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.]