have to take a decision which is then taken down through the Minister, the officials and the people in prison, who then screen the people and later tell you the number of those who could benefit. That is how it is. It has nothing to do with the undermining of the courts. Thank you, hon Speaker.
Position regarding status of SA Police Service as a force or a service
18. Mr M G P Lekota (Cope) asked the President of the Republic:
(1) Whether the reference of his Minister of Police to the SA Police Service as a force represents a departure of the police from being a service to now being a paramilitary force with military designations and rank; if not, what is the position in this regard, if so, what are the relevant details;
(2) whether he intends instituting an investigation into the utilisation of the force deployed by the Technical Reaction Team in enforcing the law; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details? NO2968E
Speaker and hon member, the change in police ranks is an operational matter and has no constitutional implications. Section 199(1) of the Constitution talks of a Police Service, and this will continue to be so.
As government, we have resolved to combat serious and violent crime by being tougher on criminals and organised crime syndicates. The ranks were changed to send a message to criminals that government was getting tough on crime. This approach has borne results, as evidenced by the reduction in the levels of serious crimes. However, we have consistently stressed that the police must operate within the confines of the Constitution.
The issue of ranks on its own cannot constitute militarisation. One can call the management of police by any other name. What is important, however, is the orientation of the police. This change of police ranks should also not be viewed in isolation of the other pillars of our strategy. These include the strengthening of partnerships with communities, utilisation of intelligence as a nerve centre of policing and the review of the entire criminal justice system to make it more effective. We have improved oversight mechanisms. For example, two pieces of legislation were passed in 2010, namely the Civilian Secretariat for Police Service Act and the Independent Police Investigative Directorate Act. These are aimed at ensuring that the Police Service remains accountable to the people and that the police uphold the Constitution and adhere to the principles of a democratic dispensation.
If the hon member is referring to any activities of the tactical response team, TRT, we urge the hon member to make use of the Independent Police Investigative Directorate. The Directorate investigates alleged cases of police abuse independently from the police and without fear or favour. All members of the SAPS, which includes the TRT, have to abide by the code of conduct of the SAPS and are all subjected to the disciplinary code and procedures of the organisation.
Any wrongdoing by a TRT member will be investigated. I must also add that complaints against the TRT must also be judged overall against successes they have scored in various parts of the country in dealing with cases of armed robbery, drug busts, rhino poaching, cash in transit heists and other similar serious violent crimes. I thank you, Speaker. [Applause.]
Thank you, hon President. Please take your seat, hon member. Hon Ramatlakane will take charge of the supplementary question on behalf of hon Lekota.
Speaker and Mr President, we warned before that the reintroduction of the army ranks to the Police Service and the militarisation of the Police Service was wrong and, in fact, unconstitutional. We warned that such a reintroduction is a slow walk back to Vlakplaas, but your government persisted. The result of this ill- conceived decision, which created a paramilitary unit, is creating tension between the community and the police. It is there for all to see. The Marikana massacre, the TRT, the Cato Manor hit squad, which has more than 45 bodies under its belt, is the result of this militarisation.
The question is, Mr President, how are you going to make sure that this militarisation that has created the impression that the Police Service now has firing power against unarmed civilians is going to be reversed? How are you going to make sure that it is reversed?
Speaker, I know the hon member always asks this question. I have said that we were faced with growing crime and we needed to give the police everything that they needed to fight crime. I am saying that they have fought crime and succeeded in doing so. You are quoting other instances of incidents by the police that happened even before they were referred to as "ranks". You are all putting it together as if it happened after the ranking. It is not true; you know it very well. We are dealing with crime. We are saying that the police must be empowered; must be encouraged to fight crime.
Ranking them, as we felt we needed to, was one way of making the police feel that they can fight crime. You could have a different view. You have a right to have a different view, and you can raise it. You cannot say that before the ranking there was no crime in South Africa, because you are putting it that as soon as ranks were created, the crime escalated. It is actually the other way around. You have a view. [Interjections.] Yes, I know that he was a member of Cabinet at some point. [Interjections.]
You have a view, and I can tell you, as an opposition, you will always have a view on every issue. [Interjections.] That is what happens, and you can advance your view. It does not change the situation that as far as we are concerned, this was necessary and, indeed, the crime rate has gone down. It is not as if, before the ranking, there were no people who were dying in operations. You talk as if there was nobody dying at all. That is the exaggeration of facts. I am saying that you are entitled to a view, and you can advance it. This is a system we believe will help, and it has helped to a large extent. Thank you. [Applause.]
Speaker, I am sure that the President is aware that the Cabinet has signed off on the National Development Plan, which agrees to demilitarise the SAPS. The remilitarisation of the SAPS and the Marikana tragedy happened under the current Minister of Police. The latter - the Marikana tragedy - was the inevitable outcome of the former, the militarisation of the SAPS. In most other democracies in the world, the Minister of Police would have done the right thing and stepped down immediately after such a tragedy. [Interjections.] Yet, he hasn't.
