Hon members, before I proceed to members' statements, I wish to make a ruling on a point of order. Order!
Hon members, during questions to the Social Service cluster on Wednesday, 11 September, the Hon Deputy Minister of Sport and Recreation raised a point of order about the remarks made by the hon McGluwa.
According to the Hansard English translation of the remarks originally made in Afrikaans, the hon McGluwa said. "Speaker, it seems to appear that the hon Minister is misleading this Parliament. It also appears that the Minister is abusing her position in this Parliament". Later, he continued, "Why are food parcels distributed in Potchefstroom and elsewhere only; and are the people bribed to vote for the ANC? Why only distribute food parcels where there will be by-elections?"
The hon Deputy Minister contended that these remarks suggested that the hon the Minister of Social Development had misled the House and had bribed the electorate. I then undertook to study the Hansard and return to the House with a ruling.
Hon members, having had the opportunity to study the Unrevised Hansard, I wish to rule as follows: In terms of the initial comment, let me first indicate that the Chair must, when considering whether a remark is parliamentary or not, make a distinction between whether a member is accusing another of inadvertently or deliberately misleading the House. To ascertain what is meant in a particular circumstance, the Chair must not only examine the language but also the context in which it is used. In this case Mr McGluwa did not say that the Minister deliberately misled the House, but rather that, "it seems to appear" that she was misleading the House.
Typically, it is not unparliamentary to assert that a member is misleading the House, but it is considered unparliamentary to assert that a member is intentionally or deliberately doing so. In terms of the second point, it is always unparliamentary to insinuate that a member is acting dishonourably, whether directly or by implication.
The fact that the comments were put in a form of a question does not in any way make them less offensive. In this case, Mr McGluwa is implying, albeit by way of a question, that the Minister may have acted improperly and used state resources to bribe the electorates for party political purposes. It is completely unacceptable to make such an allegation in the House during the course of a debate. Such an allegation can only be brought to the House by way of a properly motivated substantive motion supported by prima facie evidence. The remark is therefore unparliamentary. Therefore, I will ask the hon member to withdraw the remark; hon McGluwa.
Mnr Speaker, soos van u verlang, ek trek terug. [Mr Speaker, as you require, I withdraw.]
Order! Order! Hon members, order! The first item on the Order Paper is Members' Statements. Does any member of the ANC wish to make a statement? [Interjections.]
Speaker, just on a point of order, maybe it is a linguistic subtlety, but the hon McGluwa said, ek onttrek [I withdraw], ek trek terug, which in English means, I am retreating. [Laughter.]
Order, hon members! Order!
Hy moet s, ek onttrek daardie woorde. [He must say, I withdraw those words.] I think it must just be clear that he is saying that he is withdrawing the words. [Interjections.]
Order, hon members. Order! Order! Order! Order! Hon member! Yes, Order!
Speaker, actually I had a more serious linguistic point, and that was whether it is parliamentary to use "seems" and "to appear" in the same sentence. Thank you. [Laughter].
Yes, it "seems to appear," that is a linguistic problem ... [Laughter.] [Applause.] Order, hon members!