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.