Of course, we do need to know if he offered his resignation; presumably not. Once the judicial commission of inquiry findings are announced, and should the burden of the blame for the killings lie at the feet of the SAPS, will the President do the right thing and replace him? If he has decided he will not, could he explain to this House what reasons he would have for not doing so? We don't need to await the outcome of the commission of inquiry to know his thoughts on this matter. Please enlighten us, sir, because the buck stops with you.
Speaker, I think the hon member is in too much of a hurry. She wants the President to judge results that have not yet been announced. I don't know where you have ever heard of that. We don't know what the results of the inquiry will be. Why should you pose the question: What then? Will you do X, Y, and Z? I think you are in too much of a hurry, hon member. [Interjections.] Thank you, Speaker. [Applause.]
Hon Speaker and Mr President, we hear the opposition speaking with forked tongues this afternoon. On the one hand, during the question just before this one, we heard the hon the Leader of the Opposition speaking about the violent nature of crime. [Interjections.] Yet, this time around, we see people who want to call for resignations, etc, that are totally irrelevant. It would be nice to have members from that side of the House acknowledging successes like the more than R60 million worth of drugs seized and the arrest of eight people last night, effectively closing down a major drug and 419 scheme in South Africa. Mr President, if you have it available, is it possible for you to provide us with more detail on the successes of the TRT that you have listed? [Applause.]
Speaker, I think it is a well-known fact that the crime rate in the country has come down. It was very high. As a result of the police being encouraged and empowered, they were then able to act decisively and bring down the crime rate. As you have just recounted, we should consider how many times they have discovered drugs, how many times they have stopped armed robberies by criminals who were well armed and who would shoot to kill. There have been successes, and what people are not doing is to balance the successes and what they refer to as shortcomings when they discuss these matters. The police have made strides in terms of bringing down crime. It is a fact. If need be, we could bring the information to show what happened from any given time up to now.
So, the hon members are well aware of the successes, but, of course, as the opposition, they will do what the opposition does: pretend there is no progress being made by the police. That is unfortunately what they will do. It is the nature of oppositional politics. If they are not constructive, they try and find something. If they cannot tackle your policy, they must find mistakes, because they cannot provide an alternative. [Interjections.] Thank you very much. [Applause.]
Speaker, through you to the President, the issue is not about the results. It is about how one goes about reaching those results. One appreciates, Mr President, that, as you said, it is a very difficult balancing act. One wants results, and in the process, one's drive can lead to mistakes. We experienced, when we were in Home Affairs, that when placing new people in the same positions that the old people were in, somehow the old habits run into the new people. Here are the issues that are breaking an ancient mould. We inherited a violent, ruthless police force, which was not as professional as required. We are dealing with a Police Service that - in the way it appears to many of us - is still far from being professional.
One appreciates, Mr President, that you want to wait for the outcome of the commission of inquiry, but we have seen the images of Marikana. Whatever the outcome is, what we have seen spells out highly unprofessional conduct. We have seen the images of the police and the Defence Force getting into a shooting match in front of your building, the Union Building. There is something highly unprofessional running through the Police Service.
The militarisation of the structure of the police accentuates the lack of professionalism, the lack of public service - people who do a job, not as the military, not as servants, not as the English Bobbies, but within the mould of the old police, which used force. I think that is the essence of the question that has been put to you. It might be that the answer you gave is technically correct and addresses the legal reality, but the perception underpinning the question is that the police remain more brutal than necessary, not because they are evil, but because they are highly untrained and highly unprofessional. How will you address this second secular problem in dealing with crime? Thank you, Mr President. Thank you, Mr Speaker.
Speaker, I hope the hon member will appreciate, as a lawyer, that you cannot discuss the findings of the commission; what the commission will pronounce on. I think it is an unfortunate thing that you might want us to make the judgment now on whether they acted professionally or not. I think we would expect the commission to pronounce on that.
I also don't agree that the police are unprofessional. They are professional people; they are trained. It is not true that they are not trained. Nobody becomes a police officer without training. They are trained. They are professional. They do their professional work. I don't want to go into the circumstances that confront the police, particularly because at this point in time, we have a commission of inquiry. The facts- at times - and as a lawyer you know this - can be different from what you perceive, as a person, to have happened.
So, I don't think that I should be dragged in to a point where I should make a judgment. The fact of the matter is that an incident happened, and we have sent a commission of professional people who are qualified to make a judgment to do so, particularly because it is a tragedy and a very emotional matter. I think that if we play around with it, we are not helping the situation or the commission itself. So, I am not going to go into what it is, how professional it was, and what happened. I think we will get evidence of what actually happened. Then, after judgment, I am sure we will be free to critique it and perhaps, as a legal person, you would have a better way of criticising some other legal people. You always criticise one another anyway, as legal people. There will be nothing new.
It starts at Mangaung!
Judges at times pass sentences that others say are wrong. So, it doesn't necessarily mean that if a judgment is made, it is always correct. All I am saying is that we should not play around with it. Let us wait for the commission. I would expect a lawyer, in particular, to adhere to that more than anybody else. Thank you very much. [Applause.]
See also QUESTIONS AND REPLIES.